APOL 500
Page 1 of 6
APOLOGETICS FIELD-BASED ACTIVITY: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
ASSIGNMENT TEMPLATE
Do not change any aspect of this template; and do not delete anything except the type of defense
or theodicy that you will be constructing from this template (see 1a below). Instead, just type
your content in the spaces provided, below. Before typing your content, you should review the
entire document to be sure you understand what is required.
Type your name here:
Instructions for this submission
The purpose of the activity is to provide you with an opportunity to construct a short
defense or theodicy for the problem of evil while anticipating possible objections to that
defense or theodicy and then sharing it in a conversation In the sections provided below, you
will insert your construction and possible objections; you will enter the date, time, setting, and
short description of the person with whom you share; and a short reflection on the sharing
experience.
1. Question Selection
a. Select one of the questions provided in Moreland Chapters 2 and 3 and indicate
which one you intend to discuss:
Why Did God Allow the Possibility of Evil and Suffering?1
b. Plan how you hope to address the question in a conversation.
When addressing the topic chosen for this assignment, I will implement the strategy
outlined in The God Conversation by J.P. Moreland and Tim Muehlhoff, utilizing the
three key steps for employing the power of illustrations effectively.2 First, a well-
crafted illustration makes the idea I am presenting to a non-Christian friend clear and
easy to follow. By using relatable examples, the concept becomes more tangible and
accessible. For instance, when discussing the reliability of the Bible, I might compare
it to a courtroom setting where multiple eyewitness testimonies corroborate a single
event, enhancing credibility. This aligns with the approach of Proverbs 15:2, which
states, “The tongue of the wise makes knowledge appealing, but the mouth of a fool
belches out foolishness.”3
1 Moreland, J. P., and Tim Muehlhoff. The God Conversation:Using Stories and Illustrations to
Explain Your Faith, (InterVarsity Press, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central), 22
2 Ibid., 15
3 Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the New International Version
APOL 500
Page 2 of 6
Second, the purpose of an illustration is to ensure that the point I am making sticks
with the listener. Illustrations are memorable and allows people to recall the essence
of the conversation even after it ends. Jesus Himself utilized this method extensively,
teaching in parables to convey profound truths in ways His audience could understand
and remember. For example, the parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3–9) simplified
the concept of receiving God’s word through a relatable farming analogy, making it
unforgettable for His listeners.
Third, a good illustration invites repetition without causing fatigue. No one
appreciates being lectured or overwhelmed by information, as even the most engaging
ideas can lose impact when presented as a monologue. Instead, sharing relatable
stories and examples makes the conversation more dynamic and approachable. For
instance, a personal testimony about how faith transformed my life can help convey
the message in an engaging way, much like how Jesus’ storytelling drew crowds and
inspired reflection (Luke 8:10). As Proverbs 25:11 illustrates, “A word fitly spoken is
like apples of gold in a setting of silver.”
By applying these steps, I hope to create a meaningful and lasting dialogue,
presenting biblical truths with clarity, memorability, and an inviting tone that
encourages further exploration. This approach not only respects the listener’s
perspective but also ensures the conversation reflects the wisdom and compassion
modeled by Christ..
c. Anticipate two to three additional possible objections and/or related questions.
If God is all-powerful and loving, why doesn't He intervene to prevent tragedies and
injustices in the world?
Why do dreadful things happen to respectable people, if God is so loving?
What kind of loving God would consign people to hell or fail to save everyone if he
truly loved them?
d. Discuss how you would address the possible objections and/or related questions.
When addressing these challenging questions, it is crucial to approach the
conversation with clarity, compassion, and perspective. First, in response to the
question of why God doesn’t intervene to prevent tragedies and injustices, I must
invite the listener to consider God's perspective. Just as we attempt to understand
another person’s choices by seeing the world through their eyes, we must also seek to
understand God’s actions within the framework of His eternal wisdom and purpose.
Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us that God’s ways are higher than ours, and what may appear
as divine inaction can often serve a greater purpose beyond our immediate
understanding. God values genuine love and human freedom, as illustrated by the
APOL 500
Page 3 of 6
“Mr. Wonderful Doll” analogy presented by Moreland, which highlights that love is
only meaningful if freely chosen. In granting humanity this freedom, God inherently
allowed the possibility of evil. However, Romans 8:28 assures us that God works
through all things, even suffering, to bring about good for those who love Him.
When considering why dreadful things happen to respectable people, we must
acknowledge that we live in a broken world, corrupted by sin as described in Genesis
3. This brokenness affects not only individuals but also the natural world, leading to
suffering. Despite this, God deeply cares for those who suffer, as demonstrated in
Jesus’ ministry of healing and comforting the brokenhearted (John 11:35). God’s love
is not limited to this life; it is eternal. As 2 Corinthians 4:17 states, “For our light and
momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.”
While suffering may seem unfair, God’s ultimate justice and love will be fully
revealed in eternity.
Finally, in addressing why a loving God would consign people to hell, we must
emphasize that God respects human free will. Matthew 23:37 captures Jesus’ lament
over Jerusalem, expressing His desire to gather the people, but they were not willing.
God does not force Himself upon anyone but lovingly invites all to come to Him (2
Peter 3:9). Furthermore, love and justice are not opposites but essential aspects of
God’s character. A loving God must also be just, and sin carries consequences, with
hell representing the ultimate separation from God. However, through Jesus’ death
and resurrection, God has provided a way for reconciliation (Romans 5:8). God
desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), and this invitation of salvation is open to
everyone, requiring a response of faith and repentance. By presenting these truths
with grace and scriptural support, we can encourage meaningful reflection on God’s
love, justice, and sovereignty.
2. The Conversation.
a. Identify the time and place in which you had the conversation.
For this assignment, I coordinated the time and location to accommodate the soldier
participating in the event. Since our schedules did not align, I chose to hold the
meeting on his non-duty day, Monday, February 17th, at noon during lunchtime, at
the Community Service Center. To make the gathering more inviting, I extended an
invitation for lunch as part of our conversation.
b. Identify the setting (coffeeshop, online, text, etc. It must, however, be a
conversation and not a monologue):
Our meeting was held at Fort Greely's Community Center, where I extended an
invitation for a lunch coupled with a meaningful discussion about faith. The aim of
this gathering was to create a space for addressing one of the significant challenges to
faith: the problem of evil, which often leads individuals to question the existence of
APOL 500
Page 4 of 6
God. By fostering a welcoming and approachable atmosphere, the intention was to
encourage open dialogue and thoughtful reflection on this profound topic.
c. Identify your conversation partner (no names please): unbeliever, believer;
uncertain; knowledge level, attitude of partner (antagonistic, interested,
doubtful, devil’s advocate).
For this assignment, I will maintain my partner's anonymity. He is a colleague I have
known for a few years, stationed with me at Fort Greely. Though he is older and
holds a higher rank than I do, we have developed a mutual respect, particularly due to
his professionalism and the guidance he's provided in our work. Raised in a home
where his father served as a pastor, he possesses a solid understanding of religious
beliefs but has openly shared that he does not hold those beliefs himself. He believes
in the importance of moral values but typically points to secular sources as the basis
for these principles, a view we’ve touched on in past conversations, even though we
did not go into detail during our most recent discussion.
3. Reflection in which you describe how the conversation went, the reaction of your
conversation partner both during and/or after the presentation, what you might
have done differently, and how you feel after your presentation about its strength.
a. Describe details about how the conversation went.
