John K Roth: A Theodicy of Protest (Part 2)

To read part 1 of this article click here

An omnipotent yet (apparently) disinterested God

Roth believes God is truly omnipotent and really has has the power to change the course of history if God wanted to. There are several examples in the Bible which support this position , for example Noah and the flood, and God stopping the sun for a day so Joshua could wage a battle. However, despite this option to dramatically change things, it seems up to now God is not interested in doing anything other than allowing history to remain a 'slaughter-bench'.

The potential to change the course of human history is within God's reach. God could elect to do things very differently, but so far as we can tell God's so-called 'master-plan' has been to let people do whatever they want (allowing freedom to run its course). For Roth this chaotic state is not really evidence of planning:

"Everything hinges on the proposition that God possesses - but fails to use well enough - the power to intervene decisively at any moment to make history's course less wasteful. Thus, in spite and because of his sovereignty, this God is everlastingly guilty and the degrees run from gross negligence to mass murder." (John Roth)

So once again we are faced with the following choice: Either God is deprived of some power, or we consider God to be less-than-good (according to the standards of 'goodness' we understand). The question is which 'version' of God presents the greater risk: an innocent but ineffectual God, or one who is all-powerful but less than benevolent? Roth believes we should take our chances with the latter, for the simple reason that like Job in the Old Testament, we at least have the chance to state our case before God in the hope that God will turn things around, and especially as the Bible gives numerous examples of where God has been willing to do this before.

A limited God has nothing to offer in terms of making things better, but a God who has given us life yet in whose presence we yearn for more love to be shown, could potentially do this.

Of course, Roth realises that in adopting this view of God we now face the following scenario:

"To defend the good as we know it best - especially to carry out God's own commandments that we should serve those in need, heal the sick, feed the hungry, forestall violence - we must do battle against forces that are loose in the world because God permits them." (John Roth)

However logically this raises the following issue: If God is said to be less-than-benevolent, why has God has commanded us to 'heal the sick, feed the hungry, forestall violence'? Why if God has chosen to allow malevolent forces to run 'loose in the world', does God then command us to work to counter them? Roth remains somewhat silent on this matter!

An anti-theodicy

Roth’s Protest Theodicy is seen by him as more of an anti-theodicy. Nothing can truly justify all the evil and suffering we see going on in the world, with the responsibility for it all lying squarely with God:

"There is really not much that human beings can do." (John Roth)

All theodicies assume God’s benevolence, but why continue to believe in a loving God in light of all the wasted life (and lives) in the universe? How can we believe in a God of love who seemingly 'sat back' on the 11th September 2001 and watched thousands die? If God has acted in history in the past, why doesn’t God do so again? We should call out to God and state our grievances. We should protest God's silence and apparent lack of interest and concern.

"Questions should be raised; answers should be sought. Promises should be fulfilled; the guilty should stand accused!" (John Roth)

Some issues

Roth's protest theodicy depends largely on whether one accepts that God has unlimited power to do anything. Is God only limited by whether God decides to do something (or not)? A limited understanding of God's omnipotence presents numerous problems as to how God can be so limited and why. A limited view of God's power is not supported by the numerous examples of miracles in the Bible. Taking these accounts seriously, begs the question as to why God does not do more 'large-scale miracles' along the lines of them, and the fact that God has not done more means we may have no choice but to agree with Roth that God appears to have the power to act, but is unwilling to do so.

However the question begs; is God is actually benevolent? In terms of the biblical record it appears to suggest God is:

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)

Yet some other passages may cause us to re-think this:

"When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God." (2 Samuel 6:6f - Emphasis mine)

"O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us - he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." (Psalm 137:8f - Emphasis mine)

One could say God was more volatile in the Old Testament but is more loving in the New Testament, but this seems to support Roth’s view that God is lacking benevolence and is morally unpredictable. Even with a more loving God in the New Testament we still have to explain the death of Jesus; an innocent man who God allowed to be tortured before being killed in brutal fashion, and all because God demanded this life to satisfy the moral conditions God had established. If Jesus needed to die, why allow his death to be so malicious and brutal? Why not allow him to die swiftly and with minimum amount of pain? Animals sacrificed in the Jewish Temple were treated with greater dignity and respect at their death than Jesus was!

