![\"This world is not a preparatory school for human beings. It is a spiritual leper colony.\" -- Lutheran apologist Angus Menuge](\"https:\/\/infanttheology.files.wordpress.com\/2014\/09\/menuge-my-festschrift.jpg\")
<\/a>Why the quotes?<\/strong> Because the phrase \u201cthe problem of evil\u201d is often expressed to mean that it is a problem for those who believe in God. It\u2019s not.<\/strong> It is a problem for those who don\u2019t. Not in that they can\u2019t logically explain it from their premises (their question should be \u201cWhy is there any good in the world?\u201d), but that they do not see that they \u2013 we all \u2013 are the cause of the problem.\u00a0 God is not, as C.S. Lewis put it, \u201cin the dock\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\n Please note that what follows deals with evil apart from the realities of concrete situations<\/strong>. In such cases, words explaining evil often fail \u2013 as the book of Job shows in spades (also see this* from current LC-MS President Matthew Harrison after the 2004 Tsunami when he served as the Director of LC-MS World Relief).<\/p>\n In their book Faith Has its Reasons<\/em>, Kenneth Boa and Robert Bowman Jr. share points made by Christian apologist John Hare<\/strong>:<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026there is no one explanation for each instance of evil. Bad things happen for a variety of reasons: to develop and refine a person\u2019s faith and character, to bring about a revelation of God\u2019s glory, to experience suffering vicariously in someone else\u2019s place, to punish people for their own acts of evil, to alert people to physical dangers (biologically useful pain), to learn the consequences of evil, or to alert people to their need for salvation.\u201d (p. 190)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n These answers are not bad, but there is still something important that is missing.<\/strong> That something is also missing when Boa and Bowman talk about how Hare notes that \u201cthe likelihood of God\u2019s existence will depend largely on whether, apart from the reality of evil, one sees good evidence for God\u2019s existence\u201d (p. 189). Along with the earlier quote from above, Boa and Bowman call Christian apologist Robin Collins to the stand to mount his defense. According to them, he argues that while there is \u201cgood, objective data\u201d from which to derive a positive argument for God\u2019s existence (i.e. the \u201canthropic principle\u201d), this is not the case with \u201cthe evidential argument from evil\u201d: \u201cwe have no way to quantify the relative amounts of good and evil that have been and will be produced in the universe\u2026.we know only a small fraction of the good and evil that have occurred and will occur in the universe\u2026.\u201d (p. 190).<\/p>\n So, what is that thing that is missing? A serious acknowledgement of the amount of sin in the world \u2013 even if we cannot \u201cquantify\u201d it. And without this serious discussion of sin, we do not have a serious discussion about man\u2019s culpability<\/strong> (which I focused on quite a bit in my recent series endeavoring to strengthen John Warwick Montgomery\u2019s apologetic: see part II<\/a>, and part III<\/a> in particular).<\/p>\n Enter Lutheran philosopher of science and apologist Angus Menuge<\/strong>. In the recently released book Making the Case for Christianity: Responding to Modern Objections<\/em>, Menuge has an essay titled \u201cGratuitous Evil and a God of Love\u201d, and he is in top form.<\/p>\n In discussing what he calls the \u201ccreaturely conviction soul-making theory\u201d Menuge says<\/strong>:<\/p>\n \u201cOn this view, even if we cannot know it, we may as well agree with [William] Rowe that there is morally<\/strong> gratuitous evil. Such evil is not especially \u201cdeserved\u201d by its victims (John 9:3): in the sense in which it is deserved, we all<\/strong> deserve it (Luke 13:1-5). Nor is it allowed or inflicted in order<\/strong> to achieve a greater moral good, as if God\u2019s will would not have been done without it. We can admit that people in concentration camps and the five year old girl [who is sexually abused and then murdered] in Rowe\u2019s example suffered hideous evils which, for all we can tell, did not make the world a better place and would not be \u201cmorally justified\u201d if they had. What good came of these horrors depended entirely on the gracious providential gifts<\/strong> of God. In admitting this, we can avoid the triumphalist theodicy which, as [D.Z.] Phillips says, betrays people\u2019s suffering by misrepresenting it: \u2018Betrayal occurs every time explanations and justifications of evil are offered which are simplistic, insensitive, incredible, or obscene.\u2019 But in a world of such evil, all but the most willfully self-deceived can see that God\u2019s creatures and the whole creation are dependent on God.\u201d (pp. 160-161, the bold are Menuge\u2019s original italics \u2013 in following quotes as well<\/strong>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Menuge notes that this theory is promising but incomplete. In order to \u201cunderstand the worst evils \u2013 horrendous, unjustified evils \u2013 we must focus more closely on the work of Christ\u201d**.<\/strong><\/p>\n Menuge begins:<\/p>\n \u201cAs Jeffrey Mallinson has argued, Lutheran theology affirms not only a theology of the cross, but an epistemology of the cross (a theory of knowledge which says we know God through Christ\u2019s work on the cross). Unlike philosophical theism, which attempts to understand the divine by abstract reason, the epistemology of the cross insists that God is most clearly revealed in the persons and work of the God-man, Jesus Christ, and especially in his suffering on our behalf. Theodicies and defenses are developed within a framework of a thin philosophical theism which provides little insight into who God is, how we have rebelled against him, and what he has done for us in loving response. For this kind of insight, we need a history of God\u2019s interaction with humanity, within which we can hope to find a narration<\/strong> of evil.