Evangelical and Catholic Differences: Suffering

"On Suffering" by Hani Amir is marked with CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

I have written before on ways Evangelical Protestants and Catholics are similar. Both groups (at their best) emphasize a close relationship with Christ, find themselves side by side in many evangelization efforts, and have in common a shared view of several issues having to do with marriage and the family. 

 There are definitely differences though, and profound ones at that. One of the largest differences between Protestants and Catholics seems to be their approach to suffering. One seems to see suffering as no less than they deserve and merely as something to be endured ( though not without a God who can sympathize with their suffering), while the other side sees suffering as a particular type of unity with Christ and an opportunity for a direct participation in the saving suffering of Christ on the cross. 

(Before I get into this, I feel I should confess that a fair amount of what I know on the popular Evangelical Protestant (EP) understanding of suffering  is from faith memoirs and Jerry Jenkins fiction found at the public library. There are almost certainly Protestant theologians and pastors who can explain it better. I  haven't read any formal theology on this- I imagine CS Lewis's The Problem of Pain is significantly more fleshed out than what I'm portraying here.

 I chose to go ahead with what I have read on the assumption that "faith" books popular with a given population tend to reasonably reflect that population's beliefs. This seems to be what you're likely to hear in most "Bible based" churches on a given Sunday morning). 

The difference in perception of suffering seems to stem from an even more essential difference-- that of how salvation works. 

There's more in common with our understandings of this than a lot of Protestants and Catholics tend to believe. Neither group subscribes to the idea that salvation is earned, but both believe that Heaven can be attained only by a freely offered gift of grace. You cannot earn your way into Heaven via good works. 

The difference is in what is meant by the term "grace". 

It seems to mean either immediate full amnesty for sins for the undeserving sinner contingent on a single sincere act of faith (the Protestant understanding);

"Like I told you. We're all sinners, only some of us are believers who have been forgiven. 

(...) 

And that's the key. You have to believe it and put your faith in Jesus and what he did for you. That's how people become friends of God." (Jerry Jenkins, Riven)

or a transforming act of God, through various means, gifted to the undeserving sinner that shapes them into who God means them to be so long as they cooperate with it (Catholic understanding);

"Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life." (CCC 1996, emphasis original). 

The EP seems to see God's salvation as a blanket policy, while the Catholic sees it as an ongoing transformative journey. One is an all at once covenant, while the other is an ongoing process that's begun with Baptism, but isn't completed until death. 

Because the EP sees salvation this way, his understanding of suffering is more like sticking to his side of the agreement made when he accepted Jesus. Basically, God is in control, knows better than he does, and that his response ought to be one of blind trust that it's all somehow, from God's perspective, for the best;

"He did not understand God, and he was finally learning that no one did or ever would. He didn't like what God allowed, but Boone had also learned that it wasn't his place to try and do God's job for him." (Jerry Jenkins, The Brotherhood ) 

Furthermore, as a fallen sinner, suffering is all anyone actually deserves anyway. No one has any right to complain. 

"You have pledged your life to God, and this is what happens to your wife?(...)"

"(...) You know your mother and I believe we deserve nothing but death and hell, so anything short of that is a bonus. We have so much to be thankful for." (Jerry Jenkins, Riven). 

This isn't to say that the EP understanding of suffering in relation to God is completely incompatible with the Catholic's. The need for total trust in God in the face of evil and suffering is a shared Christian tenet, as is the need for constant gratitude and perseverance. That simple trust, on its own, is a deeply powerful thing and should never be dismissed. Both EPs and Catholics recognize that it's vital. 

What's different about the Catholic understanding of suffering is that you can do something with it. You can go deeper. Suffering is a way to unite yourself to Christ, and can be offered as a prayer to help others. It's not just something to weather and grit your teeth through; it's an opportunity to love and to draw closer to God by passing through it. 

(...)Suffering, a consequence of original sin, acquires a new meaning; it becomes a participation in the saving work of Jesus. (CCC 1521, emphasis added)

"Suffering is nothing by itself. But suffering shared with the passion of Christ is a wonderful gift, the most beautiful gift, a token of love.” (St. Theresa of Calcutta) 

Suffering remains a difficult thing to pass through. Doubt remains. Struggle remains. What changes is that what seemed meaningless before can have meaning now. Not in a future, "someday I'll know what this means way", though that may come too. But in an immediate, God can use this and I can help other people now way. Suffering united to Christ's suffering becomes an act of love and a way that God shapes you into who you're meant to be.  

It's not just a question of submission to authority, it's a question of drawing closer to Christ, performing an act of love, and being transformed through the experience of it. 

It's beyond the scope of this piece to talk about Biblical justification for these two perceptions of suffering. I know the theological basis and reasoning for these beliefs is worth talking about and debating, but my intention here is just to point out what I think may be a real difference in belief (versus a difference in expression or vocabulary for what turns out to be the same thing-- a common occurrence in apologetic arguments between Christians).  

I will say that it is a belief that is very dear to me; that we have a God who not only sympathizes with our suffering but who uses it to draw close to us and gives us a way to direct it towards love. The hardest part of suffering is so often it's meaninglessness. Giving it a way to be undergone for love, for it to do some good now, seems to me to be one of the greatest victories of the cross. 

I admire much in my Evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters. Many are better Christians than I am, and their deep love for Christ is often clearly evident.

 But the lack of understanding of the full meaning of suffering seems a genuine poverty to me, and one that keeps me from wishing to join them. I don't think it's something I could ever give up.