Category: The Problem of Evil

Problem of Evil

The first part of the paper is a discussion on evil and suffering. The second part is the proposed solution on how to deal with evil and suffering. In John Hicks book entitled Philosophy of Religion he devoted a chapter on the problem of evil. He states that this is a theological problem for those who believe that a loving God exists. If God is evil then Hicks proposition is useless. But it can be argued that most believers in the Jewish, Christian, and even Islam religions believe that God is good. Thus, Hick was justified in saying that the existence of evil in this world is a problematic phenomenon for these believers.

Hick said that some tried to excuse the existence of evil as an imaginary thing. But the author countered that even in the Christian Bible it is clear that evil is real. The Bible records every kind of sorrow and suffering, every mode of mans inhumanity to man and of our painfully insecure existence in the world (Hick, p.77). He then added, There can be no doubt, then, that for biblical faith evil is entirely real and no sense an illusion (Hick, p.77). Once this issue of evil has been settled then it is time to find an explanation and perhaps a solution.

Hick said that there are three major responses to the existence of evil. He said that the first one is centered on the idea on the fall of man, from an original state of righteousness to something that is less than ideal and therefore mankind is now capable of inflicting evil unto himself and unto Gods creation. The second view is what he called the Irenaean response and it is the belief that evil and suffering are Gods tools of perfecting a still imperfect world (Hick, p.78). The third one is the idea that God is not that powerful and therefore he has no ability to deal with the problem of evil and suffering.

Suffering because of Oppression

Rosemary Ruether, in her article entitled Suffering and Redemption: The Cross and the Atonement in Feminist Theology provides a feminist perspective on suffering. For her it is not a mere theological problem as suggested by Hick. Ruether has no problem with the idea of evil, her struggle is the way people try to deal with it. She said that The tendency of many cultures is to look for someone or something to blame (Ruether, p.95).

She said that others blame evil spirits etc. Finally, she said the clincher, and she wrote Women are the favored victims of this explanation for suffering, including accidents that befall their husband and children. Even a woman who miscarries is presumed to have done something amiss to have caused this misfortune and is pressured to confess even on her recovery bed (Ruether, p.95). This is indeed an interesting take on evil and suffering.

Ruether goes back to the origin of these ideas of women being used as scapegoats and in the past even hunted down as witches. She said this is because of the belief that a woman was responsible for the entry of sin into the world. The only problem with this assertion is that there are cultures who had no access to the Bible story of Eve eating the forbidden fruit. Yet all the same women in those cultures were treated as if farm animals are more important than them.

Ruehter objects to the way this cruelty against women is being perpetuated using religion. She said that women should not endure the harsh enforcement of her subjugation (Ruether, p.99). It is clear from her feminist standpoint that women should rise up and oppose the oppressor. In this way pain and suffering can be dealt with more effectively.

Another Way to Understand Suffering

Rita Nakashima Brock in her article entitled On Mirrors, Mists, and Murmurs provides another perspective with regards to womens suffering. Since she is an Asian American woman, a daughter of a Japanese mother, a Puerto Rican father and an American stepfather, allowed her to see racism and issues of inequality to be one of the main reasons why women suffer. She wrote, The history of Asian American women in this country is a forced retreat into caves of silence (Brock, p. 236). She proposed a solution and it is a mystical solution that calls for the ability of Asian American women to have access to spiritual mirrors that will truly reflect who they are and not what other people say.

Brock said that the negative impact of suffering requires healing but healing does not come from blaming others or projecting pain on other people. She said that healing will occur if women learn to accept the pain as the result of injustice. This is where the analogy of the mirror comes in. The author said that the moment pain is personalized then healing will come.

Brock said that these things cannot be achieved if women remain silent. She said that for a very long time men had dominated society and the passage of time seems to justify the oppression as a fact of life. She said that this should not be the case. Women should let the world know what is going on inside them. It is not acceptable to let men treat them like a doormat and trample them endlessly. Although Brocks point of view must be respected the question remains if women will rise up, will it end evil and suffering? Brock has to prove that if women are empowered are they able to use their newly discovered independence and power to end pain and suffering?

Suffering and Mary

This is the second part of the paper and the following deals with the proposed solution on how to tackle the problem of evil and suffering. Anne Clifford in her article entitled Mary, Virgin Mother of God explains how Roman Catholics were able to deal with suffering in their lives. She said that other Christians would turn to their God for help. The same thing can be said of Roman Catholics because they too believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but the members of this sect seems to have found a secret weapon in their battle against evil, suffering, and a host of other problems. It is the adoration and veneration of Mary the mother of Jesus Christ.

Anne Clifford said that God is viewed in the same way that people view authoritarian fathers and this means that when coming into prayer it is difficult for the sinner to come face-to-face with a judge. So they would rather have an advocate on their side. In the gospel narratives, especially in the Book of Luke from chapters 1 to 4 one can see a delicate and almost frail Mary who was forced to carry a burden. But it is her humility and weakness that endeared her to many and so, Mary becomes the intercessor of divine mercy. To her a suffering people turned for solace (Clifford, p.187). This is one way how Roman Catholics deal with pain and suffering in their lives.

Non-Christians according to Clifford can still benefit from the veneration of Mary because from the feminist perspective Mary gave them hope, that women can transcend the negativity associated with the sin of Eve. Clifford said that this is not without precedence because ancient cultures even in Greek and Roman civilizations one can see the importance of the goddesses that reign supreme in their religions.

From the Perspective of Christ

If one will look at the perspective of Marcus Borg, in his article entitled Jesus the Heart of God one can argue that for a Christian believer there is no need to venerate goddesses or even elevate Mary to the position of a deity if one is desperate to look for a healing balm to soothe the suffering caused by evil. Borg asserts that what is needed to help suffering humanity is a radical reinterpretation of Jesus Christ.

In this way people will be able to understand his central message and it is none other than a God who seeks to be with men and to connect with them in a profound way. In the gospels, in the Book of John chapter 14 a disciple of Christ asked him to show them the Father. Jesus replied that anyone who has seen him has seen the Father. Thus, God is not inaccessible and if Jesus is the heart of God then people will find the assurance that if they will call, God will listen.

