Theology Today - Vol 44, No.4 - January 1988 - THEOLOGICAL TABLE-TALK

488 - A Pastoral Approach to Evil

A Pastoral Approach to Evil

Few issues erode religious faith more severely than the intellectual problem of evil. Unfortunately, many current theodicies, unable to provide any firm theoretical ground, only hasten the erosion. Nevertheless, the thinking believer has a resource at hand for dealing with the problem. In the everyday practice of compassionate care for the afflicted, the Christian provides an especially effective "answer" to the insistent challenge of evil.

Because the problem of evil typically has been divided into a practical aspect ("What can I do about this?") and a theoretical aspect ("Why did God let this happen to me?"), believers seldom tap any practical resources for help with the theoretical problem. But the separation of these two facets is artificial. Surely, how we think about our sickness will contribute to our actual health. At the same time, and of primary interest here, how well we cope with actual pain, or help others cope, will affect how we and they feel about it.

I want to propose that action is an appropriate resource not only for the practical problem of evil, but also for the intellectual problem. This is not an altogether novel idea. John B. Cobb, Jr. notes, with regard to pastoral approaches to the question of suffering, that

many pastors have decided that it is better not to try to give any answer at all. The pastor's task is to be present with the sufferer, to "hear" her or him, to let the parishioner know that the fear, anger, and loneliness that are felt can be expressed and will be accepted.¹

Writing more recently in a denominational journal, Walter R. Bouman argues for an approach to the problem of evil that acknowledges God's presence with us in suffering and our presence with victims of suffering. Such victims are little comforted by theology. They derive the most benefit when we "sit with them, hold them, suffer with them."²

While Cobb prefers rational theodicies to mere action, and Bouman only introduces his point, both plant a seed that merits cultivation. I would like to argue that the action of sympathetic care of and support for the sufferer is a statement about the place of good and evil and God

Jerry K. Robbins is Lutheran Campus Pastor at West Virginia University at Morgantown. A graduate of Gettysburg College and Yale Divinity School, he received his doctorate from the Hartford Seminary Foundation.
¹John B. Cobb, Jr., "The Problem of Evil and the Task of Ministry," in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, ed. Stephen T. Davis (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981), p. 167.
²Walter R. Bouman, "Why Evil Anywhere?" The Lutheran, March 19,1986, p. 7.

489 - A Pastoral Approach to Evil

in the nature of things. In the case of the problem of evil, the adage that "actions speak more loudly than words" is profoundly true. First, the action of "standing with" the victim "speaks" just as much as any fluent rational theodicy. Second, the action of sympathetic care speaks "more loudly" than any logical theodicy insofar as it communicates the grace and love of God in deed, the way no abstract argument can. Let us explore this in more detail.

Three assumptions will help to set the context for our exploration. First, this approach assumes that the to appeal to "mystery" is no real solution to the problem. One religiously attractive approach to disarming evil is to confess that the whole problem is a mystery, and one can only believe God has good reason for the evil in the world and trust God to see us through it. Sometimes this approach refers to the final declaration of God's sovereignty in the book of Job as a model solution. At other times, this approach warns that the desire to know the ways of God leads to an overweening theology of glory. Often, apologists will say we simply don't know how God will solve the problem, or how God will bring good out of evil; we can only hope that God will.

Though this response may honor piety, it is difficult to make any sense out of it. It calls for the very acceptance that the problem of evil renders problematic in the first place. It is just the trustworthiness of God that extensive, gratuitous evil discredits. Furthermore, the book of Job is notoriously inadequate as a guide to surviving the questions evil poses for us. To lapse into talk of mystery or proper theological humility is more intimidating than illuminating. The position that stands on references to the inscrutability of God and human ignorance is not a defense of religious belief, but a "white-flag surrender."³

Second, if the action of empathetic caring for those who suffer is to have any relevance to the theological dimension of the intellectual problem of evil, it must somehow convey to the victim that it is done "in the name of God." This is not to say that effective caring goes on only where explicit religious markings are present. It only insists that if standing with persons in their pain is to speak to the question of God's role in the pain, the sympathetic action directed at the pain must be perceived as somehow an expression of God's will. Again, this does not mean the carer be explicitly identified as a believer. Indeed, as will be suggested, it is probably best if verbal expression is kept to a minimum. But it does mean that the person be recognized as a believer, whatever that may entail. While this may seem too pious to some, and too presumptuous to others, the reality of the situation requires it. Since the intellectual problem of evil exists only for faith, any answer that presumes to be effective must arise from within faith.

