The Burden of Hope

"It is one thing to be unhappy, but it is a greatly added burden to be unhappy about being unhappy."  So says Rich Bledsoe in his thought-provoking essay:  Ministering to Suffering in The Third World and In The First.

In his and other's experiences, the pagan (unChristianized) conscience has a diminished, even somewhat Stoic, response to suffering because it views it as imposed from outside oneself...either by cosmic chaos, the gods, fate or nature.  There is a certain resignation to the inevitability of suffering and tragedy which allows the pagan mind to accept it more readily and with less emotional trauma than the Christian conscience. 

I suggest that this is due, in part, to the sense of responsibility, sin and guilt which accompanies the advent of The Gospel.  The Christian conscience is keenly aware of the brokenness of the world and its inhabitants..."bent hnau" all. (If the term "bent hnau" is unfamiliar to you, I highly recommend you read C.S. Lewis's space trilogy!)  We often perceive suffering, and rightly so, as a result of our own or other's sins and thus the personal nature of it elicits very personal responses. 

"The coming of Christ transformed the experience of suffering."  It is no longer merely an unpleasant, imposition on man from an outside source, but is "experienced primarily as inner sufferings."  I can no longer interpret my suffering as part of an impersonal cosmic whole, but instead "I experience the agony of being in disharmony with the world...the Creator God" and my fellow man.  This personal, inner agony does not exist in the same way for the unbelieving mind.

In addition to adding responsibilities and an increased awareness of our fallenness, this thing we call The Good News, also conditions the imagination which has been regenerated (or Christianized by Western Civilization) to expect something more.  The same Gospel which provides previously unattainable freedom and blessings, also instills in the heart the burden of hope. 

Wait a minute.  Doesn't the very nature of hope exclude the possibility of it being burdensome?  Not exactly.  Here's why.  The very nature of hope implies a raising of expectations which, when frustrated or elusive, can lead to a more intense disappointment or disillusionment than is possible where hope does not exist.  As Bledsoe says, "...everyone is unhappy, everyone has cyclical and even eternal miseries that have plagued humanity for time everlasting, but now I am plagued with the hope that things can be different."

The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us to anticipate joy, beauty, blessing, restoration, forgiveness, healing...in short, a making new of all things!  Therefore, those of us who embrace the Truth found in Christ, often feel the sting of tragedy, suffering and unhappiness more profoundly because it cuts against the grain of our hopeful expectations!   Even though we know - at least theoretically - that suffering and death are the path to life, we feel the incongruity of it.

Am I suggesting then that we are worse off because of our acquaintance with or belief in The Gospel?  Of course not!  Or as Paul would say, "God forbid!"  The quickening of hope and the ensuing disappointments require a response on our part.  All too often we Christians respond in ways that are less than fully Christian.  

In my next post, I'll address some of our common responses and temptations, and suggest what I believe a truly biblical Christian response looks like.