A PHILOSOPHY OF SUFFERING

The late British philosopher C.S. Lewis declared that he believed in Christianity for the same reason he believed in the sun. It was not merely because he could see the sun, but, by the sun, he could see everything else.

Does the Bible enable us to see and understand everything else? I will confine myself to one instance of this principle. The Bible enables us to understand and embrace suffering and to live meaningfully within its unavoidable embrace. In contrast to this, secularism regards suffering as a useless encumbrance. Consequently, when the secularist suffers, he experiences a double whammy – a virtual knockout punch:

1. The suffering itself and
2. …the debilitating understanding that suffering is a negative, meaningless and costly burden, lacking any redemptive value.

Secularism deprives suffering of its meaning. This doesn’t mean that secularists don’t talk about meaning. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche did:

·       “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.” 

Although this is very true, it is not adequate to simply create our own “why.” We have to know that meaning is intrinsic to reality itself and connects us to something higher than merely our changing feelings.

The late American novelist Norman Mailer was cognizant of this problem:

·       “We are healthier if we think there is some importance in what we’re doing…When it seems like my life is meaningless, I feel closer to despair.”

It seems that Mailer realized that he could not merely create his own meaning. Instead, it has to be discovered within the fabric of objective reality.

Without meaning, we shrivel and die in the face of suffering. The late psychiatrist Victor Frankl observed, during his internment in a National Socialist death camp, that:

·       “The prisoner who had lost faith in the future…was doomed.”

Even worse, secularism slams the door on meaning, according to sociologist David Karp:

·       “Cosmopolitan medicine banishes that knowledge [of the necessary purpose for suffering] by insisting that suffering is without meaning and unnecessary… [Suffering is] secularized as mechanical mishaps, and so stripped of their stories, the spiritual ramifications and missing pieces of history that make meaning." (Speaking of Sadness, pg. 191) 

Nevertheless, secularists do find meaning in suffering. They recognize that suffering can aid in producing character and virtue. However, are these observations enough to overcome the pain of suffering, disease, victimization, and death? Hardly! It is little comfort to one who has lost his family to a murderer to think that, maybe, his ordeal might be improving his character.

Faith in the meaning of suffering and of life itself is essential. It is precisely this meaning that the Bible enables us to see and embrace!

We trust in the Bible’s wisdom that in order to become like Christ, we must suffer like Christ (2 Corinthians 4:10-11, 16-18). Besides, knowing that this will last only for a little while enables us to persevere as did Jesus:

·       Looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:2; ESV)

We need a worldview that serves as a good roadmap, getting us to where we need to go. The Bible’s teachings on suffering enable us to navigate the most horrendous roads.

This same principle pertains to the other teachings of the Bible. The Bible unmasks the detrimental effects of sin. I was never able to put two and two together to see the negative effects of sugar until it was pointed out to me. Now I have become aware of how sugar makes me feel and limit my intake.

Now that I have been made aware of the deleterious impact of sin upon me, I can begin to see its costs, deceptiveness, and how it coerces me to justify and defend it – how it was able to take control of my thinking in a more profound way than any drug could ever do. Now, with my eyes widened by the teachings of Scripture, I can begin to oppose it and not fall prey to its corrupting influences.

Admittedly, I daily struggle against sin. However, when it does take hold, I confess it to my Savior, and He forgives and cleanses me of all of its filth (1 John 1:9).

In the next chapter, I will further try to illustrate how the teachings of the Bible are best able to address the question of “mental health.”

ARE WE ALLOWED TO RESIST EVIL?

A group of Christian women were singing hymns on the street. An angry passer-by struck one of the women down to the ground. The police later asked her if she wanted to press charges. She declined, thinking that she was being faithful to Jesus’ teaching:

·       "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38-39)

Paul had similarly written:

·       Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord”…Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-21)

This Christian woman thought it wrong to resist the “evil person” by pressing charges. In her mind, such a response would contradict Jesus’ teaching on non-resistance. However, most of us do not take this teaching literally. Jesus had often taught figuratively or hyperbolically - plucking out you eye or cutting off your hand if it causes you to sin, not letting your left hand know what your right hand is doing, hating your parents, and letting the dead bury the dead. We don’t take these teaching literally. Then, should we take “turn the other cheek” literally?

An “eye for an eye” had been a progressive judicial principle that required the punishment fit the offense (Exodus 21:23-27). Cutting off a man’s hand, if he stole a loaf of bread to feed his family, was not justice. However, the rich and powerful consistently appealed to an unbiblical understanding of “eye for an eye” to justify personal revenge, as the Bible Background Commentary explains:

·       In Israel and other cultures, this principle was enforced by a court and refers to legalized vengeance; personal vengeance was never accepted in the law of Moses... The Old Testament did not permit personal vengeance.

