Saturday, March 29, 2008
The ‘Biggest’ Problem—“How could a good God allow suffering?”
One of the most powerful objections to God is the reality of suffering. It is usually stated something like this: Suffering shows that either God is not powerful enough to end evil and suffering or He is not good enough to care about ending evil and suffering.
This objection is weighty to most and appears hard to handle, but Keller points out a central flaw in this thinking and then goes beyond it to emphasize how Christianity offers hope to those in the midst of suffering (and may not be immediately interested in the philosophy!)
The basic flaw
When a person says that evil and suffering seem pointless what that person is really saying is that evil and suffering seem pointless to me. Keller writes it this way, “if evil appears pointless to me, then it is pointless.”
The problem is one of perspective and insight. “Just because you can’t see or imagine a good reason why God might allow something to happen doesn’t mean that there can’t be one.”
There are many illustrations of this. The story of Joseph in the Bible is one. All sorts of bad things happened to him. And in the end we see that if all those bad years wouldn’t have happened, Joseph wouldn’t have been prepared to do all the good he did in the end. Move beyond the Bible and many people today have similar stories. Looking back there are many admissions that the greatest strength for life was often developed during the deepest times of suffering. There are reasons people don’t see from within a period of suffering.
The skeptics who complain against God because of this problem don't have a suitable answer. They want what is right and just. But what is good? How does anyone determine what is evil? Without God they have no basis for deciding what is right and good and just or evil and unjust. It’s mere opinion.
And yet saying that suffering may have a reason we don’t understand but that God does, doesn’t always help a person who is suffering. They want to know why? They want to know that the suffering isn’t in vain.
Resources and hope to handle suffering
The reality of Christ becoming man and suffering death on the cross and being raised again on the third day helps us. The death of Jesus was far worse than we can ever imagine for his death was not merely physical, but spiritual as well. The cry on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” is the culmination of suffering that is far worse than anything you or I will experience.
One woman told Keller that his philosophical answers didn't get God off the hook. The message of Christianity is that Jesus got on the hook, in our place. An innocent man suffering the worst possible.
But why?
The cross doesn't show us all the reasons, but is shows us one that cannont be true.
Suffering isn’t because he doesn’t love us. The message of Christianity is that God loves people so much that Jesus died for us. Even if we don’t understand how or why God is doing something, we can understand that it isn’t that He doesn’t love us. (Too many double negatives—He does love us!!!!)
Nor is suffering in vain. The resurrection gives hope to suffering. For when Jesus rose again, he gave signal to a future renewal. Not a paradise where the present sufferings are made up for. But a new earth and a new heaven. Keller puts it this way, “The future is not just a consolation for the life you never had but a restoration of the life you always wanted."
For anyone who suffers, the Christian answer is, "Look at Jesus. I probably don't understand or empathize nearly enough. How could I? But Jesus does. He knows suffering. Look to Him for hope and for help."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Great post. I might pick up the book as it seems interesting. Nice blog!
Dan: Here's a great 5 minute plug for Tim Kellers's book and ministry. Perhaps you could imbed this You Tube Video in your next post. Great post's..I'm buying the book!
Dave
Thanks Dave for the heads up about the video. I've added a link in the sidebar.
Apologetics easily turn in to a semantics game.
Keller's proof is contingent on the reader sharing the same basic logic structure as he.
There are certain ideas, the most base kind of ideas, that everyone lives through. I think of them as rules; they form the bounds of how one thinks. If someone operates in a different reality than someone with an agenda (an agenda isn't a "bad" thing), the convincer will make no progress because everything can be broken down to the base rules.
Hmmm thats it for now.
C
Maxdesa,
You are entirely correct, without shared semantics, it all breaks down. I learned this as epistimology (how you know and how you know you know).
But so does all communication.
It sounds really intriguing and 'up there' in the realm of ideas, but it breaks down when you want someone to pass you the crackers for the chili.
It seems the hardest area of thinking/philosophy for me to do the technical homework in, but it is absolutely foundational to how we live.
grace
Dan
Post a Comment