Black Theodicy: The Problem of Evil in Black Theology

Introduction - What is Black Theology?

With new perspectives being explored in the theological arena from other cultural, sociological and even gender points-of-view, new attitudes to the nature of God and faith are emerging. Black Theology naturally considers matters of faith and practice from the Black perspective, and in particular from within a variety of modes of Black consciousness. As with other 'consciousness-raising' theologies this is an attempt to give real meaning to ideas where this might have been lost, and at the same time help people relate practically to God and each other.

One way Black Theology challenges us to reconsider our beliefs about God, is through the nature of the imagery used when referring to the Divine. For instance, for many years in Christianity it was common to find pictures of Jesus depicted as a white man (and a quick search on the web for images of Christ will show you that it still is). White missionaries also took the message of Christianity to people whose skin-colour was different to their own. Some might see nothing wrong with this, but subconsciously 'non-whites' were being fed the notion that Jesus (and God) were 'white', and that the 'white-man's' religion (Christianity) was spiritually and morally better than their own.

Over the years this created a spiritual dilemma for Blacks, especially when the issue of slavery was taken into account. For if the 'white man' is the oppressor of Blacks, then surely this implies that the white man's God is an oppressor of blacks too. Furthermore, if the white man's God is in control of all events in the world (i.e. God is sovereign), then this too suggests that God has allowed Blacks to be oppressed and appears to have wanted this to happen.

Looking at the history of missions from this perspective, we can begin to understand why the Christian God might be labelled a 'white racist' as far as Black communities concerned:

"Their god is an idol, a god who is historically on the side of the white settlers, who dispossess Black people of their land and who gives most of the land to 'his chosen people.' " (The Kairos Document)*

What is Black Theodicy?

In Christianity, a theodicy (from the Greek words theos (god) and dike (justice)), is an attempt to justify the presence of evil and suffering in the world, with that of God’s benevolence (all-goodness). Black Theodicy attempts to makes sense of Black suffering, and seek to explore what God's involvement or non-involvement has been in all this. In other types of theodicy suffering is typically understood in general terms (i.e. why humans suffer), but in Black theodicies the matter is specifically explored in relation to the Black community, and in particular the matter of slavery and racism.

Typically there have been four ways to address the relationship between God and evil, and each of these have been explored by members of the Black community in order to try and help believers make sense of the suffering they or their ancestors have endured. These are:

• To re-consider the nature and purpose of suffering (i.e. 'suffering' is something God wills as either a means for human betterment, or for political/spiritual liberation).
• To re-consider the omnipotence of God (i.e. To suggest that God might not be able to do some things due to human freewill, and as such cannot be blamed for acts that lead to suffering especially when humans have chosen to do them).
• To deny that God exists (atheism).
• To deny that God is all good (benevolent).

The most pressing concern for Black theologians is whether the degree and manner in which Blacks have suffered over the years, will lead them to conclude that God is a white racist:

"There is, first, its maldistribution. It is suffering confined to a specific ethnic group; it is not spread, more or less impartially, upon mankind as a whole... There is second its enormity... [It] extends over long periods of history... [and as such] we contend that the peculiar nature of Black suffering raises the question of divine racism." (William Jones, A question for Black Theology: Is God a white racist? [Brackets mine])

Many Black theologians believe the question of God's racism should be the central concern in any Black Theodicy. For without this matter being addressed in any satisfactory way there appears to be no reason why members of the Black community should worship and devote themselves to God, or even believe that such a God exists! It also raises the question as to whether God's so-called universal love and goodness for all, includes the Black community.

Some responses to Black suffering

The following is a summary of (and responses to) various theodicies proposed by Black theologians:

Joseph R. Washington

Joseph Washington believes that understanding the nature and causes of Black suffering, begins by associating the Black community with that of Isaiah’s suffering servant:

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5)

On the basis of this association, Washington proposes the idea that God's plan for humanity is fulfilled through Black suffering! However, what exactly is this 'plan'? Well, according to Washington God's plan is for humanity is for people to be set free from racism. This means as those who suffer, the Black community has a mission to free (liberate) non-Blacks from their sin (i.e. racism). This also means that as a result of their divine calling, Blacks have suffered and continue to suffer for the sake others.

