Third Symphony and Suffering:
Christian leaders are being asked to play many more
roles as ever before. Many of
these roles are beyond the training and expertise of the pastor, though
she/he is still expected to have some answer due to his/her role of
leader. Among the most
frequent amateur “cap” the pastor is asked to wear is the physician or
outside of a class or two in pastoral counseling in Seminary, ministers
are really speaking beyond their realm of specialty.
Most competent pastors will acknowledge that it is not their role
to be a long term therapist for one who is suffering, but rather is there
to offer immediate care. Despite
this limited, yet essential role, it is incumbent upon the pastor
to enable the one who is suffering to understand the tragedy.
As a Christian then, this means to witness the tragedy in light of death and life, illuminated in part by the gospel of Christ.
Not all forms of theological or religious beliefs
find a problem in the presence of suffering in God’s world.
A dualistic faith, for example, would realize that evil and
suffering come from an “evil principle” which stands in contrast to
one that is good. Being that
Christianity is monotheistic though, we have to acknowledge (traditionally
speaking) that suffering and evil come way by the influence of the one God
whom we worship. Of course
this problem becomes even more problematic when we consider the nature of
God in the New Testament. The God that was revealed in Jesus Christ, who
demonstrated love par excellence. Christianity
certainly has a problem attempting to reconcile a God with a loving nature
and who has absolute power, with a contradictory notion of evil and
suffering ever-present in the world.
As Daniel Day Williams states, “When tested for finite standards
for benevolence, the God of tradition failed miserably.
The strategy devised to protect the ascription of benevolence to
God ironically lead to an admission of God’s inscrutability. And if God
is inscrutably benevolent, has anything been said at all?”
In Henryk Misolov Gorecki’s third symphony, we
witness three extended arias of differing females who are struck with
suffering and grief.
The latter two were written to express
the suffering and grief of the individuals who underwent the Nazi
campaign of genocide. The
women lament in differing ways but all, in some way, express the suffering
that has been imposed by the absolute evil of humanity.
The second aria lyric clearly demonstrates an appeal to religion,
which demonstrates Mary (the mother of Christ) crying for the children of
earth. We can also imagine
the woman in the third aria lyric bringing her plea to God directly.
The ultimate question that has to be answered to these women is why
there is evil, an evil as dreadful as the holocaust, in the world.
Of course there are many questions that are raised
before we even begin to answer the aforementioned question such as; what
is the traditional meaning of Omnipotence? What is evil? How does free will effect the “big picture” of suffering
and evil. All of these
questions will be addressed to some degree in the following pages. The overall attempt of this analysis will be to explore the
traditional (and less than traditional) theological answers to the problem
of evil and the suffering that is brought about as a result.
Karl Barth is acknowledged to be one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century. His Neo-Orthodox/Neo-Reformed approach has been championed by many, disavowed by others, but no one can deny his impact on twentieth century Christian theology.
While it is true that Barth completed an exhaustive
account of Christian belief (at least with in the tradition of the
Reformed church), he did not systematically consider the problem of evil
or Theodicy as such in his writings.
The closest consideration we have to a proposed “theory of
evil” lies in his concept of Das
Nichtige (loosely translated as nothingness)
which was explored in the third volume of his Church
Barth’s intention with Das
Nichtige was not to take up the role of evil for the first and
definitive time, per say. Rather,
he sought to provide a “clarity of the role of evil within the creation
experience as it deals with the shadowside (Schattenseite)
of the created world.”
We will begin our analysis of the concept of Schattenseite
even though it is not evil per say. Schattenseitte is appropriate as a starting point because it is the
means by which evil becomes tangible in existence, and hence a reality.
“Shadowside” of creation is the “negative aspect of the universe.
It has often been mistakenly identified with Das
Nichtige (nothingness or pure evil) in a strong sense, but it truly
has a different status as a necessary
antithesis within the total creative world which the creator saw to be
The Shadowside is essential and necessary for all created beings,
according to Barth, and is brought froth from God’s creative action from
side” and “positive will”.
