floydius it's almost like you've got nothing better to do

20Apr/10Off

Mara

I’ve been working with a congregation in Mesquite, TX for the last few months. We’re studying through a series in Ruth, and this past Sunday, I talked about some of Naomi’s suffering.

The truth, though, is that I feel like teaching on suffering is pretty pointless for me. Pointless because it’s been taught and explored by people far more intelligent and studied than myself. Pointless because to teach about suffering, you have to know of suffering. No matter how much I might feel I’m hurting at some particular point in time, I know that mine is merely a speck of sand compared to the mountains others have faced.

But perhaps more significant than any of those reasons, it feels pointless because I don’t know why God doesn’t intervene to stop it. Why doesn’t He sit down and warn us Himself before we walk into worlds of pain? If His final plan is to wipe away every tear from our eyes, why is He letting us cry so many now? And I’ll give you a heads up, this isn’t one of those posts where I have some solution waiting in the wings. I’ve got nothing. I don’t understand it. I have no answers.

Naomi lived in Israel with her husband and two sons. There was a famine, though, and so they moved to a different country to try and make ends meet. But Naomi’s husband died; so she was left with two children and no husband. She could have moved back, but what good would that do with no food to eat? So she took care of her sons, and they married women in the foreign land. After living ten years in this new place, some of which she spent alone and sad because of her husband’s death, her sons died too. That was the last straw. She was now an older widow taking care of two younger widows, neither of them even from her own country.

When she heard there was food back home, she found no more reason to stay. She told her daughters-in-law that they’d be better off staying where they were, to find new husbands, and to move on with their lives. One stayed, and the other refused; her name was Ruth.

When Naomi made it back to her home in Israel, it had been over ten years. When her people greeted her, she had some interesting things to say:

“Don’t call me Naomi,” she told them. “Call me Mara, because El Shaddai has made my life very bitter. I went away full, but the LORD has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi? The LORD has afflicted me; El Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me.”

Naomi is a Hebrew word that means ‘pleasant’. Coming home minus two sons and a husband, Naomi didn’t feel very pleasant. Mara means ‘bitter’ — and that is how she felt. That seems fair. She had been on a very hard road. What strikes me as odd, though, is that she attributed her hurt to God. Both El Shaddai and LORD refer to the God of Israel. So, “God has made my life very bitter. God has brought me back empty. God has afflicted me. God has brought misfortune upon me.” She never says God did anything wrong here, but she believes He is responsible. By far, the most interesting thing to me is that never once, in the entire remainder of the book, does God or the author reject that claim.

I’m usually pretty reticent to lay any of my suffering on God’s shoulders, because it could be Satan, right? Or maybe someone else made choices that were wrong and it’s affecting me? Or maybe I made choices and I’m facing the consequences. Sometimes things happen for which no instigating party can be given credit. But when I hear Naomi’s assertion, I can’t help but think of Job:

Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away.

I remember that nowhere in the text of Job does God deny responsibility for taking away Job’s wealth and family. Here, we have more details than we do for Naomi; God actually allowed Satan to hurt Job and those he loved. In the end, it was Satan who instigated the pain, but God clearly let it happen. In fact, Satan had to ask God’s permission, so in this case, is God not ultimately responsible? Apparently, Job did not sin in thinking so.

For a moment, let me just assume that Naomi and Job were right… that God is responsible for your suffering and for mine. What God gives only departs when He takes it away, and when those we love are hurt, it is not without God’s permission. I’ve thought about whether that assumption makes God no longer good, or whether it makes Him too unpredictable or scary to serve. In the end, I think it really just means my assumptions about Him were wrong. The idea that a good and just and loving God could simultaneously be responsible for bad and unjust and hate-inspired suffering — that is a hard pill to swallow. Of course, it’s easier to leave that pill in its academic bottle when you, or those you truly love, are not suffering.

When it really hits home, though, when you are hurting, or when it’s someone you love (and you’ll know you love them when you truly wish you could take their place), then that hard pill grows jagged edges and lodges itself right in your throat. And how do you breathe like that, much less function? How do you keep putting one foot in front of the other without falling over?

I don’t know the answers to any of those questions. I do know this, though: whether or not I love God, whether I do good deeds or evil, I will suffer in this life. If I had to choose one entity to be responsible for that suffering, it would be the God who gave his Son.

King David, the sinner, the adulterer, the murderer, the man after God’s own heart, once found his people in trouble with God.

By the text’s own admission, God influenced David to do something that would cause Israel to suffer. David commanded his armies and fighting men to be counted, which was forbidden in the law. This count resulted in a punishment for Israel, and David was offered three possible options for that punishment: Either there would be seven years of famine, or three months of military defeat, or three days of pestilence in the land.

David did not try to get out of the punishment, but rather reasoned that if the suffering was to come from any source, He would rather it come from God and not from man, “for His mercies are great.”

