God and Human suffering:A Critique of Keith Ward’s Theodicy

God and Human Suffering: A Critique of Keith Ward’s Theodicy

1. INTRODUCTION..............................................32. THEODICY..................................................32.1.THEODICY IN THE BIBLE....................................43. INDEPENDENCE..............................................64. GOD’S OMNIPOTENCE.........................................85. GOD’S OMNISCIENCE.........................................96. GOD’S OMNIBENEVOLENCE....................................107. SUFFERING................................................127.1.SUFFERING AS EVIL.......................................167.2.NATURAL EVIL............................................188. CONCLUSION...............................................19BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................22

2

1.Introduction

The concepts of evil and suffering are difficult subjects for

both Christians and non-Christians and constitute key issues

in church Doctrine.

There are different ways to look for answers, and in the

present essay I approach the subject with a pastoral context

in mind. The method chosen is through a critical appraisal of

Keith’s Ward theodicy, which attempts to provide a plausible

reason for the existence of evil and suffering in the world

and explain the implications of independence in God’s

creation. Evil here is used in a wider sense and includes

suffering originating from natural and human sources, rather

than the specific result of Satan’s work.

I refer to God using a masculine pronoun, which is not based

on a specific theological argument but rather a personal

choice.

2.Theodicy

Before looking at Keith Ward it is necessary to establish a

context for theodicy. The etymology of the word derives from

3

the Greek θεος and δική. In the late 18th century Leibniz was

the first to use the term.1 He wanted to show that evil in the

world does not conflict with the goodness of God, and when

considering the many evils in the world, the world is the best

of all possible worlds.

Theodicy attempts to justify the evidential problem of evil

and suffering in the world and demonstrate that God’s

existence is still possible. The belief in God’s natural

demonstrability is called Theism.2 This demonstrability of

God’s existence refers to creation, maintenance and government

of the world, how God co-operates with activity of creatures,

and the working of miracles.3 Those hoping to show God’s

existence as contradictory and irrational often use the

problem of evil to disprove the existence of God.4 Theodicy

also investigates questions relating to God’s nature, volition

and action.5

1 Essais de Théodicée sur la bonte de Dieu, la liberté de l’homme et l’origine du mal2 Derived from the Greek θεος.3 Both Hume and Kant actively criticized theism and in recent years theologians such as J.L. Mackie and William Rowe have also agreed with this. 4 M. M. Adams, (1999) Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God, p.13.5 J. Mackie, (1971) 'Evil and Omnipotence', in Mitchell, B. (ed.) The Philosophy of Religion, p.92.

4

As mentioned previously, Leibniz first developed theodicy as a

concept, but its roots can be found in the traditions of St

Augustine and St Irenaeus as mentioned by John Hick.6 His own

‘soul-making’ theodicy can be traced back to St Irenaeus.

Hick’s theism follows a similar line of thought to Alvin

Plantinga, and they have an affinity with the system

formulated by Swinburne. He attempted to justify God and

preserve his righteousness by creating an explanation

analytically and clinically, and establishing an impersonal

examination of human suffering.7 Swinburne is an important

influence in Ward’s own theodicy.

2.1. Theodicy in the Old Testament

Although we are not able to find a clear concept of theodicy

in the Bible,8 ‘various solutions are proffered’9 in terms of

of God and the evil of human suffering.10 Brueggemann mentions

this can be considered as part of a primary theodicy and the

6 J. Hick, (1966) Evil and the Love of God.7 P. Cotterell, (1996) Is God Helpless? Suffering and the Sovereignity of God, p.3.8 T. Inbody, (1997) The Transforming God: An Interpretation of Suffering and Evil, p.38.9 Berger quoted in Inbody (1997), p.38.10 Inbody, 1997, p.38.

5

emergence of several alternative theodicies in the Old

Testament.

There are several passages in the Old testament that from

early on mention the accounts of people of Israel, who in face

of moral and natural evil struggle with the question of the

suffering, which they mainly explain as a result of ‘human

sinfulness’.11 Based on this they cannot comprehend the

suffering innocent and the prosperity of the wicked and find

God wrathful and question his goodness.12 The book of Job

examines the existing tension between a providential and

loving God of the tradition, and the distressing presence of

suffering in human lives.13 Job echoes our own lives, and in

face of unexpected suffering he does not comprehend why he

suffers. The author of Job was convinced that a rational

analysis would not explain Job’s suffering, and his faith was

not able to provide relief from the suffering. Job was not

aware of the cosmic drama that was taking place between God

and Satan.14

11 Ibid.12 Ibid.13 J. E. Thiel, (2002) God, Evil, and Innocent Suffering.14 D. Harrington, (2000) Why do we Suffer? A Scriptural Approach to the Human Suffering, p.4.

