{"id":478,"date":"2021-07-22T20:24:26","date_gmt":"2021-07-23T01:24:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/?p=478"},"modified":"2021-07-22T20:57:23","modified_gmt":"2021-07-23T01:57:23","slug":"theodicy-or-merely-defense-a-response-to-dr-jerry-wierwille-on-the-problems-of-suffering-and-evil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/?p=478","title":{"rendered":"Theodicy or merely defense? A Response to Dr. Jerry Wierwille on the Problems of Suffering and Evil"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Theodicy or merely defense? A Response to Dr. Jerry Wierwille on the Problems of Suffering and Evil<\/h2>

By Brandon Duke – 7\/22\/201<\/p>

I very much respect and appreciate the work that Dr. Jerry Wierwille is doing in a series of Restitutio episodes promoting the Christian worldview. Because of that respect, and on account of our past dialog on the topic of suffering and evil in episodes 364 and 365 of the Restitutio podcast, I\u2019ve been going through his presentation in Restitutio episode 397 \u201cWhy Christianity: Suffering and Evil\u201d.<\/p>

In an effort at constructive Christian discussion, I would like to offer some friendly (if stiff) critique.<\/p>

We are all acquainted with the two problems of suffering and evil, even if we haven\u2019t defined them in a formal way. We know from the news, and from history, that men do great evil to each other. We know friends and family who have experienced great suffering and loss, through sickness, aging, natural disasters, and accidents, what some call the 4 \u201cD\u2019s\u201d of death, decay, damage, and deprivation.<\/p>

(For more on the 4 \u201cD\u2019s\u201d, check out episode 21 of The Reluctant Theologian Podcast featuring Max Baker-Hytch)
https:\/\/www.rtmullins.com\/podcast\/episode\/1c8cc288\/episode-21-god-evil-and-the-multiverse-with-max-baker-hytch<\/p>

And some of us have known terrible suffering directly through our own sexual abuse, illness, loss of function, and other forms of profound loss. It is an inarguable fact of the human condition that ALL humanity has experienced or will experience some degree of suffering and evil throughout their life.<\/p>

When we consider the Christian Bible\u2019s description of God, as a loving, protective, caring, instructive, wise, benevolent, and powerful Father, it is not only natural for us to see an apparent contradiction between that account and the world we experience, we are compelled to do so. Enter the problem of suffering and evil: if the God of the Bible truly is a loving Father, how is it that so much suffering and evil exist? As Christians interested in the truth, it is not only natural to think about this apparent contradiction, we are compelled to respond to it.<\/p>

However, some post-biblical Christian thinkers have made a \u201cdefense\u201d of God, arguing in different ways, that it is either inappropriate, or insubordinate, or just ineffective to take up this topic. They argue that we are not in a good position to evaluate these things, that we lack adequate information to resolve the tension. They argue, in fact, that living with this apparent contradiction is a moral virtue and that any efforts to examine God\u2019s revelation in Nature and Scripture, to justify God\u2019s design and governance, are disrespectful, arrogant, and disobedient.<\/p>

Other Christians, have offered their theodicy. The word theodicy is derived from the greek \u201ctheos\u201d (God) and \u201cdike\u201d (justice), and is a term coined by famous Christian philosopher Gottfried Leibniz (although, the practice goes all the way back to the second Christian century, and is arguably also engaged in within the bible itself). A theodicy attempts to offer an explanation of how God is justified in creating and governing a world such as we experience. These theories expect an all powerful, all good, and all knowing God has some justification for allowing evil and suffering to occur, and expect that we are able to know about this justification to some degree.<\/p>

I think we have good reasons from natural theology, and from biblical studies, to expect a theodicy to be available to us, if we seek it. I also have deep moral and apologetic concerns about the approach of Christian thinkers who argue instead for a \u201cdefense\u201d only.<\/p>

So in this context, I\u2019d like to consider the treatment of the problems of evil and suffering in Episode 397 of Restitutio by Jerry Wierwille, and explain my concerns.<\/p>

First, on several occasions Dr. Wierwille \u201cpoisons the well\u201d against those who are troubled by the suffering we see: they are either supposedly not sincere, or they are immorally placing themselves over God.<\/p>

18:30 \u201cMost people are really not interested in understanding the answer. They just want a stick, that they can beat God with.\u201d (No evidence for this is offered, and it is irrelevant to the substance of the problem.)<\/p>

\u201cPeople want someone to be responsible for it.\u201d (Indeed, is not God ultimately responsible for his creation?)<\/p>

\u201cMost people don\u2019t want to know the true answer to the question.\u201d (Again, how would one know this, and what difference would it make?)<\/p>

27:00 \u201cWe live in a world where the enemy is imposing suffering upon us. And sometimes God intervenes and does something, and other times he doesn\u2019t. But to question whether God is good, is to put him to the test, in a way that we are NOT able to. We are not over God, we do not have our sense of justice to then put God on the stand and ask him why he does what he does.\u201d<\/p>

I think these critiques are both untrue, and regardless, unhelpful in offering a persuasive answer to the problem.<\/p>

Secondly, and this is my greater concern, this presentation offers conflicting, and contradictory explanations for why suffering occurs.<\/p>

13:11 \u201cThe problem is people. Evil and suffering come because of free will choices. Because the world has been corrupted by sin, that through the initial disobedience, through the fall. The world has been forever changed since then. However the world is not going to stay that way.\u201d<\/p>

26:00 \u201cWe do not understand everything that God does, we do not understand the entire way that God is working things out for the good of his people, to overcome the occupying power of this world, to defeat the enemy.\u201d<\/p>

Are Adam and Eve to blame for suffering? Are we today? Or the devil to blame? Or \u201csin\u201d to blame? Or does God WANT us to suffer to test our trust? Is God unable to work things out to overcome the occupying power without suffering? Why not? No explicit answers are given.<\/p>

