• Why does God allow suffering?

    Why does God allow suffering?

    Here’s my answer in the form of a sermon.

    To be strictly honest, I’m not sure that it is particularly my answer. I think it may be the only answer.

    And I’m moved to have seen that this has been shared by people since I preached it and has been avidly watched in New Zealand. It has also, apparently been used by a religious studies teacher today to engage with Higher Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies students in a school in Glasgow.

     

    This is a church which helps people to articulate questions.

    Not just little questions but big questions.

    I hope that we can help people to answer questions too, but in a way I’m more concerned that we keep building this place as a place where good questions can be asked and articulated.

    Good questions. Big questions. Questions that matter.

    That was a part of the diocesan pilgrimage days that we have had over the last couple of weeks welcoming friends from around the diocese. A key part of the day was gathering the questions. Indeed, one of the things that I’ve learned from working with Cedric is how important it is to devise processes for gathering questions and allowing people to give voice to what matters to them.

    We’re now running God Factor 12 or 13 or something like that. I’ve started to lose count.

    But one question keeps coming up – I think it has come up in most if not all the God Factor session at one time or another.

    And it is some variation on one of the questions that is behind the gospel reading for today.

    Why does God allow suffering?

    Why does God allow bad things to happen?

    Why do disasters happen and what is God’s part in it?

    Why does God let people suffer? Make people suffer? Allow suffering at all?

    And in the gospel reading this morning we have an attempt to answer that question.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s only one real answer to that question and that Christians keep on asking the question because they don’t like the answer but it is the only one that exists.

    In this morning’s gospel reading we get the same and only answer that I can give to the question. But then we get a wee story tagged on the end.

    And maybe the story is interesting.

    Firstly, Jesus is asked about the Galileans who have been killed by Pilate. Were they worse than other Galileans?

    No he says, but then says, “Repent, or you will die as they did”.

    Then he remembers 18 people killed in a disaster when the tower of Siloam fell on them. Were they worse than all the others in Jerusalem?

    Why do disasters happen to some people?

    Why does God allow suffering?

    No, he says, but then repeats, “Repent, or you will die as they did”.

    So, does repentance stop you getting killed then Jesus?

    The question lingers on the lips of people through the centuries. If you put things right will God will that stop bad things happening to you.

    The trouble is, he’s already answered that. No, he has said clearly – the ones killed by the tower were no worse than the ones who were not killed. Repentance doesn’t stop bad things happening to you.

    So why does he tell them to repent?

    Well, I think it is because repentance isn’t a way to stop death, it is a way to bring life.

    And that’s maybe why we read this difficult gospel in Lent rather than at some other time of the year.

    Repentance, metanoia, turning around – it is good for us to turn ourselves around. Good for us to change. Good for us to put things right. It is life enhancing to take stock – to stop, to work out where we are going wrong and to turn towards what it good; to turn towards God.

    Will it make bad things stop happening – well it might make us stop doing bad things, but no, it won’t make suffering come to an end

    The Buddha said life is suffering. Jesus says take up your cross and follow me.

    Part of having a mature grown up faith is accepting that this is just the way life is – being alive means knowing suffering and also knowing that it doesn’t seem to come fairly or equally. There’s a randomness to life that we can’t fathom and it won’t make sense even if we project it onto God and talk as though God afflicts us.

    God never afflicts us. God loves us.

    Bad things happen but not from God.

    God still loves us.

    Terrible things happen unfairly to some rather than others.

    And God goes on loving us even as we rage about how unfair life is.

    But Jesus isn’t finished there. He tells us this perplexing story about a man with a fig tree that won’t produce figs.

    “Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?”

    His gardener replies – ‘Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. If it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”

    What on earth do we make of that. We never find out whether the tree ends up cut down or not? We never find out whether it bears fruit or dies? We never find out who the gardener or the man are supposed to be.

    People say Jesus was good at storytelling but this time there’s no plot – no development, no conclusion.

    Just the image of a tree that isn’t growing and a gardener who believes in second chances.

    And the smelly reality of what they used to fertilize their trees with in those days.

    Our translation describes it as manure but there are other rather earthy words that could be used.

    You want my learned interpretation of this passage?

    You want to know what I think Jesus might have been trying to convey in telling this story – a fragment, surely only a fragment of which survives in our gospel today.

    It is a free translation and a flight of the imagination to be sure, but I think he’s saying this.

    You grow best when the manure is piling up around you.

    God loves you there just as much as anywhere.

    You grow nearer to God when you just can’t seem to shake off the dung.

