The End

In this post, we conclude our response to Chapter 5 of Mark Clark’s The Problem of God, titled “The End.”  Here Clark brings his discussion of evil and suffering to a sentimental close, appealing to Romans 8:28 (“all things work together for good”) and Romans 8:18 (“the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed”).  It’s an emotional ending—but emotion isn’t evidence.  Let’s take a closer look.


1.  The Emotional Bypass

Clark’s final appeal isn’t an argument—it’s a coping mechanism.  By quoting Paul, he shifts from evidence to reassurance: suffering feels meaningful because one day, somehow, it will be.  But this is not a logical resolution of the problem of evil; it’s a postponement.  The question “Why does a loving, all-powerful God allow needless suffering now?” is replaced with “Maybe someday we’ll understand.”

That’s not philosophy—it’s deferral.  And deferral, however comforting, doesn’t erase the observable fact that billions of sentient beings suffer without purpose, redemption, or relief.


2.  The All-Things Fallacy

Romans 8:28 is often quoted as a promise that every tragedy hides divine intention: “All things work together for good.”  Clark follows that script.  Yet the claim collapses under minimal scrutiny.  All things?  Childhood cancer?  Genocide?  Animal suffering across millions of years before humans existed?

If “good” can encompass these horrors, then “good” has lost meaning.  The verse survives only by stretching “good” so far that it becomes an empty synonym for whatever happens.  That isn’t moral depth—it’s moral surrender.


3.  Suffering as Evidence Against, Not For, God

Clark treats suffering as evidence of God’s empathy (“a God who suffers with us”).  But an empathetic bystander who can prevent agony and doesn’t is not compassionate—he’s complicit.  The Christian claim that God both feels our pain and allows it for a mysterious greater good makes moral sense only if we downgrade compassion to something sentimental and inert.

If we judge by human ethical standards—the same standards we are told God implanted in us—then omnipotent empathy that permits torture is incoherent.  Either God cannot stop suffering (and is not omnipotent) or will not (and is not good).  Clark resolves neither horn of that dilemma; he merely quotes scripture to declare victory.


4.  The Tolkien Illustration and the Narrative Trap

Clark ends with Samwise Gamgee’s reflection from The Two Towers: even darkness is “a passing thing.”  It’s a lovely literary moment—but Tolkien wrote fiction, not metaphysics.  To borrow that line as theological evidence is to mistake emotional catharsis for truth.  Stories comfort us precisely because they end—because meaning is imposed by an author.  The real world, indifferent and ongoing, offers no such narrative guarantee.


5.  The Psychology of Closure

The closing tone of “The End” mirrors a human impulse, not divine revelation: our need for closure.  We dislike unresolved pain, so we craft cosmic closure where none is evident.  In that sense, Clark’s theology is anthropological data—it tells us how the human mind copes, not how the universe works.  Hope is valuable as hope, but to mistake it for knowledge is to blur the line between comfort and truth.


6.  The God Question Reframed

If suffering can exist without purpose, then meaning is ours to make—not handed down.  The more honest response to evil is not “It all works for good,” but “We must decide what good means and act accordingly.”

Presence, empathy, and alleviation—these are human responsibilities, not divine mysteries.

That, perhaps, is the real end: not a verse about glory later, but a choice about compassion now.


📜 Closing Thought:

Christianity’s hope rests on postponed justification.  The God Question’s hope rests on clear sight: that pain needs no permission to matter, and kindness needs no eternity to be sacred.

The Advantage of Disadvantage: When Faith Romanticizes Suffering

This post is part of an ongoing response series to The Problem of God by Mark Clark, an apologetics book that attempts to defend Christian belief against modern critiques. Here at The God Question, we’re not interested in strawman versions of faith or smug atheism. Our goal is simple: examine claims honestly, think critically, and ask what’s real — not just what’s reassuring. Each post follows this core philosophy: Begin with curiosity, not belief. Follow evidence, not emotion. Let reality speak for itself.


Reframing Suffering as Strength?

In the section titled The Advantage of Disadvantage, Mark Clark attempts to reframe suffering and disadvantage not as obstacles, but as secret strengths. The idea is simple — and familiar to anyone steeped in Christian teaching:

“God uses the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”

“Suffering humbles us. Disadvantage deepens our dependence on God.”

“Struggle builds spiritual character.”

Clark cites biblical passages, particularly from the Apostle Paul, who famously wrote that God’s power is “made perfect in weakness.” He suggests that those without worldly status, material comfort, or physical strength are often in a better position to receive God’s grace. In fact, being disadvantaged — socially, economically, physically — may be a blessing in disguise.

Let’s be clear: there’s nothing wrong with learning from hardship. But when suffering becomes spiritualized, we need to ask some hard questions. Because what Clark presents here isn’t just personal encouragement — it’s a theological worldview with real consequences.


Romanticizing Suffering, Obscuring Responsibility

Clark’s approach to suffering in this section leans heavily on the trope of the “noble sufferer”: the idea that pain refines us, weakness ennobles us, and those who struggle are somehow closer to the divine.

This might feel comforting in personal moments of hardship — but as a framework for understanding systemic suffering, it’s deeply problematic.

Why?

Because it shifts attention away from the cause of suffering and instead romanticizes the effect.

  • The single mother working three jobs to survive isn’t facing injustice — she’s just in a season of character growth.
  • The chronically ill person without healthcare isn’t a victim of systemic failure — their pain is a spiritual advantage.
  • The marginalized teenager bullied for their identity isn’t being failed by society — they’re being “prepared” by God.