\u201d (pp. 161-162).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note the focus here on history and the incarnation (see part I<\/a> of the Montgomery series). Here, in what I think is a relevant side note, I quote Boa and Bowman again:<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe evidentialist [apologist] is not closed to using theistic arguments to make belief in God more plausible or acceptable. Unlike the classical apologist though, he does not think such arguments are necessary. According to evidentialism, the historical evidence for God\u2019s intervention in space and time is sufficient of itself to establish God\u2019s existence\u201d (p. 194).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Back to Menuge:<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cPhilosophical theism adopts an epistemology of glory, which begins with the greatness of God and sees evil as a difficulty to be rationalized. By contrast, the epistemology of the cross \u2018does not explain away<\/strong> or try to show how particular instances of evil produce some greater good. [Mallinson, 32]\u201d Rather it starts<\/strong> with the evil and suffering found on the cross. On the cross we see the refutation of many glib theodicies and defenses, because Christ suffers wholly undeserved, unjustified, gratuitous, and horrendous evil, and he does not do so primarily because he wants to make this<\/strong> world a better place, or merely to set us a moral example.<\/p>\n The cross embodies both Law and Gospel in the most powerful ways. On the Law side, we have an accurate description of the horrific load of sin which infects us all, and of the just punishment which it deserves. When we complain about the problem of evil, we would prefer to make it an external theoretical or political discussion, rather than an internal, personal problem that blinds us to reality. Like a street urchin recruited into a terrorist militia, we are conceived in iniquity (Psalm 51:5) and our complicity with evil prevents us from seeing it clearly. For that, we must be confronted with the counter-perspective of a sinless outsider. In this bright light, evil cannot be contained in the tidy, coherent categories of a theodicy. This world is not a preparatory school for human beings. It is a spiritual leper colony.<\/p>\n Yet, on the Gospel side, we see that Christ is not here not [sic] to punish us but to affirm his solidarity with fallen mankind (Hebrews 2:17-18; 4:15), bearing our sin, suffering every evil and taking the full measure of wrath which we deserve (Isaiah 53). As Ed Martin notes, \u2018There is an unquantifiable kinship of spirit that happens between those who have suffered in like manner.\u2019 This includes the most horrendous and gratuitous suffering that Rowe emphasizes, because it is only the one who has suffered evil who understands it. Ravi Zacharias concurs:<\/p>\n \u2018It is the woman who has been raped who understands what rape is, not the rapist\u2026 It is\u00a0 only the One who died for our sins who can explain what evil is.\u2019<\/p>\n God does not answer the problem of evil by providing intellectually satisfying formulas. That would be appropriate if evil were a problem from which we were detached \u2013 like a problem in theoretical physics. Since evil is an immersive, existential condition, God answers by actions<\/strong> of love. His goal is not moral improvement, but to show us our true condition, our inability to save ourselves from that condition, and hence our absolute dependence on Christ for salvation. As Paul writes, \u2018Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!\u2019 (Romans 7:24-25)<\/p>\n Christ is God\u2019s answer to the problem of evil. Therefore, any apologetic for the problem of evil should not waste time in philosophical theisms which paint blurry pictures of who God is, who we are, and how we can be saved. It should be a defense focused on the historical case for Christ\u2019s crucifixion and resurrection. In this context, we see more clearly what evil is, what God has done about it, and what he will do. The resurrection of Christ\u2019s glorified, imperishable body also points to a final answer to evil, a new heaven and a new earth in which evil will have no dominion.\u201d (pp. 162-163)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Menuge\u2019s whole article is an excellent and thoughtful tour of current Christian approaches to theodicy. I highly recommend this book, if not for this essay alone.<\/strong> You can listen to an interview with him about the essay here<\/a>.<\/p>\n FIN<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Notes:<\/strong><\/p>\n *\u201cWhat does [the fact that Jesus Christ forever remains the \u2018\u201dcrucified one\u201d (I Cor. 1)] mean for a tsunami? I don\u2019t finally know the mind of God. But I do know from the cross that God works His most profound deeds in suffering.\u00a0And so I plunge my feeble mind into the suffering of Christ and know that amidst trials and crosses and disaster upon disaster, God loves us in Christ. And there, only there, I find consolation amidst the devastation. In faith, I know that resurrection follows Good Friday.\u00a0The women stood at a distance and watched Him die.\u00a0Hopeless. The end. \u201cGod hates this Jesus \u2026 and us,\u201d they may well have thought. Or perhaps even, \u201cThere is no God, or certainly no God who cares about us.\u201d\u00a0Yet right there, on Good Friday, God the Father was doing what He had prepared to do from all eternity for the salvation of the world. The most loving act of God in history was veiled and hidden by a bloody, wretched cross.\u00a0Where was God in this tsunami? Where He always is\u2014 in Christ, in suffering, in the cross.\u201d (read the whole article here<\/a>)<\/p>\n