[Being a draft towards short piece I have been asked to write]
From the point of view of biblical faith, there is no inherent value in suffering. Like much that is evil in our world, human suffering is a perversion and a disruption of what should be. It has entered the world because of the dislocation of the relationship between human beings and their creator – the good God who purposed his creation for his own delight and that of his creatures. Suffering is an aberration – it has no value for its own sake. It is not good in and of itself. In the Psalms of the Old Testament, we read some impassioned pleas to God about the absurdity of suffering.
That is not to say that there can be no value in suffering. As renowned British author C.S. Lewis once wrote: ‘it is His [God’s] megaphone to rouse a deaf world’. Human suffering is a sign that something is not right with things as they stand. The disjunction between our understanding of normality and wholeness and our experience of suffering, whether bodily or mentally, ought to prompt the human search for God. It would seem that the human condition were utterly tragic, otherwise.
At the heart of all orthodox and biblical is the story of the terrible suffering and death of Jesus Christ on the cross. This suffering was inflicted by corrupt religious leaders and an inept bureaucratic machine. And yet, the worst of human degradation of another was also found to be the point of God’s action to rescue humankind. The New Testament reads this story in the light of the Hebrew prophet Isaiah’s vision of a ‘suffering servant’ who would redeem his people by bearing the iniquities of the people.
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. (Isa 53:4-5 New International Version)
This particular suffering victim produced a triumph of healing – not merely because it was a noble example of stoicism in the face of physical pain and personal shame, but because this suffering achieved the reconciliation of human beings to God.
The suffering of Jesus Christ subsequently becomes a pattern for his disciples. The New Testament does not appeal to them to seek out suffering. Rather, it depicts suffering as inevitable in a fallen world. The apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Romans:
but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us. (Rom 5:3-5 NIV)
In writing in this way, Paul is not enjoining Christians to pursue suffering as a good in of itself; but rather describing how suffering, far from being an obstacle to God’s purposes, is actually used by him to achieve what he has planned. Christian discipleship means giving one’s self over to a divine designation, even if that means suffering and death. In the face of the trials and temptations that are an inevitable part of human experience, the Christian life is an offering of one’s self up to the providence of God as it is evidenced in the life, death, resurrection and promised return of Jesus Christ. This may or may not be a suffering path.
Though some Christians have glorified suffering for its own sake, this is a false trail. Truth and love are the non-negotiables, not pain. The final scene of the Book of Revelation depicts a world from which suffering and mourning and pain have been blessedly eliminated.
27 comments:
Growing up in Sunday school and church, I came to view sin as the ultimate problem in the world, and the elimination of sin as the goal of salvation. However, on a fresh reading of the bible, it seemed to me that the central problem facing the various authors of the bible was not sin, but suffering. Why do people suffer, and what can we do to lessen suffering? Hence strange books like Job start to make sense. Sin, it seems to me, is really best thought of as an abstract concept; a theory to account for suffering. According to this theory, we suffer because we did something wrong.
However, sin alone does not explain all suffering. With Job and other passages in Psalms, we see people struggling with the idea that sin explains the suffering we face. Job's friends insist that he suffers because he has sinned, and Job refuses to take this as an explanation. So with Job, we get the idea that an innocent person may suffer. But why?
Somewhere in Isaiah, a new perspective on suffering emerged. The innocent suffer for the sake of someone else. Some people suffer so that others benefit. Jesus embraced that idea and went to the cross with it.
Early disciples, reflecting on Jesus' life, came to see suffering as something Jesus' disciples are called to embrace. Not because suffering is good in itself; but because of its instrumental value. Christians suffer, as with Jesus, for the sake of non-Christians.
Thus it seems to me that the Jewish-Christian tradition offers a rich explanation for suffering. We suffer, sometimes because we did something wrong, and often times to make the world a better place. We look forward to a world when all suffering ceases, and we all enter God's rest.
But then, why is there suffering in the world at all? This is a grand question which others are far better placed than me to answer. My own limited explanation is that suffering is part of our capacity to imagine a better world. If we lacked that capacity, if we had a world view that saw "suffering" as natural and part of the way the world is, we would have no reason to change the world. However, somewhere in human history, we came to reject suffering; we came to see suffering as something unnecessary and to be overcome. We had the capacity to imagine a better world than the world we presently see. The dissonance between our experience and our imagination is felt so keenly that we call it suffering, pain, evil, sadness, disappointment, regret etc.
