How Can a Loving God Allow Pain and Suffering?

An atheist relative said that she can’t stand it when Christians say that bad things happen for a reason, for example, in response to a painful loss. To the non-believer this ambiguous statement, while well- intentioned, provides little comfort in the face of sadness and grief. How can a Christian explain to an unbeliever that our God allows pain and suffering? How is this consistent with the concept of a loving, all-powerful God? Why should anyone trust a God who would allow people to suffer?

In C.S. Lewis’ book, The Problem of Pain, he said that Christianity creates the problem of pain (in an apologetic sense). We Christians believe that an all-powerful God is both loving and righteous yet we live in a world where people experience great pain. So the reasoning goes, either our God lacks goodness or power or both. How does a person reconcile the reality of pain, suffering, and senseless tragedy with belief in a righteous, loving God who has the power to make it easy for us?

In Christian Apologetics, Douglas Groothius asks: if evil appears to be pointless, is it? If you can’t conceive of a reason for pain and suffering, does that mean there is no reason? Christians are just as aware of pain and suffering as people who don’t believe in God. We sometimes ask God, Why is this happening? What is the purpose of this? Why don’t you stop this suffering? So how did Christians come to believe that pain and suffering are compatible with belief in a benevolent God? 

Christians have a few beliefs that are central to our understanding of pain and suffering. One, we believe in a God who is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnipresent (present everywhere). Second, we believe in a perfect, Holy God who is the source of human morality. Third, we believe that mankind continually breaks the code of ethics God gave us and as a result, we feel guilt and remorse. Fourth, we believe in the incarnation - that God became human to redeem mankind from our sinfulness. Christianity is the only religion that makes this claim – that God became fully human and experienced human suffering firsthand. Jesus subjected himself to temptation, rejection, ridicule, pain and death. He understands our suffering because he took it upon Himself.

What kind of love is this?

People reject the Christian God, because they question how God can love people and yet allow them to suffer. But reconciling the reality of pain and suffering with the concept of a loving God is possible only if you do not trivialize the word love. The love of God is analogous to the love of a father for his son or a shepherd for his sheep. It is the love of the Creator for the created. God does not exist to serve man just as painting does not exist to serve the artist. We are an expression of his love and creativity and he loves us more than we can imagine. He forgives over and over again, even as we reject him. But he is not indulgent. He is not content with our disobedience. He does not enjoy punishing people or seeing them in pain. He is present to guide, protect, and comfort those who love Him.

The Laws of Nature Versus the Power of God

Even in the absence of belief in a higher power, death and destruction are part of the natural world. Those who believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution believe that natural selection weeds out the weak. The weak die so the strong can live and perpetuate their seed. Forces of nature like floods, fire, blizzards, tornadoes, famine and drought cause pain, suffering, death and destruction. So with or without a supernatural creator, we acknowledge the destructiveness of nature. How is this evidence against God? As Groothius writes, if you believe that the natural world is full of evil, then you must have in mind a supernatural ideal as the basis for your belief.

The rejection of the Christian God based on the problem of pain presupposes that the Christian God lacks the power to make things right. For those of us who believe that God is omnipotent, we do believe that God is capable of suspending the laws of nature to prevent pain. We do believe in miracles and that on occasion God changes the natural course of events. But we don’t expect God to break the laws of nature.

Imagine that I am about to drive my car straight into the path of another vehicle at a high rate of speed. My God, as the supremely intelligent designer of the universe, could certainly intervene to prevent an accident. He could instantly change the mass and/or velocity of our vehicles to lessen the impact. He could even cause my car to fly over the other car and land gently on the other side. But if God did interfere with natural laws, they would not be laws; they would be general rules. We couldn’t count on nature to behave in predictable, measurable ways. If we expected God to prevent the suffering that nature and free will make inevitable, life, as we know it, would no longer exist.

Morality and Man’s Separation from God

As difficult as it is to understand the cruelty of nature, it is even harder to understand the pain humans inflict on each other. As C.S. Lewis observed, we cause pain when we’re born, we inflict pain on others while we’re living (and suffer on the receiving end), and we often experience pain and suffering in death. Humans have a long record of committing crimes, abuse, and other unspeakable acts against each other. We intentionally hurt each other physically and with words. We can be extremely cruel and indifferent to the pain and suffering of others. What’s worse, because we have the ability to reason and to feel, we understand the pain we cause.