6

God also seems to suffer as a result of the people’s rejecting

him as Lord; suffers with the people who are suffering; and

suffers for the people. I shall look at the question of the

suffering of God further along this essay.

The term evil in the Old Testament can be used as synonymous

with suffering, which can be the result of a moral evil, due

to humankind’s volition or a physical evil related to nature.

In the New Testament we find an incarnational suffering by

God, as observed by Moltmann.15

Ward’s theodicy could have benefited from more biblical

references. The Bible, particularly the Old Testament,

interacts with the concept of theodicy of free will at its

deepest level, and it blames moral and natural evil on the

misuse of free will. This is an accepted view amongst

theologians and I believe it is behind Keith Ward’s concept of

‘Independence',16 which I will develop next.

3.Independence

15 J. Moltmann, (1974) The Crucified God.16 R. Alcorn, (2009) If Good is Good, pp.239-250.

7

Is there independence in God’s creation? Ward deals with this

question by using elements that can be found in Swinburne’s

theodicy, such as God’s necessary nature and God’s goal of

creating independent human beings for a certain kind of love,

but with a stronger emphasis. According to Ward, in the act of

Creation God made some choices that have several reasons

behind them. One possible reason is that ‘they possess

intrinsic value or goodness’.17 Ward further observes that

classical theism disagrees with this view by arguing that God

is impassible and not able to relate or experience happiness

or sadness towards humankind, a view that was also defended by

Aquinas.

Ward argues that one of the potential reasons for creation was

to create subjects with an independent existence. This is

essential for finite persons to learn, understand and control

the world, which in turn sustains beings that are truly

independent and autonomous.18 There are values which can only

be realized in a world of finite beings, which otherwise would

17 Ward, 2007, p.21.18 K. Ward (2006) Pascal’s Fire: Scientific Faith and Religious Understanding, p.41; Ward, (2007) Divine Action: Examining God's Role in an Open and Emergent Universe, pp. 67-68; p.74; p.217.

8

not have existed.19 Ward considers that a world that was

totally determined by God would be over controlling. If we are

to consider radical freedom for humankind it is essential to

have a certain level of indeterminism, which means that the

future of human beings it is not strictly pre-destined. In

face of different scenarios we are able to choose different

outcomes laid out by God. Ward rejects determinism’s

philosophical position that there is only one possible and

decided future.20

Ward shares Swinburne’s belief that God wants to intervene in

the world by making himself known and entering into a

relationship with humankind. This creates the difficult

question why God intervenes through miracles and heals people

at times, but leaves others’ cry for help unanswered. Based on

Christ’s Resurrection, believing in miracles is essential to

Christian belief, although we are left speculating why God

only steps in on specific occasions.

Ward argues that the spirit of God ‘is not an occasional

interferer with nature or a divine compensation for the

19 Ward, 2007, p.25.20 A. O. Sovik (2011) The Problem of Evil and the Power of God, p.40.

9

failure of physical laws’.21 Ward mentions that if God was to

intervene all the time it would have consequences, due to the

interconnectedness of the world. Also, this would clash with a

world he wants to be independent. As we do not know the

reasoning behind God’s decision to intervene we can pray and

ask him to ‘step in’ as this is not a breach of our

independence. According to Ward the power of petitionary

prayer is able to change the world around us and it should not

be underestimated.22 Although God does not force his way, at

times he helps or heals specific individuals without

interfering or disrupting the system. The reasoning behind

this intervention is beyond our comprehension. We do hear

about and witness miracles taking place throughout the world,

but comparatively less than in Jesus’ time; I agree with Sovik

who says that God only manifested himself so openly in order

to ‘offer a revelation to those who seek it.’23 If we accept

that the aim of our existence is to enter into a relationship

with God, he shows us ways how to engage in that relationship

by manifesting himself, which he did in a very special way

21 Ward, 1998, p.107.22 Ward, 2007, pp.158-159.23 Sovik, 2012, p.22.

10

through the resurrection of his Son.24

God is behind the freedom and wants to sustain it, but what we

do not know is what he allows in order to preserve it.25 Ward

follows Swinburne’s view that divine intervention in the world

does not contradict natural sciences and physical laws, and

argues the difficulty is in understanding causality. God is

able to perform specific divine acts in a law-like world,26 but

generally speaking does not interfere, as it would be too

disruptive.27 Natural sciences have shown how the world is

interconnected and any interventions would have consequences.

