2024년 담임목사배 <독후감 대회> 시상 및 독후감
1등 박혜진 자매 (The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis) 한국번역 : 고통의 문제 - CS루이스
2등 김경희 사모( One at a time) 한국번역 : 한번에 한 사람 - 카일에일드먼
3등 옥성빈은퇴집사 (예배인가? 쇼인가? 토저)
3등 박세현 형제( 내면 세계의 질서와 영적성장, 고든 맥도날드)
* 경건서적을 읽음으로 더욱 영적성장을 이루는 여러분이 되시기를 바랍니다.
1등 글은 아래에 붙입니다. 다른 분들의 글도 첨부파일로 있으니 참조하시기 바랍니다.
The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis
HYEJIN PARK (HIM청년부)
The Problem of Pain by C.S.Lewis is an organised collection of Lewis’ thoughts on the philosophical questions surrounding the matter of pain.
If God is good, and He truly has a good purpose for His created things, then why does pain exist?
Does it point to a God who is indifferent and cold after all, rendering the Christian God to be a god of mere fantasy?
Or does our pursuit for the answers to this issue lead us to delve deeper into the truths of this very world?
From questioning God’s character and goodness to discussing the human condition, to speaking of pain in the context of eternity as seen
by a Christian lens, C.S. Lewis guides us through a fascinating investigation of these topics as he seeks to explore every nook and cranny
on the problem of pain.
Lewis starts by explaining that at first glance, Christianity appears to be at the root of our so-called ‘problem of pain’.
The Bible tells us that the ultimate reality is love and righteousness.
When we assume this to be the truth, then and only then does the existence of pain pose a problem.
If pain and suffering were the ultimate reality, then there would be no issue, as there is nothing more to look to.
However, it is this disconnect between ultimate reality and our lived reality that makes it seem to us as if there were a problem.
This assumption of reality serves as the grounds for the rest of our discussions around the topic of pain.
We then have the question of free will. If our abuse of free will is what causes pain and suffering, then why does not our God,
who has all authority on heaven and earth, simply undo all choices that may result in such tragedies? Supposing God did decide to undo all our erroneous and harmful decisions, then the resulting world would not be one with any freedom at all. If we truly believe God to be omnipotent and good, it only makes sense that the current state of the universe is not the best of ‘all possible’ universes, but that it is the ‘only’ possible one. After all, implying that God of all people was choosing between the lesser of several imperfect worlds points to an imperfect, if not powerless, Creator. And this cannot be further from the truth.
We often refer to God as our loving Creator. He is our standard of good and evil. But how can we be sure that a God who allows pain in this world has the same standard of good, evil and love as us - the creatures? Our innate idea of goodness is certainly different from that of God. After all, we naturally pursue pleasure and happiness, whereas God seems to have His sights on things of a higher, more divine nature. His definition of goodness is different from us, but not so much so that there is no point in striving for them. In fact, just as it is when we associate with men of higher moral standards, we become assimilated to His goodness, and realise that it is a better, more whole standard of goodness than the one we already hold. God seeks not only to love us, but to make us lovable. It is not His goal to bring us complete happiness and satisfaction in the current world, because He is fully aware of, and He is, the ultimate reality.
Having established the reality of God’s loving nature, it is important for us to distinguish between love and kindness. Kindness in and of itself, separated from the elements of love, cares only for the object’s escape from suffering, no matter what the conditions for that escape may be. It demands happiness and acceptance on any terms. At times, kindness even leads to the removal of the object itself. For example, we see many examples of people deciding to end the life of a creature (whether that be animal or human) lest it should suffer. However, love has a more stern nature than kindness. It does not demand unconditional happiness. Love demands the perfecting of the object. It is not unlike how we discipline our canine companions to be better suited for a close relationship with us. In this same way, we too must learn and unlearn things to be in a perfect relationship with God. No doubt if dogs had sentience they would not enjoy this process of discipline. They may even refer to it as pain or suffering. However, we as His creatures are a divine work of art in the making, and God also will not be satisfied with our mere ‘happiness’ in this world. He knows us better than we know ourselves, and He will mould us until we reflect a certain character - even if that may at times demand that we endure painful circumstances.
This begs the question: if God were all knowing and all powerful, why did He create creatures needing moulding or alterations in the first place? This demands an insight into our own fallen nature. Our wickedness caused a fallout with the ultimate purpose for which we were created. We need to remember that every good thing carries with it a duality. God is good, the things He has created are good, but the moment we receive free will, it opens up the possibility for choosing evil. After all, if we are unable to choose anything other than good, then what free will is there at all? “.... all that is given to a creature with free will must be two-edged, not by the nature of the giver or of the gift, but by the nature of the recipient.” (p.108). Therefore, by choosing to stray from our walk with God, it has resulted in a corruption of the human soul and purpose. Only by correctly identifying our diagnosis in our state of sin can we begin to acknowledge our need for a cure.
