Theodicy or merely defense? A Response to Dr. Jerry Wierwille on the Problems of Suffering and Evil
By Brandon Duke – 7/22/201
I very much respect and appreciate the work that Dr. Jerry Wierwille is doing in a series of Restitutio episodes promoting the Christian worldview. Because of that respect, and on account of our past dialog on the topic of suffering and evil in episodes 364 and 365 of the Restitutio podcast, I’ve been going through his presentation in Restitutio episode 397 “Why Christianity: Suffering and Evil”.
In an effort at constructive Christian discussion, I would like to offer some friendly (if stiff) critique.
We are all acquainted with the two problems of suffering and evil, even if we haven’t defined them in a formal way. We know from the news, and from history, that men do great evil to each other. We know friends and family who have experienced great suffering and loss, through sickness, aging, natural disasters, and accidents, what some call the 4 “D’s” of death, decay, damage, and deprivation.
(For more on the 4 “D’s”, check out episode 21 of The Reluctant Theologian Podcast featuring Max Baker-Hytch)
https://www.rtmullins.com/podcast/episode/1c8cc288/episode-21-god-evil-and-the-multiverse-with-max-baker-hytch
And some of us have known terrible suffering directly through our own sexual abuse, illness, loss of function, and other forms of profound loss. It is an inarguable fact of the human condition that ALL humanity has experienced or will experience some degree of suffering and evil throughout their life.
When we consider the Christian Bible’s description of God, as a loving, protective, caring, instructive, wise, benevolent, and powerful Father, it is not only natural for us to see an apparent contradiction between that account and the world we experience, we are compelled to do so. Enter the problem of suffering and evil: if the God of the Bible truly is a loving Father, how is it that so much suffering and evil exist? As Christians interested in the truth, it is not only natural to think about this apparent contradiction, we are compelled to respond to it.
However, some post-biblical Christian thinkers have made a “defense” of God, arguing in different ways, that it is either inappropriate, or insubordinate, or just ineffective to take up this topic. They argue that we are not in a good position to evaluate these things, that we lack adequate information to resolve the tension. They argue, in fact, that living with this apparent contradiction is a moral virtue and that any efforts to examine God’s revelation in Nature and Scripture, to justify God’s design and governance, are disrespectful, arrogant, and disobedient.
Other Christians, have offered their theodicy. The word theodicy is derived from the greek “theos” (God) and “dike” (justice), and is a term coined by famous Christian philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (although, the practice goes all the way back to the second Christian century, and is arguably also engaged in within the bible itself). A theodicy attempts to offer an explanation of how God is justified in creating and governing a world such as we experience. These theories expect an all powerful, all good, and all knowing God has some justification for allowing evil and suffering to occur, and expect that we are able to know about this justification to some degree.
I think we have good reasons from natural theology, and from biblical studies, to expect a theodicy to be available to us, if we seek it. I also have deep moral and apologetic concerns about the approach of Christian thinkers who argue instead for a “defense” only.
So in this context, I’d like to consider the treatment of the problems of evil and suffering in Episode 397 of Restitutio by Jerry Wierwille, and explain my concerns.
First, on several occasions Dr. Wierwille “poisons the well” against those who are troubled by the suffering we see: they are either supposedly not sincere, or they are immorally placing themselves over God.
18:30 “Most people are really not interested in understanding the answer. They just want a stick, that they can beat God with.” (No evidence for this is offered, and it is irrelevant to the substance of the problem.)
“People want someone to be responsible for it.” (Indeed, is not God ultimately responsible for his creation?)
“Most people don’t want to know the true answer to the question.” (Again, how would one know this, and what difference would it make?)
27:00 “We live in a world where the enemy is imposing suffering upon us. And sometimes God intervenes and does something, and other times he doesn’t. But to question whether God is good, is to put him to the test, in a way that we are NOT able to. We are not over God, we do not have our sense of justice to then put God on the stand and ask him why he does what he does.”
I think these critiques are both untrue, and regardless, unhelpful in offering a persuasive answer to the problem.
Secondly, and this is my greater concern, this presentation offers conflicting, and contradictory explanations for why suffering occurs.
13:11 “The problem is people. Evil and suffering come because of free will choices. Because the world has been corrupted by sin, that through the initial disobedience, through the fall. The world has been forever changed since then. However the world is not going to stay that way.”
26:00 “We do not understand everything that God does, we do not understand the entire way that God is working things out for the good of his people, to overcome the occupying power of this world, to defeat the enemy.”
Are Adam and Eve to blame for suffering? Are we today? Or the devil to blame? Or “sin” to blame? Or does God WANT us to suffer to test our trust? Is God unable to work things out to overcome the occupying power without suffering? Why not? No explicit answers are given.
And finally, the presentation concludes by arguing that an answer to why suffering exists is unavailble to the Christian, and additionally, that our role is to eschew an answer in (blind?) faith operating out of a lack of information.
23:50 “The answer that the Christian metanarrative gives, is that we don’t have to know every single why, to end up having a how. Because the how has been given to us.”
