Index To Barriers To Faith

Also See Why Is There Suffering? (Below)

The Earth is plagued with all kinds of natural disasters (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc.). How can these tragedies be reconciled with a supposedly good, benevolent God?

September 21, 1989—Hurricane Hugo strikes the southeastern coast of the United States. Over 25 people are killed, and over $10 billion worth of damage results. One month later—October 17, 1989—an earthquake registering 7.1 on the Richter scale strikes the San Francisco Bay area in California. At least 62 people are killed, and damage estimates are placed at well over $1 billion. August 24, 1992—Hurricane Andrew hits three counties in southern Florida. More than a dozen people lose their lives, and damage estimates are set at over $20 billion. A year later, on September 11, 1992, Hurricane Iniki devastates the Hawaiian islands. At least four people die, and damage is set at over $1 billion. In June 1993, huge portions of numerous states along the Mississippi River and its tributaries experienced the worst flooding in their history. Entire cities were covered with water measured not in inches, but in feet. At least 47 people died, and more than 25,000 were evacuated from their homes.

Do these types of natural disasters represent merely isolated, infrequent events? Hardly. Throughout history, man has recorded many such tragedies. In 526, an earthquake hit the country now known as Turkey and left 250,000 dead. A similar earthquake in China in 1556 killed over 830,000 people. Another quake in India in 1737 annihilated 300,000, and quakes in Central China in 1920, 1927, and 1932 killed 200,000, 200,000, and 70,000 people respectively. In 1889, the famous “Johnstown Flood” occurred in Pennsylvania. The dam of the South Fork Reservoir, twelve miles east of the city, burst during heavy rains. Over 2,000 people were killed, and property damage was estimated to be over $10 million. In 1969, Hurricane Camille killed more than 250 people in seven states from Louisiana to Virginia, leaving behind over $1.5 billion in damage. In 1983, Hurricane Alicia struck near Galveston, killing 21 and causing over $2 billion in damage.

It is rare indeed, it seems, for a single generation in a given locale to be spared at least some kind of natural disaster. Without warning, tornadoes sweep down from the afternoon sky and destroy in a moment’s fury what took decades or centuries to build. Floods cover “old home places,” and remove forever any vestige of what were once storehouses of hallowed memories. In a matter of seconds, earthquakes irreparably alter once-familiar landscapes. Hurricanes come from the sea, demolish practically everything in their paths, and then dissipate as if they never had existed. Each time humanity suffers. And each time there are those who ask “Why?”

THE “WHY?” QUESTION

In the face of disasters such as those described above, there is hardly any question likely to be asked more routinely than “why?” But the question is not always asked in the same way, or with the same intent. Some stand on the charred remains of what was once their home and ask, “why me?”—and mean exactly that. Why them and why now? All they want is to understand the physical events that have changed their lives, and to learn what they can do to correct the situation and avoid a repeat of it. They are not looking to assign blame; they merely want an explanation of the prevailing circumstances.

Others view the destruction around them and ask “why?,” but their inquiry is brief and their response immediate. They correctly view the Earth as a once-perfect-but-now-flawed home for mankind. Rather than their faith in God being diminished by the ravages of ongoing natural phenomena, it is strengthened because they: (a) know that there are rational biblical and scientific explanations for such events; (b) understand that after all is said and done, “the Judge of all the Earth will do that which is right” (Genesis 18:25); and (c) put their faith into action as they work to help themselves, or those around them whose lives have been affected by a disaster.

Still others view natural disasters and ask “why?,” when what they really mean is: “If a benevolent God exists, why did He allow these things to happen?” The implication of their statement is clear. Since these things did happen, God must not exist.

THE BIBLICAL RESPONSE TO THE “WHY” QUESTION

It is not my purpose here to address the “why me, why now?” question that seeks a physical explanation as to what kind of swirling wind current spawns a tornado, or what kind of geological phenomena may be responsible for an earthquake. Much has been written on these topics that can provide adequate answers for those willing to research the problem. Instead, I would like to answer the more pressing philosophical questions of why the Earth experiences natural disasters in the first place, and why such disasters are not incompatible with a benevolent God.

