A Study On The Christians' Idea Of Suffering In Yantai City Of Shandong Province

Since the creation of time, human beings are facing various kinds of sufferings all the time. To some extent, Suffering is human beings' existential state. Therefore it is very important and serious to understand suffering so as to struggle against it. A variety of answers to these questions from the perspective of literature, art, philosophy and religion, etc, can be found in all kinds of cultures. Religions, which can give people support or comfort in their spirit and soul, take an important part and should not be ignored. This thesis will narrow its scope down to the idea of religion concerning suffering. I hope such study can benefit people in recognizing human beings' existential state of suffering and help them face their sufferings in daily lives.Christianity, based on suffering of Jesus Christ, insists that human beings' suffering can achieve its meaning from the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. It also gives the peculiar answer to the problem of suffering and offers the approach of how to understand and how to struggle against suffering. However, the purpose of this thesis is not only to research systematically into the idea of suffering in Christian thought, but to focus on the Christians' practice—the application of the idea of suffering in Christian thought. So based on the field research to Christians in Yantai City, Shandong Province, this thesis tries to analyze how these Christians practice the idea of suffering in Christianity. Moreover, the thesis intents to reveal these Christians' attitude and reflection to suffering, and the Characteristic of these Christians' idea of suffering. Therefore, we can make confirm and agree on their double identities and present the amalgamation of Christian faith and Chinese traditional culture in a practical individual Christian.I chose two Protestant and two Catholics who are typical urban Christians in Yantai City of Shandong Province as my respondents. I took field investigation of religious Anthropology including individual interview or behavior survey of Christians. Through the communication with investigative objects, I knew about their cultural and faith background; observing their daily lives, I understood their existential state and attitudes of struggling against suffering. Also through tracking the religious activities of my investigative objects, especially their Bible-reading, prayer or worship on Sundays, I can study on how the churches help their believers face suffering.In the anthropological investigation, I found that not everyone has an incisive reflection to his ever-suffering experience. Their reactions when facing suffering is instinctive. That is to say, most Christians have no clear ideas of suffering. So in the investigation, I focused on their attitudes and reactions to suffering. Due to their different background of educations, different durations of being Christians, and different abilities of self-expression as well, every one of them has the special recognition, attitude and reaction to suffering, which can embody his or her idea of suffering.As for Christians' attitude and reaction to suffering, we have to focus on their inquiry to obligation or causation of suffering. That is also the inquiry to Theodicy. In the history of Christian thought, there have been three leading kinds of Theodicy. They are Augustine's' theodicy, which insists that suffering is the punishment from God to human's sin; John Hick's theodicy, which regards suffering as dingle of shaping human's soul and Griffin's theodicy, which thinks that suffering is a joint adventure of God and human being. However, whoever Augustine, John Hick or Griffin explains the causation of suffering only from one point of view. Although their opinions are reasonable in a sense, they have not solved the problem of theodicy perfectly. Other philosophers or theologians also try to defend for evil, clarify the attributes of God, and explain the causation and validity of suffering. But theory is far from practice at all. Then, how does a Christian question closely to the cause of suffering? Will Christians' practice be the same as that theodicy we have elaborated? Alternatively, will Christians' practice be reappearance of that theodicy? So I wonder what will happen when the rational theodicy is connected with Christians' practice.In the survey, I found it different from my preconception that did not resort their inquiry to causation or obligation of suffering to God, nor embody opinions of theodicy absolutely. On the contrary, they understood their suffering recollectedly and presented some characteristics different from theological theory when questioning on justice. From their inquiry to Theodicy, we can see that the paradox in Theodicy does not exist in their practical lives. Because these Chinese Christians usually question closely to the causation or obligation of suffering resorting to human, seldom looking for the final explanation from the point of theology. In their minds, suffering is usually caused by the evil of human, irrelevant to God, and God is still omniscient, almighty and all-good. In addition, these Christians did not doubt God's justice and love because of their suffering, nor did they decrease the belief and love to God. So their inquiry to causation or obligation of suffering is not the reappearance of Theodicy. In fact, it is a kind of continuation or extension of Theodicy.From these Christians' inquiry to causation or obligation of suffering, we also can see their relationship with God. For them, God is only an external power beyond their lives, helping them struggle against suffering and acquire immortality. On the one hand, God is abstracted by these Christians as a kind of invisible reigning power, not a real personal deity, having close relationship with human being. On the other, God is secularized as a friend, a relative or a savior, affording people support or comfort in their spirit and soul when they suffer. What they recognize to Jesus Christ focuses on ethics and availability, lacking transcendental sense. In addition, they treat God as if He were a human. It is obvious that they have been influenced by Chinese culture that always attaches importance to reality, lacking the mind of transcendental sense.From the investigation, we can see that it is possible that Chinese traditional culture and Christian faith can be united within an individual Christian in daily life, having no conflict, but mutual benefit. Therefore, these Chinese Christians' idea of suffering clearly embodies some amalgamation between Chinese traditional culture and Christianity. For example, firstly, these Christians' expounding the meaning of suffering is prone to ethics meaning which is advocated by Chinese traditional culture. It seems that some of them also care about their relationship with God and regard suffering as the means to attain the glory of God in the future. Nevertheless, virtually, their real intention for the future is to acquire immortality. Therefore, their expounding the meaning of suffering is still limited to practical aim.Secondly, these Chinese Christians always have strong moral consciousness and responsibility even if they are encountering suffering in their daily life. They often regard the naturally outpoured moral consciousness as the moral standard that Christians must abide by, even as an identity different from non-believers. Nevertheless, the Christian ethic norm that they abide by in daily life is more of the secular ethics of Chinese traditional culture, less than of the divine ethics. Finally, Chinese Christians influenced by Chinese traditional culture, especially the elder Christians, always face to suffering alone and there is some deficiency in Christians' mutual care. Therefore, the function of Chinese churches in helping believers struggle against suffering is very limited.It is an interesting phenomenon in my field research that these Chinese Christians always emphasize their Christian identity and express their religiosity to God. Maybe they think that they need not emphasize that they are Chinese, which is self-evident for them. On the contrary, they want others to accept or agree on their Christian identity. But they do not realize that Chinese traditional culture and Christian faith have unified in their minds. So for them, the double identities are really one. They do not like others to say that there mix some Chinese traditional culture in their faith, because they always assert that they do everything absolutely in light of the Bible and the instruction of Church. Moreover, they quote the sentences from Bible to prove themselves. Even the Chinese pastor from America emphasize that all Christians in the world are the same. But this is only their wish. They ignore the basic fact that they are also Chinese. For them, the rooted traditional culture has subsumed their faith tolerantly. So in the mind of these Chinese Christians, their traditional culture and Christian faith are amalgamative and harmonious. It seems that they have no struggle in heart when they confirm and agree on themselves.