COVID-19.

For many this international tragedy brought severe suffering, and for some a spiritual crisis and deep emotional wound.

Disease, war, acts of terrorism and natural disasters are only a few of the major events that have ravaged mankind the world over. These large scale traumatic incidents induce widespread direct suffering to mass populations, and vicarious trauma to those who respond and provide aid. Yet, far be it for anyone to assume that everyday crises, troubles, illnesses and injuries, of varying magnitudes are not within the same realm of significant mortal suffering, being just as important as the grander incidents are. For the Christian, no matter how miniscule or grand, all suffering must fit within a broader theology which encapsulates both a sovereign and loving God. How can such a good, and loving God sit idly by while humans suffer? Why has a sovereign God allowed such terrible things to happen, are they out of His control? The well known atheist, David Hume once stated “If God is willing to prevent evil, is He willing to prevent evil but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” (1980). This in fact is what many philosophers and theologians consider the problem of Evil. In fact the very existence of evil and suffering is what many claims refutes God’s existence. C.S. Lewis, in the Problem of Pain (1940) wrote of his experience as an atheist, regarding humanity, stating:

Their history is largely a record of crime, war, disease, and terror, with just sufficient happiness interposed to give them, while it lasts, an agonised apprehension of losing it, and, when it is lost, the poignant misery of remembering… If you ask me to believe that this is the work of a benevolent and omnipotent spirit, I reply that all the evidence points in the opposite direction. Either there is no spirit behind the universe, or else a spirit indifferent to good and evil, or else an evil spirit.

In response, this article aims to discuss God’s purpose in and through suffering while examining the role the Christian, the local congregation and the global church have in planning and preparing for such incidents of suffering, both large and small. I hope to prove that God is not only perfectly good, but also that he is deeply and primarily concerned with His purposes as they are revealed to us, in and through our experiences of suffering.

God’s Purpose for Suffering

Why is there suffering? Many from the Christian theological perspective will argue that suffering was a result of the fall of man recorded in the Book of Genesis 3. However, I believe this is too short-sighted of an answer, which ultimately has led many to have severe difficulty. First, in Genesis 3:5, Satan tells the woman “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” It is important to note that this moment is before the fall. Good and evil already existed. Man and Woman were unaware of it, and its consequences. Our omnipotent Creator knew full well, and desired to keep us well within His mercy and grace, apart from the realities of evil. Apart from the suffering, shame, destruction and death that would come. His command to “not eat of the fruit” was not some authoritarian dictation of control, but a plea from a loving Creator to not rebel from Him. To not rebel from His good and perfect plan. Typically, and in most cases due to our Fathers moral fingerprint, we ascribe certain events, things or people the values of good or evil. A baby born healthy, is good. A life saved by the skilled hands of an EMT, is good. A good employer, or a good job. Conversely, an abortion is evil. A murder, or war, or a catastrophe, evil. And although these labels may be accurate at times, I believe there is another way of further defining good and evil themselves.

What is good? Going back to Genesis, God created the light, and it was good. His radiant glory, His beauty, His distinction, His activity, His illumination, His will. Good. The narrative continues, God creates the heavens, the earth and all that was in it and above it, and it was good. Six times before the account of the creation of Man, God looks upon His work, and specifically calls it good (Gen 1:4,10,12,18,21,25). At the completion of His work, He calls it very good (v. 1:31). Good in this sense, is the exact projection or mirroring of His omni benevolent and perfect will. God, good. Creation, good. Man, good. In Genesis 2:18, God saw that it was “not good” for man to be alone. He needed a helper. The original hebrew word ezer is defined as “one who comes along in our helplessness” (Strongs). From the very beginning God knew we were helpless. It was good for Him to care for and about us, and to provide for us. It would have been evil for Him to withhold from us what we needed. To neglect us, to forsake us. These are completely opposite of His perfect character. For, even an earthly father knows how to give good gifts, how much more will our heavenly father (Matt. 7:11). But what were we up against? Why were we helpless?

There was one who was lying in wait, ready to devour (1 Peter 5:8).