Our Once-Perfect-But-Now-Flawed Planet

At the end of His six days of creation (Genesis 1:31), God surveyed all that He had made, and proclaimed it “very good”—Hebrew terminology representing that which was both complete and perfect. Rivers were running, fish were swimming, and birds were flying. Pestilence, disease, and human death were unknown. Man existed in an idyllic paradise of happiness and beauty where he shared such an intimate and blissful covenant relationship with his Maker that God came to the garden “in the cool of the day” to commune with its human inhabitants (Genesis 3:8). Additionally, Genesis 3:22 records that man had continual access to the tree of life that stood in the garden, the fruit of which would allow him to live forever.

The peacefulness and tranquillity of the first days of humanity were not to prevail, however. In Genesis 3—in fewer words than an average sportswriter would use to discuss a Friday night high school football game—Moses, through inspiration, discussed the breaking of the covenant relationship between man and God, the entrance of sin into the world, and the curse(s) that resulted therefrom. When our original parents revolted against their Creator, evil entered the world. Moses informs us that as a direct consequence of human sin, the Earth was “cursed” (Genesis 3:17). Paul, in Romans 8:19-20, declared that the entire creation was subjected to “vanity” and the “bondage of corruption” as a result of the sinful events that took place in Eden on that occasion. Things apparently deteriorated rapidly. Just three chapters later, Moses wrote:

And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And Jehovah said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens (Genesis 6:5-7).

Genesis 6-8 records the global destruction resulting from the Great Flood sent by God as His instrument of judgment. The text indicates that the waters which caused the Flood derived from two sources: (a) “the fountains of the great deep”; and (b) “the windows of heaven” (Genesis 7:11). Water fell for forty days and nights (Genesis 7:12,17), and eventually covered “all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven” (Genesis 7:19). We may only surmise the changes that the Flood wrought upon the Earth. Local floods can cause tremendous damage in very brief periods. Imagine, then, the damage that water covering every mountain fifteen cubits (Genesis 7:20; approximately 22½ feet) must have caused. As one writer has suggested: [See The Flood.. Local Or Global?]

The destructive power of flood-waters is evident from what flood waters in recent years have done. They moved blocks of granite weighing 350 tons more than a hundred yards. Boulders weighing 75 to 210 tons have been moved by flood waters only 15 to 20 feet deep.... What vast devastation must have been created when all those forces of the earth worked together; rain gushing down from the canopy above the firmament, earthquakes shaking the earth, many volcanoes erupting and exploding at one time, continents shifting, mountains lifting up, tornados, hurricanes and wild windstorms raging, gigantic tidal waves with crosscurrents and whirlpools raising havoc.... Truly, the Flood was the greatest and most violent catastrophe in the history of the world, with total destruction of all forms of life and of the entire surface of the earth (Sippert, 1989, pp. 78-79).

What were conditions like on the Earth prior to the Great Flood? Numerous biblical scholars have suggested that conditions were radically different than those we see today, and that the Earth was devoid of the many natural disasters that it presently experiences (see Rehwinkel, 1951; Whitcomb and Morris, 1961; Dillow, 1981). Whitcomb and Morris have stated, for example:

This is inferred from the fact that the “breaking-up of the fountains of the great deep” (Genesis 7:11), which implies this sort of activity, was one of the immediate causes of the Deluge; therefore it must have been restrained previously.... Thus the Biblical record implies that the age between the fall of man and the resultant Deluge was one of comparative quiescence geologically. The waters both above and below the firmament were in large measure restrained, temperatures were equably warm, there were no heavy rains nor winds and probably no earthquakes nor volcanic emissions (1961, pp. 242,243).

It is not unreasonable to suggest, knowing the changes caused by local floods, that the global Flood of Genesis 6-8 not only radically altered the face of the Earth, but simultaneously produced circumstances that are responsible for many natural disasters experienced since that time. New, higher mountains and lower valleys were produced by God after the Flood (Psalm 104:6-10). Approximately 71.9% of the Earth’s surface remained covered with water. Temperature changes occurred, producing seasonal variations unlike any before. No doubt other factors were involved as well.

