[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5V9_EVd67Q&w=600]
Having introduced the concept of theodicy, and addressed the ineluctability of our emotions, I move, with fear and trembling, on to the main question of suffering raised by James Wood in his recent New Yorker article. Here goes:
If anyone ever sits you down and starts explaining how they’ve finally figured out God’s machinations in the universe, you can get up and go home. What they are giving you is their opinion and, hell, you already have one of those.
When it comes to theology, the place where we begin our inquiries makes an enormous difference in the conclusions we draw. This is especially true when dealing with a question like why a gracious God would allow suffering. Do we begin at the “top”, taking God as our starting point and work our way down? Or do we keep our feet on the ground, looking first for things that are a bit more accessible to tell us about Him? I have found that a “bottom-up” approach is far, far superior to a “top-down” one, which (at best) only ever leads to speculation.
The answer to the question of suffering does not lie in circular metaphysical rambling. No, it lies in the words that Jesus spoke in John 14:9; “Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father’?”
When I was a kid, I caught my first catfish with my grandfather in the Alabama River near Montgomery. Now, there is no way that that catfish could use his interaction with me to figure out the fashion industry in New York or the Dow Industrials. All he knew is that I put a hook in him and was probably going to eat him at some point. In other words, his revelation of the human race was that they are malevolent. That is all he could know (just look at that catfish and tell me he could factor accounts receivable)!
When our Lord identified Himself as the lens through which one understands God, He was giving a picture of a God who is fully and unconditionally in the corner of those who would spurn Him. Looking at Jesus, we see a God who is totally benevolent. Now that we know where to begin, we can try to interpret suffering in a way that is faithful to the revelation of God which is Christ.
There is a great presumption among modern folk about the need to have God conform to our reason and right to pursue happiness. We make ourselves the final arbiters of what is good and what is evil. When we do so, we prove Ludwig Feuerbach to be correct: theology is just anthropology, with humanity projecting its wishes onto a created deity.
But this is where Martin Luther’s great insight of the “hidden God” or the theology of the cross comes into play. Again, we understand that the revelation of Christ is the lens through which we see the Father. We also see great pain and suffering brought about by both man and nature. God hides His love and mercy in what appears to be wrath, the ultimate example of course being the Cross. His alien work wrests us from our need to make ourselves as gods and forces us to place reliance (faith) on Him. Our eyes are then opened and we are able to look up and see love while looking around to see objects of love. In this manner, the old is destroyed and the new is reborn. Love is created out of nothing.
Certainly, there is a lot left untied. But God does not operate under the constraints of human reason. Would you operate under the reason of a catfish? The proof of this is not human logic but the Resurrection. Suffering and death do not hold those who put their faith in Christ. In the end, all is accomplished and all is won.
There is still plenty to say about Wood’s arguments. For instance, he overlooks the answer that Dostoevsky himself gives about suffering and a gracious God. It comes in the latter part of The Brothers Karamazov, after Ivan Karamazov has given his protest atheism manifesto so confidently (the one that Wood refers to so liberally) and is visited by the devil. One quote from the devil is just too good to pass up. It is typical Dostoevsky humor:
Once there was on your earth a thinker and philosopher who rejected everything… above all, a future life. So when he died, he expected to plunge right into blackness and nothingness, but what did he find instead but future life. He was very surprised and quite outraged.
So, the nature of the debate (not to mention the question itself) shifts radically when viewed from the bottom-up. We see God through the lens of the Suffering Servant, Jesus Christ, not vice versa, and it makes all the difference. I know I for one could never be the “great and terrible mind” Victor Hugo speaks of in Les Misérables, trying to punch through the mysteries of God. I am fine just being a catfish.
For part four, the final installment, go here.
COMMENTS
14 responses to “The Theology of Suffering, Part III: Bottom-Up”
Leave a Reply
If there were a category called ‘vintage Browder’, this article would be in it. I have a feeling that your catfish story is going to pop up in more than a few of our sermons over the years as an illustration.
Your article points out that the cross truly answers humanity’s (and Woody’s!) greatest questions. Unlike Hinduism, it testifies to the reality and pervasiveness of evil and suffering in the world–you want to talk about suffering? Look no further!