I believe that God created us as intelligent beings with the free will to choose. That free will came with a risk – the risk that we would choose evil and reject God. The biblical story of Adam and Eve describes the first sin as an act of disobedience to God – the choice to eat fruit God had specifically forbidden. The choice to eat the forbidden fruit was a choice to turn away from God and turn to the self. Some have called this original sin pride. C.S. Lewis said that as soon as we become aware of God as God and self as self, we have the option to make God or the elevated Self the center of our universe.

I also believe that we have a moral conscience. Regardless of our cultural backgrounds, we know that it is wrong to lie, to cheat, to steal, to betray others. But we tell ourselves that we should not be ashamed when we do wrong. We give ourselves too much credit for how “good” we are. In our own minds, we lower our standards of what constitutes good behavior so we can escape our feelings of shame and remorse.

Yes, we deceive each other and ourselves about our sinfulness. One way we do this by focusing on outward appearances of goodness. We compare ourselves to others and conclude that we are not that bad. But many of our sins are hidden in the heart. We don’t openly confess to each other the awful, bad things we are thinking. We judge others as good or bad without knowing the full picture.

We also pretend that there is safety in numbers. Everybody does it. Even if the group or culture accepts and even promotes bad behavior, it doesn’t make it right or good. The virtues of love, justice, mercy, kindness and self-control remain the high moral values that ought to guide our behavior as children of a righteous God.

Another lie we tell ourselves is that time erases sin. We even laugh about the sins of our youth as if someone else committed them. But time does not wash away sin. We can only be cleansed of our sins by confessing to the One we have sinned against and by asking for forgiveness.

The reason I bring up human sinfulness in the context of pain and suffering is not to condemn others or to say that we deserve it. After all, good people have suffered greatly at the hands of the truly wicked. The reason I raise the issue is because we all fall short of a holy God. Our sin separates us from God and prevents us from enjoying a relationship with him.

The Problem of Hell

If I didn’t address the issue of hell, I would be ignoring another big question: how can a loving God condemn anyone to hell? Jesus warned about hell saying that there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” I don’t know what hell is like, whether it is literally a fiery oven. But I do believe that it is a place where those who reject God will be in an eternal state of torment and regret, separate from God and believers.

Jesus told a parable of the rich man and the beggar, Lazarus (Luke 19:31). Both died; the rich man was sent to hell and Lazarus was sent to heaven. The rich man recognizes Lazarus at the side of Abraham. He asks Abraham to send the beggar over to give him a sip of water as he was in agony. Abraham says that there is a great chasm separating us from you. We can’t cross it. So the rich man asks that Lazarus be sent to warn his brothers so they would not also come to this place of torment. Abraham said no, they have Moses and The Prophets. If they do not listen to them, they will not listen to a messenger from the dead.

We have been warned. God has made himself known to man.  “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse (Romans 1:20).” People choose to reject God. What would we have God do? Do we really think that God should let those who turn against him, those who deny him, spend an eternity thinking it is right to do so? We have been offered forgiveness. But we have to admit our guilt and accept forgiveness to escape eternal punishment. If we choose to reject God, we also choose the consequences.

God’s Power is Made Perfect in Weakness

The apostle Paul wrote that he was given a thorn in his flesh to prevent him from exalting himself, to keep him from becoming conceited about all the amazing things that had been revealed to him. We don’t know what this affliction was but Paul pleaded with God to take it away. God said to Paul, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness. Paul said that he was delighted in his difficulties and hardships (which included being beaten, stoned and imprisoned) because “when I am weak, then I am strong.” He knew that there is purpose in suffering. Suffering leads to perseverance, perseverance leads to character, and character leads to hope.

Pain is God’s Megaphone

C.S. Lewis said that pain is God’s “megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” When things are going well, we have a tendency to push God aside and to put ourselves at the center. We live with an “illusion of self-sufficiency.” God reveals what we lack by letting our lives become more difficult. Sometimes our illusion of self-sufficiency must be shattered to save our souls. Sometimes our surrender to God takes pain. Many people call on God when they are at their lowest point, perhaps struggling with loss, a crippling addiction, or a broken relationship. The good news is God is merciful. He has what Lewis called “divine humility.” He is not proud; he does not mind our choosing him as a last resort. His love never fails. He heals hurting souls.