Borg did not say it clearly but he seems to imply that the dogmatic view of Jesus makes it difficult for non-Christians to appreciate him and the reason why many are losing interest of the Christian religion. His main argument can be understood from this statement: Anybody who has the mind and power of God is not one of us, no matter how much he may look like us & whenever we emphasize the divinity of Jesus at the expense of his humanity, we lose track of the utterly remarkable human being that he was (Borg, 83). It is important to rediscover Jesus.

A rediscovery of Jesus means that he has become one of us and therefore he can empathize with us and understand what we feel. He felt hunger, he was abandoned and experienced injustice when charged with a crime that he did not commit and yet ended up crucified. If he can feel what people feel from the mundane to the extreme suffering of life then he is accessible and mankind has found a way to ease his suffering.

The Way We Understand Sin

Another way to deal with pain and suffering is to find a solution to it. For a religious person there is no better way than to find a spiritual solution to mankinds problems. In Borgs article entitled Sin and Salvation: Transforming the Heart one way to transcend the problems of humanity, to deal with it ,and to some extent to solve it, is to have a proper view of sin. This is important because sin, for a Christian is the beginning and the end of all discussion. If sin is forgiven then there is blessing. If it remains then there is a curse. Thus, pain and suffering occurs.

Borg understand all these but he said the problem is made acute when a Christian is overly generalizing the problem. Borg fears that issues are not resolved not because there is no resources to resolve it or that God is powerless to resolve it but simply because we do not know what to ask and therefor we do not expect to receive a specific answer. In this regard Borg suggests that instead of using a generic term for mankinds problems and call it sin, it would be better to call these problems by its real name. So if oppression is the problem then the prayer should be about oppression. If poverty is the problem then poverty should be pinpointed, prayed over and the supplicant must be expectant of a specific answer.

The author said it succinctly when he wrote, The question &. is whether sin is the most helpful way of naming what is wrong (Borg, p.167). The answer is no. If a religious person seeks solution to his problems then he must learn how to offer specific prayers. As the saying goes if we aim at nothing then we will probably hit nothing. This is an important insight when it comes to the power of prayer. Borg is teaching a radical way to enhance the effectiveness of prayer especially for those who believe in it.

Born Again

Another way to deal with pain and suffering is to be transformed. This seems to be the main idea of Borg in his article entitled Born Again: A New Heart. Borg said that the born again experience will only be a reality in our lives if we make a commitment to follow Jesus. This is the first step. The second step is to embrace the fact that there can be no rebirth before death. Therefore, we must learn to die, spiritually speaking, just like a seed that falls to the ground and yet after a few days emerge as a new creation  from a dead receptacle into a new living thing.

Borg said that the experience is not something that can be had by simply reading a book or praying. He said, The born-again experience can be sudden and dramatic. It can involve a dramatic revelation, a life-changing epiphany, as in the case of Saul on the Road to Damascus, an experience through which he became Paul (Borg, p.117). This is important in terms of pain and suffering because it can be argued that there are sufferings that are self-inflicted, like the person addicted to cocaine. Without a doubt the alcoholic and the drug addict wish to be freed from this bondage but seems to find no hope, only a frustrations and the inability to break free.

This is where the concept of the born-again experience comes in. It is the ticket to a new life. It is like being given a clean slate, the debts are erased and the offenses are all forgotten. No penalties. No damages that needs to be paid. But there is more. The born-again experience does not only cancel the debts but it allows for the creation of a new man or new woman. The body made ugly by needle marks and broken by the effect of alcohol can be expected to rise up once again in newness of life.

Calvins Solution

In Readings in Christian Theology a book edited by Robert King and Peter Hodgson, one can find an article written by John Calvin. In this article Calvin seems to propose a theological framework that can help answer lifes deepest questions. He focused on the idea of providence and the sovereignty of God. This means that God is in control of everything. This is problematic in two ways. First, it has been mentioned earlier that if God is a good God then why would he allow evil to exist in the world. Secondly, Calvin is not only saying that God allowed evil to happen but he also confirmed that God had the power over everything and therefore God has the power to stop evil and yet he did not prevent it from happening.

This does not mean though that God is evil because he allowed evil to happen. According to Calvin one can explain everything through the idea that God has a secret plan and that our feeble minds cannot comprehend its beginning and end (King & Hodgson, p.124). This is difficult to accept especially in the modern age where everything can be or must be explained through logic. It seems that Calvin is simply trying to create a convenient escape route because he could not answer what the critics has been saying all along.

On the other hand there is another way to look at Calvins statements regarding providence and sovereignty. It is the acknowledgment that indeed we have finite minds and we are only able to access a small portion of Gods knowledge. It is therefore impossible for us to understand the conflict that exist in the idea that a good God allowed the proliferation of evil in this planet. If we take a closer look at Calvins insights we may see that he is actually asking us to trust God.

Works Cited

Borg, Marcus. The Heart of Christianity. CA:HarperCollins, 2003.

Brock, R. Nakashima. On Mirrors, Mists, and Murmurs. Weaving the Visions. Eds. Carol Christ & Judith Plaskow. New York: Harper & Row, 1989.

Clifford, Anne. Introducing Feminist Theology. MI: Orbis Books, 2001.

Hick, John. Philosophy of Religion. 4th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990.

King, Robert & Peter Hodgson. Readings in Christian Theology. MN: Fortress Press, 1985.

Ruether, Rosemary. Introducing Redemption in Christian Feminism. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

Introduction

The problem of evil is simply the disagreement of how such a great God can exist and evil still dominates a greater part of the world he created. It seems quite logically incompatible the extent of evil and the existent of a benevolent God. According to John Scott (2008, 2), the fact of suffering with no doubt is one of the greatest challenges for the Christian faith. The authenticity of evil and anguish is the biggest obstacle faith.

For the Christians themselves it becomes hard to comprehend how the great good God who created them allows them to suffer, and to some deep and hurting ways. The disillusionment increases with multitude of Christians been fed with information on exaggerated expectations of wealth and health.