Also, the cross testifies to the reality and pervasiveness of God’s goodness–you want to talk about love? Look no further!
However, would you agree that the cross must say ‘no’ before its ‘yes’ has any meaning? What I mean by ‘no’ is nothing more than the experience of identifying the connection between the cross and our sin and daily contribution to the suffering of the world. Then at that point it actually becomes God’s ‘yes’ to those who believe.
I await an article of some sort that relates fishing with the Gospel…just think of it; being let off the hook, being lured away, taking the bait, casting a net, fishing for people, perhaps? Come to think of it, don’t we have a Friend who did something like that a long time ago?
Dylan,
I would say that there is a “no” but it doesn’t apply to us. The “no” was given in the Atonement and that leaves 100% “yes” for us.
David
What I mean is that the cross itself implies a prior ‘no’ because it declares that we are not nice people, but sinful persons who depend upon Christ’s atonement… and only at the point when God is reconciled does it ever become a ‘yes’.
In other words, I am suggesting that this ‘yes’ means nothing unless it is seen as a gracious act in the face of what should’ve been a Divine ‘no’. (i.e. the Gospel means nothing without the accusation of the Law).
I think this is what Paul means in Col 1 about God’s act of reconciliation through Christ and ‘through his blood shed upon the cross’ (v. 20). The ‘yes’ reconciles those who stood in the ‘no’. What theologians of glory do is to say ‘yes’ where God has said ‘no’ and ‘no’ to God’s ‘yes’. They say ‘yes’ to personal achievement and ‘no’ to God’s alien work through weakness and crucifixion. (aka Calling good evil and evil good).
By the way, I thought of you when I recently watched ‘3:10 to Yuma’, not a bad Western…have you seen it?
An interesting question that this post raises for me is, “what does benevolence look like or entail given the incarnation?”
Dylan, I can go along with that. I would just say to a congregation, etc. that Christ took the “no” and now it’s 100% “yes” regardless of how it actually looks.
Christopher, that is an interesting question. Certainly, the Incarnation allows us to see that God is totally benevolent. However, Christ is the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world” and the Atonement does more to show us the extent of His benevolence.
Yes, “took the ‘no'”, I like that.
Again, I love the post!
I think the biggest issue I have is saying that Jesus is totally benevolent. I’m not sure if this is old “law” lauren or just dumb lauren talking now (so bear with me and be kind if you respond)…I do agree that Jesus,in light of the Cross, is completely and totally benevolent; but, we also see him completely uncharitable toward the pharisees, the “Woe to you, Pharisee” speeches. There’s a lot of intolerance there. I understand why that is and know that these speeches work toward God’s greater “benevolent” plan; but totally benevolent? I don’t see Jesus having very kindly feelings for these guys.
I think I shutter the most at the use of that word because the world today believes in a benevolent God who is all accepting and wouldn’t send a good person to hell (gross summarization to make this short and probably a misappropriation of the true meaning of “benevolent”). I have this conversation with my mom all the time (she’s agnostic). She believes that since she is basically good, God wouldn’t accept her because she doesn’t believe in Jesus because God is love. The cross shows us that there is a price to be paid and that God is, do I dare say it, BOTH benevolent and unbenevolent at the same time. There is a big fat Yes and, at the same time, there is a big fat No. If one is not drawn by the power of the cross at some point in their life INTO Jesus, into restoration with God, then that person stands in the “no” of the cross. Wouldn’t it be the correct understanding of Paul’s emphatic use of IN CHRIST to mean that anything outside of Jesus, not IN Jesus is NO and everything IN CHRIST, IN Jesus, is yes?
Lauren,
I think you bring up an important issue. Certainly, Jesus is rough on the Pharisees and, yes, one must be in Christ to be a part of the “yes”. Later in Matt. 23, though, He says to the Pharisees “how I would have gathered you in My wings like a hen does her chicks but you would not.”
I think the “woes” and the moneychanger incident are an example of afflicting the comfortable. This is another part of the benevolence of Christ. The other part being comforting the afflicted. Afflicting the comfortable is a part of the theology of the cross and is God’s love hidden in what appears to be wrath.
