if that be the will of God, than for doing evil. (1st Peter 3:17)
As I was listening to the second reading in today's mass, much of my attention was on the slight mistake that I made while singing the day's psalm. You see, I had started on the wrong word and then quickly moved back to the correct word and sang on as though no mistake had been made (as people who perform are taught to do). Anyway, despite my mostly feigned attention (I was sitting in front of the congregation, after all), my mind was not on the readings when the above line jumped out at me.
I love the sentiment of this line, but I wonder about it as well. Have people listened to this line and put up with suffering because they believe that it is "the will of God"? I am struck by the simple nonrestrictive clause "if that be the will of God." If you remove the clause, the statement is straightforward: it is better to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. Yet that isn't the entire line. The will of God addendum creates a new line of questioning. Should people suffer for doing good? If you are suffering for doing good, should you put up with it?
The earlier section of the reading talks about the importance of Christians telling people about the source of their hope, but to do so in a way that leaves them blameless (apparently the Westboro Baptist Church, among other antagonistic Christian organizations, forgot to read this portion of the Bible). Thus, their suffering is in doing God's work. The later section equates their suffering to the suffering of Christ for our sins.
I think that the added clause makes it clear that people shouldn't seek ways to suffer for God. So many people look for ways to punish themselves as a way to purify themselves. I can't help but think that this clause warns against that idea. God doesn't want us to suffer, let alone want us to seek out ways to suffer. He wants us to do good, to be blameless in both our treatment of others and of ourselves.