V. The Suffering of God Response: This response assures us that God has not abstracted himself
from the human situation--that he, too, suffers with us. God weeps for Israel, the Holy Spirit
grieves over sin, and Christ suffered for us that we might have an example of how to undergo
suffering. Strictly speaking, this response isn’t about justifying why God allows evil, as much as
affirming that God is involved in the problem. Some have suggested that God’s suffering teaches
us to move from self-absorption to cooperation and compassion for others in their suffering. In
this view God’s own suffering absorbs our hostile self-absorption. Others have gone farther,
arguing that God actually feels and experiences our suffering and, by doing so, honors us as the
infinite God and that this honoring actually addresses our experience of evil and suffering by
defeating it in our own lives.
Not all theists accept the idea that God suffers, pointing to what has been called the impassability
of God, that God being an eternal, infinite, perfect being is without change and, therefore,
without suffering. And there is something to be said for this. If we hold that God suffers, it must
be on a completely different level than ourselves. The question, then, becomes how does God
suffer for us and with us and because of us? Marilyn McCord Adams argues that Christ suffers at
two levels—in his godhood and in his humanity. In this way, Christ suffers like us as a human,
even as he also suffers in another mysterious way as part of the Godhead. Some have suggested,
following the lead of Paul, that Christ’s suffering on the Christ included the total experience of
all human suffering. And Jürgen Moltmann goes so far as to suggest that Christ’s experience of
separation from the Father on the cross actually allows the Trinity to experience that ultimate
element of human suffering—separation from God.
VI. A Theology of the Cross: Contained in each view of the suffering of God above is a
suggestion that in some fundamental way the work of the cross is God’s answer (or one of his
answers) to the problem of evil, even that the cross is the only justification God gives of his
responsibility for the existence of evil. In this sense, the work of redemption transcends the role
of Christ’s suffering, for the cross is atonement for, victory over, and judgment upon evil and sin.
VII. Faith and Trust: Sometimes called simple fideism—this position is one that seeks not to
answer the question in any complex way but rather affirm basic Christian truths, such as God is
ultimately good; God has everything under the divine control; God is to be trusted despite life’s
trails and difficulties.
VIII. A Theodicy of Protest: This position is one that complains to God, objecting that God could
have and on the surface should have intervened in any number of horrific circumstances. The
sheer weight of atrocity is often cited. Some versions of this try to escape the classic problem by
denying that God is all-loving, or at least appears to be (cf. Roth and Blumenthal). But perhaps it
would be better to understand this position as speaking from a wounded position. The believer
says to God, "As best I can understand from my limited position you appear to have allowed
horrible things to happen. Why? Should you do such a thing?" Then, rather than walk away in
disgust or disbelief, the believer waits on God. This is an approach modeled for us in the Psalms.
Believers protest from the ground of covenant—this is what God has promised us and who he is;
therefore, should not God intervene? (i.e. Ps 44, 74, 88, 102, 142) This position at its best seeks
to continue to affirm God’s mystery and goodness even amidst confusion and doubt. Likewise,