• 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.

13 responses to “Peter Tatchell on Outing Bishops”

  1. Ann Avatar

    I agree — as The Rt Rev. Barbara Harris says, “it is okay to be in the closet as long as you are not using it as a machine gun nest”

  2. Erika Baker Avatar
    Erika Baker

    While the CoE policy is completely crazy and homophobic, it is consistent in itself.
    Gay sexual relationships are not permitted for clergy.
    So the official line is that all CP’s clergy follow this rule – and who knows, some may actually follow it! Stranger things have happened!

    But marriage is different because it is defined as a sexual relationship (and the Alice in Wonderland “I am not seeing reality” ignores marriages between people who cannot or do not want to have sex).
    And so no amount of looking elsewhere can distract from the fact that your married gay priest is not celibate.

    That’s the faultline.
    And outing non-married gay bishops, partnered or not, does not touch this.
    They can all to a man say that they are following church policy.

    1. Stephen Peters Avatar
      Stephen Peters

      Yes, Erica. But somehow, and more hugely, no. That Gay Bishops hide and allow gay clergy to be demonised on any front, is just not on. Church Policy or no = They should be working to change this appalling policy, not supporting it to harm the lives of truly loving couples.

    2. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
      Rosemary Hannah

      The whole insane situation is made more invidious by the fact that one of the arguments trotted out against marriage between people of the same gender is that they could not (in the eyes of some detractors) actually have sex. Sex was, to these people, certain acts and certain acts alone. I suspect the same arguments pertain in the HoB and that people in partnerships with another of their own gender can make what is, in the eyes of the HoB, a perfectly valid case they are not ‘having sex’ with their partner.

      The situation is nuts, perfectly nuts. The answer is for straight people, and for celibate people, who have the least to lose, to stand up, and shout. The higher up the ecclesiastical tree they are, the more important it is that they do this.

  3. Richard Avatar
    Richard

    Both Erika and Stephen make fair points. As I see things, those who scramble for scripture to justify treating people as second class citizens in a way that trench troops scramble for the last round of ammunition as the “enemy” marches inexorably
    forward, will view outing as inflammatory.
    If anything, this could widen the schism. Could this fracture the C of E in a way that women’s rights threatened to? As the breath of equality, dignity and fairness dominates the secular world and is very much present in many hidden corners of the church, possibly so. It could certainly further damage the church’s membership.
    If these are possibilities then perhaps the church’s leaders might be forced to discuss this in the open should outing occur. I remain sceptical that fundamentalists will cast aside their theological guns as it were, but the church will be a healthier place for having open and honest debate and reflection- and action. I’d rather see a reduced sized church that is founded on fairness and honesty rather than a larger body that hides behind the armour of theological confusion and hypocrisy on this issue.
    I’m saddened to reflect that I don’t believe that the main church will countenance or confer equality and dignity. Whatever the cost. Hopefully, I might be wrong.

  4. Dennis Avatar
    Dennis

    When you go outing an anti-equality CofE bishop be prepared for all sorts of ugly hate filled email. I saved a few of the nicer responses just because they were so amazingly horrible. A couple of emails were frightening and a right wing Anglican blog tracked down and posted my work contact information. Six and a half years later I still get sick at my stomach thinking about it. And honestly it has no impact on anyone other than the now out-of-the-closet bishop who will lie and deny deny deny. Do it but be prepared for an ugly situation on your hands.

  5. James Byron Avatar
    James Byron

    What’s to be gained? The ’90s mass-outing did nothing to change the church’s homophobic trajectory, and I doubt a repeat would do an any better. Either the bishop will refuse to comment, and the story dies; or they admit it, and are forced to resign. It could backfire hugely, making the people doing the outing look vindictive. Many traditionalists would sympathize with the outed bishops.

    Besides, what makes people think there’s any gay English bishops to out? Everything I’ve seen to date has been rumor and innuendo, usually nudge-nudge comments about Anglo-Catholics with a love of white port and vestments.

    The problem is, at heart, economic: rich evangelical parishes could bankrupt the church overnight if they chose. A handful of bishops can’t change that. Instead, open evangelicals need to be convinced to change their minds. Any fight for equal rights that isn’t supported by people like Ian Paul, N.T. Wright, Graham Kings and Nicky Gumbel will go nowhere.

  6. Peter Ould Avatar
    Peter Ould

    From the conservative side, if you’re going to out anybody, out them because they’re being hypocrites. There is nothing to be gained from outing men who have been sexually active in the past but are not any longer, or who have always been celibate. But if there are members of the House of Bishops who are sexually active with someone of the same sex, outing them is less to do with homosexuality and more to do with hypocrisy. It is unacceptable in any line of business to demand one thing of your staff and then to do the exact opposite yourself.

    Of course, what will happen in practice is that men will be named who are celibate, or who have repented of previous sexual activity and this will just backfire, because it will be seen to be vindictive and nothing more. As far as I know, there are no hypocrites in the House of Bishops on this issue, but please do correct me if you have any knowledge to the contrary.

  7. Fr Steve Avatar

    It seems difficult to justify perpetrating one sin towards another on the basis of the fact they themselves have perpetrated an act of sin(hypocritical abuse of power). This doesn’t seem to me like the Jesus who stood before Pontius Pilate.
    We may ask ourselves what then do you do?….do we really gain anything by not just fighting sin with sin. But by promoting sin (outing)…for surely such it is! We do nothing to advance the cause of justice.

  8. Kelvin Avatar

    It is not my view that we can derive our ethics from scripture – for that reason, I’m a little hesitant about the comparison with Jesus standing before Pontius Pilate.

    There are quite a lot of examples, I think, when Jesus did speak directly about hypocrisy.

    There’s also Nathan the prophet confronting David over Bathsheba.

    None of these proves anything – scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another. It is worth noting though that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.

  9. Fr Steve Avatar

    Was very mindful Kelvin of these examples when jesus was confrontationist…..but outing is just horrible

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      We are in a horrible situation. Yes.

  10. Fr Steve Avatar

    I don’t actually agree with the statement “scripture doesn’t prove an ethical decision to be right one way or another”
    but do understand the complexity of: ‘that scripture seems to me to be far from one-sided on this matter.’
    At Mass yesterday (my first in my new parish: stmarymags125.blogspot.com.au)
    I was harangued by a parishioner who objected to the fact that I had told the congregation that ABM-A (Australian Church’s Missionary Agency) has launched a campaign for funds for Gaza
    She told me, as rightists do….that all Palestinians are wrong!….didn’t seem to know that most Anglicans in the Holy Lands are Arabs of Palestinian origin.
    She obviously hadn’t heard my first sermon …that catholic means universal and that our God & Jesus loves everyone! That is what ‘universal’ means.
    The Church is just awful…hypocritical yet loved by God…just as She loves those who are different from us.

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…