A concern with Washington's theodicy is that the only evidence Black's have of their divine calling, is that they are suffering. Yet surely in order to know they are appointed to this 'mission' they need some additional evidence that in the end their mission will be successful (making their suffering worthwhile), otherwise, how do they know they are not suffering for some other reason?

One could say that evidence will come 'at the end of time', but this gives no guarantee that Blacks aren’t suffering now because God is against them (i.e. a racist). Furthermore, if Black suffering is for the 'salvation' of non-Blacks (esp. whites) then this seems to rather one-sided, for there appears to be no corresponding “suffering servant” for those who have committed the sin of racism against Blacks. Rather than suffering, non-blacks have simply inherited the many freedoms bought through Black blood, lost lives, and untold misery.

James Cone

James Cone believed that God was fundamentally interested in liberation (freedom). He argues there are numerous examples of God liberating people in the Bible (E.g. God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt - the Exodus), so why not liberate the Black community as well? This means if God is fundamentally interested in liberation and working in the world to liberate the oppressed, then Black communities are also God's chosen people (as they are the one's most in need of being liberated ('set free') in the world). The fact that God has freed oppressed groups in the past, is also good reason for the Black community to trust that God will do the same for them in the future. All in all, this means Black suffering is due to non-Black oppression, not God, and as such God cannot be accused of being a racist:

"God is presently participating in the Black struggle for freedom." (James Cone)

One problem with Cone's theodicy is that his assurances that God will liberate Blacks is grounded in examples of non-Black liberation. For example, the Exodus liberated Jews, not Blacks! Also, the only reason Cone believes Blacks are set apart as being 'chosen', is because they are suffering. If Blacks were to fight for their liberation, and in the process lose their life, they might actually (unwittingly) be working to achieve Black genocide, which could be God’s Will. As such Cone's theodicy still gives no assurances that God is not against the Black community, and therefore not a racist!

Albert Cleage

Albert Cleage begins his theodicy with the idea that God is literally Black! His argument for this is grounded in the Biblical notion of God creating humanity in God's image (Genesis 1:26f). If all humanity is created in God's image, then as there are more non-whites than whites in the world, this must mean God is more Black than white. This also means that as a 'soul brother' God is not to be blamed for Black suffering:

"One drop of Black blood makes one Black." (Albert Cleage)

However, if God is a “soul brother” why is the Black community suffering? Cleage's answer to this is simple: because Blacks have have not stood up to their oppressors. In other words, Blacks are reaping the consequences of being too passive! If Blacks want suffering to end, they must stand up to non-Blacks. God is not responsible for suffering occurring, nor is God responsible for ending it. It is Blacks who must take both the blame and initiative here! All God does is provide strength for the 'fight' ahead.

Cleage's notion that God is Black because most people in the world are non-white can be extended to include all manner of humans characteristics and traits. In fact, why not simply say that God is completely human, or even that there is one god for Blacks, one for whites etc. (polytheism). Also, although Cleage claims God is not responsible for Black suffering, the fact that they are said to be suffering for not being more pro-active in addressing racism, essentially means they are being punished for their passivity. Therefore, logically their suffering becomes deserved (and God-given)!

Yet if this is the case we are left once again addressing an earlier concern, this being that if Blacks are being punished for failing to address racism then what punishment is being demanded from their oppressors?

"Cleage must explain how it is that Blacks are God's chosen people in light of the fact that whites were allowed to get on top and stay there." (William Jones)

Notes

*The Kairos Document was produced by a number of South African theologians in 1985 as a protest against apartheid. One hundred and fifty theologians signed the document, which outlined why South African Christians should stand against the civil authorities on the side of the oppressed, and against the apartheid regime.

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)

Process Theodicy - Creation out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil (David Ray Griffin): Part 2

Click here to read part 1 of this article

The freedom to choose

It could argued that if humans have the power for self-determination, then why is it that God did not make us determined to be rational saints and always choosing the good? The answer, according to Griffin, is that God could not. This is not because the idea of God creating such a being is logically contradictory, only that God could not create a self-determining being who is only capable of choosing to do good. In other words, God could not have created us with free will and to make us only do certain things. For Griffin this is a logically contradictory notion.

