Suffering like an artist (Part II)

In the first part of this blog series, I talked about how intellectual or rational responses to the problem of pain, even if they’re good responses, are ultimately unsatisfying because we are more than just intellectual creatures. That’s not to imply that there is a satisfying alternative. But what other resources should our faith give us to push through suffering?

As I write, I’m fixated on the song, Silence, by Matisyahu. To feel the full gravity, you really have to listen to it, but I’ll provide some pertinent lines for the time-challenged.

True to the Hebrew tradition of candid, unedited prayer, the singer lifts up words that are at once indicting of himself and of God. Authenticity before the Holy One is valued over religious propriety. Closed, intellectual answers to the problem of suffering are neither offered, nor are they pursued.

 If it should turn out that he was really just praying at the ceiling, this effort to “shine a warmth into eternity” is doomed to fail in a world where “all is vanity” (Eccl. 1:2) and a universe where the cold, chaotic laws of thermodynamics are unrelenting. He risks the prayer anyways. It’s on God to prove that it was not in vain.

This is not a rational way of dealing with pain. But what cancer patient or grieving mother could give two damns about what’s rational?

To stubbornly “shine warmth” into a universe that tends toward cold is not a levelheaded action prompted by a calm assessment of possible outcomes. It is an act of defiance against chaos. It’s a mortal cry that if there does not exist a bridge between a future where “we’ll dance like flames” and a present where “I’m just a candle trying to stay lit in this windy night,” then I will insist on building such a bridge. I will begin to build even if my own love is the only cabling and my faith the only anchorage. I will leave it up to God whether hope should prove a worthy deck to get us across.

He is pitting love against entropy to see who wins. I don’t have to offer a defense for you, God. If you are God, prove it.  “[I] bring my heart to an invisible king with a hope one day you might answer me, so I pray, ‘Don’t you abandon me.’”

The song offers no explanation for the “problem of pain,” because, in fact, the song is not about suffering. The song is his suffering. It is his suffering not talked about at a distance but completely felt with music as the medium that allows him to access it fully.

Explanations, on the other hand, are like opiates for the soul. We dab the topical anesthetic, Explainitall, onto our hearts and escape into our heads in hopes that the pain will have gone away by the time our chest comes to. But it’s a deceptive solution. We’re numbed to the pain, but its root cause hasn’t been dealt with at all.

The art method is very much opposite that of philosophy. An artist assumes that if pain is going to happen, then we can’t get out of it but only through it.

This is hard to understand in our therapeutic culture where rosy praise songs and happy-ending apologetics are written by Christians who seem to want to act as veritable publicists for God, and we might be confused by the biblical faithful who are typically the ones lamenting the loudest; but avoidance of pain is a sign of unfaith. Faith is what gives us the courage to drink that foul cup without a chaser.  

Nevertheless, an honest artist is hard pressed to lay all responsibility for suffering in the lap of God and leave it at that. Can one ever honestly level such a charge at God without simultaneously indicting oneself?

“Your silence kills me…”

Matisyahu says. True enough. But he knows himself well enough to know,

“…I wouldn't have it any other way.”

Do I actually want to know what God thinks about things? Do I actually want God to offer an evaluation of my own silence toward the poor and oppressed? toward my own apathy in the face of injustice? toward my own negligence of the orphan and the stranger? Do I actually want to allow God that level of intrusiveness upon my own aims and motives?

No. If I’m truly honest with myself, all things being equal, I wouldn’t have it any other way.

There is, of course, a heavy price to pay for this silence. Not just for us. For God. What does a parent do, when she can’t bear the sight of her child’s suffering nor can she coerce the child’s affairs enough to avoid it? That parent dies.

More on that in Part III of this blog.

Suffering and why answering 'Why' is not enough (Part I)

If God is both powerful and good, why do bad things still happen?

This is such an unrelenting question in the life of faith, theologians have given it its own name: theodicy. It has even been suggested that the whole of Christian preaching and teaching for two thousand years finally boils down to grappling with this one question.

In 1994 an Evangelical publishing company released the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, a book which advertises itself as having “concise” and “witty” answers to all the big questions, does God exist? providence versus free will? and of course, the mother of all big questions given above. Not unlike a telemarketer’s script, this marvel of peaceful, easy certitude provides a user-friendly flowchart for each section (E.g. If your opponent mentions the randomness of the evolutionary process, talk about the complexity, pointing to intentionality, behind of human cell structure; if they argue that such a structure could randomly develop, given enough chances, here is the statistical improbability of this, even if the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, etc.).