As a Christian, I acknowledge that bad things happen to good people and that the world I live in often seems cruel and unjust. Try as we might, we cannot explain away pain. But many of us have seen a glimpse of a purpose in our own lives and in the lives of others. We see the light in the darkness. When we look back through painful experiences, we see how they have made us stronger. We see the building of character, the smoothing of our rough edges. We learn humility in our struggles. We learn what is important and to appreciate what we have. We see the goodness that comes out in the face of tragedy and adversity. Sometimes it takes distance and healing to see the big picture. When we’re in the midst of our struggles, we see the puzzle but don’t see how the pieces fit together. We see only in part in this life, but a Christian believes that someday we will know fully.

For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. -- 1 Corinthians 13:12

An Introvert Loners Manual

A guy who read my post, Here’s Johnny! A Celebrity Introvert, told me I should read Party of One, The Loners’ Manifesto, which was written by Anneli Rufus. He said that some people are more than introverts - they're loners. Honestly, his observation struck me as a distinction without a difference. I wondered whether I just didn’t understand what it means to be a loner. I wondered why he wanted to distinguish a loner from an introvert and I wondered whether the word loner fits me.

Defining Loners

In Party of One, Rufus says that not all loners are shy and not all shy people are loners. Introverts and loners are not “one and the same thing.” The word “shy” is often used interchangeably with introvert though the words have different meanings. Rufus evidently prefers the word shy. She said that non-loners use the word introvert because “they think it makes them sound intelligent to say so.” I am an introvert who has also been shy at times so I know the difference. Shyness is an uncomfortable feeling that comes and goes; I will always be introverted.

Before I go further, let me set out my own definitions. An introvert is a person who gets energy from their internal world of thoughts, impressions, emotions and ideas. A loner is a person who prefers to be alone and may even actively avoid other people. A shy person is nervous or uncomfortable interacting and communicating with other people.

Both introverts and loners can be socially confident and both can be uncomfortable meeting and talking with others. I would distinguish the words by saying that a loner avoids social interaction, a shy person fears social interaction and an introvert tends to be drained by too much social interaction.

Rufus made several points about loners that are consistent with introverts.  Loners avoid crowds, keeping themselves apart. Loners want and need to be alone. Loners dread what non-loners need. Alone, loners are productive, creative and happy. Loners are capable of entertaining themselves. A loner’s world is focused inwardly rather than externally. Loners are thinkers, creators, artists, writers, and problem-solvers.

Debunking the Myths About Loners

Loner is such a loaded word, filled with negative meaning. Not because there is anything wrong with preferring solitude but because there are so many misconceptions about loners. Rufus made some great points debunking loner myths.

Loners do not like people. Many loners actually do like people but being around a crowd can be draining. I like people but prefer to interact one-on-one or in small groups. Loners are also more selective about the company they keep. I am not interested in trivial or trashy conversations and am turned off by people who aren’t open to other points of view or who try to draw too much attention to themselves.

Loners are not capable of making friends. Rufus wrote that non-loners assume that loners lack the capacity for friendship, not distinguishing between genuine friendship and the amount of time spent with friends. Loners are also judged for not having “enough friends” because we don’t waste our time with people we don’t really connect with; loners are choosier about companionship. Loners and introverts tend to have fewer friends but the friendships are more intimate.

Even with friends, a loner may put up boundaries that make an extroverted friend feel rejected. I find myself keeping friends at a distance, especially extroverted friends, because I’m afraid they will want more of me than I am willing to give. Although I enjoy meeting a friend for lunch or dinner, I don’t want or need constant companionship. As Rufus put it, “time shared, even with true friends, often requires loners to put in extra time alone, overtime, to recharge.”

Loners are maladjusted. Loners are often considered maladjusted and may be described as aloof, cold, stuck-up, self-centered or unfriendly. Our culture sees sociability as a sign of emotional or mental health. This bias against being alone starts in childhood with parents pushing children to join sports teams or clubs and even arranging play dates. Some kids choose to play alone because they are imaginative, resourceful, and independent. We all need to develop social skills like courtesy, sharing, and cooperation but being forced into group interactions is not a productive use of a loner’s time and talents.

The bias against solitude extends into adulthood with compulsory team building exercises and open offices designed to promote collaboration. But loner employees work well independently. They contribute to the team by working diligently on the task at hand.

The pursuit of solo activities is not inherently unhealthy and not even inherently lonely. Loners prefer solitary activities like writing, reading, cooking, arts and crafts, running or other individual sports. Because they are more focused, loners concentrate and really dig in without getting bored.

