"If I thought that God sent me suffering by an act of his will and for my good, I should think that I was something, and I should miss the chief use of suffering which is to teach me that I am nothing. It is therefore essential to avoid all such thoughts, but it is necessary to love God through the suffering." Simone Weil
Makes sense to me, comments?
No Purpose in Suffering
Re: No Purpose in Suffering
The statement is far from lucid or self-evident. I think such an assertion would have to be clarified and further defended before it could be accepted—or even assessed."If I thought that God sent me suffering by an act of his will and for my good, I should think that I was something, and I should miss the chief use of suffering which is to teach me that I am nothing. It is therefore essential to avoid all such thoughts, but it is necessary to love God through the suffering." Simone Weil
It seems to be saying that my having a conviction about God's good intentions in sending me suffering would, for some reason, encourage an attitude in me that would somehow be inappropriate—even at odds with God's purposes. But if I believe that God does something as an act of goodness to me, why would this instill in me a wrong attitude? It seems that it would most naturally inspire gratitude. That is normally how I feel toward people who are generous to me. How does this comment make sense to the author? It makes no clear sense to me, on the surface.
And what is meant by "something" and "nothing"? They are being used as exact opposites—or else his argument fails. His contention is that God wants me to know that I am "nothing," and my believing that suffering has some good result as its object would convince me that I am "something" (which would be bad)????
Are these words being used in an absolute sense, or a metaphorical sense? If one is used either absolutely or metaphorically, then the other must also be used in the same sense, or else the contrast becomes meaningless.
If absolute, then what is right or desirable about a person thinking that he/she is (absolutely) "nothing"? It sounds more like a Buddhist objective than a Christian one. After all, I am a man; I am a father; I am a son; I am a brother; I am a Christian; I am a Bible teacher. All of these are "things" and I can hardly think that God's purpose in my suffering would be to teach me that I am none of these things—that is, that I am absolutely "nothing" (non-existent) as opposed to "something" (I actually do occupy space in a room).
If, on the other hand, these words are being used metaphorically, then what are they intended to convey? I might possibly understand "nothing" to mean "nothing more than others", in which case, it might make some sense to say, " the chief use of suffering... is to teach me that I am nothing special (i.e., not better than others)".
In many cases, the driving home of this lesson might be a very significant purpose of suffering (see 2 Cor.12:7).
But this still does not rescue the passage from being difficult. If "nothing" and "something" are both intended in the same sense, this would make the first sentence mean: "If I thought that God sent me suffering by an act of his will and for my good, I should think that I was something special (or, better than others)".
Why would this follow? I have never found this to be suffering's effect upon me.
In some cases, a man (like Job) may suffer because he is indeed better than others, and he has become a special target of the enemy's hostility. This would not be the case with every sufferer, however, and in cases where it was so, I don't suppose it would be wrong for him/her to see it from this (that is, the correct) point of view.
The truth is, we are indeed something, and often that is why we suffer. Chastening from God proves that we are something to Him—namely, His children (Heb.12:7). Thus, I am to be encouraged by this in the midst of trials. There are, of course, other uses of trials. I think the quote above is reductionistic to a fault. It limits the value of suffering to one thing, and does so in order to rule out other legitimate benefits of, and reasons for, suffering.
Re: No Purpose in Suffering
Steve, it seems you have a very thought out view of suffering and the problem of evil. The quote I liked because it addresses somewhat concerns I have regarding positions most christians make when trying sense out of suffering.
Does your response to suffering meet from my experience the two requirements most people have when responding to suffering and evil, (these requirements come from reading "God Crucified" by Moltmann on the modern shape of the problem of evil)
1. Innocent and involuntary suffering must not be justified. It must not be justified either by solutions to the problem of suffering and evil, which explains it as necessary to God's purpose, or explains it as necessary to some higher human purpose. Such justifications suppress the moral outrage against evil, silence protest against evil, and therefore at the least reduce the motive for relieving and overcoming suffering. At worst they justify infliction of innocent suffering.
2. An adaquate christian response to the problem of suffering must contain the initiative for overcoming suffering. IF it is not to justify suffering, it must, on the contrary, help to maintain the protest against suffering and convert it into an initative for overcoming suffering.