What causes natural disasters on the Earth today? One cause is the vastly different geological and meteorological phenomena now present. Tall mountains and deep valleys may be conducive to localized extremes in weather. The drastically changed components of the Earth’s crust (e.g., fault lines, etc.) give rise to earthquakes. Vast bodies of water, and large global climatic variations, spawn hurricanes and tropical storms.

Taken at face value, then, the wickedness of mankind in Noah’s day (which precipitated the Flood) is responsible ultimately for the changes that now produce various natural disasters. As Brad Bromling has observed:

While we may never know with precision what conditions prevailed between the Edenic period and the Flood, it seems that the weather systems with which we are familiar were largely absent at that time. The fossil record bespeaks a period when the entire Earth enjoyed a temperate climate. This storm-free era most certainly predates the Flood. Since that event, man has been imperiled by tornadoes, blizzards, monsoons, and hurricanes.... Upon whom should we heap blame for the suffering resultant from such weather? Is it fair to accuse God, when He created man’s home free from such things (Genesis 1:31)? In all honesty, the answer is no. Sin robbed us of our original garden paradise, and sin was responsible for the global deluge (Genesis 3:24; 6:7) [1992, p. 17].

One writer concluded: “[T]he cause of all that is wrong with the earth is not godliness but rather ungodliness” (Porter, 1974, p. 467, emp. in orig.). The matter of man’s personal volition has much to do with this. The Scriptures speak to the fact that since God is love, and since love allows freedom of choice, God allows freedom of choice (cf. Joshua 24:15; John 5:39-40). God did not create mankind as robots without any free moral agency. Mankind now reaps the consequences of the misuse of freedom of choice (i.e., the sin) of previous generations. Surely one of the lessons here is that it does not pay to disobey the Creator. In his second epistle, Peter made a clear reference to “the world that then was,” and its destruction by the Flood (3:6). That world no longer exists. Today we inhabit a once-perfect-but-now-flawed Earth. Man—not God—bears the blame.

Natural Disasters and a Benevolent God

The Bible teaches that God is both all-powerful and loving; thus He is benevolent, as love demands. How, then, can He allow natural disasters to occur? Do not natural disasters negate the benevolence of God, and strike at His very existence? In addition to the reasons listed in the section above, I would like to suggest the following reasons why they do not.

First, God created a world ruled by natural laws established at the Creation. If a man steps off the roof of a five-story building, gravity will pull him to the pavement beneath. If a boy steps in front of a moving freight train, since two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, the train will strike the child and likely kill him. The same laws that govern gravity, matter in motion, or similar phenomena also govern weather patterns, water movement, and other geological/meteorological conditions. All of nature is regulated by these laws, not just the parts that we find convenient.

Second, some disasters may be the by-product of something that itself is good. In addressing this point, Norman Geisler has noted:

In a physical world where there is water for boating and swimming, some will drown. If there are mountains to climb, there must also be valleys into which one may fall. If there are cars to drive, collisions can also occur. It may be said that tornadoes, lightning, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are likewise by-products of a good physical world. For instance, the purpose of rain is not to flood or drown, but the result of rain may include these disasters. Likewise, hot and cold air are an essential and purposeful part of the physical world, but under certain conditions they may combine to form tornadoes (1978, p. 72, emp. in orig.).

The natural laws that God created allow man to produce fire. But the same laws that enable him to cook his food also allow him to destroy entire forests. Laws that make it possible to have things constructive to human life also introduce the possibility that things destructive to human life may occur. How can it be otherwise? A car is matter in motion, and takes us where we wish to go. But if someone steps in front of that car, the same natural laws that operate to our benefit will operate in a similar fashion to our detriment.

Third, natural laws are both inviolate and non-selective. Everyone must obey them or suffer the consequences. In Luke 13:2-5, Jesus told the story of eighteen men who perished when the tower of Siloam collapsed. Had these men perished because of their sin? No, they were no worse sinners than their peers. They died because a natural law was in force. Fortunately, natural laws work continually so that we can understand and benefit from them. We are not left to sort out some kind of haphazard system that works one day, but not the next.