Loners are eccentric. Loners are also unfairly labeled as eccentric, weird, or odd just because they differ from the majority - they march to the beat of a different drummer. Many loners know they are different and they like who they are. They are not concerned about what other people think. They are nonconformists who do not submit to peer pressure or fads.

Criminals are more likely to be loners. Criminals are often characterized as loners. Rufus suggests that non-loners label criminals as loners to set them apart and provide a convenient explanation for their behavior. But when you look at the motives behind crimes, you often see a social motive – envy, resentment, betrayal, rejection, etc. The criminals do not want to be alone; they have social connections. Some criminals are outcasts and some are rejects. Some isolate themselves because they have something to hide. In other cases, mental illness motivates criminal and antisocial behavior.

Departing from the Manifesto

My immediate impression of Party of One was that Rufus is too negative and antagonistic towards non-loners. But as an introvert who has often felt misunderstood, I gave Rufus the benefit of the doubt. It is easy to become defensive, even angry, about the cultural bias that deems introverts and loners as less worthy than extroverts and people who love being with crowds of people.  Having said that, my own “loners manual” differs from the manifesto in three areas.

It’s not about us versus them.  Non-loners may be biased but they’re not our enemies. The “mob” (Rufus' word for non-loners)  is not engaged in a smear campaign or conspiracy against loners. We need them just as they need us. Whether you believe in evolution or a higher power, there is a reason that people are genetically predisposed to certain behaviors. We balance each other out. If loners want to be respected for who they are, they won’t accomplish that by setting themselves apart as brooding, adversaries of the majority. That behavior simply reinforces the myths.

Desire for connection and acceptance. In talking about advertising, Rufus says that advertisers don’t target loners because their “only shared feature is separateness, elusiveness, refusal to connect.” In talking about the motives of criminals, she says loners do not want the things that social people want from others, including acceptance and admiration. She says loners don’t care what other people think, say or do and that “we want nothing more from others but to be left alone.”

But I ask, if that were really true – if loners really don’t want connection and acceptance - then why did Rufus write the manifesto? She said she wrote it to speak for those of us “for whom no one has yet spoken” using the collective “we”. Doesn’t this imply a desire for connection and a sense of unity with like-minded people?

What I thought was most telling about this supposed loner indifference to other people is Rufus’ story about an unnamed relative who buys her books but does not read them. This relative does not ask Rufus about the writing of the books, clearly a glaring insult. The author has invested a considerable amount of her time and self in this solitary pursuit. Yet, this relative’s indifference sends the message: My books might as well not exist. She obviously wants acceptance from this person (my guess, her mother). She cares what they think.

Religion/Spirituality. In a chapter on religion, titled Jesus, Mary, and Jennifer Lopez, Rufus describes the religious as swarming, seething, slaughtering mobs, among other things. She says, “They want us to think faith is a collective thing.”  She suggests that God doesn’t hear a loner voice. And somehow, the fact that Jesus had followers makes him unworthy of loners: “Christ was too good at guiding crowds to have been one of us.” And the crowning jewel of her generalizations about religion and loners - “To a loner it hardly seems possible – not even plausible – that millions could agree on what God likes and dislikes.”

Yet, the fact is, millions of loners do find peace, love, joy, meaning, and purpose in the practice of their faith. Spirituality is not less meaningful and empowering because it is shared with or organized by non-loners. I spend one or two hours a week in fellowship with “the mob” at my church, sitting alone at a pew built for two. One person sits behind me, and another in front of me. I think my own thoughts, I form my own conclusions about what is right and true, I silently say my own prayers, and I fervently believe that God hears me.

So is it a distinction without a difference?

After reading Party of One, I am still convinced that loners are usually introverts. Do a Google search on extrovert loner and what do you find? Not much. I found an extroverted loner in a chat room who says he finds most conversations mundane. Is it impossible to be an extroverted loner? No. Rare? Yes.

The preference for solitude or limited company is just one aspect that distinguishes introverts/loners from “the mob.” Our deep thought processes, cautiousness, hesitancy to speak without thinking things through, etc. also distinguish us from extroverts/non-loners. While introverts may identify more closely with the loner part of themselves, they are still the well-rounded introverted individuals Rufus described in the manifesto.

I have avoided labeling myself as a loner because I have a strong desire for social connection – for belonging. But the truth is I also have a strong preference for spending most of my time alone or with my significant other in another room – separate, apart. At work, I stay at my desk most of the day, rarely seeking another person’s company, communicating with my coworkers by email. I exercise alone. I watch TV alone. I am happy alone.