The Problem of Evil (Ch. 14)
The Bible doesn't offer an explicit solution to the problem of evil, but a six-fold solution is possible that draws from biblical ideas.
(This is chapter fourteen of my systematic theology of love in progress. Free subscribers get a portion of this chapter; paid subscribers get it all. Paid subscribers [only $8 a month] also get a signed copy of the book in 2026 and will be mentioned in the acknowledgements. Consider subscribing now!)
The Big Ideas of this Chapter
* The problem of evil asks, “Why doesn’t an all-powerful and all-loving God prevent genuine evil?”
* The more acute, horrific, inexplicable, or expansive the evil, the stronger the evidence against believing an all-powerful and all-loving deity exists.
* Evil is not best defined as the privation of good; evils are events that, all things considered, make the world worse than it might have been.
* The Bible does not provide a solution to the problem of evil.
* A helpful solution to the problem of evil makes six claims:
- God can’t prevent evil singlehandedly.
- God empathizes with creaturely suffering.
- God works to heal but can’t singlehandedly.
- God works to squeeze good from bad.
- God needs creaturely cooperation.
- God doesn’t create evil, but its possibility is present in creation.
* This systematic theology of love is agnostic on whether a devil or demons exist.
* Biblical references to lament often describe the frustration and pain of sufferers, but some wrongly say God causes evil or waits to rescue.
___
The primary reasons atheists and agnostics give for why they don’t believe deity exists revolve around the problem of evil and divine silence. The omnipotent deity of traditional theology could prevent evil singlehandedly and provide crystal-clear communication. Yet, evil occurs and God seems hidden. These and related issues lead many to deny the Spirit’s existence.
In previous chapters, I offered an alternative view of divine power. It rejects omnipotence and embraces amipotence, which is the power of uncontrolling love. This alternative solves the theoretical aspect of the problem of evil, because a Lover who can’t control anyone or anything can’t prevent evil singlehandedly. I’ll explain in volume two how amipotence solves the divine silence and hiddenness problem. There, I’ll argue that the Spirit communicates but can’t control the revelation nor the interpreters. God’s consistent but relationally-conditioned communication always intertwines with creaturely input and requires creaturely understanding.
This chapter continues exploring providence from the perspective of amipotence. It addresses the problem of evil more directly, while defining evil and considering its origin. Along the way, scripture is brought to bear on the problem, and I draw from the work of biblical scholars Bart Ehrman and N. T. Wright. The possible existence and role of a devil and demons are also considered.
The bold claim of this chapter is that the problem of evil can be solved. Yes, solved. In showing how, I identify six dimensions of the solution. While this solution is not explicitly found in scripture, it builds from biblical themes, is reasonable, and accounts for broad experience. Solving the problem of evil seems crucial if a systematic theology is to portray God as perfectly loving.
Inadequate Answers to the Problem of Evil
The problem of evil is often stated in question form: “Why doesn’t an all-powerful and all-loving deity prevent genuine evil?” I highlight the word ‘prevent,’ because some theologians say God allows evil.[1] Saying deity permits evil does not solve the problem of evil, because a God who permits evil that could be prevented is not consistently loving. A loving person prevents preventable evil. Those who allow hurt, horrors, and holocausts they could stop are not exemplars of love.
Some theologians respond to the problem of evil by saying an omnipotent God allows evil to build our characters or teach us lessons.[2] This pedagogical view does not provide a solution. Saying God allows evil to strengthen us doesn’t account for victims who don’t survive. They’re not strengthened. And instead of getting better, some survivors grow bitter. One wonders why an omnipotent creator didn’t make strong-character people in the first place. Or why a God with allegedly no limits created a world in which lessons needed to be learned.[3]
Other theologians say the omnipotent One causes or allows evil as punishment. In this view, we and others deserve the pain we endure.[4] This response is also unsatisfying. Not only do undeserving victims and innocent children suffer needlessly, but the suffering of the truly guilty often far exceeds the harm of their crimes. More importantly, divine punishment is irreconcilable with divine mercy. A loving God forgives.
Analytic theologians like to say Alvin Plantinga proved there is no logical contradiction between belief in God and the occurrence of evil. But this is a minor win; few people lose sleep over the logic of the problem. Most of us want plausible solutions to the problem of evil, not just logical ones. Telling an abuse survivor it’s logically possible a loving God allowed her harm isn’t helpful. The same goes for victims of genocide, pandemics, torture, cancer, and more. We want believable answers, not just logically possible ones.
Skeptical theists appeal to mystery in response to the problem of evil. God “will indeed have a good reason for permitting evil,” says Plantinga. “But why suppose the theist must be in a position to figure out what it is?[5]” This response not only fails to provide a solution to the problem of evil, it’s not even a defense. Besides, appealing to mystery in response to the problem that leads countless to unbelief is particularly annoying when analytic theists act confident they’ve solved far less important problems. Why worry about solving trinitarian conundrums, for instance, if the problem of evil provides good grounds to doubt the trinity exists?
More promising are the greater good, creation project, and only way theodicies. They implicitly if not explicitly admit God can’t do everything we might want. According to them, God can’t always get good results… given creaturely freedom, natural processes, divine goals for moral growth among creatures, the limits of logic, the reality of time, incompatible goods, law-like regularities, chance, and so on.
Most who advance these theodicies say God is omnipotent, however. What they mean by ‘omnipotent’ — given qualifications like those I’ve just listed — differs radically from both traditional and popular meanings. Worse, saying an omnipotent God allows evil for some greater good, as a general policy, or to maintain a creation project will not convince survivors that the Spirit cares about them.[6] That deity has more important issues on His plate.
What analytic theologians call “the evidential” dimension of the problem of evil has long been the center of concern. We want to know why a loving and powerful God didn’t prevent this particular evil, such as a rape or murder. Why doesn’t deity prevent large-scale evils too, like plagues, pandemics, and genocides?[7] Why do infants and animals suffer unnecessarily? Why doesn’t God stop accidental deaths and random mutations that lead to intense pain? And so on.
The more acute, horrific, inexplicable, or expansive the evil, the stronger the evidence against believing an all-powerful and all-loving deity exists.
