This is the first post in a series exploring questions atheists have concerning the claims of Christianity. Sometimes they are questions, sometimes accusations, but out of respect I will try to phrase each post as a question. My hope is to offer something for Christians and atheists to think about, including myself. Also, let me offer this caveat to keep in mind as I explore these questions: I spent most of my life as a protestant Christian. However, now I am an Orthodox Christian. Eastern Orthodoxy predates Protestantism by over fifteen hundred years. All of the questions (or accusations) I have heard from atheists have been leveled at a protestant view of Christianity. Although I may talk about protestant views, I will be answering from primarily an Orthodox perspective as best as I am able.
The question usually takes the form of:
If God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving, why does he allow such terrible suffering?
I have thought of this a lot and I am afraid my answer is going to be less than satisfactory to all parties. Why? Because there simply is no good answer to this question. Not because there isn't one, but because we are incapable of understanding both the question and, I suspect, the answer if one were provided by a God that is so different then ourselves.
To clarify, the question runs into a roadblock before it even gets started when using the word "God". Its use makes a whole lot of assumptions that need to be addressed before it can have any real meaning. The words after "God" try to define who or what we are talking about, but even these words make assumptions. First, do we really understand who this God is? The Bible attempts to give us some definition by offering descriptions. But the Bible itself is a book written to humans by humans who were being inspired by a being that is so far above us that understanding him is a challenge that will probably never be overcome. Even though the Bible describes God, we tend to miss qualifiers that are important to recognize before we start rattling off descriptors and declaring God as understood.
The prophet Isaiah wrote:
For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts.
Centuries later the Apostle Paul wrote:
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor?
It was the scholasticism, a creation of Latin Catholicism, that influenced the theology of the Reformation and Protestanism (This is an oversimplification, but the broad stroke here is accurate). Here the church, both Catholic and Protestant came to believe God could be understood (albeit, not completely) by intellectual exercise. This doesn't mean we shouldn't use our intellects. We can't help but do so. But it gave a greater weight to the intellect than was healthy when it comes to understanding God. This was primarily a Western problem that continues to this day.
The Eastern church did not take this approach. It took a more, in my opinion, humble approach. For example, the creation of apophatic theology gave the Church the ability to talk about God's qualities without losing the understanding that God was so far above us as to make questions involving God difficult, if not impossible, to answer. At least, to answer in a way that would satisfy our desires for an answer.
To give some examples, the statement, "God is holy" was rephrased, "God is holy in a way that we are not". Or, "God is eternal" as "God is not finite". This makes sense because we are unholy and finite. We know what that means. We don't understand what holy or eternal means in their fullness because we only have ourselves as a reference point.
Because of this, trying to say, "God is this, so why does God allow...?" is not only difficult but impossible to answer. The best we can say is, "I don't know". But it is in trying to answer this question by Christians and atheists from a protestant point of view that causes real suffering. When a tragedy, such as a tsunami, occurs I have heard Christians declare that God was punishing sin, such as homosexuality. Or, in the case of children, that God spared them the suffering of this world. Or that God knew the child would grow up to be destined for an eternity of fire, brimstone and worms, so he took her before that could happen. On the other hand, I have heard atheists put forward that bad things happen in a naturalistic system and therefore there probably is no God. Without arguing which idea is true, both are at least unhelpful to those who are actually experiencing the tragedy, at most they are boarding on the abusive. The fact is, we just don't know why these things happen. We know a lot of things about God in a very, very limited way, but we don't know enough to give definitive answers. At least the atheist understands this. Unfortunately, most Christians do not and try to give answers that display their own ignorance of the questions being asked.
So, to the atheist and protestant, I would suggest both are assuming far too much when asking such a question. I don't blame the atheist, here. They are simply parroting what protestants have been saying for hundreds of years. Therefore, it is up to Protestants to begin to reframe the dialog in a way that is both humble and less adverse to ignorance.
Like I said at the beginning, it is unlikely this explanation is going to satisfy either party. But it is what the ancient church, for the most part, has taught and, in the East, what she has always taught. The best we can do, when it comes to tragedy and suffering is to sympathize with the sufferer and love them.
