The Great Tsunami...Was God Involved

God alone knows why there is suffering on Earth
The Age

Trusting God or rejecting God will not stop each of us suffering, writes Barney Zwartz.

Is god to blame for the tragic tsunami that took tens of thousands of lives last week? Age journalist Kenneth Nguyen spoke for many when he asked that question on this page on Thursday. It was a version of what theologians call theodicy: how can a God who is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful allow evil? Either He is not all-powerful or not all good, the argument goes.

I want to make three points, none of which is likely to satisfy agnostics and others who pose the question in this way. First, there is no explanation for suffering such as the tsunami wrought. Second, there isn't even a question. Or, to put it another way, the question of theodicy rests on some flawed assumptions that render it irrelevant. And third, there is a lesson from such suffering, and Jesus teaches it when asked a very similar question.

It's natural to seek an explanation, a way of showing that tragedy on such a scale doesn't render our or God's existence absurd. And many have offered "explanations", such as the claim that suffering brings growth or that it produces other benefits or even that all wrongs will be rectified in heaven. The prophet Isaiah observes that when the righteous die they are removed from evil (Isaiah 57, verses 1 and 2). All these things may be true, but they don't explain or justify suffering.

Even if we had an explanation, would that provide comfort so that the grieving survivors can struggle on? Their needs are deeper than simply explanations. I cannot speak for other religions, but the God of the Bible can give voice to that pain and provide a way to go on. That is the solace of religion, and it is powerful, and it is not false.

It is also why the question cannot be put as theodicy puts it, for the spirit in which the question is asked is crucial. To call upon God in the midst of one's own suffering - specific pain in a specific context - is understandable and right, but this is not what happens when the general question is put. Too often it descends to point-scoring, and trivialises the suffering.

Theodicy discusses suffering as a theoretical abstraction to be justified by logical inference from an abstract philosophical deity who is reduced to a set of attributes: perfect goodness, perfect knowledge, perfect power. This philosopher's god is a metaphysical creation of the Enlightenment for purposes of argument - the person and teaching of Jesus, for example, does not enter the discussion.

But, as Christian philosopher Stanley Hauerwas shows, for the early Christians, suffering was not a metaphysical problem needing a solution but a practical challenge needing a response of faith. Apparently it never occurred to them to question their belief in God or His goodness because they were unjustly suffering. Rather, their faith gave them direction in the face of persecution and general misfortune.

Hauerwas says that to suggest there is a so-called problem of evil that is intelligible from anyone's perspective is to turn the Christian faith into a system of abstract beliefs, in which the role of God is to ensure a successful outcome for human purposes. But Christianity is not a set of doctrines; it involves an encounter with God and membership of a believing community.

What then is the lesson of suffering? Jesus is asked (Luke, chapter 13) about some Galileans "whose blood Pilate mingled with their sacrifices".

Rebutting the ancient theory that disaster is a punishment for sin, Jesus asks his questioners whether these Galileans were greater sinners than other Galileans because they suffered this fate. And 18 residents of Jerusalem who died when a tower fell on them, were they worse than others in the city? "I tell you, no, but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."

In other words, asked for a theological account of suffering, Jesus instead highlights the urgency of the gospel call of the Kingdom of God: repent (change course) and believe. He is surely not suggesting that if you don't repent a tower will fall on you, but that your perspective has to be from eternity.

The Old Testament book of Job dedicates 42 chapters to the meaning of suffering and concludes that it is to endure. Good advice, and unavoidable. But the biblical author notes that in all his travails Job did not sin, nor did he blame God (1:22).

The truth is that no one rejects God because of the abstract issue of evil in the world (as opposed to evil endured oneself). People reject God for other reasons, reasons they do not always understand, and use the theoretical difficulty of theodicy to reinforce and justify that stance. We're all naturally gifted at rationalising positions we want to hold.

But trusting in God or rejecting God won't stop us suffering, because as Job also wrote, man is born into trouble as surely as sparks fly upward. And a faith that dissipates under pressure was possibly not a deep faith in the first place.

The victims of the tsunami, the vast majority of whom seem to be religious people, understand this, as Mihir Bose showed on this page on Friday. They accept that life can be capricious and cruel, and "it helps that religion is so much part of their everyday lives, be they Hindus, Muslims, Christians or Buddhists", Bose wrote.

Theologian Nicholas Wolsterstorff, who lost a son in an accident, writes: "Suffering is down at the centre of things, deep down where the meaning is. Suffering is the meaning of our world. For Love is the meaning. And Love suffers. The tears of God are the meaning of history.

"But mystery remains. Why isn't Love-without-suffering the meaning of things. Why does God endure His suffering? Why does He not at once relieve His agony by relieving ours?" All I can say is, God alone knows - and that's enough.

Barney Zwartz is religion editor of The Age.