Those who rail against God because of natural disasters often are overheard to ask, “But why can’t God ‘selectively intervene’ to prevent disasters?” Bruce Reichenbach has addressed this question:

Thus, in a world which operates according to divine miraculous intervention, there would be no necessary relation between phenomena, and in particular between cause and effect. In some instances one event would follow from a certain set of conditions, another time a different event, and so on, such that ultimately an uncountable variety of events would follow a given set of conditions. There would be no regularity of consequence, no natural production of effects.... Hence, we could not know or even suppose what course of action to take to accomplish a certain rationally conceived goal. Thus, we could neither propose action nor act ourselves (1976, p. 187).

If God suspended natural laws every time His creatures were in a dangerous situation, chaos would corrupt the cosmos, arguing more for a world of atheism than a world of theism! Further, as Geisler has remarked:

First, evil men do not really want God to intercept every evil act or thought. No one wants to get a headache every time he thinks against God. One does not want God to fill his mouth with cotton when he speaks evil of God, nor does he really desire God to explode his pen as he writes against God or destroy his books before they come off the press. At best, people really want God to intercept some evil actions.... Second, continual interference would disrupt the regularity of natural law and make life impossible. Everyday living depends on physical laws such as inertia or gravity. Regular interruption of these would make everyday life impossible and a human being extremely edgy! Third, it is probable that chaos would result from continued miraculous intervention. Imagine children throwing knives at parents because they know they will be turned to rubber, and parents driving through stop signs, knowing God will create crash-protection air shields to avert any ensuing collisions. The necessary intervention would finally grow in proportions that would effectively remove human freedom and responsibility (1978, p. 75, emp. in orig.). [Also See Anthropic Principles]

How, then, exactly, would the unbeliever suggest that an understandable, dependable world be created, and operated, other than the way ours presently is? How could natural disasters be prevented, while maintaining natural laws and human freedom?

CONCLUSION

Those who suggest that the existence of a benevolent God is impossible as a result of “natural evil” often call for a better world than this one. But they cannot describe the details necessary for its creation and maintenance. When—in an attempt to “improve” it—they begin to “tinker” with the actual world around them, they invariably find themselves worse off.

Instead of blaming God when tragedies such as natural disasters strike, we need to turn to Him for strength, and let tragedies, of whatever nature, remind us that this world was never intended to be a final home (Hebrews 11:13-16). Our time here is temporary (James 4:14), and with God’s help we are able to overcome whatever comes our way (Romans 8:35-39; Psalm 46:1-3). In the end, the most important question is not, “Why did this happen to me?,” but instead, “How can I understand what has happened, and how am I going to react to it?” With Peter, the faithful Christian can echo the sentiment that God, “ who called you unto his eternal glory in Christ, after that ye have suffered a little while, shall himself perfect, establish, strengthen you. To him be the dominion for ever and ever” (1 Peter 5:10).

REFERENCES

Bromling, Brad T. (1992), “Who Sent the Hurricane?,” Reasoning from Revelation, 4:17, Semptember.

Dillow, Joseph C. (1982), The Waters Above (Chicago, IL: Moody).

Geisler, Norman L. (1978), The Roots of Evil (Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan).

Porter, Walter L. (1974), “Why Do the Innocent Suffer?,” Firm Foundation, 91[30]: 467,475, July 23.

Rehwinkel, A.M. (1951), The Flood (St. Louis, MO: Concordia).

Reichenbach, Bruce (1976), “Natural Evils and Natural Laws,” International Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 16.

Sippert, Albert (1989), From Eternity to Eternity (North Mankato, MN: Sippert Publishing).

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris (1961), The Genesis Flood (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Copyright © 1993 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. This Article can Be found At http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2207

Why Is There Suffering?
Jay Smith
April 1997

Introduction

The question constantly asked by non-Christians is:

"How can a God of love let all this suffering go on in his world? Either he doesn't exist at all or he is a vicious tyrant who enjoys seeing people in pain."

Before I attempt to answer this question, I think it helpful to turn the question around so those who are asking can see that the premise which they take is equally illogical. If we assume that God does not exist because there is evil in the world, then how are we going to explain that there is joy and happiness as well? Who are we going to blame that on? Does that then prove God's existence? Of course not. It points out the fact that suffering can not be explained so simply, and that the whole reality of suffering is much more complex than simply blaming it all on God, as so many people are prone to do.

