CONNECTING EVIL, SUFFERING AND EMPATHY.

Having worked in children's intensive care for ten years in all,
I have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering.
Not that I can claim to have anything desperately original to say,
but at least these thoughts come from someone at the "coal face",
albeit as an observer.

In September 2004 the world was confronted with the school
siege in Beslan, which resulted in hundreds of young children
being killed. Then in December 2004 we were shocked by the
scale of the Asian tsunami.

If we had faith in the fundamental goodness of humanity then
Beslan should have shaken our complacency. If we naively
believed that we live in the best of all possible worlds then the
tsunami should alert us to the truth. We share an unstable
fragile planet with rotten people like ourselves. If we hadn't
thought about evil and suffering before we have no excuse
now. Every culture, every faith, every ideology must have
some sort of response to the suffering it witnesses. For
Christians evil and suffering are not an awkward side issue;
they are the core problem to which the Gospel boldly claims
to be the solution. The Biblical narrative in Genesis 1-3
explains why we live in a world of great beauty, populated
with wonderfully gifted people, which has fallen into a state
of dis-ease.

Meaningless or "Meaning-Full"?

There are two equal and opposite responses to evil and
suffering. The first is that all such suffering is "Meaningless".

Richard Dawkins says:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and we won't find any
rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe
we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose,
no evil and no good; nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares. DNA
just is, and we dance to its music."

Another view from the "meaningless" belief systems might
be the Buddhist who says that suffering is merely an illusion.
Both Dawkins and the Buddhist say that such questions of
morality are "all in the mind", and if we instinctively recognise
certain actions or events to be evil, then it is our instincts
which are wrong.

From a Christian perspective this response to suffering is at
best inadequate and at worst is itself an act of moral cowardice
in not facing the reality of evil which any sensitive observer of
human affairs can recognise.

The opposite reaction to the "meaningless" outlooks is to say
that the suffering is "meaning-full" [in the sense of being
over full of meaning]. Fawzan-al Fawzan, who preaches on
Islamic TV networks, said that the Tsunami victims died
because they deserved to. Several years ago Glenn Hoddle
was forced to resign as England's football manager for saying
something similar in the context of disabled children -
"these things happen for a reason". Bad karma in Hindu
tradition can be invoked to justify suffering. It purports that
unfortunates are being punished appropriately for evil they
have committed in previous lives. In all the "meaning-full"
schemes of things there is a simple cause and effect relation-
ship. The disaster or epidemic take out the evil doers. The
suicide bomber or hostage taker can justify his actions by
saying that it is God who determines who is worthy of death,
he is merely a tool of divine providence. The sufferer is not
a victim worthy of compassion but a "sinner". At the same
time, because I am NOT ill, murdered or otherwise ill
favoured, I cannot be a "sinner". QED.

Sin and ill-fortune are equated in "meaning-full" theologies,
which is why they do not have a philosophy of compassion
beyond meritorious alms giving. If we understand this then
we will immediately begin to understand the purpose of
healing in Jesus' ministry and why it was so challenging to
the prevailing attitudes of the day. Jesus is THE physician
of the body and the sin-sick soul, not the executioner!

"Meaning-full" theologies will always assume that sin is a
problem for someone other than themselves and that only
judgment, rather than grace, will be the result. It is the
natural default setting of us humans to assume that God
will bump off "the bad guys" (such as the Beslan hostage
takers) and accept me. Evil is never a description of
ourselves, but is always applicable to the "other", to
"them" or whoever the "outgroup" happens to be. And
we know that God will judge murderers - but what about
we who murder our brother in our heart? Why do we
presume that we will be left standing? What is it that we
are trusting in? Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for
the self-righteous (e.g. Matthew 23 & Mark 12v38-40).

A Christian response.

