An Author Interview from Books at a Glance
Zaspel:
Greetings, and welcome to another Author Interview at Books at a Glance. I’m Fred Zaspel, and today we’re talking to Scott Christensen about his very important new book, What About Evil? A Defense of God’s Sovereign Glory – a new benchmark publication on the perennial question of the problem of evil.
Scott, welcome back, and congratulations on a major accomplishment!
Christensen:
Thank you!
Zaspel:
Let’s start at the bottom: Just what is “the problem of evil,” and how is it such a perplexing problem for so many?
Christensen:
The problem of evil goes back since the beginning of the ages. It can be simplified to what is typically known as a trilemma. In other words, 3 propositions that people consider when they think about evil. They have to do with God. We are thinking about God and the problem of evil.
The issue is this; if God is all-powerful and all good then why does evil exist? The assumption is that something does not work. One of these propositions cannot be true. Most people believe evil exists. Either God is not all-powerful, not good, or does not exist. There are assumptions behind that. The first assumption is that He is all-powerful and can prevent evil. Of course, all Christians would agree with that. No one would deny that God cannot prevent evil if He chooses to do so.
The second proposition is that God is all good. The second assumption is that God wants to prevent evil. That is where the sticking point comes because God does not stop evil in some cases though he has the power to do so. It indicates that he must want evil to occur. The problem becomes why does God want certain evils to occur. The logical problem of evil was raised in modern times by a man named John Mackey in the late 50s. It resulted in a massive philosophical discussion and addressing the issue has not stopped. Many go beyond this to what is called the evidential problem. They agree that we can justify God’s existence even though evil occurs. The question is moved to “why is there so much evil in the world?” This places God’s existence under question again.
Zaspel:
The quantity and degree of evil is put under question too, right?
Christensen:
Yes! Evil that is so terrible that they cannot imagine God existing. People think of the Holocaust or little girls as sex slaves. Evils that are so terrible that God would not want that to happen and would stop it. His goodness and power gets put under question.
The third problem is the existential, emotional, or religious problem. This does not question his existence. These are the people who believe in God but ask where He is. Like Job, they do not understand why God allows this evil to overcome them. That is a basic lay of the land.
Zaspel:
So, with the question raised, we are facing on one hand an atheist who raises it as evidence against the existence of God, but at the same time it throws the Christian into a mode of defending God and how do we answer the questions, right?
Christensen:
Yes! Theodicy is a way of defending God’s existence or His attributes in the face of evil. It combines two Greek words, the word theos for God and dike for justify. Its meaning is “how do you justify God’s way and purposes in the face of evil.” It gives reasons for why God allows permits or ordains evil.
Zaspel:
Give us a broad sketch of the various kinds of answers to the problem that Christians have offered.
Christensen:
The philosophical literature today, there are so many approaches to this problem and nuances to those approaches it can be bewildering. I have tried to narrow in the book the most common responses historically that Christians have made in response to this problem. Most commonly the free will defense embraces libertarian versions of free will. It says God allows the possibility of evil to take place because he values the free will of his creatures. This means free will is necessary for us to experience a meaningful relationship with God. In other words, we have to be free to either choose or reject God, evil or good and to be responsible for good and evil. The idea is that free will is necessary for moral responsibility and meaningful relationships. It is not only necessary between people but between people and God. In order for God to preserve the value of free will, He must risk the possibility that evil choices will be made. God values free will over the risk of evil taking place, even gratuitous evils.
Sometimes related is the natural law defense, this brings the problem of moral evil. Moral agents engage in moral actions. Humans, angels, and demons are moral agents. God himself would be a moral agent. Moral evil concerns the action of moral agents. Natural evil is those things that occur in the natural world that bring about pain and suffering. For example, tornadoes or coronavirus or rocks falling off cliffs and crushing cars. These are what would be natural evils. The natural law says we have these certain laws that govern creation and can be used for good or ill. The same gravity that holds our planet in place as it orbits around the sun is the same law of gravity that will crush us when the rock falls on our car. It is very limited. People must understand that not one of these defenses is exclusive, they are combined as a comprehensive approach to the problem.
