Answering the Problem of Evil
September 2006
In order to not protect the guilty, I’ll use
his real name. It is Frank. Frank and I attended Bible College together.
Frank liked to discuss the sticky and difficult
theological issues of the Christian faith. Often he would play “devil’s
advocate” and sometimes I couldn’t tell if he was really arguing his
perspective, or if he was simply trying to give me a run for my money in
the discussion.
Frank loved to engage in “endless speculation.”Could
God create a rock so big He couldn’t lift it? Is it possible for God to
create a square circle?"
It was about four years after graduation that I
ran into Frank again at a mutual friend’s house near Calgary. Frank had
spent the last couple years majoring in business at a secular university
in Alberta. Only four years after graduation from Bible College, Frank
had all but abandoned his Christian faith.
Summarizing his concerns as he expressed them
to me: “Christianity has serious philosophical contradictions that it
cannot answer. These contradictions render the Christian view of the
world doubtful at best.”
Reminiscent of my Bible College days, Frank and
I stayed up late into the night arguing, debating, and reasoning
together.
What are the serious philosophical concerns
that caused a man with a Three Year Bible College Diploma to question
and abandon his faith? Take heart friends, it is nothing that has
not been raised before and adequately answered ages ago. Yet Frank’s
time spent on the secular university campus listening to the daily
barrage of attacks on the Christian worldview convinced him that
Christianity was unable to give an answer for the problem of evil.
What’s the Problem?
Simply stated, the problem is evil. Evil exists
in our world. This fact (according to the atheist/skeptic) creates a
problem for the Christian, since according to the Christian Scriptures,
God is both infinitely and completely good and He is omnipotent (all
powerful).
When the skeptic raises the challenge, it is
usually stated something like this: If God were really good He
would want to get rid of all evil. If God were really powerful,
He would be able to get rid of all evil. Since evil exists, God
is either not good, not powerful, or both.
In other words, since evil exists, God either
doesn’t want to get rid of all evil or He isn’t able to
get rid of all evil. If He doesn’t want to get rid of evil, He is not
good and therefore the Christian view on the nature of God is wrong. If
He simply can’t deal with evil, then God is not powerful, in which case
the Christian view on the nature of God is wrong. This is the
philosophical contradiction just as Frank stated it to me.
The problem touches us emotionally when the
skeptic begins to recount all the bad things that happen to good people
around the world. They cry, “Where is God when an earthquake takes
10,000 lives in Mexico?” or, “Why doesn’t God do something about the
starving children and diseased infants dying in jungles and deserts
across the globe?” For some it is personal, “How can I believe in your
God when my little niece died a horribly painful death from a terminal
disease when she was only nine years old?”
Are not these things evil? Can’t God stop a
Hitler, or does He just not want to? Can’t God stop the ethnic cleansing
in Bosnia and Darfur, or does He just not want to?
Evil and Moral Absolutes
The presence of evil in our world does not
prove that God does not exist. In fact, the presence of evil actually
implies that there is an objective moral absolute.
If God does not exist, then there are no moral
standards. Every man can do what is right in his own eyes. If morals are
relative to the individual or the situation, then there is no right and
there is no wrong.
If there is no Absolute Moral Lawgiver, then
there is no such thing as evil. Without a Moral Absolute [ie. God],
there can be no evil. Did you catch that? How can you say that
Hitler is evil, or that torturing babies for pleasure is morally wrong
and that the person who commits such an act is a monster? You can’t.
If there is no objective moral lawgiver
[God] then there is no objective moral law. If there is no objective
moral law then there is nothing that is good. If there is nothing that
is good, then there is nothing that is evil. Any objection to the
existence of God that raises the problem of evil, must assume an
objective standard of good by which evil may be measured. The atheist
has no basis upon which to insist that something is evil unless
he wants to concede that there is a standard that defines what is
good.
Imagine for a moment a universe in which there
was no light and in which creatures had no eyes. Then imagine the
creature complaining about the darkness! You would rightly reply, “What
darkness?” In such a universe, the word “dark” would have no meaning.
Unless there existed a light, by which one could know there was such a
thing as darkness, darkness would be without meaning.1
Evil is not a thing in itself. Evil is not a
force, a person, or a thing. Evil is the absence of something else. Evil
is the absence of good. Like darkness is the absence of light or like a
donut hole is the absence of donut.
Simply put: we cannot know evil apart from
comparing it to good any more than we can know darkness without being
familiar with light. We can only know that a line is crooked if we have
some concept of straight. If God does not exist, there is no good,
therefore nothing can be called “evil” in any meaningful sense. The
atheist has no valid objection. The only person who can intelligibly
raise the issue of evil is the theist, not the atheist!