Evil can be classified in to two major categories: the moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil are the consequences of natural happenings like the floods and earthquakes. Moral evil are the actions of human being that bring about this results for example rape, theft and others.

The problem of evil can be viewed into broad ways: the religious way or the apologetic way. The apologetic way analysis skeptically, challenging the possibility of the existence of God who cause people to suffer. Religious is the problem of evil approached from a believer’s point of view whose faith many a times has been tested through temptations (Clack, 2008, 127)

Is the presence of evil in the world compatible with the existence of a benevolent God?

The compatibility of presence of evil and the existence of a great God has been logically and evidently challenged by philosophers. According to Rood (1996, 1), a good and an all powerful God is able to do away with evil, and if evil cannot be destroyed then there is a possibility the good and powerful God exists not.

His statements show of how difficult it is for a good God to exits alongside or together with evil, for it is certain the powerful God should destroy the evil. David Hume, a philosopher in the 18^th century, ‘God might be willing to prevent evil, but have not the ability? Is he able but not willing? Or is He both willing and able? The nature of God as depicted in history, his existence and power should not allow evil to subsist.

I would argue out that the existence of an all powerful God and presence of evil compatible for the possibility of evil makes the munificence of God whole. The completeness of the compassion of God calls for a freewill among the human beings which necessitates the existence of evil. From a glance the existence of evil is a great challenge to the existence of God’s compassion.

This is because evil in the lives of God’s people shows lack of humanity in God’s benevolence. Evil is the opposite of good and so if evil would not exist, it would mean there would be no good hence people would be denied the opportunity of freewill and making choices; for there is no good without choice.

Man is one creature that has the ability to chose good, and also he can decide to choose the opposite. The absence of good in a man replicates to absence of good in the world. This cannot be termed as absence of God or him being all powerful for out of his infinite goodness that he has poured upon man, man has decided to choose evil.

Taking the completeness of God’s benevolence and compare with Aristotle’s argument on completeness of justice which is a virtue; its completeness is found in its full exercise. Therefore complete benevolence of God will be achieved by allowing full practice of choice which will mean there will be existence of evil.

The presence of evil should not be measured by the existence of a great God in the world. For God’s plan was to peacefully and with complete unity exist with man. The freewill God gave man was a replication of what exactly he had and wanted for man in order for his to accomplish the good intended for him. The existence of God allows man to be able to accomplish good in the presence of another option.

Therefore evil should exist as a possibility for humans but should not be actualized in their lives. Many a times that Humans choose to do evil and God chooses not to intervene and remove the evil; yes indeed he watches to see the consequences for if he would interfere it means choice is not good and could no longer be free. Therefore i strongly believe that the existence of evil is purely compatible with the presence of a benevolent God; for God’s completeness in his benevolence depends on the human actualization of what is good.

According to Genesis, everything that God created was good, and all things existing in the world are either creatures of the creator. And God is creator of all things; therefore we can say God is the creator of evil.

But according to Kreeft (1988, 58) evil is not a thing but it is a choice that human beings make therefore, God is not the ultimate creator of evil as it would be argued but God created choice men made wrong choice which consequently makes evil. For no evil will or has ever existed as a thing but always as wrong choice or the aftermath of those wrong choices.

The situation at hand implies that God does not exist but this is more so a conflict which can be resolve. Rich (1996, 2) in his view suggests that one of the key solutions is to understand that the fact that God is all powerful is not a suggestion that he has the ability to anything imaginable.

The reality in the scripture is that ‘with God all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26). But the same scriptures identifies that some things God cannot perform. Good example is Tit. 1:2 which clearly states that, ‘God cannot lie’. Things that are way out of God’s character of righteousness he cannot do. God cannot do something absurd for the sake of a rational world.

The responses to the problem of evil are quite a number but not many are satisfactory. The first response is freewill defense this is because we are the creators of evil. Indeed most evil are those imposed by men. When God created the earth he gave human beings an ability to make choices on their own without manipulation.

Men have in return paid it back with misuse of this freedom. God would be able to finish evil by making an automated human being or world which he would control as per his wish. Having in mind some evils are natural it brings us to another solution for the problem of evil (Kreeft, 1988, 58).

Some traits in the society would not be evidence if evil was wiped out of the world. Compassion is of so much value in our society but it cannot be seen or experienced without suffering. Bravely is also only evident in the presence of danger. God created us in a way we would create room for each other in our lives.

Suffering and some evils in the world has taught us to have a heart of self sacrifice. Some evils act as stabilizers of the state of the nation hence without them the world would be at a miss.

Having in mind God would not undo the past for the sake of this rational world. From his argument he concluded that God would not have eliminated evil for its existence is more so a way of letting the world exist on a stable platform. God’s creation was done in his own image, which gave room for an interpersonal existence with him, choice is therefore vital in this case to allow human beings to freely love him and without being force.

Those who disbelieve in the compassion of God due to the evils that exist in this society Hick says, they are people under a great misconception that God have created the world that we may exist like animals in a zoo. This implies he created to make us pleasant and comfortable as possible; however God was not creating a paradise where humans would enjoy minimum pains and maximum of pleasure (Clack, 2008, 127).

To some extent people may argue out that the moral evils are human creations but the natural evils goes way beyond human understanding. Why would a great and caring God full of mercy allow his children so severely suffer to points of losing their lives? This sounds interesting especially being a question to a father from a child.

The human nature over the years has changed from thankful and obedient beings to forgetful and disobedient humans. Some of these evils we have no control over are ways that God is using to remind us of his existence when we are home and dry, contented in our comfort areas he strikes to remind us of his existence.

Conclusion

In conclusion the existence of a benevolent God and existence of evil though many a times they look incompatible and their reality no as expected, they are very much compatible. In relation to the argument above the existence of evil makes the benevolence of God complete. For compassion is not extended neither is it seen without suffering.

Evil brings suffering which in return attracts the compassion of God. The ability of Human beings to make choices which God fully designed in his creation cannot be fair if God restricted human to good only. If you can make a choice it means there exists something of a lesser quality of bad which in other terms is evil.