God could potentially intervene without affecting this

balance, but he generally chooses not to. As Sovik mentions,

God can use openings in the system as an opportunity to act

without disturbing the independence of his creatures.28 God’s

love for his creation means that he respects humankind’s

independence insofar as there are consequences to his

intervention over natural occurrences, which he avoids. In

this sense it is not possible to know in full God’s

24 R. Swinburne, (2007) Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, p.112.25 K. Ward, (2007), p.54.26 Ward quoted in Sovik (2011), p.40.27 Ward, 2006, p.123.28 Sovik, 2011, p.42.

11

intervention in the world.

4.God’s Omnipotence

God is the Creator of the Universe; therefore he must be

behind everything that happens. According to Ward many people

consider God as omnipotent and able to do anything at all,

which generates contradictions.29 He states that although God

is the source of all possibilities, if we are to consider

causality there are laws of physics that generate different

states and they are not isolated. God would not intend for a

person to die crushed by a rock, but it could happen as a

result of a volcanic eruption. In order to prevent this God

would have to intervene in several ways but this rises above

the laws of physics.30 Ward uses the analogy of the garden

where the weeds have to be removed in order to be kept

pristine and ultimately it means that 'the good of the

whole... requires harming some of the part’.31 In other words,

it means that in order to achieve a greater purpose there are

events that will cause suffering but will eventually achieve a

29 K. Ward (1998) God, Faith and the New Millenium: Belief in an Age of Science, Oxford: Oneworld, p.42.30 Ward, 1998, p.103.31 Ward, 1998, p.104.

12

greater good. As these events take place, God is not just an

observer, as 'the system cannot exist, even for a second,

without God.'32 He is not reduced to randomly interfering with

nature or compensating 'for failure of physical laws',33 and

his actions are not just the result of interaction with

'physical phenomena'.34

Ward acknowledges the difficulty that many people face who see

God as cruel or indifferent. This is in part the reasoning

behind what he calls 'the fallacy of omnipotence'.35 God could

use his power to create a perfect universe without suffering,

and as a result it becomes extremely difficult to comprehend

the existence of suffering. Ward states that this is a

'fallacy' and a 'mistake' 36 as shown by science, and 'we

should not think of God as able to intend absolutely anything

at all.’37 The processes behind these connections remain a

mystery, and it is beyond our comprehension what it means to

create out of nothing, how it is done, and if there are

restrictions. Therefore we must be careful when saying that 32 Ward, 1998, p.104.33 Ward, 1998, p.107.34 Ward, 1998, p.89.35 Ward, 1998, p.94.36 Ward, 1998, p.94.37 Ward, 1998, p.94.

13

God could or could not have done something.38

5.God’s Omniscience

If God is omniscient it means that he has full knowledge of

everything in existence and is able to have total empathy with

feelings of creatures and feel their pain, but it is not his

pain. ‘God cannot experience things as I do… but will know

and appreciate exactly what it is like [to experience my pain]

… God will always choose the happiness of creatures’.39 In the

midst of much pain and suffering Ward reflects on how can we

believe that 'God loves and cares for individuals'.40

According to the doctrine of impassibility, God does not

depend for his happiness and perfection upon any created

world; therefore God’s happiness is not increased by creation,

although this does not mean that God is a ‘cosmic sadist’41

inflicting suffering at his whim. In Ward’s opinion Christians

believe that even if the universe has been corrupted it still

contains 'good things' originated from God.42 In my view God’s

38 Sovik, 2012, p.23.39 Ward, 2007, pp.25-26.40 Ward, 1998, p.97.41 Ward, 2007, p.25.42 Ward, 1998, p.97.

14

omniscience is not quite as straightforward as traditionally

assumed. We know something that God will never be able to

know; that is we know what it is to be wrong.43 If we consider

God to be omnipotent there are no limits to his knowledge and

therefore he knows all the possibilities. But he does not

interfere and respects our independence by giving us the

freedom to choose which one we will follow. The options and

outcomes are pre-determined, but our choice is not.

