Sunday, December 7, 2008

The Problem of Evil II. Suffering & Glory

This is the second in a series of posts on the Problem of Evil (hereafter referred to as PoE). In this series, I offer my own resolution to the quadrilemma of Epicurus discussed in this earlier post. The series will be several posts long. The full picture will only become clear as all posts are presented. For this reason, I will not generally respond to challenges or arguments to individual posts. But I am more than happy to answer any questions for clarification.


From Epicurus forward, every presentation of the Problem of Evil (PoE) begins with the tacit presumption that suffering must be an unnecessary and unwanted evil, something which a good God would certainly eradicate if he could. And thus the argument goes, either he is not good, or he is not able to eradicate suffering. Believers typically respond to this presumption about suffering in these ways:

1)
Suffering adds texture to life (Psalms 30:5; 126:6): we cannot know true joy in the absence of sorrow, we cannot know pleasure without pain, we are not truly human without the full range of experiences including suffering; and

2)
Suffering develops character (Romans 5:3-5; James 1:2-3): without suffering, character qualities like endurance might grow stagnant, might never develop to their fullest potential. Even Jesus grew and learned through suffering, we are told (Hebrews 5:8).

Because they do not take such benefits of suffering into account, the typical PoE argument of the skeptics, including the quadrilemma of Epicurus, are too simplistic. The PoE cannot be reduced to such a facile syllogism. Nevertheless, the above defenses of suffering fail, in my opinion, to account for all suffering. Indeed, CS Lewis recognized this in his theodicy,
The Problem of Pain, in which he turns to the pain and suffering of animals where the moral arguments carry no water. Skeptical commenters on this blog have asked how the thousands of children crushed or drowned in earthquakes and tsunamis benefited from suffering ... or even how we who have survived such natural calamities benefit from their suffering. Such questions go unanswered. So, while I accept the standard Christian arguments about the benefits of suffering, those arguments do not solve the riddle for me, nor for countless others, nonbelievers and believers alike.

Suffering and the PoE go far beyond human experience where there can be some observable moral benefits in suffering. Indeed, the New Testament tells us that “all creation” is involved in suffering (Romans 8:22). From this passage we learn that suffering is the result of a deliberate choice on the part of the Creator, but that it is not his plan to leave the cosmos in this state. This passage suggests strongly to me that some eternal purpose of God is being fulfilled by this provisional state of suffering in the cosmos.

Christianity teaches us that all history is moving toward an inexorable climatic moment when all evil is destroyed, all processes of decay come to a halt, and death itself dies. Could it be that suffering in this cosmos under the free hand of evil contributes in some way to the ultimate undoing of evil? I believe that the Scriptures intimate that this is the case.

In the
previous post, I suggested the possibility that God might combat evil on a cosmic scale using the same tactics he recommends to his followers on a terrestrial scale. Jesus teaches us to defeat evil through patterns of intentional nonresistance. If, in the cosmic battle between good and evil, evil is being overcome by good (see Romans 12:21), the winning of the war may come only at the cost of much suffering. While we learn from Romans 8:22 that this suffering is spread across all of creation, no part of creation suffers more than God himself, in the person of Jesus.

In Colossians 1:24, Paul makes an interesting statement about the suffering that Jesus endured. He says, in effect, that in his own personal suffering, he was “filling up what was lacking in the sufferings of Christ.” Two conclusions can be drawn from this remarkable verse:

1)
Something is actually accomplished in the spiritual realm by the sufferings of Christ. The death of Jesus accomplished redemption for mankind, but that is not all. The clearest statement of the purpose for Jesus coming to earth is found in 1 John 3:8, “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.” And in John 12:31, Jesus declares that his approaching suffering and death would be instrumental in the undoing of the work of the devil.

2)
The sufferings of Christ are, in this regard, incomplete. Our sufferings team with his to accomplish the purposes of God. God calls people of faith to co-venture, if you will, with him in the battle against evil. I believe that we are called to share in the suffering which ultimately pays the price for the undoing of evil. And thus is suffering given meaning, purpose and value.

The New Testament has much to say about a connection between suffering and glory. It seems clear that there is a direct corresponding relationship between suffering in this age and glory in the next (2 Corinthians 4:17; Romans 8:18; Matthew 5:11-12; 1 Peter 1:7, 4:13). Is glory merely a consolation offered by God for the unfortunate sufferers? Is it a reward, an eternal “atta-boy” offered to those who buck-up under affliction? I don’t think so. The 2 Corinthians passage suggest the relationship is directly causal. That is, Paul teaches that suffering in this realm is “accomplishing”, or “achieving” future glory.

