Why doesn’t God do something?
“I prayed every night to God, asking him to rescue me from my father’s abuse. Why didn’t he?” A friend’s niece had suffered terribly at the hands of the man whose responsibility was to love and protect her. Driven to attempt suicide several times, she still suffers the consequences of grave sin through no fault of her own. Can such suffering by innocent children be reconciled with a reality of a good, loving, and all-powerful God? Do we have an answer for her question?
Many have undertaken to defend God and his ways in the light of grievous and seemingly undeserved suffering, because many have made the charge that it is evidence of his non-existence. I don’t claim to have greater understanding than any of them, but I do have greater understanding than I had a few weeks ago, before I commenced some concentrated reading and meditation on the subject. If you will stay with me, perhaps what I have learned will increase your understanding as well.
There are a few truths that would be helpful to recognize at the outset:
- Suffering, deserved and undeserved, can result in some good.
- God has a purpose for our lives far deeper and more meaningful than just to enjoy them.
- We are not the center of the universe. He is.
- He has chosen to give humanity free will.
- There is life after our bodies die, when all injustices will be made right.
I acknowledge that points 2 through 5 will be considered merely improvable assumptions by those who believe God’s existence is unknowable, much less his ways and his plan. But as the issue in question is whether the God of the Bible is incompatible with the reality of suffering, I believe these biblical teachings are valid premises.
Many people, believers and non-, share a view that the highest good for their lives and the very purpose of their existence is to be happy. If they’re believers, they may even think God owes them that. So anything that detracts from their happiness is seen as an evil and may cause them to question God’s goodness and love. But just as we might pan the musical “Les Miserables” as a total failure because we believe it purported to be a contemporary, light-hearted comedy, if we have an inaccurate understanding of why we are here, our evaluation of how well things are going will also be inaccurate. Couple that error with a view that sees God as existing for our sakes instead of the other way around, and you have the makings of a life marked by huge disappointment, discouragement, and even disbelief.
If, on the other hand, we see life as a gift, a proving ground, a rehabilitation center, a temporary home, and/or a journey to our true and eternal dwelling place, we will view our circumstances in an entirely different light. If we understand that this world and everyone in it is marred by sin, and God’s purpose for us is redemption and restoration of a right relationship with himself, something that will bring us true and lasting happiness, suffering takes on new meaning and purpose.
Pain and hardship are what bring many to seek God. If our lives were trouble-free, would any of us recognize our need for him? Trials can also develop and strengthen virtues like compassion, perseverance, humility, and contentment. What insufferable, spoiled brats we would all be if we never had to endure difficulties. The descriptor insufferable is apt – if we fail to suffer, we become “too extreme to bear; intolerable.”
At first glance it may seem oxymoronic, but as any good parent will attest and The Mills Brothers sang, “You always hurt the one you love.” Not because you want to cause them pain, but because you want the best for them, which means you want them to BE their best. You want them to be individuals of high integrity and character, having acquired in good measure all the virtues that make a man, woman, boy or girl a treasure to others and more likely to experience joy and true happiness in this life and the next. But none of us come out of the womb with perfect personalities; we need to be trained. We require molding and shaping, and that can be painful. But the father who truly loves his child would rather see her unhappy but safe and growing in character, than happy in a dangerous or degrading activity or lifestyle.
Yet, just as our children can rebel against our disciplinary actions, refusing to submit and endure in order to learn and grow, and end up reaping more trouble instead of benefits, so too we have a choice to make when faced with suffering in our lives. We can choose to go through the crucible that refines us and produces something of great value, or we can choose to do our best to crawl out before it has done its work, thereby retaining in our souls the unlovely dross.
Our refusal to allow suffering to sanctify or save us will likely result in loss and more suffering, both in our lives and in the lives of those close to us. The father who disregards his marriage commitment because he doesn’t want to go through the hardship of loving sacrificially in the midst of conflict and disappointment, loses the blessings of a life marked by integrity as well as the love and devotion of his wife and children. And he is directly responsible for the undeserved suffering they will surely have to endure.
Please check back tomorrow for the continuation of this attempt to apprehend God’s ways.
I would like to talk momentarily about 1 and 4.
The “some good” that can be effected, why must the cost be suffering? Why is that limitation in place? Whatever the good is, God could achieve it another way.
Freewill, did the girl not will both the abuse to stop and to die? What happened to her freewill there? Why was the fathers will to abuse given precedent over the girls will for it not to happen? And when the girl couldn’t stop him, why was her will to die (sin or otherwise, one would hope what the father was doing was a sin) denied?