The fact is that there is simply no slick or easy answer to the problem of suffering. It might be helpful to ask those who decry God's existence to explain why they believe there is suffering. They would be the first to admit that the blame rests on none other than ourselves, a view which ironically is close to our own. It is from this premise then that we should start the discussion. Because, while the humanists like to think they have disproved God because of the suffering we find in the world, they fail to understand that the very existence of suffering presupposes the existence of goodness and happiness as well, yet whose source, I feel, only we who believe in the existence of God can adequately explain and offer to the world. Let's then take the questions one by one.

Question 1: Who is to blame for the suffering?

So who is to blame for all the suffering in the world? Obviously, as humans we want to apportion blame, and just like everyone before us we assume the blame rests with someone else. Yet the answer to who is to blame has already been intimated in the introduction, and is one area which we find in common with our interlocutors. We only have ourselves to blame. It's no good pointing our finger at God for the suffering. We need to look in the mirror, and point the finger at the real culprit: the human race.

To a greater or lesser degree, we all contribute to the suffering in the world. The papers are full of it, statistics on murders, rapes and muggings fill the pages, and we all know who the culprits are, or have a good idea who they are. But that kind of suffering we don't blame on God, because it is obvious where the source comes from. What we are concerned about is the suffering which we have no control over: such as earthquakes, famine, volcanoes, and other natural disasters? Would a just God allow them to continue?

I would like to posit the notion that while natural disasters do bring about much destruction and pain, much of the suffering for these natural disasters can also possibly be blamed on ourselves. Consider:

Earthquakes

While we cannot control them, we can control their damage to humanity, which is really where the suffering comes in. Yet, most suffering from earthquakes can be prevented. Consider:

· 1906 San Francisco earthquake: thousands of people died. Dr. T. Nakamura, sent by the Japanese government went to investigate the earthquake. His prognosis: "Dishonest mortar was responsible for nearly all the earthquake damage". (Gaukroger 1995:22)

· 1935 Quetta, Pakistan earthquake: where many again died. The reason similarly was the poor constructional quality of the buildings. Those buildings which survived all had good cement, so that their chimneys still remained intact (Gaukroger 1995:23)!

· 1985 Mexico City earthquake: again culpability was put on second-rate workmanship and the skimping on construction materials.

So for 80 years we knew how to minimize earthquake damage, yet we still had not learned the lesson. While many people shook their fist at God, they chose to ignore the guilt which was lurking in their own back yard.

Now let's take the example of Kobe, Japan, in 1995. There was billions of œs in damage, but little loss of life because of the lessons learned from San Francisco, Quetta and Mexico. Only the older buildings, which had not applied this new technology were destroyed. Would those who had earlier blamed God for the former earthquakes, have credited Him for the few who were killed in the Kobe earthquake? Certainly not! It was the engineers who had learned from past experience and applied what they knew who were credited with the success at Kobe; and any good humanist would agree. Then, to be consistent, these same humanists shouldn't have been so quick to blame God for the deaths in San Francisco, Quetta and Mexico. Let's put blame where blame is due.

Famines

Interestingly, most famines can be avoided, and are not the result of natural occurances, but are primarily caused by man.

· 1985 Ethiopian famine was devastating, yet two years earlier relief agencies working in Ethiopia had warned the government that it was coming. Instead of alleviating the problem, the government spent $200 million on celebrating the independence of the communist takeover.

· Deforestation in Senegal: All our neighbours used firewood rather than gas, though everyone knew (by TV adverts) that wood-burning caused deforestation, and heats up the atmosphere dissipating clouds, which retards rain. Knowing the devastation they were causing they continued to use wood, because "it was what they had used since they were children".

Should God be blamed for the resulting famines?

Volcanoes

While no-one can control volcanoes, today the suffering which they cause is now at a minimum. Most are carefully watched by scientists, and there is enough forewarning from technology to get humans out of dangers way (i.e. Mt. St. Helens, and the 12 who disregarded the warnings). Thus, except for lost property which can be replaced, there are few who suffer from volcanoes anymore.