This, as opposed to absolutely good creation which is created from
God’s “positive side” and “positive will”. Yet while this
creation or Shadowside is negative or imperfect, so to say, it is still
very usable and in that case is somewhat good.
Barth explains that God created this shadowside
because in every created being, there must be a yes and a no, “not only
a height but an abyss, not only clarity but obscurity…yet it is
irrefutable that creation and creature are good even in the fact that all
exist in contrast and antitheses.”
So every created being has this negative or antithetical aspect in
them. It was necessary for
God to create this aspect of humanity. One can think of the creation of Schattenseite as very similar to the creation of “nonbeing” in
Paul Tillich’s ontology. It
has to be stressed though that this Shadowside is not evil, in and of
itself. Rather it is value
neutral and is the means by which evil influences humanity.
For instance, Barth cites disease and bodily pain as an result of
the shadowside of humanity. In
and of themselves they are not evil despite the labels we would attach to
them, rather they are value neutral (neither good nor bad). Philosopher
John Hick concludes that Barth notion of the Shadowside is akin to
“metaphysical evil” which
puts created beings on the “verge of collapse into non-being”
but this according to Barth is what keeps us dependent on the perfect,
divine being which is not “nothing” but is something which secures us.
So, as alluded to before, the shadowside is not the opposite of
God’s will, but “is fulfilled and confirmed in it”
Yet if it becomes affected by Das
Nichtige, it is sinful. It
is when this Schattenseite operates from Das
Nichtige that we see witness cruelty, wickedness,
and evil in the world.
Barth’s discussion of the problem of evil in CDIII/3
begins from an existential or praxis oriented position.
At the outset, Barth relates evil to nothingness, especially when
set in contrast to divine providence. According to Barth, nothingness is
“not only inimical to the creature and its nature and existence, but
above all to God himself and his will and purpose.”
was created from that which God has separated himself and is what God
rejects outright. Barth
states, “God wills and therefore opposes what he does not will, He says
‘yes’ and therefore says ‘no’ to that which He has not said Yes.
He works according to his purpose and in so doing, rejects and
dismisses all that gainsays it.”
So good is brought into existence by God’s will to bring forth a
good universe and by willing this good creation, God has thus unwilled its
opposite and this is what becomes Das Nichtige. This
breed of nothingness is what lies in opposition to God.
It is important to realize that this Nothingness has
definite being in the universe. Barth explicitly states, “Das Nichtige ist nicht das Nichts” (Nothingness is not nothing).
It has a definite ontic quality in that it is evil.
“What God does not will and therefore negates and rejects, what
can thus only be the object of His opus alienum, of His jealousy, and
wrath, is a being that refuses and resists and is adverse to grace, hence
This Nothingness is in the world as we know it and constantly strives to
undermine the purpose of God. This
Das Nichtige takes advantage of
what makes us limited (Schattenseite)
and influences us to act under pure evil.
This is how Das Nichtige (or
evil) becomes tangible and
enters the world, according to Barth.
In true Barthian fashion, this whole creation of the Schattenseite
and is potential to be corrupted by
Das Nichtige, is kept in view of the Christological framework he will
produce and the “Doctrine of Reconciliation” (CD IV.1 &2).
So because Christ
participated in the Shadowside of creation, being limited as thus is
really not a reason to be dismayed. Rather,
it should be a “cause for rejoicing, for it is out of such that God
brings light and life back to creation.”
In the end God, through Christ has defeated Das
Nichtige in the form of sin, but we, as created beings, are living in
a world that is between the time of Christ’s incarnation and coming
again. In that way, it seems
as if Das Nichtige has won, but
in the end, we must realize the Christ is the victor over all Nothingness.
In recent years, Process theology has become popular
especially when looking at the issue of suffering and Theodicy.
This view generally assumes the position of one God who is not
“omnipotent”, but does set goals for humans in order to persuade them
to actualize themselves. In
the end, God is persuasive and powerful, but it is up to humans to shape
the way the world operates. The
movement of process philosophy actually began with the work of Alfred
North Whitehead and then followed upon by others in the field, including
John Cobb and Marjorie Souchocki. We
will begin to examine some aspects of evil in Process thought by first
looking at the philosophy of Whitehead
and then conclude with the systematic approach by Souchocki.
