The Problem of Suffering

Suffering is an undeniable part of the human experience. In philosophy, we equate suffering with evil, which—interestingly enough—is not a concrete connection that I make theologically. The problem with this sort of “evil,” philosophically speaking, is that it is extremely difficult (impossible, even) to reconcile the conflict with the nature of God and the presence of evil in the form of human suffering. How can a God who is all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-good (omnibenevolent) allow suffering to persist, especially in the measure at which it persists in our world?

This conflict between the reality of the human experience and the claim of Judeo-Christian believers regarding the nature of God has been a stumbling block for many people throughout history. I, myself, have been asked, “How can I believe in a God who would allow such things?”

And I’ll be honest: my heart empathizes with those who ask this. I want to cry out to God and say, “You could stop all of this, you know!” It really just doesn’t make any sense.

Philosophers and theologians alike have tried to craft logical solutions to the conflict. We call these solutions “theodicies.” A British religious philosopher by the name of John Hick developed what has become one of the most well-known theodicies over the years: the soul-making theodicy. Simply put, he proposes that human suffering is the tool or framework that provides the necessary conditions for humans to experience spiritual formation, moving them toward the image of God. (His full perspective is certainly more complex than this, but I am attempting to summarize his theodicy without chasing the trail of his full theology.)

Hicks’ theodicy has a number of flaws that I find irreconcilable, but for the sake of brevity, I will discuss only two of them here today:

First, Hick’s view proposes that human suffering is the will and design of God. If it is necessary in order to bring individuals into closer proximity to himself, which is according to his will or desire, then suffering must be by his design. This is incongruous with his benevolent nature. Anyone who has ever witnessed true and deep suffering firsthand understands experientially that to inflict such suffering is not a benevolent act. Indeed, this reality is part of the “problem of evil” in the first place. Hick’s theory does not solve the conflict between the reality of evil and the benevolent nature of God.

I propose instead that God redeems such suffering, reclaiming it from the power of evil and using it for good. James 1:2-4 speaks of the power of trials and tribulations in the formation of one’s faith, and the Apostle Paul’s life and ministry are a testament to the formative value of suffering. But formation comes not from the suffering itself, but from our response to it. Yielded and surrendered to God, even the worst experiences can be redeemed and made holy. (Isaiah 61:3)

Second, suffering was not part of God’s original design for creation. It was introduced as a consequence only after humans made the choice to listen to and believe the voice of someone other than God. The perfection of God’s original creation is detailed in the creation narratives in the first two chapters of Genesis, and suffering—including the first sacrificial death—is introduced in the “fall” narrative in chapter three.

Hick, however, denies a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-3, claiming instead that humans were created as less than perfect with a need for continual progress toward the divine image. Suffering, then, was inherent in creation as the catalyst for that progress. Hick’s view again works against the view of God as omnibenevolent, for if God looked at all of his creation and called it “good,” as described in Genesis 1, and that creation included suffering, then he has called “good” that which is evil. This is in itself a malevolent act, rendering omnibenevolence void.

If God is truly all-good, he cannot have included suffering in his original design for creation.

God did, however, include in his design of humankind the element of free will. The freedom to choose. And in order to have the freedom to choose, there must be options to choose from. He gave humankind two: to choose God, to choose to believe that his instructions were good and that his words were true, which would result in one “consequence” or outcome; or to choose to believe the words of another, who claimed that God was a liar, which would result in an entirely different consequence.

Belief motivates actions, and anyone who has read Genesis 3 knows whose words humankind chose to believe. They chose to believe the “other” and they acted on that belief.

With that one act, the perfection of creation was broken, and it couldn’t be undone. What seemed like one tiny crack shattered the entire reality, and humankind will live with the consequence until the end of time.

That consequence is suffering.

Suffering in the form of disease and sickness and the breakdown of the human body.

Suffering in the form of natural disaster and the breakdown of the natural world.

Suffering in the form of humans hurting and abusing one another and the breakdown of the human soul.

Suffering was not part of God’s design for the world. He created a world of perfection for us, but we chose to trade it away on the chance that he was lying to us.

In his omnipotence, God could remove our suffering, undoubtedly. But part of his goodness to us is his consistent adherence to his word. He promised that to choose to believe a voice other than his would have deep consequences, and now we are living with the consistent application of those consequences.

But in his goodness, God has also entered into our consequences with us—he has entered into our suffering and has not let us suffer alone. (Philippians 2:6-8) He has entered our suffering so that by it, we may be made whole again. (Isaiah 53:5) He has entered our suffering so that suffering itself one day will be abolished. (Revelation 21:1-4)

I know it is so very hard to reconcile the reality of suffering with the concept of a good and powerful God, especially when the suffering is deep and when the evil seems so overwhelming. Most theodicies seem grossly inadequate in the face of true suffering. I don’t pretend to have the perfect answer to the conflict, but I do know that I can’t place the “guilt” of suffering on God’s shoulders. God’s goodness is not nullified by the reality of suffering; it is heightened by his willingness to enter into it with us. Nor does suffering prove him impotent; Jesus’ victory over death and the grave have already proven the power that will be on display when God determines that suffering has had its last word. That day will come, rest assured.

Today I want to leave you with these words from 1 Peter, words of hope written to a group of people who were well-acquainted with suffering:

Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls. ~ 1 Peter 1: 3-9