چکیده :
this edited volume is a collection of sixteen essays, originally presented at the conference ‘suffering, diminishment, and the christian life,’ held at urshaw college, durham in january 2018.
the conference was part of the love and suffering project, supported by the congregation of la retraite in england and ireland, a religious order, and headed by karen kilby, bede professor of catholic theology at durham university.
kilby edits the volume with rachel davies, research fellow at the institute for religion and critical enquiry at australian catholic university.
they have selected a strong range of essays, which discuss the place of suffering in the christian life from an array of theological perspectives.
although not formally divided, the volume falls into two halves.
chapters 1‐8 engage chronologically with themes of suffering in the works of figures throughout the christian tradition, including, for example, the apostle paul, the cappadocian fathers, the medieval mystics, and mother teresa.
meanwhile, chapters 9‐16 focus on practical, political, and systematic questions, engaging contemporary theological debates as well as ethnographic methodologies and insights from critical and feminist theories.
although it is impossible to detail here each important contribution made in the volume, it is possible to draw attention to a significant overarching theme emerging throughout the essays, in order to demonstrate the importance of the work as a whole.
that is, what precisely does ‘suffering’ mean? this question might be taken to ask whether suffering is inherently ‘meaningful’ or ‘meaningless’, and such discussions are well represented throughout the volume.
here, however, i focus on the semantic or definitional sense of the question.
what ‘counts’ as suffering, and for whom? how do we, or should we, primarily characterise suffering: by its cause, its experience, its effects, or its redemption?
kilby and davies invite this question through their introduction to the volume, where they rightly suggest that ‘implicit construals of the nature and value of suffering and loss may already be shaping theological positions in significant and unacknowledged ways’ (1).
this is a welcome shift of emphasis away from the well‐worn discussions of theodicy and divine impassibility that have dominated theological work on suffering.
it moves the focus from ‘suffering’ writ large towards suffering in its many, complex configurations in the christian life.
reading the essays through this lens of the ‘meaning’ of suffering helps to draw out some of the most insightful contributions of the volume, highlighting precisely what is at stake in theological discussion of suffering.
john swinton engages explicitly with the meaning of suffering, examining three ‘forms’ of suffering in the experience of catherine, a woman with bipolar disorder.
swinton frames his essay by discussing the ‘rhetoric of suffering’ (133), highlighting the non‐neutrality of language: ‘words matter because they change things.
words create worlds’ (133).
describing an experience as a kind of ‘suffering’ shapes the experience itself.
what we include within the category of ‘suffering’ reflects and moulds our values, particularly what is tacitly held to be constitutive of human flourishing.
swinton reminds us that when we speak about suffering, we are not referring to a given body of experiences.
discerning what comes to ‘count’ as suffering, and what that suffering might mean, is a dynamic process that evades neat categorisations or generalisations.
the shaping and reshaping of categories of suffering is theologically significant.
other contributors demonstrate this significance through focusing on the relationship between the source of suffering and the meaning of suffering.
such discussions prove to be a focal point of generative disagreement among the essays.
gabrielle thomas, for example, engages constructively with gregory of nazianzus’ account of satanic involvement in human suffering.
she frames her discussion through the following question: ‘is it possible that an account of suffering which incorporates powers of opposition ensures that suffering is not sacralised?’ (43) importantly, this question is driven by an instinct that there is a right (and wrong) way to define or identify suffering.
as thomas puts it, ‘the way in which gregory locates “the devil” in suffering [.
.
.] creates a space in which to construe suffering negatively or [.
.
.] as simply meaningless’ (44).
thomas’ retrieval of theological resources from gregory is underpinned by the presupposition that suffering must be actively framed as negative and destructive.
other essays in the volume attempt to preserve this meaningless or negative character of suffering through rather different frameworks, by distancing suffering from easily identifiable etiologies.
jessica coblentz, for example, argues for the importance of tragic imaginaries within theologies of suffering, driven by close attention to experiences of depression.
tragic theological plotlines are contrasted with ‘comedic’ plotlines.
comedic plotlines ‘begin in a state of peace and harmony, which is disrupted by a central conflict that spurs a series of unfortunate consequences.
eventually, however, the conflict and its effects are resolved for a happy ending’ (156).
crucially, in this comedic context ‘only certain forms of suffering appear – suffering that follows from an identifiable source, a negative cause, that is, sin’ (156).
the contours of the category of suffering limit the kinds of experience to which this category equips response.
coblentz illustrates this problem through engaging with the experience of depressive suffering, making the insightful observation that ‘depression is not experienced as the effect of a particular cause.
[.
.
