Theodicy

How can human suffering be thought together with the goodness of God?

Introduction

Right at the start: I am writing this text because I experience the public stance of modern biblical scholars as a cowardly answer to this fundamental question.

I listened to hours upon hours of Worthaus lectures. I engaged with different theologians, of course only as a layperson, but I still invested a great deal of time in listening, thinking, and prayer, and I found myself missing the obvious answer to the problem of theodicy, and I felt compelled to write this. Of course I am aware that I am probably writing this first and foremost to sort out my own thoughts and not to convince others.

A brief outline of how theodicy is treated. A warning is appropriate here. I will present the positions very briefly and concisely. Representatives of these positions could speak for hours about the subject, elaborate on it, and explain it, and they have. But in my experience they do that mainly so as not to be so vulnerable while still keeping the position. I demand the courage to defend a position and to accept the short version of it as well. And do not worry, I will also state my current stance on theodicy and stand by it. You are welcome to take the two-sentence version and say: "He believes that."

I believe it is important that we regard our readers and listeners as mature people and let them think for themselves. They should learn to endure and digest these unpleasant thoughts on their own. If they cannot do that, then they will turn to their safe harbor, the one they have always believed in. That is okay and often the right decision. But for all those who can bear it, I want to challenge you here.

The Problem

The question of theodicy can be described very compactly in philosophical and logical terms.

It starts from two assumptions: 1. God is omnipotent, omniscient, and good. 2. God does not like suffering, whether cancer, child rape, or similar evils.

From that, one can draw a few conclusions: 1. Since God can do everything, he can also prevent suffering. 2. Since God is good, he also wants to do that. 3. If God wants something, then he also does it.

From this the problem follows: Therefore God would have to prevent suffering. But he does not.

I hope this is not the first time you have seen this problem stated so clearly. It is important to understand the great questions and problems of our world.

The Answers

The following popular answers exist. I will describe them briefly here and point out the problem in each answer.

Free Will

Variation 1:

God gives us free will and thereby limits himself. He does not want to restrict it. Human beings with free will cause this suffering.

Problem 1: Since God is omnipotent, he could have created a world in which free will exists, but only for self-harm and not for harm to others. Such a world would be "better" in the sense that it would contain less suffering. As a good God, he would have preferred that world and therefore would also have made it.

Problem 2: Cancer, plague, and tsunamis were not caused by free will. This kind of suffering is not explained by free will.

Variation 2: Fallen Creation

God created us perfect, but we deviated from his plan and therefore everything has now become bad.

Problem 1: This is simply another version of the "free will" argument. Therefore the counterarguments to "free will" apply here as well.

Problem 2: God could have given us, deep within our feelings and thoughts, the certainty that we should keep his commandments. He could have given us free will and also the knowledge that we should not sin. But he did not do that, and therefore he is not good. (Knowing something is different from merely being told it. You can tell your child that the stove is hot, and yet at some point in life the child will still touch it. But after touching it, the child knows deep down that the stove can be hot. God could simply have given us that kind of "deep knowledge." But he did not, and therefore he is not good.)

Variation 3:

God enters into an adventure with us in this world and suffers along with us. He is open to things not turning out the way he wants.

This is the so-called open theism. In other words, a belief in a God who says: God does not know how people will decide. But he carries them through it. I see no difference at all from Variation 1, and therefore the counterarguments there apply here as well.

Open theism has also been understood more as a pastoral answer than a dogmatic one. In other words, it is meant to satisfy or reassure church members and not necessarily to be logically consistent in the first place.

God Is a Mystery

God's ways are greater and beyond comprehension.

This position has become established in many places and exists in many variations.

Variation 1:

You cannot understand it. You as a human being are too limited for that.

Problem 1: How can a limited human being know that? If I cannot recognize the ways of God, how can I recognize that I cannot recognize them?