Does all suffering qualify for glory? Are all forms of suffering accomplishing the purposes of God? I do not know. Romans 8:22 suggests that the writhing of the entire cosmos is somehow instrumental in bringing to birth God’s plan. On the other hand, Peter urges people of faith to suffer with a heart and mind like Jesus had in his suffering (1 Peter 2:21-23; 4:1); and he tells us that there is no value in the sufferings which we bring upon ourselves (2:19-20; 4:15-16). So it would seem that the sufferings of the innocent, and the sufferings borne in faith would be at the top of the list in efficaciousness.

In the next post, we will visit the book of Revelation and observe how our actions and our sufferings here are significant in precipitating the final judgments of God against evil.

Your comments are welcome.

14 comments:

Isaac Gouy said...

... the writhing of the entire cosmos is somehow instrumental in bringing to birth God’s plan. ... So it would seem that the sufferings of the innocent, and the sufferings borne in faith would be at the top of the list in efficaciousness.

Some misguided soul may take that reasoning to suggest that the innocent should be allowed to suffer - even made to suffer - so that God's plan can take place.

Please please explain why that grotesque conclusion does not follow from your reasoning.

Cliff Martin said...

Good question. It makes me think of the misguided premillennialists who promote doomsday scenarios with a perverse glee.

As you suggest, only the misguided would come to the conclusion you speak of. The teachings of Christianity include the mandate to minimize suffering where ever we are able to do so. To allow others to suffer in order to "bring on" the final judgment of evil would clearly be joining in with the forcers of evil. No one who desires the defeat of evil will purposefully join with evil to being about its demise.

Isaac Gouy said...

cliff > As you suggest, only the misguided would come to the conclusion you speak of.

I would fault the premise, not the logic that leads to that grotesque conclusion.


cliff > The teachings of Christianity include the mandate to minimize suffering where ever we are able to do so.

And yet you tell us that suffering in this world causes glory in the next - so why minimize suffering?

Cliff Martin said...

I would fault the premise, not the logic that leads to that grotesque conclusion.

... and I would fault any logic that suggests we join the forces of evil to eradicate evil.

... why minimize suffering?

There is nothing implicit in my premise that would suggest we welcome suffering. The kind of suffering we bring upon ourselves would have no value, as I understand things. Suffering which is avoidable, or preventable should be avoided and prevented. Yet, we know from experience that not all suffering falls in those categories. These unavoidable and unpreventable sufferings are the kind that I am referring to in the OP. Peter, in his first letter, tells believers to "arm yourselves to suffer", but clearly he has in mind the kind of suffering which comes to us not of our own choosing.

Is this distinction too obscure for you?

Isaac Gouy said...

cliff > ... and I would fault any logic that suggests we join the forces of evil to eradicate evil.

Should we fault arithmetic when income plus expenditure leads to the unwelcome conclusion that money has been lost?

Why should we fault logic when the conclusion it leads to is unwelcome - isn't that just wishful thinking?


cliff > These unavoidable and unpreventable sufferings are the kind that I am referring to in the OP.

I expect you can think of many of those sufferings which were unavoidable and unpreventable yesteryear but are avoidable and preventable now.

Your premise seems to be that those unavoidable and unpreventable sufferings are "somehow instrumental in bringing to birth God’s plan" but now we've avoided and prevented some of those sufferings - how many more can we avoid and prevent before we break the instrument?

If we avoid and prevent all but the suffering of one individual will that still be enough to bring to birth God's plan?

Cliff Martin said...

If we avoid and prevent all but the suffering of one individual ...

This is not likely. I seriously doubt man's ability to ever harness earthquakes and tsunamis. I doubt we will ever be able to control all wildfires, hurricanes, and floods. All humans die, and most deaths involve suffering. So until we eliminate death (an unlikely prospect) most of us will leave this life suffering. And even if we find permanent answers for malaria and AIDS (I hope we do!), my pharmacist friend informs me that viruses are mutating at a rate faster than we are able to discover cures, and that a whole plethora of HIV-like viruses loom on the horizon. I hope this prognostication is incorrect. But even if it is, I feel certain in the sad prospect that there remains plenty of innocent suffering in mankind's future.

Part of the mandate dating back to Genesis 1 is that we (mankind) subdue the earth. I understand this to mean that our God-given responsibility is to eliminate all the suffering we possibly can. But the scenario you suggest is unreasonably optimistic. Do you agree?

