• 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.

7 responses to “The BA Cross Story”

  1. Tim Avatar

    Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

    Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
    A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

    It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

  2. kelvin Avatar
    kelvin

    As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

    It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

    When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

  3.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

    Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

    Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

    Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

    All the very best,

    Clyde Lad

  4. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

    For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

  5. Ali Avatar
    Ali

    I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

    I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

  6. Alex Avatar
    Alex

    “A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

    I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

    This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

    But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

  7. Mysterious stranger Avatar
    Mysterious stranger

    I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

    Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • 10 Tips for an Aspiring Blogger

    I’ve been asked for advice from someone thinking about starting a blog to cover an interesting international trip. Here’s my top tips. Easiest way to start is to sign up with wordpress.com. You can have a blog set up in five minutes and have your first post up there for all the world to see…

  • Guided Tour?

    Tomorrow (Saturday) morning I’m doing a guided tour of St Mary’s followed by a cup of tea and a blether about the place. It is free and is open to anyone – folk who have been around a while and folk trying out the congregation and wanting to hear a bit more about it. It…

  • Review: Hansel and Gretel

    This review is also published (with some pictures) at Opera Britannia Hansel & Gretel – Engelbert Humperdinck Rating: Theatre Royal, Glasgow – 4 February 2012, Scottish Opera Just a dozen or so years before Engelbert Humperdinck wrote his most famous opera, the world was tasting saccharine for the first time. The great danger with Hansel…

  • 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…