Even if we accept some notion of sin and depravity in humans, our baulking at the circumstances in which Jesus died appears to suggest we have a greater moral sensibility than God. Roth may be going too far in proposing a less-than benevolent God, but what evidence do we have that God is in fact benevolent in light of the evidence of human history? However all this does not sit very well with Roth's argument that our pleadings before God may change things. For if we really are living in the presence of a deity who is less-than benevolent, what hope do we have for believing that things could or should be any better than they are right now? Presenting our case (protesting) before God to do something about evil and suffering, may in fact lead to things getting worse rather than better.

Final thoughts…

Although Roth’s theodicy may be theologically unpalatable, it does force us to explain why we assume God is benevolent in light of the continued presence of evil and suffering in the world. Certainly we are forced to take seriously the value of postulating the idea of a limited God, and the moral questions surrounding the 'all for a greater good' view of things, especially when we think about how God is said to have acted in the past yet does not appear to do so today.

Video: Your God is no Good

A Theodicy of Protest: John K Roth (Part 1)

"Could you have done better?""Yes, I think so.""You could have done better? Then what are you waiting for? You don't have a minute to waste, go ahead, start working!"

Introduction

The attempt to reconcile God's existence with the presence of evil and suffering in the world (theodicy), typically finds the objector asking, 'Why doesn't God do something about it?' The point here being that as far as this person is concerned, God could and should do something to limit or even prevent evil and suffering from occurring in the world.

In Christian theology the most popular responses to the problem of evil have argued that either evil and suffering is our fault (Freewill Defense), or for our benefit (Irenaean Theodicy). Some have also suggested that God cannot actually do anything to prevent evil and suffering from occurring due to limitations in God’s essential Being (Process Theodicy). But despite their different approaches and solutions, each of these theodicies deny the suggestion that it is God who is the cause of the problem. However for John Roth, the problem of evil actually begins there. 

As far as Roth is concerned, God's supposed sovereignty (control over everything) and omnipotence (power to do anything), means God could and should be able to do something about evil and suffering. As there is evil and suffering in the world, we must surely draw the conclusion that God does not really want to do anything about it. In fact, Roth goes so far as to say that God's persistent inactivity means God is directly responsible for evil and suffering, and that our reasonable response to this situation should a form of protest that enough is enough.

He also believes we should give up on a false image of God, one that suggests God is benevolent (all-good) and always seeking to do the best for us. As far as Roth is concerned, in the matter of evil and suffering God has done too little for too long, especially when one considers the numerous and extensive atrocities committed by humanity to humanity over the course of history.

Evil as waste

Most Christians regard evil as something which works against God's intended purpose for things. Roth likes to re-define evil as 'waste'; actions (or things) that happen which are simply pointless:

"Evil happens whenever power ruins or squanders, or whenever it fails to forestall those results." (John Roth)

Roth considers the amount of 'waste' in the world to be the standard against which we assess the level of good and bad in individuals, societies and even God. So the greater the amount of evil and suffering, the greater the amount of 'waste', and vice versa.

"When we see atrocities such as the events of the Holocaust being committed, we might talk about this as being a senseless waste of human life. Now when we speak this way, we are considering certain actions as being 'evil', due to the pointless loss of life and suffering involved in them. Roth is re-defining the notion of 'evil' in precisely this way." (John Roth)

Of course, some people would argue that the 'screams of pain' (as Roth calls them), are the means by which greater things occur. In the Bible we read that ‘in all things God works for the good of those who love him’ (Romans 8:28). Theories of cosmic and biological evolution are also largely based on the premise that death and destruction are a necessary feature of the universe, and the means by which new life may develop and evolve. So the myriads of extinct species over the course of history are not to be understood as 'waste', but just part of the way things are.

Roth does not take such a positive views of things. For him, too much has been lost over the years and as such God must be held accountable:

"History is the slaughter-bench at which the happiness of peoples, the wisdom of states, and the virtue of individuals have been sacrificed." (John Roth)

The wisdom and character of God

Many Christians would argue that our having freewill is what makes us unique, and that without this freedom we would simply be moral robots. The decision to give us freewill has also limited what God could do. For instance, God could not give us freewill and make us to only capable of choosing to do good things. Roth's response to this is, ‘If God is supposed to be all-knowing and all-good, how 'cost-effective' was God's decisions to allow humans to have freewill?’