Before man’s rebellion, came another rebelion. The Prophet Isaiah called him the “Day Star” and “Son of Dawn”. Ezekiel the “covering cherub”. Edwards taught it was his very excellence and greatness, his pride, that led him into his rebellion (1994). In the book of Revelation, he is the dragon, the devil and the Satan. The scriptures of Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2 enlighten us more to the realities of cosmic rebellion, highlighting an angelic insurrection and denial of subordination. Piper writes “Satan and the other fallen angels originate as created holy angels who rebel against God, reject him as their all-satisfying King, and set out on a course of self-exaltation and presumed self-determination.” (2020). What about evil then? Is it right to state that everything outside of God, and His perfection, out of what He makes or calls good, is indeed evil? Agustine claimed evil was not a substance or thing at all, but rather a privation of good (Djung, 2014). It stands then that evil is a second cause, and therefore suffering a third, rooted in rebellion against God. First in Satans, then in Adams. Because of this rebellion we are spiritually and physically separated from God during this current age. Humanity was banished from Eden, forced to suffer in mortality but only for a short time, otherwise we would have lived forever in a state of eternal separation (Ge. 3:22). In Christ we have the hope of returning, and that, without evil or suffering.

It is important to note that Christianity is not a dualistic religion of good vs evil, or God vs Satan. Evil is not eternal. Only God and His perfect goodness is. Further, it is important to note that Satan is ultimately subjective entirely to God’s will (cf. Job 1:12, 2:6). Therefore, God has a perfect purpose in Satan’s rebellion, just as in Judas’ rebellion of the Christ. And like what is revealed as the higher meaning in another context elsewhere, what one means for evil God means for good (cf. Gen. 50:20). For what is a greater good according to scripture, then that of Gods own gracious plan to redeem worthless sinners, by His own sacrifice, whom He wrote in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain, and this, before all of creation (Rev. 13:8). This was always the plan. As Piper summarizes “Satan’s fall and all the redemptive plan of God for the glory of his grace afterward, were according to God’s eternal plan.”As Eve was Adam’s ezer, she would also be the first vessel through which Christ would come, the promised seed, the perfect ezer for all of humanity. Yes the curse of the fall would go forth, but so would the promise of a savior who would overcome, and so He has so we should not fear (cf. Heb. 13:6).

So why would God, who is perfectly good allow, permit and use such suffering to this very day? Simply put, to fulfill His purposes according to His plan. But couldn’t God just end suffering? Yes, He most definitely could, but should He? We would like Him too, but dont we also want to see justice? Feel love? Receive mercy, grace and kindness? As God would answer Job, who are we to question Him? By what authority do we even ask? These, among other great things remain within the mysteries of God and His wisdom (1 Corn. 2:7). What we do know is that God has crossed through the plane of mortal suffering, taking on the likeness of our humanity to bring us near to Him by the work of the cross, which we will know in it fullness eventually, when all suffering will cease for all eternity (Rev. 21:4).

In our physical and spiritual separation from God there are three broad ways in which we suffer both directly and indirectly that I will discuss. There is judgement on sin, which brings suffering. The world is full of sin, corrupt and evil, which causes suffering. And sinful creatures, both mortal and spiritual, cause suffering to one another.

This is evident in a brief examination of the first chapters of Genesis, the record of our beginning.

Genesis 3:17 presents God’s first judgement on creation. Adam and Eve would suffer, in pain and toil. Abel suffered until his death at the hands of Cain. Shorty after, Cain would suffer as he faced God’s judgement of murder. Adam and Eve suffered the loss of both their sons. Genesis 6 accounts for the growing wickedness of man, during which unknowable many suffered at the hands of man and the nephilim during this time. The flood was a judgment on humanity, and many people suffered. Noah and his family were spared from the judgement of the flood, but did they not suffer the loss of everything else? Did they not experience the terror and pain of watching everyone die? Did they not suffer from their experience of hearing the cries for help?

For generations upon generations since, mankind has caused emotional, and physical suffering to one another. Evil has been rooted in the hearts of mankind and drives their actions, leading them to cause suffering to one another (cf. Mark 7:21-23, Matt. 15:19). Mankind has been subjected to all sorts of suffering, by means of external evil, beings and sources (Mat. 4:24, Eph. 2:2 & 6:12). God’s judgement on sin in this world has and will cause suffering (Psalm 38:3, Isa. 13:11). For creation is subjected to futility and even now groans (Rom. 8:20-22). Even Christ himself suffered as the subject of God’s judgement on sin (1 Peter 3:18). C.S. Lewis stated “The world is a dance in which good, descending from God, is disturbed by evil arising from the creatures, and the resulting conflict is resolved by God’s own assumption of the suffering nature which evil produces. (1940, p. 53)”. Apart from Christ, we are helpless against the tyranny of rebellion and evil, of suffering and death. It is in Christ, in His assumption of the suffering nature, that we have a hope despite our suffering. In our suffering He promises to be with us, for in our weakness He is made strong (2 Corin. 12:9-10). This is the essential difference between the philosophical problem of evil and the actual personal experience of suffering. As Fienberg writes, “There is a difference between asking why there is evil in general if an all-loving, all-powerful God exists, and asking why God allows a specific evil to happen to someone.” (2016, p.18).

