Thread: Us, and the problem of pain Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027520

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
I've just finished reading Lewis's 'The problem of pain', and last night picked up an article in the new Third Way by Judy Hirst - 'A rude awakening' - which echoes some of that book's themes. The idea, for instance, that we may be blithely cruising along, 'sleepwalking' as Hirst puts it, and then along come pain and suffering. If we are lucky they may shape us, change us, move us to something new; something like the 'refiner's fire' metaphor we may remember from a bible story or a chorus. 'Darling, I love you - you are as petrol to the fires of my sanctification'.

I believe this; it rings true in my experience. This is perhaps why I've posted this here rather than in Purgatory, where I might have expected angry retorts from some not able to hold God's goodness alongside the world's evident suffering. If it's OK, I'd like to avoid that in this thread.

I imagine us as pebbles on a beach, picked up and smashed again and again by the sea of our emotions, our bodies, into the unmoving sea-wall of reality, truth, others' sin; we may be shaped, improved, but as time goes on we start to fear we will just inexorably diminish, losing ourselves into sand, and taking a bloody long time to get there.

If we wish we could present the 'right' bits of ourselves to be knocked-off by the next violent impact with something immovable; do we sin? Is it wrong to seek some way in the process by which we can participate, speed it up, see some change in ourselves (given, we have accepted, the sea-wall is not going anywhere). If we attempt this, do we fail to 'die to self', 'give it to God'; do we encourage the very will, whose defeat forms part of the purpose of this painful process?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I think the source of pain makes a difference. The pains of loss, of accidental injury or death of someone, from disease or infirmity, from war, from crime, from interpersonal conflicts, all seem to be different to me.

The image of refiner's fire or of God as a sculptor are troubling. It means there is a refiner or agent of the pain, who might be interested in turning up the heat in the refinery of life or using larger chisels. This suggests some cruel motives at worse, and some ignoring at best when we personify the source. Randomly exploding volcanoes? Not sure what image I'd use instead.

[ 15. July 2014, 12:45: Message edited by: no prophet ]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I developed a rather scary theory of my own, which (if only I had time) would make an interesting graduate thesis.
My idea is that God is a novelist. He is juggling plot and character, to get the story to where He needs it to go. The Death Star has to explode; the universe has to be saved, that kind of thing.
But to that end, suffering has to occur. The story demands it. To be a good story, Luke Skywalker has to have obstacles. Alderaan has to be destroyed ('a great disturbance in the Force'). Bad stuff must happen, not because of any malicious intent, but because the story itself requires it to be a good story.
I can think of no way to prove that this is -not- true, and it kind of makes me nervous.
 
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
quote:
Bad stuff must happen, not because of any malicious intent, but because the story itself requires it to be a good story.
Thanks very much, but I don't want to be part of that plot. [Frown]
 
Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
quote:
Bad stuff must happen, not because of any malicious intent, but because the story itself requires it to be a good story.
Thanks very much, but I don't want to be part of that plot. [Frown]
Nobody does. We would all rather escape pain, but it exists and we all try to make sense of it as best we can. [Frown]

When I was on retreat last summer, there was a course in enamelling on copper running at the centre and I popped in on it a few times. The process involved copper shapes and special paints and plastic beads which were arranged together, fired in the kiln, and came out still recognisable but changed, something that was pretty became beautiful. The heat changed and transformed; it did not destroy. It was a valuable lesson and picture to me of the refiner's fire.

Nen - who was brought up on the fires of hell. [Eek!]
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
If I should ask my characters, they would implore me to lay off the disasters, imprisonments, volcanoes, and aggressive parasites. (They are going to the Honduras, it'll be messy.) But then how dull the book would be! For the work, I have to make things happen. Bad things.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

If we wish we could present the 'right' bits of ourselves to be knocked-off by the next violent impact with something immovable; do we sin? Is it wrong to seek some way in the process by which we can participate, speed it up, see some change in ourselves (given, we have accepted, the sea-wall is not going anywhere). If we attempt this, do we fail to 'die to self', 'give it to God'; do we encourage the very will, whose defeat forms part of the purpose of this painful process?

I don't think there's any harm at all in begging God to speed up the process, make it less painful, or what-not. It doesn't mean he'll say yes. But any sensible person has a will to avoid pain and a will to seek what is good (in this case, maybe improvement of the self). Being sensible is good. [Big Grin]

I know when I'm confronting the same freaking (relatively minor) challenge* I've faced, lo these eighty-five times before (and failed IMHO), I cry out for help. In fact I'm rather rude. "Dear Lord, you know darn well that every time you ask me to do X, I screw it up royally. Why do you think the eighty-sixth time is going to be any better? if this is some sort of teaching program, it's failing dismally. Can't you come up with something better? I'm SO sick of this," and etc. etc. etc.

Of course, I could very well be wrong in thinking that particular situation X is God working on me. It might just be some random thing (insofar as anything in this world is random). But if it helps you to approach X, Y or Z as a training opportunity, go for it. It can often become that, even if that was not "why it happened."

But if this approach leads to a bad case of the guilties, or to looking down on other people, then it's best to go back to considering it all random shit.

