Sorrow versus Misery

Posted by

Jeffrey Thayne

4. The Relationship between Sin and Suffering

In an earlier post, I presented the traditional formulation of the problem of evil and explained why the reality of agency entails the possibility that people will rebel in their hearts against God and their fellow human beings. I believe, however, that discussions of this nature suffer because of a conflation of terms. We often treat pain, sorrow, suffering, and evil as if they were the same thing.

Hurts so good. There is more than one kind of pain. Healthy exercise requires a kind of discomfort and pain that is intrinsic to getting stronger. Likewise, spiritual growth involves a kind of discomfort that, while definitely unpleasant, is helpful and necessary.

Simply put, perhaps not all pain is bad, nor should all pain be avoided. For example, the pain I feel in my muscles after a healthy workout doesn’t seem like a bad thing to me at all. Recognizing that there different kinds of pain, we may find new ways to think about the problem. Robert Gleave explains:

In the end, many of the world’s thinkers and theologians have difficulties finding a way to reconcile the presence of misery with the existence of God’s omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence. The problem, it seems to me, boils down to the premise that pain, sorrow, suffering, difficulty, and misery are tragic, to be avoided at all costs, that they are definitely not part of a benevolent plan.

… Perhaps by reexamining the beginning premise that misery is tragic and embracing the notion that it is possible for a benevolent Father in Heaven (with a divine purpose in mind) to be causally responsible for the presence of evil and sorrow in the world, we can arrive at a … satisfying resolution.1

While Gleave has some refreshing insights, I disagree with his choice of words. If I were rewriting the last sentence of the quote, I would say it this way:

Perhaps by reexamining the beginning premise that pain is tragic and embracing the notion that it is possible for a benevolent Father in Heaven (with a divine purpose in mind) to be causally responsible for the presence of some pain and sorrow in the word, we can arrive at a … satisfying resolution.

I don’t believe God is causally responsible for evil in the world, because I believe the genuine evil in the world is the sin that resides in people’s hearts. However, I think it is very likely that God may be causally responsible for at least some pain, sorrow, or suffering. That is because I do not equate pain and evil the way many scholars do.

Hedonism and the Eternal Perspective

The premise that suffering and pain are inherently evil has its roots in a philosophy known as hedonism. Hedonism is the philosophy that pleasure is the ultimate good, and that pain is the ultimate bad. However, what if pain, suffering, and sorrow are not intrinsically bad? Gleave continues:

It may be that this mortal existence is the only flash of eternity where we are allowed to have a veil over our minds and are allowed to experience incompleteness, pain, and sorrow, which give us such richness of experience. From this view, then, perhaps feeling lonely would not be seen as a disease condition but rather as one of the very purposes for being alive.

Pain, sorrow, [and] suffering … then, may not be deficits to be overcome, controlled, removed, or eradicated, but rather they may be gifts from a benevolent Father that can serve as instruments for developing a divine nature. We may perhaps go so far as to see the traditionally tragic elements of life as the very tools of the trade in the construction of heavenly mansions.1

President Spencer W. Kimball made a similar remark:

Being human, we would expel from our lives sorrow, distress, physical pain, and mental anguish and assure ourselves of continual ease and comfort. But if we closed the doors upon such, we might be evicting our greatest friends and benefactors. Suffering can make saints of people as they learn patience, long-suffering, and self-mastery. The sufferings of our Savior were part of his education.1

This, I believe, is not saying that pain, suffering, and sorrow are intrinsically good; you don’t escape hedonism by reversing its premises and claiming that pleasure is bad and pain is good. As Carlfred Broderick says,

Latter-day Saints do not believe that pain is intrinsically good. In their teaching there is little of asceticism, mortification, or negative spirituality. … If benefit comes from pain, it is not because there is anything in pain itself. Suffering can wound and embitter and darken a soul as surely as it can purify and refine and illumine.2

Rather, we claim that the suffering is not inherently good or bad… but it has the potential to be either, depending upon our agentic response to it. Through Jesus Christ, suffering can have redemptive qualities to it, and as such can be seen as a blessing. Again, it is not that suffering is of intrinsic value and should be sought after, but rather that it provides an opportunity and occasion for us, through the exercise of our agency, to learn human compassion and find redemption. It can provide us with an opportunity to forgive. In this way, the problem of evil becomes less of a challenge to our faith because the pain, suffering, and sorrow are not necessarily part of the evil to be reconciled with a benevolent God. Also, what is genuinely evil—malice, hatred, cruelty, deceit, etc.—is much easier to reconcile with a benevolent God because these things are solely the product of human agency.

Justifying Evil

One challenge with addressing the problem of evil is that it is easy, if we are not careful, to “justify” the existence of sin. For example, if we claim that it is necessary for my divine growth for me to experience pain at the hands of other people, in a sense I justify their sin. I’ve explained why their sin is necessary for my salvation, and I no longer have the moral imperative to seek to eradicate sin.

This is one reason I want to separate pain/suffering and evil. Genuine evil ought to be eradicated, and thus, by extension, the pain that results from genuine evil. If we have some purpose to keep it around, then it is not genuine evil. However, I do not believe that all pain, suffering, and sorrow are a result of sin, and therefore, by claiming that some pain and sorrow might be morally neutral, I do not believe I am justifying the existence of evil. This is why I have separated pain that results from sin, and pain that results from non-moral causes.



Notes

1. Quoted in Edwin Gantt, “Hedonism, Suffering, and Redemption: The Challenge of a Christian Psychotherapy,” Turning Freud Upside Down (Provo: BYU Studies), p. 53.
2. Carlfred Broderick, “Suffering in the World,” LightPlanet.com.

2 comments

  1. I found this part of your article especially applicable to me right now:

    “Rather, we claim that the suffering is not inherently good or bad … but it has the potential to be either, depending upon our agentic response to it. … It provides an opportunity and occasion for us, through the exercise of our agency, to learn human compassion and find redemption. It can provide us with an opportunity to forgive.”

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I just wanted to let you know you’re helping me through some suffering as I’m trying to forgive.

Leave a Reply

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