It’s in handbook form, I presume, so that we can quickly reference it and beat back the accusing inquiries of those conniving “secularists,” but still thick enough that, verbal argument notwithstanding, it can be used to beat them back in a different sort of way.  I humbly confess that there was a time, when I was first figuring out the extent to which I would own my faith as an adult, where I remember finding it convenient that someone had finally laid out these answers in such an easy-to-use format, such that my then fragile theological system should never have to be troubled by unpleasant outliers—questions unanswered and data that doesn’t fit. It was fantastic! Simple, untroubled certitude for only $16.75 on Amazon.  

So why, then, did I still struggle with my faith? It would not have been so deflating if the “answers” that this handbook gave me eventually proved to be bad. I could always just find better answers. The real problem was not that the “handbook” gave all invalid arguments. It was that it gave many valid answers, and I still wasn’t satisfied. The logic of it worked out, so why was my faith life still such a struggle?

I still felt used and unlovable when a girlfriend would break up with me. I still spiraled into existential crisis when it became unavoidably clear that my hairline was, in fact, receding. I was still bothered by the amount of poverty and violence in the world.

Perhaps the problem is not finding an answer to the Why question but the expectation that an answer to the Why question will be enough.

The first thing that both “believer” and skeptic have in common when they bring up theodicy, is they both anticipate (albeit, one more optimistic than the other) that this is primarily an intellectual question, so an adequate intellectual answer would satisfy it.

The second thing they have in common is that, having found a rational answer to the Why question, neither will be completely satisfied, because…

…the third thing, they are both actually searching (whether they realize it or not) for far more than an intellectual answer to an intellectual question.

Here is what I mean. We all already know the standard, prosaic answers to the theodicy question. E.g.

- God creates free will, and where free will exists, so does the opportunity for evil.

- Love can’t exist where hate is not an option, nor beauty without ugliness, nor pleasure without pain, blah, blah, blah... 

These calm, analytical responses, usually offered from comfortably upholstered armchairs in climate-controlled offices, continue to be as reasonable today as ever.  The problem is not that very rationale answers to the Why question don’t exist. The problem is that they do exist, but so long as there is much more to the human creature that experiences suffering than just the rational self, these answers remain unsatisfying in our actual moment of pain and crisis. 

If I can try to fit into a blog paragraph the subject of entire tenured careers, the problem of “theodicy” can’t really be addressed in the modern Western world until we recognize how we’ve unwittingly restricted ourselves to valuing one aspect of our humanness—reason—over against any other. When the Enlightenment swept across Euro-America a few centuries ago, it was unofficially decided that the life of the rational intellect was the only part of life worth paying attention to. “Human” was defined as that creature which could reason. Filtered out of this definition was any concern for the aesthetic self, the emotional self, the intuitive self, the poetic self, the story-telling self, and most importantly, the loving self (if you assume, as I do, that love isn’t love if it is strictly rational).

That puts us in a strange position now—just starting to come off the enlightenment buzz but still grasping for a more adequate understanding of what makes us human—when we set the theodicy question in terms of reason and logic.  It’s not that reasonable, logical answers don’t exist. It’s that they do exist, and it has proven to be enough. We’ve heard those answers. Yet, here we are, still asking the question.

If this is the central question, it’s remarkable that in the entirety of the scriptures, never is there offered up an “apology” or rational defense for how a loving God can allow suffering to go on in the world in the vein of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics. But no one in any of our scriptures ever claims to have any such answer.

I take that back. The four “friends” of Job have all kinds of answers, the very fact of which makes them stock characters whose words come out cheap and forgettable. Trivial people saying trivial things. However well-reasoned their defense, however well their system fits together, it will be forgotten as hastily as it was devised, not because their logic doesn’t work but because logic doesn’t work. We don’t have bad answers that have been proven bad. We have good answers that have been proven insufficient. We have reasonable answers but reasonable answers hardly matter one iota in the face of real suffering.

So, in the second part of this blog coming next week, I will try to grapple with the problem of pain in a way that is not irrational, hopefully, but that does not fixate on rational answers at the expense of all other facets of what it means to be human. I’ll try to stay truer to the method of Jesus and his Jewish roots which prefers stories to arguments, open-ended parables to closed logic, includes poetry as well as prose and, most of all, seeks a Who more than a why.

