The Problem with Theodicy

Why do bad things happen to good people? This question has likely floated around everyone’s head at least once in their life. As they watched the suffering of communities or in the aftermath of personal trauma. If god is real, all loving and all powerful then how can anyone be suffering? The question of theodicy is the attempt to find an explanation to this struggle. Either god is not all loving and he does not care if people suffer, or god is all powerful and he is not able to ease the suffering of his children. Both of these scenarios contradict the typical idea of what god is like. Many theological thinkers spend their lives trying to find an answer to this age-old dilemma. But for those not in academia the struggle is still just as real and just as daunting. It is a question that is also essential to a pastor’s theology - the one dispensing the advice to their congregation. The answer to the theodicy struggle needs to be right or else pastors will provide little to no help to those in pain.

Theodicy is a lifetime struggle, and every person deals with the question in their own individual way.

The question that is still to be answered is - do any of the theodicies that exist actually help to ease a person’s suffering?

Anna Bradshaw an American chaplain and George Fitchett an American researcher conducted research into the lives of three people, one of these, a woman called Susan. Susan suffered through the loss of her husband at the hands of a drunk driver while she was pregnant. Following this, she developed diabetes (Bradshaw and Fitchett, 2003). Susan was chosen for the research as the question of theodicy was one that she grappled with her whole life, and more intensely in the aftermath of loss. This made her a good subject for the examination of theodicy.

One model of theodicy that could be applied to Susan is called retribution. Susan believed that good deeds were rewarded. Living a morally good life meant that good would happen to her. She grew up believing in this theodicy (Bradshaw and Fitchett, 2003). God punishes those who sin, he is a god who keeps track and who seeks retribution (Rishmawy, 2016). In this theodicy god is not a loving one. The idea of retribution gave no comfort to Susan during her suffering. She endured the death of her husband and this was the theodicy she had believed in her whole life, but when it came to real unimaginable trauma it was useless. It made Susan increasingly confused, angry and lost as time went on (Bradshaw and Fitchett, 2003). This retribution theodicy had to be forgotten in order for Susan to heal. In this case retribution theodicy was not helpful. But what about in another situation? Retribution suggests that even natural disasters are the result of sin. A big believer in this type of theodicy is Pat Robertson, a televangelist. He has in the past publicly proclaimed that 9/11 was because of American sin.

“God had allowed the terrorists to succeed in their deadly mission because the United States had become a nation of abortion, homosexuality, secular schools and courts” (Goodstein, 2001).

This sort of theodicy will help no one. Blaming entire communities for a situation completely out with their control is pointless. America could not have averted the awful day of 9/11 by giving up abortion. And Susan could not have averted her husband’s death by simply being even more virtuous. In this instance, especially with Pat Robertson, it appears to just be placing the blame on people that should not be blamed. Retribution theodicy is flawed, only enhancing anger and confusion of anyone in its crosshairs.

The Irenaean theodicy suggests that suffering is for development and growth. It is god’s way of showing his love, by putting you through unimaginable trauma to become a better person (Godwin, 2020). But even this model has difficulties. Does knowing that you will be a better person after trauma make the suffering easier to bare? When you are in the midst of the worst pain you have ever experienced, and you hear your pastor say that this is all for a reason - does that make it all go away? Does it lessen the pain? When looking at Susan- she found that all she could do was surrender herself. Surrender herself to god because he had a plan for her. By knowing that everything, all the suffering and the trauma in her life was all by the hand of god, making her a better person, this is what made the pain easier to bare. God had a plan for her life, and that included trauma (Bradshaw and Fitchett, 2003). It took Susan a long time to accept this. She was always aware of this idea; it was only after the suffering had eased that she could fully understand it. What could have helped her while she was in the midst of her pain? This theodicy could have had a completely different impact on her at a different point in her life. And it has only been viewed in the life of one person, the theodicy could be absolutely no help to a completely different person. Susan was also a Christian woman (Bradshaw and Fitchett, 2003), which means that this particular theodicy might have a different impact upon someone of a different faith.

Evidently, the question of theodicy is one that you alone, can struggle with for your whole life. Does that mean theodicy is really the best approach to pain and suffering?

It is clear that in these limited scenarios with Susan that theodicies are a questionable form of pastoral care. They are not likely to ease the pain you are feeling.

However, would these theodicies help in other situations, with mental health struggles or more specifically, eating disorders?

To imagine that your eating disorder is the result of a sin you committed in the past will not help you overcome it. In reality, it would probably make the situation worse. Blaming yourself can deepen the feelings of shame and sadness that any mental health issue already causes, especially in those of eating disorders (Rollin, 2018). In fact, even the Irenaean theodicy - considering eating disorder as a way to spiritual growth - could be just as damaging. It may in the end, glorify mental health disorders.

“Eating disorders can seem like a path to spiritual fulfillment. They offer an identity and purpose, and can make you believe that you need them for worth, meaning, acceptance, control and peace.” (Hill, 2020).

Instead of promoting healing it could in fact cause sufferers to dive deeper into their disorder. Relying more heavily on those behaviours that hinder healing. It is hard to imagine any theodicy that would help with the misery someone can feel while suffering from an eating disorder. More than 1.25 million people in the UK sufferer from an eating disorder (Eating Disorder Statistics, 2020) and as of 2017, 70 million people worldwide (Lyons, 2017). It is essential to consider eating disorders in the context of theodicies, or else whole groups of people will be forgotten and will receive inadequate pastoral care.

Eating disorders are a problem worldwide and if theodicies as a form of pastoral care do not help those who need it most then it seems that a new idea is needed. A more practical approach. To look to those suffering and learn from their experience to create a pastoral theology that will actually help those in the moment of their suffering not simply in the aftermath.

If you are interested in learning more about the problem with theodicy please see bibliography or watch these videos:
The Problem of Evil
Problem of Evil Series