This is not just bad theology. It’s a dangerous justification for inaction. When suffering becomes a divine tool, empathy becomes pity — and justice becomes irrelevant.


The Psychological Cost of “Spiritual Strength”

There’s a darker underside to the “advantage of disadvantage” narrative. For many people, especially those raised in fundamentalist or evangelical traditions, this message conditions them to accept abuse, poverty, or discrimination as holy.

  • “God is using this for your good.”
  • “Don’t complain — God gives his toughest battles to his strongest soldiers.”
  • “This is making you stronger.”

But often, it’s not.

Often, it’s breaking them.

Trauma therapists, mental health professionals, and survivors themselves will tell you: pain doesn’t automatically produce growth. It often produces shame, dissociation, and lifelong psychological harm — especially when the victim has been taught to see their suffering as spiritual training.

Clark’s version of the gospel not only fails to relieve the pain — it risks sanctifying it. That’s not empowerment. It’s gaslighting with a halo.


Flipping the Script: What Is the Advantage of Privilege?

If disadvantage is a secret spiritual weapon, we might reasonably ask: why does the church chase political power, wealth, and influence so relentlessly? Why do the most prominent Christian voices in America — megachurch pastors, celebrity preachers, political operatives — live lives of staggering privilege?

Clark doesn’t address this contradiction.

Instead, he focuses on the individual believer who is disadvantaged — while conveniently ignoring the institutional church that often benefits from and perpetuates that disadvantage.

When the Christian message teaches the poor to embrace their suffering but never teaches the rich to divest their comfort, something’s gone wrong. That’s not faith. That’s a control mechanism dressed up in spiritual language.


There Is an Advantage — But It’s Not What Clark Thinks

There is one thread of truth in Clark’s argument, but he misses the point: suffering can wake us up.

Not to God.

But to the myth of control. To the illusion that life is fair. To the stories we’ve inherited that no longer serve us. And in that awakening, some people do find clarity. Not through divine intervention, but through courage, reflection, therapy, and human connection.

But that’s a far cry from saying God uses suffering to make us stronger. That’s just repackaged prosperity gospel with grittier aesthetics.


Final Thoughts

The idea that suffering gives us an “advantage” sounds noble — until you realize how often it’s used to excuse the pain, not address it.

If there is any moral imperative in suffering, it’s not to reinterpret it as holy. It’s to reduce it. To listen to it. To let it move us toward compassion, justice, and systemic change.

Let’s stop calling pain a gift from God. And let’s start calling it what it is: a reality of life that we can — and must — confront together.

Trusting God Even When It Doesn’t Make Sense?

Sunday Special Feature


At The God Question, we’ve launched a special series that responds to real-world religious messages—statements, sermons, and claims being made from pulpits and platforms across the country.

Why? Because these messages shape minds. They influence how people understand suffering, morality, identity, and truth.

This week, we’re examining a sermon titled “Trusting God Even When It Doesn’t Make Sense,” delivered on March 23, 2025, by a pastor from First Baptist Church in Boaz, Alabama.


🔹 Core Message of the Sermon:

  • Life is often painful.
  • We may not understand what God is doing, but we should trust Him anyway.
  • God is always “working behind the scenes.”
  • Trials and suffering have a divine purpose.
  • Worship and faith are the proper responses, even in despair.

🎯 The God Question Responds:

Using our core philosophy—truth-seeking through reason, evidence, and skepticism—we challenge the claims made in this sermon.


🧩 Claim 1: “God is still good even when life is hard.”

This is an emotionally appealing idea, but it lacks evidence. It assumes that suffering and divine love can coexist without contradiction, but offers no objective support for this reconciliation.

Would we call a human parent “good” if they watched their child suffer needlessly and did nothing—perhaps to “build character”?


🧩 Claim 2: “God is working behind the scenes.”

This is a non-falsifiable claim. In other words, it cannot be tested or disproven—and that makes it unreliable as truth. Believers often interpret any outcome as part of God’s invisible plan.

This is classic confirmation bias: interpreting all events as evidence of divine involvement—regardless of the outcome.


🧩 Claim 3: “Pain has a purpose; trials grow our faith.”

Some people do grow through hardship. Others collapse under it. Many abandon their faith in the face of intense suffering.

So which is it—evidence of God’s hand, or randomness of life?

If suffering grows faith, what about those who lose faith because of suffering?


🧩 Claim 4: “Worship through the pain.”

Worship can be emotionally soothing—but when paired with the idea that suffering is divinely intended, it becomes a tool for normalizing spiritual neglect.

Why praise a God whose presence is indistinguishable from absence?

If help never comes—just silence—what are we really worshiping?


💬 Why This Matters:

This message was delivered to a local congregation, including young minds who are absorbing ideas about God, truth, and how to make sense of a painful world.

We don’t question anyone’s sincerity. But sincerity isn’t the same as truth.

These ideas deserve scrutiny—not because we want to destroy faith, but because critical thinking demands it.


🙋‍♀️ Ask Yourself:

  • If God is real, all-knowing, and all-loving, why is suffering still necessary?
  • Wouldn’t a powerful God have better tools for growth than trauma?
  • If we don’t understand God’s plan, how can we be so sure there is one?

🧠 The God Question Perspective:

Faith is not a substitute for truth. And when a message tells you to trust blindly—even when it doesn’t make sense—that’s a red flag.

We challenge you to question, think, and explore.

That’s the path to truth.