[being the second part of the piece begun in the previous post]
Evangelical Christians are certainly of the view that human suffering ought to be prevented and relieved wherever possible, and where the means of doing so are ethical. It is not accidental that evangelical Christians, along with Christians of other traditions, have frequently been advocates for the development of medicine and the care of the sick and suffering. As Professor Rodney Stark showed in his book The Rise of Christianity, the early Christians were notable for their determination to alleviate the suffering of the sick. The belief in an orderly universe governed by a good God has long been recognised as the stimulus to medicine, over against the view that the world is beholden to competing pagan deities or to capricious chance.
The gospels record many instances of Jesus’ work as a healer of disease and disability – and his compassion for the suffering of those so afflicted. The apostles likewise are depicted as restoring physical wholeness to several individuals. Christians are called upon to pray for the sick (James 5:14-15). Following these examples, it would be remarkable for a Christian to see the relief and prevention of suffering as undesirable.
The Bible warns human beings against all forms of utopianism. Though human ingenuity will lead to the amelioration of the human condition in many respects, suffering will emerge in new forms. Though it is the Christian view that suffering of one kind or another is inevitable, this does not mean that Christians are resigned to suffering such that they will do nothing to alleviate it.
It is possible, however, that Christians will feel the need to object to certain calculations about the alleviation of suffering if they are based on the assumption that suffering is unredeemable. The elimination of suffering is not always the highest good. Suffering may not always destroy human dignity; it may indeed enhance it – for example, when one is able to suffer in the place of or for the good of others. Believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, Christians hold that suffering is not ultimate in human life.
4 comments:
Hi, Michael. I often feel I don't quite get what you are saying and usually put it down to my unfamiliarity with the way theologians think. I feel somewhat this way with your final paragraph and the comment that "[t]he elimination of suffering is not always the highest good".
As I understand Paul, he looks forward to the day when even death is conquered. If death is the ultimate form of suffering, and overcoming death seems to be the end goal for Paul (to the point that he even suggests we might as well give up if there is no resurrection from death), why wouldn't the elimination of all forms of suffering, including death, be the highest good?
I do take the point, however, that whilst elimination of all suffering is the ideal, it is also utopian in the sense that it's an ideal that we do not expect to achieve in practice. It is nevertheless a hope that inspires us to do all we can, individually and collectively, to overcome suffering.
For the present, we acknowledge (hopefully with grace) that suffering is here to stay. That being so, we minimise suffering wherever possible, and adapt to suffering to the extent it cannot be reduced any further.
Kien - yes - the final picture of Revelation involves the elimination of suffering. I simply mean that, while eliminating suffering in the here and now is in most circumstances a very good thing, it may not always be the highest of goods. A path of suffering may indeed be chosen for the sake of some other good.
Could you give examples of choosing a path of suffering for the sake of some good other than reducing future suffering? In other words, what could justify having more suffering now without any expectation that this would reduce suffering in future?
Joseph, reflecting on his past suffering, rationalised it in terms of rescuing his family from a future famine. Abram left his family in the hope of achieving something better. (I see greater wellbeing as the flip side of reduced suffering.)
Perhaps the closest examples of gratuitous suffering I can think of is God's call for Abraham to sacrifice his son and God allowing Job to suffer. I take it that even in these cases, the suffering is part of God's plan to make the world a better place even if this is not immediately obvious to the sufferer.
Sorry if I'm being obtuse.
One area of engagement I have not seen in regards to the subject of suffering is the topic of love.
It's Christ's love that compels us to help those who are suffering. It's Christ's love that compels us to do what we can to eliminate suffering.
And its through love that those who are going through suffering build up hope which in turn leads to faith.
Post a Comment