Even though the OT never sanctioned an “eye for an eye” for personal revenge, it had been used for this purpose. The Jamison-Faucett-Brown Commentary also agrees on this point:

·       This law of retribution—designed to take vengeance out of the hands of private persons, and commit it to the magistrate—was abused…this judicial regulation was held to be a warrant for taking redress into their own hands, contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Proverbs 20:22; Proverbs 24:29).

In light of this, Jesus’ argument wasn’t against Mosaic Law’s teaching of an “eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24), a judicial principle that demanded that a punishment fit the crime. Instead, it was against the abuse of the Law for the purpose of revenge. Consequently, Jesus’ teaching to “not resist an evil person” should be understood as a warning against retaliation and revenge and not complete non-resistance to evil. In fact, Jesus often resisted evil. Instead of passively lying down, he proactively exposed the hypocrisy of the religious leadership. When the High Priest asked Jesus about His doctrine in an attempt to bring a death sentence upon Him, Jesus resisted him:

·       One of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded. If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" (John 18:22-23)

Although the leadership was trying to prove Jesus’ guilt, He demonstrated that they were the guilty ones. Jesus was never reluctant to highlight the hypocrisy of His detractors. Healing first requires an accurate diagnosis of the problem. Their problem was sin, it had to be exposed in hope that it might incline them to cry out for the only possible healing – reconciliation with the God they had rejected.

Meanwhile, our detractors charge, “Well, the church doesn’t seem to follow Jesus, does it? Jesus preached non-resistance!”

However, Jesus didn’t follow such a teaching either. Although He always condescended to heal the broken and humbled, He also resisted the requests of the arrogant and hardened. He resisted the efforts of the Jews to make Him king; He resisted when they wanted to kill Him before His appointed time. When asked to judge, He resisted:

·       Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me." Jesus replied, "Man, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you?" (Luke 12:13-14)

Jesus was never pressured or coerced into doing anything in opposition to His person or mission. Everything He did and said was done in service to the truth. He always spoke the truth in love, although it often contained a painful denunciation (Matthew 23). Rather than serving as an example of non-resistance, we find that Jesus consistently resisted sin by exposing it (Ephesians 5:11).

Jesus resisted Satan who tempted Him saying, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread" (Matthew 4:3). Jesus didn’t practice non-resistance by saying, “Whatever you say, Satan! Bread from stones, coming up! Want it buttered?”  Instead, He stayed true to His mission:

·       Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" (Matthew 4:4)

On many occasions, Jesus resisted his own Apostles. When two of them requested the supreme honor of reigning on either side of their soon-to-be King, He denied their request. After Peter rebuked Jesus for confiding that He was facing death, Jesus didn’t practice non-resistance. He didn’t say, “Well, since you don’t want me to go to the cross, I guess I won’t.” Instead, He sharply rebuked Peter:

·       "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." (Matthew 16:23)

On at least one occasion, Jesus even resorted to violence, driving the money-changers out of the Temple with a whip (John 2:15-17), hardly an example of non-resistance! Evidently, Jesus was only teaching against a certain type of resistance – revenge.

However, our atheistic mockers will retort, “Well it seems that Jesus was teaching more than non-retaliation. He taught that his followers should allow their attackers to abuse them. Isn’t that what it means to turn the other cheek? Shouldn’t you then allow your assailant to strike your other cheek?”

Jesus wasn’t teaching against self-defense or the defense of wife and children. Instead, He upheld this principle, especially when it concerned one’s family:

·       Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. (Matthew 24:42-43)

This would require strenuous self-defense, something that both Moses and Jesus sanctioned. Instead, Jesus often spoke hyperbolically:

·       “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” (Matthew 5:29-30)

No one takes this teaching literally. If we did, we would all be eyeless and handless, and this would violate a Mosaic law against mutilating the body. Clearly, we have to take this verse figuratively. Jesus concluded:

·       It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (Mat 5:30).

   

Therefore, if cutting you hand off could spare you from eternal judgment, then cut off your hand. This would indeed be a very small price to pay to escape hell. However, we all know that such surgery couldn’t possibly save us, but if it could, we should do it.

In Matthew 5:38-42, we find a similar teaching. Jesus gives several hypothetical situations to illuminate what He means by “Do not resist an evil person.” In His first example He states, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Although Jesus allowed Himself to be physically abused during the crucifixion day, prior to that, He always avoided arrest. He never even allowed His right cheek to be struck!