Does your making sense out of suffering meet these two requirements.
Does your response to suffering meet from my experience the two requirements most people have when responding to suffering and evil, (these requirements come from reading "God Crucified" by Moltmann on the modern shape of the problem of evil)
1. Innocent and involuntary suffering must not be justified. It must not be justified either by solutions to the problem of suffering and evil, which explains it as necessary to God's purpose, or explains it as necessary to some higher human purpose. Such justifications suppress the moral outrage against evil, silence protest against evil, and therefore at the least reduce the motive for relieving and overcoming suffering. At worst they justify infliction of innocent suffering.
2. An adaquate christian response to the problem of suffering must contain the initiative for overcoming suffering. IF it is not to justify suffering, it must, on the contrary, help to maintain the protest against suffering and convert it into an initative for overcoming suffering.
Does your making sense out of suffering meet these two requirements.
Re: No Purpose in Suffering
I guess I would have to ask if the one making these statements is saying that they must be true, whether or not they contradict scripture, or if he is imagining that the scriptures support his points. If the former, then I do not have any common ground with him for ethical dialogue, since my starting point is the assumption that we gain more accurate information on such subjects by consulting what God has said on the subject than by following what human speculators say or feel about it. I will endeavor to respond biblically to the two conditions you presented:
There seem to be several factors overlooked in this statement (I should forewarn you that I am predisposed in all my thinking to take God's side in the matter):
a) Innocence and guilt are relative matters. That is, some people are more guilty and some more innocent than are others. However, no one is absolutely innocent. If the wages of sin is death, then any person might find this sentence executed (by God) at any time, without being able to declare an injustice to have been done. Of course, the fact that everyone deserves to die does not translate into the right of anyone who chooses to become the executioner. Hence, murder, which is an unjustified killing done by an unauthorized executioner, is an injustice and is subject to punishment. Seen from the standpoint of the human agent, killing a man is a crime punishable by death. On the other hand, seen in terms of the justice of God's providences (i.e., was God wrong to allow the victim's death, or was God obligated to prevent it?) no injustice can be found in Him. Our deaths are already decreed by the ultimate Judge. Any stay of execution is mercy, not justice. He has every right to decide when to execute the sentence, and will do so at the time that He thinks it most appropriate or useful for His purposes. There are Christians who disagree with this, but, in my opinion, they do not do so without diminishing the plain teachings of scripture concerning God's prerogatives.
b) We are commanded to speak and act against injustice. There is no biblical basis for suppressing moral outrage. Thus we may, by our actions, succeed in saving a life otherwise at risk. In doing so, we do not thwart God's attempt to execute the sentence of death on the rescued person. If God intended to take that person out on that day, no attempts on our part to rescue him/her could possibly succeed. We cannot thwart God's purpose in extending another person's life beyond the point that God chooses to impart breath to him/her. In cases of our efforts saving lives, our assistance may be the means by which God has chosen to rescue someone who had been targeted by nature or hostile parties for death (contrary to God's will, at that time). We are commanded to do all we can to save others and alleviate injustices, but we do so in the awareness that we can only accomplish as much as God permits us to accomplish (medical doctors have often made this observation, concerning their patients). When God overrules our efforts and our prayers, we accept His sentence.
c) The purpose of such sufferings as do not result in one's death is yet another consideration. Suppose God has not decided to quickly allow the sentence of death to be carried out, but He has nonetheless allowed various forms of misery to be endured by relatively innocent people. Again, there is no absolute innocence, and it is not within the range of our competence to say what suffering may be warranted, in God's sight, to any man, woman or child. However, we can often settle upon a reasonable conviction that some sufferings are not punitive. They may be remedial. Pains that are known to be remedial do not cry out, as senseless suffering does, for justification.
d) The statement under consideration carefully includes the modifier "involuntary," which apparently means that a person may voluntarily accept unjust sufferings upon himself without incurring guilt thereby, but that the infliction of suffering involuntarily upon a person is wrong. In general, we must agree with this idea, but we must recognize a significant exception. A parent has certain prerogatives over a child in a family. The child might count it cruel and unusual to be forced to eat his brussels sprouts, or to be made to do arduous chores around the farm, or to even be born into a poverty-stricken home. Yet, these decisions are legitimately left to the parents—not to the children to choose for themselves. The parent knows (or at least has the right to act as if he/she knows) what is best for the child, and may inflict what the child experiences as suffering upon him for the good either of the child himself, or for the family as a whole. There is a parental prerogative, which the Bible acknowledges, even if modern society does not.
