If I asked anyone that considers themselves a Christian, no matter what denomination, what they thought the most unanswerable and difficult question in the Christian faith was, I would bet that nine out of ten people would answer: “Why do good people suffer?” or some variation of that concept.  Similarly, if I asked anyone of faith what the mostly commonly asked question was, both among people who are already believers and people who are inquisitive about Christianity, the poll would probably reveal suffering as the theme of the question.  Suffering is one of the most widely debated and least understood topics within the Christian faith, and the source of many chasms within the church.  The same holds true for an individual’s relationship with God.  For a nonbeliever, or for someone who is considering becoming a Christian, suffering can be a reason to initiate a relationship with God, or it can be the reason to believe God does not exist.  For a believer, suffering can strengthen one’s relationship with God, or it can drive one to believe that God is a calloused, transcendent being who takes no interest in our daily lives or our happiness.  Believer or not, if we are honest with ourselves, suffering generally damages the status of our relationship with God, because a) it is extremely difficult to find joy in suffering, and b) humans, particularly Christians, tend to frame discussions about suffering in a very cynical and antagonistic manner.  Here’s a look at some typical Christian explanations for human suffering, and varying reactions:

• Free Will: God created humanity with free will; therefore we are free to rebel against God if we choose. Since we are told in Romans that God’s will is perfect, anything contrary to his will is imperfect and evil.  Suffering is the result of making evil choices inside of free will.  On the other hand, free will is perhaps the easiest way to dismiss the existence of God and to deny his presence in our lives.  Most likely, we will blame God for allowing suffering, rather than taking responsibility for our own sinful nature.
• God has a greater plan: If God is truly omnipotent, as Christians believe, than he is capable of using suffering as part of a greater, eternal plan.  Human suffering can carry greater significance for our lives beyond what is readily and immediately apparent.   Alternatively, we can choose to narrow our focus to the present, and become extremely cynical about how and why God uses suffering.
• For discipline, instruction and glory: God can (and did, as is evidenced by Sodom and Gomorrah) use suffering to teach his followers a lesson about rebellion.  We can subsequently, during and after suffering, proclaim God’s glory and continue to follow his instruction.  However, we will generally ignore any lessons God may be trying to teach us and use suffering as an excuse to curse God and harden our hearts.

It seems that our individual reaction to suffering largely depends on three factors: whether or not we are able view suffering in the long term context of faith, our own perception of God (whether or not we believe he interacts with the world), and the degree of our suffering.  Given that these factors seem to determine individual reactions to suffering, do they also determine our reactions to the suffering of others? Furthermore, do Christians tend to view the suffering of others with the same antagonistic cynicism that we view our own?

Not really.  When it comes to ourselves, the longer we have felt the effects of a ‘greater degree’ of suffering, the more likely we are to become cynical about God and his presence in our lives and react dismissively.  However, when it comes to others (with the exception of Pat Robertson), when we observe the long terms oppression of an individual or group that has suffered to a great degree, we tend to react, at least initially, with a great deal of sympathy and compassion.  We may be frustrated with God for not appearing to have a strong presence in the lives of those people, but we aren’t cynical so much as we are eager for God to make his presence known.  This was my initial assumption in constructing an Action Guide for my major project at ONE entitled: The One Sabbath “Action Guide.”

In collaboration with Joel Griffith, a student from Fuller Seminary (who did the majority of the theological inference and writing… he is fantastic!) and fellow intern traveler, we produced an action (note: NOT study) guide to mobilize various faith congregations to take action around the movie TheLazarus Effect on behalf of ONE.  The choice of the word ‘action’, rather than ‘study’, describes our intention in producing such a guide, namely, that faith motivated congregations, who tend to be sympathetic, will convert feelings of sympathy into tangible actions that will provide relief to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.  Since ONE is primarily an advocacy organization, our suggested action will be signing up members and asking that they subsequently write a letter to their local congressman, or sign a petition to ask our government leaders to replenish the Global Fund, which provides grants to low GNP countries to fight AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

Joel and I focused the action guide for Christian congregations around two sources: The Lazarus Effect documentary and John 11, the passage in which Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.  The connection between the title of the film and the John 11 passage is obvious, but we wanted to do more than exegete scriptural implications from the film; we wanted to inspire action. Interestingly, we identified the first step toward action as grief.  Often times, we are quick to bypass grief because sympathy is a more natural reaction when dealing with individuals or groups that we aren’t intimately familiar with.  We are also quick to want to take action on behalf of others thinking that we, as privileged Americans, know best, but never take the time to fully understand their situation.  But when one observes Jesus’ reaction to hearing of Lazarus’ death in John 11, the first step toward action is clear. It comes from John 11:35, the shortest sentence in the whole Bible.  “Jesus wept.” Before taking action, Jesus simply weeps for Lazarus.  We are also told that Jesus loved Lazarus several times throughout John 11, and in tandem with his initial reaction of grief.  The first step toward action is grief, because sometimes, as Constance, a woman in the Lazarus Effect points out, “the grief is too much” to deal with on your own.  It is also an effective and meaningful way to demonstrate love, because people with HIV/AIDS are not accustomed to love, but to scorn and ostracism.

The second step is action.  John 11 connects nicely with ONE’s focus on advocacy, because just as individuals with HIV/AIDS have advocates in organizations like ONE, Lazarus had advocates in Mary and Martha.  They explain to Jesus that, had he been by Lazarus’ bedside earlier, Lazarus could have perhaps been saved.  Of course, Jesus was getting ready to perform an even greater miracle, so the advocating Mary and Martha did was limited to human understanding and ability (i.e. most of us can’t raise people from the dead…weird).  However, they were ready to speak to Jesus, someone in a position of ability, on behalf of Lazarus, just as we should be ready to speak to those positioned in the government to enact change on behalf of those afflicted with HIV/AIDS.  To put it more clearly than I ever could myself, I will borrow the words of Princess Kasune Zulu, a mother, author and Zambian AIDS activist (not to mention ONE supporter), who said, “By lifting our voice for the voiceless…we become the essence of our faith.”