Friday, August 23, 2013

Aspirin, alcohol, and analgesia

To avoid pain.
This, is what our society is bent on.
Because pain is the enemy.
There is a war--on pain and death.
And can I let you know it's a war on the unavoidable human condition?
Do you get that you're human?

Dr. Paul Brand, who is on his way to legendary status in my mind, says this of pain:
"...(speaking of western countries) I have noticed an ironic law of reversal at work: as a society gains the ability to limit suffering, it loses the ability to cope with what suffering remains. (It is the philosophers, theologians, and writers of the affluent West, not the Third World, who worry obsessively about "the problem of pain" and point an accusing finger at God.)"

The problem of pain. If we could only eliminate it....then we could...lose communication.
With our bodies.
With our selves.
Pain and pleasure...both signals from the same neurons. The difference?
How your body perceives it.
Pleasure signals are associated with reward
Pain signals are associated with punishment
'Reward' defined as moving towards homeostasis; punishment, away.
Just what is spiritual homeostasis anyway? The Jews knew. Even named it.  
Shalom.

Imagine life with no sight, no touch, no hearing. Your body can no longer communicate with you, and you can no longer communicate. Cut off inside your ivory skull of a prison.

Here's what our society has done with pleasure.
We've extracted it from it's natural habitat. On almost every level.
Sugar is found naturally, in fruit for instance. And humans like sweet. So we process, refine, pure sugar itself, get rid of the fruit, inundate food with this sugar. 
The longing for adventure, for a wild life of free abandon sits somewhere in your chest beneath your obligations and above your flat-lined pulse. So we pay to sit in a movie theater to have our hearts race and our sympathy wrung and our terror palpable.
Down sugar, overdose on sex, amass money, minimize work.

How is it that coming in first is so much sweeter if there are agonizing months of training behind it?
How is it that a meal tastes so much better with hours of labor and sweat preceding it?
And we never quite value toys that are given to us as much as the ones we painstakingly save up for and buy.

And here's what our society has done with suffering.
We've elevated it to public enemy #1 status.
We've sought to eliminate it from our experiences-now everybody gets to make the team.
Now performance is within injection's reach.
Take the aspirin, down the vodka, squeeze that syringe, drip the morphine.

And what we perceive as pleasurable gives no nourishment.
And what we cannot perceive as painful destroys us.


Someone once told me:
"At the end of the day, I cannot reconcile the fact that a loving God would allow pain and suffering."

And I thought to myself, "They have a point."
I thought that until I realized what the implications of a life without pain were.

And now, the inverse question reverberates through my head.
 I begin to understand a little bit more the excessive depth of God's wisdom.
 To be honest, I am half ashamed to behold His silence at so many vitriolic accusations against Him that stem from such a deficiency of understanding.

How could a good God not allow pain?
To feel pain is to be free.

5 comments:

  1. I think, looking through the Bible, that even the biblical authors recognized that pain and suffering were not inherently good things. The prophets constantly talk of their hope for the day when there will be no more crying and no more pain.

    Granted, pain and suffering are an inescapable consequence in a fragile world filled with danger, struggle, and immoral/amoral/apathetic forces at work, but the general consensus that life would undeniably be better if there were no suffering (barring the occasional masochists and/or sadists) is not simply one of modern American society. It's one of humanity throughout history, including those who sought God. Pain is a fact of life in this world, but that doesn't mean we should embrace it as good anymore than we should embrace survival of the fittest, or our natural impulses toward addiction, gluttony, or sexual promiscuity.

    All that to say, the idea that God is good because he "allows" pain (it might be more accurate to say that he designed this world to include pain as an essential aspect) seems to me to be pretty backwards. We can learn to deal with pain, yes. We can grow from the fires of pain, yes. But pain is not the only way to grow. And not all pain ends in the betterment of people. Some pain destroys mercilessly. Pain is, according to the Bible and obvious even without looking at the Bible, a curse that goes along with the nature of this universe in which we live.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree with many things you have said wholeheartedly, and I think you've misinterpreted the point of what I'm trying to say.

    Pain is a consequence of our sin, but if pain ultimately brings us back to truth and redemption, then pain is a good thing. And the prophets, in general, constantly talked of a time when the people would turn back to God from wickedness. Their focus wasn't on the removal of pain, it was on the return to holiness-to God.

    If we couldn't feel pain, we would never know we are separated from God. A God who would allow us to perish in that ignorance would be cruel and indifferent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Side note: http://tinyurl.com/olzsx2r

    Cruel is by definition willfully causing others to suffer. Saying that God is not cruel by causing others to suffer is a prime example of what I see as backwards in your post. Granted, not all cruelty is considered bad, see the phrase "being cruel to be kind".

    Semantics aside, we aren't just talking about being cruel to be kind. Because not all pain in this world created by God leads to the realization of our being separated with God. Some pain simply destroys. That pain, which does not have any ultimate benefit, is the pain to which those of us who ask "why would God create the world this way?" are referring.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You only took the first half of the definition you posted. The second half says "..or feeling no concern about it." God is not cruel, by the definition you just used. Pain and cruelty and suffering are not interchangeable, you'll cause confusion if you use them thus.

    "That pain, which ultimately does not have any benefit..." is a blatant assumption on your part, that you cannot possibly make for 'that pain' that you're referring to.

    God did not create the world this way, broken. You can read Genesis if you want the story of how we got where we are. This is a result of our sin, and one day, at the end of all things, God is going to set things right again. He'll wipe away pain, suffering, and this brokenness forever. Jesus, the only One who ever conquered death, was the firstfruit of this promise.

    If you really want to talk about this, email me, and we can. But let's not discuss it over comments on a blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think we've discussed it extensively enough. I'm certainly not looking to debate with you on the matter; just to share my own perspective and perhaps learn something from your response.

    As a matter of fact, I have learned a little after reviewing a few sections of the New Testament letters (such as those written by James and Paul) who discuss suffering as something meant to develop and mold God's people.

    I feel somewhat silly, seeing as I have James memorized and he discusses that in chapter 1, that I spoke of Christianity as viewing suffering negatively. My mind was on the Old Testament authors, who are much less optimistic in their views on suffering. In the words of Paul: "We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed." All this occurring so that Christ might be manifest in his people. Much less opposite to your note's content as I had implied.

    And in keeping with my main intention, I've shared the reason that people like myself continue to question the Christian version of theodicy in light of passages like that -- because, to us, it can be plainly observed that not all pain has an ultimate benefit. Assuming that all pain does have an ultimate benefit is just the same a "blatant assumption", albeit one that is much easier to falsify (and one that I believe is falsified if you look at the world around you, making the inverse assumption no longer assumptuous). It's clear that you disagree with this observation, so there's not much else to discuss. Just more to think about and consider as life continues on.

    ReplyDelete