Getting Back to the Problem
For the moment, let’s lay aside the atheist’s
inconsistency and deal with the problem of evil from the theistic
perspective. We know that God does exist and that evil is real. How do
we account for this? Is it because God is good but not omnipotent, or is
it because God is omnipotent but not good? Even more to the point,
are we really forced to choose between those two options?
Kushner’s God
In 1981 a best-selling book swept the nation.
Rabbi Harold Kushner’s book titled When Bad Things Happen to Good
People attempted to make sense out of the tragedy around us that
seems to strike indiscriminately.
Over ten years ago, my own great-uncle lay
dying in a hospital bed from aggressive brain cancer. During those
difficult days some of my family members sought solace in Kushner’s
counsel.
Kushner turned to the book of Job and concluded
that the author of the book of Job, “forced to choose between a good
God who is not totally powerful, or a powerful God who is not totally
good. . . chooses to believe in God’s goodness.”2
Kushner cannot bring himself to deny God’s
goodness, so it must be that God can’t get rid of evil. In fact,
Kushner’s view of the teaching of Job is that “God wants the
righteous to live peaceful, happy lives, but sometimes even He can’t
bring that about. It is too difficult even for god to keep cruelty and
chaos from claiming their innocent victims.”3
Kushner’s solution is no solution at all. He
offers a weak, impotent, helpless god who certainly cannot be trusted or
relied upon. Rather than presenting God in all of His majestic,
sovereign, wise, and good providence, Kushner seeks to offer comfort by
giving you a weak god who wants desperately to help, but cannot.
Kushner’s god must sit on the sidelines and weep with you at his
creation run amuck. Kushner’s cure is worse than the disease.
The Typical Answer
Christians who are reluctant to compromise
either God’s goodness or His power have typically offered a second
alternative. The answer most commonly given is that even an
all-powerful God cannot create a genuinely free being unless He provided
the being with the chance to misuse that freedom. God’s highest goal in
creation was the making of creatures that would freely give their love
to Him by deliberate choice.4
In other words, God did not want to create
robots that were forced to love Him because they had no other choice. He
wanted to create creatures who would offer love and worship as a
deliberate choice. In order for that choice to be a valid one, God
had to create a world in which evil was a genuine possibility.
According to this answer, real moral freedom
requires at least the potential for the commission of a moral evil. If
the possibility to choose evil does not exist, then neither does genuine
moral freedom. Without genuine moral freedom, love that is offered from
such a creature is forced, incomplete, and in some way defective.
This answer may be somewhat helpful to some and
maybe even satisfying, but I find it unhelpful, unsatisfying, and even
contradictory.
A couple questions will suffice to show how
this answer doesn’t quite suffice.
First, will we be capable of sinning in
heaven? The answer is a resounding no! In heaven we will be
confirmed in holiness, blameless, and perfect (Jude 24). There
will not enter into heaven anything that defiles it (Rev. 21:27).
We will be removed from the presence of sin and sin will be done away
with. There will be no evil and no possibility for evil to be committed.
We will not be capable of sin in heaven.
The second question is, does this mean that
we will not have genuine freedom in heaven? In other words, if I
can’t sin in heaven, how can my love and worship offered to God be
meaningful since I won’t be able to do otherwise? Are we just going to
be robots?
If real moral freedom is incompatible with
inability to sin, then we won’t have real moral freedom in heaven. This
means that Adam and Eve’s real moral freedom on earth allowed them to
offer worship that was more preferred than that which would come from a
creature who could not sin. Their worship was better and more preferable
than ours offered from glory. Adam and Eve were able to do something on
earth that we will be incapable of doing from heaven, namely offering
God love as a deliberate choice rather than offering love from an
environment or condition where we couldn’t do otherwise.
David Clotfelter states it well when he says
that we will be “brought beyond even the possibility of sin. But if
that is possible in heaven, then why was it not possible in the garden?
How can it be that God is able to keep countless millions of redeemed
human beings and unfallen angels in an eternally holy state in heaven
without violating their freedom, but He was incapable of doing the same
for Adam and Even in Eden?”
In the words of Jonathan Edwards, “Objectors
to the doctrine of election may say, God cannot always preserve men from
sinning, unless he destroys their liberty. But will they deny that an
omnipotent, an infinitely wise God, could possibly invent and set before
men such strong motives to obedience, and keep them before them in such
a manner, as should influence them to continue in their obedience, as
the elect angels have done, without destroying their liberty? God will
order it so that the saints and angels in heaven never will sin, and
does it therefore follow that their liberty is destroyed, and that they
are not free, but forced in their actions?”5
I would argue that it was possible for God to
create an environment in Eden in which sin was impossible and in which
Adam and Eve would have been incapable of falling and sinning, without
doing violence to their will or their moral freedom. Love, adoration,
and worship offered in heaven by the redeemed will be offered willingly
from free moral creatures. These actions will not be forced. Yet sin
will not be a possibility. This fact renders the typical response to the
problem of evil incomplete since moral freedom is not incompatible
with inability to sin.
