Comments on Christians in Context: from orthodoxy to orthopraxy.: Suffering: An Expression of our Deepest Desire

For more clarity. Perhaps instinct could also be c...

2009-07-14T21:08:50.057-04:00

For more clarity. Perhaps instinct could also be classified as created not just nature. Created in the sense of God's image, but also part of the command of dominion. Doing what is best for what God has put under our dominion. Our bodies and others.
If dominion is a valid point where does that fall in relation to striving against suffering? When Paul advised young people in the New Testament that it was better not to marry in order to avoid the "distress" 1 Corinthians 7:26,28. Because of future problems he says stay single if possible in that present day.
I think the dominion idea may also have bearing in that God put Adam into a deep sleep in order to remove his rib. God wanted Adam to avoid pain also. Our response to avoid or seek relief from suffering is a result of God's created order for us. Weather it be considered instinct or will. The heart behind the action I think is the determining factor of the sinfulness. The response to suffering can look the same from either the christian or non christian. Avoiding or seeking relief can be a created response from God to suffering, the issue becomes the heart response to the suffering.
I don't know if this made better sense...

Thanks everyone for indulging my efforts to explor...

2009-07-14T03:01:30.960-04:00

Thanks everyone for indulging my efforts to explore this publicly. Bill, I'm glad you appreciate my stirring the pot.

In a case like the one above a person is a victim ...

2009-07-14T02:59:03.138-04:00

In a case like the one above a person is a victim of circumstance, and I would argue that the grief and other feelings, like anger, are natural responses to suffering. I would also say that a person should be given some time and space to experience those feelings without simply dropping some raw theological framework on them; that would simply be an insensitive place to begin. Nevertheless, experiences of the deepest sort of suffering almost inevitably cause a person to pause and consider the goodness and justice of God. These experiences often function as a crossroads for Christians and non-Christians alike, as they grapple with the notion of God in light of current circumstance. I believe that in these moments it is nearly impossible for a person to remain neutral. I think two main reactions are almost inevitable; one, they will either respond in anger to the notion of God, pushing him far from consciousness, or they will become deeply aware of their insufficiency and lack of control, drawing closer to God as result of this new awareness. Two questions with three possible answers help us to see why I think this is the case:

1. Either God is good, or he’s not.

2. Either God is in control of things, or he’s not.

If we say that God is good, but he’s not in control, then can we say he’s God, or that being God amounts to anything? If we say he not good, but he is in control, then we’re all doomed. If we say that God is both good and that he’s in control of the ultimate course of things, then we have an opportunity for faith- it is an act of looking beyond our own vantage point, in trust that God will fulfill what he has promised, and that all things are ultimately moving toward the consummation of God’s kingdom, even though our immediate circumstances are often painful

I believe that it is only this act of trusting God in the face of adversity that we are sanctified, and I believe that a posture of surrender and death to self, which runs contrary to our current state, is both the product and catalyst for sanctification. So even if a person is a complete victim of raw circumstance as they suffer, I believe their comes a point in the process of one’s suffering or grief, that one will either regress into bitterness, perhaps stoically avoiding the possibility of hope, or rejoice, as they come to a knowledge of the sovereign lordship of God despite our human vantage point. In other words, I assert that only the latter of these three constitutes true healing, because healing is only healing when recovers emotionally from trial, grief, or suffering when its coupled to the process of sanctification. Emotions, will, and the rest are broken, and can only remain fractured unless Christianity and sanctification become part of one’s life equation. All of this brings me back to my main point; suffering can only be accounted for positively when coupled to Christianity, and surrender and death to self are key components. Whether striving (positive or negatively) in pursuit of one’s will, or healing from grief and suffering, I want to say that it’s all the same. God is God and we are not- the antithesis of man’s will and nature.

In terms of James 3:9, I would say that I’m not cursing men, but suggesting that the heart and nature of man is cursed. I would also like to reference James (1:1-4); here James reminds us that trial functions in a central way for our growth in holiness-‘let it be an opportunity for joy.’

Bill, I’m sorry not to respond to your second comment. I will, but I think I’ve already said too much for one response. I think there is much more that could be discussed there.

Well I appreciate all the comments guys. First, I ...

2009-07-14T02:56:25.572-04:00

Well I appreciate all the comments guys. First, I will say that all this wrestling with the issue of suffering has been quite a challenge, and while my argument may (emphasis on "may") not be air-tight in some comprehensive way, I do think there is much truth in what I've said here.

Ultimately, I think my point still has to be dealt with. Nate, perhaps my definition of suffering is too simplistic-maybe...But, let me say respectfully, that I think your counter-example to show the flaw in my argument is too simplistic as well. I don't think using the example of animal instinct, much like our reflex to avoid the blow of a hammer, is a fair analogy to discuss the crux of the argument on suffering in this post. The type of suffering I reference in this post touches on the result of man's striving; it is related to questions of the will; perhaps a product of one man’s will or ambition over another, the response to oppression or affliction, or even the result of the circumstances that come in the ebb and flow of life. Instinct is something fundamentally different, and I think it fails even when you try to apply it to more complex circumstances. If we were to move to a discussion of instinct, I would simply say that our primary instinct, because of the fall and our sin nature, is to strive for ultimate control over the course of things, when only God is obliged to that privilege, which only reinforces my original point.

