on human suffering

Something that I have been thinking about recently is human suffering. It's a topic that I've continually felt was worth dwelling on, partly because there are so many cheap sounding answers out there and partly because I completely ignore it until I'm faced with it. I've recently had two older relatives die, one of which was perhaps the greatest picture of a godly life I've encountered. She was generous, could listen without judging, and spent most of her final years decades living by herself, baking cookies for others and weeding her garden via walker. But death was bitter even for her and there was no silver lining. If it "redounds at the end only to the glory of [God's] work" (Tolkien's phrase) it sure doesn't seem that way.

This, mixed with various other stimuli got me thinking about why dwelling (or maybe "meditating" is more accurate) on suffering could be worthwhile either for Christians or atheists. During my thinking, I picked up N.T. Wright's "Evil and the Justice of God", which influenced my thoughts and offers a pretty fair treatment of the subject. I'm going to attempt to answer my question from both perspectives, but since my own agnosticism is rooted in doubts about the objective fact of God’s existence and the resurrection of Christ, as opposed to the rejection of the general Christian ethos, I’m going to start by stating why it’s important to Christians.

From the Christian perspective, God’s conquest of evil is the entire story of the Bible. The Bible gets through all of 2 chapters before introducing this central plot device and closes by describing its end. As I mentioned, we don’t know what it is or where it came from, and it’s pretty clear that we’re not supposed to know from the lack of any attempt at an explanation, this lack being most blatant in Job. To be a Christian is to live with the tension of this reality with the knowledge that God did/is doing something about it – particularly that he subjected himself to evil, perhaps more evil than anyone has ever endured, in order to conquer it. The only explanation for the problem of suffering is that whatever injustice there is in the world, it was endured by the one who created it. Christ identifies with all who suffer because he suffered, which makes it somehow palatable, if not “all better”.

Because suffering is so central to the Biblical narrative and Christ’s role on earth, if we are to identify with him, we must identify with those who suffer. This means that we will suffer, but it also means that we will bear one another’s burdens by looking at those who suffer with sober eyes, realizing the tension that this suffering represents, that there is no answer for it, that the fullness of the Kingdom of God has not yet come to pass, that God takes it seriously, that God suffered in the same way.

For the atheist, as I'll talk about another time, there is no fundamental basis for morality. All things are lawful, but, as with Christianity, not all things are profitable. Murder is not profitable, and not only because of the criminal justice system. We are wired to work in certain ways, and when we deviate from these ways, we do self-harm. Specifically, we feel guilt that we harmed someone else and are miserable as a result. This is position on sin is actually very similar to the one Augustine took, only the reason for us being wired a certain way is different. For him, our nature was prescribed from God; for the atheist, the survival benefits of having a strong community that worked together caused this aspect of our nature to evolve.

The Christian atheist asserts that it is in our nature to be most at peace (i.e., to be the least self-harming) playing the role of the Son of Man from Isaiah, the role of the Psalmist, the role intended for the nation of Israel, partaking in the Kingdom of Heaven as described by Jesus, continuing in the best (read: least corrupted by plays for power and control) traditions of the Christian Church and monasticism. These represent a series of high water marks for holiness and upon close examination have a very similar core, a conversation taking place over the course of human civilization and continually examining the same ideal from different angles and contexts. The key difference between this and traditional Christianity is that this conversation is merely a human attempt to examine his evolved psyche and figure out what to do about it.

If we accept this concept, it is clear that mediation on suffering is part of the Son of Man package. We are wired with a sense of justice that constantly butts against the world as it is. We are wired to idealize turning the other cheek instead of fighting back, which subverts a stronger impulse to dominate. We are wired to live in community, loving one another, empathizing with one another, soberly looking into one another’s lives and refusing to blink, look away, ignore, justify, or judge in the presence of evil and suffering. Instead we bear our brother’s burden until it has passed.

I've got more, specifically on Wright's perspective on the power of forgiveness, but this seems like a good stopping point for now.

front matter

I am an atheist, or perhaps an agnostic, living (mostly) closeted within the church.  Now before you judge me or say you've heard that one before, hear me out. 

I grew up in a fairly nondescript evangelical church.  We didn't speak in tongues.  I wore jeans and cheesy print shirts to church.  We had a cool band that played up to date worship songs.  I connected with the youth pastor on a philosophical level, but not so much with the other youth most of the time.  I wondered why everyone didn't sell everything and give the money to the poor, why we did anything other than street evangelism to keep as many people from going to hell as we could.  I imagined Jesus looking at me sadly me while I masturbated.  I prayed long prayers with lots of "just's" in the school Bible study.  I kissed dating goodbye but had entirely too serious emotional relationships with girls from said Bible study.  Blah blah blah.  

Right about here in the story, I either become the guy in church with the goatee and cool glasses (or whatever) and the Rob Bell book urging everyone to be a little more radical, or I become disillusioned with God and/or the church and leave.  Well, two things actually happened.  First, I found an answer to my big question with Christianity that I alluded to above – how do we reconcile living the fairly normal lives that almost everyone in the church lives with the apparent metaphysical reality of an eternal hell?  Is everyone other than traveling evangelists and missionaries just lazy, lukewarm Christians?  I’ll try to explain this question better and an answer I found to it that deeply impacted my thinking in future posts.  Secondly, it occurred to me that there is very little evidence of God in the world that I observe as well as reasonable materialist explanations for the evidence of God that is present. These leave me in a place where I find Christianity meaningful and useful without necessarily believing in the core reality, a place I feel is fairly unique and possibly worth sharing with others.  

I’m trying to preface something I don’t know I can preface, something that makes sense in my head and hopefully will eventually make sense on a page but may be a little difficult to understand from somewhere other than my immediate perspective.  Ultimately, my goal in this (other than just expressing my thoughts) is to help reconcile, not Christianity and atheism, but rather Christians and atheists.  Hopefully this goal works itself out through the course of this blog.  

I'm very interested in feedback on my thoughts and genuine questions, although the subject matter lends itself easily to conflict, so let's all try to be respectful.