"God must have needed another angel to stand at his side, ‘cause it's the only reason I have to explain this." These of the words of a relative in the wake of a horrific crash in Helensville last week. It’s amazing how regularly people turn to their own theology of suffering for some sort of comfort. Have a think about what this idea would actually say about God though. This speaks of a God very removed from the experience of human beings and how they respond to tragedy. A selfish God. Perhaps shallow.
The problem with suffering is that all too often the only answers we have to give are in fact unhelpful. They can be shallow, or patronising or get communicated with a “suck it up” attitude. The answers have been sought out by many great thinkers throughout history who have worked hard to develop systems of thought to help us frame our painful experiences.
The questions remain: what does our suffering mean, and what does the suffering on the cross mean for us?
Perhaps the heaviest of these is from the prosperity camp. Read a Joyce Meyer book, hear a Joel Osteen sermon or watch T.D. Jakes and you will hear a message about triumph that actually results in pressure. According to the prosperity gospel, what Jesus achieved on the cross was triumph over all sin and all suffering once and for all. This means that being a Christian is about walking in the Word of God to overcome anything by faith. It also means that if you experience suffering, then it is probably because of your lack of faith, and by obtaining more faith, you’ll overcome it. Of course, this points the finger back on us if we experience pain or discomfort. We’re supposed to live in “total victory”. In a suit.
There’s a tragic story of a pastor in America who believed that if you got sick, it was because you didn’t have enough faith. And then his wife got cancer. This guy was faced with a choice: change his doctrine and rethink his views on suffering, or actually believe his wife somehow brought it on herself. Unfortunately he chose the latter and publicly rebuked his wife. This is not a good framework to work from.
On a different wave length, the Catholic church has traditionally believed that suffering itself is redemptive. That Christ’s actual pain and suffering on the cross is what brings redemption. Think back to the Passion of the Christ movie, a very catholic piece of film making. In one scene, Jesus is carrying his cross through the middle of Jerusalem and falls in exhaustion. Mary the mother of Jesus runs to his aid in amongst flashbacks of Jesus falling as a child. What the film is depicting is quite deliberate. Jesus speaks the words “Behold, I make all things new” (something taken by the script writers from the end of Revelation) and is in communion with those that share his suffering. Very clearly we see the mentality that the suffering itself is what is making things new, and those that suffer with him are counted as friends.
This has led many from within the Catholic faith at different points in history to develop practices of self-harm or at least hold a view that suffering in itself joins us with Christ and redeems. Suffering is a way to draw close to God in very simple terms.
Our Protestant Reformational tradition says that Jesus’s suffering was redemptive from a more transactional point of view, that sure, he endured physical pain, but the real suffering was about His separation from the Father. The cross was redemptive because of the transaction of sin and for what it teaches us about God. It says that suffering is the means that God uses for His good ends. It is often joined with views that God is sovereign and therefore in somehow behind all pain we endure in order to teach us something or to build character. Preachers like John Piper are strong advocates of this view and in their desire to emphasise the sovereignty of God, stress that in some way God is behind all suffering.
So who’s got it right? There is certainly some truth in every view. In order to hold a reliable system to go from we need to have a firm understanding of the nature of God and how it is that unchanging God can be affected and therefore changed by reality.
How can God suffer and still be God?
