The Elimination of Suffering

The other day, a friend asked the time-old question “Why does God allow suffering?” to which multiple people responded with their various opinions on the subject. One individual responded with an argument of contrast. That is, suffering exists to show beauty through contrast. So, if suffering shows beauty, why do we speak of its eternal end with regards to heaven?

My (roughly edited) response was as follows:

The things we cannot, by their definition, conceive of are the very things we are being asked to put words to. If we acknowledge the existence of and attempt to describe such persons and places, it is and must be the loosest of metaphors. For all we know is our experience. All we know is ourselves. The impossible illustration without imperfection or brushstroke is the task at hand.

Is their suffering in heaven? Although it is, by definition, a place where “no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, and no mind can imagine what God has prepared,” then truthfully logic fails to some degree to argue. We are told by scientists that physical laws and constants may theoretically vary from universe to universe, yet we cannot conceive of an existence outside of our context. Any attempt to imagine a world in which these forces are different becomes automatically contextualized by our own for understanding. It is similar with ideas of heaven. We create a world in the looking glass. A world that is the same, yet different and idealized; like a work of fiction gives flesh, tension, and movement to a philosophy.

Please note, I am not suggesting heaven is some alternate universe or post-universe, because the timescale one would have to operate on to suggest such a thing does not account for the probability of extinction for the human race or the billions of years it would take for even our own sun to expand into a red giant and consume the earth (and still the universe would continue). But I am speaking of the incapability of man to conceive of what he has not experienced without shaping it as something he knows. We must anthropomorphize personality and we must shape metaphors to understand a world outside our own.

It does not prove its existence in anyway. A “restoration” or “rebirthing” of existence with the elimination of things like disease ignores the fundamental nature of such things. Disease is not demonic or malevolent. Disease is essentially packets of data doing, like a microscopic, simplified, and unconscious form of “us”, their best to procreate efficiently. What you call disease, is them hijacking you to help them. So is this part of refinement? The elimination of any creation deemed unfit to be of aid to the human being? Or is this rebirthing in essence the capstone of creation in its elimination of continued creation (and procreation)? Is it the sustained final chord in grand culmination of the symphony?

For myself, with my doubts and questions, it has often been a question reduced to what I know in the here and now. It is a question of suffering reduced in the here and now. I can seriously hope for such a final note, but may my uncertainty drive me to take hold of the here and now, both in light of that hope and in respect of the possibility that this will cease and be the only life and experience any man gets, and thus, to responsibly strive that each man’s suffering is lessened.

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

Oceans of Faith: A Glimpse into the Mind of Doubt

While I continue working on my [S]instinct series, I figured I would post something to fill time.

I don’t know if it’s of any benefit to anyone, but, if you’re curious, here is a glimpse through the clouds into the mind of doubt. I wrote this during my senior year at NCU. Perhaps it will help you understand the questions of your friends, perhaps it will help you in the midst of your own questions.

Whatever it does, I wanted to publish it because I was happy with how it turned out. Interested in hearing any feedback.

This wide ocean of faith is difficult to swim in. The mind begins to clamber, to tread water, to seek a foothold in some ounce of land. The depths seem impenetrable and dangerous, the heights, unattainable. With no land in sight, I am left afloat. I do not know what manner of thing might punctuate the silence, punctuate the loneliness, or punctuate this time-stretching dread. What might live in the icy depths beneath? What might live in gray skies above? Am I seen, or am I truly alone? This water, black, both keeps me alive and signals my possible fate. This wide ocean of faith is difficult to swim in. The doubt and fear like icy temperature cloud my mind. Am I alone? Will no one come to my rescue? Will no one give me light? Where is the hope? Surely, my faith is strong, I’m swimming in it. But where is the hope? “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and evidence for things unseen.” “Blessed are they who believe and have not seen.”

This situation I am faced with is the same which faced Peter. This water can be walked on or drowned in. The same water that holds him up might also silence him.

Bio: Josiah is a graduate of North Central University in Minneapolis, MN. His thirst for knowledge is only surpassed by his thirst for coffee. Thus, much free time is spent in the quest for the next fix.

For quicker updates, subscribe to the RSS feed.

Gallery Request: Doubt

The last post inspired an idea in me. I know not many people read this, but perhaps if anyone does and feels so inspired, share this idea with a friend.

I would like to do a theology and art gallery post not created entirely by me or drawn from my internet browsing. Thus, I turn to you, the masses.

I would like to see/read what you might create on the subject of faith, questioning, and doubt. These can be photographs, graphic design, typography, sketch, painting, poetry, etc. Once these are created, email them to me at phoenixrenovatio@gmail.com

I’ll give about a month timeline for submission. Once these are submitted, depending on response, I’ll post them (or the best of them) here for [my small audience of] people to see/read.

Obviously, if no one responds, this is a fruitless post and nothing will be posted in one month. If this is the case, in one month, I request you forget this was ever written. But here’s hoping!

[Image submissions should be in .jpg or .png format. Text submissions should preferably be in .doc or .docx format.]