6.God’s Omnibenevolence

Ward states the impossibility of God deliberately inflicting

suffering or originating the actions of human beings who go

against moral laws, as this implies that 'God intends the very

same thing that God forbids, which is nonsensical.44 Ward

argues that 'This universe is one in which much sufferings

exists, and many evil actions, harming other sentient beings

and destroying natural processes, are performed.'45 The direct

consequence of this line of thought is that if we maintain the

belief in God as creator of the whole universe he is also the

creator of these destructive acts, which in turn goes against

43 Cotterell, 1996, p.18.44 Ward, 1998, p.91.45 Ward, 1998, p.91.

15

the belief in a benevolent God. If we believe that God created

humankind with freedom, the only way to stop destruction and

evil would be for God to interfere with this freedom. With

freedom comes the possibility of choosing evil, which God does

not prevent, but which clearly goes against God's purpose for

humankind to use freedom to grow in love and wisdom. According

to Ward conflict and suffering are an integral part of the

universe and coexist with altruistic and selfless values, but

they cannot be blamed on God. Ward further elaborates that

there is an intention from God to create good 'But there may

be many states in this universe that God does not intend, many

states that God forbids (but does not prevent), and many

states that God actively opposes’.46 This is part of the

possibilities of the universe and therefore God does not

interfere.

Ward acknowledges that it is important to distinguish between

people crying in agony over something that they cannot

comprehend and the contradiction central to theistic belief.

This requires theists to elaborate the lack of contradiction

in the belief in a good and omnipotent God.47 As McGrath 46 Ward, 1998, p.93.47 Ward, 2007, p.39.

16

mentions, God’s love is not the result of indulgent

benevolence constantly smiling at our whims, not asking if

they are innocent or profoundly destructive, displaying a

generosity, granting us what we want.48 Instead God invites us

to transform ourselves and to reshape our desires towards

things that are for our greater good, knowing that God will

not fulfill all our needs and hopes. I share Ward’s view that

the ultimate goal for humanity is to have a relationship with

God and be reunited with him. God can work through suffering

in ways that are not always apparent, and it is neither an end

in itself or permanent, but the means to a greater end.

7.Suffering

Why can’t God abolish suffering altogether? It is a problem

that poses difficult questions, with answers that are often

notable only by their absence or inadequacy. For many

Christians as it gives a feeling of hopelessness with many

saying that there is no way of explaining all the pain and

suffering in the world.49 Strangely this problem has not been

48 A. McGrath, (1973) Why Does God Allow Suffering?, p.27.49 Ward, 2007, p.38.

17

traditionally considered as particularly important and Thomas

Aquinas in his Summae gives it very little attention.

If God does not desire suffering why do we suffer now? Is it

morally wrong that God created a world that contains so much

suffering, as nothing exists without the will of God?

Suffering comes from natural causes (Natural Evil), or as a

result of my actions, and as a result of other people’s

actions (Moral Evil). This is not linear and they can overlap.

Swinburne sums up Moral Evil as ‘negligently failing to do

what they believe to be good… and also the bad states

constituted by such deliberate actions or negligent failure.’50

God overcomes this suffering by offering eternal happiness,

and this outweighs evil and suffering. God loves his creation

and engages in relationships with human beings, taking 'the

risk of rejection and suffering.'51 Ward observes that we need

a more subtle account of Divine Action.52 Based on this Ward

states that 'on the basis of the distinctive revelation of the

nature of God in Jesus… the creator is a loving God.'53 When

assuming a human nature in Christ, God shows his utmost care 50 R. Swinburne, (1998) Providence and the Problem of Evil, p.4.51 Ward, 1998, p.99.52 Ward, 2007, p.50.53 Ward, 1998, p.100.

18

for human dignity, and the suffering caused is needed to

display such good in the world. McGrath agrees with this and

describes how the Christian faith is focused on pain and

suffering through the cross of Christ. He further observes

that as a result ‘Christianity does not evade the pain and

sorrow of suffering’.54 This is a key thought to establish a

Christian understanding of suffering. At the same time we must

not limit the cross to the suffering of Christ, but ensure

that we give the overcoming of death and the hope of the

resurrection a central role. The emphasis on the theology of

the cross is very much influenced by what Surin calls

‘incarnational faith’.55 Christian theists affirm that God

cannot undergo suffering ‘since to suffer is to be passive to

the action of something which acts on one to bring about a

change of a certain kind’.56 Rather than asking ‘what does

Christ’s death mean for us’, Moltmann asks ‘what does the

cross mean for God?’ The discussion around the possibility of

God being able to experience suffering is different from the

character of God.