In the end, that is what I choose. If I must suffer, I’d rather it be at the command of a loving God, rather than at the remorseless hands of man or Satan. If God gives, I will praise Him, and be glad. If God takes away, I will praise Him, and not be afraid to cry out in pain. God’s mercies are great, and I will trust Him to do what is best.

Comments (5) Trackbacks (0)
  1. I agree with your conclusion. Better that God would have us to suffer than him out-sourcing it to some demonic thug who gets to have his way with us.

    I want to tweak with your perspective for a second. You’ve personalized Mara’s suffering — tried to crawl in her shoes & imagine the horror of her condition. But what if she could take on our perspective? What if she could see that her predicament resulted in a beautiful story?

    What if we realized that we too are characters in a grand story? And that God is the supreme author?

    (I should state that much of the rest of this is borrowed from Don Miller’s new book, “A Million Miles in a Thousand Years”)

    Well, if we assumed this to be the case, He would have to be a master story-teller, right? So what sort of stories would he tell? Good stories, of course. Inspiring stories. Right?

    So would it be a good story if everyone that comes to God has everything go their way? The protagonist wakes up 5 minutes before her alarm… and after her shower, she’s having a great hair day… and as she goes to the store, she gets the best parking spot… and her favorite ice cream is on sale!…

    That’s a boring story. Good stories have negative turns.

    And watching/reading a story isn’t the same as living a story. When you’re watching a story you can watch a character struggle and enjoy it. Of course, not so much if you are actually living inside the story. But someone who is living the story AND understands this lives a better story. He/she doesn’t give up when they encounter setbacks, because they understand that all stories consist of both positive & negative turns.

    So some might say that God is cruel, and is a bully. But Don Miller — and I — would counter that God is just a good story-teller.

    This is my new favorite way of looking at suffering. There’s lots more to say — more than Don Miller says. But I’d recommend his new book. It’ll re-frame the way you look at your life — and in such a way that we should probably look at more often.

  2. Thank you Lloyd.

  3. “Why doesn’t He sit down and warn us Himself before we walk into worlds of pain? If His final plan is to wipe away every tear from our eyes, why is He letting us cry so many now?”

    First of all, I think it’s at least worth considering that God doesn’t know the future. Not because he has a weakness, but because the future doesn’t exist to be known. I’m not sure fully what to think of this view, but it seems at least plausible. If this view is correct, it’s no different than saying God can’t created a square circle. It’s not that he’s weak, it’s that it’s a logical impossibility. Now, God could be infinitely wise to prepare for multiple different options, but that doesn’t mean he knows which one people will choose. I think this makes sense in light of stories like Job where God allows Job to be tested, or Abraham with Isaac – why test a person if you already know what they’re going to do? Which leads me to my main thought – free will is part of the equation. As long as people are free to make choices, they are free to cause themselves and others pain. I think it’s a logical contradiction to think of a world in which people can be free to do what they wish but have no pain. That’s not a truly possible world. So God could either make everything perfect and take away our choice (including the choice to love him) or he could give us everything on a silver platter but take away our choices (which ultimately would take away genuine love). Considering Paul says in Corinthians that love is the most important attribute, and John seems to indicate this in saying that God is love, I think it makes sense that pain would be a part of the equation.

  4. Lloyd, good thoughts as usual. This has been on my mind a lot recently as well because of some recent experiences. Currently, I’m just accepting that I will never have the answers. But, for my good friends who are in the middle of this, that does not work.

    I wrote on this similar topic a couple of weeks ago. (Not nearly as well written) I started at Jesus’ statement take from the writer of Psalm 22 about God forsaking people. http://brandontittle.posterous.com/my-god-my-god-why-have-you-forsaken-me

    Philip, I haven’t read the book through, but I am somewhat familiar with the ideas you brought out in it. That doesn’t help me out too much. It seems to be saying that the only reason I have to suffer is so that God can tell a good story. I would much rather have a poor story and not have children growing up in broken homes, natural disasters that kill thousands of people, or babies who are born to parents who will abuse and neglect them. Jenny, an incredible Christian mother and wife, died just because it made a good twist to the story? I don’t know. I don’t want to say much more because, like I said, I haven’t read the book yet, but that has been my initial thought.

  5. @III, I do need to go ahead and read that book. I’ve heard you recommend it a few times, so I guess it must be pretty good. I can deal with my own suffering being a means to a better overall story, but that’s because my suffering is basically nothing compared to that of others. But Brandon’s question does echo in my mind some; how does that fit in with, say, the scenario of the Shack, where a little girl is kidnapped, raped, and murdered? Does that actually make for a better story?

    The interesting thing is, even there, an attempt is never really made to explain/legitimize the suffering, only to reaffirm that God’s love is still there through it all. (Incidentally, that’s what I see in Job, too.)

    On that note, I think I agree with you, Leslie, that in some of these instances, suffering is contingent upon the free will of others. I guess if I were in charge of putting things together, I would want to keep anyone from being able to murder anyone else, etc. However, my little brain cannot contrive how that would affect the overall condition of humanity.

    And @ Fil, you’re welcome. : )


Trackbacks are disabled.