God's prerogatives are greater than those of any parent over His child. Even further, His prerogatives are compared to those of a potter over his clay! If God has these prerogatives, then none can say that He cannot justly bring whatever suffering He may deem beneficial upon a child of His (or upon a creation of His).
It may even be right, in some cases, for one person to bring involuntary suffering upon another person. For a doctor to perform an emergency amputation upon the leg of a person who has gangrene, but who is unconscious and unable to give consent, cannot be said to be unjust, though the patient will suffer the loss of the leg permanently. Far from being unjust, it could easily be seen as falling within the realm of the doctor's duties to do so.
If we see a man as being fatally infected with the gangrene of sin, and in need of life-saving surgery, though he is unaware of it, then I believe we can see God as having the right (perhaps even the duty) to perform whatever surgery might be necessary to restore spiritual health. Of course, all of these considerations only make sense to people who believe in and are on the side of God, and who see eternal and temporal issues through the lens of the divine revelation given in scripture. I have found that not all Christians have this commitment.
I think the author should have used some modifier. He should have said "unjust suffering," or "unnecessary suffering," or "suffering whose effects are necessarily harmful," or some such thing. "Suffering" alone is too nuanced a subject to be cast aside in such a cavalier manner.
Also, I am not sure what is meant by "overcoming suffering."
In one person's mind, it may mean abolishing global human suffering altogether. This would be a fool's errand, since death (at least), and suffering the effects of the fall (on some level...even if it is only in aging), are decreed to be inevitable until such a time as "there [is] no more curse" (Rev.22:3).
If we were, for instance, to think that Christians must aim at bringing an end to tornados, and to the fact that a man will suffer pain and loss if he or his possessions are hit by a tornado, we might be well-advised to save our powder for projects less doomed to failure than this—and we needn't think ourselves obligated to have this impossibility as our goal in all of our responses to suffering.
For all we know, there may, in the present order of things, be a moral need for some suffering to exist—though we are not permitted to be the perpetrators of it. God can certainly go over our heads to bring it about.
Another intended meaning of "overcoming suffering" might be less ambitious—namely, that we should by all means end the suffering of individual sufferers, even if we can not eradicate the universal phenomenon of suffering on a global scale. However, ending suffering, at any cost, cannot, in itself, be the Christian's goal, unless we are to approve of shooting a man to bring an end to the pain he is feeling over the abandonment of his wife or the death of his child. This would be the only way to end such emotional pain. Many types of suffering can only be completely relieved by the total loss of normal brain function. Most mature Christians, following scripture, believe that pain serves some good purpose in character formation, just as muscle-builders believe that the pain in their muscles caused by tearing them with overwork will build desired muscle mass. Just as the goal of creating a world without suffering of any kind is a Polyanna dream that does not take into consideration the biblical realities of the fall and of redemption (the latter, itself, being an accomplishment that involved great suffering)—so is it unrealistic (and, for all we know, undesirable) that a human being should never know any kind of suffering, and that we should bring instant and absolute relief to every person (including ourselves) who is going through temporal pain.
A caller once asked me whether, if Adam had never fallen, he would experience pain, should a rock unhappily fall on his foot. I had never considered the question, and had always assumed the answer to be "no." But then, I had to consider: Had man never fallen, would he not have the same nerves in his body that now tell us that damage has been or is being done to some part of our bodies? If I inadvertently were to lean upon an object capable of piercing through or burning up my hand, would it be better for me to feel no pain and thus to continue to lean upon it until I had done irreparable damage to my hand? It seems to me that pain is an essential "alarm system" for the body (one that is tragically lost by lepers, who, as a result, often destroy their appendages without knowing they are doing so). In a world where harmful events and objects abound, would we do everyone a favor by giving each one a dose of anesthesia sufficient to prevent them from knowing that something is wrong? This question would also apply to such pains and sufferings as we may experience due to something being wrong with us morally, or in a relationship—whether with a man or with God. Without pain, we would live obliviously in a world full of (physical and spiritual) deadly ills.
