I know of four primary responses Christians have to suffering, only one of which I consider truly biblical.
The first is the classic error that suffering is caused solely by sin or a lack of faith. This is the outlook that ignores the book of Job and makes the dubious claim that following Christ guarantees us health, happiness, prosperity and a generally suffering-free life. It's poppycock, if for no other reason than Jesus warned that suffering and persecution would be the lot of those who followed him, and that's pretty much what his followers all got. What's really bad is the implication that if you suffer or fail to achieve that maximized life, it's your fault for being disobedient to God or failing to have faith. Ick.
The second error I've seen a lot of us is that fatalist approach; i.e., "everything happens for a reason." I guess this is better than the first response described above, since at least people have a stoic approach to suffering and believe that God is working in it. Unfortunately, it makes God the architect of things like the Armenian genocide, the two world wars, the Union Carbide disaster in India twenty-odd years ago, and so on. It also ignores the wisdom of the Preacher, who wrote of many of the injustices of life, "This too is meaningless." Not to mention I've seen this philosophy lead to some pretty callous responses to pain, such as "I think God let this happen to bring revival to our church."
The third error, and this is (I think) a fairly recent one, is flat-out denial. Not in the sense of the Christian Science mind-over-suffering doctrine, but more of taking Paul's advice too far to "consider it great joy when you suffer trials of many kinds, dear brethren." Under this approach, parents are forbidden to grieve for lost children, spouses to mourn their deceased loved ones, and so on, because this indicates a lack of faith and a failure to rejoice in all that God has given us. Funerals become celebrations of resurrection, where any lamentation is considered out of place and faithless, rather than an honest expression of grief.
The understanding I have reached is that pain brings us closer to Christ, no matter what the cause or nature of the pain, and that there is nothing wrong with honestly saying it hurts. When we suffer for our sin, we share in the suffering of Christ, who also suffered for our sins, and in greater part than we do. When we suffer for his sake, then we share in his sufferings, because the Cross also is the supreme example of suffering for love and righteousness. (More than that, if we share in his suffering, the Bible also says we shall share in his triumph.) And when we suffer just because this crazy fallen world is a valley of tears, we still can know him as Immanuel, God with us, because the redemption of this whole sorry world, not just our "souls," is why Jesus went to the Cross. In all our suffering, no matter what the reason, we have the opportunity to commune with him.
The other thing is that the Cross redefines all our lives, the good and the bad, in the light of God's love. Everything before Christ pointed to his coming and his Good Friday/Easter one-two knockout punch; everything since is understood in light of it. That means that all creation, from beginning to end, is an expression of God's love, including the parts that really stink. It's an unfathomable love, and it's hard to explain properly in a comment on someone else's blog, but God's love is a swiftly moving mountain stream that you can really only experience in its fullness by diving in and letting it carry you wherever it goes.
The first is the classic error that suffering is caused solely by sin or a lack of faith. This is the outlook that ignores the book of Job and makes the dubious claim that following Christ guarantees us health, happiness, prosperity and a generally suffering-free life. It's poppycock, if for no other reason than Jesus warned that suffering and persecution would be the lot of those who followed him, and that's pretty much what his followers all got. What's really bad is the implication that if you suffer or fail to achieve that maximized life, it's your fault for being disobedient to God or failing to have faith. Ick.
The second error I've seen a lot of us is that fatalist approach; i.e., "everything happens for a reason." I guess this is better than the first response described above, since at least people have a stoic approach to suffering and believe that God is working in it. Unfortunately, it makes God the architect of things like the Armenian genocide, the two world wars, the Union Carbide disaster in India twenty-odd years ago, and so on. It also ignores the wisdom of the Preacher, who wrote of many of the injustices of life, "This too is meaningless." Not to mention I've seen this philosophy lead to some pretty callous responses to pain, such as "I think God let this happen to bring revival to our church."
The third error, and this is (I think) a fairly recent one, is flat-out denial. Not in the sense of the Christian Science mind-over-suffering doctrine, but more of taking Paul's advice too far to "consider it great joy when you suffer trials of many kinds, dear brethren." Under this approach, parents are forbidden to grieve for lost children, spouses to mourn their deceased loved ones, and so on, because this indicates a lack of faith and a failure to rejoice in all that God has given us. Funerals become celebrations of resurrection, where any lamentation is considered out of place and faithless, rather than an honest expression of grief.
The understanding I have reached is that pain brings us closer to Christ, no matter what the cause or nature of the pain, and that there is nothing wrong with honestly saying it hurts. When we suffer for our sin, we share in the suffering of Christ, who also suffered for our sins, and in greater part than we do. When we suffer for his sake, then we share in his sufferings, because the Cross also is the supreme example of suffering for love and righteousness. (More than that, if we share in his suffering, the Bible also says we shall share in his triumph.) And when we suffer just because this crazy fallen world is a valley of tears, we still can know him as Immanuel, God with us, because the redemption of this whole sorry world, not just our "souls," is why Jesus went to the Cross. In all our suffering, no matter what the reason, we have the opportunity to commune with him.
The other thing is that the Cross redefines all our lives, the good and the bad, in the light of God's love. Everything before Christ pointed to his coming and his Good Friday/Easter one-two knockout punch; everything since is understood in light of it. That means that all creation, from beginning to end, is an expression of God's love, including the parts that really stink. It's an unfathomable love, and it's hard to explain properly in a comment on someone else's blog, but God's love is a swiftly moving mountain stream that you can really only experience in its fullness by diving in and letting it carry you wherever it goes.
1 comment:
The main difference seems to be that the last response is the only one which doesn't necessarily try to explain the "why" of suffering in an attempt to negate it. The first three approaches try to "solve" suffering as a problem without first considering it on its own merits.
One of the things depression taught me is that sometimes I will feel like shit for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, and sometimes all I can do is find a place to ride it out.
Post a Comment