54 McGrath, 1973, p.1.55 K. Surin, (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, p.154.56 B. Davies, (2006) The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil, p.25.

19

Theologians such as Brassnett,57 Moltmann,58Fiddes59 argue that

God does suffer, based on the understanding that the Father

suffers with the Son on the cross, and this is deeply

ingrained in the selfless act of love. In the light of the

resurrected Jesus, human suffering is radically transformed

through the Holy Spirit. According to them, in order for God

to be fully accepted by human beings he must be able to

experience suffering, and in this sense he is affected by

evil.60 As God’s nature is love, God’s suffering is not forced

upon him but he willingly assumes it out of love.61 God’s

passibility originates from his wilingness to create human

beings and to love them even if that means suffering with them

and because of them.62In Moltmann’s opinion Christianity offers

a suffering God revealed in the person of Christ. Bonhoffer

who died in a concentration camp also shares Moltmann’s view

and said that ‘Only the suffering of God can help.’63 Ward

argues that by allowing free will in creation, God freely

57 B. R. Brasnett, (1928) Suffering of the Impassible God.58 J. Moltmann, (1992) History and The Triune , p.3; Moltmann, 1974, p.203.59 P. S. Fiddes, (1988) The Creative Suffering of God.60 Davies, 2006, p.25.61 Weinandy, 2000, p.1162 Weinandy, 2000, p.1163 Bonhoffer, quoted in Weinandy, 2000, p.6.

20

opened himself up to the world, and that included its

sorrows.64 The danger of this view is that by attributing

suffering to God it projects a certain degree of human

personality onto God.65Therefore, it must not imply inner

emotional anguish or distress, or that God has been affected

by evil, but rather it emphasises the truth that God’s

goodness is contrary to all that opposes good and he is able

to embrace those who are suffering due to sin and evil.66

Because suffering is closely associated with an emotional

state of discomfort in the face of evil, when applied to God

it should be considered within the attributes of his

compassion, grief and sorrow.67 As a counter argument to God’s

suffering Adams points out that ‘it is metaphysically

impossible for God to have our emotions simply by virtue of

feeling our feeling’.68 She further argues that whilst we need

God’s presence in our suffering we also need him to keep his

composure in order to help us to experience good in the evils

we experience.69

64 K. Ward, (1996) Religion & Creation, pp.249-250.65 H. W. Robinson, (1940) Suffering Human and Divine, p.167.66 Weinandy, 2000, p.169.67 Weinandy, 2000, p.170.68 Adams, 1999, p.172.69 Adams, 1999, p.172.

21

Karl Barth argues that evil that exists in human suffering

and therefore it is not possible for human beings to establish

a theodicy that is able to express the ‘goodness of God’,70 as

only the crucifixion can can establish the goodness of God.71

This is Incarnational Suffering as we take up our own cross

and follow Jesus.

In my opinion God's plans were for humankind to maintain

loving relationships with God and one another, but with

freewill comes pain and suffering which God could not

eliminate altogether because that would mean interfering. This

does not mean that he is impassive to this suffering and

through Christ we were redeemed, for those who accept this

offer of salvation. I am inclined to consider that God does

not deliberately want suffering, and it is important to

establish a distinction between ‘what God approves from what

God permits’.72

As Sovik states ‘God has created both an independent high-risk

world (which is our universe) and a less independent no-risk

70 K. Barth, (1994) Church Dogmatics, III-1, p.368.71 Barth, 1994, II-2, p.165.72 Ward, 2007, p.53.

22

world (which is heaven).’73 He further mentions that if we

consider that God created both our world and heaven, this

eliminates the contradiction between a good and omnipotent God

and evil and suffering in the world.74

We are afraid that justifying suffering through free will may

‘dethrone’ God and contradict his omnipotence, which does not

have to be the case.75 With freedom comes suffering as a result

of our choices, and Ward argues that suffering is an intrinsic

part of our world but God can use it to introduce something

that is ultimately good, although this might not necessarily

be apparent to us.76 Ward does not undertake the apologetics of

suffering, but acknowledges that it is an integral part of our

world, which can ultimately bring about some good. He further

mentions that care should be taken not to turn this ‘into an

argument for increased suffering, as a means to a greater

good’.77 Ward just like Swinburne considers that suffering was

a risk that God took upon creation, as essential to fulfill

his goals, knowing that suffering could be overcome and

73 Sovik, 2012, p.25.74 Sovik, 2012, p.25.75 Cotterell, 1996, p.20.76 Ward, 2007, p.55.77 Ward, 2007, p.56.

23

conquered through eternal life.