"Those beings with the greatest power of self-determination, and hence the greatest power to deviate from the divine will for the good of the whole, necessarily have the greatest power to influence others - for good or ill. The capacity to create and the capacity to destroy go hand in hand." (David Griffin)

So to ask why God created a world with evil and suffering in it is the wrong way to approach things. Evil and suffering would always (in theory) be present in any number of 'possible worlds', so long as are there are beings in it who are responsible for their own actions. In short the correlating principles of power/value would be a fundamental tenet in any world or universe God created.

The consequences of choice

Although the world cannot (logically) exist without the presence of suffering in it (for there will always be someone or something making 'bad choices'), God's benevolence keeps things from being worse than they might be. Although the world may look like it’s in a bad state, it is still a place where humans have the potential to become 'morally good beings'. As such, it cannot be all bad! Furthermore, if the world were not capable of producing morally good beings then suffering would be pointless and God would be rightly held accountable for this. So although we live in a 'less than perfect' world, we should not feel disheartened:

"While every advance in the creative process has been a risk, since greater sufferings were thereby made possible as well as greater goods, this has never been a risk which God has urged us creatures to run alone. It has always been a risk for God too. In fact God is the only being who has experienced every single evil that has occurred in the creation. This means that God is the one being in a position to judge whether the goods achievable have been worth the price." (David Griffin)

So freewill explains moral evil (E.g. murder, rape), but what of 'natural evil' (E.g. earthquakes, volcanoes)? To answer this Griffin introduces the problem of evil and suffering at the sub-human level. Now the usual response to this amongst theologians has been to say either that evil never occurs there, or any malevolent act is the work of a diabolical agent (E.g. Satan). Griffin rejects both these options in favour of one which sees all creatures, no matter how big or small, as having the power to deviate from the Divine Will. Although 'low-grade' entities do not have that much power in themselves to deviate significantly from the Divine Will, taken together they can result in significant deviations. Of course, the net result of this appears to be that (in theory) there was never a time when the world was perfect.

Why is God so limited?

All this begs the following question: Why doesn’t God change things in order to make the world a 'better place' (such that there would be no more evil and suffering in it)? Well, aside from the fact that the world God created would be the best of all 'possible worlds' (because it is the one God actually brought into existence out of all the available options), God simply cannot force anyone or anything to do what God wants. All God can try to do is persuade something to achieve its highest potential. Any change God desires to bring about must respect freewill.

Now where we find 'higher' levels of self-determining activity (E.g. in humans), change can happen quickly, but with 'low-grade' entities (E.g. cells, atoms), self-determining activity is not as developed so any change will inevitably occur over a longer period of time. In the case of non-sentient things, these cannot be influenced or persuaded by God to change their behaviour.

So on the basis of all this Griffin offers three working hypotheses:

• Things which cannot deviate much from the divine will, cannot be influenced by God very quickly.
• Things which can be influenced by God quickly, can deviate drastically from the divine will.
• Things which can do nothing on their own, cannot be directly influenced by God at all.

The key point here is that in order to preserve freewill God cannot change things directly, but only indirectly through persuasion; inviting those things which have a will to consider alternative courses of action (or activity).

Concluding remarks

With Process Theodicy David Griffin rejects any belief based on 'revelation' which is 'self-contradictory'. For example, he rejects the idea that God determines all events and humans are free beings and responsible for their own actions. For Griffin, this is sheer nonsense. Either God determines all events, and so we are not free to choose to do what we want, or God does not determine events and we are free to choose what we do.

