Theodicy

Eastern Orthodox theologian David B. Hart writes on “What kind of God would allow a deadly tsunami?” in today’s OpinionJournal. The subject of theodicy is often brought up when there is a major disaster, natural or manmade. I agree with Hart that no answer is likely to satisfy an unbeliever. Evil and suffering are questions that have trouble mankind since the Fall, I daresay, and even the Holy Scriptures do not provide a rational (that is, one that is satisfying to the unbelieving mind) answer. Scripture tells us what to do in the face of evil and suffering: perseverence, which leads to character, and hope (Romans 5:1–5).

One thing that Hart wrote struck me a little bit:

When confronted by the sheer savage immensity of worldly suffering--when we see the entire littoral rim of the Indian Ocean strewn with tens of thousands of corpses, a third of them children's--no Christian is licensed to utter odious banalities about God's inscrutable counsels or blasphemous suggestions that all this mysteriously serves God's good ends.

As a Calvinist, I find the charge of odious banalities and blasphemous suggestions somewhat unsatisfactory in light of Romans 11. It seems to indicate doubt of God’s sovereignty, which ironically is the only basis of our hope for the glory that is to come. On the other hand, lest I be thought of as a heartless person, I do think that Hart has a point in that people throw around the phrase “God’s will” etc. without giving proper thought to them. The Reformed understands “God’s will” in two perspectives: decretive and preceptive, and God upholds the creation by his sovereign providence. This means that indeed natural disasters are subject to God’s providence, even if we are unable to comprehend why they strike us. But there is unity in God’s will, and it would not be right to say that there is not a higher purpose behind these things.