Reference List

Clack, B., 2008. The Philosophy of Religion: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press

Rick, R., 1996. The Problem of Evil: How Can A Good God Allow Evil? Plano, TX: Probe Ministries

Kreeft, P., 1988. “The Problem of Evil.” Chapter 7 in Fundamentals of the Faith. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

John, S., 2008. The problem of evil. US: WordPress. Web.

Long before I came to an educational program dedicated to theology and the study of Christianity, my worldview was based on the duality paradigm. For me, this meant that the whole world could be divided into good and bad people, believers and atheists, men and women. I believed that this system of Hegelian opposites fully satisfied the world order, and any deviations could be seen as a side of the philosophical struggle. In this system of views, I regarded Evil only as a response to Good. In other words, a good person with pure intentions truly represents the Good, whereas a person full of anger and aggression is their opposite. I have always believed that Evil is transcendent in nature and is initiated by the individual’s sinfulness. Thus, in my former view, there was the idea that each of us is initially empty, but over time we accumulate experiences that can be positive or harmful. Negative ones cause a person to become embittered and get bogged down in sins.

I am genuinely convinced that my previous point of view has the right to exist, but soon after studying various theological models this semester, I realized that I was no longer prepared to adhere to it. More specifically, with a study of Erickson’s writings and a more in-depth and thoughtful reading of biblical texts, I realized that God is the Creator of all that has been designed and is being built in the world at all times [2]. This is the critical knowledge that led me to believe that Evil itself is not the opposite of the Divine Good. It follows that Evil is a Divine outcome, which means that evil intentions and actions have a purpose for the world.

For me, the world still remains differentiated into Good and Evil’s moral categories, but the driving forces and motives for these phenomena have been transformed. Good and Evil are no longer extraneous, unrelated entities but are instead divine tools for human development. When I think of Evil, I like to refer to the New Testament, which speaks of the Christian’s desire to rely on God, who can reward justice instead of sinful human vengeance [3]. Another biblical message that I previously misinterpreted is Timothy 4:18, which affirms the Creator’s ability to deliver us from Evil [4]. Now with my new system of theological thinking, I acknowledge that God’s ability accurately defines His authority over the whole world, and therefore Evil, as well as Good, is His will.

References

“Hegel’s Dialectics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology 3rd edition by Erickson. Ada: Baker Academic, 2013, p. 394.

Bible Gateway. “Romans 12:19.”

Bible Gateway. “2 Timothy 4:18.”

Footnotes

1. “Hegel’s Dialectics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
2. Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology 3rd edition by Erickson. Ada: Baker Academic, 2013, p. 394.
3. Bible Gateway. “Romans 12:19.”
4. Bible Gateway. “2 Timothy 4:18.”

Many Christians find it hard to explain the problem of evil as it does not seem to correspond to the will of God. Many theistic philosophers have tried to reconcile reality with God’s existence. One of the latest contributions to this topic came from John Hick’s, through his soul-making theodicy.

Although Hick’s theodicy has influenced many people, it has several shortcomings. However, I do not support those that undermine Hick’s project because of these few shortcomings. Eventually, I will argue that everyone who believes in a powerful and excellent God should believe in the soul-making theodicy.

Hick explains Christian theodicy using two key traditions. He borrows the first theodicy from Augustine, which claims that God gave human beings freedom, but they abused it and thus brought evil on creation. Augustine’s theodicy also mentions that some people will get punishment as others receive salvation through Jesus Christ.

Hick opposes some of these claims including the fall of man, association between sin and evil as well as hell being a reprimand for sin. He decides to explain the problem of evil using a different approach from the work of Irenaeus. Irenaeus explains that man’s fall did not come from imperfection, but from immaturity of human beings.

He also explains that God created human beings in his picture and not in his likeness. He explains that human beings should make sure that their moral and spiritual development is perfect to have a personal relationship with the creator. He argues that evil seeks to reconcile human beings with God but not to punish people.

Applying Irenaeus’ work to the current times, Hicks says that we should consider the world as a dell of soul making. He views the purpose of the world as the making of people who are ready to share in the living of their own maker. He argues that God did not define characters of people during creation since characters develop from experience.

Hence, God formed human beings as spiritually and morally undeveloped creatures, who needed to evolve. Based on this story of human evolution, Hick argues that men must go wrong since they first came into a world full of suffering and wrong doings. Therefore, he argues that human souls need perfection.

Moral and spiritual growth can only occur through challenges and thus a paradise with no problems would never create room for these developments. Hick also recognizes Jesus Christ as the person who came to redeem sinners.

I agree with Hick that blaming evil on the fall makes little sense. If God created us in a perfect environment, then we could have no reason to sin. God gave human beings freedom that could only work in the environment where he placed them. Since men were creatures, they lacked control and their freedom could only be decided by the creator.

Alternatively, God would have placed them in an environment where they would never sin. Since God placed men on an environment where they are prone to sin, they are not wholly accountable for their wrong doings.

However, placing men in a sin free environment would not mean that human beings have desirable morals as the environment would not be favorable for them to show their other characters. Besides, human development requires situations that call for choices, and thus Hick argues that we need pain, suffering and evil to develop moral personality that can conquer evil.

After going through Hick’s work, most people wonder the possible meaning of true freedom. Hick’s responds that men can only have freedom when God stays away from them, although men need not stay far from God to act morally. He views men as morally ignorant creatures. Thus, divine awareness would make men avoid sin at all costs.

In other words, Hick argues against men getting force to behave right and supports continuous moral development. However, we cannot claim that we get coercion to do right in this situation. Rather, we would have so much wisdom about doing right that we would have no option but to do right. Hick in this situation seems to liken freedom to ignorance.

Although we accept that coercion is wrong as it makes people work in ways that are different from their will, this is not a concern here as the process involves changing the will of people, which is part of character development. We can also argue that complete awareness of God would trigger moral development among people so that they could act as perfect beings. In any case, an immoral person can have a religious incident and change to a better person.

In conclusion, Hick’s theodicy can explain the problem of evil, although it is prone to much criticism. Hick’s central argument is that human beings became placed in an imperfect world so that they can develop moral characters. Hence, everyone who believes in a powerful and excellent God should believe in the soul-making theodicy.