LikeLike
Hello, Allalt. Welcome back. 🙂 I don’t know how you can say, “God could achieve it another way.” How do you know that?
And she of course wanted the abuse to stop, but her fear and/or her father physically restraining her, prevented her from exercising her free will in that situation. Having free will doesn’t mean ours won’t be trumped by somebody else’s. Happens all the time.
I have more to say on free will tomorrow and Thursday. I hope you’ll check back.
LikeLike
I certainly will check back. Also, welcome back to the blogosphere.
The reason I say God could achieve it another way is because, as far as other believers have explained to me, God is omnipotent. So long as something makes logical sense (within the paradigm of Biblical narrative; talking snakes and bushes and universes being spoken into existence) it can be done.
I have a post ready to go up about this, but I’ll wait for your new posts to go up first. In it I mention that whatever God has set up to be our real purpose in this life must be completely divorced from wellbeing if He permits what your early narrative mentions.
I also question what it means to value freewill if it only the will of the strong or forceful that is realised in conflict. That is a law of nature, and our wills are realised proportionate to our force (not equally, according to value)…
But that shall go up in more detail after I read your new post
LikeLike
This is certainly a difficult human problem for explaining.
Thanks.
– Eric
LikeLike
1) So innocent people have to suffer so that other people get something good? How… fair.
2) Pure Speculation. You simply don’t know that. If you could at least tell us, what this purpose IS for that children have to die before growing up…
3) And not being the center of the universe means the center (“he”) may torture us and still be considered “good”?
4) Free Will is not God’s out-of-jail-free card, sorry. Let’s for a moment forget all the other problems, just take one: People suffer by sheer chance. Children are born with deadly diseases without any free will involved at all. Children are killed, maimed, etc. by natural catastrophes, back luck, etc.etc.
5) “It doesn’t make sense now, but after you die, when no one can check it, everything will be fine.” How… convenient. I wished my bank would give me even one cent for the promise of a million dollars in the afterlife.
LikeLike
Welcome back, Atom…ant. I appreciate you taking the time to read my post. Please check back tomorrow and Thursday for parts 2 and 3.
LikeLike
Atomic Mutant, with respect to 4, can you clarify what “jail” God is in? The nature of free will itself is irrelevant to the compatibility of God and suffering. It is the most popular one of many possible goods that could justify suffering.
To say “people suffer by sheer chance” is to merely assert a negation of the statement “people suffer for a purpose.” That in itself would not refute any purpose for suffering; rather, it would be question begging. How do you know that when someone suffers that it is pure chance and does not happen for one or more purposes?
LikeLike
First of all, pure chance was intended as “not by someone’s choice”, thus eliminating “free will” as the reason why people suffer, this eliminating the need to discuss that “free will” doesn’t stop making god responsible for this world (the jail of responsibility), as free will is limited anyway all the time and thus, claiming that god doesn’t limit it to prevent suffering is just lazy.
LikeLike
I see. Yes, human evil is distinct from natural evil. With respect to responsibility, we’re at a junction. Do you mean moral responsibility, such as obligation? If obligations are real, then they are either objective or subjective. Do you think moral obligations are real, and are any of them objective?
Alternately, by responsibility you may mean the ultimate cause of an event. I would agree that God is the ultimate cause of all real events and objects, but that is an ontic position, an “is.” Moral obligation is about values, the “ought.” There is no clear connection between what is and what ought to be, except for what a free agent makes of it.
LikeLike
your critic came out… best wishes.
– Eric
LikeLike
Thank you, Eric.
LikeLike
God is all good… only LOVE…
some find that difficult to accept…
nevertheless, we pray onward.
God Bless.
– Eric
LikeLike
Pingback: Why doesn’t God do something? Part 2 | a reasonable faith
Pingback: Why doesn’t God do something? Part 3 | a reasonable faith
It has taken me awhile to reply in a helpful, well-thought manner. I have researched the word “happy” and the word “joy.” The word happy is used (depending on the source) about 28-30 times in the Bible and “happiness” is not even mentioned in the King James version (again depending on the source). Most sources are very similar is response. The word joy however is used about 200 times as well as the word rejoice. Our thoughts about what kind of life we are entitled to on this earth could certainly be informed by the difference between happiness and joy. Both words come from different roots and offer different perspectives. Thanks for the challenge.
LikeLike
I feel like I have an innate sense of the difference between happiness and joy, but have never been able to express it. Please let me know what you discover.
LikeLike
Pingback: Prescription for a sick world | a reasonable faith