Lotus in the Fire
Last weekend, Dan and I released our latest episode of Awkward Asian Theologians, the first of a two-parter on the theme of suffering.
The proposed two-parter piggybacks off a two-parter we did back in season one on the theme of mystery, and it might be of some benefit to listen to both parts one and two for some background.
Our latest episode focused on problematising the theme of suffering as a theological issue, and we did this on two levels.
The first concerned the seemingly obvious link between suffering and pain, which in turn plays itself out in the less obvious area of our relationships. We know that suffering is painful, but the fallout of the experience of pain and suffering is one of atomisation. While we did not mention this in the episode, I did notice resonances with William Cavanaugh’s Torture and Eucharist, where the inflicting of the pain of torture on the victim did not produce the obvious result of the experience of pain, but also the less obvious political result of atomisation of the victim from the rest of the community (the only community produced being this ersatz polity of torturer and victim). Such atomisation has the capacity to redefine one’s existing relationships, whether it is with others or with God, and often detrimentally. As such, we made the point that there is nothing praiseworthy in suffering in and of itself, and there is certainly nothing noteworthy in the Asian tendency to equate suffering with a kind of noble love language, inheritance and ultimately, identity.
The second level of problematisation of suffering is our tendency to do one of two things in the face of suffering. Either we dismiss suffering (because Jesus suffered even more than us), or we create forms of Christianity that fetishise suffering itself into a good (because Jesus suffered we must too). We argued that under some surface differences, constitute the same distortion about suffering, which is to take the fact of suffering in itself as a good. Our argument in the episode was that it was not the fact of Christ’s suffering but what he did in the face of suffering that is key, and it is what he did that makes it meritorious.
Channeling Hans Urs von Balthasar, Daniel pointed out that what made Jesus’ suffering salvific is reorienting that experience into a moment of communion, where one pivots the otherwise atomising experience of suffering into a space of self-gift. This does not glorify pain, but redeems it.
Christian suffering ultimately does not tell you to “suck it up”. Rather, it asks “who are you becoming through this suffering”.
We cover these points and a whole lot more in Lotus in the Fire, which you can listen to in full on Spotify, Apple Podcast and Amazon Music.