The problem of evil covers the possibility of God directing every occurrence in the universe without reducing human beings to mere automated agents. The problem of evil also covers the possibility of human beings possessing true freedom if God is genuinely sovereign (Towns 460). This paper looks at the problem of evil and its implications on the concept of an omnipotent, benevolent, and omnipresent God.

The problem of evil is classified into moral and natural evil. While moral evil is attributed to individual actions, natural evil occurs in the natural order of the universe. Moral evil is caused by individuals who have the ability to distinguish between good and bad. For instance, theft, murder, rape, and torture are performed by people who can choose alternative courses of actions. Tornadoes and tsunamis, on the other hand, are events outside the control of human beings. In theology, moral evil can be explained as human beings’ defiance of God’s directives. Natural evil, conversely, encompasses harmful events such as poverty, diseases, epidemics, and natural disasters.

In the biblical context, Paul asserts that the creation yearns for completion of divine redemption (New International Version, Rom. 8:19-22). Moral evil, which is ultimately the cause of natural evil, can be traced to the beginning of creation when Adam and Eve defied God’s explicit directive not to eat fruits from the tree at the center of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:16-17). Their contravention of God’s command had significant consequences for the whole human race and the entire creation (Elwell 436). Human beings inherited the consequences of Adam’s disobedience because Adam was the father of the entire human race (Rom. 5:15-19). Though Adam and Eve had the free will to choose their actions, they chose to disobey God’s directive (Gen. 3:6).

Various theologians approach the problem of evil using theodicies. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, for instance, argues that human beings are naturally flawed in the way they are created and that free will is controlled by natural phenomena (Elwell 1185). The main weakness of this theodicy is that it lacks a sound biblical foundation. In Leibniz’s view, God is obligated to create a perfect universe out of many possibilities. Though Leibniz’s theodicy seems to be internally consistent, it necessitates the existence of a perfect universe, which ceased to exist after the fall of man.

A theodicy by John Hicks seems to disagree with Leibniz’s notion of a perfect creation. Instead, Hicks argues that God created man as a creature in need of moral improvement towards ultimate perfection. Hicks’ soul-making theodicy asserts that God permits some evil as it develops a positive personality in the victims or in others who have witnessed the evil. This developmental characteristic of evil supposedly outweighs the negative implications of the evil deed. This theodicy, though internally consistent, fails to explain the most gratuitous evil that turns some people away from God. Hicks’ theodicy resembles the Irenaean theodicy, which asserts that evil (sin) is required for spiritual growth, and humans must suffer as free moral agents towards perfection.

The free will defense, originally proposed by Augustine of Hippo, is a theodicy that asserts that God permits some evil to allow human beings to exercise free will. If God had created inherently good human beings, then men would not be able to choose their actions. Other proponents of the free will defense include Alvin Plantinga and Robert Adams. While evil might be the product of free will, it is not clear how the evil that results from free choices can be used for good.

When creating a theodicy, it is essential to observe internal consistency (Elwell 1187). The person developing the theodicy must ensure that he does not contradict the concept of an omnipotent, omnipresent, and benevolent God. Though it is not inconsistent for evil and God to coexist, it is inconsistent for a God who permits free will to control the choices of the ‘free’ agents to prevent evil. If a theodicy indicated that God allowed free will, then it would be inconsistent for the same theodicy to imply that God can control or influence human actions to prevent certain evil.

In my view, God is metaphysically necessary as the creator of the universe. Though evil exists, its existence is not inconsistent with God’s properties of omnipresence, omnipotence, and benevolence because human beings are created as free moral agents. Since the existence of human beings is contingent on the existence of the creator, humans are less perfect than God and often make the wrong choices.

Personal experiences of evil can either bolster or impede an individual’s relationship with God. For instance, loss of loved ones and recurrent misfortunes may cause a person to question God’s existence. Evil can also cause a person to seek a spiritual solution. In this case, the existence of evil draws a person closer to God.

Theodicies essentially question the existence and character of God. I do not believe that it is possible to question God’s omnipotence, omnipresence, or benevolence without attacking God Himself. Any theodicy explaining the existence of God and evil must, therefore, be grounded in the Bible.

Works Cited

Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 2nd ed. 2001. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Print.

Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today, Mason: Cengage Learning, 2002. Print.

The aspects of evil and the reality of the devil are deeply explored in different verses in the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament. Evil is highlighted as the source of mankind’s downfall and the factor widening the gap in the relationship between God and mankind. This paper explores the element of evil and existence of the devil. Besides, the paper highlights the roots of contemporary Christian leadership related to culture, tradition, worldview, and doctrine. The paper also reviews the differences between the Global South and Global North churches in relation to their views on evil and general ideology. In summary, the paper presents personal opinion on the differences at the global Christianity level.

Biblical Teachings on Existence of Evil and the Reality of the Devil

There are several biblical teaching relating to the existence of evil and the reality of the devil. To begin with, the book of Genesis chapter 3, there is an account of how the devil came in the form of a serpent and used tricks to confuse Even to partake from the forbidden fruit after which she passed the fruit to Adam. In the book of Genesis chapter 6 verses 5, the Bible states that God was not happy with the evil nature of man and begin a plan to destroy the Earth with water.

In the book of Genesis 4:8, Cain was overcome by evil and he killed his brother Abel because God did not approve of his offerings. The book of Romans 12:12 advises Christians not to be slaves to evil, rather, they should overcome evil with good. In the book of Ephesians 6:11, Christians should be armed with the armor of God for them to be strong enough to survive the schemes of the devil. The book further states that Christians are at war with dark evil forces.

In the book of Romans 12:9, Christians should practice sincere love by hating evil and only clinging to the goodness. In the book of Proverbs 8:13, hating evil is equal to fearing the Lord. The verse highlights the signs of evil as arrogance, pride, perverse speech, and evil behavior.