Now, do I think you can come up with counter-examples of suffering? Sure I do. Does this necessarily alter the force of my point- I’m not so sure. It may just require a bit of additional explanation. My wife is a registered nurse and she encounters tragedy all the time; she shares stories of suffering with me that are often hard to make sense of. We discussed a possible counter-example to my point just last night; we were talking about a situation where a young married couple got into a car accident, and the wife was pregnant. Fortunately, the wife and child were ok, but unfortunately, the husband suffered a bad head injury, and is almost certain to die as a result of his injuries. In this case, this family is the victim of seemingly random circumstance, and the events definitely do not fit a scenario of striving against the tide of surrender to God- I'll be the first to say that my example does not appear to fit in cases like this. But I will also say that it’s not a death blow to my argument either.

This is where I think one of Bill’s points is immensely helpful, although I wonder if Bill will like my application, since my parking space seems to be reserved in John Calvin’s theological parking lot .

Bill said,

“I believe that a good theology of suffering AND a good theology of healing go hand-in-hand.”

I think is a constructive and helpful thought that adds nuance to the discussion, but I would, one, want to toss around what a constructive theology of healing actually entails, but then suggest that regardless of what it entails, it must be a subordinate precursor to a practical theology of sanctification in order to ultimately be productive. I would further argue that any POSITIVE theology of suffering must entail a practical theology of sanctification. I say this for one main reason related to suffering; Let’s suppose an experience of suffering, much like the one above, in order to make the point.

(The response continues in a second posting)

Perhaps the reformed theologian from the Trinity F...

2009-07-14T00:30:32.578-04:00

Perhaps the reformed theologian from the Trinity Foundation Website says what I am trying to say better than I did:

"Reformed theology generally acknowledges that there is a two-fold image of God in man: the metaphysical (or epistemological) and the ethical. The former is broader in scope: man is a personal, rational, immortal, spiritual being. The broader image was defaced by the Fall, but not erased. The fact that the broader image remains basically intact, but marred, is that which allows non-believers to achieve a certain level of excellence in law, medicine, philosophy, and so forth."

I know that the original post was not meant to lead us into a debate about the image of God in fallen humanity, but I maintain that it comports with reality to acknowledge that, because of it, the unregenerated human being is capable of acts of true nobility and mercy.

As for what the Bible teaches, I cite James 3:9 which upbraids believers for praising God on the one hand and cursing men "who have been made in God's likeness" on the other.

Andrew: so it is the case then? (double negative) ...

2009-07-13T21:41:07.071-04:00

Andrew: so it is the case then? (double negative)
Norm
1st I think your definition of suffering is to simple. There maybe some truth to the examples given , but suffering is much more complicated. For instance, what of sharing in another's suffering out of compassion. Relieving another being the primary goal, which is generally a christian response but could be an unchristian's response also.
Suffering is a cause of sin, and fighting that could come from a place of sin. But fighting suffering can be the same root an animal uses to avoid pain. The instinct to move your hand when you swing a hammer is God given, not so much our will to control the situation. It is the same root that gives us satisfaction in a job well done. Conquering suffering probably results in pride in many unchristians, but it doesn't always have to produce that.

Dad, That would be a really awesome thing about n...

2009-07-13T19:22:12.423-04:00

Dad,

That would be a really awesome thing about non-Christians if only the Bible didn't say it wasn't the case...

Andrew

Drill down into suffering, and you are likely to h...

2009-07-13T10:37:06.790-04:00

Drill down into suffering, and you are likely to hit a gusher of pain, confusion and mystery.

I believe that a good theology of suffering AND a good theology of healing go hand-in-hand. Seems to me that some portions of the church have glorified suffering to an extreme and ignored healing and wholeness while other portions have emphasized healing to the point of foolish denial about the reality of suffering.

I appreciate your attempts to grapple with the topic. I find no problem attaching the infliction of suffering upon another to our sin nature. But I struggle with your abject suspicion of our desire to seek relief from suffering -- both our own and that of others -- as patently vain attempts to control our environment and exert our unsurrendered will as fallen humankind (if, in fact, I properly understood your post).

I suppose this is why I can't pull my car entirely into John Calvin's parking space. I think that at least some of the attempts of fallen humanity to relieve suffering (our own or others) may in fact spring from some primal remnant of the benevolent shattered image of God within -- maybe in the way a shattered radio might still be able to intermittently pick up a signal or two and spit out an occasional sputtering tone.

In other words, I think that we don't have to remove the possibility of non-believers doing something truly noble, edifying and even (whether they know it or not) God-glorifying if we understand that such things proceed from some remnant of their status as those gifted with the image of God as well as the inheritors of original sin.

Now, I brace myself for the replies from the total depravity crowd. But, until then, thank you, Norm, for stirring the pot on such a difficult subject.