suffering well
i thought about writing a post on the contentment of some people to live in the angst of doubt, existentialism, bitterness, etc. but i couldn't figure out how to end it. what gives a better and more complete framework is to talk about suffering. the postmodern suspicion of truth has made suffering the trump card in deciding winners and losers. authority in debate no longer belongs to truth (even if the truth is contested or disputed!), but to hurt feelings. (i recommend wright's article in the Guardian on the subject here.)
instead, suffering has become the highest and most compelling argument. if you suffer, you have space to speak. the more you suffer, the more right you are. those content to live in the angst of crisis of faith gain hearing simply because they remain in the suffering of doubt, rawness of emotion, etc. this is not to downgrade crises of faith, to encourage people to "snap out of it," or any other ridiculous thing people might have heard in these trying times (and kudos to my friends who have had the remarkable amount of courage to emerge from them). it is to encourage those suffering to suffer well.
o'donovan says that to suffer well, one must suffer for something worth suffering for. frankly, suffering over faith--in doubt, anger, confusion, initial bitterness--is suffering well. staying in the suffering consciously and by effort, however, is not. crises of faith are *crises* precisely because the faith seems not to be true, be it existentially, biblically, historically, morally, etc. the faith has lost its authorization for allegiance (conveyed by its truth)--and allegiance is passed from faith to angst. authority belongs to truth, however, and not to hurt feelings. angst and bitterness can never demand ultimate allegiance because they hold no truth value beyond one's own feelings...and one should never let one's feelings create the universe in which they live. hope this makes sense.
posted by Aaron Perry at
1:03 PM
13 Comments:
interesting ap. however, it seems that this post (and others??) are abstract in that there is no initial context or reference. i may be new at this, but isn't theology to be done in context? anyone could apply the statements you say here in a manner that is not faithful to them for lack of illustration. for someone who says he does not believe scripture should be seen as a book of principles to be preached, but rather as a narrative to be entered, should also be careful to note that theological statements should not be made as abstract principles to live by, but should also be spoken in reference to context. don't you agree?
hmmm...i thought the context was there, jo. the context of hurt trumping truth; the context of crises of faith and those determined to stay in the crisis. i mean, i can think of people who have "suffered well" in pushing beyond their bitterness. i can think of people who are determined to stay bitter, and are not suffering well. i illustrated o'donovan's quote with the example of faith crisis alright, i thought. maybe not. i mean, you could o'donovan's quote is fairly straightforward...though perhaps we'd disagree about what is worthy of suffering. i thought i did theology ok here.
i'm glad someone hears my thoughts accurately on Scripture. but aren't theological statements at least somewhat principles? part of my frustration is that we make Scripture a book of theological statements (or, more often, "better family" statements, "leadership" statements, etc.). themes emerge from Scripture which can be put in a sentence...which neither negates Scripture's form, nor its message. the narrative comes first (and last), though.
i may have completely missed your point, i admit. let me know if i did.
sorry about that. delete "you could" near bottom of first paragraph.
and one more follow up: theological statements being potentially principles does not mean they are always principles. e.g. "By his Spirit, God works sanctification" is a theological statement. "Because God works by his Spirit and his Spirit is ever present and active, I should live in the freedom he gives," is both a theological statement and a principle.
AP: I thinks it great that we recognize as Christian we still experience pain and suffering. In the same breathe though, I have a fear that we're perpetuating a martyr complex. The Ascetic's of the dark ages, "we're spiritual because we are in pain".
I did notice an emerging movement some years back which made a very positive step away from empty dogmatism and a step toward nervous faith.
But it seems to me the step was taken too boldly and the shoe sank in the mud, so to speak. And now doubt has become the mark of genuine faith instead of...well....faith being the mark of genuine faith.
We like the guy who said help me with my unbelief, but we don't always want the help he wanted. We just like his quote.
or maybe I'm off in my own direction ! Either way, thanks for this post, it made me think.