In the book of First Thessalonians 5:21-22, Christians should reject evil by sticking to what is good. The verse is categorical that love as a substance of goodness can be used to overcome evil. In the book of Proverbs 3:7-8, shunning evil equates to the fear of the Lord, which comes with blessing such as good health and nourished bones. The book of Psalms 97:10 states that loving the Lord means hating evil and the dark plans of the devil.

The verse advises Christians to only pay bad with excessive goodness. The book of Isaiah 1:16 states that Christians should stop doing what is wrong by washing their hands of evil plans and deeds¹. In the Lord’s Prayer, in the book of John 17:15, Christians should ask the Lord to protect them from the devil (evil one) everyday. Other biblical teachings on evil are the books of James 1:21, John 1:5, Psalms 34:14, and Psalms 119:133².

The bible teachings relating to the reality of the devil include the books of John 10:10, John 8:44, 2 Corinthians 11:14, Ephesians 6:11, Revelation 12:9, Revelation 20:3, Mathew 6:13, Timothy 3:7, Daniel 8:25, and Mark 13:22 among others. These verses describe the devil as a conniving lie who wants to steal, kill, and destroy as part of his evil schemes. The devil is described as a cunning fallen angel who always disguises himself as the angel of light.

The devil is also described as the crafty deceiver who confused biblical characters such as Even and Cain to partake of evil plans. In the book of Revelations 12:9, the reality of the devil is well described. The verse states that, “And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him”³.

Roots of Contemporary Christian Leadership

The roots f contemporary Christian leadership related to culture, tradition, worldview, and doctrine can be traced to the Judeo-Christian tradition which stressed on servant leadership and liberal approach to handling challenges that might face the flock. The tradition highlights the philosophical rational for adopting servant leadership as enshrined in the practice of leading as a servant not as a master.

This means that Christian leadership should be focused on servant service approach to balance the demands of the pluralistic society, such as the approaches to addressing cultural, traditional, worldview, and doctrinal forces in practicing Christianity. For instance, the book of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 highlights the qualities of a servant leader in the church as being sober minded, respectable, above reproach, and gentle⁴. However, despite possessing these traits, a servant leader in the church is likely to face the challenge from the flock members who are fox in sheep clothing.

The attempt to balance the conflicting interests is informed by the need to manage the “myriad of worldviews compete for attention, where it is assumed that there will be a separation between religion and public life, and where a logical framework for the inclusion of religious values in everyday life is missing”⁵. This situation is necessary “since separation flows from presuppositions fueled by a fragmented modern worldview”⁶.

In practicing servant leadership, there is need to integrate the virtue by using moral pillar to gauge decision making with the agape love, service, altruism, and humility. The moral pillar should be accompanied by trust and a clear vision to guarantee practical application in the dynamic Christianity environment. For instance, in practicing traditional Christian virtues, it is necessary to integrate virtue and humility to avoid conflicts in a perfect teleology. Through this approach, the book of 1 Peter 5:3 notes that the servant leader will be a good example to the flock since he will not have the tendency to domineer over the subjects⁷.

Key Elements that Account for the Significant Differences in Defining Evil: Global North and South Churches

At present, “many Global South Christians are more conservative in terms of both beliefs and moral teaching than are the mainstream churches of the Global North and this is especially true in Africa”⁸. Since the Global South churches are dominated by the Pentecostal and Catholic denominations, most South Christians operate in the medieval faith characterized by collective appreciation of righteousness as compared to the moderate and liberal Christians of the Global North churches.

The members of Global South churches have a “stronger affinity to the sections of the Bible that regard the secular state coldly, that present suffering as the likely lot of the Christian in this life”⁹ in the fight against evil. On the other hand, the Global North churches have open view of evil as coexisting with mankind but should be regulated. Besides, the Global South churches view evil at national level while the Global North churches view sin at individual level.

Person Reflection

I do not expect the marked differences to lessen over time since the two church dispensations operate in different environments and doctrinal thoughts. For instance, in the Global South churches, poverty and suffering are high and bound to rise further due to inability of the state to create a good environment for economic and social living. For instance, the churches in Africa and Asia, which are part of the Global South Christianity, have group visions and belief systems that appeal to communal approach to understanding the life of a Christian through suffering. This is the opposite in the Global North churches in North America and Europe.

As a result of the different visions, with each church category deploying competing religious orientation, the differences will widen. Besides, the Global South churches are inspired by liberation that is currently lacking in the Global North churches where political and social activism has taken the back seat. Little is being done by the better developed Global North churches to bridge the sexual and moral indecencies that are the core principles of the Global South churches. Thus, due to differences in vision and perceptions towards moral principles in relation to sex and evil, I would suggest that there will be no integration of the Global North and Global South churches in the near future.

Bibliography

Jenkins, Philip. “Believing in the Global South.” Fist Things Post, 2006. Web.

Stewart, Don. “What Does the Bible Say About the Problem of Evil?” Blue Letter Post. 2014. Web.

Footnotes

1. Don Stewart, “What Does the Bible Say About the Problem of Evil?” Blue Letter Post, 2014. Web.
2. Stewart, “What Does the Bible Say About the Problem of Evil?”
3. Stewart, “What Does the Bible Say About the Problem of Evil?”
4. Stewart, “What Does the Bible Say About the Problem of Evil?”
5. Stewart, “What Does the Bible Say About the Problem of Evil?”
6. Stewart, “What Does the Bible Say About the Problem of Evil?”
7. Stewart, “What Does the Bible Say About the Problem of Evil?”
8. Philip Jenkins, “Believing in the Global South,” Fist Things Post, 2006. Web.
9. Jenkins, “Believing in the Global South.”

Argument Summary

According to the interview with Marilyn McCord Adams, the key to understanding evil is its classification according to the magnitude of its impact on the life of an individual. Central to Adams’ argument is the existence of what she categorizes as “horrendous evil”—an event or phenomenon that is so overwhelming that it threatens to ruin the significance of life for the victim. One of the features of this type of evil is the concept of mutual participation, where both the victim and the perpetrator take part in committing the act of evil. However, it is not clear if this is either a necessary or a sole condition since some of the later examples by Adams (the victims of Cambodian warfare) do not explicitly display involvement in the commitment of the act. Since overcoming the adverse effects of such a phenomenon is beyond the capacity of human beings, the presence of horrendous evil signifies the inconsistency of optimism as a viable, sustainable posture in life and demands the presence of a supernatural and ultimately benevolent being to assist people in dealing with it. In other words, the existence of God is a necessary condition of optimistic posture given the presence of horrendous evil.