According to Whitehead, categories are intrinsically
relative and because of that, everything must be considered in subjective
terms of its own becoming as well as objectively against the universe
(which is affected by becoming).
The universe and the entity being considered are actual, and as
they are actual, they are finite through the selection of data (past) for
the inclusion of its immediate future.
In the act of determining the multiple options, some concrete value must
be negated as incompatible with the entities’ present. So, some values are positively prehended and others are
negatively prehended. According
to Whitehead, if negative prehension’s is carried to an extreme, there
becomes a danger of the “evil of trivilization" in which the entity
refuses to see that it is relational.
Accordingly Souchocki states that a “drastic use of negation in
relation to the data of the past narrows the alternatives for what
one can become” which ultimately affects the future of all.
Similarly, if one is too open to the past and is confronted with too many options, one may fall into the trap of the “evil of
discord”. Whitehead holds
that there must be a balance between all negative and positive prehensions
in an entity.
According to Whitehead, existence is not value free
or neutral, rather it is weighted to the good.
In and of itself, the general tendency for “actuality is toward
that which it measures as Good; in and for its relationships with others,
this goodness becomes qualified so that degrees of goodness and evil
become applicable to the valuation of the entity.”So
when we consider the entities’ becoming and it’s effect on its
relations; two poles are developed “which must be taken together in a
Whiteheadean understanding of good and evil.”
In the end, the entity’s goodness can be derived based on the
value to the entity alone and its relationships.
So Souchocki states of Whiteheads’ system, “Since and entity
aims at intensity of signifigance for itself (insofar as this aim is
fostered by the possibilities made available to it by another) that other
entity, in this relationship, is
good; insofar as its aim is hindered by the other, that other, in
this relationship, is deemed evil.”
Taking what we have already learned form
Whitehead’s philosophical system, we can now clearly explicate
Souchocki’s theological model of evil.
Souchocki, following suit from Whitehead’s system, recognizes
that humans are responsible for the evil in the world, and that evil (or
the demonic) is part of the society which we inherited. Yet, much like Whitehead
alluded to before, we are responsible for the society which we create
because of our relationality and our influence on society.
According to Souchocki, “the demonic” influences the individual through coercion, conformity, and negative images which continually justify the demonic in the individual. Simply speaking, it is much easier to conform to the powerful negative aspects of society (the demonic) which have been reinforced by the past, rather than assert against it. The concept of “Sin”, is acting upon this demonic element and is labeled as such because responsibility is still incumbent upon the individual. So the sin that is created, is a sin against the self and others because as an individual, our actions determine our own becoming and influence the becoming of society. Sin reinforces the demonic element in society and in the end “is based upon and requires a distortion of the nature of existence [which is relational].” Souchocki believes that the result is the “absolutizing of the self” [or evil of trivilization] or “distortion” [evil of discord] which potentially influence and reinforce all evil present in our world. As stated earlier, because God has created humans with freedom and is admittedly not omnipotent, evil and sin can be conceived as purely human constructs in the process model.
John Hick has criticized the process approach on the
fact that its theology amounts to nothing than a “denial of the
existence of the problem. That
is, the qualifying of God’s power relieves us of the task of trying to
reconcile the presence of suffering with a God who has the power to
relieve it, but is not willing to exercise the power.”
This statement rings true outright, but it seems that what is at
issue in the end is not really power but purpose for
Process Theology. As
Wetherhead put it, “God’s power is not put forward to get certain
things done, but to get them done in a certain way, with certain results
in the lives who do them.”
Much has already been said about the Philosopher John Hick, and his critiques of the models already presented. Hick is more than a mere critic though, for he himself has written extensively on the subject of Theodicy and suffering and presents some of his own conclusions. Briefly, we will consider his position before turning to the Liberation Theology approach.
Hick believes that Humans were created limited or
Following on the work of Flew, Mackie, and Smart, he acknowledges
that this had to be necessary for humans to have absolute freedom.
To Hick, “God must set man at a distance from himself from which
he can then voluntarily come to God.”
