There are two perspectives when discussing suffering, one is the specific suffering people are experiencing, and the other is the thought of suffering even though there is no suffering.
People who are experiencing suffering need comfort, need to find the cause of the suffering, and want to know how and when to end it. People who are not suffering care more about how to prevent suffering for themselves, and they want to find an excuse for not suffering.
The film "Back to 1942" presents the suffering of people who were displaced due to drought and locust plague in Henan Province, China. Obviously, the suffering in the film is not only caused by natural disasters, but also by the disintegration of society through bandits, upheaval and wars, and the government’s inability to aid those who suffer. The consequence of all this is the loss of control over the allocation of limited resources, which leads to such a disorder that vulnerable civilians who can't fight for resources can only be displaced.
Therefore, sometimes suffering is not caused by individuals but also by society. A strong government has the ability to control resources so as to maintain social order and to keep vulnerable individuals from suffering and dying.
This reminds me of what Jesus said. A sheep is missing. This sheep is a fragile individual. The shepherd has to give up the ninety-nine other sheep to find the missing one. Only when this lone sheep returns to the group can they all be secure.
However, as Christians, we often think about the relationship between God and suffering.
Among the fleeing refugees, Father Xiao An witnessed the tragic situation in which parents had to sell their children and wild dogs ate corpses. He couldn’t help asking: Where is God in all this suffering? Why doesn't God look after these poor creatures?
However, when confronted with Xiao An’s doubts, the foreign missionary, who is not affected by the suffering, hesitantly answers that suffering has nothing to do with God – it is the devil's trick. He says this while bandaging Xiao An’s wound.
If that is so, then Father Xiao An has the same question as those who are struggling with suffering – since God can't defeat the devil, what's the point of believing in God?
Although we can criticize the utilitarianism of this viewpoint and its rational point, we can't avoid this question, i.e., how does suffering happen and what is its relation with God?
People in distress try to connect suffering with God and pray to find another meaning of suffering through their faith, thus bringing comfort. People who are not suffering try to deny the relationship between suffering and God. Since goodness is God's nature, how can suffering be connected to God?
However, when we accept that suffering has nothing to do with God, we can never return to our faith in God. Since God can't defeat the devil who is behind suffering, what meaning is there in believing in God?
People in distress are experiencing pain. They are watching their families starve to death and their children being sold. They need relief from suffering and an ark to flee to, but at this time, if suffering has nothing to do with God, then one cannot count on the ark.
People who are not suffering always try their best to keep God out of the question of pain in order to preserve God's holiness. How can the consequences of holding this point explain suffering? Only the devil, who is isolated from God, can be sacrificed. This is equivalent to throwing out the baby with the bath water.
That foreign missionary, healthy and well, obviously has nothing to do with suffering. Although he may not have wine and meat for each meal, he doesn’t have to taste the tree bark as those who are starving. Yet, he can also enjoy delicious sweet potatoes – the suffering of the refugees is meaningless to him. What's the point of talking of God's goodness to the people in distress since God can't lift them out of their present hunger and despair? In suffering, religion actually plays no role. It can only divert people's attention, but it cannot eliminate suffering.
This reminds me of Job. When Job was suffering, his friends who came to see him did not comfort him, but were busy with discussing the relationship between God's justice and suffering while Job was bearing the suffering all along.
Suffering is always personal and cannot be understood by others if they have not experienced the same kind of suffering.
Back to the theme of this article, what is the relationship between God and suffering? For those who are suffering, the topic is really irrelevant. For those who are hungry, the greatest concern to them is food. At this time, whoever gives them food can be God. On the verge of death, we can't demand that an individual refuse life for an idea. At this point, all his choices are only concerned with personal survival.
For those who stand outside of suffering, instead of condemning those characters in the film for selling their children, and condemning them for losing their national integrity for a steamed bun and serve the invaders, I think we should stare at those who trade in humans, and the warlords and corrupt officials – why can't they donate food by giving those refugees even just a bowl of porridge?
When Mr. Fan finally flees to Luoyang, he is told that they are only counted as refugees when they return to their hometown, and since they are not refugees in Luoyang, they cannot enjoy relief in this famine-free area. When he loses his family while catching a train to take refuge in Shaanxi, the warlords block the railroad tracks. Now, is this disaster natural or man-made?