Jesus regarded the Mosaic Law as God-given (Matthew 5:17-19; 4:4; 22:29; 24:35; John 10:35; 14:21-24; Luke 24:44-45). This Law never deprived a husband of his right and duty to protect his family against assault (Matthew 24:42-43). It is therefore unthinkable that Jesus would deny this legal privilege by teaching non-resistance. We therefore can’t take this teaching literally.

What then does this teaching mean? Rather than retaliating with “eye for an eye,” Jesus seemed to be teaching that it is better to allow yourself to be insulted or perhaps even abused than to pursue revenge, taking the law into your own hands. It is better to go the extra mile required by the “evil man” than to retaliate. In the same vain, He had taught that it’s better to cut off your hand than to continue in sin. Not that you should cut your hand off or allow yourself to be abused, but both of these unenviable outcomes were preferable to a life of sin.

Jesus’ next example reads,

·       And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. (Matthew 5:40)

Once again, Jesus seems to be teaching that it is better to voluntarily surrender your cloak than to vengefully retaliate for the sake of your tunic. This teaching certainly doesn’t mean that we should not avail ourselves of legal means to protect our home, family or business. Allowing ourselves to be abused for no higher cause does not glorify our Lord. It just shows our ignorance and brings unnecessary derision down upon our heads.

Jesus’ merely taught that we shouldn’t invoke “eye for an eye” as a justification for revenge! In fact, Paul appealed for legal protection on many occasions. Clearly, we are not called to be doormats, allowing our families to suffer abuse. This will not glorify the Lord nor manifest His wisdom.

There are godly ways to resist evil, and there are ways that are unsuitable for the Christian, as well as for others. The Christian woman, who had been assaulted for singing hymns, did not seek revenge, but she should have pressed charges. She owed that to others who this assailant might now be emboldened to attack.

Indeed, she should pray for him and try to show him the love and forgiveness in Christ, but she should also have resisted the “evil person” in a legal and godly manner.

Did Jesus believe in capital punishment as prescribed by the Mosaic Law? Those who believe in a meek and mild Jesus believe that He had rescinded the “harsh” penalties of the Law. However, it seems that He did not:

·       He [Jesus] answered them [the Pharisees], “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother MUST SURELY DIE.’” (Matthew 15:3-4)

As God-the-the-flesh, Jesus claimed to uphold all of the words of His righteous Father. Therefore, as the Father threatened judgment, we find the same with the Son.

Let’s now return to Paul’s teaching, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). Does this mean that we shouldn’t bring charges against those who violently assault us or our families?

Certainly not! Instead, Paul taught that we shouldn’t take personal revenge. Rather, we should let God avenge:

·       Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” (Romans 12:19)

How does God express His wrath? It is not just in the final judgment. Nor is it a wrath that works simply according to the creation order that He has established (Romans 1:18-28). He also expresses His wrath through the legal, governmental order that He has ordained:

·       For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out GOD’S WRATH on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

God ordained this justice system to restrain evil. It is therefore a system that we should uphold and even use. Paul taught us to submit to these authorities by paying them “taxes” (13:6) and “honor” (13:7).

How do we honor them? By respecting their office, by serving as witnesses against evil (Eph. 5:11), and even by pressing charges, when appropriate! If we know a gang is committing rapes and we fail to testify against them, then we become moral accomplices and bring disrepute upon our faith by allowing them to continue unchecked.

We also honor the authorities by allowing them to do their job. It is not our job to bring justice. We cannot form vigilante groups or take revenge. However, we can help the governing authorities by bringing to them charges of criminal wrongdoing. If we fail to do this, we are guilty before God:

• He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord. (Proverbs 17:15)

I would therefore counsel the young lady to press charges against her assailant. This is the righteous thing to do. It also represents an expression of love towards our community to restrain the assailant.

“How then are we to overcome evil with good?”

I was asked, “What would you do if you ran into someone who had just enlisted to go fight with ISIS?”

I answered that I would invite him for a cup of coffee and an apple pie. In gentleness, I would then try to reason with him to repent. However, if he wouldn’t, I would call the authorities to have him detained.

Our calling to love our enemies is not in conflict with our calling to support the authorities. Instead, they should both go together.

DENIAL AND THE REFUSAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR EVIL IMPULSES AND EVEN GOD

We have been bred on the philosophy, “You got to believe in yourself.” However, this belief is like an addiction to porn.