In Christ, all suffering should point us or redirect us back to God. Powlison writes “God uses significant suffering to teach us to need him. And when we need him, we find him.” (2018, p. 39). Of course the opposite reaction to suffering would be to focus on the suffering itself, or to focus on ourselves. The tendency is to become self-absorbed. To focus inward, instead of upward. Suffering, is in some minor sense, what you make of it. Without downplaying suffering, Tripp states that “suffering is more powerfully shaped by what’s in your heart than by what’s in your body or in the world around you.” (Strongs). The heart is the center of your person, and suffering can bring a direct assault on it. Christ experienced this first hand. He was in the garden, suffering in agony of what would come to pass. He was tempted to look inward instead of upward yet He never lost focus. In prayer, He asked God to remove the cup if possible, but He remained faithful to trust God. In anguish, he prayed even more. He invites us to do the same.

Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Hebrews 4:14-16, ESV

In our suffering we have an advocate, who not only promises to be with us, but who knows full well the feeling of our infirmities providing us grace and mercy in our time of need. He invites us to come boldly before His throne, as the authority above our suffering. God doesn’t promise us a life without suffering, He promises us Himself in our suffering.

Man’s Plan In Suffering

If suffering is inevitable, how does the Church best prepare itself? In a broad sense, it is by first and foremost ensuring the Church is theologically sound, before the disaster. The cross must be set as the foundation of Christian understanding of suffering. The local church must abhor any heresy of prosperity gospel and deny any message of Christianity which may attempt to part itself from suffering. Christ himself said we must suffer to follow him, and to be spiritually prepared for it (Mark 8:34, John 15:20, Acts 14:22). Far too many congregations have believed and even proselytize on the basis of the Devil’s lies, stating that in Christ they could and should expect minimal suffering, if any at all. This couldn’t be further from the truth! How quickly these weak Christians will become dismayed when trouble does come.

For these, the central issue for the church is not the problem of evil, but the problem of faith.

To combat this the church should preach early and often about suffering, and its context and purposes within the greater biblical narrative.

Pastors should be honest about pain, and our current expectation of suffering. They should point their churches to the hope of Christ, and the glory of heaven. To not live for this day, or this moment, but instead be focused on things above (Col. 3;2), and on our future home in heaven (Phil. 3:20-21). It is with this eternal perspective that the church is best prepared to respond to itself and others. It is afterall the quintessential role of the church during times of suffering, to point both the congregation and the outside community to the hope that rests in Christ, and Christ alone. But it will fail to do this if it does not truly believe it, and live out this faith everyday. The Church is to act as a beacon of light during the most tumultuous storms of life, the church must burn brightly for the glory of God, beckoning wayward “travelers” to the safety of its shores, which exist solely in the merciful grace and goodness of God’s own pleasure and delight (Matt. 5:14-16).

To be well-prepared for suffering, the local church should be a place that is safe to be open to talk about pain, and it should be intentional in developing a culture of caring. If we avoid the discussion on pain, or stigmatize it as weakness, or ignore it through some sort of Christian stoicism, we are failing! Instead, the Church should be willing and ready to care for the burdens of others (Gal. 6:2), visiting others in the affliction (James 1:27) and remain for the suffering (James 5:13). The church should be willing and ready to give of its resources for those in need (1 John 3:17). To do this effectively, the church will do well to equip more than just the pastor or leaders for these tasks, preparing the body for the duties of ministry in the event of a crisis, or incident. The actual outcome of a church’s actions depends largely on the congregational emphasis placed on the theology of helping.

The church who fails to decentralize regularly, and who instead places the burden solely on the pastoral staff in more common instances of suffering will certainly fail under disasters or calamity.

