Azusa Pacific University

C.P. Haggard School of Theology

Graduate School of Theology

Research Paper

Why Does God Allow Suffering?

By 7485

Azusa, California

April 5, 1999

Why Does God Allow Suffering?

Introduction

Sickness. Cancer. Disability.

Pain. Anxiety. Depression.

Homelessness. Hopelessness. Humiliation.

These are a mere sampling of the experiences we commonly associate with suffering. Although suffering is endemic to the human situation[1], a phenomenon universally shared and witnessed by all people, we generally disdain the experience as both negative and destructive. Simply put, suffering hurts. Joseph Selling believes that "the deeper reason why suffering may be called a negative experience is because we find ourselves incapable of giving any appropriate response to that experience. We cannot deal with its negativity because we do not comprehend why it is taking place."[2] This is especially true within the community of faith, for how can we harmonize our belief in an all-powerful and perfectly good God with the overwhelming abundance of seemingly unchecked evil and suffering all around us? It often fails to make sense.

If God is perfectly good, then He must want to rid this world of evil. If He is truly omnipotent, then He also must want to rid this world of evil. Yet, evil exists -- therefore, either God is not perfectly good or He is not completely omnipotent. Nothing, it seems, could be more clear-cut.[3] This is the question which theodicy seeks to address. Theodicy is the attempt to speak correctly of God's justice (theos-dikē) under conditions of suffering and evil in which it is assailed.[4] It answers the question, "Can the presence of evil in the world be reconciled with the existence of a God who is unlimited both in goodness and in power?"[5]

It is common for people who have experienced intense suffering, either physically or emotionally, to subsequently struggle in their relationship with God. Some start by blaming God for their misfortune while others end up hating Him. Many people bury their doubts and frustrations (i.e. suppressing, or attempting to deny them), while some respond by renouncing their faith. My own experience with tragic suffering was different. My "year from hell" began with the accidental death of my year-and-a-half old son when I backed my vehicle over him in our driveway. Three months later, my father died suddenly of cancer. And six months after this, the church I was pastoring underwent a split. Yet, through it all, my faith did not waver; my emotions surely did, but my confidence in God -- in His goodness and in his redeeming power -- did not change. It was my theology, and more precisely my theodicy, which kept my faith strong and alive throughout my profoundest experience of suffering.[6]

My study of the subject of theodicy, as well as the witness of my own personal experience, has led me to assert the following: "Although the origin of evil is difficult to fully comprehend and the reasons for human suffering are somewhat puzzling, God purposes that the afflictions we encounter can result in our good, because through our suffering we learn to emulate the character of Jesus Christ and elevate our eschatological hope."

The intent of this paper is to demonstrate that the above stated thesis is accurate, and that a sensible and hope-filled answer might be given to those who suffer. This we will accomplish in the following manner:

·  In the larger part of this paper, we will seek to better understand the problem of evil and suffering by presenting and interacting with the works of three prominent theologians, each representing a different approach to theodicy : J. Christaan Beker -- The Theodicy of Scripture John Hick -- The Theodicy of the Early Church Douglas John Hall -- The Theodicy of Integration

Each of these approaches will contribute theological concepts important for an accurate understanding of human suffering and will serve a valuable role in this paper's defense of our thesis.

·  Next, we will synthesize the material presented in the section entitled, "Making Sense of Suffering," formulating a preliminary theodicy of our own.

·  And in the "Conclusion," we will draw from our discoveries throughout the paper in order to substantiate and defend our stated thesis.

With the exception of scriptural references within direct quotes being cited, or unless otherwise noted, all scriptural quotes have been taken from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). This has been done for purposes consistent with this author's desire to avoid the use of gender-specific language unless it is germane to a specific point being made.

The Theodicy of Scripture

In his book, Suffering and Hope, J. Christaan Beker approaches the subject of resident evil and suffering in the world from the perspective of biblical theology. Beker's own experience of suffering in the German labor camps of WWII, and his subsequent struggle with manic-depression, has undoubtedly influenced his pursuit of this important subject.[7] Through reflection and ongoing study, he has concluded the following:

  1. Suffering cannot be quantified in rational terms.
  2. Any type of Christian masochism is dishonest and to be avoided.
  3. Christians should protest all forms of senseless suffering as contrary to God's will.
  4. The only real hope a Christian has in the face of despair, is the apocalyptic hope we will one day realize.

Let us briefly comment on each of these.

The reasons why Beker believes that suffering cannot be quantified in rational terms is because he views it as being irrational in its nature. This is especially true in the case of tragic or meaningless suffering, for "it burdens our individual souls and seems to suffocate the meaning we bestow upon our private lives."[8] This type of suffering often ends up asking more questions than it answers. However, as Millard Erickson suggests, if there are different types of evil then perhaps there are different explanations for different types of suffering.[9] And this is precisely what Beker and others attempt to do.