History shows that there has been a significant amount of waste (evil) in the world, caused by a misuse of freewill. The events of the Holocaust are a notable example, when millions of lives were unnecessarily 'thrown away'. So we have to wonder, was the decision to give humans freewill a good one, for it appears this has been a costly decision. Also, to say human freewill has limited God in some way is nonsense. Most Christians believe God is omnipotent (all-powerful), which means that in theory, God can do anything. Furthermore, to say God is limited due to human freewill would appear to contradict the notion of freewill God has given to us, who are created in God's image (Genesis 1:26f)). If God only chooses to do good things, why not humans also (who are created in God’s image)? It is simply nonsense to suggest that humans have freewill to do whatever they want, but that God does not have the same degree of freedom.

So in light of this Roth believes we must reject the idea that God is limited, and instead draw from the evidence which suggests that God not only chose to allow history to follow a wasteful route, but that 'such a wasteful God cannot be totally benevolent'.

Of course, most Christians would be very unhappy with this analysis of the situation, for the simple reason that God cannot be blamed simply because humanity (constantly) gets it wrong. Roth obviously disagrees! He argues that it was God who started history, and therefore it is God who has allowed it to become what it is. Furthermore, God was the one who put in place the 'boundaries' for creation, and as such it was God who set-up the system under which humans have to live:

"To the extent that [humans] are born with the potential and power to be dirty, credit for that fact belongs elsewhere… 'Elsewhere' is God's address."(John Roth)

So the 'misuse of freewill argument' does not negate God of all (or any) responsibility, but simply leaves the question begging as to why God chose to give humans freewill in the first place, especially if God had some idea of what might happen as a result of doing this.

How useful is freewill anyway

For Roth, the freedom we have been given is not only too much, but also too little. We have the freedom to do a great many things (good and bad), yet appear to be unable to find to cures for some of the worst illnesses (E.g. cancer, aids). We have the freedom to make real choices, yet tend to have very little 'choice' in life-or-death situations. So our freedom is useless in those times. Freewill cannot prevent the corpses from piling up. So what value is there in giving humans freewill, especially if it is incapable of preventing more and more 'waste' from building up in the universe?

A limited God is an impotent God

So what about the argument that God is not really omnipotent or omniscient, but only in a limited sense (which is the same as saying God is not omnipotent or omniscient)? In a Process Theodicy these revisions to God's character are actually intended to help explain why evil and suffering occurs in the world, and in doing so protect the notion of God's benevolence (the belief that God only and always does the best thing possible).  Roth believes a God who is not truly omnipotent (or omniscient) is ineffectual and weak. Furthermore, this view of God is not supported by the myriad of biblical examples, where God appears to have the power (and desire) to significantly change the events of history. If God is able to part seas, make the sun go back and raise the dead, then surely God had the ability to prevent something like the Holocaust from occurring? If we say God did not have the power to do this, then how could God do these other things we read about in the Bible?

Of course, if we say that God has the power but chooses not to act, then Roth believes such a God is morally dubious and not worth bothering with either. As the philosopher David Hume famously surmised:

"Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent." (David Hume)

The bottom line is…

Although some people believe that God is working to make things better in the world (i.e. bringing about God's kingdom on earth), Roth does not see any evidence of this happening from the way things are (and have always been): 

"All gains are precarious, periodic and problematic. Life is one damned problem after another." (John Roth)

As such we should give up relying on the hope and expectation that things might get better, or fight for them to become better. We should also give up the idea that there will be some future event/act of God (or whatever), which will justify all the wasted life. Such waste can never, should never, and will never be justified as far as Roth is concerned. In what way might the cries of millions of souls lost at the Holocaust, ever be silenced by some so-called 'greater good' in the future? What could possibly begin to justify their loss, and why should they become the means to that end anyway?

John K Roth: A Theodicy of Protest (Part 2)