Let me try to explain. In order to believe in ourselves, we have to see ourselves in a favorable way. This means that we have to inflate our self-esteem. How do we do this? We feed ourselves on positive affirmations and deny or suppress the negative.

Once we get the rush of thinking that we are superior, it is hard to let go of it. Instead, we have to continually feed ourselves with positive illusions in order to regain the initial rush. This means we will become increasingly self-deluded as we pursue our mentally induced “high.”

So what? Don’t we need to think highly about ourselves? For one thing, I don’t think that we are able to see the costs of this addiction.

If we fail to see our dark side, we will not be able to stand against its power. And it is powerful. In The Significant Life, attorney George M. Weaver has presented many examples of the power of the dark side – our overwhelming need for positive affirmations:

•                Salvador Dali once said, “The thought of not being recognized [is] unbearable”…Lady Gaga sings, “I live for the applause, applause, applause…the way that you cheer and scream for me.” She adds in another song, “yes we live for the Fame, Doin’ it for the Fame, Cuz we wanna live the life of the rich and famous.” (7)

Writer Gore Vidal had been very transparent about the need – the addiction – to continually prove his superiority:

•                “Whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies.” (58)

If we have become addicted to an inflated self-esteem, it is an addiction that always needs to be fed. It is also an addiction of jealousy.

The more we are on the self-inflationary track, to more we will become unable to receive corrective criticism. Why? We have trained ourselves to only see the self-congratulatory messages, not the negative. These bring us down, and we need to be high.

In fact, our antennas become acutely attuned to negative messages. On numerous occasions, when I had stated the simple Biblical statement that we are all evil, people have become very defensive, even aggressive. One husband slammed the table, protesting that his wife “is not a sinner.” She then had to calm him down.

He needed to believe that his wife was superior to others, and he was willing to fight to defend her “honor.” His reaction was extreme but it also reflected the extent we will go to defend our or our family’s superior virtue and worthiness.

In order to resist the power of the evil within, we need to both see it, accept it, and stand against it. Believing in oneself opposes these things. It is a drug that resists any true self-reflection. It also destroys and resists humility.

Scripture often points to our blinding pride – our overriding tendency to think too highly of ourselves. In Jesus’ letters to the churches in the Book of Revelation, we read that those two churches that had the highest regard for themselves were actually the worst:

•                “And to the angel of the church in Sardis write: ‘The words of him who has the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die…’” (Revelation 3:1-2; ESV)

To the church at Laodicea, He writes:

•                For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. (Revelation 3:17)

These two churches had a high estimation of themselves, but they were asleep and had blinded themselves to their true status before God. They were commanded to “wake up” and to repent of their self-trust.

Refusal to see our dark-side is reflected in so many ways. Recently, I went to a meeting of people with emotional/mental problems. To encourage them, I claimed that we are all damaged merchandise. (I didn't add that we are damaged by sin.)

I was surprised to find that several objected to the very-obvious idea that they are damaged. Some didn't like thinking of themselves this way and actively resisted this idea.

Why? After all, they had joined a group which acknowledged that they had emotional problems. Instead, two charged that I had offended them. One fired back:

·       Speak for yourself. I never gave you the right to speak for me.

I was surprised that I had "personally insulted" him. But why such defensiveness? I had surmised that if he had truly accepted himself, he wouldn't have reacted so strongly.

Instead, his reaction suggested that he was unwilling to confront his sin-damaged self. This refusal would damn him to an unending international struggle to suppress his dark-side, as it would continue to emerge, fighting for the stage. This fight also would inevitably deprive him of peace and rest. Besides, when we refuse to acknowledge this dark-side, we no longer have the ability to keep it from stealing center-stage.

He embraced the secular hope - that we have within us the ability to change and to give ourselves the necessary positive affirmations to fuel our engine of transformation. 

However, I offended him again. I suggested that believing that we have the ability to transform ourselves just puts an extra burden on our shoulders. When we find that we are unable, we feel doubly the failure.

I then concluded that we have, therefore, been created to trust in God to do the heavy transformational lifting.

He quickly informed me that I had broken the rules:

·       You can't talk about God here. Not everybody believes in God. If you want to say that the belief in God or the spaghetti monster works for you, that's okay. But you are not allowed to tell me that God must work for me or anyone else here.

God cannot be allowed to exist because He violates the house rules! I guess that settles it. 

However, this rule comes with a high price-tag. We can only deny our dark-side and its Ultimate Answer but at great cost. It is like buttoning our shirt by starting with the wrong button. Every other button will be out of place.