Thoughts About Suffering
One of the things that I've been working through in my recent coursework is something of a theology of suffering. In truth, I'm not really satisfied with that description - it conveys the impression that we can think abstractly about questions of suffering, when in fact I think we always filter these things through our own experiences of struggle, loss, grief, pain, etc. But there is a sense in which we can have a framework through which we approach these questions, and to that extent, I think it's fair to think of a theology of suffering, with the caveat that it's more than an abstract reflection.
One of the things that, I think, we struggle with the most when we face loss of any kind is the question of the relationship between God's sovereignty and our pain. It's the classic theodicy question - if God is all-powerful, and God is good, why does evil/pain/suffering exist? But I've been thinking lately that part of the reason that we have difficulty with this question is because we start in the wrong place. Instead of approaching it from the standpoint of sovereignty, what happens if we begin with the incarnation, with the realization that, in Christ, God became human and suffered as well? I thought I'd post a few thoughts from a paper I just completed. I think that, as I continue to reflect on this question of suffering, this needs to be the starting point.
Even Christians, who hold the incarnation and the person of Jesus Christ to be the penultimate revelation of God’s self to humanity, often fail to start with that self-revelation in considering the question of loss. Often we instead begin with the question of sovereignty, and extrapolate our thoughts of incarnation as the derivative consideration. This, on some level, is actually profoundly un-Christian...So what does this mean for the Christian? It is my opinion that what is challenged most forcefully by this recognition is western Christianity’s conception of power. We are a culture that has the power to remove much of our suffering. We are, at least those of us from the majority middle- and upper-class demographics, well-fed and comfortable. We have readily available health care, adequate to lavish housing, and enough economic stability to indulge our desires as well as meet our needs. Our conceptions of power, then, center on its use to create and maintain these suffering-free zones in our lives. The thought of anyone willingly entering into a position of lack is inherently foreign to us – comfort and ease are the highest virtues of life and the marks of success and blessing. As a result of this conception of the use of power, we enter into contemplation of God’s sovereignty assuming these values to be universals. What is challenged when we face loss, then, is not in fact the sovereignty of God at all – rather, it is the idol of a comfortable deity who desires comfort for his creatures.What do you think?
Technorati Tags: theology, suffering, sovereignty, power
Scott,
I've read this several times. I recently used the phrase "theology of suffering," and what I meant is developing a personal understanding of God that includes the reality of suffering in the life of a believer.
For me, rather than being abstract, this is very personal, dealing with issues of trust and faith. Of course I would prefer comfort and ease, but when my reality is some type of pain, how does that affect my view of God's goodness and how does it affect my prayers?
Beyond just faith teaching, I believe you are right that this is a cultural issue. As middle-class Americans, we have equated righteous living with blessing, which we see as entitlement to comfort and ease.
Posted by grace on February 19, 2006 12:36 AMScott,
I think you are right on with this line of thought. There is a short little book by Richard Bauckham called God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament that touches on this topic as well. I think you would probably really like that book. He basically fleshes out the idea that it is precisely in Christ's suffering that the Divine is revealed. Starting with Christ, as you suggest, seems to be the right way to go.
James
Posted by James on February 19, 2006 02:02 PMWell said, Scott.
Suffering re-orients us to the incarnation of our Lord. It helps us become united both to him and to those who suffer around us.
Most Christians learn compassion for those hurting around them through their own suffering, regardless of their perspectives in the midst of the pain. But if we wait for our lesson on the far side of suffering, then we fail to identify with the incarnation. And that, I think, is a great loss.
Posted by Scott Lyons on February 19, 2006 04:02 PMGrace -
For me, rather than being abstract, this is very personal, dealing with issues of trust and faith.This is *spot on*. And I think that, also speaking personally, the whole question of sovereignty has played into my own lack of ability to trust God following events that were significantly painful. Tackling the question from the normal angles only led me to a God who seemed arbitrary and inscrutable. It's only through reflecting on the incarnation and a God who suffered that I've been able to regain that trust. Not that I don't still struggle with the whole thing - but at least it's something of a different, more helpful framework.
James - another for the wish list! Thanks for the recommendation.
Scott - Henri Nouwen writes along similar lines in his book The Wounded Healer. I think that shared suffering (in the sense of knowing that we all do) is a way to make space in our lives for others who suffer. Well said.
Posted by ScottB on February 20, 2006 12:13 AM
Insightful thoughts Scott. I believe the right direction to look for perspective on the problem of suffering is as you indicate in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.
Life and theology are inherently incarnational and cannot be approached from any other perspective. The fact that we worship a suffering God is a crucial element for followers of the Way to hold onto.
Sadly, parts of the church tend to either grab the Suffering Christ on the Cross (the crucifix) or they grab the bare cross, the symbol of the Resurrectio and run with it to the exclusion of the other.
We are need of both and we must hold them in tension with one another.
The God of Easter is also the God of Good Friday.
The God of the Promiseland is also the God of the Wilderness.
Father Kevin+
Posted by Father Kevin on February 20, 2006 06:22 PMSadly, parts of the church tend to either grab the Suffering Christ on the Cross (the crucifix) or they grab the bare cross, the symbol of the Resurrection and run with it to the exclusion of the other.Kevin - well said, as always! Posted by ScottB on February 23, 2006 12:23 AMWe are need of both and we must hold them in tension with one another.