Certainly the word “benevolence” can have sentimental connotations. The ‘yes’ is to the afflicted who was once comfortable. So, to the one who believes they will be rewarded for their goodness (for example), the “yes” is hidden in the “no”.
David
Hmmmm (rubbing hands together) this is getting good. Lauren, you are right to question what is essentially Barth’s position that God’s ‘yes’ to Jesus is a ‘yes’ to the entire creation, but unless there is a ‘no’ to precede it, the ‘yes’ becomes unnecessary. Benevolence is only possible as a category when juxtaposed against judgment.
As you probably know, this is why some people considered Barth’s soteriology as universalist. That said, I think part of the problem in today’s church that Browder is highlighting is that we fail to grasp just how magnificent the ‘yes’ is in our lives, and it is that ‘yes in Christ’ that keeps the heart warm. That was Paul’s contention about his message as ‘yes’ in Christ, which distinguishes it from the ‘no’ of the Law. It seems the Corinthians were underestimating the eternality of the Divine ‘yes’ on their behalf, and we see what results that had in their particular community…in fact, I can’t think of one epistle where Paul doesn’t have to re-remind the church of this fact.
2Cor 1:15-20
15Because I was confident of this, I planned to visit you first so that you might benefit twice. 16I planned to visit you on my way to Macedonia and to come back to you from Macedonia, and then to have you send me on my way to Judea. 17When I planned this, did I do it lightly? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say, “Yes, yes” and “No, no”?
18But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No.” 19For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by me and Silas and Timothy, was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.” 20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.
Good stuff, Dylan!
DB,
I’m in the middle of doing a summer long chaplaincy internship and so others’ suffering is forced upon me. In that sense, your posts couldn’t be more timely.
I do think that the only place where we can make sense of suffering is in the person of Jesus, and that God’s mercy is hidden under his opposite. But I’m wary at how accessible that is to those who are suffering.
I’ve found Bultmann’s explanation of God’s transcendence incredibly powerful:
“To imagine God’s transcendence behind this life…is wishful thinking. And in the same way it is wishful thinking to imagine the things of this world as a screen on which we can view the transcendent”…BUT… “Man can speak of the transcendent as a positive reality if the transcendent make a gift of itself to him”
In other words, to see God in suffering is the movement of faith, which is too high for us in our natural abilities.
David and Dylan:
Thanks for your responses.
I agree full heartedly with both of you (btw, I’m a big fan of Barth, but, yes, this is an issue that can be taken up with Barth, he tends toward the universalist perspective, as he said when questioned, “I don’t preach it and I don’t not preach it”. Even though he is clear about the elect in Christ, it appears that our buddy, Barth, seems to go into the gray a bit).
David, I like the Matt 23 quote and am glad you reminded me of it…I guess what I’m concerned with is the use of God’s “Yes” to be interpreted as a “yes” to anything (and, yes, I know that in Romans, Pauls clearly says no to this)–not that I think you’d go there. But in our society, it’s possible. I guess the best way for me to understand it is to go back to the creation story; the “yes” in Jesus is similar to Adam’s “yes” to woman–unequivocal; there is a no in the sense that Adam didn’t say yes to all the other animals, but with HER it is all yes and not yes and no.
Dylan (thanks for the 2 Cor 1 quote) this is beautifully put, “I think part of the problem in today’s church that Browder is highlighting is that we fail to grasp just how magnificent the ‘yes’ is in our lives, and it is that ‘yes in Christ’ that keeps the heart warm.” I couldn’t agree more! This is where PZ went in his discussion during the MBIRD conference. The Gospel is all yes! This is also something that Daniel and I have been wrapping our minds around. A big question for us is, “what does that look like?” I think as a human raised in a society that is all about self-justification and the do-it-yourself-self-help books, it’s hard to operate counter intuitively.
This is really awesome stuff, guys. Man, I think I could talk about it all day! Isn’t that sick? Nah, it’s just my passion!
thanks for teaching me!
Todd Brewer’s comment above is very deep, I think. Thanks Todd for helping me to think through some of this material! -JAZ+