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