I learnt a new word from my colleague recently : "theodicy", which means "a vindication of God’s goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil" (as defined by Yahoo! Education).  My colleague studied Biblical Jurisprudence while doing his masters in law in the US, and in the course of it wrote a paper on theodicy.  Intrigued, I asked to read it.  The following exchange of e-mails followed :

My First E-mail

Hi,

1.  Thanks for enlightening me on Theodicy.  I thought what you wrote was very readable, though the conclusion that we must fall back on "mystery" was rather depressing.  I’ve decided to renounce Christianity … nah … =P

2.  I don’t think I can agree fully with your conclusion and, not for the sake of argument or personal ego but to try and make as much sense of our faith as possible, would like to hear what you think of the following :

A.  At page 10, you wrote about "vast amounts of dysteological evil". 

Hebrews 12 : 6 says that "God disciplines those He loves, and He punishes everyone He accepts as a son", which is in turn quoted from Proverbs 3 : 12.  In the light of this, can we say that suffering or evil that happens in our lives is never gratuitous or senseless ?  That God intends any suffering that we go through to be a lesson for us - maybe as a punishment to correct sin, maybe to mould character, to teach or prepare one for the next stage in life, or to reveal something new about Himself ?  Job himself speaks of this character-moulding purpose underlying tribulation in Job 23 : 10 - "But He knows the way that I take; when He has tested me, I will come forth as gold".  Paul too testifies that his suffering - his thorn in 2 Corinthians 12 : 7 - 9 - was permitted by God to keep him from becoming conceited, and to teach Him to rely on God’s grace rather than his own strength.  James 1 : 2 - 4 too says that the purpose of trials is to test faith and develop perseverence, so that we "may be mature and complete, not lacking anything".

If suffering or evil appears senseless, is it because we just don’t get it, ie. are not listening carefully enough for what God intends to teach us ?

B.  In your conclusion, you said (depressingly) that "it is only when we give up any attempt to rationalise the evil that afflicts us, and admit the shortcomings of our human understanding, that God ‘will make it plain’ in His own time, whether in this world or thereafter.  Perhaps, then, we have arrived at a resolution of sorts …", and suggested that this is "an inadequate solution".

I agree that if we approach apparently incomprehensible evil / suffering with a sense of resignation, and place our faith in God’s mysterious purposes only because we feel totally screwed, that this is "an inadequate solution".

I would suggest, however, that the starting point of our faith should be an attitude of humble submission to an inifinite and loving God, whose purposes we must acknowledge we can never completely understand.  (If we could - if we as finite humans can fully comprehend an infinite God - then God wouldn’t be "God").  Our faith would then not be one we place in God because we are forced into a corner, but one which from the outset rests secure in the belief that God in His infinite wisdom, power and love would never test us beyond what we can bear (1 Corinthians 10 : 13), and in all things always works for the good of those who love Him (Romans 8 : 28) even if this good is not immediately obvious.

I believe that this attitude of humble and not resigned submission was the conclusion that Job arrived at in job 42 : 6 ("I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes").

…

And His Reply

Hey Melvyn,

I wrote that paper a long while (or what feels like a long while) ago - that, coupled with my spectacularly bad memory, means that I can’t quite remember exactly what I wrote.

I don’t think though, that I mean that we should resign ourselves to non-comprehension. Maybe what I wrote gave that impression. But I think what I actually meant (or at least what I actually feel) is more of an acceptance that we can’t, and aren’t intended to, understand. I suppose how one wishes to approach that acceptance is up to the individual - it can be a contended acceptance or a resigned acceptance. But I think for the average Christian it is only human nature to dwell on misfortune and attempt at great length and depth to rationalize the reasons for it. I suppose what I mean is that it is only if you’re able to give up that rational examination that you can be at peace with yourself and God. And again, I suppose this applies to a rational examination of the larger problem of evil because I personally don’t think that there’s any rational explanation.

Re your first point that there’s a point to suffering - personally I just don’t buy that. Going by the bible verses you quoted, it would make sense that only Christians should suffer so that their suffering would draw them closer to God/mature them/serve some purpose for God etc. What about non-Christians who suffer terribly and die without anyone knowing; what about animals, even, that suffer and die? Don’t think it can be disputed that there are many of such cases.

…

And My Reply to His Reply

Hi.  Finally found some time (Joyce & Jed are finally asleep … heh) to pen my thoughts.

First the bit about there’s no point to suffering.  I think that unless we are omniscient (which we are not), we can’t validly assume that there are non-Christians who suffer terribly and die without anyone knowing / without any purpose.  It only appears that they have suffered (and died) in vain.  God in fact speaks to non-Christians as well through suffering.  Some examples : the Pharisee Saul (God made him blind, which humbled and turned him to Jesus), Pharoah in Exodus (though he did not repent), King Nebuchadnezzar (God struck the Emperor with insanity as warned through Daniel), and throughout Israelite history whenever they turned their backs on God (which would make them "non-Christian" in a sense, and God sent wild animals, natural calamities and invading enemies to remind them to return to God).

…

And His Reply to My Reply to His Reply

Heya,

I think that it is a safe bet to say that there _have_ been instances of people suffering in isolation, and that mathematical odds are that some of them are non-christian? e.g. when the twin towers collapsed and people burned; i’m sure some of them were non christians and some suffered terribly and some did not have family/friends who were deeply affected/changed by their suffering. and i’m sure that over the eons there have been MANY such innocent sufferers.. though again there’s that famous question - if there’s no one around in the forest, does the tree still fall? I guess it’s a matter of personal belief - but I think personally that there is unecessary suffering.. and that the amount of suffering in the world isn’t quite the lowest amount necessary to bring about God’s requisite purpose; and if God is God and nothing is impossible surely the same message can be transmitted without quite so much pain/suffering/permanent effects? Again, an opinion that is open to debate …

At this point, I decided that a further discussion would not get us anywhere.  Thus ends this episode on theodicy.