The problem of suffering and evil remains one of the most difficult problems that Christians and non-Christians alike struggle with. Let me begin with an observation: I have found that often when I speak to people who are wrestling with the problem or when I discuss this topic in an evangelistic bible study, they find the answers I usually give dissatisfying somehow. At times, some would concede that my response makes logical sense, but they may feel that I haven’t really reckoned with their question. This post is an effort to explain the seeming intractability of the problem by first reckoning with the question itself: what exactly is one doing when one asks: “God, why?” Doing this will provide us with what I call an anatomy of the problem of suffering and evil.
Preliminary Considerations
Let me give a preliminary analysis of this sense that I sometimes encounter that I haven’t really answered their question. Consider a situation where my wife asks me the question, “Can you open the door for me?” and I simply say “yes” and continue to stand there. I have (cheekily) interpreted the question as one of mere possibility: is it within my power to open the door? Of course it is. But in fact she is issuing me an imperative to open the door. To ‘answer’ the ‘question’ rightly, is in fact simply to obey the imperative given. I assumed that she was asking me a question, when in fact she was issuing me an imperative. The straightforward grammatical form of an utterance may be that of a question or a declaration, but they can be used by speakers to perform a variety of actions, from assertions to imperatives.
In fancy language, we may say that my response misinterpreted or did not recognise the (illocutionary) speech-act that she was performing in her utterance of the question. Examples of this abound in everyday life. To give another example, my wife may be describing to me her difficulties at her workplace but she is not merely making assertions, she is crying out for help and my proper response may be to sympathise with her. If I take her to be simply describing to me the conditions at her workplace and respond as such, she would rightly complain that I was not listening to her properly.
Let me put this positively: in order to respond satisfactorily to another person, our response needs to take into account the actual speech-act that they are performing.
Let’s now turn to the problem of suffering and evil. My contention is this; the sense of dissatisfaction or intractability arises because in responding to someone who raises the problem of evil, we do not sufficiently recognise the various speech-acts that they might be performing. When we fail to do so, we fail to properly reckon with the person and his question.
What then might a person be doing in raising the problem of evil? To get a grip on the issue, let’s consider what someone might be doing when he considers some horrific suffering and utters, “God, why?”.
My suggestion is that the person in fact does some combination of three speech-acts in stating the question. He is/could be:
(1) Crying out in pain
(2) Making an accusation
(3) Asking a question
Let me flesh out each of these in turn and at the same time make some brief remarks on how to respond to them biblically and pastorally.
(1) A Cry of Pain
Consider what our Lord was doing when he groaned upon the tree:
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)
The grammatical form of the utterance is one of a question, but the Lord was not merely requesting a reason behind his forsakenness (indeed he knew the reason cf. Mark 10:45). Instead the question is a cry of pain from one experiencing the darkness of the separation from God.
And so when someone utters, ‘God, why?’, we too must consider that he might be crying out in pain. This means that is always wise to ask if there is something behind the question. The questioner may well be facing some severe and specific suffering and the first pastorally wise response is to listen to and to sympathise with their pain. If we fail to do this, then it is no surprise if those whom we speak to feel that we have not properly reckoned with them.
Furthermore, we must note that the Christian worldview affirms the reality of suffering and the fact that we should cry out in pain and anger over all that is wrong in the world. Not to do so, in fact, is a form of spiritual apathy. People were not meant to die and be in pain and so it is right for us to long for restoration. It is helpful to contrast this here to other worldviews. e.g. In a naturalistic worldview, suffering simply is. It is a natural part of the world and indeed a necessary process for the evolution of species. In contrast to this cruel way of thinking, Christianity affirms that there is something wrong with suffering.
We must say as well that Christianity alone offers real hope in the face of suffering. In Christianity there is true hope for an end to suffering and death through the resurrection of Christ. Only in Christianity is there a God who would come down to taste and sympathise with the deepest human suffering. This is the only God who wept and died. So we might say with the anonymous poet:
“I’m forsaken of God and all alone”,
I once had thought to me.
But then I heard a spluttering cry
From the adjacent tree.
Parched lips drenched red cried out aloud,
“Eloi! Eloi!”
How strange, this wretched, battered man
should echo mine heart’s cry.
He knows my pain, my sin and shame,
My tears which long have dried.
My soul drew still and softly cried,
“Eloi!” — He is nigh.
(2) An Accusation against God
At the same time, behind the question might well be an audacious attempt to accuse God of evil. This became obvious to me when in a conversation with someone on the problem of evil, he asked me quite nakedly, “Why did God set a trap for Adam and Eve?”. In the first place, there was no way to answer the question as it began from a false presupposition: that God had maliciously trapped Adam and Eve to make them sin in the garden. (Just as one cannot straightforwardly answer the question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?”) More importantly, a person who raises this question is performing the act of bringing an accusation against God.
Attempting to accuse God of evil is a tale as old as time. Consider what Adam did when God questioned him regarding his disobedience:
The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” (Genesis 3:12, emphasis mine)
Once again, the grammatical form of Adam’s sentence is that of a simple declarative, but Adam’s aim is surely not the mere stating of facts. Instead, Adam attempts to blame God for his own sin.
