Philosophical Methodology, Providence, and Suffering

The great American phenomenologist Robert Sokolowski describes the method of philosophy (and theology) as the intellectual activity that works with distinctions—distinctions between act and potency, essence and existence, contingency and necessity, form and matter, and so on. The more distinctions, the more clearly one can think about reality. To be a rational agent is to have the ability to make distinctions through the use of language. Many problems arise, especially theologically, when one fails to make proper and necessary distinctions.

A prime example in theology of failing to make a distinction is concerning God's will within reformed theology. Traditionally, a distinction has been made between God's perfect will and God's permissive will. In God's perfect will, there would exist no sin, suffering, evil, etc. That is to say that God does not positively will evil, yet evil exists. (here I use the term "exists" loosely, since evil has no positive ontological status, but only "exists" as a privation or absence of a good.) Since certain occurrences seemingly aren't instances that God would positively will, it is important to make a distinction that allows room for God's permissive will. God's permissive will shouldn't be thought of as God positively willing but more as God passively allowing. (Though allowing things to happen would still be a part of the will traditionally speaking) Thus in God's permissive will there is evil and suffering; they are not things that God perfectly wills but that he allows due to created freedom. A failure to make this distinction would mean all events are positively willed by God. To make matters worse, it would take away free will, since all our actions would be positively willed not by us, but by God. There would be nothing that we would be able to do to sway His eternal plan, and we thus would be damned or saved based on God's will, not on our free choices. This is not providence, but determinism.

A true view of divine providence can only exist if one makes the distinction between God's wills. Providence assumes the reality of human freedom and the consequences, often very bad, which follow. A proper reading of Romans 8:28 leads one to this view of providence; not that all things that occur are good, but that God can make even the worst things occasions for good. Many events are bad and as Christians we should not see them as sent by God so that He can bring about good. This would make God into the ultimate utilitarian, causing evil in order to bring about good. Saint Paul calls those with this metaphysical framework justly condemned (Romans 3:8).

We must be extremely careful to make this distinction between providence and determinism, for it greatly impacts how we view suffering and our relationship to it. For if God positively wills suffering, then suffering is a good, for God cannot positively will evil since he is Goodness itself. If He merely permits it, and can bring about good through providence, then we can call it what it is; an evil that will eventually come to pass when fallen time is raised up to eternity. When Christ encounters suffering in the gospels, what does He do? Does He leave the suffering as they are and remind them that their suffering is necessary for the Father to accomplish His good ends? No. The sick He heals, the dead He raises, demons He casts out. Nowhere in the gospels does Christ act as if suffering is an original part of God's plan. He treats it as an utter absurdity resulting from created freedom. This freedom will run its course for a time, but in the end evil will be totally eridacted and wiped away since it is not a part of God's perfect will for creation. What then are we to make of redemptive suffering? 1 Peter 4:13 clearly says to be glad and even rejoice that we can partake in Christ's suffering. Doesn't this illustrate that suffering is a good? No. This simply illustrates that it can be made into a good when united to Christ's suffering. Redemptive suffering is an important concept, but it first needs to be understood that redemptive suffering is a good not because it is suffering, but because it is united to Christ's suffering for the salvation and sanctification of souls. After all, the Cross was not a validation of evil, but its overthrow. All evil—suffering, death, and sin—are mere cosmic contingencies that exist due to our fallen universe and fallen human natures. They are not a part of God's perfect will but are merely permitted until the final consummation of all things in the eschaton. Then, there will be no more suffering, pain, or death for the former things have passed.

As Christians, following the lead of Christ our Head, we have a duty to eliminate as much suffering as we can, especially the suffering of others. We know even naturally that our attitude towards another's suffering is not one of happiness that they are the direct recipients of God's perfect will, but an attitude of hatred and a realization that things are not the way they were originally intended to be.

With this in mind, we can now see that in the end, God will not look at one who suffered from abuse, agony, and heartbreak and explain to them why their sufferings were necessary for the building up of His kingdom. Rather, He will raise them up, wipe away their tears, and say to them "Behold, I make all things new."