Here's a marvelous YouTube video showing how much progress there has been over the last 200 years in overcoming suffering, as measured in terms of income levels and life expectancy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
I think that if the Jewish prophets were to look at the world today, they may well say that their vision of a world free of suffering, pain and even death is at hand, and the world is full of the knowledge of the Lord. The Jewish-Christian concern for the poor and weak has spread to countries all over the world. No country today (with perhaps few exceptions) would proudly say that they have no respect for human rights and they have no concern over the welfare of their citizens. Even North Korea wants to call itself a democratic country. Many problems still remain. Many countries are authoritarian; there is huge inequality in the world. Yet, I think we can thank the Jewish prophets for their willingness to imagine a better world; and we can thank early Christians for carrying that vision across to the non-Jewish world.
Its not the suffering its self that counts; its what we do for those within the midst of suffering...and indeed I would argue that the Gospel imperative is to be in the midst of suffering... doing what we can in both spiritual and practical ways to alleviate it and strengthen those who are in the midst of it.
"Though some Christians have glorified suffering for its own sake, this is a false trail. Truth and love are the non-negotiables, not pain."
==================
The problem is that in this materialistic hedonistic age everybody including most Christians are wanting to make their own lives as comfortable as possible.
Can it be right to pamper the flesh so ? What happened to Jesus's sayings about plucking out your eye or cutting off your hand ? Or why did Paul "pummel his own body" ?
Sure, truth and love are the only non-negotiables -- problem is we are mostly too deluded in our own fleshly comforts to be that high minded most of the time.
Your notion of valuating 'suffering' seems very much like a typical reduction of modernity. Let us take, for instance, the reduction in your statement "the point of view of biblical faith." Whose biblical faith are you speaking of, the faith of the Philippian Church cf. Phil. 1:29? This text does not bear it nor do others in this concept genre. Biblical faith inheres with the weight of suffering in our post-fall paradigm. Suffering opens the an emotional-thought-ful space for God's mystery to fill. Modernity's rationality neither fathoms the depth of this space nor properly conceives of its existence because mystery is other than such rationality.
That space of mystery is filled with glory, lament-comfort, fellowship, and a plethora that issues from the infinitude of God’s nature. It necessitates experience in-formed by the stories of His word to give it meaning.
Your brief allusion to one Pauline text is another reduction that misses the richness found in an extensive word study of “suffer” with its cognates in Pauline writing i.e. Romans 8:17ff; Col. 1:24 etc. I commend such a study to anyone serious about the subject. I suggest that you will find that "joy" is inextricably bound to suffering. I agree that the believer is not called to seek suffering for that is an issue of misplaced valuation stained by sinful motive and intention not the biblical valuation of the inevitable, suffering.
To sum, I appreciate your provocative introduction of the subject but find your primary notion that "suffering has no inherent value in biblical faith" seriously wanting. For a non western excursus I suggest Ajith Fernando's: A Call to Joy and Pain: embracing suffering in your ministry. From one who has tasted the joy and pain AND filling of that mystery, I hope you will give my critique consideration.
Wonderful
I wish you happiness
Please review the objective
http://dl3mashael.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_28.html
Michael,
I think it is a very good piece, but I would leave out the first (contestable) sentance of the first paragraph. Besides, you negate it in what follows in subsequent paragrasphs. The first paragraph doesn't lose anything by its removal.
Cheers
really? David, I am trying to say that suffering is only meaningful and valuable because it is made to be so and not in and of itself. Why is this so contestable?
I suppose I think you are drawing a distinction that either does not exist or is too finely drawn to be comprehended.
Suffering exists as the result of the entrance of sin. It is part of the reality of life, a constituent part in a fallen world - something God has permitted. To argue that suffering is only meaningful and valuable because it is made to be so but not in and of itself is a case of splitting hairs, but don’t mind me, I’m not a philosopher, I thought you were inviting comment. Overall, as I said, I thought the piece very worthwhile.
I guess too, the sentence coming in the opening paragraph, Suffering is an aberration – it has no value for its own sake, might cause some to stumble for what can we say of the suffering of Christ – no value for its own sake?
