A Broken World in Need of Repair
From ancient laments to modern skepticism, one question remains deeply troubling: if an all-powerful and perfectly good God exists, why does He allow suffering to continue? The world is filled with injustice, disease, war, and natural disasters—problems that an omnipotent being could eradicate in an instant.
Believers have long grappled with this dilemma, searching for meaning in divine delay. Some argue that God’s patience serves a purpose, fostering human growth and moral responsibility. Others claim that the suffering we endure is part of a larger redemptive plan that will one day reach its fulfillment. However, critics counter that this reasoning only prolongs the suffering of millions, raising serious doubts about either God’s power or His goodness.
This debate is not new. The problem of divine inaction appears in the Psalms, where the writers plead for relief:
“How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me?” (Psalm 13:1, KJV)
The prophet Habakkuk echoes the same frustration:
“O Lord, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!” (Habakkuk 1:2, KJV)
Throughout history, suffering has driven both faith and doubt. Some have clung to the hope of future restoration, while others have walked away, unable to reconcile divine silence with human agony. But is there a reason behind the long wait? Or does this delay suggest that no divine hand is guiding history at all?
Free Will and Moral Growth
One of the most common explanations for God’s apparent inaction is the argument that divine intervention must be limited to preserve human freedom. If God were to instantly fix every injustice, suffering, or evil act, would human beings still have meaningful choices?
C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, suggests that a world in which God constantly intervenes would reduce human agency:
“God created things which had free will. That means creatures who can go wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot.”
The idea is that moral growth requires struggle, and humans learn integrity, compassion, and perseverance through facing hardship. If God simply removed all suffering, we might become passive recipients of divine intervention rather than active participants in building a better world.
This perspective is reinforced in biblical texts that depict humanity as “co-laborers” with God in the work of justice:
“And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” (Galatians 6:9, KJV)
The notion here is that struggle has intrinsic value and that people are meant to participate in the redemption of the world rather than passively waiting for divine fixes.
But does this explanation account for all suffering? While it may justify moral evils—the harms humans inflict on each other—it struggles to address natural disasters, diseases, and tragedies that occur beyond human control. Can human freedom truly justify an infant dying of illness or an earthquake leveling a city?
The Grand Redemptive Plan
Another theological argument suggests that history itself is a vast, unfolding drama of redemption. In this view, God’s delay is not due to indifference but to a greater purpose—one that ultimately leads to the full restoration of creation.
The Apostle Paul presents this idea in Romans, describing all of creation as waiting in expectation for a final renewal:
“For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.” (Romans 8:22, KJV)
This vision culminates in the Book of Revelation, where God ultimately brings an end to suffering:
“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain.” (Revelation 21:4, KJV)
John Hick, in his Soul-Making Theodicy, expands on this theme, arguing that adversity shapes human virtue and prepares us for a deeper relationship with the divine. He suggests that an easy, pain-free existence would not allow for genuine moral and spiritual development.
However, this explanation raises a significant objection: does the amount and intensity of suffering truly serve a greater purpose? While some hardship may build resilience, many events—such as genocides, child suffering, and senseless accidents—seem to yield no apparent moral benefit. If God intends to restore the world eventually, why let it endure millennia of torment first?
The Skeptical Challenge: Why Wait?
Critics of divine patience argue that the idea of necessary suffering is deeply flawed. If an all-powerful God truly cared about humanity, why wouldn’t He intervene in obvious and catastrophic cases? If human free will is important, could it not still exist in a world without cancer, natural disasters, or extreme violence?
The philosopher J.L. Mackie, in The Miracle of Theism, suggests that an all-good, all-powerful being should be able to create a world where moral freedom exists without the vast levels of suffering we see today. Similarly, atheists like Stephen Fry question whether the existence of diseases and disasters serves any meaningful purpose, famously asking whether a compassionate deity could justify the suffering of children.
The Bible itself acknowledges this tension. The Book of Job, one of the oldest books in scripture, presents a man who endures suffering without any clear reason. Job challenges God directly:
“Wherefore do the wicked live, become old, yea, are mighty in power?” (Job 21:7, KJV)
God’s response, rather than providing a clear justification, simply emphasizes divine mystery:
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?” (Job 38:4, KJV)
For some, this answer is enough—it reinforces the idea that God’s wisdom surpasses human understanding. But for others, it sidesteps the real question: why does suffering need to happen at all?
Indifference or Absence?
A more radical critique suggests that the delay in fixing the world is not a sign of divine patience but rather evidence of divine absence. If suffering continues indefinitely, without clear intervention, could it be that no higher power is governing events at all?
Some atheistic and existential perspectives propose that humans project meaning onto an indifferent universe. The philosopher Albert Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, describes the struggle for meaning in a world that offers no divine assurances. Rather than waiting for a cosmic resolution, he suggests that humans must take responsibility for their own fate.
The emotional weight of divine silence has led many away from faith. For those who once believed in a loving God but encountered relentless suffering, the experience of waiting with no clear answers can be devastating. While theological arguments may provide abstract resolutions, they often fail to comfort those in the depths of grief and despair.
The Question Without a Clear Answer
At the heart of this debate is a question that remains unresolved: is the delay in fixing the world part of a divine plan, or does it point to a universe left to its own devices?
If the theological explanations hold, then suffering has a redemptive purpose, and history is moving toward ultimate restoration. But if the skeptical critiques are correct, then suffering is not part of a grand design—it simply exists, and the responsibility to alleviate it falls entirely on humanity.
Regardless of where one stands, the waiting continues. Believers hold onto hope, trusting that justice and renewal will come in time. Skeptics demand answers, questioning whether any explanation can truly justify millennia of pain. In the tension between these perspectives, the question endures: will the world ever be fixed, and if so, when?