A third assumption underlying this approach is that the intellectual

³Roland Puccetti, "The Loving God-Some Observations on John Hick's, 'Evil and the God of Love'," Religious Studies (April, 1967) 2, p. 265.

490 - A Pastoral Approach to Evil

problem of evil is not one problem but many problems. While the focus in that problem is God's implication in genuine evil, the way that problem arises will vary in its particulars. It is not likely to appear in its pristine form, namely, "If God is almighty and good, why is there evil?" Rather, it is likely to arise in the form of more personal and existential questions: "Why am I the one to have to endure this hardship? Why do things always go wrong in my life? What have I done to deserve this suffering? Doesn't anybody care about me? How am I ever going to regain my self-confidence? Why is life so unfair? Can I believe all the popular religious talk about God helping those who have faith?" Questions such as these express the ordinary believer's gropings toward a theodicy. In what follows, we will look at three particularly frequent sub-questions that arise that can be addressed by companionable support.

In the first place, standing with another in suffering addresses the question, "Why me?" One of the most burdensome aspects of suffering is the sense of isolation that it can cause in the sufferer. The onslaught of a devastating disease or the wrenching experience of a crippling accident often make people feel they have been personally singled out in their misfortune. Pain is an intensely individual experience, often interpreted as a divine punishment or a personal failure. Persons who have been struck down feel victimized and inadequate. Sometimes, they will distance themselves from family and friends. Frequently, they complain that no one understands them. They will even question whether or not God accepts them, wondering, "Why did God pick on me?" The reality of pain is so overwhelming that they doubt the very goodness of God. Added to their physical or mental burden is an alienation from God. Here the theodicy issue is shaped by the acute loneliness and sense of personal mistreatment that often accompany suffering.

When we stand with persons in their suffering, we help to set aside all this negative baggage that can clutter the sickroom. We share the suffering so that it is not just the victim's suffering. By our actions, we say we are not going to let the afflicted person bear his or her burden alone. To that unfortunate possibility, we provide a practical corrective. At the same time, we make a statement about the deeper problem of the isolation of persons in their suffering. We declare that the cross carried by the afflicted is shouldered by us as well. That is, we symbolically recreate suffering that we have endured at other times in our life or anticipate enduring in the future. We say to the victim that we understand his or her anguish because we have known or expect to know a similar assault by evil. By this statement, we also declare that suffering is the common denominator of life, the universal condition of all of us. Standing with another in pain incarnates the truth that suffering is no respecter of persons. In saying that, we, in turn, lift from the victim any sense of personal persecution or any suspicion of a divine vendetta.

491 - A Pastoral Approach to Evil

Lending a shoulder to persons in pain lifts doubt and despair due to feeling singled out, and clears the head of at least that clutter in the intellectual problem of evil.

Sympathetic caring also conveys the religious truth that God shoulders the cross of the sufferer as well. The empathetic care of a companion may not console the victim's spiritual anguish. The suffering person may only wonder if life is worse than ever, since suffering is so widespread. However, insofar as the care of a companion is extended "in the name of God," other meanings are communicated by the action. By standing with another person as a representative of a Christian community, we say to that person that God bears his or her cross, too. God does not exempt the Godhead from the order of things, but identifies with the burdens and sorrows of humanity. In conveying that message, the carer actually becomes Christ to the neighbor, bearing in empathetic servanthood the marks of the Crucified One. In sympathetic suffering, the companion completes Christ's sufferings, which are also God's sufferings. The victim, then, understands that God does not send the suffering, but shoulders it with the victim and the companion. At the same time, the afflicted senses that the suffering of God is for his or her benefit, that it is not just a sharing in misery, but a redemption from it. While evil burdens God, it does not defeat God. This is conveyed in other aspects of the action of companionable caring to which we now turn.

A second way that the sympathetic sharing of another person's suffering speaks to the intellectual problem of evil is by affirming the worth of that person in spite of misfortune. Extended, severe suffering tends to erode self-esteem. Often sickness strips a person of capabilities usually taken for granted. Confined to a hospital or sick room, possibly even attached to life-support systems, a patient must depend on others for survival. Forced to follow procedures and rules not their own, patients lose control of their lives. The same feeling of helplessness often afflicts victims of natural disaster. A debilitating accident can reduce a person to only a shadow of the former self. Victims of disease or disaster often will complain that they are just not themselves, a confession of profound disappointment and despair over their personal condition. In all these cases, the problem of evil rears its ugly head masked in cries of unworth and self-recrimination.