In Luke 13 Jesus is asked about the victims of a Roman
atrocity and others killed when a building collapsed. Jesus
replies, "Do you think that these were worse sinners
than all the others?....No....but unless you repent you will
all likewise perish". These events were not "meaning-full"
but neither were they meaningless. If such crises give us
pause for thought and cause us to examine our own lives
and our desperate need to be right with God then it is at
least meaningful. The awful truth is that we are all evil
doers worthy of such judgment. That is how I know that
the Gospel is true, because it holds a mirror before me
and reveals a face I don't dare show anyone else, and
yet reassures me of a God who knows me and loves me
totally.

As a Christian who has worked in Paediatric Intensive
Care I have witnessed my fair share of misfortune, and
seen that it is natural for people to look for significance
in their loss. Some Christians naively assume that they
can interpret the mind of God from events. Although I
am suspicious of such attempts, just because I cannot
conceive of the purpose doesn't mean that there isn't
one.

We must therefore help those for whom we care to
avoid over analysing their situation, seeking out "the
lesson to be learned!" while helping them to make sense
of their suffering and tragedy.

In doing this we need to turn to the scriptures. The
Bible has a great deal to say about suffering - especially
when compounded by it's apparent meaninglessness.
The universe, as Dawkins observed earlier, is apparently
without "any rhyme or reason". The Bible describes
this state as "the creation subjected to futility" (Romans
8 v20-22). Dawkins was right up to a point (Ecclesiastes
1 v1 would agree!), but that is not the whole truth.

When I face a distressing, perplexing situation at work
and my theological absractions are dust in my mouth,
and there are no easy answers, what THEN do I need
to know? I need to know that God is loving and that he
is all-powerful.

In John 11 v1-44, Lazarus was ill and his family sent
word for Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he
delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha
gives him a piece of her mind - "where were you when
we needed you?" Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise
again". Martha knows her theology, thank you very
much - she believes in the resurrection. But Jesus says
something amazing "I am the resurrection and the life".
True faith is never a theological abstraction; it is trust
in a person. Of course Jesus goes on to demonstrate his
awesome power by raising Lazarus, but before we get
there we are given some insight into the heart of the
Trinity. Jesus as God is deeply moved and greatly
troubled. And he weeps. In this we see God suffering
along side those who grieve (see Isaiah 63v9). I may
not know the "why" of suffering within God's plan,
but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character
settled.

Faith is ultimately relational and is not a theological
abstraction - perhaps that is why the philosophical
answers to suffering are arid and unsatisfactory.
Abstractions can never take the place of a personal God.
That is why Christians need to get onto the subject of
Jesus ASAP if we are to address evil and suffering in
anything like a meaningful way - if we don't we will
sound like we are justifying suffering. Someone's
question about suffering and injustice, which we airily
pick over, may conceal a deeper pain. Do take care to
find "the question behind the question".

God has not been indifferent to the suffering of the world,
but in Christ he has clothed himself with human
frailty and acted decisively in history at the Cross.

Conclusion.

Evil and suffering, far from demonstrating the non-
existence of God, actaully alert us to the fact that we
live in a moral and personal universe. Indifference is not
a godly option. And only Jesus adequately addresses the
deepest of deepest needs in mankind - to be reconciled to
the Creator. Evil and suffering are not magicked away but
in the fullness of time, for those who take refuge in him,
God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and
death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning
nor crying nor pain any more". In a sense, when we want
the suffering to end, we areasking God to bring in his
Kingdom. And ultimately the only "tradegy" is the pain of
those who reject the grief-stricken Christ (Matthew 23
v37-39). Only when Jesus' kingdom comes in all it's
fullness will the conundrum of reconciling God's love,
as expressed in his perfect justice, be reconciled with his
love expressed as mercy.

The Beslan hostage-takers and tsunami victims and you and
I will all stand before the flawlessly fair judge who knows all
our hearts. Only then will the Universe, in which we have
always felt ill at ease, be put the right way up.

[This article was first published in the Autumn 2005 edition
of "CNM News". The "Christian Nurses & Midwives"
organisation website can be found at http://www.cnm.org.uk/ ].

tagline: 'Meaningless or "Meaning-full"?' Evil & suffering in
God's World. God's plan. Understanding God's purposes.
Life is meaningless. Life. Meaning. Meaningful. God. Hope.