Since then, it has always been the desire of humanity to, in Lewis’ apposite phrase, put God in the dock:
“[Man] is the judge: God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that man is on the bench and God in the dock.”
How does God respond to such attempts to accuse him? Insofar as God remains God, for him to even allow himself to be judged and accused by humanity appears to be a contradiction in terms. God’s never responds to such accusations, but always turns the tables and carries out judgment on proud humanity. God never responded to Adam’s feeble accusation, but carried out judgment and cast him out of the garden. We might also consider how God responds to Job’s attempts to question God for his suffering:
Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said:
“Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?
Dress for action like a man;
I will question you, and you make it known to me. (Job 38:1-3)
Instead of allowing Job to question him, he rebukes Job for his foolishness and then begins to interrogate Job instead, pointing out to him how incongruent it is for Man with all his limitations to attempt to question God:
“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” (Job 38:4-7)
What does this mean for how we respond to someone who does this? Despite what I said earlier about properly reckoning with the speech-act involved, In this case, the first thing we should do is to point out that presuming to judge God is the fruit of sinful pride. It is an attempt to usurp God’s position as God, and we must call the person to repent of this sin. We must be careful not to diminish God’s power and majesty in attempting to answer this accusation. Consider that in the end what moved Job to repentance in the end was not God providing reasons to justify his actions, but the sublime revelation of the majesty of God:
I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear,
but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself,
and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:5-6)
But there is more we can say. The sufferings of innocent Job ultimately point us again to the cross wherein we find the clearest revelation of God’s majesty. In a paradoxical and mysterious way, we note also that the cross as the site in which God allowed himself to be put in the dock:
So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!” When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.” (John 19:5)
To dwell on this theme would require much more than I could say here, but the cross exposes the sinful logic of our hearts. It reveals the perverse nature of our accusation against God and it vindicates God’s innocence and righteousness.
(3) An Honest Question
In the end, we must also consider that there is an honest question behind all of this. God is good and loving, and it seems to follow that he would want to prevent suffering and evil, but he did. How do we resolve this? I believe here is where most theodicies fit into, the general strategy being to find some greater good that could not be achieved apart from the introduction of suffering and evil. Though the emphasis of this post is on not neglecting the other speech-acts involved in the problem of evil, yet we must in the end be ready to provide honest answers to honest questions. The literature on theodicy is vast but allow me to make some brief comments.
I believe it is always good to begin by acknowledging our cognitive limitations. God does not reveal all his purposes to us, and unless we want to be the fools who are Job’s friends, we must be careful not to presume on the purposes of God. We will go only as far as the bible clearly reveals. But there are some things that we can say.
First, we must note that God’s goodness includes his justice. We would not call a judge good if he set the guilty free, but only if he punishes the guilty in accordance with his crime. Genesis 3 makes it plain that the pain and suffering that are in the world are the result of God’s just judgment. The curses in fact vindicates God’s justice and his faithfulness to his promise that ‘the day you eat of it, you shall surely die’. We are prone to think of God’s goodness in a self-centered way as simply his benevolence to us, but if God is to be truly good, then he must also punish sin. This does not mean that every specific suffering can be traced to specific sin, but that all suffering can be traced to our collective sin and that of Adam’s.
Second, God sometimes uses specific sufferings to discipline us and to draw us closer to him. “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” (Hebrews 12:6) Our sufferings show us the futility of this world when we are distracted by it and point us towards finding our all in God. He takes from us a lesser good that we may be prepared to receive a greater one. Though we should not presume specifically on God’s purpose, perhaps the individual suffering one faces today might be there to wake us up and to draw us closer to him.
Third, though the bible does not give us all the details, we know that the ultimate purpose behind all of God’s workings is the good of his chosen people and for his glory:
In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (Ephesians 1:11-12)
This means that we can also say that the ultimate purpose behind God’s permitting evil is because it somehow leads to a greater praise among his people of God’s glory. God deems that it is more glorious that he would be not just our creator but also our redeemer. If God is the greatest being, then part of his goodness must mean glorifying himself. The privilege he extends to us, however, is that of being witness and participant to his glorious story of redeeming a world gone wrong.
Conclusion
The main thesis of this post is that the reason why it seems so difficult to answer the problem of suffering and evil is because one who asks the question could be performing a combination of three different speech acts. Failure to recognise the different speech acts results in the sense of dissatisfaction and intractability. My primary aim has been to flesh out the various aspects of the problem and show in a summary way that biblical responses can be provided for them.
I believe we will properly respond to questioners only when we are clear on the distinctions between these speech-acts — and we do so only when are willing to listen well and take our questioners seriously. I truly hope that this post will afford some practical help to those Christians attempting to respond to this problem, and perhaps that those who struggle with this (Christian or non-Christian) might begin to see that the problem is not as intractable as it might seem.
A further question to be pursued is whether this analysis of the apparent intractability of problems can be extended to other difficult questions. It seems that there are a cluster of related questions to the problem of evil which seem to admit of this analysis as well e.g. How can God be sovereign over evil and yet remain without sin? (Notice that Romans 9:20 treats this question as an accusation against God.) If so, then we too need to consider how we can discern the various speech-acts in our response.
beingsoberminded 