"So where is this Good God because my world is falling apart!!" Part 1:Soul-Making in a Plastic Bubble: The Problem of Evil

There are some questions that continue to be recurring cross millennia as it relates to humanity’s ongoing process of reconciling the BIG questions of life such as: “Where did I come from?” “Why am I here?” “If God is good, then why do bad things happen?”  While there are more questions than these, these are some of the big ones.  In particular, if one does life long enough, the question of pain and suffering will seem to be increasingly difficult to provide an adequate answer.   The rational conundrum is how could a God that is omnibenevolent (all-loving), omnipotent (all- powerful), and omnipresent (all-places) not intercede when evil seems to prevail?  These were the primary questions of the prophets Jeremiah and Habakkuk.  After all, it could be a tough sell to the person you are attempting to evangelize if in your character description of God you make the case He is supremely loving, powerful, and sustainer of all things and, yet, the person’s parent is diagnosed with terminal Cancer.  Or, they just lost a best friend to a drunk driver. 

My first big research paper while in seminary at the Salvation Army was in Gary Elliott’s Doctrine class.  We had to choose from a list of topics in which to research.  I remember Gary telling the class that the topic of Theodicy would be one of the most challenging.  I was the only one in the class to select that topic.  Side note, this is not only because I was especially ambitious, rather, I realized it would be a lot easier to get the resources from the library since no one else in the class would be pulling those books and because it was especially challenging.  While it is not relevant to this essay, Gary did give me an A+ on the paper.  

Admittedly, this question or system of theology does not usually come up on the first God-conversation or maybe even the second, but rest assured it is already in the back of the mind of the evangelism target.  Unfortunately, too many well-intentioned Christians have attempted to provide their own defense of God’s love and God's will during life’s tragic circumstances to grieving people evoking the “Jonny Lee” way of, “Looking for love in the all the wrong places.”  There can be nothing more frustrating during a crises that is both heart and mind confusing than listening to a Christian attempt to convince you that God’s perfect plan was for your child to die young of a horrible disease.  In some morbid way, they are left with the impression the God that is love orchestrated a series of life events pregnant with pain, suffering, depression, and loneliness just because of some divine will. While there may be a bigger picture going on, this may not be the best time to make that case.   Note to self, “When walking through life’s tragedies with a friend, believer or not, resist the temptation of providing empty sound bites that attempt to speak on behalf of God.  This is not the time to say, ‘I know this is bad, but God will turn this into a wonderful plan.” Or, ‘You just have to have more faith to understand why God is leading you down this path.’”

In the early 1770s, German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz coined the term “Theodicy” as man’s attempt to defend God’s goodness, love, and power.  The term is made up of two Greek words “Theos” meaning God and “dike” meaning just or justice.  While the term “Theodicy” became part of systematic Christian doctrine’s tool case in the 1770s, it was discussed much earlier by church fathers Origen and Irenaeus in the second century A.D.  While I continue to vacillate between my own personal views on pain and suffering and my academic views, I tend to currently gravitate toward the explanation offered by Irenaeus and recycled by John Hick in the 1960s.  Before discussing my views on the matter, I want to use the following illustration as a primer to the discussion of theodicy.  

  

In 1976 John Travolta appeared in a moved entitled, “The Boy in the Plastic Bubble” based on the true story of Tod Lubitch.  Travolta’s character was born with a deficient immune system that required him to live his entire life in a plastic bubble.  According to my primary source of whether a movie is worth watching, IMDB, this movie received a whopping 5.7 stars.  I have found my personal calibration with IMDB is anything 6.7 stars or better is a good movie.  Nonetheless, The Boy in the Plastic Bubble caught my attention well over twenty-years ago because of the novelty of what it must have been like to exist in a tightly contained environment that regulated all physical contact with the outside world.  In the movie, Travolta’s character falls in love with a girl, but he is unable to experience connected relationship.  Reaching a point of utter frustration, Travolta unplugs his oxygen apparatus from his prophylactic suit because he is willing to risk the dangers of the outside world for the sake of no longer living in a protected environment.

