The Verdict Before the Exposition

The problem of evil has perennially challenged the affirmation of an all-good, all-powerful God for it posits this stumbling block to a coherent theistic worldview: If God is capable of destroying evil in creation, why would He not wish to do so unless He is not good; on the other hand, if He had the will to make evil non-existent in the world, why would He not do so unless He is not powerful? Why, in the end, does innocence suffer evil in the cosmos God created?

This philosophical/theological conundrum has been present in every generation, but it seems to me that, all too often, the concept of evil is perceived as excessively troubling to the intellect and wholly unanswerable to the traditional theist. As a result, theodicy appears to be untenable from the perspective of the skeptic. However, I do not think this need be so if one is able to identify the handicap through which man often views the world around him, an impediment in his vision that results from a lack of having a universal, wholistic worldview.

What I mean by this is that each thing has a purpose that is only discernible when seen in relation to something larger than itself. For example, a tree does not appear to have a purpose if merely considered an individual living piece of wood. It must be recognized within the midst of all the other living things that surround its own particular existence. For instance, these other things find value in the tree by using it for shelter, fuel, nourishment, and, even in some cases, simply admire its beauty- moreover, its leaves even help living things breathe by providing oxygen, which certainly is not inconsequential. Thus, by first recognizing the tree in the scope of both its immediate and remote surroundings, the idea of this particular tree becomes comprehensible to us.

The same goes for all other objects we encounter in the world. A hand's purpose and function can only be recognized when it is seen as part of the arm- likewise, the arm's purpose is seen in relation to being a member of the entire body. But the hand investigated as an isolated lump of flesh and bone cannot provide us with any notion of why it might exist; the arm as a mere appendage that waves around fruitlessly does not strike us as sensical. Of course, both these can only make sense when the mind views them as small components that make up man's interaction with the world around him.

Similarly, a car seen in isolation of the larger notion of human travel will not provide us with the whyness of its existence. Neither by seeing it as metal, plastic, and rubber fabricated together to form a distinct thing that moves, nor by witnessing its activity of covering great distance at great speed, is the mind's curiosity satisfied as it delves into the larger question of why humans need to move so far and so fast to begin with. Until this prior and more universal question is answered, the car remains a mystery to us.

Thus, seeing things in isolation from the other tangential things that surround it can never answer that ‘why’ question. At best, the adoption of such a specifically-particular outlook on the world can only elucidate how things work in minute detail; but, unfortunately, such fragmented vision allows each particular thing's ultimate purpose to remain hidden from our sight.

On the other hand, by believing that universal realities exist, teleology becomes a graspable science, for then one can see particulars in relation to how they might fit into the universal. To use the imagery of a novel as it pertains to this topic, until one ceases perceiving reality as a random collection of disconnected chapters, the problem of evil will remain as elusive as ever. Instead, reality must be seen as a narrative whole, where, though an individual may not see the complete book in its entirety, still he knows that there is a plot, a climax, and a conclusion- in short, he recognizes the entire thing as a story coming from the mind of an author.

In order for theodicy to be offered then it must be asked: If we are still to hold the idea that the cosmos is a product of an all-good and all-powerful God, how can evil fit into the universal picture of the cosmos?

When one thinks of evil, often he is only thinking of individual instances of evil that have happened or could potentially occur- the death of a child, a guilty sentence given to one who is innocent, a storm that wrecks the farmer’s crops. Even when one considers evil in general, the tendency is to think of ‘it’ as an amalgamation of particular instances of evil that, being simply combined, form a larger whole that is just as inexplicable as the parts that make it up.

But, like all other things, when evil is seen in isolation from the things that surround it (e.g. goodness) it cannot provide us with any meaning as to why it exists. Indeed, the apparent lack of meaning we perceive in it causes us to deem God, the giver of meaning, meaningless Himself. Hence, the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in is our own inability to escape from a meaningless world when we ensnare ourselves in this excessively particular mindset that is stuck in the evil of the moment.

