Okay, first off, it should be pretty obvious from the fact that I am finding deeper meaning from shows like "Heroes" that I am a theological welterweight. I am a theologian the way Fazzoli's is an Italian restaurant. So when my friend Eric throws out a question like "is our current suffering merely the symptom of a systemic evil rather than the reduplication of cosmic redemption?" then my first impulse is to go to Entertainment Weekly to see if a celebrity did anything embarrassing this week.
That being said, here is my best stab at an answer.
I do think all suffering is redemptive, because I think the "Christian Paradigm" is all-encompassing. Colossians 1:16 says that "God was pleased to have ALL his fullness dwell in [Jesus], and through him to reconcile to himself ALL things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Colossians in general, uses that word ALL a lot. And while it seems bizarre on a human timetable, I have to believe that ALL suffering is redeemed by a God who is sovereign over ALL things.
Carol Burnett, the comedian, once defined comedy as "tragedy + time." That seems to be a pretty good definition of God's glory also. That given a long enough timeline, everything works to God's glory. It may be the morning after a tornado, when someone surveys the damage to his home and realizes that it could have been worse-- that his family is still okay. It may be the month after a job change, when I realize that no matter how painful it was to leave my old job, God has me in a good place now. It may be the year after a cancer diagnosis, when one realizes how much they have learned to depend on God and how God works through His people.
The bigger the tragedy, the longer the timeline it takes before "All things work togeter for good" (Romans 8:28). How long a timeline is necessary before we see 9/11 redeemed? We can see some elements of redemption even now, like shafts of sunlight in a dark forest. How long for the Holocaust? That one, I think, will take millenia. But Ecc. 3:11 says that God has set eternity in the hearts of men. Which means that we have been created for eternity. We have an infinitely long timeline. I think if you had stood on Calvary on the morning after the murder of Jesus, you would have thought the cross was the most horrible thing you had ever seen. Now, two thousand years later, we sing, "When I survey the wondrous cross."
God's glory = tragedy + time.
I don't think the Gospel ignores suffering. But when you ask whether it is just a symptom of a fallen world or a reduplication of cosmic redemption, I think it is both/and, not either/or. There is suffering because we are in a fallen world. There is systemic evil, because I believe we are at war with a real enemy, who desires to un-do creation. But I think it's like a fractal: smash a crystal into a thousand pieces and each piece will retain the structure of the whole. All of our light and momentary afflictions, according to 2 Corinthians 4:17, are "producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison."
Enough of that. I need to go find out who got voted off "Dancing with the Stars."
Posts
5 comments:
i'm sorry i forced your blog into a serious corner
i apologize for that.
i guess to respond to your response in a somewhat smaller response...i appreciate your perspective and i too affirm the nature of god's redemptive work in and through creation as it groans for justice.
i guess in my questioning of redemptive suffering i have tendencies to see it from the side of the victim of the suffering itself rather than from a theology of sovereignity. because i know in my own life and in the lives of other people i know outside the christian worldview "redemptive suffering" has been a somewhat flippant explanation for anything from spousal abuse to systemic poverty.
while i see the redemptive purposes of god in all things (and i'm certainly not accusing you of doing this) i also see that theology used as a crutch for continuing systems of abuse and oppression in light of the "redemptive purposes of god in the suffering of the marginal"
just a thought...
eric
Dude, that was so not a Fazolli's response. I felt like I was in Rome eating the real deal. Great insight brother. I whole heartedly agree with your response and reasoning. In fact, it frightens me to think of anything that God cannot be glorified in or that He cannot redeem. If that were the case, I'd have to redefine Who God is... Thank God for His redemptive power!
It's a good response, Eric. And I would have said so earlier, except that I just found out I have to approve responses before I post them. So, I'm James Jackson, and I approve of this message, or something like that. Anyhow, you are right in that theology can be used as a crutch for continuing systems of abuse and oppression. And I think that is precisely why the Hindu caste system was reinforced-- because there was a theology in place that continued to justify the oppression of untouchables. But I can't think of any examples of sound Christian theology that have done this. What did you have in mind?
Don't worry about forcing my blog into any corners. It is taking shape with every post.
I guess i would probably be referring to passages such as:
"the poor you will always have with you"
1 Pet. 4:15-17 which has been used time and again for the perpetuance and continuation of christians enduring suffering "for the sake of the gospel"
is it necessary for a believing wife to take blow after blow after blow from a non-believing husband to bring about his salvation through her continual self-imposed masochistic belief?
we would probably say no...right?
is it necessary for christians to ignore the needs of the poor, even in some cases themselves, in light of eschatological belief?
we would probably say no...right?
i guess when you say "sound christian theology" i would agree that suffering is redemptive because it points to the eventual fact that ALL things will be redeemed, not just souls...
but what i consider redemptive is not the suffering itself, that was jesus' role, but rather its allieviation
because in that individual redemption we can experience a small part of the expected future, which isn't death, but life.
i just read this again...i don't know if it makes any sense
I love how you think, Eric. And it seems to me that Scripture is clear that we are meant to take an active role in easing the suffering we see in the world. Any strain of "well, it's all gonna burn" or, "hey, we're just passing through" theology is pretty much blown up by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Besides, I tend to think that when Jesus said, "You will always have the poor among you," that it was supposed to be taken as a command. I think maybe Jesus was saying, "Hey church! I need you to have the poor among you! Are they allowed in to your sanctuaries? Have you abandoned your downtown campus and fled to the suburbs? If so, you aren't having the poor among you, and you aren't really listening to Me anymore, are you?"
Post a Comment