Strengths and Weaknesses

The strongest point of the argument by Marilyn McCord Adams is the reliance on a rational approach and the necessity to challenge the preconceived notion of optimism. Simply put, the mere acceptance of optimism without acknowledging the presence of evil in the world (some of which, according to Adams, is unbearable by humans) places it in the domain of beliefs and prejudices. Therefore, both optimism and malevolence should be measured and compared to reach a conclusion regarding the real value of existence. However, such an approach is difficult to execute for several reasons. First, the criterion of life-changing experience is highly subjective: an event that can possibly deprive the life of one person of meaning can be deemed less dramatic by another.

In addition, the effects of desperation and powerlessness are known to be temporary, which certainly can be explained by supernatural intervention but is equally explainable by natural and thoroughly studied processes that require fewer new assumptions and therefore are more reasonable. A notable example of such an approach is Adams’ countering of the argument regarding the optimism of atheistic Holocaust survivors who remained non-believers. According to her, their resilience can be explained by the unarticulated awareness of the supernatural power that is responsible for reintroducing meaning into their existence. In this way, her argument is made impossible to disprove and is, therefore, immune to alternative suggestions. This clearly steers away from the appeal to rationality beyond the assumption of God as a necessary condition stated earlier.

Next, Adams explicitly denounces the factor of human progress as a reason to accept optimism without introducing the supernatural component. Specifically, the progress made in the field of medicine and leading to the eradication of several life-threatening diseases is dismissed as inferior to the supposed lack of progress on the capacity for self-governance and level of corruption. However, it can be argued that the former has a much better chance of qualifying as horrendous evil. As a result, the argument does not offer consistent criteria for defining evil; instead, it is used to selectively include the concepts that align with the preferred posture and reject those that do not. In other words, it is prone to confirmation bias. Finally, the notion of optimism used by Adams seems to have a prerequisite for the presence of a supernatural being; that is, optimism necessitates an external force that is responsible for steering the human decisions and shaping the understanding of life’s meaning. This prerequisite makes it easier for the author to select the facts that confirm her suggestion but further undermines the possibility of rationalization and puts the whole argument in the domain of religion.

Conclusion

After considering the strengths and weaknesses of Dr. Adams’ argument, we can see that it does not give an adequate response to the problem of evil. When presented with the problem directly, she states that the fact of the presence of evil in the world cannot be explained by humans due to the differences between them and the supernatural, which is basically a restatement of the phrase “God works in mysterious ways.” Therefore, she uses a concept of evil as a means of confirming the preferred explanation for the human capacity to find meaning in life rather than addressing it as a separate concept.

The article “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism” gives a powerful argument to support the ideas of atheism based on the existence of evil. Human pain and suffering is evident in every part of the world. This “kind of suffering justifies the existence of evil in our universe” (Rowe 335).

According to Rowe (336), “the world does not have any omniscient or wholly good human being”. Informed atheists should therefore “take a unique position concerning the rationality of theistic ideas and beliefs” (Rowe 337). The author explains atheists “should take the position of friendly atheism” (Rowe 335).

Atheists usually deny the presence or existence of any divine creature. The main idea in this article is that the existence of evil in the universe confirms the concept of atheism. The article goes further to explain how atheists should have a friendly attitude towards theism.

This article challenges me to think in different ways about my values and beliefs. I have always resisted the idea of atheism. I believe that the above concept is unfounded, wrong, and inappropriate. However, the author explains why atheism is undeniable. The article gives three premises to support atheism based on different forms of evil.

The “first premise is that there is intense suffering that could have been prevented by a supreme being” (p. 336). The second premise is that an omniscient being such as God would have prevented any form of suffering in the world. This fact takes us to the third premise. The premise states that there is “no omniscient, omnipotent, wholly good being” (Rowe 336).

On the other hand, theists can use several arguments to support the existence of a supreme being. For instance, they can reject the first premise of atheism by analyzing the existence of good things in the world. Theists “also explain how human beings cannot experience good things without encountering different pains and heartaches” (Rowe 338). This argument explains why both atheism and theism are powerful concepts towards understanding the nature of evil.

This knowledge has changed my views about the world. I am ready to accept the concept of atheism because it presents powerful ideas to many people. However, the article cannot change my position as a believer. The article has changed my worldview significantly. Human beings should support their arguments and ideas about the existence of a supernatural being.

The best strategy is ensuring that atheism and theism coexist with one another. This situation would be critical towards analyzing the issue of evil in the universe. This idea would be necessary towards safeguarding the religious rights and opinions of many people (Rowe 340).

Human suffering is undeniable in our world. Theists offer unique arguments to explain why suffering plays a major role towards promoting human happiness. Atheists also believe strongly that a supernatural being cannot allow evil things to happen in the world. This situation explains why the idea of “friendly atheism” is acceptable and relevant.

This “concept will be appropriate because it gives an appropriate rationality of theistic belief” (Rowe 339). The arguments presented in this article have encouraged me to think in fresh ways about the issue of atheism. Although atheists tend to refute the existence of God in the universe, individuals should have a friendly attitude towards the idea of theism. This exercise encourages me to read more articles and books in order to understand this subject much better.

Works Cited

Rowe, William. “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism.” Philosophy: The Quest for Truth. Ed. Louis Pojman and Lewis Vaughn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. 335-341. Print.

Introduction

The existence of God is one of the most challenging topics, the defense of which is extensively discussed in theological literature. The atheists and those who identify as undecided reject the presence of God, arguing that there are no physical, audible, or other confirmations. In turn, the proponents build their arguments on such concepts as the meaning, value, and purpose of life. This paper aims to explore various philosophical underpinnings with regard to the problem of evil in theism to explore the arguments against and in favor of God.