So Hick recreates much of the creation narrative, which he claims still
upholds the meaning of the Biblical tradition.
To Hick, humans were not created in a “finished state” but are
“still in process of creation”. 
Humans then were created in two stages, first of humankind ‘in
the image’ and then in the ‘likeness’ of God”.
But though humans are created as unfinished, we have the potential
to finish ourselves, via our freedom to act “spiritually, religiously,
morally” or vice versa.
Yet, like in Process Theology, there seems to be a “lure” toward the
good. Hick states, the person
must “center his life upon himself, even though he then immediately
begins to feel, in a dim sense of moral demand and holy claim, the
pressure upon his spirit of his unseen creator.”
It all comes down to the choices we make through our freedom.
here we can easily see why Sin and evil arise in our world.
Humans have the freedom of choice to follow God or to be against
and alienated from God. The choice to be against God is the choice to live
in sin and follow evil or the “demonic” as Hick likes to put it.
Suffering, and pain in Hick’s grand scheme is all part of
becoming in that it is necessary for “soul making”.
According to Hick, pain, evil, and suffering are what makes the
individual soul strong, and challenged, with the end result being growth. From here Hick can moves
easily explain the role of “natural evil” in the world as it is an
environment which “stimulates growth” toward maturity.
Yet the struggle and growth is
not “all for nothing”, per say. Hick
argues an eschatological element in his Theodicy with his belief that the
human “in process will eventually lead to a perfect community” that is
not to be completed here on earth.
Hick’s propositions seem insightful one can have trouble finding where
God is in the whole process of becoming. Is God just watching all of the pain and suffering and see it
as “growing pains” which the creation must endure? A possible resolve may be an insertion of a Christology in
this framework, as Edward Schillebeeckx has done, but having Hick’s
philosophical/theological dispositions, this resolve is somewhat
theology takes seriously the event of Christ’s encounter in the world,
and his strife for justice, equality, and love.
In like fashion, Liberation theologians take seriously the
suffering experiences of marginalized groups in the world.
Liberation theology is a very context-praxis driven theology, which
means that it is often suited to the particular situation or suffering at
Liberation Theologian Gustavo Gutierrez, suffering results from political,
economic, and social exploitation. Suffering
is caused by injustice and poverty which leads to the destruction of
Gutierrez is especially concerned with the historical context of
suffering as found in poverty, hunger, and discrimination, which leads him
to develop a theological “preference for the poor”.
He believes the poor and oppressed “irrupt in history as a
revelation of a contrast situation, a disclosure of contradiction that
ruptures history itself.”
Those who are not oppressed attempt to “distance themselves” from the
poor and oppressed and ignore the suffering outright.
This, of course, only leads to heightened oppression,
discrimination, and suffering.
purpose of theology to Gutierrez is to Liberate the poor from all
suffering and oppression.
Traditional theodicies are highly criticized by Liberation Theology
as the suffering, and oppression that is encountered by the poor is often
unmerited. What’s more,
rather than offering a more conciliatory model of suffering and evil,
Liberation Theologies tend to strike at the root cause of what they
perceive to be the cause of suffering, i.e. the socio-political forces
that cause the evil toward the poor.
can locate God in this view
in the midst of the suffers, for God himself is committed to the poor and
the suffers in this view. And
it is from this stance, where a strong Christology is formed in Liberation
Theology. As Lucien Richard
put it ,
“Jesus is the model and symbol of opposition to poverty and suffering. The salvation brought about by Jesus embraces the whole of reality and implies and opposition to whatever is an obstacle to full humanity. Jesus liberates form the very rook of social injustice….in his liberative and prophetic actions, Jesus is a revelation and a symbol of God. God is a God who saves us not through domination, but suffering.
Christology, especially the event of cross, become the central symbols of
God’s revelation and love. Because
Jesus underwent pain and suffering himself due to oppression, yet saved us
all because of this sin, Jesus becomes the focal point of all who are
oppressed and strive for liberation.
As Gutierrez has aptly put it, “liberation is another word for
Gutierrez is commonly known as the “father of Liberation Theology”,
other theologians from differing areas of the world have also realized the
potential of this type of theology in explaining evil and suffering.