.] [e]ven if, from an outsider’s perspective, we could agree upon a clear‐cut etiological account of depression, sufferers would continue to experience their suffering as an unquantifiable condition that resists such orderly explanations’ (158).
coblentz pushes theologians to develop thicker descriptions of suffering, better able to cope with its complexity and multivalence.
different ways of categorising or framing suffering might be simultaneously true, but some may be more appropriate than others.
for coblentz, a tragic worldview provides a solution, wherein suffering ‘results not from our transparent sinful actions but from our own finitude and inherent relationality’ (157).
this change in paradigm brings different kinds of suffering to light, resulting in a refashioning of the category of ‘suffering’ as a whole.
coblentz is not alone in seeking more nuanced language with which to express the multivalence of suffering.
her formulation of broader theological frameworks through attention to lived experiences both resonates with and stands in generative tension with kilby’s argument for different ‘voices’ in which to speak theologically of suffering.
whilst it might be appropriate to speak in the first‐person of one’s own suffering as meaningful or redemptive, it is ill‐advised to speak in this way of suffering in the second‐person or third‐person, to name ‘your’ or ‘their’ suffering as meaningful (169).
this insight opens up significant questions for future work, concerning what kinds of theological language might best encourage nuanced attention to the complexity of suffering, without lapsing into generalisations or abstractions.
these essays ask how theologians might best maintain the multivalence of ‘suffering’ as a category, without blurring its borders to such an extent that it ceases to be useful, and without rendering suffering a purely subjective phenomenon.
the need for such nuance is well illustrated by heather dubois’ creative approach to the place of suffering in the christian life, which pointedly raises the question of whose experiences we count as ‘suffering’.
dubois addresses an unlikely source of theological reflection: the experiences of those who refer to themselves as ‘addicted to hate’, in this case, white supremacists.
dubois pairs the contemporary feminist theory of judith butler with the theology of st john of the cross to consider how suffering might be ethically productive, even necessary, in the undoing, and ‘redoing’ of identities which are bound to destructive ideologies.
dubois maintains a careful equilibrium, embracing suffering for the sake of transformation, yet avoiding ‘overzealous asceticism’ amounting to ‘violence’ (109).
simply claiming suffering to be generative will not do, for serious questions must be asked about how one discerns the difference between genuinely redemptive, though painful, processes of transformation, and self‐inflicted violence.
this essay thus develops other contributors’ engagements with suffering in the mystical tradition (mcginn, howells, and davies).
dubois’ discussion demonstrates the need to engage with contextualised accounts of suffering in the christian life, and not only more abstract concepts of ‘the problem of evil’.
the suffering involved in undoing violent ideologies does not raise precisely the same set of concerns as the ‘inexplicable’ suffering of depression (coblentz), bipolar disorder (swinton), or cancer (graystone), yet neither can it be neatly separated from the broader theological questions that emerge through attention to such suffering.
the variety of forms of suffering represented in this volume reinforces the importance of asking what ‘suffering’ actually means, and whose suffering we count to be significant.
moreover, it challenges us to maintain theological language that is sufficiently robust to equip consideration of, and response to, suffering as both inexplicably meaningless, and, in some contexts, potentially productive.
this volume, as kilby and davies highlight in their introduction, presents diverse theological positions.
there are significant points of disagreement concerning, for example, what precisely suffering means and how it is to be defined, whether suffering is inherently bad, and whether suffering is best understood in terms of its source or its outcome, or without reference to either.
this divergence of opinion proves helpful and constructive, demonstrating the importance of maintaining a variety of lenses on suffering, and attending carefully to the ways in which assumptions about suffering decisively shape theological debates.
the volume therefore casts light on knotty theological questions that call for more expansive and systematic development in future work.
the volume is not without its lacunae.
though the limits of space will always pose necessary constraints, a notable absence is found in the area of old testament studies.
this omission is felt all the more strongly in the light of the rich contributions made to the volume by new testament scholars (bertschmann and williams).
a contribution from old testament studies would have complemented the diverse discussion of suffering present in the volume, particularly given recent theological interest in lament, and continuing engagements from biblical scholars with abuse, trauma, and violence against women in the hebrew bible.
moreover, as an edited volume with such marked diversity in theological methodologies, assumptions, and conclusions, the text poses other challenges.
the divergences between contributors are necessarily left to the discernment of the reader, and knowledge of the broader theological debates underpinning these disagreements casts clearer light on their significance.
for example, awareness of debates around the salvific nature of christ’s suffering (nieuwenhove), the prevalence of contemporary interest in questions of vulnerability (tonstad) and kenosis (kilby), and interpretations of love as self‐sacrifice (williams) significantly enrich the reading experience.
additionally, many of the essays contain greek and latin excerpts, and though they are translated (with the exception of some technical latin phrases), greek passages are not transliterated.
for these reasons, the volume as a whole may prove challenging to undergraduate students, though individual essays may make for fruitful reading.
the volume will be constructive and thought‐provoking for graduate students and scholars across a range of theological specialties, since it clearly demonstrates how assumptions about suffering shape discussions of sin, salvation, spiritual formation, and other key theological themes.
it may be of particular interest to those engaged in debates concerning the relationship between suffering and salvation; the character of human finitude and its relation to sin and suffering; and the nature, character, and purpose of theological language in relation to lived experience, pastoral practice, and politics.
the volume illustrates how suffering provides an important impetus for theological thought, whether for that of individual figures in the tradition, for the development of specific theological doctrines, or for theological engagement with contemporary controversies and discourses.
perhaps the most important contribution of the volume, then, is its demonstration that discussions of suffering cannot be relegated to questions of theodicy or impassibility alone.
this volume has the potential to invigorate creative theological reflection on suffering, casting new light on significant theological debates, christian doctrines, and studies of key figures throughout the christian tradition.