27:48 “What we know, is that in our suffering, God is there, with us, in it. And God will comfort us, and help us endure through that suffering. As long as we maintain our trust in him, then we will be on his side, and he will be there helping us through it. And even if the deliverance doesn’t come in this day and time, in this life, God promises he will make it all right, one day.”
The presentation argues that a Christian’s job is to ignore this question, because the suffering is temporary, and a purposeful test of our trust in God.
To illustrate his point, at 19:50, Dr. Wierwille references a parable, of a resistance fighter, who meets a stranger one night, who claims to be the leader of the resistance. The parable continues by describing the fighter’s conviction that this stranger actually is the leader of the resistance by the end of the night. It goes on to describe the conflicting reports of witnesses to the stranger in some cases helping the resistance fighter and his comrades, and in other cases, working against them. And it drives it’s point home, by elevating the constancy, the “faith” of the fighter in maintaining his trust in this stranger, regardless of his apparently contradictory behavior, and it deprecates the skepticism of his fellow fighters, as faithless short-sighted bickering. If they would only wait until the end of the campaign, they would see that both the fighter, and the stranger, will be vindicated.
I find this a deeply problematic view of God.
Note the distant, unclear, and confusing revelation the stranger offers to the partisan. He leans on the trust developed from that one meeting (charismatic experience?), rather than showing himself consistently true and faithful to the resistance through explanations of his actions. He is a mysterious, and shadowy figure, one that certainly is NOT in control of the situation, but a player in a world of deceit and conspiracy. This depiction of God implies God is weak and duplicitous, working in the shadows, unable to reveal himself clearly to the resistance for fear of exposure to the enemy.
Why would this member of the resistance not be reasonable and even accountable to challenge his assumption about the stranger, in order to protect his comrades fighting for the cause? As evidence against the “stranger” begins to stack up, the stranger could as easily be a double agent manipulating our protagonist.
But the entire point of the parable is for the partisan to ignore this evidence in favor of his one convicting experience of the stranger.
I pose to you, that mystery, charismatic experience, and fideism is not an answer to the problems of evil and suffering.
Wrapping up, Dr. Wierwille says: “We don’t focus on the suffering, the evil that is happening. That is not the only thing that exists in this world, because with God, there is something yet to happen.”
“The suffering and the evil has its time set for it. And one day God will eradicate that.”
(Why the delay? An explanation is needed that would help this defense.)
“That is the way the Christian looks at suffering and evil.”
Note the heavy reliance on balancing suffering with reward. But the value of the ultimate reward is no defence, if the suffering is otherwise unnecessary. No abusive father can say, “the one day of terrible abuse, is made null by the lifetime of love thereafter”.
My objective in this critique, is not to cast stones at Dr. Wierwille, whom I find a capable shepherd, a sincere Christian, and a personal friend. It is to point out that the approach offered is merely a defense, and not a theodicy, as we have defined the terms in the beginning. And the problem with offering a defense, rather than a theodicy, is it leaves us fundamentally in an untenable position, just as it did the resistance fighter in the parable. It leaves us without an explanation of how God is just.
I have my own theodicy that is on offer in Restitutio podcasts 362-365, and while it is still under construction, I’d prefer almost any theodicy to the approach taken in this presentation, which I think it blames the victim, avoids the question, and calls on people to live in a relationship with God based on uninformed trust.
This sort of thing may work for someone already convinced of their relationship with God, someone who isn’t directly experiencing intense suffering, someone who isn’t troubled by the problem. But I think it’s the wrong approach even for them. Suffering and evil will come for them soon, and they deserve to be prepared with a better answer that doesn’t sacrifice God’s goodness to his power, doesn’t obscure the clarity of his revelation, and that ties into his moral growth plan for their life.
For an introduction to some of the available theodicies on offer, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the subject:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#The
Episodes 362-365
https://restitutio.org/2020/10/22/362-why-god-allows-suffering-1-brandon-duke/
https://restitutio.org/2020/10/29/363-why-god-allows-suffering-2-brandon-duke/
https://restitutio.org/2020/11/05/364-challenging-soul-making-theodicy-1-brandon-duke-jerry-wierwille/
https://restitutio.org/2020/11/12/365-challenging-soul-making-theodicy-2-brandon-duke-jerry-wierwille/
The Britannica article on Theodicy
https://www.britannica.com/topic/theodicy-theology
I posted this on FB but thought I’d post it here too, Brandon your post made me think of all the Psalms of imprecation and despair at the events happening in the Psalmist’s life. He doesn’t hide those concerns and will directly call out to God and ask where he is and what he’s going to do about it. I think that should be a normal part of the Christian life no?
We shouldn’t just accept that things will get better and that’s it don’t focus on the pain. The Psalmists knew that God was powerful enough to respond to their prayers. And to me, the fact that we have so many of those types of Psalms at least implies God values those prayers that are addressing evil and suffering. He probably responds to those requests more than we even know. But what happens when we refuse to acknowledge them and put our requests to God?