* In all of this I'm thinking more about temptations and minor disasters as opposed to the big, hulking crises like cancer, divorce, death, etc. If we take the minor things as "training events" there's no danger of starting to think God is a monster. But if we apply the same thinking to major stuff ("God gave me heart disease so I could learn X"), we get into theologically dangerous ground. We can start thinking that we somehow deserved terrible thing X or God doesn't give a rip for our suffering--which is just plain not true. Even worse, we can start saying these things to other sufferers and increasing their burdens with our crap theology. Bad idea.

There's also the fact that it (whatever "it" is) is not always about you (me/us). Sometimes the reason something happens has to do with somebody else in your orbit--a family member, coworker, whatever. In an interconnected world, there are going to be impacts on the bystanders. God can use those impacts for good, but that doesn't mean he caused the event for the purpose of impacting you (me/us). In fact, a lot of time the event is a direct result of someone's sin (adultery/speeding/substance abuse/violence etc.) and cannot justly be blamed on God at all.

What I've just written sounds really random, sorry. But when you're choosing a perspective on an event, it helps to think through the impact that perspective will have on you. If seeing X as training encourages you and gives you a sense of meaning, go for it. But if it makes you feel guilty or angry or depressed or hopeless, give it up and consider X to be random. Because we aren't usually going to know in this life anyway.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If I should ask my characters, they would implore me to lay off the disasters, imprisonments, volcanoes, and aggressive parasites. (They are going to the Honduras, it'll be messy.) But then how dull the book would be! For the work, I have to make things happen. Bad things.

The problem with this, and this understanding of God, is that a writer is writing for readers, and the characters are the players who have to go through all sorts for the purposes of the readers enjoyment or excitement.

So who are the readers? Because they would be the ones that the universe is created for. I don't see God writing for an audience that is not us. That is not the Christian God, that is a malicious, manipulative god, more akin to the Greek and Roman deities.

There is something in the plot twists idea - that not everyone can get what they want. If it is a story, there are no main characters, and everyone suffers because of others needs and desires.
 
Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
quote:
* In all of this I'm thinking more about temptations and minor disasters as opposed to the big, hulking crises like cancer, divorce, death, etc. If we take the minor things as "training events" there's no danger of starting to think God is a monster. But if we apply the same thinking to major stuff ("God gave me heart disease so I could learn X"), we get into theologically dangerous ground. We can start thinking that we somehow deserved terrible thing X or God doesn't give a rip for our suffering--which is just plain not true. Even worse, we can start saying these things to other sufferers and increasing their burdens with our crap theology. Bad idea.
That's what I meant. As usual, Lamb Chopped puts things so much more clearly than I do.

And that "crap theology" has been applied to me in the past, and I can assure you, it is certainly not helpful.

[ 16. July 2014, 08:13: Message edited by: Nicodemia ]
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
Yes; I think if someone *else* were applying some theory of God's chisels to me, I'd react very negatively. It would smell so strongly like a power trip that even if there were any goodness in it, it would probably be impossible to find. Lewis goes out of his way to suggest his reasoning can only be applied by himself to himself, and invites his reader to be similarly circumspect; this seems the only appropriate way to use it.

He makes the point somewhere that these struggles remind us that something is wrong; puncture our self-reliance and (he may not say this but I lack a better phrase and appear to be getting all C19th evangelical) worldly fantasies; send us back to God. This is very true for me. He points out the paradox that we would seek to reduce others' suffering in His name, yet somehow might make sense of our own by finding meaning in it as a training exercise.

I know I have some substantial character flaws (known knowns, along with a good number of known unknowns and of course many more unknown unknowns [Big Grin] ) but understanding their source has perhaps only proved the very first tiny step in doing much about them. It does help to frame their constant irritation as a God-directed chance at growth; but God the process is painful, and the potential for collateral damage among the various parties is enormous, and frightening.

LC, it was a helpful reminder that 'it might not be about you'. I mean, I know I have some horrible lumps to knock off, but in relationship someone else may be being changed too, or primarily. Or not. Not for nothing is patience listed in the blessed Gal 5.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I developed a rather scary theory of my own, which (if only I had time) would make an interesting graduate thesis.
My idea is that God is a novelist. He is juggling plot and character, to get the story to where He needs it to go. The Death Star has to explode; the universe has to be saved, that kind of thing.
But to that end, suffering has to occur. The story demands it. To be a good story, Luke Skywalker has to have obstacles. Alderaan has to be destroyed ('a great disturbance in the Force'). Bad stuff must happen, not because of any malicious intent, but because the story itself requires it to be a good story.
I can think of no way to prove that this is -not- true, and it kind of makes me nervous.

If you haven't already, try reading God Game by Andrew Greeley. He writes in himself as a character who finds himself cast as "God" in a certain computer game, sort of like Sims with feelings and souls. Quite interesting.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have not read it, but will look for it.

And there is a question. Would the characters themselves want to be in a good story? Surely it is better to be in HAMLET (me for one of the soldiers who comes in with Fortinbras of Norway at the end of Act 5) than it is to be in, oh, 50 SHADES OF GREY (ew!). Has anyone here seen (or listened to the soundtrack of) SUNDAY IN THE PARK WITH GEORGE? The characters in the painting complain bitterly of their role ("I want my glasses!" "This is not my good profile.") but are grateful to be in an immortal masterpiece.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Brenda, all capitals reads like you're raising your voice for the book title. It kinda flows better if you put the title In Italics.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0