The other defense is known as the greater good defense. Broadly speaking, it shows the most promise when addressing the problem of evil. God has certain goods that He wants to achieve that could not be achieved apart from the presence of evil. These greater goods are goods that necessitate the presence of evil, they could not happen unless evil occurs. In a specific version of the greater good theodicy is what is called the soul-making theodicy. It’s that certain moral virtues wouldn’t occur without the presence of evil. For example, one can’t produce courage unless they face a perilous situation. or we might say compassion would not exist unless there is a need for some crisis, hurt or pain that someone is experiencing. Jesus expressed compassion towards the sick and demon-possessed. Without the existence of those terrible kinds of situations, you could not express those attributes. It builds moral character and so certain evils are necessary to build these characteristics.
Then there is the best of all possible worlds defense. If God is the great God that He is then His perfect character would make the best possible world. Since this world that we live has evil in it then it must be necessary for it to be the best possible world.
Zaspel:
How does that differ from the greater good defense?
Christensen:
It is a version of the greater good. Some who hold to the greater good defense would not necessarily endorse the best of both possible worlds defense. They would suggest other possible worlds that would be better but for some reasons he chose not to. It is a version of the greater good theodicy. Not all those holding to greater good theodicy would embrace that position.
Zaspel:
As a follow-up to that, and perhaps reflecting on some of these alternatives, sketch out for us some of the parameters or boundaries. What are some things we do not want to say in answering this question?
Christensen:
This is where it can be misleading when you look at all these defenses that were presented and common responses made to the problem of evil. In one way or another they are all kind of a version of the greater good. They are suggesting that if evil exists when we know God is all-powerful, he could prevent evil if he wanted to. To preserve God’s goodness, we have to say that he must have some good reason for either permitting evil or ordaining it if you come from the Calvinist position, which I do. In the free will defense, free will is such a good and valuable thing to have in this world. God deems it a greater good than eliminating the possibility of evil. When He values free will He also then risks that evil will take place because people will use their freedom to make evil choices. God must have some good reason for evil to exist.
What that means is that the goods that God seeks to pursue must somehow be dependent on that evil. For example, the good of forgiveness for sins is a very good thing. One of the greater gifts for those who place their faith in Christ. That act of forgiveness depends on the fact there is a moral infraction. You have to say that the good of forgiveness depends on the existence of evil. So, the goods that come out of evil somehow have to be dependent upon evil. I draw this from Greg Welty who has written another book on the problem of evil. I encourage listeners to consider as well. It is called Why Is There Evil in the World. He really helped me a great deal to clarify these issues.
One of the criteria that he provides for what a theodicy must do and a second of those criteria is that the good God pursues must be weighty enough to justify the evils connected to them. This example gets to the heart of my book, Christ’s achievements far outweigh the evil of the cross. The greatest evil ever occurs in history. The brutal act of crucifixion on an innocent man, Jesus. The good of redemption that pours out of that evil is so good it outweighs the evil of the cross. Now what we do not want to say that we can know why God either permits or ordains any evil in a given instance. This is where the heart of the problem comes, especially when you think of the emotional impact evil has on believers. We find ourselves in the position of Job all the time. Why has he allowed this trial to overcome me and cast me into despair a lot of times we simply do not know. This the skeptical theism response.
The idea that we can’t pretend to know what God’s purposes are in every instance of evil because we don’t have the depth of wisdom. We cannot search the depth of His wisdom. We do not know enough to understand what God might be doing in any instance of evil. We cannot say that God could not possibly have some good purpose in this evil. To say we know would mean we have greater wisdom than God and since we do not, we cannot go down either of those paths. We may not have an answer to that and must be satisfied with that. This is what some philosophers have used. They say even if you cannot see it does not mean it’s not there. We cannot see those reasons, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t there.
