As Scripture indicates, each Christian should be ready to
give both a credible answer and a sensitive,
listening ear to important questions such as “why does God allow suffering?” A
credible answer alone may provide little more than some intellectual comfort,
while a listening ear alone could still lead to despair. The grieving mother is
not seeking after stock answers, just as much as the cynic is not after
sympathy. There are no answers in vacuums.
There are many places a Christian might go to help explain
the role of suffering. Yet all apologetic responses must be able to live at the
cross. Not only should answers be able to live there, but the best responses are
able to lead us there. For instance, a God who only allows suffering, yet
without purpose, is not the God displayed at the cross. The cross demonstrates
that the goal of God is not to give witty answers to problematic apologetic
questions. The cross provides a solution, not merely slick answers. At the same
time, the cross must be intimately related to the answers we choose to give.
But to take a step back, the assertion that “if the God of
the Bible existed, there would be no suffering” is missing a key element of the
argument often overlooked. For if there was no suffering in the world, that
would provide a strong case for the atheism; for the God of the Bible promises
suffering. Therefore, what the assertion has ignored is that the Bible
describes a world where both God and suffering co-exist. The assertion would
only be valid if the Bible portrayed a world where the existence of God had
precluded the existence of suffering. Yet, as is patently obvious, the Bible is
saturated with accounts of suffering. The space between the first and last two
chapters of Scripture contains little respite from the presence of human
suffering.
Therefore, the argument must be moved back another step.
Though Scripture might be accurate in its portrayal of a world where suffering
exists, while maintaining the existence of God it the midst, the concept of God
(as described in the Bible) is presented as being incompatible with the presence
of suffering. The two are seen as paradoxical.
While there are a number of answers that can and should be
presented from the Biblical data, there is one angle that I believe is very
important, and largely unexplored to my knowledge. It is the angle of the culture
that asks the question. Tim Keller provides some very interesting material on
unpacking worldviews when responding to objections in ‘The Reason For God’.
While we might believe that the objection to God from suffering is universally
valid, we should be aware of the extent to which our worldview is in play. For
the assertion that suffering disproves the existence of God, is largely asked
by those living in the affluent west. Western society has made great strides to
minimalize the amount of suffering we encounter. Medicine and our understanding
of healthcare have advanced. We understand diet. Food is readily available.
Education is commonplace and offered to all. Governments put policies in place
to provide finance for those unable to work. Houses are sturdily built. Famines
are non-existent. Wars happen on the other side of the world. We are well
clothed and provided for. Not to mention, I am not likely to witness anything
that would classify as a serious flood, hurricane, tornado, tidal wave, volcano
or earthquake. We have done our best to eradicate suffering. Of course, we will
all witness disease and death during our lifetimes. Perhaps poverty,
homelessness, mental illness and loneliness. And many of us will at least
indirectly witness the horrors of the world. But you understand the point. It
would not be unusual to live 80 years, be financially secure, well fed, have
family and friends, all without witnessing much beyond the garden variety
struggles of human experience.
For us, suffering is not normal. It is to be avoided, not
expected. When we encounter it, something must be wrong with the world. Our
entire existence is based around comfort and the absence of struggle. When you
shape your worldview that way, you will also shape your God that way. If life
is about comfort, then our idea of God will revolve around him desiring and
maintaining our comfort. Therefore, the presence of suffering provides an
objection to God. We match our idea of God to our expectations for life. “My
expectations are that I live a healthy, wealthy life, therefore God’s desires
must match mine. If God does not give me these things, he must not exist.”
There is the potential for us to create a cushy and selfish idea of God. We end
up with people converting to atheism because they caught a cold that forced
them to miss their theatre trip. I realize that this isn’t true of everyone,
and many affluent people can still experience horrors that genuinely question
their belief in God. Though I still believe that the general observation is
valid.
Is it not interesting that these objections are pushed in
societies that suffer the least? For when we examine the growth of
Christianity, we notice how much of the church’s growth is found in the midst
of suffering and persecution. This was true of Jesus’ first disciples right
through to the present day. If suffering provided a robust objection to God,
then it is interesting to note the extent to which reality seems to defy
theory.
Along similar lines, almost all of the Biblical characters
suffered all kinds of atrocious experiences, yet not once does the Bible record
them questioning the existence of God. Indeed, many questions are recorded (why
do righteous people suffer? Is suffering a divine punishment? Does suffering
reflect that the world is soon to end? Will God avenge the victims of
suffering?) but the people involved never see suffering as incompatible with
God.
Indeed, if the theory were true, what would we expect to see
in reality? All theories of reality should be tested against the reality they
seek to critique. If it were true that suffering provided a solid objection to
God then we should expect to discover that religious adherence would correlate to
suffering. That in areas where suffering is greater, belief in God is
diminished. This is simply untrue. In fact a case could be made that belief in
God geographically (and, to an extent, historically) increases with suffering.
If we, Christians included, have created a God whose primary
mission is to relieve us of problems (like some divine handyman), then it is no
surprise that we have given rise to the belief that suffering and God are incompatible.
And it is frankly a little cheeky to suggest that the my subscription to theism
depends upon God upholding my comfort, whilst the suffering masses of our world
remain firm in their adherence to God.