Philosophical Similarities and Differences in Readings

The idea of immortality is one of the key themes that are discussed in theism in terms of the problem of evil. In “The Absurdity of Life without God,” Craig (1994) states that there is no ultimate purpose without immortality, and the absence of God means that there is no reason for living. The human race, accordingly, is not immortal and meaningless. In this connection, people can be seen as a by-product of evolution and a result of the cosmic accident. Similarly, Thomas (2018) considers that a Neo-Darwinist approach reduces life without God to mere genetic replication and the survival of DNA. The immortality of DNA does not mean the same for people, who become blind and indifferent since their life would end in the grave.

The readings by Thomas (2018) and Craig (1994) have one more similar point that is the purpose of living as one of the arguments that support God’s existence. According to Thomas (2018), who discovers the concept of purpose through the discussion of suffering, God helps to recognize reality. On the contrary to science, Jesus’ suffering and that of ordinary people illuminate the necessity of pain and its purpose. For example, females have to ensure enormous pain during labor, but the appearance of a baby eliminates that suffering and grants happiness. Craig (1994) claims that it is inconsistent to think that people live for no purpose, and their actions occur by chance. The mentioned author criticizes biological determinism, claiming that this approach equalizes a person and any laboratory specimen, which means that human life is nonsensical.

On the contrary to the arguments that were presented above, Habermas (2008) provides the views of Hitchens and Harris, who examine the goodness of God. They state that there is no objective ethics as they follow from the developmental perspective. The questions about the impact of the Holocaust, Hurricane Katrina, and deaths of innocent children are posed by atheists. According to this point of view, the problem of evil is not addressed by God, which challenges His existence.

Objective Meaning and Good Life

A person’s life cannot have objective meaning without God as it is meaningless: there are no unprejudiced right or wrong issues. Craig (1994) argues that people should believe in and value objective meaning, thus understanding that war, oppression, and crime are the expressions of evil. In a universe without God, the very existence of people is meaningless. Only some personal, cultural, and historical values may determine the way of life, but love, equality, and brotherhood become insignificant.

Life cannot be good without objective meaning since the only solution, in this case, is being brave and accepting absurdity. However, it is impossible to live happily in such an inconsistent worldview, which can be observed in difficult situations when people tend to ask God to help them even though they did not accept His existence before (Thomas, 2018). This is an attempt to affirm the meaning and purpose of life, but it is not achievable until a person resides in a two-story universe. In a world, where both a good person and a sinner end in a grave, the very best of the former becomes unreliable and pointless.

God’s Existence and Problem of Evil

The conclusions made in this paper point to the existence of God: the recognition of this fact explains suffering, the meaning of life, and immortality. Habermas (2008) rationally notes that the problem of evil clarifies the presence of absolute morality in the world with God. The atrocities of the Holocaust, for example, can be viewed in terms of ethical standards only in case if God exists. Otherwise, atheists considering the mentioned events seem to establish their arguments against theism only on their personal feelings of disgust. Thus, one cannot live with a partial belief in God: an individual should either deny it and do not lay evil at God accept absolute morality.

Conclusion

To conclude, this paper discussed the problem of evil in terms of theism and found that the arguments in favor of God’s existence are more rational than those of atheists. Suffering and reality can be explained as the way to achieve happiness and immortality with God. The meaning, purpose, and value of life can also be fully understood only in the presence of God. A good life and objective meaning were identified as intertwined concepts that are nonsensical in case people are perceived as mere cosmic orphans.

References

Craig, W. L. (1994).The absurdity of life without God. Web.

Habermas, G. R. (2008). The plight of the new atheism: A critique. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 51(4), 813-827.

Thomas, T. (2018).Suffering: Richard Dawkins contra Jesus. Web.

St. Augustine was a firm believer in God, and he, therefore, wanted always to do what is right. He argued that God is good and thus he did not create evil.

According to him, evil results from man’s deviation to Gods teachings. It is, therefore, a problem as it is a man who chooses to bring evil upon himself. St. Augustine claims that the solution of evil is to do the right thing and to abstain from wrongdoing. He claims that evil results from a man trying to equal himself to God.

For instance, when a person chooses to steal, he knows that stealing is wrong. Despite this knowledge, he steals because, at that particular moment, the person feels in control of everything. St Augustine argued that God is the most powerful being. Sometimes man tries to rival this power. It is this defiance that St. Augustine warned men against (M. Arthur 120).

The Manichean interpretation of the problem is that evil results when two powerful deities work in opposition hence negative consequences. According to this interpretation, the deities are equally compelling. St Augustine has a problem with this belief because it contradicts the omnipotence of God.

It does this by suggesting that God and the devil have equal powers. According to him, God is the only deity and the most powerful being in existence.

The powers of the devil are inferior to those of God. The belief also suggests that evil is as a result of conflict between God and the devil. According to St. Augustine, this is not so. Evil is as a result of man’s deviation from God’s ways. He also suggests that other evils like natural disasters are as a result of angels deviating from God’s ways (M. Arthur 125).

Christianity says that for man to live an upright life and have full knowledge of God, evil is necessary. The pain and suffering resulting from evil cause man to realize that he needs God in his life. When a man experiences pain, he will strive to help other people in a similar situation so that they do not suffer as much as he did.

To appreciate the power of good, man needs to undergo the suffering caused by evil. It builds his character and makes him strong such that he can face the hardships of life courageously (M. Arthur 128).

The Christian solution to evil has been very successful. It generally encourages man to live a life that is pleasant to God and humankind as well. Christianity helps man to appreciate both the positive and negative things in life. This way, he can learn from negative things and become a better, stronger person.

As opposed to other beliefs, man can understand that it is not necessarily his fault that negative things happen. For instance, natural misfortunes like earthquakes caused by forces of nature that conflict with each other. Man is not to blame for these occurrences in any way.

Christianity also teaches a man to acknowledge the presence of God in life when things are going well and to seek Him when faced with hardships. It also teaches a man to live and relate well with the whole society. Most importantly, it teaches a man to have respect for life and to value it. This way, society remains peaceful (M. Arthur 132).

Work Cited

Miller, Arthur. The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. New York: Guilford, 2004