A Theodicy of Protest: John K Roth) | That Religious Studies Website

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

Lessons

Evil and suffering (Christian theology): A quick guide

Philosophy of Religion

Recently added to the site

A Theodicy of Protest: John K Roth (Part 1)

Information: Part 1 of a review of John K Roth's Theodicy of Protest essay, from Davis S. T. (Ed.), Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, Westminster John Knox Press; Rev Ed edition, 2001. To read part 2, click here. Quotes are taken from this essay, unless otherwise noted. This article also assumes the reader is familiar with the main objections to God's existence, based on the problem of evil and suffering. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

"Could you have done better?"
"Yes, I think so."
"You could have done better? Then what are you waiting for? You don't have a minute to waste, go ahead, start working!"

Introduction

The attempt to reconcile God's existence with the presence of evil and suffering in the world (theodicy), typically finds the objector asking, 'Why doesn't God do something!'. The point here is that as far as they are concerned, God could and should do something to prevent evil and suffering from occurring in the world. In Christian theology, the most popular responses to this 'problem' have argued that either evil and suffering is our fault (The freewill defense), or there for our benefit (Irenaean theodicy). Some have also suggested that God cannot actually do anything to prevent evil and suffering from occurring (Process theodicy). However, what is almost universally denied by each of these responses, is the suggestion that God is the real cause of the problem.

John K Roth For John Roth, the problem of evil and suffering begins here. As far as he is concerned, God's (traditionally) supposed sovereignty (control over everything) and omnipotence (power to do anything), means God could and should be able to do something about evil and suffering, but must clearly not want to. In fact, Roth goes so far as to say that God's persistent inactivity means that God is directly responsible for evil and suffering occurring, and that the only reasonable response from us should be to start protesting to God that enough is enough. He also believes we should give up on a false image of God, which suggests that God is benevolent (all-good) and always out to do the best for us. As far as Roth is concerned, God has done too little for too long, especially when one considers the numerous and extensive atrocities committed by humanity to humanity over the course of history.

Evil as waste

Most Christians consider evil as something which works against God's intended purpose for things. However Roth re-defines evil as 'waste', and explains this as those actions (or things) which are simply pointless:

'Evil happens whenever power ruins or squanders, or whenever it fails to forestall those results.'

In terms of the problem of evil and suffering, Roth considers the amount of 'waste' in the world to be the standard by which we should assess the level of good and bad in either individuals, societies or even God. The greater the amount of evil and suffering, the greater the amount of 'waste' (and vice versa).

When we see atrocities such as the events of the Holocaust being committed, we might talk about this as being a senseless waste of human life. Now when we speak this way, we are considering certain actions as being 'evil', due to the pointless loss of life and suffering involved in them. Roth is re-defining the notion of 'evil' in precisely this way.

Of course, many people would argue that the 'screams of pain' (as Roth calls them), are the means by which greater things occur. For instance, theories of cosmic and biological evolution are largely based on the premise that death and destruction are a necessary feature of the universe, and also the means by which new life may develop and evolve. Thus the myriads of extinct species over the course of history are not to be understood as 'waste', but just part of the way things are. Roth however, does not take such a positive views of things. For him, too much has been lost over the years, and as such God must be held accountable:

'History is the slaughter-bench at which the happiness of peoples, the wisdom of states, and the virtue of individuals have been sacrificed.'

The wisdom and character of God

Many Christians would argue that freedom to act in whatever way we choose to is what makes us who we are, and that without this freedom we would be less-than-human (i.e. robots). Also, the decision to give us freewill has limited what God could do. For instance, God could not give us freewill and force us to only choose to do good things. However, Roth's response to this is to ask, "If God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-good, how 'cost-effective' was God's decisions to allow humans to have freewill?". History shows that there has been a significant amount of waste (evil) in the world, particularly caused by a misuse of freewill. That this is the case is no more evident in the events of the Holocaust, when millions of lives were unnecessarily 'thrown away'.

So Roth presents a number of challenges to those who argue a freewill defense. Firstly, looking back over the course of history (and even to the present day), was the decision to give humans freewill a good one? For it appears that this has been a costly decision. Also, to say human freewill has limited God in some way is nonsense. Most Christians believe God is omnipotent (all-powerful), which means that in theory, God can do anything. Furthermore, to say God is limited due to human freewill, would appear to contradict the notion of freewill God has given to humans, who are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26f)). It is simply nonsense to suggest that humans have freewill to do whatever they want, but God does have the same degree of freedom. Therefore, Roth believes we must reject the idea that God is limited in some way as being wrong, and instead draw from the evidence around us that God must have not only chosen to allow history to follow a wasteful route, but that 'such a wasteful God cannot be totally benevolent'.

God always accountable

Of course, most Christians would be very unhappy with this analysis of the situation, for the simple reason that as far as they are concerned it is the misuse of freewill by humans which has led to enormous amounts of evil and suffering occurring in the world. As such, God cannot be blamed when humanity (constantly) gets it wrong! However, as attractive (and as popular) as this view of things is, Roth disagrees. Instead, he argues that it was God who started history, and therefore it is God who has allowed it to become what it is. Furthermore, God was the one who put in place the 'boundaries' for creation, and as such it was God who set-up the system under which humans have to live:

'To the extent that [humans] are born with the potential and power to be dirty, credit for that fact belongs elsewhere. "Elsewhere" is God's address'. [Bracket mine]

Thus the 'misuse of freewill argument' does not discharge God of all (or any) responsibility as far as Roth is concerned, but simply leaves the question begging as to why God chose to give humans freewill in the first place, especially if God knew exactly what would happen as a result of doing so?

How useful is freewill anyway

Pills and a bottle Even more worrying for Roth is that the freedom we have been given is not only too much, but also too little. We have the freedom to do a great many things (good and bad), yet appear to be unable to find to cures for some of the worst illnesses (e.g. cancer, aids etc.). We also have the freedom to make real choices, yet tend to have very little 'choice' in life-or-death situations. So often our freedom is useless at these times, and it also cannot prevent the corpses from piling up. As such, there appears to be little value in giving humans freewill, especially if it is incapable of preventing more and more 'waste' from building up in the universe.

A limited God is an impotent God

Of course, it could be argued that God is not truly omnipotent or omniscient, but only in a limited sense. Such revisions to God's character are actually intended not only to explain why evil and suffering occurs in the world, but also to protect God's benevolence (the belief that God only and always does the best thing possible). However, Roth believes a God who is not truly omnipotent (or omniscient), is simply ineffectual and weak. Furthermore, this view of God is not supported by the myriad of biblical examples, where God appears to have the power (and desire) to significantly change the events of history. If God is able to part seas, make the sun go back and raise the dead, then surely God had the ability to prevent something like the Holocaust from occurring? If we say God did not have the power to do this, then how could God do these other things we read about in the Bible? Of course, if we say that God had the power but chose not to act, then Roth believes such a God is not worth bothering with either.

The bottom line is...

Although some people believe that God is working to make things better (i.e. bringing about God's kingdom on earth), Roth does not see any evidence from the way things are (and have always been), to suggest that things are getting better, or will get better.

'All gains are precarious, periodic and problematic. Life is one damned problem after another'.

Instead, we should give up relying on the hope and expectation that things might get better, to fight for them to become better. We should also give up the idea that there will be some future event/act of God (or whatever), which will justify all the wasted life. Such waste can never, should never, and will never be justified as far as Roth is concerned. In what way might the cries of millions of souls lost at the Holocaust, ever be silenced by some so-called 'greater good' in the future. What could possibly begin to justify their loss?

John K Roth: A Theodicy of Protest (Part 2)