Whilst I may not be enjoining Christians to pursue suffering as a good in of itself, I would counsel Christians to embrace suffering for after all this is integral to following in Jesus’ footsteps (1 Peter 2:20f). (I guess its the difference between the active and passive voice, but sometimes we need to say both things - in this case I think we do. I'm reminded here of Calvin in The Institutes on the Christian life).
Pleased to see an intelligent post on this topic. Buddhist teacher Pema Chödron put it very succinctly: "Pain is not optional. Suffering is." Someone else, whose name and path I've forgotten, said, "You don't decide what happens to you, but you do decide what it does to you." Having lived a life of anger for many decades, I took a vow to diminish suffering where I can, and to abstain from adding more to the world where I can't. Life is hard all over, but it's a little less hard because I'm out there.
In the end, is the world a softer place because you're in it, or is it just as hard?
"That which doesn't kill me, makes me kinder." (That one's mine.)
Robin
Rusty Ring: Reflections of an Old-Timey Hermit
http://rustyring.blogspot.com/
Hello Robin,
Pain and suffering are real.
You might find this video clip of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WCTltHR-Hg
@David - Christ's suffering is not meaningful for its own sake. It is meaningful because it achieves something. Only a masochist would say that suffering is in and of itself valuable. The NT is certainly not of that opinion.
Hi, David. The distinction between "instrumental value" and "intrinsic value" might help. I understand Michael to be saying that suffering has instrumental value, but not intrinsic value. If we look around, many things we value have both instrumental value and intrinsic value. For example, good health is both intrinsically valuable, as well as instrumentally valuable. (Healthier people can achieve more.) Income and wealth is something that (I would argue) has only instrumental value. Like suffering, they are not intrinsically valuable.
Perhaps there are Christians who do think that suffering is intrinsically valuable (as well as instrumentally valuable), without being a masochist. The closest example I can think of is perhaps an endurance activity like running, fasting (for short periods) or eating a hot curry. Maybe there is intrinsic value in this type of "suffering" (over short time periods) independently of their instrumental value (in terms of better long-term health).
But I think Michael is right that in general, there is no intrinsic value in suffering.
Though we tend to confuse them, there's an important difference between pain and suffering. Pain is a physical response (even emotional pain); we can't do anything about that. Suffering, however, is a voluntary reaction to pain. In theory, you can be in immense pain and not suffer, if you'd just don't care. I don't find that teaching useful on a day to day basis, i.e., when I bang my thumb with a hammer, the last thing I want to endure is some hammerhead telling me my misery is my fault, because I can stop suffering at any time I want. But for treating my existential suffering, I find it very useful.
I sat with the Franciscans for a year and a half. They have a crucifix of their own, called the Franciscan cross, featuring the crucified Christ with his head carried high, looking the viewer straight in the eye, with a Buddha-like expression of peace. They are not, of course, trying to deny Christ's pain on the cross. What they mean to say is, his pain was "merely" physical, as he knew this was just a bad day at the office. As he himself said, by that evening he'd have forgotten all about it, thanks to his knowledge of God.
The Franciscan cross means to say to onlookers, "You can live without suffering too, if you accept the truth." Same as the common statue of the meditating Buddha. And just as so.
Robin
http://rustyring.blogspot.com/
People have an enormous capacity to adapt to suffering. The poor and the weak often find ways to adjust their lives in ways which make their suffering more bearable. They tend to complain less, and be more appreciative of small mercies.
For this reason, we shouldn't (I think) view suffering as something purely subjective. We should pay attention to people's objective conditions and opportunities, like health, education, social connections, employment, housing, etc.
Hi Kien,
I find your discussion of "instrumental value" and "intrinsic value" is helpful. I don't know what audience Michael is writing for, but if for popular consumption I think he needs to be a little clearer.
Personally I do believe that suffering is intrinsically valuable as well as instrumentally valuable, (hopefully) without being a masochist.
The point I obviously agree with Michael is that Christ's death is meaningful because it achieves something or as you say, is instrumentally valuable.
I notice MIchael has avoided my last para with the citation of 1 Peter 2 which I don't think is so easily dealt with.
I don't get it, David: I am looking at 1 Peter 2 and not at all seeing your point. It is the suffering, but the cause that makes the martyr, as Augustine would have said.