Zaspel:
Okay, what exactly is the answer to the problem of evil that you argue for in your book? Try to summarize the answer for us as concisely as possible, and then take as much time as you need to explain. And distinguish for us “the greater good” answer that is so often given and, what you prefer, “God’s greater glory.”
Christensen:
I call my theodicy “the greater glory theodicy.” I call it that because I believe the problem of evil is the answer to the problem of evil. I shift the focus on that which brings about God’s greatest glory.
First, my simple argument is that God’s ultimate purpose in creating the world is to magnify His glory. He did not have to create the world. He has no need to create anything. He is fully satisfied in His own trinitarian being. Out of his own freedom He chose to create the world. Why did he create the world? We see from scripture and theology that he created the world to supremely magnify His glory to His creatures, His image-bearing creatures.
Second, God’s glory is demonstrated as being supremely magnified in the work of Christ and the work of redemption that He alone can achieve. God’s glory is most supremely magnified in what we might say is the incarnation, death resurrection, and exaltation of Christ. God is supremely magnified in that work. The main reason for the incarnation is that Christ would come and redeem for Himself a people for God’s glory.
Third, redemption would be unnecessary without the fall and presence of evil in this world. There would be no need for Christ to come and be incarnated, to suffer death on the cross as an atoning sacrifice. No need to rise from the dead and be re-exalted at the Father’s right hand. No need unless there was a crisis which is the fall of Adam and Eve and the subsequent curse that brings on creation. Evil itself is necessary for God to achieve His purpose to supremely magnify His glory to His creatures.
Zaspel:
Perhaps the most important feature of your book is that you do not want philosophical categories to shape your answer but the Bible’s own storyline. Tease that out for us a bit.
Christensen:
I spend some time talking about the storyline of scripture, which simply put is creation, fall, redemption. This is how theologians and Bible students have framed the broad storyline of the Bible. Creation is this paradise that represents a perfect situation, no corruption, a wonderful world where God is glorified, humans are satisfied in their relationship with God. Suddenly the fall happens, the serpent enters the garden and tempts Adam and Eve. They succumb to temptations and thrust the world into the crisis of evil. It impacts the natural and moral dimensions of our world, so we live in this fallen place. The storyline of scripture is how God redeems humans, a people for himself and creation so that we are redeemed creatures fit for a redeemed world. Creation fall, redemption is in a “U” shape. Creation good, fall bad, redemption good. The storyline is actually “J” shaped.
The end result of redemption is greater than creation had the fall and redemption never taken place, in other words without fall and redemption, the storyline would be flat. But God purposed the fall to take place and for redemption to happen that makes redemption greater. It magnifies God’s glory in a way an unfallen world not needing redemption would never do. What I am suggesting is that the greater glory theodicy would make no sense if it is not different than saying we are just returning to the same state of paradise of Eden. The restored paradise of Eden is better because of the fall. Because of the price Christ had to pay. We come to appreciate this state of restored creation in a way we could never enjoy in the same way had the fall never taken place. There would have been no need for redemption.
Zaspel:
Revelation is the back to Eden theme, but it’s been pointed out that it’s back to Eden and beyond!
Christensen:
Yes! It glorifies Christ as the lamb who was slain. There is a contrast between the lamb and lion imagery. Forever exalted as the lamb who was slain. That is where His glory is most magnified. He came to purchase redemption.
Zaspel:
For those who suffer and face evil of various kinds, this is not just a theoretical question. What are some of the pastoral implications of this biblical approach?
Christensen:
First, the strength of theodicy I present, bear in mind I am not attempting to answer every question about the problem of evil. I provide an answer to why God has allowed the fall to take place and why evil is allowed, period. It is a broad framework of the Bible, the panorama of evil that takes place within this world. The benefit of that is it focuses on the Gospel. The greatest thing we can look to when we face evil is the grace of God that comes through Christ. The answer to the problem of evil is the Gospel. Jesus Christ and His incarnation, death resurrection and exaltation, are the greatest gifts ever received in the face of evil. Evil, pain, and sorrow, whatever we may experience should drive us to Christ and His amazing grace.
