Roger L. Smalling, D.Min
In a previous article, "Sovereignty and Suffering" I dealt with the problem
of evil from a pastoral perspective. The intent was to give comfort and counsel
to suffering people. I steered away from intellectual analysis and focused
on the God's character as worthy of trust, despite circumstances. This left
me with an incomplete feeling, since some need philophical answers. This article
is designed to give Christians the ammunition to answer this objection when
it comes from those who challenge the existence or goodness of God on this
basis. Rather than attempt to 'answer' the question, the strategy is to show
the objector that the question is devoid of meaning. The objector expects
the Christian to attempt an answer which he can then attack as absurd. The
Christian puts the burden back on the objector by requiring him to show why
the question makes sense. It is not the Christian has no answer. It is rather
that the question is not a question.
The question assumes that good cannot come out of evil events. If this is
not the underlying assumption, then the question is meaningless and must be
withdrawn. Human experience shows that good often comes from evil. Or, sometimes
suffering and pain are necessary to prevent a greater evil, such as a war
to defeat a dictator who wants to enslave the world. Such a war, therefore,
cannot be defined as an evil, despite the horrors associated with it. Likewise,
Christians have always taught and often exemplified the truth that suffering
is a means toward increased virtue, such as patience, endurance and sympathy
toward others. Scripture seems to give the greater weight to this particular
answer. The Cross is the supreme example of it. Short answer: "Now all you
have to do, sir, is show that good cannot come from evil." The question commits
the fallacy of circular reasoning. The question commits a logic fallacy with
regard to the use of the term 'good.' Normally this term in our society is
derived from Judeo-Christian ethic. God's character, in other words, is the
basis of the definition of the term 'good.' It is illogical therefore to use
the concept of good, of which God is the source, to refute the goodness of
God. This is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Short answer: "Sir, why are
you using the concept of good to show that the source of the concept of good
is not good?"
Relativists are exclude from any right to ask the question. If a person says
that truth and morality are relative to the individual, then how can he use
the concept of good to show that God is absolutely wrong in permitting evil?
In the case of the Word Trade Center atrocity, the only thing a consistent
relativist can say dispassionately is that relative to the terrorists, it
was a good thing. Relative to us, it is a bad thing. Short answer: "Sir, do
you believe that truth and morality, good and evil, are relative to the individual?"
"Then why are you asking the question?"
The question asks God to commit the greatest atrocity of all against humanity.
It implies that God should do something to others that we do not want him
to do to ourselves. Most of the evil in today's world is caused by things
people do to each other...man's inhumanity to man. We need to ask, "In practical
terms, exactly what do we want God to do?" One possible answer to ask God
to remove from others the ability to choose to do evil to their fellow man.
He could, for example, perform a brain operation and remove their ability
to choose between good and evil. This, of course, would dehumanize them completely.
If we want God to dehumanize others, then why not ask him to do it first to
ourselves? Which is the greater evil: the inhumanity of man to man? Or, the
dehumanization of man altogether? Is it possible that the question is really
asking God to commit the ultimate atrocity? Short answer: "Sir, are you asking
for God to remove from mankind the ability to choose between right and wrong?
If you are, then why not ask Him to start with you?"
It implies a moral contract between God and disobedient mankind.
Why is God obliged to protect anybody from anything? When and how did God
acquire this moral obligation? Short Answer: "Sir, why is God obligated to
protect the disobedient?" The questions ought to be put the other way around.
The right question is, "Why isn't there more suffering in the world than there
is?" If God is as holy as Scripture says He is and man as perverse as described
in Romans 3, then it would seem that more there should be more suffering than
there is.
Short Answer: "Answer sir, this question first. If God is holy and man is
unholy, why isn't there more suffering in the world than there is?"
It assumes that mankind wants something from God other than His absence. Mankind
has shown consistently that he wants to be independent from God. Human nature
wants nothing more than for God to leave it alone. People usually prefer for
God to leave them alone except when they get into trouble. We cannot depose
a king and ask for his protection at the same time. We cannot reject the Lord
and then blame him for His absence. Short Answer: "Sir, do you want God's
intervention with or without submitting to His authority?"
It assumes an unrealistic dualism between good and evil. Evil does not exist
in the same sense as good does. Evil is a sort of parasite of the good. Example:
A human body is a good thing in and of itself. But it can become sick. The
sickness is a bad thing, but cannot exist apart from the body. The sickness
therefore a kind of parasite taking something away that existed before...health.
Evil is something which detracts from good and cannot exist on its own. By
asserting that sickness exists, we are asserting that such a thing as health
exists. Darkness is merely the absence of light and cold is the absence of
heat. Darkness and cold have no existence apart from these.
Therefore, to suggest that God is not good to permit evil is to say that good
has no existence if evil is present. This is a contradiction. The presence
of evil, ironically, is proof of ultimate good. Short Answer: "Sir, if you
say that evil has a real existence, then you must also say that good has a
real existence also, since evil is merely the absence of good. Why then are
you asking the question?" Conclusion: The issue is not whether a Christian
has an answer to the question of suffering. The issue is whether the non-question
has a legitimate question to ask. The question posed by the sceptic is self
contradictory as well as rife with dubious hidden assumptions. It is not so
much that Christian has no answer. It is rather that the question is not a
question.
Many who read this article also liked our book, Unlocking Grace.
End of Document