What about that which is beyond our control to resist? Natural disasters, such as landslides, typhoons, sudden violent storms and floods etc...

If there was anything which we could possibly blame God for, these are they. Yet, while humanists can only wring their hands in anger and frustration, Christians are the only ones who have an answer to this question:

Only we have the solution.

In order to find that answer we need to go back to Genesis 3:17-19. In this chapter we find that God made a perfect world. Yet man turned his back on God, and rebelled, and this affected not only his relationship with God, but all of creations relationship with God. Here we find that the curse given to Adam and Eve also affected the earth. A perfect world became imperfect. Adam found himself in a world which was now infected with sickness and disease, and also, natural disasters.

These disasters will continue, and we will be caught up in them and suffer as a result. It seems hopeless, yet it isn't. Here is where we can offer a solution which the humanist cannot. We know that it will not continue indefinitely. In Genesis 3:15 God promised that the error of the sin in Eden would be rectified later on by a "son of Eve," whom we know as God Himself, Jesus, and that this would be done by "crushing the head of Satan," which was done on the cross nearly 2,000 years ago. Because of that act, we now know that we will be reunited with God, walking and talking with Him as we saw Adam and Eve doing in the garden (see Genesis 3:8-9). It won't be in this life, but the life to come, where there will be no suffering and no pain, no disasters or injustices; where life will continue as it was intended from the very beginning.

Question 2: Why does God not get rid of suffering?

The follow on to the first question is why God allows suffering to continue? Why does He simply not get rid of it? The simple answer is that it is no good asking God to get rid of all suffering, because in doing so, knowing that we are to blame for most of it, He would have to get rid of all of us, and we would then be demanding our own demise.

It's much too simplistic to assume that since suffering hurts it is therefore bad and must be done away with. There is another side to it. The fact that we do suffer demonstrates that there are consequences, which means that we have choice, which implies a freedom of will. This proves that we are not robots who are programmed to act only one certain way. It is the Bible which tells us that we have been made in God's image (Genesis 2:27), and because God has a free will to choose so do we. But it doesn't come without a cost, as it presupposes that there will be consequences for the choices we make, which often involves happiness, but also can involve suffering.

It is much like a game of chess: There are rules in the game which must be applied consistently throughout. Certainly we make mistakes and pieces are taken from us, so that in the end we will win or lose the game depending on how many pieces are left. We enjoy it when the opponent loses a piece, and this brings us happiness, yet we do not carry the same sentiment when on the next move our own piece is eliminated. While we could say that losing a piece is horrible and painful and therefore is not just, we would not change the rules so that no-one would lose a piece, because then it would no longer be the game of chess.

Life is much the same way. There are rules which we must play by, rules which involve consequences. Yet though we get hurt in life it does not mean that we should throw it away. We learn from our mistakes so that the next time we won't make them (much like getting back up on the horse, once you have fallen). The great thing is that we have been given a book on how best to play the game; the Bible. If we refuse to read it, and then make mistakes, we should not then blame God. Read what He has said in His book, and try not to make that mistake again (i.e. family and divorce).

Question 3: Why does God not stop the bad actions of men?

The third question concerns why, if there is a loving God, does He not intervene and stop the bad actions of bad men? Certainly the innocent should not have to suffer at the hands of those who are evil? Where is the justice in that?

To begin with, we need to look at what the humanist is demanding. In order to fulfill this obligation God would have to intervene all the time, and thus alter the laws of nature: so that a wooden beam became soft as grass when used as a weapon, or a knife blade became putty in the hands of an aggressor, or the bullet of the assassin disintegrated in mid-flight. It would be impossible to imagine a world like this. Life would be a mass of confusion, as there would be no longer any rules which we would be held accountable to. Like the chess game, the fact that there are rules and consequences to our actions gives the game its relevance and makes it worth playing.

In order to create persons with free will there had to be a predictable universe, which included both evil and good. Thus the possibility of evil is inherent in the very existence of freedom. Yet because of man's rebellion one of the inescapable consequences of this was suffering, whether mental or physical, whether self-inflicted or by another. While we love freedom, we tend not to like the consequences which go with it; yet we cannot have one without the other.

