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

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

Information: Part 2 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 1, 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.

An omnipotent yet (apparently) disinterested God

Roth believes God is truly omnipotent, and really has has the power to change the course of history if God wanted to. However, so far it seems God it not interested in doing anything other than allowing history to remain a 'slaughter-bench'. Yet as far as Roth is concerned, the potential to stop this from continuing is within God's reach, and as such God could have also elected to have done things very differently. So far as we can tell, God's so-called 'master-plan' for things has been to (apparently) let people do whatever they want (allowing freedom to run its course), but for Roth this, 'is virtually no plan at all':

'Everything hinges on the proposition that God possesses - but fails to use well enough - the power to intervene decisively at any moment to make history's course less wasteful. Thus, in spite and because of his sovereignty, this God is everlastingly guilty and the degrees run from gross negligence to mass murder.'

We might say that Roth is painting a picture of God as the ultimate example of a bad and abusive parent!

The choice (so it seems)

In light of all this, the choice (as it appears to Roth), is that either we say God is deprived of some power, or we consider God to be less-than-good (according to the standards of 'goodness' we understand). The question is, which 'version' of God should we choose? For Roth, it all comes down to which view of God presents the greater risk: an innocent but ineffectual God, or one who is all-powerful but less than benevolent? Roth believes we should take our chances with the latter, for the simple reason that (like Job in the Old Testament), we at least have the chance to state our case before God in the hope that God will turn things around, and especially as the Bible gives numerous examples of where God has been willing to do this in the past. A limited God has nothing to offer in terms of making things better, but a God who has given us life, yet one in whose presence we yearn for more love to be shown in the world, could do this.

Of course, Roth realises that in adopting this view of God we also face the following situation:

'To defend the good as we know it best - especially to carry out God's own commandments that we should serve those in need, heal the sick, feed the hungry, forestall violence - we must do battle against forces that are loose in the world because God permits them.' (Emphasis mine)

Something to think about: Is it logically consistent to suggest that God is less-than-benevolent, yet has commanded us to 'heal the sick, feed the hungry, forestall violence' etc.? If God has wanted malevolent forces to run 'loose in the world', why would God have ever commanded us to do something about them?

An anti-theodicy

Roth believes that most theodicy's legitimise waste (evil) in the world, for they suggest that either suffering is deserved, or that all things are working towards some greater good. Roth rejects both these approaches, and in doing so regards his theodicy of protest as more of an anti-theodicy. For him, nothing can justify all the evil and suffering we see going on in the world, and the responsibility for it all lies squarely with God.

'There is really not much that human beings can do'.

Moses parting and crossing the sea So the situation as Roth sees it, is that for too long now we have been emphasising the love of God at the expense of a real response to the problem of evil and suffering. How can we believe in a loving God in light of all the wasted life (and lives) in the universe? How can we believe in a God of love who 'sat back' on the 11th September 2001? If God has acted in history in the past, why did God not do so again then? We should call out to God and state our grievances. We should protest at God's silence and apparent lack of concern.

Questions should be raised; answers should be sought. Promises should be fulfilled; the guilty should stand accused!

Some issues

Whether one accepts Roth's protest theodicy, depends largely on whether one accepts that God has unlimited power to do anything, and really is only bound by whether God decides to do something (or not). If one adopts a limited view of God's omnipotence, this presents numerous problems as to how God can be so limited, and why etc. Also, a limited view of God's power is not supported by the numerous examples of miracles in the Bible. Taking these accounts seriously, begs the question as to why God does not do more 'large-scale miracles' along the lines of these. And the fact that God has not done more, means we may have no choice but to agree with Roth that God appears to have the power to act, but is unwilling to do so.

Author's note: Of course, one could say that God has the power to act and will do so in the future, but chooses not to act at this present moment in time.

The biggest digression from the classical view of God in all this, is in presetting the idea that God is not truly benevolent. In terms of the biblical record, at first there appears to be little support for this 'version' of God:

'Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect.' (Matthew 5:48)

However, other passages may cause us to re-think this:

'When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.' (2 Samuel 6:6f - Emphasis mine)

'O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.' (Psalm 137:8f - Emphasis mine)

Now one might say that God was more volatile in the Old Testament, but is a much more loving deity in the New Testament. However, even there we have examples of God striking people down (Acts 5:1-11), and is also the one who 'stood by' whilst an innocent man (Jesus) was beaten and killed (Mark 15:16-20). Whilst we are on the subject, this is also the same God who groups unbelievers together with murderers, both of whom will also be thrown into the lake of burning sulphur at the end of time (Revelation 21:8).

Our sense that Roth may be going too far in proposing a semi-benevolent God, may be the same feeling we have that God is wrong in treating people this way, and that God is going too far? Yet God appears to be more than willing to act like this, and we have no reason to believe things will be any different in the future. Thus we may have to concede to Roth that on the basis of the evidence, it does appear that God simply did not care that millions died during the Holocaust, or that thousands more died on the 11th September 2001.

However, all this does not sit very well with Roth's argument that our pleadings before God may change things. For if we really are living in the presence of a deity who is less-than benevolent, then what hope do we have for believing that things could or should be any better than they are right now? In fact, in presenting a case before God to do something, we have no guarantee that they won't in fact get worse. Furthermore, according to Roth's logic the only reason things are not worse is that humans are working to make sure they aren't ('we... do battle against forces that are loose in the world because God permits them'), but if God's wants things to be bad in the world, then doing 'good' is essentially acting contrary the will of God.

Final thoughts...

Blame for the misuse of power and freedom in the world, which has led to numerous wasted lives (and life), may lie at the feet of both humanity and God. Maybe both are guilty of doing too little, and too often? Although many questions surrounding the validity of Roth's theodicy remain unanswered, the protest theodicy does force us to question whether even the notion of God's benevolence is negotiable, in light of the continued presence of evil and suffering in the world. Certainly we are forced to take seriously the value of postulating the idea of a limited God, and the moral questions surrounding the 'all for a greater good' view of things, when we think of how God is said to have acted in the past, yet does not do so in the same way today.