I was sitting at home the other day, minding my own business, when I received an e-mail about a recent New Yorker article called “Holiday in Hellmouth: God May Be Dead, But The Question Of Why He Permits Suffering Lives On”. Catchy title. After clicking on the link, I was disheartened to discover a long, dense piece of writing about something called “theodicy.” But after reading it, I was glad that I pushed aside my normal reluctance to read long articles on my computer.
The article raises quite a few big issues (and implies several others), so I’ve decided to break my thoughts into four parts, to be posted individually over the course of a few days. Hopefully, this will aid in readability and accommodate certain givens, such as time constraints, coffee breaks, screaming children, and other assorted real-world concerns. In any case, here we go. This first installment will introduce the concept of “theodicy” and one of its most important antagonists, “protest atheism.”
“Theodicy” can be defined as the Christian Church’s (for our purposes) efforts to rationally explain the existence of suffering in light of a gracious God. An antithesis to this is a phenomenon called “protest atheism”. The latter view is represented by Ivan Karamazov in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov and is expressed in Ivan’s explanation to his brother Alyosha Karamazov, a monk in the Russian Orthodox Church:
No, I want no part of any harmony; I don’t want it out of love for mankind. I prefer to remain with my unavenged suffering and my unappeased anger – even if I happen to be wrong. I feel, moreover, that such harmony is rather overpriced. We cannot afford to pay so much for a ticket. And I hasten to return the ticket I’ve been sent. If I’m honest, it is my duty to return it as long as possible before the show. And that’s what I’m trying to do, Alyosha. It isn’t that I reject God; I am simply returning Him most respectfully the ticket that would entitle me to a seat. (The Brothers Karamazov)
As you can see, there is a sort of Bizarro-piety involved with this movement. There is, however, a lot to be said for this way of approaching suffering if human reason is the final arbiter. James Wood, the author our article, echoes Ivan’s thoughts:
There is something adolescent about such complaint; I can hear it like a boy’s breaking voice in my own prose. For anti-theodicy is permanent rebellion. It is not quite atheism but wounded theism, condemned to argue ceaselessly against a God it is supposed not to believe in. (Holiday in Hellmouth)
“Protest atheism” is certainly a part of this article but there are other aspects as well. In the next installment, I will discuss the damage that law-based, control religion does to people and how they react (this will not be a red herring). This will appeal to a deeper undercurrent and, hopefully, quiet the natural reaction of the Christian to attack. The installment after that will deal with the issue of “theodicy” itself in theological argument. The last installment will advocate what I believe to be the Christian theology of suffering in light of love for the neighbor. In the meantime, take a look at the article and see what you think.
For part two, “Heart Over Mind,” go here.
COMMENTS
11 responses to “The Theology of Suffering, Part I: Whoa, boy…”
Leave a Reply
Here is a great quote from Gerhard Forde that deals with theodicy:
from “On Being a Theologian of the Cross”–
(footnote, pp. 84-85) “It is remarkable that there were so few attempts to construct theodicies prior to the 18th century. Certainly there was no shortage of suffering and disaster. Life was ‘nasty, brutish, and short.’ In Luther’s own day the black death had decimated the population of Europe and still threatened. Villages and towns lived in constant dread of fire and natural disasters, and so forth. Yet attempts to absolve God were deemed foolish. Is it not curious that only when life seems to be easier do thinkers set out to ‘justify’ God? Is it perhaps that when we think ourselves to have done so well we question God for being so inept? Perhaps it is as Hannah Arendt remarks, ‘When men could no longer praise, they turned their greatest conceptual efforts to justifying God and His Creation in theodicies’ (Hannah Arendt, The Life and Mind, vol. 2, p. 97).”
Ahhh, JAZ stole my thunder, I was going to use that Forde quote.
Anyway, GF is right, and I would add that this idea of absolving God is another expression of the human (and sadly, much of the Church’s) desire to ‘put Moses after Christ’ as Gerhard von Zezschwitz said.
Generally speaking, the human being is more than a little uncomfortable with ‘letting God be God’, so we attempt to find out what He is up to by attempting to weasel our way into glory in hopes of seeing the Creator in His underwear…but instead, knowing our arrogance, He reveals Himself through the foolish cross. Thanks for a good post Browder.
The theses of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation on the theologian of glory needing to “peer into the invisible things of God” are key here too. Forde’s commentary on them too.
The TOG can’t look AT the cross and suffering — it has to be seen THRU somehow.
It’s also worth looking at our beloved C.S. Lewis and see how he deals with suffering early in his Christian life (his intellectual conceptual phase… “The Problem of Pain”) and after he has been completely broken by his wife’s death by cancer at the end of his life (“A Grief of Observed”).
James Wood is an amazing critic. I’ve been reading his stuff in the New Republic for years, and I danced for joy when he switched to the New Yorker last year. He’s a critic who actually writes critically. Pick up his book “The Broken Estate” if you have a chance.
That being said, he’s also someone who grew up Christian and fell away. I haven’t read the article yet, but I’m thankful for the post and I may return with comments after I do read it.
Cheers!
Now that I’ve read the article by Wood, I’ll suggest the debate between Ehrman and N.T. Wright over at BeliefNet… http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/
Dostoevsky is a Schizophrenic genius. Looking forward to the posts Browder. This is from Crime and Punishment:
“For broad understanding and deep feeling, you need pain and suffering. I believe really great men must experience great sadness in the world.” Although I would never say this or wish this to anyone directly, it is completely true (especially for a pastor).
And finally (also from C&P) “Man grows used to everything, the scoundrel.”
The best book I’ve read on the problem of suffering is David Hart’s The Doors of the Sea. It’s a short book, but he takes Ivan in The Brothers Karamazov as his chief dialog partner.
I also liked The Doors of the Sea. If you can’t find a copy of the book, there’s a shorter version of his thesis in a First Things article called Tsunami and Theodicy. I’m not sure, however, that Hart’s Eastern Orthodox theology makes a clean fit with the Lutheran leanings of the bloggers here. Consider, for instance, this:
“Simply said, there is no more liberating knowledge given us by the gospel—and none in which we should find more comfort—than the knowledge that suffering and death, considered in themselves, have no ultimate meaning at all.”
These are all great comments. I love the Forde quote and the insight about Eastern Orthodoxy. Dostoevsky and that frame of mind are really interesting. Their thought can really be an enigma at times, though.
The Doors of the Sea sounds like a great book. I’ll have to pick it up sometime.