Just thinking about the suffering of an individual, whether it is related to God or the devil, we will have two Gods, the silent God who is present in suffering and the good God who stands outside of suffering.
These two Gods are of little significance to those who are suffering as He can neither eliminate suffering nor alleviate pain.
Suffering individuals doubt that the goodness of God is a normal manifestation of human nature. Even when Jesus was on the cross he questioned where God was.
Those who do not experience suffering, the kind of people who attribute suffering to the devil, are criticized by Jesus. Their view is that disaster occurs as a punishment for sins.
The film "1942" not only shows the suffering of the displaced refugees but also shows the national government, warlords, and Japanese invaders. The film not only shows us the tragedy of a newly married woman who was sold for rice on the second day of her marriage but also portrays the state of society and the international perspective that exists beyond the tragedy.
If we broaden our horizons, we may understand that the suffering experienced by individuals may not be caused by themselves. Very often, natural disasters do not necessarily bring suffering, but man-made disasters are the root of much suffering.
It is meaningless to discuss suffering with people who are suffering. Instead of telling them how righteous God is, it is better to demonstrate God’s love by giving them a piece of bread.
- Translated by Charlie Li
观影《1942》有感：苦难与上帝的关系 对苦难的谈论，有两种模式，一个是苦难中的人正经历的苦难，一个是苦难之外的人思考苦难。 正在经历苦难的人需要安慰，需要找到为苦难负责的对象，也想知道苦难结束的方法与时间；苦难之外的人则远没有这样的思考，他们思考的是怎样让这样的苦难不发生在自己的身上，他们要为自己没有苦难寻找说辞。 电影《1942》记录的是河南因为干旱和蝗灾，所带来的人员流离失所的苦难经历。显然，电影里的苦难并不仅仅因为自然灾害，还有土崩瓦解的社会，兵匪和战争，失去行动能力的政府，这一切的后果便是无法掌控对有限资源的分配，从而带来失序状态，以至于处于弱势一方的平民无法争取资源，只能流离失所。 因此，灾难所导致的苦难，有时候并不是个人的原因，还有社会的原因。一个强有力的政府具备控制资源的能力，才能不至于失序，而让脆弱的个体在苦难里垂死挣扎。 这让我想起耶稣说的话，一只羊失踪了，这一只羊是一个脆弱的个体，牧人要舍下九十九只羊去寻找那一只羊。只有这一只羊回归群体，它才能更好的保护自己。 但做为基督徒，我们常常想，苦难与上帝的关系。 难民群体中神父小安，目睹了逃难人群中的卖儿卖女、野狗啃食尸体的惨状，他不禁发出疑问：苦难的时候上帝在哪里？上帝为什么不来看顾这些可怜的生灵？ 但是面对发问，置身于苦难之外的传教士神父一边为小安包扎伤口，一遍有些犹豫的回答，苦难与上帝无关，那是魔鬼的伎俩。 既然如此，神父小安与那些在苦难中挣扎的人都会有同样一个问题，既然上帝无法战胜魔鬼，那么我们信上帝还有什么意义。 尽管我们可以批判这种观点的功利性，这种信仰的物质性，但我们却无法回避这个问题，苦难究竟是怎么发生的，与上帝有什么关系。 苦难中的人设法把苦难与上帝联系起来，祈求在信仰中寻找苦难的另一种含义，以此带来安慰；但苦难之外的人，却设法否认苦难与上帝的关系，既然善良是上帝的本性，那么苦难又怎么能与上帝产生联系呢？ 但是，当我们接受了苦难与上帝的无关之后，就再也回不到对上帝的信仰了。既然上帝无法战胜苦难背后的魔鬼，那我们信仰上帝还有什么意义？ 苦难中人正经历着苦难的痛苦，他们正看着亲人饿死，看着女儿被卖，他们需要对苦难的解脱，需要一种脱离苦难的方舟。但此时如果说苦难与上帝没有关系，那么这方舟显然无法指望了。 苦难之外的人却总是为了保全上帝的圣洁，而尽力不让上帝与那些痛苦沾上关系，这么做的后果却又如何解释苦难呢？只能把独立于上帝之外的魔鬼祭出。这就相当于在倒洗澡水的时候，把孩子也倒掉了。 那个外国神父，肥胖的身体，满面的红光，显然他与苦难沾不上边。