Belgian theologian Edward Schillebeeckx also believes (with most
Liberation theologians) that theory or philosophy must flow from practice.
“Our faith is a practical faith in that is does something in
human history,” he states.
a way not unlike John Hick, Schillebeeckx views suffering as an integral
part of human life that causes people to constantly reflect on the
significance of God and of faith. Humans
have the choice to move to or away from God, and so in like fashion,
suffering has its cause in human sinfulness. Schillenbeeckx rejects all
notions that state that God is the cause of human suffering by God’s
“will”. In a way
strikingly similar to Hick, Schilebeeckx states, “God’s permissive
will has no theoretical meaning as an explanation: it simply describes the
dead end of human thinking when it is confronted but the
incomprehensibility of human suffering.”
In the end, humans are
the cause for suffering because humans are limited and sinful, according
to Schillebeeckx. What’s
more, God in the form of Jesus Christ, actually rejects suffering,
oppression, and discrimination.
that this type of theology is a praxis oriented approach, it calls for all
those who follow God’s will to reject all situations which bring about
suffering and pain.
The challenge is then, not to accept the evils, in which we all
participate, but to act against them.
Schillebeeckx says, “Suffering through and for others, to which
our faith bears witness, can therefore be seen as an expression of the
unconditional validity of a praxis of doing good and resistance to evil
and innocent suffering. The
man who does not limit his commitment to the suffering of others in any
way is bound to pay for it sooner or later with his own death.”
So by taking responsibility for evil in the world, humanity has a
true basis for transformation in the world.
The evils in the world, according the Schillebeeckx, then are the
result of our evil as humans. From
here, Schilebeeckx can now appropriately present a soteriology that is
both individual and social. Social,
because social liberation is integral to God’s salvation.
In the end, humans experience salvation in other humans, for it is
through caring and loving that humans receive the salvation of God
this lengthy description of the multiple approaches to which theological
schools have answered the problem and suffering, we will now turn to the
specific aria’s presented at the outset .
What we will try to locate here is the most appropriate theological
answer to the problem of evil specifically found in the Holocaust of World
the outset, we find that all the positions proposed above do adequately
answer the problem of evil within their framework.
This is especially true when we look at evil as a
personal/individual act or sin on a “small scale”, if there is such a
thing. But the problem of
evil seen in the events of World War Two and the massacre of the Jewish
and other oppressed groups present a much more complex question.
How can such corporate evil be fostered and edified by humanity and
allowed by a God of love?
question above is especially relevant when we consider the work of Karl
Barth and his concept of evil as Das
Nichtige. As we have
noted above, Das Nichtige, influences the Shadowside of humanity which makes the
concept of evil, real and tangible to the world. This explanation does well to explain the influence of
“nothingness” on the single individual person and how that individual
person may become oppressive or evil.
What this concept is not as adequate at
explaining is how evil (Das
Nichtige) becomes corporate or widespread throughout society.
the third volume of the Church
Dogmatics (3.3), Barth
has no description of widespread evil apart from
his explanation of “natural evil”, which he attributes to Schattenseite.
Yet one can hardly call the Holocaust “natural evil” or,
much worse, “good” what
Barth resolves Schattenseite to
be. In the end,
Barth’s concept of evil cannot explain mass atrocities or evil which has
occurred in the Holocaust, and
so would prove to be fruitless in the situation we have seen in the work
we are analyzing.
Hick’s proposition does address the problem of corporate evil as a
“demonic element” but in the end, he resolved that most evil was a
The major problem with Hick’s approach to the problem of evil is
his view of suffering and evil (even at a the corporate level) as “soul
making” or necessary for progression. To Hick, the presence of evil and
suffering in the world make the individual’s soul strong, and “more
mature”. So, it seems there
is almost an assumption that the more you suffer or are affected by evil,
the more “well endowed” your soul will become.
The reward of this suffering and experience of evil is the eternal
bliss of the soul in the afterlife. So
the Holocaust, in a strange and perverted way, can be viewed as “good
for humanity” because it
led to the strengthening of the soul of humankind, and the tragedy led to
the realization of the “worst that humans can do”..
