Abstract
This paper defends the striving for a theoretical theodicy against the call of some contemporary theologians to abandon the practice altogether. Essential to the defense is a distinction I propose between the themes of "transformative suffering" and "destructive suffering." I respond especially to the views of Grace Jantzen and Kenneth Surin, suggesting how, in Christian theism, effective themes of theodicy would ground the hope for the healing and redemption of the victims of destructive suffering. In abandoning theodicy in principle, it remains unclear what would support this compassionate hope for the victims. Moreover, by maintaining the category of "destructive suffering," one secures against the danger in theodicy of demeaning or repudiating the traumatic experiences of the victims of radical evil. I go on to explore the implications of these points in seeking for effective themes of theodicy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.