The answer then as to how a benevolent and omnipotent God can exist alongside evil (even amidst the latter causing us pain) can only be given, first, by accepting there is indeed a universal story of history- past and future, immediate and remote- and second, by admitting our ignorance of the entirety of this story due to ourselves being entirely fixed in the immediately present evil.

Man, being the creature that he is, is incapable of grasping the ultimate unity of the universe, for, as Chesterton once wrote: "To accept everything is an exercise, [but] to understand everything is a strain."[1] Man simply does not know the complete plan of space and time- he is unable to perceive with his finite mind the infinite story coming from the mind of God. Hence, man cannot positively say evil has no meaningful place in the world- it would be an immense “strain” for one who is limited to comprehend the limitless.

I understand that, to many atheists, claiming ignorance of the ‘big picture’ sounds like the weakest of surrenders, for an appeal to a lack of knowledge in any situation does not at the end of the day tell anyone anything. Yet, I think, apropos this discussion, it really is the only honest thing a man can do; indeed, it is the only accurate thing he can do given his position as being that of a finite creature. Man, whose "span is 70 years or 80 for him who is strong" (Ps 90:10), ought not arrogantly ascribe to himself the knowledge of all things under the sun, as the scope of his experience is in fact so small.

Yet is this not precisely what Job, who knew and suffered evil all too well, fell victim to doing himself? As he defends his own innocence and attacks the seeming injustice that results from a guiltless person’s afflictions, he is answered from the whirlwind by God who lays out a brief picture of the breadth of the universe- the foundation of the earth, the doors of the seas, the rising of the sun, the storehouses of the snow, the way for the thunderbolt, the gates of death- “Gird up your loins and answer if you know whence all these things originate and how they all work!” the Lord of the cosmos demands of Job- “Shall a faultfinder contend with the Almighty?” (c.f. Job 38-41).  

Fortunately, Job did not contend for long. He did eventually repent of doubting what he did not understand and disbelieving what he did not know. God’s blast from the whirlwind shook him up in order to manifest to his own mind- as well as the mind of every skeptic after him- the limits of his own understanding. The essence of this biblical tale then pointedly highlights the foolishness of one who is quick to assume.

Dostoevsky's answer to the problem of evil in The Brothers Karamazov is very similar to what we find in Job, though certainly framed within a different context.[2] In this work, all the revealed evidence is against Dmitri as he is accused of murdering his father- much like in our ‘trial’ of God we stack up all instances of evil as evidence against His existence. However, Dostoevsky wants the reader to patiently persevere through to the end of his novel (as long a novel it is) because what he will discover at its conclusion are further details, omitted beforehand, which, when finally revealed, vindicate Dmitri at last. By ending his fictional trial with such an unexpected twist, Dostoevsky seems to be questioning us, his reader, concerning the very real, non-fictional trial of God: ‘Before dismissing the existence of God because of the existence of evil: Do you indeed have all the evidence?’

Often enough, we act like the King of Hearts and demand the verdict before the trial even begins- foolishly ignoring the wise words of the White Rabbit: "'Not yet, not yet!...There's a great deal to come before that!"[3] Or, with commensurate royal rashness, we act like King Aegeus, prematurely leaping to his death at the first sight of the black sails- did this color signify what Aegeus thought it did (i.e. that his son had died) or was he too quick in his assessment to his own fatal detriment?

Man often thinks just as irrationally as the King of Wonderland and the King of the Aegean. He sees the situation of the world as either evil exists and a good and powerful God does not exist or a good and powerful God exists and evil does not exist. However, constructing such a stark and rigid dichotomy as this is to his own detriment. Both the existence of evil and the existence of a good and powerful God can be conceived as existing alongside each other as long as one remembers the limited extent of one’s perception of reality. To equate the truth of one premise (evil's existence) directly with the conclusion (God does not exist) is certainly misguided. Man must never forget he is not omniscient and there are other premises to be considered. It is the fool who demands a verdict before all the evidence of tart thievery is given; it is the pitiable who commits suicide at the first sight of sails on the horizon.

