solutiontoevil

Theological Studies: The Best Solution to the Problem of Evil

Alvin Shaul
Theology, Oord
Paper #5
November 4, 2005

What is the best solution to the problem of evil?

If we are to answer the question of what the best solution to the problem of evil is, we must first briefly explain the alternatives and why they are not suitable. It would be to the surprise of most Christians today that much of their beliefs concerning evil lack biblical foundation and have survived only because of misteachings and ignorant acceptance. Just four days ago I heard a middle aged woman, high standing in the local Church of the Nazarene, teaching a host of children that the devil created sin. While this left me dumbfounded for a moment, I quickly realized that I probably would have accepted such a statement as little as two years ago. My conceptions of sin, evil, and suffering in the world had been shaped primarily by my own experiences and reactions of others to their experiences. I had never looked at the issue of evil theologically.
Perhaps the most common response to evil and suffering in one�s life is that �everything happens according to God�s divine will.� That is, �God has a purpose for this happening� or �everything happens for a reason.� Today such statements make me cringe. This type of reaction to evil and suffering is Augustinian in nature. Romans 8:28 is commonly used to reinforce this view that God always works for good in all things. Since God is always doing good in all things, then evil really does not exist. As such, our perception of suffering and evil is a human perception, whereas the divine perception says everything is good to God�is according to God�s will. Those who believe through this line of thought find their comfort in denying that evil even exists. The chief problem with this is that it takes away any right to human freedom. If everything happens because it is part of God�s divine will, then we have no say in how our lives will be lived out. God already has our lives fully planned and fully good (Oord 194). I strongly believe that one would be hard-pressed to find someone who didn�t have some experience or another that they could not help but label as genuine evil. So while this Augustinian concept might be helpful to some in theory, it is not very practical.
A second commonly accepted view of evil and suffering allows God to permit suffering in the world. The principal difference between this and the Augustinian view is that God is self-limited in that He gives us freedom and limits Himself so as to respect that freedom. This view again says that everything in the world happens to increase the overall well-being of individuals. Furthermore, this view proposes that God purposely created an imperfect world where suffering and conflict could arise so that that suffering could shape us into who God wants us to be. This type of theodicy is sometimes called the �soul-making� theodicy, because of the theory described above and the development of the soul. The biggest problem again with this theodicy is the fact that it denies genuine evil exists. If everything eventually works for the good and well-being of the individual as God seeks it to, then what we interpret as evil or suffering is in fact good. (Oord 196-197).
There are two types of Wesleyan process theology that are both more acceptable than those previous. The first is what Oord calls �Essential free-will theism.� This theism says that individuals have a limited amount of freedom based on the actions and decisions of those around them and before them. It also says that God has given humans complete free will in that He cannot unilaterally make something happen when He wishes. Rather, God can have the single greatest influence in any given situation. Therefore, for the individual, he or she cannot be entirely controlled by anyone or anything else, while at the same time he or she cannot choose from an unlimited amount of options (Oord 199). For example, a person cannot decide to cut a loaf of bread with a knife if all they have with them is a fork. This is because someone chose to put the fork where this person could find it, but did not choose to leave a knife. The decisions of one person affect the possible decisions of another.
The second free-will theism is what Oord labels �accidental free-will theism�. This view of God allows Him to unconditionally keep his omnipotence. �God unilaterally granted freedom to individuals at creation and/or unilaterally grants freedom in the present� (Oord 200). This give God the power to grant or take away freedom from individuals at any given point if the situation warrants it. This unilateral ability to step in and decide the result a situation is what separates accidental free-will theism from essential free-will theism. In essential free-will theism there is no possibility for God to override the freedom He has given us.
This view of God and free will frees God from being guilty of allowing or even causing evil, pain or suffering to be present in individual�s lives. The freedom we have to initiate evil in the world or for any being to initiate evil in the world cannot be overridden, therefore, by God. However, if we are to free ourselves from possible Pelagian thought, we must confirm that God is always acting first. He always is the initial contributor to every situation, creating relationship with us and allowing our existence (Oord 201).
One of the principal ideas concerning Wesleyan process theodicy is that God does not have a formed actual body, whereas human beings do. As has been noted above, God cannot unilaterally affect the result of a situation. That is to say that God can have influence but not a conclusive influence. Because God is spirit, He has no body with which to interact with humans. God can only interact with humans through our minds. God spirit speaks to our spirit. As humans, however, we have bodies with which to enforce our decisions. Playing off of Oord�s example of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, let us consider now the events of September 11, 2001. The obvious culprits of the crimes committed were the individuals who hijacked the planes that hit the buildings. However, they were not the only ones responsible. They were the ones that physically made the terrorist act occur, but many others knew of the happenings. Many others were involved in the planning of the act. We have been at war with �terror� for nearly four years now and the principle goal has been to find Asama Bin Laden. He was culpable to the crime because he was involved in the planning. The difference between God who sees evil or suffering occurring and cannot prevent it and Bin Laden is that Bin Laden had a physical body with which he could have spoken or acted in ways that could have prevented the acts. God only has a spirit with which to influence and persuade.
Central to Oord�s conclusion of the essential free-will theism is God�s power. As was just stated, God is a persuader. God has several possibilities for each decision that we make. While He is always trying to persuade us to choose the most loving response, there are other responses to God�s persuasion that are still loving, only to a lesser degree. God thus works with us to help us choose the most loving response to any given situation.
I have read over many of the proposed theories concerning theodicy and this essential free-will theodicy as proposed by Oord seems to be the most sensible. He does an excellent job of �covering his bases� on all regards. If I am to have a positive impact on my parishioners in the future I must have a clear understanding of theodicy that will help me deal with the pain and suffering that occurs in their lives.