To stand with persons who have been stripped of their dignity is to affirm their basic worth regardless of their affliction. Although such victims may not "be themselves" in terms of vigor or ability, nonetheless, they are "themselves" in terms of fundamental humanity. Sympathetic suffering says that worth does not depend on capabilities or perfection or usefulness. It also says that worth does not depend on the hand that life deals us or the good or bad fortune we receive. Companionable care celebrates the inherent value of persons and life. It says that it is not necessary to prove worth or earn value in order to deserve care. Sympathetic support says that persons are important enough to deserve care regardless of their function or fortune in life. It declares that it is

492 - A Pastoral Approach to Evil

just "the least" that often deserve the most attention. In this way, by standing with others in their distress, we call them back from all self-defeating thoughts to an awareness of their basic value as human beings. By showing them that they are important to us, we help them recover a sense of their own self-importance.

Insofar as the companion cares for others in the name of God, that action points to the ultimate worth of the afflicted. Evil not only creates doubts about one's worth to self and others, but also one's worth to God. To the question, "Why me?" is added the lament, "Woe is me for I can approach neither God nor others." Support of the afflicted in the name of God or with spiritual presence erases self-doubt. Such support is an image of the gospel, conveying God's acceptance to the sufferer. This is to be Christ to the neighbor, to mirror him who companioned the sick while others treated them as outcasts. Jesus affirmed the value of all persons, regardless of age, sex, or physical condition. In this supportive ministry, Jesus conveyed the love of God to the unfortunate and stricken. Just so, when a Christian carer stands with another person in time of trial, God stands with them both. Where love is, God is. Sympathetic caring is a parable of the care of God that not one of the "little ones" be lost. It declares the worth of the afflicted to God and from God. The essential self is the self in relationship to God, a relationship unaffected by temporal misfortune or bodily state. The Kingdom remains even where evil seems to have taken all things captive. Therefore, where there are eyes of faith to see, companionable care, in the name of God, affirms God's care and the unconditional worth of the sufferer to God. It clears the head of one more worry in the intellectual problem of evil, namely, that one is of no account to others or to God.

A third statement made by sympathetic suffering speaks to the most basic issue underlying the intellectual problem of evil. In times of disaster, failure, pain, and suffering, it seems as though evil has got the upperhand in life. Evil shatters the harmony of the universe and calls into question the ultimate goodness of things. The devil, like a roaring lion, prowls around with no one to challenge his reign. "Is this the meaning of life?" the victim wonders. "Is evil the rule rather than the exception? Can we hope that justice or goodness will win out over evil?" Unless these cries are answered satisfactorily, it is not enough that companionable care underscore the universality of suffering and affirm the intrinsic worth of the sufferer. We have to know that evil will not actually triumph in the long run, if sympathetic support is really to make a difference.

To companion another person in that person's time of affliction is to challenge the reign of evil in the world. It is to stand up to the principalities and powers and turn them back. It is to say that there is a power stronger than evil in the world, and that power is love. Genuine support for the afflicted introduces the healing power of compassion into the discord of evil. When the carer actively takes on the pain of the afflicted, vicariously shares the misery of the victim, love overshadows

493 - A Pastoral Approach to Evil

the suffering of both. Such self-sacrificing care is a declaration of love without equal. There is no greater love than to forego willingly a secure and comfortable life and place oneself in a position as vulnerable to pain and despair as the afflicted. In such heroic moments, evil is bested by a love that does not count the cost but only the misery to be relieved.

Long-suffering love is a personal triumph, one pilgrim helping another regain a sense of the goodness of life. It can also be a statement about the ultimate place of good and evil in the universe. If this care is administered in the name of God or in response to God's word (Rom. 12:21), it suggests the victory of God's love over evil. As companionable care announces that human love can overcome evil in particular instances, so sympathetic support in the name of God announces that God's love triumphs over evil in the grand order of things. Carers who are "fools for Christ's sake," who choose a ministry in which there is everything to lose and nothing to gain, reflect the love of a God who was humbled and became obedient to death, even death on a cross--for the redemption of all. Those who stand with victims in the name of God witness to the truth that God's love can reach into the most desperate situations and redeem them. Such extraordinary empathy declares that things are not always what they seem. While it appears that evil has triumphed, the reality is that love is stronger than evil. The abiding truth that sounds over the battlegrounds of life is that God's love is from everlasting to everlasting. It remains and abides to conquer the evil that has called it forth. It is this love that repairs the wounded heart and restores balance to the mind plagued by the problem of evil.