Secondly he rejects the idea that beliefs must be logically consistent, in favour of the notion that beliefs should present/reflect the most probable view of reality. In light of this Griffin believes it is important for theologians to assess Christian 'revelation' as it relates to their present social and scientific context. They should not, 'try to hold onto their formulations at any price'. If a scientific theory has such weight of 'evidence' that it has acquired 'factual status', then this must be acknowledged (and addressed) within the theological enterprise:

"It is the task of the Christian theologian to help people arrive at a set of beliefs that are worthy and that can, at that time and place, be somewhat readily apprehended as convincing, so that the beliefs about the Christian God can become a perception of this God as the Holy Reality." (David Griffin)

Finally, holding onto what we believe are 'orthodox' notions about God when attempting to construct a credible theodicy (e.g. God is omnipotent), may ultimately lead us into theological and philosophical positions which discredit Christian belief. For instance, if we accept the presence of genuine evil in the world then its existence should be adequately explained from the Christian standpoint, and in terms of Process Theodicy, Griffin believes rejecting divine omnipotence is the key to presenting a viable theodicy today.

Process Theodicy - Creation out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil (David Ray Griffin): Part 1

Information

This is a review of David Griffin's process theodicy essay from Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy (Westminster John Knox Press; Rev Ed edition, 2001). Aside from his contribution to theology (notably in the Process school of thought), David Griffin is also known for his work on conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks on the World Trade Centre (11th September 2001).

Introduction

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

The traditional (and some might say preferred) reading and translation of this biblical text, has been to regard this as speaking of creation out-of-nothing (ex nihilo). God creates the heavens and the earth literally from nothing. God speaks, and things begin to exist. When we take into account the traditional belief that God is omnipotent (all-powerful), this seems to be a reasonable assumption. However, David Griffin draws attention to the fact that an alternative reading and translation of this passage is also available (and as far as he is concerned, one that is preferred by Hebrew scholars):

"When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form and void." (Genesis 1:1)

Now the issue of biblical translation may be a strange one to begin a discussion about process theodicy with, but for Griffin it is vital. This is because how we understand the creation account in Genesis 1 raises an important issue: Did God have full control over the way the world was created? In other words, did God create the heavens and the earth literally out of nothing, or out of some pre-existing matter (in this sense bringing order from chaos).

For instance, in Plato's Timaeus we read how the Demiurge worked with materials which were not totally compliant to its will, and as such it ended up creating the best possible world from what was available to it. So rather like a potter, the Demiurge worked to create something that was only as good as the resources it had, which meant the world created was a victory of 'persuasion' (what could only be), rather than necessity (what should actually be).

Plato's creation account therefore introduces the idea that pre-existing matter places limits on what could be done with it. This is because the world was not created ex nihilo (out of nothing). So in terms of the biblical account, if God creates the world ex-nihilo then God is ultimately responsible for the world created, but if the world created came from pre-existing matter then God is in some way limited, and only able to create a best possible world.

Re-understanding the traditional view of creation and God

So the generally accepted view of the biblical account of creation, is that God is all-powerful (omnipotent) and created the world ex-nihilo. However Griffin advocates a re-reading of the biblical accounts here because creation ex-nihilo raises so many problems when trying to construct a credible theodicy. One such problem is this: If God was free to create any world God chose, why did God create one where evil and suffering is present, or one which had the opportunity for evil to occur in it?

Griffin’s theodicy then starts by rejecting the popular (and traditional) belief that God is omnipotent and created the heavens and the earth 'ex nihilo'. Instead he sees God struggling to bring order out of pre-existing matter. He does this for several reasons. Firstly the traditional position suggests the presence of evil in the world contributes to a higher good. If God has created a world in which evil exists then this suggests it has a purpose. This also means God allows evil events to occur so that this greater good may result. But if bad things are occurring for a greater good, then what we think is evil is only apparently evil, rather than being actually evil. Griffin rejects this because he thinks a theodicy should first and foremost deal with the problem of a real evil; that which does not contribute to any 'greater good' on the part of humanity, or God.

Griffin also rejects any notion of God's self-limitation. Omnipotence suggests God can literally do anything, and as we have seen this raises questions about why this world was created rather than any other. So Griffin introduces the idea that evil exists because God's power is fundamentally limited in a real sense. For example, if God created the world out of pre-existing matter then God is logically limited in what could have been done with such matter. Like a potter working with a lump of clay, there are only going to be a certain number things which can be made from it. One cannot build a working iPad out of a block of clay for example, but one could build any number of pots or vases.