Christian masochism is a term which theodicists, such as Beker, use in response to the belief that God actually wills or desires his creatures to experience meaningless suffering. Herein lies a stark contrast between those who deny God's responsibility for human suffering, and those whose theology is honest enough to admit the connection. As Wolfhart Pannenberg has insisted: "Responsibility for the coming of evil into creation unavoidably falls on the God who foresees and permits it, even though creaturely action is the immediate cause."[10] Where one draws the line, therefore, in determining what is masochistic and what is simply attributable to the mystery of suffering, is a function of the unique circumstances which surround each individual's experience with suffering, according to Beker. "The quality of someone's suffering is utterly contingent upon that person's private, social, psychological, emotional, and economic condition."[11]

Our protest of senseless suffering, for Beker, flows out of his belief that suffering and hope are inextricably linked in dynamic tension with each other. Suffering that is void of biblical hope is not God's will. Biblical hope is an eschatological hope (Beker prefers the term, apocalyptic) -- a hope which see beyond the present circumstance and fixes itself on God's ultimate triumph. Although Beker is quick to protest any form of meaningless suffering, he also concedes, "…that as a Christian my 'cognitive' protest against suffering may eventually turn out to be a presumptuous violation of the creature against the mysterious and transcendent "otherness" of God's design for us."[12]

As mentioned above, the only real hope a Christian has in the midst of his or her suffering is the eschatological hope we will certainly experience one day. The biblical vision of hope is the longing for that benign, just, and sovereign God who will right all wrongs, make our tears to cease, and give our restless hearts their final rest in His arms.[13]

Scripture as a Catalyst

Beker sees as many possible explanations for human suffering as there are human individuals. As Peter H. Davids has conceded, "Suffering is a complex issue within the biblical material."[14] For Beker, it is this very complexity that is most helpful when it comes to understanding suffering, for "scripture speaks with a diversity and variety of answers to the human condition of suffering and hope."[15] He suggests, therefore, that scripture be used as a catalyst for understanding the meaning and purpose of suffering. Although scripture cannot address itself to all instances of human suffering, it can succeed in accurately portraying the tension that exists between suffering and hope.

Suffering in the Old Testament

Likened unto the whole of scripture, the Old Testament represents an enormous diversity in how it addresses the issue of suffering. Beker has identified five purposes of suffering in the Old Testament:

  1. The retribution explanation interprets suffering as God's punishment for sin. Suffering is deserved because God is the norm and executor of justice in the world.
  2. Suffering is a form of divine pedagogy, testing, or cleansing.
  3. Suffering evokes either rebellion or submission: rebellion, because no explanation of innocent suffering makes sense; submission, because faith in God's hidden wisdom and communion with him are the only possibilities in the face in inexplicable suffering.
  4. The response of resignation -- closely related to submission, but nourished by a profound skepticism -- advises acquiescence to an irrational world. It interprets suffering as a necessary aspect of the inexorable rhythm of life.
  5. The apocalyptic response counsels endurance in the midst of an active and/or passive resistance to the powers of evil. Here suffering whether interpreted as punishment, testing, or undeserved suffering, is a penultimate reality that will cease when God's judgment punishes evil and rewards good.[16]

As he begins his analysis of the Old Testament, Beker identifies the central concept of the Deuteronomic theologians as being that of sowing and reaping, or reward and punishment -- and thus of retributive justice.[17] This theme is characteristic not only of the Pentateuch, but of the earlier prophets as well (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos):

I the Lord test the mind and search the heart, and give to all according to their ways, according to the fruit of their doings (Jer. 17:10; cf. 7:3-7; 50:15).

"Therefore, retribution preserves the moral order and guarantees a more stable future. It imposes suffering with the expectation that its punishment will lead to repentance or at least to a cessation of evil acts."[18] Other writers, such as Jos Luyten, view the bulk of the Old Testament as having been written in a diverse manner as well: "…The reactions to suffering and the reflections offered by the Old Testament might be reduced to three fundamental tendencies: suffering is punishment for sin, suffering is absurd, and suffering is a source of renewal."[19] It is this idea of the absurd suffering (i.e. meaningless) that poses the greatest challenge to us. For when the writers of the Old Testament encounter undeserved suffering, glaring contradictions seem to emerge within the Old Testament concept of God's justice. As Beker has pointed out:

"Such contradictions voice themselves in radical complaints: Why do the righteous suffer? (cf. Ps. 73:3); Is suffering so much the essence of life that there is nothing to hope for (cf. Job 19:1-12). Whereas the first question doubts the justice and goodness of God, the second question doubts the very moral existence and power of God."[20]

For Beker, the books of Job and Ecclesiastes both reject the former view of divine retribution. In the case of Job, he does not question God's power, but rather his justice.[21] This eventually leads to the vanishing of any sense of hope for Job:

O that I might have my request, and that God would grant my desire; that it would please God to crush me, that he would let loose his hand and cut me off (Job 6:8-9).

John Hartley seems to disagree. It is exactly because Job believes in the ultimate justice of Yahweh that he enters into a lawsuit with God, and appeals to His sense of justice in doing so:

"Job's experience of undeserved suffering makes him apprehensive that God may be a ruthless tyrant rather than a merciful Lord…Nevertheless, his conviction that God is just prods him to pursue a lawsuit with God. Job also knows that in court he must have a witness to testify on his behalf, a witness more credible than the condemning testimony of his body. At this point Job's faith in God rises above his experience of suffering, leading him to declare that God is his Witness (16:19), even his Redeemer (10:25-27), whose testimony will vindicate him."[22]

This is evidence that some semblance of hope remains, even in the case of Job. Beker may be correct in pointing out the diversity of biblical responses to suffering in the Old Testament, but to suggest that, in the case of Job, that hope disappears -- this seems somewhat of a betrayal to the testimony of the biblical texts themselves.

Davids has stated that for the most part, the Old Testament is quite direct in its presentation of suffering: God sends it. And if God sends suffering, then it must have a purpose. Therefore suffering is often viewed as testing (nāsāh, Deut. 8:2-3) or discipline (mûsār, Job 5:17; Prov. 3:11). This direct involvement of God will not be characteristic of the New Testament.[23] Beker has a somewhat different view of New Testament suffering.