7.1. Suffering as Evil

The existence of God and evil are integral and central

ingredients in the worldwide view of religious believers, and

there is no logical incompatibility here, 78 but the belief in

an ethically perfect God is deeply challenged by the existence

of evil and more particularly horrendous evils.79 Hume

challenged this compatibility,80 and Ward sums up the problem

of evil by quoting him:

A perfectly good and omnipotent God would not wish to create

suffering, and he would be able to prevent any suffering.

But there is suffering, and an immense amount of it, in this

world. Therefore there is no good and omnipotent creator.81

God as creator could have chosen another world and can stop

suffering and evil as and when he wants, but according to Ward

78 W. Hasker, (2008) The Triunph of God Over Evil: Theodicy for a World of Suffering, p.55.79 V. R. Vitale (2012), Horrendous Evils and the Ethical Perfection of God, DPhill, Oxford University, URL: http//ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:eb53f360-8c22-491c-8a2d-274031ae0890, Accessed 2 April 2014.80 Dialogues Concerning Natural Religions.81 Ward, 2007, p.38.

24

God allows different possibilities of evil to exist in the

world although he does not intentionally want them to happen.82

Ward further mentions that the physical possibility of evil

and the actual evil follow the laws of nature and

indeterminism in the world.83 Ward acknowledges that there are

countless acts of evil, which does not mean God does not have

the power to stop them, but that following his goals suffering

is part of his creation.84 Evil is not the means to an end, but

more a possibility, which in face of a blissful eternity makes

it ultimately acceptable. It should not be seen as a

justification of actual evil, which as mentioned earlier, is

not wanted by God and should be fought.85 This is a doctrinal

discussion not suitable for pastoral situations, which should

focus on active and sympathetic listening.

Ward holds the view that creating our world was the only way

God could create independent human beings. This raises the

question that perhaps it would have been better to create a

less independent world with less suffering? Ward answers by

saying that we are what we are as human beings because of the 82 Ward, 2007, pp.48-49.83 Sovik, 2011, p.43.84 Ward, 1998, p.103; Ward, 2007, p.67-68;74.85 Sovik, 2011, p.44.

25

way of we have been created in this particular universe and

would not have existed otherwise.86 According to Ward:

God cannot create a universe in which free creatures

always choose the good. Nor can he make the laws of

nature, which bring about much natural suffering, quite

other than they are, while still creating us, since we

can only exist in this universe, with these laws.87

The risk of this view is to imply that God could only create

human beings with freedom by allowing suffering and pain.

According to Ward humans have the freedom to reject God.88 This

is an apparent contradiction and lack of clarity in Ward’s

arguments. Could God have created human beings with freedom

that would not include evil? Ward seems to believe that this

is a possibility, as opposed to independent human beings

without inclinations to evil.89 This clarification means that

the former and latter arguments are integrated. I consider

Ward’s view that God only created our world90 is a possibility

rather than a probability.

86 K. Ward (1996) God, Chance & Necessity, p.220; Ward, 2007, p.47, pp.56-58, pp.60-61.87 Ward, 2007, p.68.88 Ward, 2007, p.217.89 Ward, 2007, p.217.90 Ward, 2006, p.136.

26

Swinburne mentions that there is a self-chosen reason for God

not to intervene, a view shared by Ward, who adds that there

are other restrictions.91 This does not imply the existence of

evil as necessary for human beings to develop as moral beings,

but acknowledges the interconnectedness of the system; there

might be several possibilities, which allows God to consider

different possibilities of intervention, such as moral

development.92 In my opinion this view does not clash with

other theologians who do not accept the concept of God as

‘causing or permitting horrors in individual lives for the

sake of some merely pure benefit’.93

In the ultimate ‘battle’ between good and evil, ‘evil does not

have the last world: Christianity invites us to experience our

evil as never before, at last unmasked, … and in that

experience to feel for the first time the love that overpowers

evil’.94

Theodicies such as Ward’s are not considered implausible, as

he does not overestimate the role of finite human beings who 91 Sovik, 2011, p.43.92 Ward, 2006, pp.212-213; Ward, 2007, pp.141-149.93 Vitale, 2012.94 S. Moore quoted in Surin, 1986, p.158.