The conversation began with me framing the difficult questions about God's
actions and allowing my conversation partner to express his thoughts. I gently
acknowledged his perspective, knowing that he has doubts about the nature of
God’s intervention in the world. I then invited him to consider a wider view,
drawing attention to Isaiah 55:8-9, where it says that God's ways are higher than
our ways. I explained how, in the grand scheme of things, divine inaction might
serve a greater purpose that we cannot always immediately understand. To help
illustrate the point, I used the "Mr. Wonderful Doll" analogy, explaining that love
can only be meaningful if it’s freely chosen, and in giving us free will, God
allowed for the possibility of evil. As I spoke, he seemed to reflect, though he
didn’t offer much immediate feedback, and I could tell that the concept of free
will as related to evil and suffering resonated with him.
Next, I addressed the issue of suffering in the world, especially when it seems to
happen to good people. I pointed to Genesis 3 and the reality that the world is
broken, not as it was originally intended. I referenced John 11:35, where Jesus
expresses His compassion for those who mourn, to show that God is not
indifferent to suffering. My conversation partner nodded thoughtfully, and I felt
that he was perhaps more open to the idea that suffering could be part of a greater
purpose, even if that purpose was not immediately clear to us. I closed this section
APOL 500
Page 5 of 6
by quoting 2 Corinthians 4:17, emphasizing the eternal perspective that God
promises in times of suffering. He seemed to soften a little, though still somewhat
skeptical, but he didn’t reject the idea outright.
The last section of our conversation dealt with the concept of hell and why a
loving God would allow people to go there. I took care to explain that God's love
doesn’t negate His justice and that free will plays a crucial role in this discussion.
I shared Matthew 23:37, highlighting how Jesus longed for the people of
Jerusalem to come to Him, but they were unwilling. I made it clear that while God
invites all to salvation, we must respond in faith and repentance. He was quieter
during this part, but I sensed he was processing the information deeply. After I
finished, he didn’t immediately offer any strong opinions, but I could see that he
was reflecting on the questions and ideas we had discussed.
b. Describe the reaction of your conversation partner both during and/or after
the presentation of the argument.
Throughout the conversation, my partner remained relatively reserved, listening
attentively to the points I made, though he didn't offer much immediate feedback.
He seemed to be processing the ideas I presented, particularly when discussing
the concepts of free will and suffering. At certain moments, I could see a subtle
shift in his demeanor, as if he was considering the implications of what I said,
especially when I explained the relationship between love, free will, and evil. He
was particularly quiet during the section on hell, which made me feel that the
topic resonated with him on a deeper level, though he didn’t express strong
agreement or disagreement. After we finished, he thanked me for the
conversation, but it was clear that the questions I raised were still on his mind.
While I didn’t expect any immediate change in his views, I could tell that our
discussion had prompted some thoughtful reflection.
c. Describe what you might have done differently.
In hindsight, I realize that I could have made the conversation more interactive by
asking more open-ended questions to better gauge my partner’s thoughts and
feelings on the subject. Instead of presenting my points in a more one-sided
manner, I could have encouraged him to express his doubts or concerns about the
concepts I was sharing, which might have allowed me to address his objections
more directly. I also could have tailored some of my illustrations to be more
personal to his experiences, making the discussion feel more relevant and
relatable to him. Additionally, I might have been more intentional in creating a
space for him to share his own views on suffering, free will, and justice before
presenting my perspectives, to ensure the conversation felt less like a lecture and
more like a collaborative exploration of these tough questions.
APOL 500
Page 6 of 6
d. Describe what you feel after your presentation about its strength.
Overall, the conversation went as I hoped in the sense that it provided space for
him to consider these complex theological questions from a different perspective.
He didn’t offer any immediate objections, though I could sense that he was
thinking critically about everything I had shared. I did feel, however, that I could
have asked more open-ended questions to give him more of an opportunity to
explore his own thoughts about the concepts I introduced. Afterward, I felt
encouraged that I had presented a well-rounded and biblically supported answer
to these challenging questions. While he may not have had a dramatic change in
perspective, I felt that I had planted some seeds that could lead to further
reflection and future conversations.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