I think, regarding petitionary prayer, we definitely have an enormous volume of biblical warrant to engage in it. But the question I’m trying to address is, why create the conditions where the default “setting” for the universe is suffering infused.
This is where soul making theodicy, and the “4 D’s” can be helpful, I think.
Is not part of the issue here that we are ‘distinct individuals’ that God is dealing with for eternal existence to come and pain and suffering is not a one size fits all to answer the question, but God’s focus is much more on individuals, being made in His image and likeness?
I think since the creation is operating on a single set of rules, we are right to ask why God is justified in setting rules such as we see. God is certainly interested in the well being of each of his creatures, but the question I’m posing and trying to answer is a macro one, rather than a micro one.
THEODICY
Definition of theodicy”
Merriam Webster, Dictionary: defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil.
Shame on those who think, for a twinkle of an eye, that he/she should or could defend God’s motives. I shudder when I look at words in the dictionary for theodicy. Think of the power of God and the frailty and SPIRITUAL IGNORANCE OF MANKIND, when you read these words of definition: DEFENSE OF THE GOODNESS OF GOD! It is impossible to defend perfection coming from THE IMMEASURABLE OMNIPOTENCE OF THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. How dare we think we can understand God and bring Him to answer our foolish thoughts and demands. Have we not seen His own answer to this never ending and never understanding question?
Read it here, He will introduce HIMSELF! I am the Lord, and there is none else.Isaiah 45: 7. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.] For the things people think they should defend about God, God takes all of the credit for. Because everything He creates, to man’s disapproval, He created it for an ultimate VICTORY, AND POWER AND GLORY FOR HIS CHILDREN WHO WILL BECOME THE FAMILY OF GOD FOR ETERNITY. Isaiah 55:8 Read His own words: For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 9: For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. That verse 9 makes me ashamed of myself for ever questioning God if I have done so. It still shocks me that the dumbest question that is possible to ask is still being asked. (DOES GOD EXIST?) Of course, only the most intelligent of us ask these kinds of questions. The rest of us live by FAITH knowing that SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE can only be revealed to the human mind and heart. SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE CAN NOT BE FIGURED OUT or UNDERSTOOD BY THE HUMAN CARNAL MIND!. Read the proof: 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. It is a shame that there is a word in the dictionary to defend God’s WORD AND WORK AND WAY. SPIRITUAL KNOWLEDGE IS REVEALED ONLY BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. It can not be defended! In the Beauty of Christ Jesus. God bless all and keep you safe and well and spiritually fed. Defend our own goodness!
1 Corinthians 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
Wow, a little intra-family drama for the audience there… Thank you Grandad for exemplifying exactly the kind of Reformed presuppositionalist fideism that I was advocating against in the post. I note also your anti-intellectual bias, which must come in very handy when you get into a topic you don’t understand, and don’t want to spend the time to understand. Your inability to distinguish between my efforts at seeking God’s answers to an important question, and some kind of dishonest, blinded, DEPRAVED state, is the fount of many horrible and abusive teachings. That same inability, found within Augustine, and Calvin, has damaged untold lives, through the twisted version of faith it demands. That same inability, has spawned harmful and false doctrinal packages, that the Restorationist movement has a responsibility to examine and discard.
You should know better, I’ve heard you teach better. You should understand what I’m saying, and I trust you can.
Why would a good, powerful, and wise God make or permit a world with suffering innocent babies, with Alzheimer’s and multiple sclerosis, with tragic accidents and sudden early death? This is a reasonable, sane, responsible question. And the answers offered by DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS, are what we are challenging here, NOT GOD HIMSELF. We are testing doctrines to see which are of men, and if any are of the creator God. It is NOT an arrogant task, it is a HUMBLE task, one where we submit our assumptions and inherited teachings to the test, to see if they match up with a God worth worshipping.
Now, as I have said, I think this test finds much of the Protestant doctrinal package wanting. This causes many to throw out the test, because they don’t like the results. But if we are honest truth seekers, we have a responsibility to follow the evidence where it leads, and if for example, the doctrines of inherited guilt, fallen human “sin” nature, amd total depravity… so be it. There have been Christians before those doctrines were voiced, and there have been Christians since who did not pay them heed.
We don’t need these artifacts from Manichaeism and Gnosticism and Greek philosophy, to explain suffering. The bible offers a better answer: God is growing children into morally mature citizens of his coming eternal kingdom. That process requires them to become capable of living God’s way of life. And that requires experience applying God’s teaching in practice. And that requires a world with freedom to make choices, reliability so we can reasonably anticipate outcomes, and high stakes that fill those choices with meaning.
God mercifully provides a final end to our suffering through death, he imbues our decisions with importance by allowing damage, he gives us the opportunity to be satisfied (and to satisfy others needs) through the possibility of deprivation, and he sets an upper limit to our suffering through decay.
This intense period of development is sometimes called “soul making” by those that think about these things. But substitute any phrase you like. This lifetime has meaning, as defined by the biblical promise of an eternal life CONDITIONAL on becoming trustworthy children of God. And this lifetime of suffering, can make sense, if we consider for a moment what God is trying to accomplish with it.