I think all this is why the mindset apophaticism[4] provides us with in theology is precisely the same mindset we must have when evaluate the problem of evil- a certain ignorance concerning the positive aspects of God’s plan must be maintained in the face of our sure awareness of instances where we know evil exists. Indeed, a profession of ignorance says more to the thinking man about God and His world than any attempt to justify particular occurrences of evil, for theological reflection can only go so far in attempting to understand the ways of God. In other words, silence many times conveys more profitable wisdom to the simple person than a sophisticated garrulousness does that attempts to explain complex realities.

The Christian answer to the problem of evil then can only exist in this acknowledgment of ‘not knowing’. We simply cannot see the whole collection and interaction of events that make up history; hence, we must humbly claim ignorance of any reality that lies beyond our vision- the mystery of iniquity be foremost among those realities. Nevertheless, Christians can with confidence claim at least one thing positively- that God does not permit an evil to exist without having a plan to redeem it…somehow.

Of course, this belief is not without warrant. It is reinforced by noting one historical occurrence that sets the pattern for man’s future encounters of evil in our world: the event when the greatest evil conceivable-the death of Christ, the Son of God on the cross 2,000 years ago- brought about the greatest good- death's definitive defeat by His resurrection. In essence, when God becomes the Victim and by patient endurance becomes the Victor as a result, evil is then turned upside down.[5] The mystery of this ultimate reversal of evil into good certainly cannot be fully comprehended, but it can be assented to through an act of faith, and it is this faith that uniquely changes one’s vision.

Yet, even if this mystery cannot be fully understood, we can grasp something of this reality even in our own world. Time and time again, it is recognized that a good man's suffering proves to be the fertilized ground from which great good can grow. From the self-induced suffering of the weightlifter to grow muscle, to the unasked for suffering of the father to progress in patience, to the unavoidable suffering of the sick to produce humility, all evil patiently endured perfects man, making him into something better. This truth- unexpected though it is- might cause us then to flip our original question on its head and not ask why do innocent people suffer, but why some do not.[6] An instance of evil then, incomprehensible by itself, can very well prove to be a springboard from which good can enter the story of creation. And what great good there is in that story.

I think Chesterton's fictional character of Gabriel Syme put it best when he said: "The mystery of the world [is] bad is so bad, that we cannot but think good an accident; good is so good, that we feel certain that evil could be explained."[7] An intuition like this of course does not fully vindicate the presence of evil in the world, but it can shed new light on a mystery that has plagued theists and atheists alike.

In the meantime, all of us might do well to consider that the Author of the story, God Himself, has entered into His work- in all its chapters, up to and including drinking the chalice of suffering Himself (c.f. Mt 20:22, 26:39)- and He ever remains there with us until His plan comes to its fruition in suffering's redemption.

[1] G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press,1995), 22.

[2] Spoiler alert: skip the rest of this paragraph if you have not yet read The Brothers Karamazov. I would be doing a grave injustice to you by revealing the end of one of the world’s best novels. The force of it will certainly lose its bite.

[3] Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland: A Norton Critical Edition (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1971), 88.

[4] A school of thought that asserts the most accurate way of describing God is by negating properties from Him (in contrast to positively ascribing human properties to the divine) due to His nature exceeding classification- hence, His nature being at its core incomprehensible. Known proponents of this type of theology are Pseudo-Dionysius and Thomas Aquinas.

[5] A moving image of this reversal of evil into good is mentioned by Cardinal Ratzinger when he alludes to a gnostic text from the early Christian period “in which it is said that Adam, i.e. the human person, stands on his head and thus causes up and down, left and right to be reversed; a complete conversion of values- a revolution- is needed if man and the world are to become what they should be.” Dogma and Preaching, trans. Matthew J. O’Connell (Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press, 1985), 39-40. This ‘revolution’ is precisely what Christ came to bring about.

[6] Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 611. The entirety of this book is an articulate examination of the problem of evil from a Christian perspective.

[7] G.K. Chesterton, The Man Who Was Thursday: A Nightmare (New York, NY: Modern Library, 2001), 167.