While these realizations have brought some positive results in the
end, they are not significant when considering the horrors Holocaust.
resolve that is especially appropriate to answer the type of evil found in
the Holocaust is best explained in the concept of evil proposed by Process
theology and in elements of Liberation theology.
As stated above, Process theology (as exemplified in Souchocki)
finds that the evil we succumb to as an individual and society was fixed
long before our time on earth. Evil
is part of the world we inherited, is constantly reinforced which
influences individual’s to conform to the demonic.
Evil can be tangibly viewed at a corporate level then as the
oppression, discrimination, and alienation of certain groups in a society
that fosters injustice. In
the Holocaust example found in the aria’s of the symphony, this is
specific with the certain group of Pole’s marginalized and then killed
by the Nazi’s in the concentration camps.
as explained by Process theology, is explicitly manifest in the whole
ideology of Nazi Germany, which reinforced the message of discrimination,
hate, and intolerance against the Jewish community.
As part of Process theology, of course, this marginalizatoin of the
Jewish community did not begin with the Nazi’s or their societal
beliefs. The Jewish culture has been discriminated against for
centuries and so the cues from
each successive generation have been reinforced throughout the centuries.
The “demonic”, though, was made evident to the world in Second
World War in Germany. The
genocide that occurred by the Nazi’s can be considered the evil
of trivilizatoin taken to an extreme, and is good example how one
person (Hitler) can affect the becoming of many.
stated above, a Christian response needs to resolve the problem of
corporate evil and suffering in the light of the Gospel message proclaimed
by Christ as God for humanity.
Both, Liberation theology as well as Process Christology take
seriously the event of Christ’s encounter in the world as against all
that breeds contempt. For
instance Jesus, in the Liberation approach, is the symbol and model of the
opposition to all forms of injustice, discrimination, genocide, and
oppression found in events such as the Holocaust. Jesus, the acknowledged Son of God, underwent this oppression
(in Liberation theology) and injustice and defeated it with his
resurrection, which is a symbol a life that defeated injustice and
a slightly different way, Process theology acknowledges a Jesus and then
God who is against injustice and oppression of all types. According to
Souchocki, the mission and message of Jesus was full of “reversals”
that overturned the established, oppressive elements in society.
What's more Jesus represents a novel, concrete manifestation of a
new society to which God calls humanity.
She says, “The reign of God is the full love that is justice, not
simply in personal relations, but in the depths of a society structured
according to patterns of inclusive well-being.
To see the life of Jesus as God with us, is to lift all that we see
in that revelation to ultimacy.”
Christ is the God with us, in Souchocki’s theology, and was also
the ultimate Process practitioner who showed the world a society free of
the demonic. What is
presented by Jesus, in Process thought,
is a word where harmony and love reign free. It is a world absent of genocide’s, oppression,
atrocities. What will be
upheld is a society where harmony, creation, and well being is fostered
I: Song (Lamentation of the Holy Cross Monestary (Circa 1425)
Synky mily I wrbrany
My Son, chosen and loved,
Rozdziek z matka sworje rany
Let your mother share your wounds
A wszakom cie, synky mily,
And since my dear son.
/w swem sercu nosila I have always kept you in my heart,
a takiez tobie wiernie sluzya and loyally served you,
przemow k matce speak to your mother,
byc sie ucieszyla, make her happy,
bo juz jidziesz ode mnie, though my dear hope,
moja nadzieja mila.
You are now leaving me.
Movement II. Prayer of the eighteen year old Helena Blazusiakowna,
inscribed on the wall of a Gestapo cell in Zakopane
Mamo, nie placz, nie, Mother, No, do not cry,
Nieblos prezecysta krolowo, Queen of heaven most chaste
Ty zawsze wspierja mnie. Help me always.
Movement III. Folk- song from the Opole Region
Kajze mi sie podziol Where has he gone
Moj synocek Mily? My dearest son?
Pewnie go w powstaniu Killed by the harsh enemy, perhaps,
Zle wrogi zabily. In the rebellion.
