Over the years, no theological subject has consumed quite as much of my time in sermons and pastoral counseling and teaching and writing as the subject of Theodicy has. Theodicy is the classical problem of how to view evil, suffering, and death in light of the claim that God is real, and God really is good and powerful and wise. It is the question of how to justify this Good God in light of a world filled to the brim with horrific suffering, or at least how to justify us who believe there is such a God. I have written essays about it, made charts detailing it, and reviewed books about it. And almost all of that has been spent in describing the objective state of affairs in the world in light of Theodicy: Is God real or not? Is God good or not?
But I have not spent a whole lot of time talking about how the problems– and “solutions”-- of Theodicy function for those of us who are engaged in this discussion. Here I would like to dive a little deeper into an area I skim the surface of in my longest essay on the Monstrosity of Theodicy:
As I write this in comfortable air-conditioning sipping a coffee (and you read this perhaps doing the same) someone is being raped, someone else is being murdered, someone is working in a sweat shop to make goods we use, and someone is dying alone and abandoned from a preventable disease. And instead of helping them, instead of doing anything, we are pontificating about whether God is responsible for their suffering. Because at some deep level many of us think that if we can justify God for allowing evil and suffering, then we can justify ourselves for allowing it to. So we read and write about the problem instead of doing anything about it. Why is there evil and suffering in the world? Because of me. Because of you.
We blame God for creating a world in which people are thrown inexorably into suffering, injustice and death. Then we rightfully say that nothing-- no account of freedom-- could fully justify the amount of evil caused by this predicament. And yet, all of us who have raised children do the exact same thing. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt what makes life "red in tooth and claw". We know the sufferings we have faced and see others face. We know death-- probably a painful and lingering death-- awaits us all. And yet we choose to create children and cast them into a life sentence of suffering that will end in death. Sure, we teach them and try to protect them. But we know it won't be enough. They will go through intense pain of some kind or another. Then they will die. We do exactly what God does. And why? Because giving them love and sharing in their love is somehow worth it. Which is precisely the same reason God does. God may be a monster, but we are too. Is such a monstrous God worth committing our lives to? Does the infinitely good, wise and powerful, yet horribly culpable God, do anything to solve the problem of evil beyond unjustifiably "permitting" it to happen? Will this God do anything to give us hope beyond our own culpability and fault?
This opens up the complex of issues about how our solutions to Theodicy function to assuage our guilt and justify our own lifestyle in light of the immense suffering all around us. Because in Theodicy the issue of unmerited and non-redemptive suffering and death is often used as the final issue of ultimate importance: No other issue could be more important than unjust suffering. As I make this claim, let's stop for a minute to define terms:
Suffering and death can be categorized in two types: Merited (or just) and unmerited (or unjust). Different people will have different ways of sorting into these two categories. For some people, almost all suffering will be seen as "merited": Either because the sufferers somehow "deserve" it, or because there is something for people to learn from it, or there is some other redemptive aspect to it. For other people, almost all suffering will be seen as "unmerited": It is horrible beyond what people could have ever done to deserve it, and it is so destructive and wasteful that there is no way to learn or grow from it. I do not know where you draw the line between merited and unmerited suffering. The exact point at which that point is, is not the point here. The point here is that almost all of us would say that there is suffering and death which happens in the world which is "unmerited".
If you are not someone who thinks there is unmerited suffering, the rest of this essay will be a category error for you, and you will not want to read further. But, if you agree there is some degree of unmerited suffering and death in the world, then we have found THE issue of ultimate importance which must be tackled by all people, religious and non-religious. If we have any form of morality, that morality would tell us that if there is one thing we have to stop and change, it is unmerited suffering and death. Nothing else is as important as that.
Any other kind of "merited" suffering does not have to be stopped because there is some purpose or goal or redemptive reason for that suffering. But not so with unmerited suffering. By definition, nothing good can come of it. And if nothing good can come of it, then people who are committed to the good should do all in their power to stop it. Because it is definitionally the opposite of good (in fact, the only opposite of good).