虽然不能顿顿酒肉，却还不至于品尝树皮的味道，还能吃得上红薯这种美味——苦难于他没有意义。正如在苦难中的人，上帝的良善又有什么意义呢？良善的上帝不能把自己从当下的饥饿和绝望中提出来。在苦难里，宗教其实起不到什么作用，只能让人转移视线，却不能消灭苦难。 这让人想到约伯，当约伯陷入苦难的时候，那些来看望他的朋友没有安慰苦难中的约伯，却只是忙着探讨上帝的正义与苦难的关系。却唯独约伯独自承受着苦难的痛苦。 苦难总是个体的，在个体的生命中发挥作用，这作用如果不是同样经历这种苦难的人，是无法体会的。 回到本文的主题，上帝与苦难究竟有什么关系呢？对于在苦难中的人来说，上帝与苦难之间的关系真的不大，对于处于饥饿之中的人，对他关系最大的可能是个馒头，这个时候，谁给了他馒头谁就可以是上帝。在死亡边缘，我们无法苛求一个个体为了一种理念而拒绝生命。此时，他的一切选择都是适合自己的。 站在苦难之外，我们与其去谴责电影里的人卖儿卖女，谴责他们为了一个馒头而失去民族气节，为侵略者服务，倒不如去反思那些买人口的人，那些军阀，那些腐败的官员为什么不能把粮食奉献出来，给那些难民一碗粥呢？ 当范东家好不容易逃到洛阳，却被告知他们只有回到家乡才算难民，在这个没有饥荒的地区不是难民而不能享有救济；当他家破人亡地跳上火车，指望着能到陕西避难，但军阀却截住了铁轨通道，这究竟是天灾还是人祸呢？ 单单在个体中思考苦难，不论是与上帝有关还是与魔鬼有关，我们都将有两个上帝，苦难之中沉默的上帝，苦难之外良善的上帝。 这种两种上帝对于苦难来说，意义都不大。祂既不能消灭苦难，也不能减轻痛苦。 苦难中的个体对上帝良善的怀疑，这是正常的人性表现，就是耶稣在十字架上的时候，还质疑上帝在哪里。 那种在苦难之外，把苦难归于魔鬼的人恰是耶稣批评的，这同把灾难归于个体的犯罪所受的惩罚一样。 《1942》的电影，不仅展现流离失所的难民，还展现了这一群难民之外的国民政府和军阀，以及日本侵略者。电影不仅让我们看到刚娶了媳妇的双柱，第二天就得把新媳妇卖掉以换来小米的悲剧，也展现了这一悲剧之外的宏大社会和国际背景。 如果我们把眼光放宽些，那么个体所经历的许多苦难可能就不是个体的原因。很多时候，天灾并不会带来苦难，只有人祸才是许多苦难的根源。 与苦难中的人讨论苦难是没有意义的，与其向他讲述上帝如何公义，不如给他一块面包，更能彰显上帝的荣耀。
There are two perspectives when discussing suffering, one is the specific suffering people are experiencing, and the other is the thought of suffering even though there is no suffering.
People who are experiencing suffering need comfort, need to find the cause of the suffering, and want to know how and when to end it. People who are not suffering care more about how to prevent suffering for themselves, and they want to find an excuse for not suffering.
The film "Back to 1942" presents the suffering of people who were displaced due to drought and locust plague in Henan Province, China. Obviously, the suffering in the film is not only caused by natural disasters, but also by the disintegration of society through bandits, upheaval and wars, and the government’s inability to aid those who suffer. The consequence of all this is the loss of control over the allocation of limited resources, which leads to such a disorder that vulnerable civilians who can't fight for resources can only be displaced.
Therefore, sometimes suffering is not caused by individuals but also by society. A strong government has the ability to control resources so as to maintain social order and to keep vulnerable individuals from suffering and dying.
This reminds me of what Jesus said. A sheep is missing. This sheep is a fragile individual. The shepherd has to give up the ninety-nine other sheep to find the missing one. Only when this lone sheep returns to the group can they all be secure.
However, as Christians, we often think about the relationship between God and suffering.
