Monday, April 25, 2011

The Theology of Suffering, Part IV

"Theologians and philosophers talk about 'the problem of evil,' and the hygienic phrase itself bespeaks a certain distance from extreme suffering, the view from a life inside the charmed circle." - James Wood

The above statement is one of my favorites in all of James Wood's recent New Yorker article on Theodicy (i.e. why a gracious God would allow suffering). I could not agree with him more. In fact, in this final installment, my primary focus will be the disconnect he's describing between the theory of suffering and actual suffering. The truth is this: you must be a fellow sufferer in order to comfort sufferers. No amount of figuring out "why" will assuage the pain.

My last two posts have discussed: 1. the primacy of the heart in regard to the thoughts and actions of human beings, and 2. the superiority of a bottom-up theology that emphasizes the nature and work of Christ in revealing the Father. Now, the above quotation describes an approach that is divorced from both of these. It describes an approach to suffering that is speculative and sterile, one that appeals coolly (and ultimately unsatisfactorily) to a dry intellect.

Sadly, we've all heard this approach used far too often. It commonly takes the form of the callous announcement that suffering is “for the glory of God”. Sometimes it is expressed with such relish that one wonders if the sentiment has been unconsciously sent hurtling forward in time from a wounded little boy. Other times, the bizarre and presumptuous nature of the statement leaves one in stunned silence (e.g., Pat Robertson’s assertion that Ariel Sharon’s stroke was the result of giving Gaza to the Palestinians, etc...).

But the approach of one who has been justified by faith is different. It is one of deep humility about the acts of God and deep love and empathy for fellow sufferers. It is bottom-up and heart-centered, and it is not self-delusional about the suffering in one's own life - it does not stuff its remembrance into the shoebox in the closet. In this approach, empathy, understanding, patience, and mutual connection flow organically and naturally. With texture instead of sterility. Tears instead of data.


Since Fyodor Dostoevsky has been a theme in the Wood article and in my responses, it is only fitting that we end with him. The following quotation, from the epilogue of Crime and Punishment, sums up the sufferer-to-sufferer approach better than anything I've ever read.

By way of background, the protagonist anti-hero Raskolnikov has been sent to a Siberian prison camp for killing two women (for an interesting reason that is not germane to our discussion). He has spent the entire (long) book under assault from his conscience and the authorities. Along the way, he develops a complicated relationship with a tragic girl named Sonia who was forced into prostitution by the financial need of her family. One of the murdered women was her only friend, yet in Raskolnikov, she finds a fellow sufferer. Despite his pushing her away, she follows him to Siberia:

Raskolnikov sat gazing, his thoughts passed into day-dreams, into contemplation; he thought of nothing, but a vague restlessness excited and troubled him. Suddenly he found Sonia beside him; she had come up noiselessly and sat down at his side. It was still quite early; the morning chill was still keen. She wore her poor old burnous and the green shawl; her face still showed signs of illness, it was thinner and paler. She gave him a joyful smile of welcome, but held out her hand with her usual timidity. She was always timid of holding out her hand to him and sometimes did not offer it at all, as though afraid he would repel it. He always took her hand as though with repugnance, always seemed vexed to meet her and was sometimes obstinately silent throughout her visit. Sometimes she trembled before him and went away deeply grieved. But now their hands did not part. He stole a rapid glance at her and dropped his eyes on the ground without speaking. They were alone, no one had seen them. The guard had turned away for the time.

How it happened he did not know. But all at once something seemed to seize him and fling him at her feet. He wept and threw his arms round her knees. For the first instant she was terribly frightened and she turned pale. She jumped up and looked at him trembling. But at the same moment she understood, and a light of infinite happiness came into her eyes. She knew and had no doubt that he loved her beyond everything and that at last the moment had come....

They wanted to speak, but could not; tears stood in their eyes. They were both pale and thin; but those sick pale faces were bright with the dawn of a new future, of a full resurrection into a new life. They were renewed by love; the heart of each held infinite sources of life for the heart of the other.

Monday, April 18, 2011

The Theology of Suffering, Part III

It is with fear and trembling that I attempt to address the main question of suffering raised by James Wood in his recent New Yorker article. Here goes:

If anyone ever sits you down and starts explaining how they've finally figured out God’s machinations in the universe, you can get up and go home. What they are giving you is their opinion and, hell, you already have one of those.

When it comes to theology, the place where we begin our inquiries makes an enormous difference in the conclusions we draw. This is especially true when dealing with a question like why a gracious God would allow suffering. Do we begin at the "top", taking God as our starting point and work our way down? Or do we keep our feet on the ground, looking first for things that are a bit more accessible to tell us about Him? I have found that a "bottom-up" approach is far, far superior to a "top-down" one, which (at best) only ever leads to speculation.

The answer to the question of suffering does not lie in circular metaphysical rambling. No, it lies in the words that Jesus spoke in John 14:9; “Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'?”

When I was a kid, I caught my first catfish with my grandfather in the Alabama River near Montgomery. Now, there is no way that that catfish could use his interaction with me to figure out the fashion industry in New York or the Dow Industrials. All he knew is that I put a hook in him and was probably going to eat him at some point. In other words, his revelation of the human race was that they are malevolent. That is all he could know (just look at that catfish and tell me he could factor accounts receivable)!

When our Lord identified Himself as the lens through which one understands God, He was giving a picture of a God who is fully and unconditionally in the corner of those who would spurn Him. Looking at Jesus, we see a God who is totally benevolent. Now that we know where to begin, we can try to interpret suffering in a way that is faithful to the revelation of God which is Christ.

There is a great presumption among modern folk about the need to have God conform to our reason and right to pursue happiness. We make ourselves the final arbiters of what is good and what is evil. When we do so, we prove Ludwig Feuerbach to be correct: theology is just anthropology, with humanity projecting its wishes onto a created deity.

But this is where Martin Luther’s great insight of the “hidden God” or the theology of the cross comes into play. Again, we understand that the revelation of Christ is the lens through which we see the Father. We also see great pain and suffering brought about by both man and nature. God hides His love and mercy in what appears to be wrath, the ultimate example of course being the Cross. His alien work wrests us from our need to make ourselves as gods and forces us to place reliance (faith) on Him. Our eyes are then opened and we are able to look up and see love while looking around to see objects of love. In this manner, the old is destroyed and the new is reborn. Love is created out of nothing.


Certainly, there is a lot left untied. But God does not operate under the constraints of human reason. Would you operate under the reason of a catfish? The proof of this is not human logic but the Resurrection. Suffering and death do not hold those who put their faith in Christ. In the end, all is accomplished and all is won.

There is still plenty to say about Wood's arguments. For instance, he overlooks the answer that Dostoevsky himself gives about suffering and a gracious God. It comes in the latter part of The Brothers Karamazov, after Ivan Karamazov has given his protest atheism manifesto so confidently (the one that Wood refers to so liberally) and is visited by the devil. One quote from the devil is just too good to pass up. It is typical Dostoevsky humor:

"Once there was on your earth a thinker and philosopher who rejected everything... above all, a future life. So when he died, he expected to plunge right into blackness and nothingness, but what did he find instead but future life. He was very surprised and quite outraged."


So, the nature of the debate (not to mention the question itself) shifts radically when viewed from the bottom-up. We see God through the lens of the Suffering Servant, Jesus Christ, not vice versa, and it makes all the difference. I know I for one could never be the “great and terrible mind” Victor Hugo speaks of in Les Misérables, trying to punch through the mysteries of God. I am fine just being a catfish.