Hi, David. The author (in 1 Peter) seems to be commending patience and endurance, not suffering. I can certainly agree that patience and endurance are intrinsically valuable qualities. They expand our capacity to adapt to suffering.
On the call to follow Jesus' example in suffering for us, I take it that Jesus' suffering was instrumental (for the sake of something else - i.e., us!). Jesus did not think that suffering was intrinsically valuable. Like Jesus, Christians should embrace suffering, not for its own sake, but for the sake of non-Christians (see the first comment I posted).
What do you think?
On reflection, I take back my comment that patience and endurance are intrinsically valuable. They are merely instrumentally valuable (I think).
Just reflecting on the instrumental nature of Jesus' suffering - i.e., how does Jesus' suffering actually make the world better?
Orthodoxy (as I understand it) stresses the instrumental value of Jesus' death in removing our guilt. I think this is right. Guilt (I think) is a form of suffering that many feel intensely (although perhaps not all feel guilt with the same level of intensity). The idea that Jesus settles the debt we owe to God is an immense relief to those who are very conscious of this debt.
There is another way that Jesus' suffering makes the world a better place. His example in bearing suffering unjustly inflicted inspires the rest of us to let go of past injustices. I'm not sure if Jesus is the first person to bear suffering unjustly inflicted without seeking payback. Perhaps the prophet Isiaih felt that way (about himself) when he wrote about the suffering servant. Still, Jesus seems to be the most famous example, and seems to have inspired people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela to promote non-violence and peace in making the world a better place.
Although Orthodoxy seems to stress Jesus' work in removing guilt, I think the novel idea that the innocent should suffer for the sake of others (including, but not limited to, the wicked) is Jesus' most substantial achievement in making the world a better place.
Hi Mike,
If I read you correctly: Suffering has no place; it's a product of a fallen world; but is 'redeemed' (my word) by God.
But does not God himself bring suffering upon people as a form of judgment? Surely he is active in the first instance, and not only as a reactive agent to the works of evil (Your post seems to lean this way, even though you might not have meant it). I have noticed the habit of some to leave the responsibility of suffering to evil in order to keep God's hands clean, yet God brings disaster all the time. This is not to attribute evil to God, as his judgment is holy and just, yet his just actions can be said to cause suffering. Are you in danger of describing a fair-weather God?
MK
The second paragraph could be expanded to make the point more sharply, granted.
Well, Michael,
I don't know why you don't get it.
The word pasXo seems to occur a number of times in the passage, both in relation to Christ and to ourselves with ourselves called to follow in His footsteps - maybe it's different theological colleges or a Presbyterian/Anglican divide??
Who knows?
All I can say is that I find your argument less than convincing.
BTW, Kien the endurance (hupophero) is required in relation to the suffering the believer is called to (endue).
I agree the text does commend endurance but argue this is not the point of the text, the point of the text is that the believer is to see Christ as his model for his suffering as a believer (I can't get Middle Eastern Christians currently undergoing persecution out of my mind!). In a sense through union with Christ we enter into His sufferings, of course maintaining the proper distinctions.
Yes David, but in no sense is the suffering qua suffering applauded. It isn't suffering per se, but the purpose and the shape of the suffering. Not all suffering is similarly meaningful. Only suffering when you have done the right thing is applauded.
Thank you, David. I do find the idea that suffering is intrinsically valuable hard to accept. However, there does seem to be a tradition within Christianity (and other religions) that takes this view. Fasting and various forms of self-immolation may be instances of this perspective. It seems to me though that it's possible to interpret 1 Peter and other similar passages in the Bible as merely commending suffering for its instrumental value only, and not for its own sake.
Anyway, I want to thank you for taking time to engage with me on this enlightening discussion, and thank Michael for raising this subject.
Michael - it seems from the discussion that there are many Christians who think suffering is intrinsically valuable. Do you feel that is a concern?
Thank you Kien, its good to meet a gracious debater.
Michael,
Of course I've not given you any grounds for thinking I understand suffering as something to be applauded. It is a given to be accepted as a part of our union with Christ.
Agreed?
Michael, you seem to stay in the abstract, why don't you theology bloggers address real life issues like the NZ earthquake? Doesn't this stuff manage to jump the gap into the real world?
For a more earthed approach to theology and disaster, see
http://thepractisingtheologian.wordpress.com
Post a Comment