God bless
the martyr complex is to be avoided, dave. good thought.
matt...i'll let some others handle what you've put forward! :) what is a criticism of the movement, though, i think more accurate to some of its members. just as middle class churches attract people content to stay middle class, so do churches that welcome doubt and hurt attract people content to stay in doubt and hurt. i commend it.
aaron, i had a whole long comment about the method of thought by which i previously interpreted this post, but i think this is just another one of those times wherein my worldview has clashed with yours(or any author's) to the point of me misunderstanding HOW you are saying things and what you mean by them. i have re-read it several times, and i'm ok with it now. it's just sometimes the statements you make seem so absolute and universal, and i don't believe you intend them to be. (?) see, i think about how to apply truth statements to situations in my life and others', to see if they actually make sense, and when i think of specific situations, general universal statements need a LOT of qualifiers in order to fit into real life context and not be oppressive/damaging to the person. also, this post has to do with the mixing of psychology and theology, and it's often difficult for anyone to communicate/interpret that kind of language accurately.
now that i've re-read, i believe you did give context, i was simply pulling out the absolute statements and mulling them over without the benefit of the entire passage to help me interpret what you meant. the fault is mine.
ps. yes, i agree that themes emerge from scripture that can be put into sentences/truth statements, but it's just that the hearer could try to apply those to a context in which that theme is not the proper 'medicine' for that specific context/life/community/hurt. Since our context(s) are not always the same or even similar as Scripture contexts I cringe at absolute statements without excessive explanation(/examples of real live person trying to apply it to their life) along with the statements. ok i'm done.
2 cents from peanut gallery: In regards to "Scripture". I'm reading Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis" and here's what he says:
"In Jesus' world, it was assumed that you had as much to learn from the discussion of the text as you did from the text itself. When we're serious about dealing with the Bible as the communal book that it is, then we have to be honest about our interpretations. Everybody's interpretation is essentially his or her own opinion. Nobody is objective."
Just thought I'd add that because sometimes we use our "theology" like its the end all be all. Its not..its history's interpretation of the be all end all (God's Word). I'm thankful for theological interpretations, but like AP, I think the narrative comes first.
In regards to you're actualy subject. Great points. I've had my crisis of faith and I would have to say that the crisis was "crisis" because truth was perverted, I chose to ignore truth and thus the crisis remained crisis. Once I turned from that (with great effort mind you) the crisis was no longer there..but out popped my faith again.
I actually understood maybe half this discussion..better than other times...hahahah. God bless...
jo--i tried to meet the very (fair) criticism you have by saying that it is only when people choose to stay in the bitterness that they are not suffering for something worth suffering for. is there context? yes. do some suffer more justifiably? yes. does it take more courage for some to emerge from bitterness? absolutely! do paths look different when people have left the bitterness and given authority to truth? yes. should those in the worst circumstances be encouraged to receive and thereby display more grace, more courage, more strength? most certainly. they should be encouraged to suffer well.
In service today a passage of Scripture from Romans 8 was read, and when we hit verse 23 I thought of your blog
"And even we Christians, although we have the Holy Spirit within us as a foretaste of future glory, also groan to be released from pain and suffering."
This is the first part of verse 23 for emphasis sake. If you want context read chapter 8 and if that's till not enough READ YOUR BIBLE.
Now onto why I thought of your blog. It was in reference to the whole martyr complex, I was thinking about. The passage reminded me that suffering isn't necessarily something we have to enjoy. What's important is we're learning and growing from it.
During one of my the most difficult times i nmy life someone kept saying, "I want to help you do more than enudre this. I want to help you enjoy this". I would have enjoyed punching them in face.
Sometimes a change of attitude or mindshift will all us to enjoy what we were suffering, of course then it isn't really suffering, is it?! Unless you're a sadeist I'm not really sure we can enjoy suffering. It is our endurance that is key in our suffering, not our enjoyment. As James says "when your endurance is fully developed, you will be strong in character
Maybe I should have just made this my own blog, sorry for hogging the space, AP.
i understand that now (i think) ap. thanks for putting up with all this.
i likely needed to make explicit what i said in response to your questions.
dave, i agree that suffering need not be enjoyable. i am not sure suffering is the great tutor that we want it to be, either, though. but...that's another discussion ;)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home