See you there.

Pastor Jared

In Process: Sin and the Human Condition

Our gratitude to Eric Rose who asks this question: "Are we truly flawed creations or simply unfinished?"

It's a great question, although incredibly complex because hidden within it is ideological warfare that is nearly two millennia old. Are human beings innately good? Or innately evil? Do they have free will? Or is their will limited in the containers of their humanity, if at least not by sin, then by the fact that human beings have very real limitations?

Martin Luther, the Augustinian monk for whom our tribe is named took his cues from an African theologian named St. Augustine on this account. Augustine asserted that we were all born into sin, a sin whose roots could be traced back to an event that occurred in the Garden of Eden. Christians (those who believe this) have called this event The Fall, or the introduction of sin into the human family. When the first man and first woman ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, purposefully disobeying God's command in an attempt to be like God himself, sin entered the world for the first time. Augustine asserted that sin was then transmitted from one generation to the next in the very act of sex itself beginning with the offspring of this couple.

St. Augustine didn't have a very high view of human beings. This was in part autobiographical. Augustine really, really struggled with his versions of sin into his adulthood - and you guessed it - they were primarily sexual. But alas we find in this the truth of theology...that often our best theology is in fact biographical and as we hand it on we are handing on a statement as much about ourselves as what we believe about God.

Because of all of this Lutherans have tended to land on the "humans as worms" side of the argument. We note of course, several things. Human beings really do struggle with sin...e.g. being turned in on ourselves. Our consciousnesses are delimited. We see the world through the vantage point of one primary human being whose awareness, knowledge, insight, and maturity has very real restrictions. And because we acknowledge the reality of sin operating in the human being and human institutions (made up of human beings), we posit (because Luther did) that we don't actually have free will. Certainly you can get up this morning and make autonomous decisions about whether to go to work or not, which stores you would like to stop by, which girl or guy you'd like to call for a date tonight. You get the point. But when it comes to choosing a relationship with God, we find ourselves, as did our forebears witnessed in the Scriptures, chronically unfaithful. We human beings, turned in on ourselves, are hopelessly self-centered it seems.

But I'd like to take you, if you'll permit me, to a trans-Lutheran vantage point for a moment. St. Augustine seemed to forget that even if his take on the Garden of Eden is accurate (and there is every reason to question this BTW), when building our human anthropology (understanding of people), we must begin, theologically, not with The Fall, but with The Creation....a creation in which, after making us Imagio Dei (in the image of God), God looked at us, as he did with the rest of the creation, and said, "Wow, that's good."

Good. Not perfect. Good.

Perfect things are pristinated. They've arrived. They don't change. They can't, by definition be in process or in relationship, because these sorts of things need room for some autonomy, decision, possibility, opportunity, to engage and respond and mature in relationship with God, with life, and with one another. Which means that ugliness, and hurt and harm, and un-loving things must be as much allowed for as their opposites.

Personally, I wish Augustine had spend more time in Jewish thought. When the Jews read the narrative of the Garden of Eden, they don't see The Fall. They see the end of innocence. They see human beings coming into self-awareness. Self aware people can see their own nakedness. Those who have come of age learn, quickly enough, that life is full of trial and difficulty and pain as you step into the adult accoutrements of life (e.g. sex, childbirth, raising a family, building a home, putting food on the table, etc.).

And so I think this brings us to the answer to your question. I don't think we are innately flawed. I actually think we are all right smack dab within the design specifications of our Maker. Which means we are made, not in sin, but in goodness. But we are made, necessarily incomplete. Life for us can never be fully autonomous. Designed for our Maker, we find at some deep level of being longing for him. And designed for one another, we find ourselves reaching out in human community. But because we are limited, and because our own awarenesses are located in mere fragments of the whole, we find that in our pursuit of life we sin, missing the mark of the wholeness towards which we are called. And at times, we get so locked up in our prisons of individuality that we make ourselves and our desires and our wills the totality of our existence, and assert these things as the totality of others' existences as well. And it's at this point that evil enters the world.

Pastor Jared and I will talk about this more later, but this should advance the conversation just a bit. Looking forward to hearing from you all your feedback!

Peace and all that is good. In process with you...

Pastor Nathan