On the basis of unmerited suffering, some are so moved by the horrendous injustice of it, that they cannot believe in God. There is no state of affairs in which a Good God could allow such unmerited suffering to exist. With a moral objection so strong that it exorcises God from the universe, we should see a compensatory moral reaction to also rid the world of unmerited suffering, just as we rid the world of the God who allowed unmerited suffering. If we find people who (a) reject God due to unmerited suffering, while (b) allowing unmerited suffering to exist without doing all in their power at all times to stop it, then (c) we know something is going on with those who reject God, beyond just a strict concern for the moral facts of unmerited suffering. Because if they were fully honest about why they are making their case about Theodicy, then they should use every waking second, and every last resource they have, to stop unmerited suffering. Because it is such a top level issue that they even deny God over it.
However, we do not see people who reject God due to theodicy living this kind of all-in crusade against unmerited suffering. They usually have jobs and families and hobbies and a whole host of lifestyle commitments that are at odds with the single minded elimination of unmerited suffering. And we must ask why this is the case.
Now at this point, you might think I am picking on the irreligious in an unfair way. So let's talk about the religious for a moment. On the basis of unmerited suffering, some are so moved by the horrendous injustice of it, that they affirm passionately that not only God is real, and God is Good, but God is ALSO at work to heal and transform unmerited suffering into hope beyond hope. They probably would go on to affirm that God has called a group of people— perhaps many groups— to participate with God in the healing of the world and the end of unmerited suffering. Perhaps God has done this by becoming one of us (as in the Incarnation of Jesus), or by becoming manifest in Enlightened Exemplars (as in versions of Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism), or by sending prophets and holy writings to guide us to eliminate suffering (as in Judaism or Islam). The methods vary, but the point remains: Those who affirm that there is a Good God at work somehow healing and eliminating unmerited suffering, also typically affirm that they are part of the group of people called by God to eliminate suffering and bring healing. If this is the cause, then they too should use every waking second, and every last resource they have to stop unmerited suffering. Because it is such a top level issue that they commit to being part of God's mission to heal it.
However, we do not often see people who affirm that God is real actually live this kind of all-in crusade against unmerited suffering. They usually have jobs and families and hobbies and a whole host of lifestyle commitments that are at odds with the single minded elimination of unmerited suffering. And we must also ask why this is the case.
I think the case is, much of the time, that Theodicy functions to assuage guilt in the hearts of those who engage in Theodicy, not to actually engage with suffering in the world around them. For both religious and non-religious disputants in Theodicy, their argument is often done in bad faith. And that bad faith is the real motivation of the argument: To get them off the hook for their shared guilt in the horrendous suffering all around them. Not that I blame them. Because I too am in the same boat as they are.
It is not a mistake that the issue of Theodicy rises in popularity and gets its name in the 1710 in the essay Théodicée, by German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz. Although the problem of unmerited suffering and death had been implicit in much theology prior to this era, it was in this early modern European context that it really became the all-consuming issue of ultimate importance for whether God exists (and if so, could still be considered "good"). I think the reason this issue really crystallized at this time was because it was the beginning of our modern global awareness of all the history that came before us, and the conditions in the broader globe around us. For the first time, reliable news (and science) could be obtained from the entire world by the average literate citizen. And this awareness grows exponentially over the next three centuries into the global 24-hour news cycle we have today.
The result is that we are not only aware of all the new things, all the good things, and all the interesting things that happen in the world on a daily basis. We are also aware of all the horrific, awful, and destructive things. And we are aware that there are countless ways we could make a difference with all this suffering: Everything from changing our buying habits, to serving in our communities, to advocating for the needy, to giving money and time, to writing our political leaders, to protesting in the streets (and a thousand more!). If we pay attention at all, we are overwhelmed by the sheer scale of suffering in the world, by all we could do (or stop doing) to solve it, and by our complicity in causing suffering in a thousand different ways small and large each day.
Indeed, the sins of the world are borne on our shoulders, and it sinks us into a swamp of shame, because of the suffering world and our role in it. So what are we to do?