It is important that I provide the following disclaimer before going any further: “At no time during this essay am I giving you my views on whether or not I think God created evil.”  Now that this is out of the way, let’s begin.

As I think about the different ways theologians and philosophers attempt to deal with the very BIG question of the problem of evil, this movie may provide an illustration of why God allows bad things to happen.   For the sake of taking a topic that could easily take years to sort out, I want to focus on three aspects in part 1 of this blog.  One, God created man in His own image perfectly, but the process of soul-making was not perfectly created in the beginning.  Two, in order for authentic loving relationship to occur between God and humanity, there requires an intellectual distance necessary for humanity to freely choose to accept God’s invitation for relationship.  Three, imagining an existence that is free of pain and suffering would actually create greater problems than our current world. 

Part 2 of this blog will focus on key theodicy passages in the Bible to help provide the reader with a constellation of ideas from which to frame your own biblical theodicy. 

Second Century Church Father

First, we read in Genesis that God created humanity in His own image.  Borrowing from Irenaeus, humanity’s imaging was complete, but humanity’s soul was not fully mature upon installation.  Admittedly, this view presupposes that in order for humanity to accomplish God’s original intent, which is to exist and function in a love relationship with the creator, there has to be an environment that is conducive for soul-making.  Referring back to the Travolta movie, God could have created a bubble for humanity’s existence.  Some would argue this was the purpose of the Garden of Eden.  However, the problem with this idea is if the Garden was to function as a bubble, that would greatly limit some of the fundamental relational dynamics that must be in place to retain God’s nature.  Soren Kierkegaard’s parable of The King and the Maidservant helps to illustrate this point.

The King and the Maidservant

There once was a king that fell in love with a maidservant in his kingdom.  He called his trusted advisors in to give him counsel on how to express his love for this maidservant.  The first advisor suggests, “You are the king!  You can require her to marry you.  You have all of the military might at your disposal.”  The king pondered and responded, “This would not be true love since love does not coerce.” The second advisor recommended, “You are the king!  Show her all of your great wealth, and she will want to be your queen.” The king pondered and responded, “This would not be true love.  She would only love me for my riches.” The last advisor counseled, “You are the king! You have the ability to disguise yourself and live among the servants.  She will fall in love with you, and then you can reveal yourself as the king.”  The king pondered and responded, “This would not be love.  Love does not deceive.”  The king excused his advisors and decided the only way to truly foster a loving relationship is to step down as the king and become like the maidservant. 

This parable provides a narrative of what God did for humanity by putting on human flesh for the sake of fostering a love relationship refusing to use his great might to coerce, his great wealth to woo, or his great power to disguise.  This may give us a picture of the type of environment necessary for soul-making (the term “soul-making” implies that God’s goal for creating humanity with a soul is to exist in a love relationship).   Dr. Reubel Shelly provides an interesting theodicy in his doctoral dissertation for Vanderbilt that includes the logic that the Garden of Eden before sin must have included natural possibilities for pain and suffering.  After all, if Adam and Eve were unable to feel the pain of an object falling and hitting them on the head, how could they in turn appreciate the warm caress of human touch?  He concluded that God created the best possible world for soul-making.  The controversy of this conclusion is that pain and suffering entered the narrative of creation long before sin. 

Second, there requires some intellectual distance between God and humanity so that man would be able to truly exercise his faculties free from coercion in order to freely choose to enter into a relationship with God.  This point presupposes that a love relationship suggests that both individuals are willing to choose to be in relationship.  If at any point someone in love relationship is required to be in said relationship or even to remain in said relationship, it no longer is accurate to use the terms “love relationship.”  There are other terms that could be used to describe the above relationship: “abusive relationship,” “trafficked relationship,” or “dysfunctional relationship.”  The latter relationships are not consistent with the explanation of the nature of love outlined in the Bible. 

The intellectual distance is another way of describing God’s desire to create the best possible environment for humanity to freely choose.  In order to be free to choose there must be choices.  And the choices must be free from divine coercion.   This would be a good place to discuss God’s divine love pursuit of humanity.  I do believe that God’s pursuit is compelling and, yet, does not compromise our free will.  This logic brings us back to a pre-sin Garden that had choices along with authentic emotions and feelings necessary for not only God to be in a love relationship with Adam and Eve but also Adam to be in a love relationship with Eve. 