Thus, I do not think our view of suffering, if biblical, has as its goal the prevention or instant alleviation of all pain and suffering from every individual we meet (nor from ourselves, which is one reason we are forbidden the luxuries of both drunkenness and suicide—which are often very tempting alternatives to suffering).
A third possible meaning of "overcoming suffering" would be that we take what might have been meant by someone for evil, and we wring much good out of it. This is why children are spanked (or born in the first place), why cancer patients endure surgery, why athletes work-out to the point of pain and exhaustion, why parents live on the edge of poverty in order to give their children an education, etc., etc., etc.
Abraham Lincoln, it is said, was criticized by one of his advisors for being too generous to his political enemies. "You are supposed to defeat your enemies, not befriend them," he was told. His response was, "If I turn my enemy into my friend, have I not defeated my enemy?" Likewise, when we seize our pains and difficulties, and transform them into advantages, we have truly "overcome" them...even if they remain unrelieved.
The number of stories about sufferers who became Christians, or became heroes, or became healthier in their relationships, or became humbler, or became more compassionate, or became more prayerful, etc., as the direct result of their sufferings, is legion. When we so often observe this phenomenon, why should we doubt that these benefits were the very goal that God had in mind for these people, and that it was for this purpose that He allowed their sufferings to occur? Paul certainly described his own sufferings as having this purpose in his life—as did Joseph, and Job, and the Psalmists. So did Jesus, as a matter of fact. Why should we not see sufferings this way?
Our Christian response to suffering must be to overcome it. But how? Yes, by first doing what we can legitimately do to procure relief, but also by seeing that God may wish for us to turn disaster into some spiritual advantage. Thus any suffering that we cannot alleviate by our prayers and efforts, we must recognize to be a denial issued by God for the obtaining of a loving purpose that only He may be able to foresee. This is the way the Bible presents the Christian's attitude toward suffering. This is the response of faith, as opposed to that of panic, perplexity, doubt, or bitterness.
By the way, I have a topical lecture series called "Making Sense of Suffering," which deals with these questions in more detail.
1. Innocent and involuntary suffering must not be justified. It must not be justified either by solutions to the problem of suffering and evil, which explains it as necessary to God's purpose, or explains it as necessary to some higher human purpose. Such justifications suppress the moral outrage against evil, silence protest against evil, and therefore at the least reduce the motive for relieving and overcoming suffering. At worst they justify infliction of innocent suffering.
There seem to be several factors overlooked in this statement (I should forewarn you that I am predisposed in all my thinking to take God's side in the matter):
a) Innocence and guilt are relative matters. That is, some people are more guilty and some more innocent than are others. However, no one is absolutely innocent. If the wages of sin is death, then any person might find this sentence executed (by God) at any time, without being able to declare an injustice to have been done. Of course, the fact that everyone deserves to die does not translate into the right of anyone who chooses to become the executioner. Hence, murder, which is an unjustified killing done by an unauthorized executioner, is an injustice and is subject to punishment. Seen from the standpoint of the human agent, killing a man is a crime punishable by death. On the other hand, seen in terms of the justice of God's providences (i.e., was God wrong to allow the victim's death, or was God obligated to prevent it?) no injustice can be found in Him. Our deaths are already decreed by the ultimate Judge. Any stay of execution is mercy, not justice. He has every right to decide when to execute the sentence, and will do so at the time that He thinks it most appropriate or useful for His purposes. There are Christians who disagree with this, but, in my opinion, they do not do so without diminishing the plain teachings of scripture concerning God's prerogatives.
b) We are commanded to speak and act against injustice. There is no biblical basis for suppressing moral outrage. Thus we may, by our actions, succeed in saving a life otherwise at risk. In doing so, we do not thwart God's attempt to execute the sentence of death on the rescued person. If God intended to take that person out on that day, no attempts on our part to rescue him/her could possibly succeed. We cannot thwart God's purpose in extending another person's life beyond the point that God chooses to impart breath to him/her. In cases of our efforts saving lives, our assistance may be the means by which God has chosen to rescue someone who had been targeted by nature or hostile parties for death (contrary to God's will, at that time). We are commanded to do all we can to save others and alleviate injustices, but we do so in the awareness that we can only accomplish as much as God permits us to accomplish (medical doctors have often made this observation, concerning their patients). When God overrules our efforts and our prayers, we accept His sentence.