Why is God’s power limited? This could be due to any number of things, such as the presence of other realities (i.e. things which have their own power-base), limitations in God's own nature, (i.e. maybe God has a 'dark side'), or maybe in a range of 'possible worlds' God cannot bring into existence a world without evil in it. Whatever, Griffin rejects the traditional belief in God's omnipotence and divine self-limitation, in favour of one where God is limited in God's essential being (or nature). As such God cannot be held accountable for the creation of a world where real evil exists.

Limiting what God could do and why

So the rejection of creation ex nihilo is fundamental to Griffin's theodicy. Instead of a God who can do anything, we now have a God who worked with pre-existent 'materials' to create the world and the universe we inhabit. In doing so we introduce the possibility that these 'materials' might have had some innate power of their own, even potentially thwarting God's will (a point made earlier in connection with Plato's Timaeus). There might also be eternal principles which determine the manner in which these materials' can be ordered (or arranged) and what could be done with them, thus imposing further limits on what God could have done. If this were not the case, and if God were truly omnipotent, then everything is dependent on God and any power or latent potential pre-existent materials might have had could have been over-ridden (or withdrawn) by God at any time. So by rejecting the traditional notion of divine omnipotence, Griffin allows for the possibility that these pre-existent 'materials' are capable of self-determination (partially), and have the ability to influence other things around them.

"God cannot control but can only persuade." (David Griffin)

Power/value

Another key tenet in Griffin's theodicy is the belief that the world and everything in it has come about due to evolutionary processes. Griffin takes the evolutionary position as his starting point because he believes the notion that God created the world ex nihilo is unscientific. Also, within an evolutionary context Griffin is able to make more sense of the notion of God's omnipotence, showing 'why a God whose power is essentially unlimited would use such a long, and pain-filled method' of creating the world, and everything in it’. Of course, this too is not without its problems. For one, if evolution is a true account of how everything got here, and God is its author, why did God choose to allow things to evolve through a long drawn-out process based on the death and destruction of millions of species? As Griffin states: ‘Why did God take so long to get to the main act?’

The answer to this lies in understanding how an evolutionary worldview provides the basis for Griffin's four notions of power and value. These are structured (by him) in such a way that a rise or fall in any one of them, causes a corresponding rise or fall in the others.

These four notions are:

• The capacity to enjoy intrinsic goodness (or value).
• The capacity to suffer intrinsic evil (or dis-value).
• The power of self-determination.
• The power to influence others (for good or for evil).

Griffin believes there is a hierarchy in the capacity for everything in the world and the universe to experience enjoyment and suffering. Whether something is more or less complex does not matter, for all things have the potential to experience 'pleasure' or 'pain' (for example). Less complex things (E.g. electrons, atoms, cells) find their power/value correlation compounded into more complex ones (E.g. animals and humans). This means that the more complex something is, the more richer its experiences will be. It also means that the more complex something is, the more it has the potential to do greater good or evil in the world. 

"Increased complexity [in an] organism seems to be the condition for increased richness of experience, hence of increased intrinsic goodness... However, every increase in this hierarchy is Janus-faced: each increase in the capacity to enjoy intrinsic goodness is likewise an increase in the capacity to suffer." (David Griffin)

So the answer to why there is evil and suffering in the world is simply to do with the way things are: the presence of evil and suffering being a residue of the potential for all beings to realise degrees of goodness in the world:

"To have the good is necessarily to risk the bad." (David Griffin)

Ultimately evil and suffering is not present in the world as a result of any 'Fall' from an original state of perfection, or because humans directly disobeyed God. Nor does its presence in the world challenge God's essential goodness. Evil and suffering exists in the world simply because that is that the way things are. If we want to have good things, we must allow for the possibility that sometimes bad things happen too: The greater an individual's power of self-determination (freedom), the greater their potential for experiencing goodness (value). The greater their potential for experiencing goodness, the greater their potential for experiencing evil and doing other than the will of God. This is the way power/value correlate.

Creation out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil: Part 2