We only want his love and grace; we want heaven NOW! His answer is, Not yet.
But what about the suffering?
There is real suffering in the world and something ought to be done. If God is loving and gracious and has the capacity to provide relief, then he should respond. Yet, we do not see his direct involvement in the relief of suffering. Why? I suggest that God expects us to respond.
I see at least three alternatives to direct divine response: theological clarification, human compassion, and human action. Theological clarification provides a conceptual context in which suffering might be better understood. Proper theological clarification keeps in mind those who are in the midst of suffering, for whether deserved or undeserved, their suffering is real and its presence in their lives hurts us, whether we know it or not. It hurts us whether the sufferer is our friend or our enemy. No suffering is good in itself, even if deserved. Suffering requires compassionate theological clarification through word and deed.
But clarification and compassion are not enough. Those in undeserved suffering deserve relief. Rather than waiting for God to swoop down from heaven, let us assume he wishes to deliver relief through us. For those of us who trust and follow Jesus, let us assume (and rightly so, I believe), that he has blessed us by calling us to be his partners. Let us do his work, share his life, and show his compassion to a hurting world. Let us put our backs and our pocketbooks to the work.
It may well be that those searching for hope will see his hope in us.
Related Post: This world is a mess. Why doesn't the Creator intervene?
---
Twitter - Facebook - Theologica
Tag(s):
ecclesiology 
church 
christian 
theology
Posts
"No suffering is good in itself, even if deserved."Does this include Hell?
ReplyDeleteQuick Joe,
ReplyDeleteExcellent question!
I would say that the suffering of Hell is not good, for suffering is not the way things are supposed to be.
On the other hand, the justice of Hell is good, for rebellion against God, the ultimate good, must be dealt with. As I said, "God ...has the right, will, and capacity to command all and to discipline or punish whomever he deems fit."
I think one needs to be rather cautious of any sentiment regarding the way things are supposed to be. When people say this, they are almost always (if not absolutely always) simply imposing their own ideas on reality.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to go against the argument that the way things are and the way they are meant to be are the same thing. Otherwise the debate gets bogged down in subjectivity.
On a final note, how do you separate the justice of Hell (good) from the suffering of Hell (not good)? I would have thought that the suffering (as opposed to, for instance, a reward) as a consequence for disobedience is a part of that justice. So either it's all good or it isn't?
A penny for your thoughts, dear Laura.
Quick Joe,
ReplyDeleteIn saying that things are not how they are supposed to be, I am not making a sentimental statement, but a theological one; I apologize for not providing evidence.
In Genesis 2--before the entrance of sin (Gen 3), when things got very messed up--God himself stated that suffering (in this case, the suffering of aloneness, Gen 2:18) is "not good." God had previously designated everything as "very good" (Gen 1:31).
As to how the suffering of Hell can be not good, but the justice of Hell good, I would offer that God uses that which is not good for his own good purposes. For example, death, in itself, is not good, but the death of Jesus is the means by which God bring deliverance (not good, used for good). Another example, God uses discipline (which no one considers pleasant at the time, Heb 12:11), but the outcome is good.
On a more mundane level, the pain of surgery is not good, but my two friends who had back surgery and now live without constant pain will tell you that the purpose of the surgery and its end result are both very good.
Another example, the pain of childbirth is not good (I've not experienced it myself, but from plenteous anecdotal evidence, I take this to be the case), but the result is very good.
The suffering of Hell is the consequence for refusal to trust God; both the refusal and the consequent suffering are not good. God's justice is the consequence of his righteousness; both the righteousness and the consequent justice are good.
It is quite possible to have good means and good ends amidst not good attendant circumstances.
I think we have passed the point where "good" and "not good" are adequately expressive for what we're discussing.
ReplyDeleteThe unpleasant things that you mention (discipline, surgery, so on), provide a useful outcome so I don't see them as bad on any level.
Death itself forms the basis for nature: without it the whole wonderful ecosystem that sustains us crashes. It's tragic for humans, but completely necessary for life on the planet.
So yes, "good" and "not good" don't really cope with even moderately complex concepts.
Interestingly, all the examples you cite (except for Hell) serve as a means to a useful end. Discipline is a learning tool, surgery can save and enhance life, death enables new life to form. Hell, on the other hand, (and this is just my take on it) serves no purpose at all. It's suffering without end, and as such it is useless from the perspective of correcting errant behaviour or teaching any moral lesson. It is suffering for its own sake, and it flirts rather too closely with sadism for my liking.
So I struggle with the idea that Hell is justified on any basis.
Quick Joe,
ReplyDeleteAs I am at the end of a long day, I will continue to use 'good' and 'not good' in this response.
You say, "Hell, on the other hand, (and this is just my take on it) serves no purpose at all. It's suffering without end, and as such it is useless from the perspective of correcting errant behaviour or teaching any moral lesson. It is suffering for its own sake, and it flirts rather too closely with sadism for my liking."
I have a very different take on the suffering of Hell, which I shall explain as best I can.
I understand God as the source of all good. To be in his pure presence is to experience all 'good.' To be in his pure absence is to experience all 'not good.'
Dwelling in pure presence or pure absence is the direct result of our trust in or rejection of God.
The experience of pure absence is Hell--not good. The experience of pure presence is Heaven--good.
The biblical descriptions of burning sulfur and weeping and gnashing of teeth are metaphors describing the deep suffering of living forever in God's absence.
The point of Hell is neither the correction of errant behavior nor a moral lesson; nor is it suffering for its own sake. Rather, Hell is the result of the human choice to live in God's absence. God's absence is the essence of 'not good.'
And with that, I leave things until tomorrow, as I have just shot my mental wad.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNote: I removed the previous comment to fix the formatting. I'm still getting used to the oddities of blogspot.
ReplyDelete"I understand God as the source of all good. To be in his pure presence is to experience all 'good.' To be in his pure absence is to experience all 'not good.'"
Wouldn't you expect a higher correlation of morality and happiness among Christians than any other group of people, if this were the case?
This is going largely off personal experience, but there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference between Christians and the rest of the population. Incarceration and divorce rates are roughly equal so you have to wonder. This is uncited, but I actually heard this from a local pastor during one of his sermons a while ago, so take this with a grain of salt if you like.
I would have presumed that those closer to this source of all good would exhibit some noticable effect from the exposure, but so far as I can tell this doesn't seem to be the case.
Apologies for introducing yet another tangent, but I just found it more interesting than anything else I could think to say in response to the topic.
Quick Joe,
ReplyDeleteYou ask, “Wouldn't you expect a higher correlation of morality and happiness among Christians than any other group of people, if this were the case?”
I cannot speak for all Christians, but I will speak for myself. It comes down to trust: When I trust God, I am closer to him and have more moral behavior and greater happiness. When I trust myself, I am farther from God and, as a result, my behavior tends to be less moral and I am less happy.
It should not be this way; I should intentionally trust God 24-7, but the echoes of life before trusting Christ are still there and I err.
Now, speaking generally of the church, there are at least two possible explanations for the lack of higher moral behavior and happiness in those who are closer to God. First, I may be typical of those who trust Christ, meaning that we falter; we do not always follow the way we should. Second, some who claim to follow Christ may be self-deceived or may be liars: they may not be Christ-followers at all and are, therefore, not closer to God.
Frankly, we Christians ought to be more forthcoming about our struggles, all the while pointing to God’s sufficiency, for it is his sufficiency that delivers us, not our own messy spirituality.