Among the fleeing refugees, Father Xiao An witnessed the tragic situation in which parents had to sell their children and wild dogs ate corpses. He couldn’t help asking: Where is God in all this suffering? Why doesn't God look after these poor creatures?
However, when confronted with Xiao An’s doubts, the foreign missionary, who is not affected by the suffering, hesitantly answers that suffering has nothing to do with God – it is the devil's trick. He says this while bandaging Xiao An’s wound.
If that is so, then Father Xiao An has the same question as those who are struggling with suffering – since God can't defeat the devil, what's the point of believing in God?
Although we can criticize the utilitarianism of this viewpoint and its rational point, we can't avoid this question, i.e., how does suffering happen and what is its relation with God?
People in distress try to connect suffering with God and pray to find another meaning of suffering through their faith, thus bringing comfort. People who are not suffering try to deny the relationship between suffering and God. Since goodness is God's nature, how can suffering be connected to God?
However, when we accept that suffering has nothing to do with God, we can never return to our faith in God. Since God can't defeat the devil who is behind suffering, what meaning is there in believing in God?
People in distress are experiencing pain. They are watching their families starve to death and their children being sold. They need relief from suffering and an ark to flee to, but at this time, if suffering has nothing to do with God, then one cannot count on the ark.
People who are not suffering always try their best to keep God out of the question of pain in order to preserve God's holiness. How can the consequences of holding this point explain suffering? Only the devil, who is isolated from God, can be sacrificed. This is equivalent to throwing out the baby with the bath water.
That foreign missionary, healthy and well, obviously has nothing to do with suffering. Although he may not have wine and meat for each meal, he doesn’t have to taste the tree bark as those who are starving. Yet, he can also enjoy delicious sweet potatoes – the suffering of the refugees is meaningless to him. What's the point of talking of God's goodness to the people in distress since God can't lift them out of their present hunger and despair? In suffering, religion actually plays no role. It can only divert people's attention, but it cannot eliminate suffering.
This reminds me of Job. When Job was suffering, his friends who came to see him did not comfort him, but were busy with discussing the relationship between God's justice and suffering while Job was bearing the suffering all along.
Suffering is always personal and cannot be understood by others if they have not experienced the same kind of suffering.
Back to the theme of this article, what is the relationship between God and suffering? For those who are suffering, the topic is really irrelevant. For those who are hungry, the greatest concern to them is food. At this time, whoever gives them food can be God. On the verge of death, we can't demand that an individual refuse life for an idea. At this point, all his choices are only concerned with personal survival.
For those who stand outside of suffering, instead of condemning those characters in the film for selling their children, and condemning them for losing their national integrity for a steamed bun and serve the invaders, I think we should stare at those who trade in humans, and the warlords and corrupt officials – why can't they donate food by giving those refugees even just a bowl of porridge?
When Mr. Fan finally flees to Luoyang, he is told that they are only counted as refugees when they return to their hometown, and since they are not refugees in Luoyang, they cannot enjoy relief in this famine-free area. When he loses his family while catching a train to take refuge in Shaanxi, the warlords block the railroad tracks. Now, is this disaster natural or man-made?
Just thinking about the suffering of an individual, whether it is related to God or the devil, we will have two Gods, the silent God who is present in suffering and the good God who stands outside of suffering.
These two Gods are of little significance to those who are suffering as He can neither eliminate suffering nor alleviate pain.
Suffering individuals doubt that the goodness of God is a normal manifestation of human nature. Even when Jesus was on the cross he questioned where God was.
Those who do not experience suffering, the kind of people who attribute suffering to the devil, are criticized by Jesus. Their view is that disaster occurs as a punishment for sins.
The film "1942" not only shows the suffering of the displaced refugees but also shows the national government, warlords, and Japanese invaders. The film not only shows us the tragedy of a newly married woman who was sold for rice on the second day of her marriage but also portrays the state of society and the international perspective that exists beyond the tragedy.
If we broaden our horizons, we may understand that the suffering experienced by individuals may not be caused by themselves. Very often, natural disasters do not necessarily bring suffering, but man-made disasters are the root of much suffering.
It is meaningless to discuss suffering with people who are suffering. Instead of telling them how righteous God is, it is better to demonstrate God’s love by giving them a piece of bread.
- Translated by Charlie Li
Reflection on Film 'Back to 1942': Relationship between God, Suffering
