“The wounds of all humanity are an unanswered question” (Woltersdorff 68). In this statement, Nicolas Woltersdorff brings simplicity to a very complex problem. If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), God is all-knowing (omniscient), and God is all-good, then why do evil and suffering exist in our world. This question haunts Woltersdorff in his book, Lament for a Son, just as it has haunted all of humanity for millennia. Woltersdorff further simplifies, and personalizes, this “problem of evil” with the question, “What is suffering?” (89). This question has crossed the minds, if not the lips, of mourning parents, ailing children, victims of disasters, and the chronically poor, among countless others, likely since the beginning of human civilization. Reponses have come as quickly as the questions; some simple, some complex; some heartfelt, some heartless. All of the responses come as an attempt to explain, or justify, the role (or a) of God in human suffering.
What response can the Christian offer to such a question? While no response is necessarily correct, and certainly, no response is correct, the question demands a response. In order to respond, one must first decide what it means to say that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. Only then can we respond to the question of God’s role in human suffering.
God’s omniscience is not universally listed among the attributes that create the problem of evil. Many define this concept as God knowing everything that happens, has happened, and will happen. The notion seems impossible when considering it in the light of free will. If humanity is truly free to choose their way, could God truly know what will happen? Does that foreknowledge rob humanity of its power to choose? Richard Swinburne points out, though, that “it is not logically possible that God should have given men free will of this kind and at the same time have predetermined what they would do” (Swinburne 304). Ultimately, omniscience does not play a decisive role in solving the problem of evil. While it is an important attribute of God, the characteristics of omniscience are not a determining factor in eliminating evil and suffering.
To say God is omnipotent is to say, in simplest terms, that God is all-powerful. CS Lewis, in The Problem of Pain, says it this way, “Omnipotence means ‘power to do all, or everything’” (16). Unfortunately, that explanation is wholly insufficient. Calling God all-powerful begs the question, what does it mean to be all-powerful. Can God, as scripture tells us, do anything? J.L. Mackie speaks of the Paradox of Omnipotence. “Can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control? Or, what is practically equivalent to this, can an omnipotent being make rules which then bind himself?” (Mackie 99). Mackie approaches this ‘paradox’ from the position of the ‘free-will theory’ – that God created humanity with free will and thus does not control their actions. These questions call into question God’s ability to do any thing. Lewis would agree.”His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible” (Lewis 18). In other words, as Lewis states later, “nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God” (Lewis 18).
Some would argue that this inability to do any thing precludes God’s omnipotence, or calls into question God’s power. Is a being that creates creatures they cannot control truly all-powerful? This judgment, of course, hinges on your definition of power. God created a world in which humanity possess free will, the power to choose. In class, we defined power in this way: “True power is in evidenced to the extent that it is used to empower others.” God created us with the power to choose our own fates. God has empowered us to choose, or to do, all that is possible. That is the definition of ‘all-powerful.’
Of the three issues, God’s ultimate goodness, or all-loving, is the most problematic. The problem, as with omnipotence, stems from a misunderstanding of what it means for God to be perfectly good. Lewis articulates this misunderstanding this way, “By the goodness of God we mean nowadays almost exclusively His lovingness; and in this we may be right. And by love, in this context, most of us mean kindness – the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or that, just happy” (Lewis 31). This becomes the fallacy of divine goodness; because God is good, God wants all of humanity to be happy. Therefore, we must rethink what it means to say God is good. In doing so, we will continue working under Lewis’ assumption that by goodness we mean love.
What does it mean to say God loves his creatures? It means, as Lewis wrote, more than mere kindness. “Kindness… cares not whether its object becomes good or bad, provided only that it escapes suffering” (Lewis 32). Therefore, in loving us, God wants us to become good. To become good, according to John Hick, means to be transformed into the likeness of God. Both Hick and Lewis use the analogy of a parent/child relationship as an analogy for God’s love for humanity. They both contend that a parent wants the best for their child, but not at the expense of their character. “A child brought up on the principle that the only or the supreme value is pleasure would not be likely to become an ethically mature adult or an attractive or happy personality” (Hick 227). God wishes the same for humanity. “To ask that God’s love should be content with us as we are is to ask that God should cease to be God…because He already loves us He must labour to make us lovable” (Lewis 41).
This leads back to Woltersdorff’s question and the struggle that led to the question. The view expressed by Lewis and Hick seems to say that suffering is a tool used by God to shape humanity into perfection. That leads one to ask, “Is it worth it?” Is soul shaping worth the torture and death of a child? Is the loss of a son a fair price for sanctification? I cannot answer these questions. The argument Hick and Lewis make seems logically sound, but the real world implications are not palatable if we view suffering as simply a means to an end. This attitude, though, would presuppose God causes the evil and suffering that shape humanity into God’s likeness. I cannot follow that line of reasoning.
I agree that our lives are spent working toward the likeness of God. As a United Methodist, I subscribe to John Wesley’s idea of God’s sanctifying grace (along with prevenient and justifying grace) that is the Holy Spirit’s work in us to move us toward what Wesley called “Christian Perfection.” I think Wesley would agree that his term is synonymous with Hick’s idea of God’s likeness. I do not believe, however, that God causes the evil and suffering that aid in the process of sanctification. I believe that terrible things happen. Those events are often the result of humanity’s free will. As people free to choose and act on our own, some people choose to act in hurtful ways. In giving the gift of free will, God relinquished much of the control of this world to humankind. Unfortunately, not all of humankind is striving to become the “finite likeness of God.” This does not explain all evil and suffering. Natural disasters and tragic accidents cannot be attributed to humanity except by some contrived, flimsy explanation. I believe those things are just as their name calls them. In a world where god chooses not to treat his creatures as puppets, tragic accidents will occur. Natural disasters are the result of our world functioning as it should. In that way, perhaps David Hume was right to blame ‘the architect’ of this world. “If you find any inconveniences or deformities in the building you will always, without entering into any detail, condemn the architect” (Hume 49). I cannot accept Hume’s argument wholesale, but I do not have a more appropriate answer to this problem either.
In responding to Woltersdorff, I would refer him to his own words. “God is not only the God of sufferers but the God who suffers” (Woltersdorff 81). Through the Gospel stories (Jesus life, torture, death, and resurrection), we are shown that God does not simply suffer as a far off objective observer. God suffered pain, humiliation, and death as a human being. God knows our suffering. God felt our pain; God feels our pain: both physical and emotional. We also have the promise of redemption, the promise of an end to all pain and suffering. Through Jesus’ resurrection, he defeated death, suffering, and evil. By the grace of God, we are offered the free gift of eternal life. One of my favorite preachers, Adam Hamilton of the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection, uses a phrase that sums up this concept that I repeat often. Through of the resurrection God assures us that the worst thing is never the last thing.
As a pastor, this is the most important idea that I will take away from my study of the problem of evil. It is a concept I have taught for some time now. This class helped for firm up this idea. I know I will face questions about suffering and evil in the world. As a Christian, I know that I will pose those same questions. This class gave me new concepts to use as I approach the problem, on personal and pastoral levels. Hick and Lewis’ process theology, the notions of what constitutes true power and how that relates to God’s omnipotence will all inform my thoughts on theodicy and how I approach the issue with hurting parishioners.
The problem of theodicy has plagued humanity for millennia. From the first telling of the story of Job to the latest natural disaster or death of an innocent child, Judeo-Christian history is filled with believers wrestling with the problem of evil. One thing is certain, the pain, suffering, and wrestling will continue as long as people inhabit this world. In the meantime, our God suffers with us and promises a happy ending.
No comments:
Post a Comment