In such events, Roberts et al warn that clergy in general are at risk for compassion fatigue because of their work and secondary exposure to trauma and traumatic events (2017, p. 239). There is significant stress caring for their church, and the needs of the greater community as a faith leader during grand events. If the leader of the church is the only one doing anything, they will burn out exceptionally fast! The church seeking to be well-prepared to share the burden of ministry during a crisis, or any event which produces suffering will do well to mimic the early church in Acts 6, dividing up formal ministries to worthy lay leaders before they are overwhelmed, and in that way allow the pastoral staff to focus on the tasks of their position, or official duties of the Church when called upon. In many ways this mimics the basic principles of space of control which are taught in length in incident command systems (ICS) training. This is especially true during the honeymoon or remedy phase of a disaster, in which leaders are increasingly busy and visible in ministry, possibly leading funerals, providing direct spiritual care, hospital visits, and services (Roberts et al, 2017, p. 28). During these times, other lay leaders and members of the church will need to step up and take on additional duties and tasks. This is an excellent opportunity for members to care more intentionally for those in their communities and for the church body itself (Gal. 6:10).

But what about when the church itself is affected? Disasters affect communities by overwhelming their capacity to address physical and emotional needs, by destroying resources, disrupting important attachments and relationships, threatening safety and exceeding individual and community capacity to make meaning of events. Churches are no different.

What worked in previous smaller scales incidents may not work once the event escalates. The pastor may have had the capacity to care for the physical and emotional needs of it congregants before the event, or perhaps a few outsiders at a time but will be quickly overcome in almost any attempt to start caring for the vast majority of the needs of both groups inside and outside the church.

Further, For many communities, the church itself plays a role as a community resource, offering a place of refuge to reconnect with others. For many churches, the task of making meaning for the community, by answering questions to reaffirm faith and hope, takes center stage in any disaster. The Church is uniquely gifted by the ministry of the Holy Spirit and God’s written word, to have the capacity to make meaning of an event, and to care for spiritual wounds. This is no doubt why so many turn to the church for answers during severe crises. But when the church itself is wrestling with making meaning, this ministry is hampered.
Critical events may break down the Church’s ability to be a community resource very quickly. An event which hampers the Church’s physical structure (wildfire, flood or hurricane) may negate the church’s desire and ability to help others, due to their own lacking (even if just a lacking of physical space). Other instances may affect the ability to gather, or hinder fellowship. COVID-19, for example, has revealed the importance of attachment and relationships within the church body, and therefore within a greater community. Many feel lonely and isolated. Suffering is never easy alone.

This being said, it is imperative that the Church be positioned to care for the emotional, and physical, and even spiritual needs of the communities they serve during a disaster or large scale event. By having disaster response plans and other details worked out, with the appropriate training and equipping in place before they are needed, the Church may stand more resilient, ready and responsive. The church will be faithful to its mission In some regards these details are composed into a “disaster or pre-incident plan”.

Gleaning from resources provided by Luther Disaster Response, there are eight areas in which a disaster plan should focus; staff and member preparation, a survey of special needs/concerns, formal agreements, identified internal and external resources, partnerships with other churches or groups, funding, and building/facility safety.

Staff and member preparation should be as basic as ensuring they know how to care for their own families (cf. 1 Tim. 3:4) to as complex as specialized or medical training depending on the survey of their needs. The Church should have a clear understanding of what it is going to give, and get and how it is going to help alongside other denominations. Clearly delineating its roles and responsibility, with simple “yes and no’s” as to not overextend or promise or neglect (cf. Matt. 5:37). The Church should be ready to answer its call, as a member of Christ’s greater body (Rom. 12:4-5) and make formal agreements to do so.

John Babler suggests that the Church should be well-equipped in Biblical Crisis Intervention, including the skills of compassion, listening, serving, ministering scripture and prayer. To be effective, Babler further writes “disaster ministry must be organized. The church needs a disaster coordinator to be responsible for screening, training, and organizing volunteers for various crisis ministries.”

To best serve the church, and the community, the pastor, or lead clergy may not be the best designee for this role. These things are no easy task, and to pursue them haphazardly or half-heartedly due to a lack of ability or attentiveness would be futile (cf. Luke 14:28).

If the Church is prepared to care for itself, then they will be free to meet the emotional, social and spiritual needs of each other and their community. Suffering, on a smaller scale may not require such grandiose planning and preparation. However, if we heed the command in 2 Timothy 4 we should be ready at any time, in a large or small event, to correct, rebuke and encourage. Unfortunately, many churches have abandoned their ministries of counseling, and have pushed these things into the realms of secular therapists and mental health providers, or held them in the hands of the lead pastor with extensive theological training.

David Powlison writes for the need of the contrary, that the church [not just the pastor] needs to become “wise in the face-to-face cure of souls”.

In the time of suffering, in the wake of disaster or crisis, the ability to provide lay counseling and for the church to mobilize competent counselors is critical.