The Irenaean Theodicy: The Death Of God Model

The Irenaean theodicy argues that part of human growth is suffering and an evil nature, which guides us to God. However, the Death of God model argues the exact opposite. The Death of God model argues that evil cannot be an instrument of God and therefore, God has to be dead. Strengths of the Death of God model include the view that evil is not an instrument of God and the rejection of the traditional God that intervenes on Earth. The view that evil is not an instrument of God allows people to place hope in their God. If one saw their God as creating evil, they would not find hope and comfort from that same source. The rejection of an intervening God forces people to take action in dire situations and not be a bystander in hopes that
God will intervene. However, the rejection of an intervening God can also be a weakness, along with the failure to find meaning in the Holocaust. The rejection of an intervening God can also lead to hopelessness and despair among people in dire situations, because they believe things can only be resolved by a force larger than themselves. Failure to find meaning in the Holocaust is not only a weakness for those affected directly by the Holocaust, but by everyone. Since God did not intervene in the Holocaust, what is stopping something similar from happening again and why did this happen? In my opinion, the Human Sin model of theodicy was the most compelling. This model states that universal evil is our, humanity’s, failure. Humanity’s failure is God’s call for action, which brings people closer to God. The more evil humans see in the world, the more people question how this can happen and look toward a higher power for comfort and hope. I found Dr. Lange’s statement of, “linking Holocaust with human sin is risky, yet, haven’t we all failed?” as the most compelling aspect of the Human Sin model. I find it to say the Jews and other victims of the Holocaust as part of humanity that has failed.