III

To achieve the kind of impact on the theodicy issue outlined in the previous three points is extremely difficult. The greatest danger is a tendency to verbalization by the carer. Of course, some spoken consolation is appropriate and can be part of the "action" in companionable care. But if the carer explains too much or defends too vigorously, then the caring becomes a rational theodicy likely to offer little comfort to the victim. The carer must constantly recall that non-verbal action communicates. In fact, even in verbal communication, the manner of the medium oftentimes is more important than what the speaker actually says. Then again, much of our learning takes place through tacit awareness instead of directed attention. It is the way people treat us that communicates more than what they say to or about us. The carer must remember that the most comforting part of the visit to Job by his friends was the first seven days and nights when they sat in silence sharing Job's misery. It was only when they began to talk and reason with Job that his friends ceased to be of any help to him. If companionable care is to help, it must speak implicitly rather than through explicit argumentation.

It should also be noted that the way of sympathetic support is a profoundly Christian response to evil that avoids some of the failings in recent theoretical theodicies. Companionable care is a reflection of the

494 - A Pastoral Approach to Evil

gospel. It builds on the message of God's gracious care of us. We comfort others as God comforts us (II Cor. 1:3-7). Emerging from the heart of' the gospel, the pastoral approach takes a somewhat distinct tack on the theodicy problem. This enables it to escape some of the pitfalls in current popular theodicies.

For one thing, building on the Christian drama, the pastoral approach makes clear that God is a God of love. Contrary to some recent theodicies that imply that God sends evil (Elie Wiesel), the pastoral approach says God shares suffering with humankind. Companionable care in the name of God and after the model of Christ conveys the message that God is not the agent of evil but the victim of evil. As the carer stands with the afflicted, God stands with them both bearing the burdens they carry.

At the same time, the pastoral approach does not leave the victim in misery. God does not simply companion the afflicted, with no reliable offer of relief. Though some current theodicies promise divine consolation (Harold Kushner), there is no reason to believe their limited God can be much help. In a pastoral approach based on the gospel, however, there are genuine grounds for hope. The Christian vision pictures the grip of evil broken, the triumph of God over all God's enemies (I Cor. 15:26). The sufferers share in God's victory through adoption as sons and daughters - this adoption actively foreshadowed and initiated by the support of the carer. Like the Christian drama itself, Christian caring offers no solution, but a victory that gives a new way of suffering, that is, with hope.

Finally, the way of sympathetic support conquers evil through God's grace and power. The unconditional love of the carer is an image of God's free grace in helping us cope with evil. Pain is not so much God's megaphone to instruct us in the right way (C. S. Lewis), as it is God's enemy to be destroyed on our behalf. In his ministry, Jesus did not bargain with ignorance, sickness, disease, calamity, or death, but defeated them. Just so, through the unconditional support of the carer, the victim discovers God's unmerited support in overcoming the problem of evil. Evil is destroyed by God's grace freely given.

A high school teacher tells of a student who had a unique way of handling his classroom assignments. "I put a problem on the board," the teacher relates, "and asked if anyone could solve it. A student raised his hand, 'I can,' he said. He came forward, looked at the board, took the eraser in his hand, and erased the problem away." Similarly, most popular treatments of the problem of evil try to wipe the problem of evil from the mind by eliminating one of the terms of the problem. But the problem remains insofar as one is left with either an inadequate notion of God or an unrealistic picture of evil. In an attempt to do away with the evil of suffering, the apologist has introduced the evils of falsehood or illusion.

495 - A Pastoral Approach to Evil

An alternative Christian approach is to deal with the intellectual problem by a practical strategy of empathetic consolation and support. Looking to the God who identifies with human suffering, the Christian carer identifies with the companion sufferer. This expression of Christian love is not touted as a "solution," but merely the expected response to human need. While representing the love of God, the carer does not offer his or her behavior as an argument on behalf of God. The hope is that the afflicted will see in that care intimations or signals of God's costly love for the sufferer. The behavior is a silent parable that speaks to the torment of the sufferer and the several questions raised by that suffering. It says God does not abandon us to defeat, but provides a way of escape for us. At the same time, it declares that God is with us to save us only as that redemption is embodied in human compassion.