See also A Grief Observed by Lewis

Three, imagining an existence free of pain would create greater problems than what we are currently discussing.  C.S. Lewis in both Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain makes a compelling argument from both philosophy and biology that God designed pain and suffering to be a useful element in His creation for soul making and soul attraction.  Lewis also borrows heavily from the Iranaeian theodicy that in order to develop human souls it requires an environment that includes pain and suffering.  For Lewis, pain and suffering serves God’s love desire to attract humanity to Himself for relationship.  On the surface, this could portray God as an evil puppet master using pain and suffering to convince His creation to turn.  However, Lewis is quick to point out that the elements of pain and suffering serve to bring a person to a greater realization that his existence is much bigger than himself.  This helps to steer the individual to the reality that life is not something to be controlled or even mastered by humanity.  There are events and circumstances that require the created to turn to the Creator.  It is often times in our greatest moments of grief that we experience God’s closeness. 

Lewis goes on to suggest that humanity was created with a biology that has the ability to discern pain for purposes of survival.  Our nervous system helps to warn us that something is wrong with our body.  Individuals that suffer from Leprosy have an inability to discern pain.  As a result, they are often more dangerous to themselves unable to discern the actions that lead to severe burns or even loss of limb.  With this logic, God uses pain and suffering as a requisite for our survival.

A World without Natural Laws

The alternative to this existence is a world where God constantly suspends natural laws for the sake of always alleviating pain and suffering.  This type of existence would be far worse than our current world because there would be no predictability.  While it would be great to imagine that every time a drunk driver crosses the yellow line into traffic that both vehicles turn instantly into marshmallows, this would not be the best possible world for soul making.  Without predictability and reliability, humanity would never learn.  This would be a chaotic world with no cause and effect.  This type of world, while fantastic as it sounds, would diminish the ability for humanity to exist in authentic relationships.  Love would be something other than love.  Instead, individuals would engage in selfish acts because the need to serve and consider someone else would be pointless.  After all, God would intervene in every instance to protect.

Back to the boy in the bubble, I think the reason this movie resonates is because it describes my parenting methodology with my first child.  I was ready to create the ultimate bubble to protect her from every type of pain and suffering the world had to offer.  If parents took the approach of always

protecting their children from every type of disappointment that may cause pain and suffering, then we would have a world full of adults that are ill equipped to handle disappointment and unable to function in life.  While the idea of always protecting my daughter from ever experiencing pain is intuitive, I resist the instinct because I realize that parenting is the process of making a person well adjusted for life.  Similarly, God is preparing humanity to exist in a world that has built in natural laws that will in time deeply impact us.  Using the parenting analogy, God must allow His children to walk out the consequences of their actions.  If not, this would not be consistent with how love functions.  But the encouraging part of this is God promises to always walk alongside us even when we make messy decisions that lead to messy consequences.  I suspect the ways we relate to God during the messy moments of life bring deeper intimacy to our love relationship with our Creator.

If you happened to take the time to read all 3,000 words of this essay, then I suspect you may also be grappling with this question.  You may even be going through you own “messy moment” either self inflicted or caused by someone else.  Either way, God’s love letter in the Bible reminds us that life will happen and it will not always be health and wealth.  In fact, more often than not life throws us curve balls that serve to keep us off balance.  It is during these moments we stay in the batters box.  After all, most curve balls end up out of the strike zone anyway.  You will get another pitch in life to hit.  Mixing my metaphors, we have a loving Creator that understands that the maturing of our soul requires that we learn to do life.  In order to appreciate God’s blessings, we also must appreciate his provisions when we are unable to provide for ourselves.  It is during these moments our responses may shift from “Why God are you allowing me to go through this crises?” to “In this crises, may you refine in me a deeper love and trust in the Christ that created the universe by his voice, sustains the universe by his voice, and is bigger then my current crisis.”