I Peter 2:19-25; The Moral Ambiguity of Unjust Suffering

"For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. 22 “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” 23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls."

I. Introduction

This passage is most famous not because of the content or flow of the passage (the moral goodness of unjust suffering) but because of the last three words of v. 21. Charles Sheldon, a Congregational pastor from Topeka, KS, wrote his classic book In His Steps in 1897. The book was the practical or pastoral clarion call for the social Gospel. Walter Rauschenbusch and Washington Gladden were the scholarly/pastoral theoreticians of the movement; Sheldon was the most eloquent foot soldier in it. There is some irony in Sheldon's story, irony because he was a liberal and the motto/mantra developed by Sheldon as a result of his book, the question "What Would Jesus Do?", was the question taken up by Evangelicals/Fundamentalists in the late 20th century as if the concept emerged with them. In fact, the question, as said, "What Would Jesus Do?" emerged from a liberal more than 100 years ago.

But the passage isn't specifically about following in Jesus' steps in the social application of the Gospel. Its focus is on patient endurance of unjust suffering. Christ is the prototype of this endurance, and Peter, in this eloquent passage, uses Christ's example to encourage us also to endure unjust suffering, giving glory to God as we discover, in the end, the salvation of our souls.

Yet, once you think about the concept of unjust suffering you see that it is suffused with ambiguities and uncertainties, made more so by the post-modern "perspectival" approach we have to life. In a nutshell, I will be arguing that whether a person's suffering is unjust depends on your perspective and the "angle" from which you approach life. As a result, the clarity with which Peter speaks of the concept is a bit of a mirage, even though those who move the world often need to see the world in these black/white terms. I will illustrate this through reflection on a contemporary movie and then by looking at the suffering of Jesus.

The United States v. John Lennon (2006)

To aid our reflection on the ambiguous nature of the idea of unjust suffering, let's look at the recent documentary, The United States v. John Lennon. The movie's title is derived from the actual legal case pending between 1972-76 in which the US Government, through the INS, tried to deport Lennon, of the Beatles, to England. The ostensible reason for this was a conviction (a guilty plea) to possession of a small amount of cannabis resin (hash) a few years earlier in England. Lennon claimed that the cannabis was planted in his premises by the investigating police officer.

Be that as it may, what the film documents was the effort, inspired first by US Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), abetted by periodic memos from FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover (until his retirement) to HR Haldeman, President Nixon's Chief of Staff, to come up with a legal ground for deporting Lennon. The film makes the point that it was a Dec. 10, 1971 Ann Arbor concert in support of John Sinclair, serving a 9-10 year prison sentence for selling a few joints to an undercover officer in 1969, where Lennon performed, that actually "scared" the Nixon Administration into trying to go after Lennon. Two days after the concert the MI Supreme Court, which had declined to rule on Sinclair's case the day before the concert, abruptly reconsidered its action, and ordered the release of Sinclair. The point was that if Lennon, the peace and love Beatle turned political "radical," could effect this kind of change by showing up and singing a song for Sinclair, that he might be a danger to Nixon in his re-election campaign in 1972. Adding to Nixon's paranoia was an ironic fact: Nixon was President when the 26th Amendment, allowing 18 year-olds the right to vote, became law in mid-1971. Thus, Nixon's real fear was that Lennon and his ilk might galvanize this hitherto unknown multitude of potential Nixon-haters.

Thus, a full-court press was on to try to deport Lennon. Using the pretext of the cannabis resin conviction, the INS repeatedly gave Lennon notice that his stay in the US was coming to an end. Lennon, of course, fought back, singing and performing his heart out. The ultimate result was that Nixon's schemes came back to bite him, and the INS dropped the case against Lennon in 1976.

So, are we to characterize John Lennon's struggle against the INS an example of a person enduring unjust suffering? Certainly from the perspective of the film-makers and from that of many watchers today, one would say, "Of course this is such an example!" But ask G. Gordon Liddy, ask the members of the Nixon Administration, ask millions of "middle Americans" about this question, and their perspective probably was that Lennon ought to have been deported. After all, what is a "foreigner" doing coming to this country and criticizing what we do?

From one perspective, it is hyaline clear that we have an example of unjust suffering. From the other--we have the peace and love generation gone amok.

III. The Example of Jesus

Jesus' sufferings can be looked at through the same lens. From one perspective, adopted by us as Christians (though is the other interpretive possibility open to us?), Christ suffered unjustly. After all, how could anyone who preached on peace and love, who only encouraged people to turn to God, who poured himself out in love for the world, how could anyone really say that the suffering he faced was deserved? Surely, Christ is Exhibit A of those who suffer unjustly.

But, let's look at it from the perspective of the religious leaders of Judaism at the time. Their concerns were two: to keep the lid on potential revolutions in Judea so that the Romans would be kept at bay, and to maintain their power in the Jewish community. Are either of these unreasonable aims? From their perspective, not at all. After all, if Rome was occupied with other things (and the Roman Empire was so far-flung that it often had bigger fish to fry than minor revolts in Judea), the Jewish people would have substantial autonomy in Palestine. And, why shouldn't people who are in power try to maintain it? Jesus' message of peace and love and turning to God could easily have been interpreted as a way of undermining the strength and authority of the Jewish religious leaders. So, the suffering that they inflicted on him was the result of their fear, to be sure, but also their desire to "keep a lid on things."

Conclusion

Our passage for the day exhorts us to endure unjust suffering. If we do so, we are like Christ, who did so before us. While I would love to give a wholehearted endorsement to the passage and the concept, I sometimes have trouble trying to pick out who, indeed, are the victims of unjust suffering in our world. Every time I think I have been such a victim, I see how I have contributed in some way to the reaction that led to my suffering. Perhaps we can look at children as innocent victims of so many things--from the effects of parental divorce to suffering from AIDS. But that isn't really what the passage is about. It talks about servants (v. 18) who suffer unjustly. Perhaps you can see the passage and suffering with the moral clarity of the author of I Peter. Sometimes I can. But not often.

3432