c) The purpose of such sufferings as do not result in one's death is yet another consideration. Suppose God has not decided to quickly allow the sentence of death to be carried out, but He has nonetheless allowed various forms of misery to be endured by relatively innocent people. Again, there is no absolute innocence, and it is not within the range of our competence to say what suffering may be warranted, in God's sight, to any man, woman or child. However, we can often settle upon a reasonable conviction that some sufferings are not punitive. They may be remedial. Pains that are known to be remedial do not cry out, as senseless suffering does, for justification.
d) The statement under consideration carefully includes the modifier "involuntary," which apparently means that a person may voluntarily accept unjust sufferings upon himself without incurring guilt thereby, but that the infliction of suffering involuntarily upon a person is wrong. In general, we must agree with this idea, but we must recognize a significant exception. A parent has certain prerogatives over a child in a family. The child might count it cruel and unusual to be forced to eat his brussels sprouts, or to be made to do arduous chores around the farm, or to even be born into a poverty-stricken home. Yet, these decisions are legitimately left to the parents—not to the children to choose for themselves. The parent knows (or at least has the right to act as if he/she knows) what is best for the child, and may inflict what the child experiences as suffering upon him for the good either of the child himself, or for the family as a whole. There is a parental prerogative, which the Bible acknowledges, even if modern society does not.
God's prerogatives are greater than those of any parent over His child. Even further, His prerogatives are compared to those of a potter over his clay! If God has these prerogatives, then none can say that He cannot justly bring whatever suffering He may deem beneficial upon a child of His (or upon a creation of His).
It may even be right, in some cases, for one person to bring involuntary suffering upon another person. For a doctor to perform an emergency amputation upon the leg of a person who has gangrene, but who is unconscious and unable to give consent, cannot be said to be unjust, though the patient will suffer the loss of the leg permanently. Far from being unjust, it could easily be seen as falling within the realm of the doctor's duties to do so.
If we see a man as being fatally infected with the gangrene of sin, and in need of life-saving surgery, though he is unaware of it, then I believe we can see God as having the right (perhaps even the duty) to perform whatever surgery might be necessary to restore spiritual health. Of course, all of these considerations only make sense to people who believe in and are on the side of God, and who see eternal and temporal issues through the lens of the divine revelation given in scripture. I have found that not all Christians have this commitment.
It is clear that the author is assuming all "suffering" to be evil. Is a toothe-ache evil? Is it evil to feel grieved at the loss of a loved one? Is it bad to feel hunger pains when it is time to eat? This author is too one-dimensional, and speaks as if suffering was, by definition, a bad thing that we must always condemn. What arguments can be made for this position? The only one that I can see is that suffering is unpleasant and that no one likes it. This is not the same thing as proving it to be morally unjustifiable.2. An adaquate christian response to the problem of suffering must contain the initiative for overcoming suffering. IF it is not to justify suffering, it must, on the contrary, help to maintain the protest against suffering and convert it into an initative for overcoming suffering.
I think the author should have used some modifier. He should have said "unjust suffering," or "unnecessary suffering," or "suffering whose effects are necessarily harmful," or some such thing. "Suffering" alone is too nuanced a subject to be cast aside in such a cavalier manner.
Also, I am not sure what is meant by "overcoming suffering."
In one person's mind, it may mean abolishing global human suffering altogether. This would be a fool's errand, since death (at least), and suffering the effects of the fall (on some level...even if it is only in aging), are decreed to be inevitable until such a time as "there [is] no more curse" (Rev.22:3).
If we were, for instance, to think that Christians must aim at bringing an end to tornados, and to the fact that a man will suffer pain and loss if he or his possessions are hit by a tornado, we might be well-advised to save our powder for projects less doomed to failure than this—and we needn't think ourselves obligated to have this impossibility as our goal in all of our responses to suffering.