Question 4: Why is there pain?

Many people ask why there must be pain in our suffering? Genesis 3:16 speaks of pain entering into the world, specifically pointing to the pain of childbirth. Before that time there was no pain. Thus pain is a result of the rebellion of man. Yet that is not all.

We need pain.

This question does not take into consideration that we really need pain. If God removed pain completely it would be disastrous for us all.

Examples: our appendix bursting, or the loss of fingers by leprosy. How would we know when our body was being damaged if there was no pain? Pain is an early warning system which tells us that something is wrong with our body.

But what do we do with a disfigured baby, or someone who is handicapped from birth or by an accident? Did they deserve this suffering?

No, of course not. But like the scenario which we discussed earlier, if we can agree that creation was perverted by the sin of Eden, and we can agree that disasters are a consequence of that sin, then we should also agree that disfigurement and being handicapped will also fall into those same categories. In an imperfect world we should expect to see these handicaps.

But are we not all handicapped to a certain degree? We all have physical problems and difficulties. I wear glasses, and am hopeless driving at night without them. Does this upset my view of reality, and should I blame God for my shortsightedness? No, because of all people He can understand my infirmities, possibly better than myself, because He has experienced it all before!

We are not alone.

Unlike all other religions, the Biblical view of God is not one of an uninvolved deity, just sitting back and watching us suffer. He came Himself to earth to suffer like His creation.

A piece called The Long Silence sums this up perfectly:

"At the end of time, billions of people were scattered on a great plain before God's throne. Most shrank back from the brilliant light before them. But some groups near the front talked heatedly - not with cringing shame but with belligerence, saying, "Can God judge us? How can He know about suffering?" snapped a pert young brunette. She ripped open a sleeve to reveal a tattooed number from a Nazi concentration camp. "We endured terror, beating, torture, and death!" In another group a Negro boy lowered his collar. "What about this?" he demanded, showing an ugly rope burn. "Lynched for no crime but being black!" In another crowd, a pregnant school girl with sullen eyes said, "Why should I suffer? It wasn't my fault." Far out across the plain were hundreds of such groups. Each had a complaint against God for the evil and suffering He permitted in His world. How lucky God was to live in heaven where all was sweetness and light, where there was no weeping or fear, no hunger or hatred. What did God know of all that men had been forced to endure in this world? For God leads a pretty sheltered life, they said.

"So each of these groups sent forth their leader, chosen because he had suffered the most. A Jew, a Negro, a person from Hiroshima, a horribly deformed arthritic, a thalidomide child. In the centre of the plain they consulted with each other. At last they were ready to present their case. It was rather clever. Before God could be qualified to be their judge, He must endure what they had endured. Their verdict was that God should be sentenced to live on earth - as a man! Let him be born a Jew. Let the legitimacy of His birth be doubted. Give Him a work so difficult that even His family will think Him out of His mind when He tries to do it. Let Him be betrayed by His closest friends. Let Him face false charges, be tried by a prejudiced jury and convicted by a cowardly judge. Let Him be tortured. At last, let Him see what it means to be terribly alone. Then let Him die. Let Him die so that there can be no doubt He died. Let there be a whole host of witnesses to verify it. As each leader announced his portion of the sentence, loud murmurs of approval went up from the throng of people assembled. When the last had finished pronouncing sentence there was a long silence. No one uttered another word. No one moved. For suddenly all knew that God had already served His sentence."

Indeed God has already felt our pain and He therefore understands us. He has been where we are, and this provides great comfort for those who are going through pain now.

Question 5: Will suffering ever end?

But even more than that, God's sojourn on earth was not simply to understand our needs; it had an even greater purpose. He came that we might have life, and that more abundantly. He came to break the power of sin, which had first entered the world at Eden. And by breaking the power of sin, by His death on the cross, He broke the power of suffering. The world threw everything they could at Him, but He still emerged the outright winner. The proof of this is that He rose again on the third day. Since that time death has no more sting.