On the level of symbolic systems and cognitive beliefs, one thing we can do is re-align the symbolic systems that give our life meaning. In that system, the idea of "God" usually functions as the guarantor of the moral order of the world we live in. To assuage our own personal guilt for not doing more to stop suffering, we could take two routes: First, we could affirm that God is real and God is good, and God is working some greater redemptive purpose out of all of this suffering. If we take this route, we can put our shame on God's broad shoulders, and excuse ourselves, allowing God to work it all out in God's time. Then we don't have to face complicity and shame for the suffering we allow, because God has taken all that shame for us, and we know God will solve it and heal it all eventually.
Second, we could reject God and thus reject the moral order that justifies and allows unmerited suffering. If we do this, we have used God as a scapegoat, laid on "God" the evil of this world, and then exorcised "God" from the world to take our shame with God into oblivion. The exorcism of God is also the exorcism of our own shame as well. And with God gone, we can look at the horrific suffering in the world and say, to some degree, "it just is the way it is". We may relieve suffering here and there as we have capacity and leisure to do so, but suffering and death is really just part of the inexorable flow of time and process in a universe without goal or purpose. The exorcism of God thus allows us to enjoy the brief time we have without the shame that comes from our complicity in the suffering of others.
I think there are some disputants in the subject of Theodicy that come in good faith, truly wrestling with where God is (or is not) at work in this world of suffering. But I think many of us— myself included— often argue in bad faith. We are seeking to assuage our subjective guilt, not heal objective suffering in the world. We think that being "right" will allow us to be comfortable without too many pangs of conscience. Once we have "solved" Theodicy in a way we find compelling, we can put it on a shelf, along with our shame for complicity in suffering, and go about our lives.
If this is the case, where should we go from here? How should we deal with our inner shame which has been transmuted into an "objective" argument about God and suffering? I think there is at least a twofold movement I would recommend.
First, I would recommend that instead of Theodicy staying a passive argument about the state of affairs in the world, it becomes an active ideology of protest against unmerited suffering. Whatever else Theodicy does, it should move us to realize how we are complicit in unmerited and unjust suffering, and it should motivate us to be part of the solution. If our Theodicy accepts a Good God, it should also call us to participate with God in the active healing of the world and elimination of unmerited suffering. If our Theodicy rejects God's reality, it should also lead us to put something better in God's place, including social systems that create human flourishing and mitigate human suffering.
Second, I would recommend that we develop a moral framework of gratitude that recognizes the importance of the good in the world, an enjoyment of the good, and a participation in the good, that is just as important as the bad. If unmerited suffering is our only "top shelf" moral concern, it will spiral us into negativity and hopelessness and critical ways of interacting with almost everything. Instead, the critical needs to be balanced with the constructive, the negative with the positive, suffering with joy. We need to create a praxis that balances gracious experience of the Good Things of Life with missional engagement to heal the Bad Things of Life. Regardless of whether we are religious or irreligious, hearts of gratitude and moments of enjoyment are necessary to sustain self-sacrificial actions to heal the world.
And what about shame? I think we all bear shame for unmerited suffering in our world. We passively and actively contribute to the conditions that cause suffering in our work and leisure and consumption and political action (or lack thereof). We bear shame as individuals, as cohorts, and as society as a whole. And if God is real— and I think God is— then God bears shame for the same kinds of reasons and more. And as a Christian, this shame that God bears is seen embodied in Jesus on the cross, as God takes the sin of the world onto his shoulders.
The solution to this shame, as always, is grace and forgiveness and a fresh start to do better next time. And then when we fail next time (and we will) the grace and forgiveness to start yet again. And again. And again. And again. Always learning and growing and getting better, yet always falling short. I find this grace and forgiveness in Christ, and in those Christ leads me to forgive and be forgiven by. I do not know what your source of grace and forgiveness is, but I would beg you to find it and utilize it. Because the only way to effectively bear our shame and yet flourish will be through the path of grace and forgiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment