The Problem of Innocent and Unjust Suffering
Navigating some Christian theological reflections on a difficult subject matter
Context
This is a second substack in the context of a 12-week postgraduate B.A. Honours course - Medical Ethics and a Theology of Health – that I was a registered student for during my studies in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Cape Town in 1988.
You are referred to my first substack in this series which describes the context in more detail and helps you to connect with the content in this current substack:
https://rogerarendse.substack.com/p/faith-science-and-healing
The problem of evil and human suffering – some introductory comments
The problem of evil and human suffering has been and remains a universal one. This has preoccupied ‘religious’ and ‘secular’ humanity from its earliest beginnings and remains intensely poignant, and problematic today.
For Christianity and other religions, the classic statement of the ‘problem of evil’ originates with Epicurus (Schillebeeckx 1981:121) and is redefined by Hick (1986).
However, the conflict can be located at a deeper, narrower level. The Christian faith declares, as does the Jewish faith (a tradition which it shares in the acceptance of the Hebrew Bible), that there is:
no problem with the suffering which men bring upon themselves through their own sinfulness, but it protests and guards itself against unmerited suffering quite independent of man’s own folly. (Schillebeeckx 1986:677, emphasis mine)
For now, besides the importance of the Book of Job which commands constant and deserved attention when addressing this theme, let’s quote one or two Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) examples of the ‘protest theology’ in situations of unmerited suffering:
Rouse yourself! Why do you sleep, O Lord?
Awake, do not cast us off forever!
Why do you hide your face?
Why do you forget our affliction and oppression?
For we sink down to the dust;
our bodies cling to the ground.
Rise up, come to our help,
Redeem us for the sake you’re your steadfast love.
(Psalm 44:23-26, NRSV)
But I was like a gentle lamb
led to the slaughter.
And I did not know it was against me
that they devised schemes saying,
“Let us destroy the tree with its fruit,
let us cut him off from the land of the living,
so that his name will no longer be remembered!”
But you, O Lord of hosts, who judge righteously,
who try the heart and the mind,
let me see your retribution upon them,
for to you I have committed my cause.
(Jeremiah 11:19-20 NRSV)
The more acute problem which confronts humanity, especially the theist, is stated clearly by Hick:
The problem of suffering…does not consist in the occurrence of pain and suffering as such…the problem consists rather in the fact that instead of serving a constructive purpose, pain and suffering seem to be distributed in random and meaningless ways, with the result that suffering is often undeserved and often falls upon men in amounts exceeding anything that could be rationally intended. (Hick 1986:369, emphasis mine)
Schillebeeckx also highlights “excess suffering and evil” and “unmerited and senseless suffering” (1981:725) and the “problem of the innocent sufferer” (1981:681) as the crucial (not exclusive) problem to be faced.
Focus
In this substack we will reflect briefly on the reality of innocent and unjust suffering in our history. Then, we offer an appraisal of some Christian theological responses to this problem. We conclude with some questions for further reflection and journaling.
I. The reality of innocent, unjust suffering
Rationally, it is possible to argue for innocent suffering which is in defense of a good cause (Schillebeeckx 1981:679), or religiously, unjust suffering can be explained as “an atoning sacrifice ‘so that God’s anger against his people many cease’” (ibid: 680). But there are many examples of suffering where human beings become “crude victims of an evil cause which serves others.” (ibid: 725). The painful historical examples of Auschwitz, Dachau or Vietnam; the death of millions, especially children through malnutrition owing chiefly to excessive economic greed; the resultant suffering and death incurred through famines, hurricanes, earthquakes, fires or floods; the oppressive suffering of millions in various contexts of the world today, are sufficient to underscore the reality of innocent and unjust suffering in our world.
II. The problem of innocent, unjust suffering – an appraisal of some Christian theological responses
Human suffering, particularly innocent and unjust suffering cannot be defined or defended rationally since “human reason cannot in fact cope with concentrated historical suffering and evil.” (Schillebeeckx 1981:726). Voltaire’s outburst after the earthquake that destroyed the city of Lisbon in 1755, and the response of Kant to this same disaster, from a respective atheistic and theistic perspective, present a sharp critique of the ability of human reason to explain “the scandal of human suffering” (Schillebeeckx 1981:705-706).
But how does the Christian faith respond to the problem of innocent, unjust suffering? What are some theological insights which provides?
Here, we will navigate our way briefly through just six areas:
1) Suffering as ‘positive mystery’
Firstly, Christianity nowhere seeks to provide an explanation of human suffering in any form, but accepts it’s harsh, painful reality, which “remains impenetrable and incomprehensible” (Schiilebeeckx 1981: 728). The acceptance of suffering as “a positive mystery” where “the world with all its unjust and apparently wasted suffering may nevertheless be…a directly created sphere of soul-making“ (Hick 1986:376), or as “an unfathomable, theoretically incomprehensible mystery” (Schillebeeckx 1981:725) may be an important contribution of Christian theology to the discourse.
However, Hick himself raises an objection to this view. He recognises that in present history, the “mystery of soul-making” fails as often as it succeeds, and “there can surely be no justification for the heavy and the weary weight of all this unintelligible world (1986:372). Also, the acceptance of “mystery” is itself an often “disguised rationalist solution” rather than a specific Christian theological response to an excess of suffering. In this sense, it become a betrayal of the existential nature and reality of those who suffer innocently or unjustly. This criticism can be levelled especially at Hick (Rainwater 1980:243).
2) Suffering as a Christian
Secondly, New Testament Christian faith is especially concerned with Christians who suffer persecution and “we cannot look for any solution of the problem of the suffering man in the N.T…the problem is simply not raised” (Schillebeeckx 1981:695). Therefore, the Christian faith does provide the Christian who experiences innocent and unjust suffering with present meaning, existential comfort and eschatological hope in their suffering (e.g. 1 Peter, Hebrews; Mark’s gospel). In its deepest sense, the theology of the Suffering Servant (Isaiah) and the Christian recognition of the supreme fulfilment of this theology in the redemptive suffering of Jesus Christ, demonstrate both the participation of the Christian martyr in the suffering of Christ (Philippians 3:10) “which ultimately proved to be one of the greatest strengths for Christianity” (Schillebeeckx 1981:697), and the subjective participation of God in the suffering of his people – “he suffers with us: we do not suffer alone” (Smith 1987:259).
3) Seeking the meaning of all innocent, unjust suffering
Thirdly, Dorothy Soelle, in her theology of the cross, makes this Christian insight a virtual axiom in her response to suffering. She moves, however, beyond the explicit New Testament testimony as she seeks the meaning of all innocent, unjust suffering in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. Within their contemporary historical context, “human beings can serve the pain of God with their own pain only through the mediation of Christ, who is both God’s representative before us and our representative before God” (Surin 1986:115).
Moltmann who develops his theology of The Crucified God argues similarly that in innocent human suffering “God is no passive onlooker who isolates himself from human pain and dereliction” (Surin 196:125). His theological contribution is an extension of Soelle’s “Christian theodicy,” to a “God theodicy.” “Before the event of the cross can be located…it is necessary to relate the death of Christ to God himself, to the inner being of the Godhead” (Surin 1986: 125).
However, as theologically meaningful and comforting as these responses may be as alternatives to the traditional theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus (Smith 1987:257-259), and their justification of a ‘protest atheism’ which takes seriously innocent suffering, they can be strongly critiqued as well: (i) “by ‘eternalizing’ suffering in God, in the opinion that in the last resort this gives suffering some splendour” (Schillebeeckx 1981:728), Moltmann is ascribing “to God what has in fact been done to Jesus by the history of human injustice” (ibid); (ii) in the ontologising of evil within God himself, Moltmann assumes its eternal “potency in the divine being” and undercuts the emphasis that “in Christ God acted decisively in history to deprive evil of its power over human beings” (Surin 1986:131); (iii) as earnest as Soelle’s and Moltmann’s attempts are in addressing the existential suffering of ‘innocent humanity,’ notably at the hands of unjust socio-political forces, they also fall short of authentically facing the problematic existential nature of the suffering individual or group.
Johann Baptist Metz critiques the positions taken by those such as Soelle and Moltmann who (in his view) assume that the suffering of God with innocent humanity provides automatically, an absolute theological response to existential suffering. Metz argues that only the victim (individual or group) has the right to see God’s existential identity with her/him/them in the suffering, and no one else (Surin 1986:124). Here, for the suffering person or community, this theological insight of Smith, Soelle and Moltmann can be liberating and provide present and future hope and meaning. But while these views continue in Athanasian-like style to be a necessary Christian rejection of an Arian response to human suffering which claims God’s absolute independence from this suffering (Smith 1987:259), they all need to be aware of the dangers of absolutising a specific theology of a ‘suffering Christ’ or a ‘suffering God’ to any historical context of human suffering.
Perhaps, the New Testament reluctance to explain innocent human suffering, or to identify Christ’s suffering explicitly with human suffering in general, sets the limits for any genuine Christian response to the dilemma. Despite its own weaknesses, ‘the mystery’ of this suffering must be accepted as a unique Christian theological contribution to ongoing discourse about innocent and unjust suffering, provided this is accompanied equally by the other Christian faith response – that this kind of suffering is an evil which must be resisted in true biblical fashion:
This means that in practice, too, people must refuse to allow evil the right to exist: they must espouse the cause of the good and refuse to treat evil on the same level as the good (Schillebeeckx 1981:726).
But “human action in resistance against evil is itself subject to criticism, at least in its claims to totality” (ibid). In this regard, the conversations related to the justification or not of a violent response to unjust suffering on the grounds of Christian faith requires critical and creative engagement. This is a conversation not undertaken in this substack.
4) Forgiveness, healing and salvation in the context of innocent, unjust suffering
Fourthly, the Christian faith offers forgiveness, healing and salvation (holistic) for the innocent sufferer (whether physical, mental, emotional, or spiritual) who otherwise may be in bondage to a worldview which dictates that all suffering is due to the sin of the person. The suffering of Job is a forerunner of the more radical perspective of Jesus Christ as shown in the healing of the blind man:
As he walked along, [Jesus] saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.” When he had said this, he spat on the ground and made mud with the saliva and spread the mud on the man’s eyes, saying to him, “Go wash in the pool of Siloam” (which means Sent). Then he went and washed and came back able to see.” (John 9: 1-7, NRSV)
The New Testament states that “it is possible to draw conclusions from sin to suffering, but not from suffering to sin” (Schillebeeckx 1981:695).
5) Eschatological hope in the midst of unjust suffering
Fifthly, the Christian message in its combination of ‘the crucifixion suffering’ and ‘the resurrection glory’ of Jesus Christ, affirms an eschatological hope that Christ is Lord of all human history and ultimate victor over forces of evil which precipitate ‘excess suffering.’ Furthermore, it declares that in a world unjust suffering, there is a “deep community experience which has the power ‘to heal’ (Acts 2:43-3:10), until finally all evil, suffering and tears will disappear from this Kingdom to come (Revelation 21:3ff).” (Schillebeeckx 1981:695). Those who hastily critique this view as ‘mere utopianism’ or ‘pie-in-the-sky,’ fail to grasp at least three realities: (i) the liberating nature of this truth for many experiencing innocent, unjust suffering in our present world; (ii) the alternative visions proposed are often ‘more utopian’ than the Christian response, when the former are more critically evaluated; and (iii) this Christian eschatological perspective has the power to motivate, in spite of the harsh, dehumanising realities which cause suffering.
6) Participation in innocent, unjust suffering
Sixthly, the Christian faith challenges humanity, especially those who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, to participate voluntarily in the suffering of those who suffer unjustly or innocently – as in contexts of socio-political, economic, or religious oppression. This is not a glorification of suffering, or a passive acceptance of an evil status quo, but a liberation of the person from an obsessive protection of self (egocentrism) or the group (ethnocentrism) in order to give him/her-self in love for the neighbour (anthropocentrism). While avoiding the temptation of monism which collapses human love into love for God, the ‘flesh and blood’ demonstration of the love of God (theocentrism) in human acts of love on behalf of the neighbour becomes necessary and transformational in a context of gross inhumanity or godlessness. For example, in Matthew’s gospel we read:
…and one of them, a lawyer, asked [Jesus] a question to test him. “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-39; also John 15:13; Philippians 2:5-11).
For it is often at the point of identification with the one experiencing physical, mental, emotional or spiritual suffering that healing and salvation is made possible.
Reflections and Journalling Exercise
What realities of innocent and unjust suffering are you witnessing in the world right now?
How does your faith tradition (Christian or otherwise) inform and support your responses to innocent, unjust suffering in the world?
Which insights gleaned from this substack inform, challenge and support your own responses to suffering in the world, especially innocent and unjust suffering?
Thank you for reading and reflecting on this substack!
Feel free to share widely with those who may benefit from the content provided here. Be sure to leave any comments you may have.
Blessings!
Select Bibliography
Hick, J. 1986. Evil and the God of Love. London: Fortana Library
Schillebeeckx, E. 1981. Christ:The Experience of Jesus as Lord. New York: Crossroad
Smith, D.H. 1987. Suffering, Medicine and Christian Theology. On Moral Medicine. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B Eerdmans
Surin, K. 1986. Theology and the Problem of Evil. Great Britain: O.P. Services
Rainwater, R.E. Jr. 1980. The Theodicy of John Hick – A critical analysis. Ph.D. dissertation, U.S.A. University Microfilm International
Additional Bibliography (not used in this original paper, but very readable and helpful):
Yancey, P. 1990/1997. Where is God When It Hurts? Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing
Yancey, P. 2013. The Question That Never Goes Away: What is God up to in a world of such tragedy and pain? Great Britain: Hodder & Stoughton