Last Sunday we had a guest speaker, a missionary to a largely Muslim country. The first part of his talk was naturally about how Christians are persecuted in that country. This was a stepping stone to his bigger theme, how suffering builds character and how God uses the weak to accomplish his purposes.
The biggest problem I have with this way of thinking, apart from it being obviously a lie (and I don't care how many Bible verses you can trot out to support it) is that it is a beautiful way of evading responsibility. If suffering builds character then one can rationalize any setback as being a test. One doesn't have to look at one's role in creating that suffering. Now sometimes suffering comes from plain bad luck. But other times suffering comes from dumb choices and actions. It's the same sort of garbage American evangelicals like to console themselves with when they find out that others don't exactly like the way they or their representatives are behaving. There is a meanspiritedness in American evangelical Christianity that needs to be addressed but isn't. If God is sending you difficulties and suffering to build your character then you don't need to change a thing. Just roll with the flow and Praise God! Personally, I prefer Buddha's approach--that suffering is caused by desire/craving/wanting so to determine the cause of your suffering you have to take a look at your life and what you may be clinging to.
The idea that God uses the weak of the world and not the strong, the uneducated and not the educated, the poor and not the rich goes along with this. It's actually a brilliant argument to keep people in their place. It rationalizes poor or nonexistent planning. No sane businessperson would run a company on that model. But I understand that Mother Teresa ran the Missionaries of Charity on that very philosophy and as a result there was a lot of waste and inefficiencies that the rest of the world didn't see because they were too blinded by Mother Teresa's image. At least two former Missionaries of Charity have written books about their experiences and the story they tell isn't flattering. Seems like more energy went into the image than actually doing something to help the poor; that if you had to choose between following a rule and breaking it to assist someone in real need the rule came first.
In contrast, I have attended seminars on professional development and I have read many books on the subject, both those recommended by my supervisors and those I have found for myself, and NOT ONCE have I ever heard a speaker or an author use the kind of language that I have described above. Why is that, I wonder?
Speaking of questions, the question came up in small group what our next "project" should be--should we continue discussing the sermon or should we do something else? Someone recommended a book that they had read that came with a workbook. I said, "why do we have to have a workbook? Can't we come up with our own questions?" "That is a good idea," the group leader said. "Didn't you send me a list of questions a while back? Maybe we can use some of those. What were some of them?" I said I couldn't remember at the moment. But I thought, it has been almost a year since I sent you that list--and if I hadn't said what I did about the workbook would you have brought it up? Maybe we can use some of those--right. Bring one up and watch it get deflected.
The biggest problem I have with this way of thinking, apart from it being obviously a lie (and I don't care how many Bible verses you can trot out to support it) is that it is a beautiful way of evading responsibility. If suffering builds character then one can rationalize any setback as being a test. One doesn't have to look at one's role in creating that suffering. Now sometimes suffering comes from plain bad luck. But other times suffering comes from dumb choices and actions. It's the same sort of garbage American evangelicals like to console themselves with when they find out that others don't exactly like the way they or their representatives are behaving. There is a meanspiritedness in American evangelical Christianity that needs to be addressed but isn't. If God is sending you difficulties and suffering to build your character then you don't need to change a thing. Just roll with the flow and Praise God! Personally, I prefer Buddha's approach--that suffering is caused by desire/craving/wanting so to determine the cause of your suffering you have to take a look at your life and what you may be clinging to.
The idea that God uses the weak of the world and not the strong, the uneducated and not the educated, the poor and not the rich goes along with this. It's actually a brilliant argument to keep people in their place. It rationalizes poor or nonexistent planning. No sane businessperson would run a company on that model. But I understand that Mother Teresa ran the Missionaries of Charity on that very philosophy and as a result there was a lot of waste and inefficiencies that the rest of the world didn't see because they were too blinded by Mother Teresa's image. At least two former Missionaries of Charity have written books about their experiences and the story they tell isn't flattering. Seems like more energy went into the image than actually doing something to help the poor; that if you had to choose between following a rule and breaking it to assist someone in real need the rule came first.
In contrast, I have attended seminars on professional development and I have read many books on the subject, both those recommended by my supervisors and those I have found for myself, and NOT ONCE have I ever heard a speaker or an author use the kind of language that I have described above. Why is that, I wonder?
Speaking of questions, the question came up in small group what our next "project" should be--should we continue discussing the sermon or should we do something else? Someone recommended a book that they had read that came with a workbook. I said, "why do we have to have a workbook? Can't we come up with our own questions?" "That is a good idea," the group leader said. "Didn't you send me a list of questions a while back? Maybe we can use some of those. What were some of them?" I said I couldn't remember at the moment. But I thought, it has been almost a year since I sent you that list--and if I hadn't said what I did about the workbook would you have brought it up? Maybe we can use some of those--right. Bring one up and watch it get deflected.
