Chapter 3: The Challenge of the Secular
Newtown,
Connecticut. Every family held some kind
of religious service – Catholic, Congregational, Methodist, Jewish,
Mormon. President Obama’s eulogy was
essentially a sermon quoting 2 Corinthians 4 and 5. Society turned visibly to faith and God to
communally face tragedy. Where were the
humanists? Some argue that religion
offers loving, supportive relationships in community. But it also provides theology, a larger life
story that helps make sense of suffering and finding meaning in pain. This is where secularism simply falls
short. It obviously cannot provide a
theology, but it is hard to see how it can offer community as well. Religious communities share worship, annual
observances, relationship grounded in sacred text, rites of passage for birth,
coming-of-age, marriage and death.
Secularism has to borrow these from religion. But ultimately, community results from
sharing something more important than one’s own interests. When the individual is the final arbiter of
meaning and determining right and wrong, community is eroded, if not
impossible.
According
to Susan Jacoby, the atheist is free of the questions about why an all-powerful,
all-good God allows evil and suffering.
They do not have this burden and are thus freed to care for the victims
and change things so it doesn’t happen again.
Quoting Robert Green Ingersoll, she notes that “death…is only perfect
rest…The dead do not suffer.” Therefore
the rational position that there is no existence after death can be used to
comfort the grieving. But there are
problems with this view. First, it is an
exaggeration to say that all people of faith must struggle with the problem. Second, to claim that atheists are freed to
advocate for social causes is historically and philosophically naive. Religion encourages social justice. Most social movements were religious in
nature. How can atheism claim a better
source for social justice when there is little historical evidence of atheistic
influences on such causes. Philosophically,
religion provides a clear basis for definitions of justice, human flourishing,
right and wrong. These definitions are not
self-evident. Defining moral and just
behavior is enormously difficult. On
what do you base your standards such that they are not purely arbitrary? Even David Hume concluded that we cannot base
morality on science and reason since they only tell us how things are, not how
they ought to be. Finally, to say that
the dead do not suffer is simply too brutal to be honest. Is it right to tell someone they are not to
fear a state in which all love and meaning are gone? Further to claim that the dead do not suffer,
in contrast to the resurrection, is defended by claiming that resurrection
simply isn’t true. But the Christian can
make the same claim of the secular belief.
Contemporary
people think life is all about the pursuit of happiness. We decide what will make us happy and work to
achieve it. But when suffering comes
along, it takes away the conditions of our happiness which then destroys our
reason for living. “You can have meaning
only when there is something in life more important than your own personal freedom
and happiness, something for which you are glad to sacrifice your
happiness.”
When
describing the shock and response of those who discover a new born child is not
like them, the child is deaf, a dwarf or Down’s Syndrome most families find
themselves grateful for the experience they would have done anything to avoid.
The
secular view does not work for most in the face of suffering, why?
1) The
variety of forms of suffering and their causes.
Western culture oversimplifies and reduces it to “victimization as the
dominant account.”
2) Western culture is
naively optimistic about humanity. The
forbidden truth, tacitly admitted by drug use, is that happiness is beyond the
reach of most. Life is hard and
unhappy. But for the secular, all
meaning and happiness are only found in this life. To have any hope, we must believe that
sources of unhappiness can be eliminated.
But the causes of suffering are infinitely complex and impossible to
eliminate.
3) It reveals the thinness of
the secular world story. A world story
must give us hope and enable society to cohere as a whole. For American’s the big ideas were God, Nation
and Self. But in the nineteenth century
democracy, expansion and prosperity began to replace God. Now, instant gratification has replaced
devotion to God and anything resembling patriotism. There is no “collective vision” left.
Being
the legislator of our own meaning and morality gives nothing to die for and
nothing to live for when life takes away ones freedom. With no ultimate goal beyond comfort or power
and no meaning beyond personal happiness, suffering can quickly lead to
suicide.
For
modern culture there is no place for suffering in the pursuit of freedom and
happiness. But for the Christian, suffering
is at the heart of the story. While
suffering results from our turning away from God it is the way through which
God rescues us through Jesus Christ. How
we suffer becomes the means through which we become Christ-like, holy and happy
and how we demonstrate the love and glory of Him.
The
solution to suffering isn’t a change in public policy, expert psychology or
therapy, or technology. One of the great
principles of Christianity is that very few grow into greatness or find God
without pain and suffering waking us to the blindness of our lives and hearts.
Next week Chapter Four: The Problem
of Evil.
Until then, don’t take my word for
it, read the book – don’t wait for the movie,
and have a little hope on me,
Roger
To learn more about Timothy Keller and his work at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, you can check out his personal website, his Facebook page or the church homepage.
Keller, Timothy (2013), Walking with God Through Pain and Suffering. Penguin Group. ISBN 978-0-525-95245-9
Comments