For all we know, there may, in the present order of things, be a moral need for some suffering to exist—though we are not permitted to be the perpetrators of it. God can certainly go over our heads to bring it about.
Another intended meaning of "overcoming suffering" might be less ambitious—namely, that we should by all means end the suffering of individual sufferers, even if we can not eradicate the universal phenomenon of suffering on a global scale. However, ending suffering, at any cost, cannot, in itself, be the Christian's goal, unless we are to approve of shooting a man to bring an end to the pain he is feeling over the abandonment of his wife or the death of his child. This would be the only way to end such emotional pain. Many types of suffering can only be completely relieved by the total loss of normal brain function. Most mature Christians, following scripture, believe that pain serves some good purpose in character formation, just as muscle-builders believe that the pain in their muscles caused by tearing them with overwork will build desired muscle mass. Just as the goal of creating a world without suffering of any kind is a Polyanna dream that does not take into consideration the biblical realities of the fall and of redemption (the latter, itself, being an accomplishment that involved great suffering)—so is it unrealistic (and, for all we know, undesirable) that a human being should never know any kind of suffering, and that we should bring instant and absolute relief to every person (including ourselves) who is going through temporal pain.
A caller once asked me whether, if Adam had never fallen, he would experience pain, should a rock unhappily fall on his foot. I had never considered the question, and had always assumed the answer to be "no." But then, I had to consider: Had man never fallen, would he not have the same nerves in his body that now tell us that damage has been or is being done to some part of our bodies? If I inadvertently were to lean upon an object capable of piercing through or burning up my hand, would it be better for me to feel no pain and thus to continue to lean upon it until I had done irreparable damage to my hand? It seems to me that pain is an essential "alarm system" for the body (one that is tragically lost by lepers, who, as a result, often destroy their appendages without knowing they are doing so). In a world where harmful events and objects abound, would we do everyone a favor by giving each one a dose of anesthesia sufficient to prevent them from knowing that something is wrong? This question would also apply to such pains and sufferings as we may experience due to something being wrong with us morally, or in a relationship—whether with a man or with God. Without pain, we would live obliviously in a world full of (physical and spiritual) deadly ills.
Thus, I do not think our view of suffering, if biblical, has as its goal the prevention or instant alleviation of all pain and suffering from every individual we meet (nor from ourselves, which is one reason we are forbidden the luxuries of both drunkenness and suicide—which are often very tempting alternatives to suffering).
A third possible meaning of "overcoming suffering" would be that we take what might have been meant by someone for evil, and we wring much good out of it. This is why children are spanked (or born in the first place), why cancer patients endure surgery, why athletes work-out to the point of pain and exhaustion, why parents live on the edge of poverty in order to give their children an education, etc., etc., etc.
Abraham Lincoln, it is said, was criticized by one of his advisors for being too generous to his political enemies. "You are supposed to defeat your enemies, not befriend them," he was told. His response was, "If I turn my enemy into my friend, have I not defeated my enemy?" Likewise, when we seize our pains and difficulties, and transform them into advantages, we have truly "overcome" them...even if they remain unrelieved.
The number of stories about sufferers who became Christians, or became heroes, or became healthier in their relationships, or became humbler, or became more compassionate, or became more prayerful, etc., as the direct result of their sufferings, is legion. When we so often observe this phenomenon, why should we doubt that these benefits were the very goal that God had in mind for these people, and that it was for this purpose that He allowed their sufferings to occur? Paul certainly described his own sufferings as having this purpose in his life—as did Joseph, and Job, and the Psalmists. So did Jesus, as a matter of fact. Why should we not see sufferings this way?
Our Christian response to suffering must be to overcome it. But how? Yes, by first doing what we can legitimately do to procure relief, but also by seeing that God may wish for us to turn disaster into some spiritual advantage. Thus any suffering that we cannot alleviate by our prayers and efforts, we must recognize to be a denial issued by God for the obtaining of a loving purpose that only He may be able to foresee. This is the way the Bible presents the Christian's attitude toward suffering. This is the response of faith, as opposed to that of panic, perplexity, doubt, or bitterness.
By the way, I have a topical lecture series called "Making Sense of Suffering," which deals with these questions in more detail.