This argument is intellectually dishonest because it refuses to engage with the arguments. We have arguments that claim something, and this answer refuses to deal with them. The problem is stated simply. It has the three assumptions and the three conclusions mentioned above. Where did the reasoning go wrong? What is false? This answer is a pseudo-answer. Because either one of the assumptions or one of the conclusions is wrong. And if everything is correct, then I have shown that one of the three assumptions must be false.

Variation 2:

The problem is real and important and we cannot resolve it. At the same time we hold fast to God in full trust.

Perhaps that is the best answer. Perhaps mine is related to it. But I consider the wording cowardly. As mentioned above, it is the answer of many theologians.

Problem 1: If the problem is real, then it follows that one of the assumptions is false. If one of the assumptions is false, why do we continue to hold fast to God in full trust? - Is he not omnipotent? Then he is not God. Apparently he is less powerful than the rapist. Why should I worship a God who is less powerful than a rapist? - Is he not omniscient? Why should I trust him with the course of my life if he also does not know whether it will turn out well? - Is he not good? Why should I trust him if his plans for our life are not good?

Problem 2: It shows cowardice. This answer twists itself into "empathetic" sentences in order to avoid having a clear position. It refuses to draw the obvious conclusions. They refuse to acknowledge that God is not all three things. I have never heard those theologians say: "Yes, one of the three assumptions is false." They always wind their way around this uncomfortable truth with beautiful phrases.

The Problem of Heaven

Anyone who believes that God creates a heaven in which all suffering is gone simultaneously believes: - God created a world with suffering, our world. - God can create a world without suffering, heaven. - So God did not want to make this world as good as heaven.

There are also counterarguments to this argument:

Answer 1: With the new body and spirit we can no longer sin.
Problem: Why did he not give us this new body and spirit already now?

Answer 2: In God's presence we can no longer sin. We do not even get the idea. We could, but we do not want to.
Problem: Why does God not give us this presence here? See Problem 2 under Fallen Creation.

My Position

One of the three assumptions is false. So God is either not omniscient, not omnipotent, or not good.

My Current Stance

I tend to think that God is not good. I believe our New Age people, nature hippies, and mushroom-trip wanderers have recognized God's character better than we Christians have.

They say: "Nature, the universe, is God. It is beautiful, and if we know it deeply, we also sense how thoroughly good it is." Especially on drugs or in some other trance we are very close to God, and there everything is good, in the best case. At the same time nature is cruel and lets its creatures die in all kinds of ways. Trance also brings up the worst conceivable feelings, especially with repressed trauma. These people are aware of this ambivalence and yet they still have a love for this world that we often do not have.

I believe God is exactly like that. There is no opponent of God who makes everything bad. All of that is God. Cancer is God, love is God. Rape is one facet of God. But I also believe and hope that in these abysses of life God retains an uplifting power. People can be strengthened in captivity.

My stance is philosophically honest: it dares to draw conclusions about God's attributes. It is not detached from reality because it acknowledges suffering. It remains Christian. I am only saying farewell to an untenable and inhuman image of God.

If someone says they cannot worship such a God, then I understand that. It is one of the great reasons why people become atheists. At the same time I believe that here too we can learn a great deal from our mushroom gatherers. They see how brutal the world is and yet, after a deep encounter with God, they still do not let him go. The fascination of "God" is great, even if he is not good. That fascination and attraction, which God has, brings me to worship, not the abstract attributes.

Consequence

I believe this image of God is profoundly biblical. Job, Noah, and many others show the ambivalence of God. And precisely with this image of God, the insight of Jesus is incredible: Jesus knew the Jewish story. And yet one of his achievements, still taught today, is to address God as Papa. God is not only a father, but a Papa. Such an intimate relationship with such a God. A God who can be frightening. How much trust does that require? How much self-surrender to call this God "Papa"? And then the wonder is this: that positive stance is vindicated by God. God testifies that Jesus spoke rightly and exalts him.

Jesus thus showed us the way, the truth, and the life: whoever trusts God like that will see God. Everything will become possible for that person. They will not break under the burden of this world. That hope is sustainable for me.