The difficulty of both error and sin is that the deeper you are, the less you suspect their existence. We are imperfect, and in so acknowledging, we require a sort of ‘breaking of the will’. We are required to break our illusion of self-sufficiency. After all, if our condition truly is what we diagnose it to be, we are not self-sufficient at all. Perfect, proper joy and goodness for a creature lies in self-surrender to the perfect Creator. A breaking of the will is a sort of self-denial, and will inevitably be accompanied by pain. We must die daily in our surrender. Pain is God’s megaphone to direct our attention to an issue that needs immediate attending. If all was well and good, we would not wish to surrender our self-will to Him at all.
Some may point to Judas as an argument for God’s imperfect nature. For if Judas had not betrayed Jesus, then we would not have had the crucifixion. However, the root of this assumption is riddled with error. Jesus would have been crucified for our sins anyway. We always have the option to choose what side we take in God’s grand scheme of life. Judas had many chances to choose the right side, but He chose to side with evil over good. The battle has always been won - the story has an end. God will be glorified, and His children will rise with Him to heaven. There is no evil act in this world that can deter God from His plans and purpose - He makes complex goods out of simple evils.
If pain serves a purpose in God’s grand scheme, then as Christians are we to endure, and further still, seek out pain for our moulding in Christ? If we explore Jesus’ prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, we can discover that this is not entirely true. Jesus also willed to avoid suffering and death. However, the importance here is that He willed it only should it be compatible with the Father’s will. “A duly subordinated intention to avoid [pain], using lawful means, is in accordance with ‘nature’ - that is, with the whole working system of creaturely life for which the redemptive work of tribulation is calculated.” (p.114).
Two more important distinctions we must make is the difference between sin vs pain, and condoning vs forgiving. The biggest distinction between sin and pain is that sin will continue to breed sin. To undo it, you must get rid of the cause and the act itself. But pain is over when it is over, and a natural sequence to it is joy. It is the least evil of the world’s evils.
If pain is inevitable, and we are all sinners, then we may continue to ask why God in His omnipotence does not choose to get rid of all our sins. But here we need to remember that condoning sin and forgiving sin is a very big difference indeed. To condone means to ignore an evil and treat it as if it were good. However, to forgive the forgiveness must not only be offered, but also accepted. We cannot accept forgiveness in our state of sin, as we see no fault to be forgiven.
In this respect, we can say that hell is not an injustice, as the doors can be said to be locked from the inside. Lewis described hell as the wish to lie wholly in the self. It is the opposite of love, which is selflessness. Those that enter hell do not wish even for the preliminary stages of self-abandonment, which is the only way for a soul to reach goodness. Lewis also noted that when discussing the doctrine of hell we must remember that the doctrine is a personal one. It is not for our neighbours, family, or friends. We must refer to it in the context of the self. Heaven or hell is a personal matter, and we should always be in acknowledgement of that fact.
Lewis ends his discourse on pain with the doctrine of heaven. Assuming heaven is real, then there is no pain on earth which could compare to the promised glory of heaven. Heaven was a place created for man, whereas hell is an ‘other’. It is everything outside of heaven. He leaves us with the question of whether we have ever desired anything other than heaven in the totality of our lives. If we dug into the core of the cumulative desires of our hearts, there we would discover that what we have always been longing for, has been what God has wanted for us the entire time.
There were some aspects of Lewis’ theology I did not necessarily agree with or understand - and given the time, I would love to explore and dive deeper into why he thought certain things. For example, the doctrine of total depravity was not fitting in his eyes. But he did not dive deep into this topic, as it did not have as much to do with the topic at hand. He was a brilliant man nonetheless, and I remind myself that he was no theologian, and that he was not providing answers to any question, but simply providing his own impressions on the matter.
Reflecting on The Problem of Pain, I found that the ideas that were introduced in the book provided greater insight and perspective into my own life experiences. To begin, Lewis suggested that each of us carries a piece of God with us. God is a personal God, and He made us all distinct and unique so that He may enjoy a unique relationship with each of us. To get the full picture of who He is, we are encouraged to have unity in our distinctness. For me, this stressed emphasis on the importance of a healthy Christian community such as our church. To have a church of unique, but united individuals is one of the greatest blessings we can receive. For by Lewis’ philosophy, the more of us unite, the more we give each other a clearer and better picture of our Creator.
When we are stuck on our own, it is difficult to remember who He is. Throughout the entirety of the most bitter and painful periods of my life, I struggled between my knowledge of God’s goodness, and my reality which did not seem to reflect said goodness. Because we are stuck in the flesh, we cannot help but view the world through the lens of how we feel. But I was reminded once more that when we view our circumstances in the context of His divine eyes, we would see something very different to what we had been perceiving in the moment of pain. Although we could never fully comprehend the divine purpose of our pains, we can have hope in them - because as Christians, we are assured in His promises. This pain is not the ultimate reality. We are but travellers on a pilgrimage on a heavenward journey, and God does not wish for us to settle in the inns scattered throughout our journey - He is urging us homeward, towards heaven.