Addressing the Fog: 5 Ways the Church Can Learn to Dialogue with Doubters

Today, as I walked along Bondi Beach in Australia, as is typical, my mind was elsewhere. Why it would be elsewhere when I’m in such a somewhere as Australia? One may never know. At any rate, it was questioning the reaction of the Church to the skeptics and doubters among us. For many, the approach is evangelization; “tell them the message/answers and then it’s theirs to choose whether they believe.” This might seem alright at first glance (something I would debate), but especially when the message is known and understood by the hearer, due to being raised in its context or having the proximity of culture, is it helpful to patronize the listener by approaching their question as though the answer traditionally given is new, fresh divine revelation? Thus, I thought to myself, “What are ways the Church can better dialogue with the doubter?”

–          Do not do anything without proximity of relationship

This is something that should be a given for any Christian as it is. I believe the Church has gotten off base and addresses issues rather than people. The fact of the matter is, people should be our issue. In other words, for the extreme evangelical, a soul is not an object to be possessed, it is a spirit encased in humanity’s shell. Thus, one should not approach it as something to be won or changed.

If someone you know expresses doubt, congratulations, you know them. There’s step #1 toward…something. (There is no guarantee that these will help “change skeptics into believers” simply that it will help you dialogue.) If it’s someone you don’t know, but they’re in your church or study group or whatever, don’t do anything regarding questioning. In fact, clear your head of change agenda. Your entire goal should be to understand them as a person and where they’re coming from. One must know a person’s perspective before you can approach their thoughts.

Before you go checking this off the list of steps, if you realize you have a desire to check it off, start over again. You’re treating it like an achievement rather than a person.

–          Listen and Contemplate rather than Answer

Hand in hand with proximity of relationship is listening. If your entire focus is refuting their questions, debating, or simply asking questions in a “betcha never thought of this” fashion, you’ll quickly lose the opportunity to hear; especially if you use the question asking method. If it were a genuine question you were asking, research it yourself. Just because I believe something different, doesn’t mean I know how to answer every question about it.

Do not make listening to their questioning your first priority. If you desire to invoke patronization and make it seem as though you do not care, then you can ask first thing. But if you desire to care, care about someone as more than their problems, issues, and things you don’t agree with. People are more than the sum of their thoughts.

If you think you’ve listened because you know they’re questioning and you know what they’ve brought up publicly, you haven’t listened. You’ve been aware. Listening is personal. Ask them what they’re thinking about. Ask them what they’re questioning. Ask them what they’re dealing with. If it’s confusion, it may pour out in desperation to voice it. If it’s in anger, prepare to deal with aggressive confrontation.

–          Approach questions with humility

Too often the Church believes it can answer a question straight away. Yet, if one truly examines many questions, it comes back to faith in one thing or another. Yet, when deconstructed, it does not guarantee it can be rebuilt exactly as you see it. Ultimately, there is often a statement of “I don’t know” needed when you legitimately don’t know. With the amount of material out there, one can accrue many ideas on the same thing. We must learn to address the fog in the room for what it is: non-corporeal and immaterial.

If we are truly honest with ourselves, we all quickly understand we prefer one belief over another for varying reasons. As such, we have varying beliefs. If you could prove your belief 100%, it would be unquestionably the standard model and idea that everyone accepted. It also would, by definition, eliminate itself as belief in a transcendent God. If there were a way to perfectly determine some aspect of God, you set Him in stone, effectively creating for yourself an ideological idol.

–          Do not discourage questioning (perhaps even encourage it)

It seems the Church’s response to questions and doubt is often to encourage a cutting off of thoughts. There is no criticality to this way of thinking. One never grows stronger, he simply does not acknowledge his weakness. If ideas that contradict are cut off, change will never occur. If we never examine a different perspective, we never truly know what others perceive. We never understand how to communicate better.

Perhaps we should even encourage questioning. What might result is a church of people who have thought through what they believe rather than simply being told. They might find that their understanding increases and the Church’s ability to communicate in greater detail grows. However, this again comes back to humility. Can we humbly stand before our doctrines and beliefs and admit the truth when we don’t know? It is a check and balance to belief and teaching. The more people are taught to question, the less you see a weak idea lasting against the litmus of the congregation.

–          Do not treat the skeptic as a second-class “believer”

When I initially revealed myself publicly as a skeptic, I had people who knew me telling me I had no faith and, consequentially, I would be damned for it. I believe that we fear doubt because of its undermining of guarantees. We look to Christianity to guarantee us a place in heaven and a guarantee of the eternal upper hand. If we question this at all, we question our reason for belief. And if we question our reason for belief, why should we believe?

The other side of the coin when it came to my public revelation was from people who knew me better. These people had seen me working through questions and seen the way I acted in spite of them. These people felt that it showed a stronger faith for being able to trust although lacking an experience of seeing. Sure, my questioning was evident in cynicism and skepticism, but I was willing to continue following even though I wasn’t sure I truly agreed fully with everything being said.

Two people can better dialogue when there is no patronization. If you believe you have the upper hand when speaking with a doubter because you “believe fully”, step back and equalize yourself. It is a humble dialogue, not a sales pitch or debate.

The Factor of the Other

Understand that some do not want to dialogue. Many skeptics and doubters are fine with the place they are at. They are as convinced of their unbelief as many are of their belief. In this, one must trust that only God can give God. It is simply up to us to be His vessels. Do right. Serve others. Submit rather than overpower.

****

If being right is what you desire, be religious. If you desire to subvert the question, walk humbly in faith towards what we are incapable of seeing or understanding.