    God loves you whether you smell of heaven or the “earth” from which you were made.

    And, yes, oh yes, you grow most when you are in the shit.

    God loves you anyway.

    In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

5 responses to ““Issues” is no more”

  1. Cedric Avatar
    Cedric

    Oh I well remember the day ‘Issues’ landed with a loud thud through the letter box. I had been ordained for over 10 years by then. And I reeled in reading it.
    Before then the general culture of conversation about sexuality in the Church was ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’. And most bishops acknowledged that among their most able and effective clergy many were gay men, some in relationships, and often deployable in parishes where others would not contemplate living and working.
    But remember the context. This was also a period when AIDS was an international emergency and in Britain the Thatcher government sought to outlaw the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality through section 28 of the Local Government Act. And for sure, ‘Issues’ was a direct consequence of the passing of the amended Tony Higton General Synod private members’ motion declaring all ‘homosexual acts’ as sinful. The consequent noise of the shutting of closet doors was deafening.
    In my diocese the bishop asked one of the archdeacons to convene regular confidential meetings with a few gay clergy to offer them an opportunity to talk about the effects of all this on their lives and ministry. Some would not trust the Church to participate in such enterprises. Understandably. And huge numbers of vocations were thwarted and lost. And are to this day, as the toxic debates continue in the C of E in a social context which has changed beyond imagining.
    So thank you Kelvin, as ever, for your insightful questions.

    1. Beth Avatar
      Beth

      Cedric, I recall you speaking to the LGBT Network at the Cathedral about Issues and that it was reaffirmed by the C of E around about that time too. I wasn’t so aware of it when it was published (being about eight years old at the time and also a Roman Catholic), but I remember so clearly from what you said how devastating it had obviously been and still was. I remember thinking at the time of that reaffirmation, “oh, I can never go home”. It became so clear to me that the Church of England wasn’t somewhere I could feel welcome as long as it was allowed to stand.

  2. Ian Paul Avatar

    Kelvin, I can understand why you are glad that the offensive language of Issues has gone. Ironically, it was actually a statement written by liberals of the day; the main author was Richard Harries.

    And conforming to Issues was never the real question. The real question is conforming to Canons B30 and C26, so that the pattern of life of clergy should reflect the doctrine of the Church ‘according to the teaching of Jesus’. All Issues did was make that clear and unambiguous (though in an unhelpful and obsessive way) with regard to sexual intimacy. Ironically, it was the liberal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy which cemented Issues in place as a response.

    And of course, with Issues gone, the Canons remain in place, and the demand is the same. The good thing about GPCC is that it sets this one issue in the context of many others, which is much healthier.

    But on the question in hand—nothing has changed. You seem to have missed that.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No Ian. It isn’t that I’ve missed that. It is that I don’t believe that.

      Issues was a massively offensive document that coloured absolutely everything the Church of England had to say about sexuality. Changes to Canons will look significantly different in the light of its removal.

      A great deal is changed by its removal.

  3. Mike Burnett Avatar
    Mike Burnett

    Jesus preached love, but he also forgave sins with the instruction ‘to sin no more’.
    Deciding not to sin when the sin in question is something that we enjoy so much that life may feel miserable without it, is a real sacrifice. It really is ‘bearing your cross’ to follow him. But that is what Christians are called to do.
    We may wish to question our translation of the Bible, or quibble over the exact meaning of a phrase we find challenging, but Christianity is not a ‘pick and mix’ faith where we just have to accept the bits we like and can ignore, or condemn, the bits we don’t like. We do not get to negotiate – we must take it or leave it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Unto the Nation

    An early Monday morning start to the week to ensure that all was ready for broadcasting unto the nation. I was doing the Daily Service on Radio 4 with the choir. I listened to the news at 7 am – you always need to listen to the headlines when doing these things in case Something…

  • On the wireless

    I’ll be on the wireless this morning for a live broadcast. 0945 on Radio 4. Long wave only, so fire up your steam powered radios.

  • All blessings on Edinburgh

    The Diocese of Edinburgh meets the three candidates for their episcopal election today. It is a hard process and something that often feels unsettling to be in the middle of. Part of the problem that we have over things like this is that we often pray in the church as though the choice ultimately is…

  • Finding a partner

    Reading the story of Abraham trying to find a wife for Isaac at morning prayer this morning reminded me of a sermon I preached a while ago that the congregation seemed to enjoy. It was all about dating strategies and the Lambeth Conference. It was just before I started videoing sermons, but I did have…