A Biblical Answer
I believe that it was possible for God to
create a universe in which free creatures could offer meaningful
obedience and worship and yet be incapable of sinning. The fact is that
God did not create such a universe. The fall of man did not take God by
surprise and He certainly did not lack the power to prevent it. So the
question really is, why did God create a universe in which evil was (by
His decree) allowed to exist?
Let’s ask the question a different way: what is
the end for which God created the world? God certainly did
not create out of need (Acts 17:25). He didn’t need the worship
and love of His creatures. God is the center of the universe. He is
infinitely worthy of all love, honor, praise, and glory. It is right and
proper for His creatures to love Him above all else. It is also proper
for God to love Himself above all things. If God loved some part of the
universe above Himself, we would rightly consider Him an idolater. It is
right for God to not share His glory with another (Isa. 42:8),
and it is idolatry for God to act in any way other than to express,
display, and highlight His own glory. God’s righteousness consists in
His acting in accordance with truth. The truth is that He is of
infinitely greater worth than any created thing, or all created things
combined.
So then, all that God does, He does for
His own glory. He does not act chiefly out of regard for the
creature, but out of regard for His own glory. The more
His attributes and character are displayed, the more He is glorified.
God’s highest goal in creation was not making creatures that would
freely give their love to Him by deliberate choice, rather His
highest goal was the display of His own glory.
So then, is it not possible, that a universe
in which sin has existed contributes more to God’s glory than a universe
in which sin had never existed?
The universe exists to display God’s glory. The
full expression of God’s glory requires the revelation of all aspects of
God’s character. Therefore, not only must the love, mercy, and grace of
God be fully revealed, but also, His wrath against sin, His justice, and
His holiness. In short, a universe in which sin had never been
allowed, or one in which no sinners were justly punished for their sins,
would be a poorer universe, because it would be one in which God’s
character was less fully exhibited.6
To put it simply: the full expression of the
glory of God requires the full revelation of all His character.
The full revelation of all His character is only made possible in
a universe in which sin has been allowed to hold temporary sway. In the
end, in the long run, a universe that has fallen and been redeemed will
be a richer universe and contribute more to God’s glory than a universe
that had never fallen at all.
Because of the fall, because of sin, God is
able to display not only His love, mercy, and grace, but also his
justice, holiness, and righteous indignation against sin. In the long
run, the fall of this universe, the redemption of some sinners and
eternal judgment upon others will glorify God MORE than a universe in
which sin was never allowed temporary reign.
This answer to the problem of evil is not new.
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) developed this in his treatise, The End
for Which God Created the World. Edwards expanded upon St.
Augustine’s (354-430 AD) thoughts. In his great work, The City of God
Augustine wrote, “The human race is so apportioned that in some
is displayed the efficacy of merciful grace, in the rest the efficacy of
just retribution. For both could not be displayed in all; for if all had
remained under the punishment of just condemnation, there would have
been seen in no one the mercy of redeeming grace. And, on the other
hand, if all had been transferred from darkness to light, the severity
of retribution would have been manifested in none.”7
Does the existence of evil show that God is
either not good, not omnipotent, or both? No. Since God is good
He will manifest His glory to the greatest degree possible. Since God
is omnipotent, He will ultimately triumph over sin and in doing so,
infinitely display His glory. God had the power to prevent sin, but if
He did, it would have minimized the display of His glory, which would
not have accomplished the most good. The display of His glory is the
ultimate good. The existence of evil will accomplish the maximum display
of His glory, therefore, it is because God is good that He has
allowed evil to hold temporary sway.
I have to say with Paul, “Oh, the depth of
the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are
His judgments and unfathomable His ways!. . . For from Him and through
Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.” (Romans
11:33,36)
Without Wax -
Jim Osman
Pastor/Teacher
Footnotes:
1. C.S. Lewis, Mere
Christianity (New York: Collier Macmillan, 1960, paperback), p. 45.
2. As quoted in Trusting God:
Even When Life Hurts by Jerry Bridges (Colorado Springs: Navpress),
p. 23.
3. Ibid.
4. David Clotfelter, Sinners in the
Hands of a Good God (Chicago: Moody Publishers), p. 41.
5. Ibid., pg. 48, footnote 13.
6. Ibid., p 242-243.
7. Ibid.
|