Isaac Gouy said...

cliff > But the scenario you suggest is unreasonably optimistic.

Seems like you have simply ignored the questions I asked.

If we avoid and prevent all but the suffering of one individual will that still be enough to bring to birth God's plan?

Cliff Martin said...

Isaac,

I did not "ignore the question" you asked. I simply showed you how the premise of your question is unrealistic.

But if you insist I answer all questions, even those based on ridiculous premises, I would have to confess that I do not know the answer, and there is no way for me to know. My hunch would be that if we got that close to eliminating suffering, we would likely be very close to the culmination of God's overarching plan.

I'm not sure what your point is.

Isaac Gouy said...

cliff > I simply showed you how the premise of your question is unrealistic.

Similarly you might complain that the premise of pursuing a light beam with the velocity of the speed of light is unrealistic - and yet Einstein used that thought experiment to explore and explain the potential consequences of certain principles.


cliff > I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm exploring the potential consequences of your claim that suffering in this world causes glory in the next, that suffering in this world is somehow instrumental in bringing to birth God’s plan.


cliff > My hunch would be that if we got that close to eliminating suffering, we would likely be very close to the culmination of God's overarching plan.

Now you seem to be saying that the absence of suffering in this world would bring about God's plan - not suffering but the absence of suffering - please explain.

Isaac Gouy said...

... the tacit presumption that suffering must be an unnecessary and unwanted evil, something which a good God would certainly eradicate if he could.

The presumption that pain, grief and damage are not wanted by those who suffer - whether they are necessary or wanted by God speaks to omnipotence and benevolence.


Suffering adds texture to life ... we are not truly human without the full range of experiences including suffering

The full range of experiences includes all manner of ghastly deeds - are we not truly human until we have killed another person?


Suffering develops character ... character qualities like endurance might grow stagnant

Being able to endure suffering would have no value in a world without suffering. Character qualities like cruelty might grow stagnant.


... suffering is the result of a deliberate choice on the part of the Creator, but that it is not his plan to leave the cosmos in this state.

Is your Christian ethic - the end justifies the means?

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi All,

As per the previous post;

Does anyone want to address why this all loving all knowing and all powerful god allows earthquakes and tsunamis to kill kids,sometimes quickly , but often very slowly and painfully?

Also how does an infant child suffering from a debilitating disease for years fit with this kind of god existing?

Why does science and rational thinking seem to give us hope we might reduce this apparently utterly unnecessary suffering whilst prayer has no effect that anyone has been able to measure?


Thanks & Happy Newtonmass to all for tomorrow ;-)

Psi

Cliff Martin said...

Hi Psi,

I think you know that I ask those same questions often, and have for years. The sad thing for me, and the reason I can no longer find motivation to keep this blog going, is that other Christians either 1) don't see the problems, or 2) don't care, or 3) don't want to discuss it with me. This blog, and particularly this series, are my attempts to engage other believers in a discussion of possible solutions to the riddles. I find scientific discoveries of the last 150 years to be helpful. While on one level I am glad for folks like you and Isaac who will at least read what I write and interact, my main purpose here is to engage other believers. Failing to do that to any significant degree, I have chosen to stop trying ... at least for the time being.

Tom said...

Cliff,

I understand trying to keep a blog going is difficult. Looking back on 2008 compared to my 2007 posts, I seem to be missing the mark. I hope in 2009 to re-invent my blog and keep conversing with you and others, but I'm not sure where the time is going to come from!

I know you've asked for other believers to engage and the atheists seem to take over on many of your posts. (Your request was part of the reason I've sat out a couple of the conversations.) Perhaps we are scaring your intended audience away. After all, they need to discuss such touchy subjects in a safe environment.

The best way I've found to direct traffic to my blog, not so much in terms of numbers of people, but people I want to converse with, is to comment on others' blogs where those people are. I know you hit many of the same Evolutionary/Christian blogs that I do. Maybe you should try some others. I just did a Google blog search for "theodicy and the problem of evil" and came across several blogs, including yours at #4, but blogs with interesting titles like the Evangelical Philosophical Society and SkepticalChristian.com. Just ideas.

I know its draining. I appreciate your conversation here, on my blog, and the blogs we mutually comment on. Talk to you later, here or there.

Psiloiordinary said...

Hi Cliff,

Sorry to hear that.

This means we don't get to find out your own reasons for belief either ;-(

All the very best to you and yours.

Best Regards,

Psi