Secondly, we must recognize because the focus is on Christ and what He has done. What makes him such a magnificent redeemer? He stands above heroic paradigms in history. Eternal God of the universe condescends in such a way we cannot fathom the depth of his condescension to take on human nature and bear our sorrows. Just like us, He experienced everything He experienced. Christ in His human nature experienced suffering. It was connected to the act that you have one who has human nature but is the eternal God of the universe. Not only on our behalf but alongside us as well.
One of the benefits is that Christ bears our suffering and sorrows. Who better to turn to than this great redeemer who God has sent for our benefit? It leads to the hope of our future glory. Anyone suffering pain and evil must be driven to the cross, the Gospel, Christ. 2 Corinthians 4:17 says, “for this light and momentary affliction.” An interesting way to describe it, it’s light and momentary. It is preparing an eternal contrast between light and heavyweight momentary vs eternal. A “J” shaped notion there. This suffering is light and momentary, out of this suffering it produces an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. It is so glorious because we have experienced pain and suffering in this world. The longing that that should drive us to is the ultimate hope of pain and suffering.
Fourth, how we can relate to things in this world. One of the pictures of that is how we can live out the Gospel in our own lives in the face of evil. One of the greatest expressions of that is when we experience moral evil at the hands of evil people and extend the grace and mercy that Christ extends to us. This is one of the most powerful apologetics for Christianity. Corrie ten Boom, who suffered in concentration camps in the Holocaust was able to forgive a prison guard who tortured her. She went from hatred to this man to love. It is a remarkable demonstration of the Gospel and what God does for us.
Zaspel:
Before I let you go, give us a brief overview of your book so our readers can know what to expect.
Christensen:
In the first chapter, I introduce the whole problem of evil and try to frame it. Then I move in and talk about the crisis of evil in our modern age. Why do we have such problems understanding the issues because of secularization? Western culture has walked away and is a greater problem than ever. What is evil? It is a problem for atheists to define. I talk about what a theodicy is. I move into the next chapters with different approaches and defenses, the greater good defense, free will defense, and so on. I shift gears as I try to introduce my specific theodicy. It is centered on the glory and person of God.
Focusing on theology proper. The transcendent, holy character of God and His sovereignty, how the Bible presents God’s relationship to evil and His sovereign control over both good and evil. Then I look at specific instances of that. If God is sovereign over every instance of evil, then how is He excused of moral response for evil? Then I talk about storytelling and how the storyline of scripture is reflected in a broad way of storytelling that we see everywhere that is a result of God’s common grace. We all love stories with a crisis and resolution of a crisis. Every story can be about redemption. Of course, those are wrong because the solution they provide is not reflecting the redemption that is the one true story, God’s work on the Cross. Some problem that the good guy solves and defeats the problem.
All these hero stories are reflective of the longing that God has hardwired within us, a longing for redemption. We know we live in a world that is not the way it’s supposed to be. Then I spend some time talking about redemptive themes in scripture itself; the Exodus, the life of Christ in the Gospel of John, who is Christ, his incarnation, his suffering, the nature of his cosmic work of redemption. It does not stop at the Cross and the resurrection. It is a total work of redemption. God will deal with every essence of evil either through redemption or judgment. God’s glory magnified in judgment and in mercy. not everyone is redeemed. The rest are judged, and he is glorified in both those things. I wrap up by talking about practical implications for the believer and how they face and respond to evildoers.
Zaspel:
We’re talking to Scott Christensen about his new book, What About Evil? A Defense of God’s Sovereign Glory. It is a new landmark work that is sure to establish itself as a “must-read” for anyone who wants to delve deeply into this question.
Scott, congratulations on a wonderful accomplishment, and thanks so much for talking to us about it today.
Christensen:
Thank you very much!
Buy the books
WHAT ABOUT EVIL? A DEFENSE OF GOD'S SOVEREIGN GLORY, by Scott Christensen