27

are responsible for evils.95

7.2. Natural evil

Ward uses indeterminism to explain natural evil. According to

him it is only possible for humankind to have free will in an

undetermined world. The bad side of this is that it generates

the occurrence of natural evils such as diseases and natural

disasters, as indeterminism is correlated with causeless and

unpredicted events. These evils are not the result of

intentional human actions. Sovik mentions that ‘although it

sounds credible that indeterminism might cause some mutations

which create diseases caused viruses and bacteria’.96 Human

actions do not explain earthquakes and volcanic eruptions,

which happen as a result of the earth being full of magma. If

natural disasters were not God’s intention it means that

indeterminism was introduced early on during creation, but

this portrays God with limited control as he could have

created a completely different universe from the existing one.

Sovik argues that this was not the case. According to him the

universe was purposely designed but indeterminism plays a

95 Vitale, 2012.96 Sovik, 2012, p.20.

28

role. He does not consider plausible the non-existence of a

‘designer’ as this clashes with the ‘existence of fine-tuning

and consciousness’.97

8.Conclusion

Ward does not believe that God faced a choice between creating

this universe and a better one. In a multiple universes

scenario our world would not be the same if suffering did not

exist altogether. This does not mean that God does takes

pleasure in the suffering of his creation and good can have

the last word, even if in unexpected circumstances. God does

will suffering to happen, but he would not intend it for its

own sake, and wherever possible he would always desire its

elimination.98 It is important to maintain a distinction

between what God intends and approves and what God permits.99

The concept of God as good and omnipotent can be perceived to

be at odds with the existence of evil in the world. Also, if

God is good we assume he does not want evil, and if he is

omnipotent he could stop the existence of evil. Based on this

97 Sovik, 2012, p.21.98 Ward, 2007, p.49.99 Idem, p.53.

29

we could expect that evil would not be able to exist in this

world and yet we witness it all around. But there is a

fundamental difference between humankind’s perception of God

and how God sees humankind. Many of our views can limit him

and create an image that makes him serve our interests.100

Ward defends the existence of God as a ‘purely spiritual

creator on and personal agent in the cosmos, who was incarnate

in the person of Jesus, who answers prayers and performs

miracles.’101 His theodicy echoes some of Alvin Plantinga’s

defense of the coexistence of God and Evil as not being

logically impossible, and free will, which Ward calls

independence, reconciles the existence of evil with the

existence of God. Ward also shares many of Richard Swinburne’s

points, who amongst other ideas observes that ‘The nature of

evil is that the characters of things are mutual

obstructive’.102

Several theodicies either do not consider God as good or

omnipotent or deny the existence of genuine evil altogether. 100 J. Sobrino, (2005) Where is God? Earthquake, Terrorism, Barbarity, and Hope, p.135101 K. Ward (2007) Divine Action: Examining God’s Role in an Open and Emergent Universe, p.vii.102 Swinburne, quoted in Ward, 2007, p.41.

30

They fail to answer the question why God created a world that

contains so much suffering. This can be seen as an apparent

contradiction until we add Keith Ward’s argument, which

considers God as creator of an independent world where he is

not in total control and which expresses creative values, not

just through humans. God’s creation goes beyond creating

things and ‘creates things that create’.103 This independence

means that our existence is not dependent on God, as he has

given humanity and the world the opportunity for growth and

development, but as creator we depend on him. Ward argues that

God wants us to be independent but encourages us to willingly

enter into a loving relationship with him.104 This explains

‘why God’s existence is not more obvious to us.’105 God’s love

brings about salvation, accepting us at our worst through

forgiveness.106

For reasons unknown to us God decided to create this world

with human beings that possess independent freedom, but with

indeterminism, suffering and pain. If God had chosen to create

103 Sovik, 2012, p.19.104 Ward, 1998, p.108.105 Swinburne, 1998, pp. 206-207.106 Surin, 1986, p.158.

31

another world it would not have human beings.107 Ward argues on

the basis of accepting evolution. If we want a world without

suffering we would not have humans because they evolved as

animals that suffer.

If God is to maintain an independent world he limits his

intervention, due to the interconnectedess of the world, but

that does not mean that he does not or cannot intervene. He

does so regularly through healing and miracles, but as we do

not know the reasons for this it can appear arbitrary. The

word ‘numinous’ first used by Rudolf Otto, is quite fitting in

this context, as it refers to ‘occurences within human

experience that cannot be attributed to any known cause’108 I

concede that faith plays a key part how we see and approach

this and it does not necessarily explains the problem of

suffering.