And finally, the presentation concludes by arguing that an answer to why suffering exists is unavailble to the Christian, and additionally, that our role is to eschew an answer in (blind?) faith operating out of a lack of information.<\/p>

23:50 \u201cThe answer that the Christian metanarrative gives, is that we don\u2019t have to know every single why, to end up having a how. Because the how has been given to us.\u201d<\/p>

27:48 \u201cWhat we know, is that in our suffering, God is there, with us, in it. And God will comfort us, and help us endure through that suffering. As long as we maintain our trust in him, then we will be on his side, and he will be there helping us through it. And even if the deliverance doesn\u2019t come in this day and time, in this life, God promises he will make it all right, one day.\u201d<\/p>

The presentation argues that a Christian\u2019s job is to ignore this question, because the suffering is temporary, and a purposeful test of our trust in God.<\/p>

To illustrate his point, at 19:50, Dr. Wierwille references a parable, of a resistance fighter, who meets a stranger one night, who claims to be the leader of the resistance. The parable continues by describing the fighter\u2019s conviction that this stranger actually is the leader of the resistance by the end of the night. It goes on to describe the conflicting reports of witnesses to the stranger in some cases helping the resistance fighter and his comrades, and in other cases, working against them. And it drives it\u2019s point home, by elevating the constancy, the \u201cfaith\u201d of the fighter in maintaining his trust in this stranger, regardless of his apparently contradictory behavior, and it deprecates the skepticism of his fellow fighters, as faithless short-sighted bickering. If they would only wait until the end of the campaign, they would see that both the fighter, and the stranger, will be vindicated.<\/p>

I find this a deeply problematic view of God.<\/p>

Note the distant, unclear, and confusing revelation the stranger offers to the partisan. He leans on the trust developed from that one meeting (charismatic experience?), rather than showing himself consistently true and faithful to the resistance through explanations of his actions. He is a mysterious, and shadowy figure, one that certainly is NOT in control of the situation, but a player in a world of deceit and conspiracy. This depiction of God implies God is weak and duplicitous, working in the shadows, unable to reveal himself clearly to the resistance for fear of exposure to the enemy.<\/p>

Why would this member of the resistance not be reasonable and even accountable to challenge his assumption about the stranger, in order to protect his comrades fighting for the cause? As evidence against the \u201cstranger\u201d begins to stack up, the stranger could as easily be a double agent manipulating our protagonist.<\/p>

But the entire point of the parable is for the partisan to ignore this evidence in favor of his one convicting experience of the stranger.<\/p>

I pose to you, that mystery, charismatic experience, and fideism is not an answer to the problems of evil and suffering.<\/p>

Wrapping up, Dr. Wierwille says: \u201cWe don’t focus on the suffering, the evil that is happening. That is not the only thing that exists in this world, because with God, there is something yet to happen.\u201d<\/p>

\u201cThe suffering and the evil has its time set for it. And one day God will eradicate that.\u201d<\/p>

(Why the delay? An explanation is needed that would help this defense.)<\/p>

\u201cThat is the way the Christian looks at suffering and evil.\u201d<\/p>

Note the heavy reliance on balancing suffering with reward. But the value of the ultimate reward is no defence, if the suffering is otherwise unnecessary. No abusive father can say, \u201cthe one day of terrible abuse, is made null by the lifetime of love thereafter\u201d.<\/p>

My objective in this critique, is not to cast stones at Dr. Wierwille, whom I find a capable shepherd, a sincere Christian, and a personal friend. It is to point out that the approach offered is merely a defense, and not a theodicy, as we have defined the terms in the beginning. And the problem with offering a defense, rather than a theodicy, is it leaves us fundamentally in an untenable position, just as it did the resistance fighter in the parable. It leaves us without an explanation of how God is just.<\/p>

I have my own theodicy that is on offer in Restitutio podcasts 362-365, and while it is still under construction, I\u2019d prefer almost any theodicy to the approach taken in this presentation, which I think it blames the victim, avoids the question, and calls on people to live in a relationship with God based on uninformed trust.<\/p>

This sort of thing may work for someone already convinced of their relationship with God, someone who isn\u2019t directly experiencing intense suffering, someone who isn\u2019t troubled by the problem. But I think it\u2019s the wrong approach even for them. Suffering and evil will come for them soon, and they deserve to be prepared with a better answer that doesn’t sacrifice God\u2019s goodness to his power, doesn\u2019t obscure the clarity of his revelation, and that ties into his moral growth plan for their life.<\/p>

For an introduction to some of the available theodicies on offer, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the subject:<\/p>

https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/evil\/#The<\/p>

Episodes 362-365
https:\/\/restitutio.org\/2020\/10\/22\/362-why-god-allows-suffering-1-brandon-duke\/
https:\/\/restitutio.org\/2020\/10\/29\/363-why-god-allows-suffering-2-brandon-duke\/
https:\/\/restitutio.org\/2020\/11\/05\/364-challenging-soul-making-theodicy-1-brandon-duke-jerry-wierwille\/
https:\/\/restitutio.org\/2020\/11\/12\/365-challenging-soul-making-theodicy-2-brandon-duke-jerry-wierwille\/<\/p>

The Britannica article on Theodicy
https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/topic\/theodicy-theology<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Should we Christians offer a full fledged theodicy when faced with the problems of suffering and evil, or a defense only? <\/p>\n

I offer a critique of Restitutio episode 397 \u201cWhy Christianity: Suffering and Evil\u201d, by Dr. Jerry Wierwille.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":483,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-uncategorized","entry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/father-pointing-daughter.jpg","post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/478","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=478"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/478\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":506,"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/478\/revisions\/506"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/483"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.truthborn.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}