The Problem of Theodicy (II): Rabbi Harold Kushner’s Perspective
This is a summary of the chapter titled ‘Why do the Righteous Suffer?’ from Harold Kushner’s book‘When Bad Things Happen to Good People’:
Harold Kushner begins this particular chapter with a question: Why do bad things happen to good people? He argues that the pain and suffering caused by the untimely demise of the loved ones inevitably bring doubts about the goodness, kindness, and even more in the existence of God. But people throughout history have been trying to justify the world’s suffering by holding themselves responsible for the punishment of their sins.
By doing so, people maintain the attributes of God as benevolent, omnipotent, and also in control. People are advised to avoid sin and be good or virtuous. At one level it is tempting to think that bad things happen to people (especially other people) because God is a righteous judge who gives them what they deserve. By believing in this notion, we maintain a sense of order and understanding in the world. However, tragedy has already inflicted pain on their lives, and no religious or pious explanation can provide solace.
Further, the retributive theology tries to provide resolution for the problem of evil. We somehow can tell people that God has let this happen with a hidden purpose, yet it cannot comfort people when the pain and suffering are beyond their capacity to understand. The mystery behind suffering increases our misery and leads us to feel that God isn’t concerned about His people.
The proposed explanations for the problem of pain are unacceptable and inapplicable in terms of causing such undeserved pain. Kushner argues that undeserved pain cannot be justified by the promise of a future wonderful outcome. Such suffering cannot be granted as educational or as a measure of one’s faith, regardless of any “good” hidden purpose it may carry. Reasoning “is meant primarily to defend God, to use words and ideas to transform bad into good and pain into privilege.” Those who are suffering cannot be convinced and comforted with mere words.
Having said all this, he demands a response for his question: “If we cannot satisfactorily explain suffering by saying we deserve what we get or by viewing it as a ‘cure’ for our faults, can we accept the interpretation of tragedy as a test?” If faith is about knowing our strengths, it’s better to be weak than to lose someone and suffer. Many have failed their test because they could not bear the burden God placed on them. If his promise is to impose burdens on people to the extent they can bear, then he either lacks proper knowledge or the ability to calculate accurately the capacity of resistance that his people can undertake. As a result, people have terribly failed to carry the burden.
All the proposed proponents share a common belief: God is the source of our suffering. It also could be that God is not the cause of our suffering. In spite of God’s unwillingness to cause us to suffer, someone is acting against the will of God to instigate pain and suffering in our world. Could it be that God has no part in allowing us to suffer? Therefore, it is a wrong question to ask God why he allowed us to suffer.