But why then is there still suffering and evil in the world if Jesus has already defeated it? Will it ever end? The game of chess can help us here again. When two grandmasters play, many times one or the other will resign the game long before the game is over. To an untrained observer this may seem curious, and even foolish, yet to the trained chess mind, the resignation is all but inevitable, and therefore quite logical. The game could continue on 20 or 30 moves, but the one player already has the upper hand, and will win irregardless of where the other player chooses to move.

This is similar to the scenario Satan has to live with. The Bible says that Christ's death and resurrection are like that decisive move in the cosmic struggle against evil and all its consequences. Satan knows that the critical move was carried out 2,000 years ago, and that at that time he lost. Yet he plays on, trying to manipulate humanity to his whims, and it is his suffering which we see all around us. We now live in the closing stages of the game. It is just a matter of time now before God will call "check-mate." That as well gives me great confidence, because I know that the days of evil and suffering are numbered.

For the humanist the alternative is rather bleak indeed. What can the humanist offer for those who are suffering out of no fault of their own? What hope is there for them? It is only because we know that God exists, and that He loves us, so much so that He came and suffered as we have suffered that we can possibly look at those who are in pain, in the face and say, be comforted, for it is only for a while; it will be soon over, and there is someone who can help; may I introduce Him to you? He is the one who set the rules, He is the one who plays the game to its conclusion, but He is also the one who has been where we have been, who helps us along the way, and keeps us from falling. Let me share with you the famous little story called Footprints:

"One night a man had a dream. He dreamed he was walking along the beach with the Lord and across the sky flashed scenes from his life. For each scene, he noticed two sets of footprints in the sand; one belonging to him and the other to the Lord. When the last scene of his life flashed before him, he looked back at the footprints in the sand. He noticed that many times along the path of his life there was only one set of footprints. He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times in his life. This really bothered him and he questioned the Lord about it, Lord, you said that once I decided to follow you, you'd walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why when I needed you most, you would leave me.' The Lord replied, My precious child, I love you and I would never leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you'" (Anonymous).

This is the guarantee we all have if we are in relationship with Him. We now live in an imperfect world where there is suffering and pain. The rules demand suffering. But God promises that the pain will never be more than that which we can bear, and that "He will always provide a way out so that you can stand up under it" (See 1 Corinthians 10:13).

And it doesn't end with this life; for we know that God has gone to prepare a place for us, a place where we can finally be with Him for eternity.

Conclusion

So what can we offer to those who believe that suffering proves there is no God? We can offer them the only alternative to a suffering we all experience, believer and unbeliever alike; that is an offer of help and support in this life for the suffering which is there, and the assurance of a complete absence of suffering in the life to come.

Also See The Great Christian Hope Of Glorification
and Heaven ..(A fascinating look at the question of whether there will be time and space in Heaven.)
 

The alternative is much more bleak. For the humanist our present existence with all its pain and deprivation is all there is. He cannot explain where the pain and suffering really came from, other than to point to man. Nor can he explain how to alleviate it. But worst of all, he has no hope at all for its eradication. He is stuck with it for the duration of his existence. He may continue to try and blame it on God, but then he would have to admit God's existence; and that he won't do, because it would entail a response. So instead he continues playing the game with no idea of where he came from, where he is, or where he is going. That indeed is bad news.

The good news, however, is that while we may be in the midst of the game, and while we may be losing pieces here and there, we know that the game will end in victory and happiness. For we can see the dim light at the end of the tunnel, when we will not have to lose anymore. Then we will be with Christ in glory, where there is no pain, no suffering, and no sorrow; returning to the garden once again where God had intended us to be all along. Now with that kind of news, I can sustain the suffering I may have to shoulder while we sojourn for a while here on earth. So let's play on!

References Used

Forster, Roger & Marston, Paul, That's A Good Question, Eastbourne, Coverdale, 1977
Gaukroger, Stephen, It Makes Sense, London, Scripture Union, 1995
Lewis, C.S., The Problem of Pain, Collins/Fount, 1977
Watson, David, Is Anyone There?, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1979
Weston, Paul, Why We Can't Believe, Are there any answers?, Leicester, Frameworks, 1991

Barriers To Faith

www.inplainsite.org