Wy niecobrazy luzi You bad people,
Dlo boga swietgo in the name of the Holy God
Cemuscie zabili Tell me why you killed
Synocka mojego? My dear son?
Zodnej jo podory Never more
Juz nie byda miala will I have his protection
Chocbych moje stare Even if I weep
Ocy wyplankala My old eyes away
Chocby z mych lez gorzkich or if my bitter tears
Drugo Odra byla, were to make another oder,
Jesce by synocka They would not bring back
Mi nie ozywila. My son to life
Lezy on tam w grobie he lies in the grave
A jo nie wiem kandy, I know not where
Choc sie opytuja though I ask people
Miedzy ludzmi wsandy. Everywhere
Moze nieborocek Perhaps the poor boy
Lezy kaj w dolecku lies in a rough trench
A moglby se lygac Instead of lying, as he might,
Na swoim przypiecku in a warm bed.
Ej, cwierkejcie mu tam, Sing for him,
Wy ptoseki boze little song-birds of God,
Kiedy mamulicka for his mother
Znaleze go nie moze cannot find him
A ty boze kwiecie, and God’s little flowers,
Kwitnijze w okolo May you bloom all around
Niechsie synockowi so that my son
Choc lezy wesolo may sleep happy
 For the purposes of this analysis, Pastor, Priest, minister, will be limited to leaders in the Christian type of religion. It is true that other religions also deal with similar problems, such as Theodicy and the problem of evil and all have well defined answers. Being this is a personal analysis, Christian literature be used, though the reader should be well advised that other religions have perspectives on this one problem.
 Williams, Daniel Day found in Richmond, K. Preaching to Sufferers. (Nashville. Abington, 1988) 36
 Please see Appendix I for Aria lyrics
 please listen to track 3 of symphony and read Appendix II for review of work.
 Rodin, R. Scott Evil and the Theodicy of Karl Barth (New York. Peter Lang, 1997) 181 – Italics mine
 Hick, John Evil and the God of Love (New York. Harper, 1966) 136
 Barth, Karl Church Dogmatics Vol 3.3, trans. G.W. Bromiley (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1969) 351-352
 ibid 296-7
 Hick, John Evil and the God of Love (New York. Harper, 1966) 135
 Barth Karl Church Dogmatics Vol 3.3 (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1969) 296
 ibid 289
 ibid 311
 ibid 353
 Rodin, R. Scott Evil and Theodicy in the Theology of Karl Barth (New York. Peter Lang, 1997) p. 189
 Suchocki, M. H. The End of Evil: Process Eschatology (Albany. SUNY, 1988) 62-3
 ibid 65
 ibid 65
 ibid 65
 ibid 69
 ibid 69
 ibid 79
 Souchocki, M.H. God, Christ, Church (New York. Crossroads, 1999) 15
 ibid 17
 ibid 26
 ibid 26-27
 Hick, John , “An Ireanean Theodicy” in Encountering Evil, ed. S. Davis (Atlanta: John Knox. 1981) 122
 Hick John, Evil and the God of Love (San Francisco, Harper. 1966) 311
 ibid 317
 ibid 321-322
 ibid 322
 ibid 323
 ibid 321-323
 ibid 370
 ibid 350-356
 ibid 350-356
 Gutierrez, Gustavo Essential Writings. (New York. Maryknoll, 1996) 25
 ibid 143-144
 ibid 123-4
 ibid 123-4
 ibid 144
 ibid 2-5
 Richard, Lucien What Are They Saying about the Theology of Suffering (New York; Paulist 1992) 97
 Gutierrez, Gustavo Essential Writings (New York. Maryknoll, 1996) 184
 ibid 184
 Schillebeeckx, E. A Schillebeeckx Reader (New York. Crossroad, 1984) 260
 ibid 51
 ibid 51-54
 ibid 51-54
 Schillebeeckx, E. The Language of Faith (New York, Maryknoll, 1995) p 195
 Schillebeeckx Edward. A Schillebeeckx Reader (New York, Crossroads) pp. 174-179
 Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love (San Francisco. Harper, 1966) 360-363
 Souchocki, M.H. God, Christ, Church (New York. Crossroad, 1999) 97-8
 ibid 98