The existence of evil and suffering in the world do pose a

great challenge to the existence of an omnipotent, omnsicient

and omnibenevolent God, and in this sense no theodicy is easy,

and the debate continues amongst profound thinkers and

107 Sovik, 2011, p.46.108 Otto quoted in Harrington, 2000, p.4.

32

ordinary people, believers and non-believers. There is also

the paradox of how human suffering as evil affects its victims

and how suffering transformed many of them into remarkable

human beings.

The key to understand Ward’s theodicy is his reference to the

way human beings have evolved.

Some theodicies have not been able to explain why God’s

healing is so sparsely exercised and looks arbitrary, but

Ward’s theodicy, although it reveals some flaws, it ultimately

offers a coherent theory.

33

9.Bibliography

Adams, M.M. (1999) Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God, Ithaca:

Cornell University Press.

Alcorn, R. (2009) If Good is Good, Colorado Springs: Waterbrook

Multnomah.

Barth, K. (1994) Church Dogmatics, Louisville: Westminster John

Knox Press.

Brasnett, B.R. (1928) Suffering of the Impassible God, London: SCPK.

Bruegemann, W. (1985) 'Theodicy in a Social Dimension', Journal

for the Study of the Old Testament, vol. 10, no. 33, October, pp. 3-25.

Cotterell, P. (1996) Is God Helpless? Suffering and the Sovereignity of God,

London: SPCK.

Davies, B. (2006) The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil, London.

Fiddes, P.S. (1988) The Creative Suffering of God, Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

Harrington, D. (2000) Why do we Suffer? A Scriptural Approach to the

Human Suffering, London: Sheed & Ward Ltd.

Hasker, W. (2008) The Triunph of God Over Evil: Theodicy for a World of

Suffering, Westmont: InterVarsity Press.

Hick, J. (1966) Evil and the Love of God, Basingstoke: Macmillian.

34

Inbody, T. (1997) The Transforming God: An Interpretation of Suffering and

Evil, Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Mackie, J. (1971) 'Evil and Omnipotence', in Mitchell, B.

(ed.) The Philosophy of Relegion, Oxford: OUP.

McGrath, A. (1973) Why Does God Allow Suffering?, London: Hodder &

Stoughton.

Moltmann, J. (1974) The Crucified God, London: SCM Press.

Moltmann, J. (1992) History and The Triune , New York: The Crossroad

Plublishing Company.

Robinson, H.W. (1940) Suffering Human and Divine, London: Student

Christian Movement Press.

Sobrino, J. (2005) Where is God? Earthquake, Terrorism, Barbarity, and

Hope, New York: Orbis Bools.

Sovik, A.O. (2011) The Problem of Evil and the Power of God: Studies in

Systematic Theology, Leiden: Brill.

Sovik, A. O. (2012), The Problem of Evil: A New Solution, URL:

www.academia.edu/3072116/The_Problem_of_Evil_A_New_Solution,

Accessed 31 March 2014.

Surin, K. (1986) Theology and the Problem of Evil, Oxford: Basil

Blackwell Ltd.

35

Swinburne, R. (1998) Providence and the Problem of Evil, Oxford:

Clarendon Press.

Swinburne, R. (2007) Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, 2nd edition,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thiel, J.E. (2002) God, Evil, and Innocent Suffering, New York: The

Crossroad Publishing Company.

Vitale. R. V. (2012), Horrendous Evils and the Ethical Perfection of God,

DPhill, Oxford University, URL:

http//ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:eb53f360-8c22-491c-8a2d-

274031ae0890, Accessed 2 April 2014

Warburton, N. (2004) Philosophy: The Basics, 4th edition, Abingdon:

Routledge.

Ward, K. (1996) God, Chance & Necessity, Oxford: Oneworld

Publications.

Ward, K. (1996) Religion & Creation, Oxford: OUP.

Ward, K. (1998) God, Faith and the New Millenium: Crhstian Belief in an Age if

Science, Oxford: Oneworld Publications.

Ward, K. (2006) Pascal's Fire: Scientific Faith and Releigious Understanding,

Oxford: Oneworld.

Ward, K. (2007) Divine Action: Examining God's Role in an Open and Emergent

Universe, London: Templeton Foundation Press.

36

Weinandy, T.G. (2000) Does God Suffer?, Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd.

Whitney, B.L. (1989) What Are They Saying About God and Evil?, New

York: Paulist Press International.

37