God, Medicine, and Suffering

by Stanley Hauerwas

Why does a good and all-powerful God allow us to experience pain and suffering? According to Stanley Hauerwas, asking this question is a theological mistake. Drawing heavily on stories of ill and dying children to illustrate and clarify his discussion of theological-philosophical issues, Hauerwas explores why we so fervently seek explanations for suffering and evil, and he shows how modern medicine has become a god to which we look (in vain) for deliverance from the evils of disease and mortality.

Genres: Theology, Medicine, Religion, Christianity, Philosophy, Christian, Spirituality

168 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1990

About the author

Stanley Hauerwas (PhD, Yale University) is the Gilbert T. Rowe Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. He is the author of numerous books, including Cross-Shattered Christ, A Cross-Shattered Church, War and the American Difference, and Matthew in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible.

America's Best Theologian according to Time Magazine (2001), though he rejected the title saying, "Best is not a theological category."

Reviews

[Graham Gaines · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I saw another footnote that took up three pages, I was going to crash out. Goodness, Stanley.

Sections 1 and 3 are strong. Section 2 is DENSE. Also I don't think Hauerwas identified his audience very well. 1 and 3 you could recommend to anyone. Section 2, heck I went to seminary and my eyes were glazing over. That being said, his idea of shifting theodicy to "anthropodicy" was interesting and something I hadn't heard before.

Also this book feels more of a book report in sections 1 and 3, which is fine but it was unexpected. I especially liked his use of Bluebond-Langner's book concerning children with leukemia, that was compelling. Honestly that part saved this from being a 3 star review.

Here's one of my favorite quotes:

"Suffering [for the early Christians] was not a metaphysical problem needing a solution but a practical challenge requiring a response." (51)

[Namrata Mathew · Rating 1 out of 5]

VERY VERY disappointed with this. All it was was a summarization (which included pages upon PAGES upon PAGES of quotes) of other authors. Last 25 pages, summarizing Bluebond-Langner’s work was really quite excellent. I find Hauerwas missed the point of suffering in terms of a Christian, and instead just sticks to his buzzwords. Enough to make me NEVER ever want to read him again!!!!! (Or at least for a long time)

[Lindsay Mahler · Rating 4 out of 5]

Realllyyy rich theology on the “problem” of suffering and medicine and how God fits in to all of that. Would give it 5 stars if I fully understood it all hah - hauerwas is no joke!

[Austin Storm · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book feels a bit like it was born as an academic paper, but like all of Hauerwas' books it is as human as it is scholarly.

The book walks through three other books, summarizing them extensively. The first chapter covers Peter DeVries' "The Blood of the Lamb". The second chapter looks at "Where is God When a Child Suffers?" by Penny Giesbrecht, and the third chapter covers the incredible anthropological work "The Private Worlds of Dying Children". I was only familiar with the third book, but the three stories forward the "argument" of the book very well.

Hauerwas argues against theodicy as a theoretical enterprise, and passingly destroys "When Bad Things Happen to Good People".

The book compellingly argues that "it is only as we are able to locate our lives in relation to those lives which manifest God's glory that we are graced with the resources necessary to live with our silences."

[Zach Hollifield · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like most things Hauerwas writes this was 80% “YES,” 15% “Ummm,” and 5% “Oh come on now, Stanley.” But over all the book is worthwhile especially because it grapples with one of the most perplexing forms of suffering possible for humans: the death of their children.

The great benefit of the book is twofold:

1) Hauerwas avoids standard methods of theodicy and argues it’s a lost philosophical cause. I left thinking he’s largely right.

2) But the greatest strength of the book is it’s critique of medicine as currently practiced. Christians are the strange people who don’t try to remain alive whatever the costs. Hauerwas provides a compelling account of “the hope of medicine” in the face of child suffering and death.

The book is a heavy ready. It’s centered around child death after all. While I’d disagree with Hauerwas’ claim that there is no point to suffering, it is worthy of being read and wrestled with by all.

[Shawn Enright · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mostly fine! Desperately needed a better editor, though. Felt like Stan the Man kept losing his thread, which was only compounded by enormous amounts of block quotes and multi-page footnotes. Reads like a first draft.

Gonna read Suffering Presence and see if it’s better.

[Jonathan Franz · Rating 4 out of 5]

"So ends the Giesbrecht's witness. There is no point to Jeremy's suffering, but his life has a place in Penny and Tom Giesbrecht's lives and finally in God's life. That is, finally, all we can say."

[Emily Marie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked all the different discussions on suffering but I was ultimately left confused at the end. I lost the thread Hauerwas was trying to sew. He brings in so many different voices that his own gets lost. All we're left with after every explanation of theodicy is the resounding gong of Hauerwas saying "But this doesn't explain why it hurts so much when children pointlessly suffer and die".

What is really crazy to me is that he doesn't address this point in the end! He concludes the book in someone else's voice and doesn't make any real effort to insert his own answer to this question.

I suppose that offering an explanation to the problem of suffering was never the point of this book though.. Hauerwas is trying to assert that asking the question is in itself the wrong way to go about dealing with the problem of pain, and that our modern use of medical technologies only aggravates this issue. The way this is written though was such that I honestly forgot this was his purpose...

All that being said, I still learned (and cried) a lot and I saw a lot of good threads in there. Obviously Hauerwas' focus in story and narrative was profound and greatly appreciated. I look forward to reading more about this issue in my own endeavor to learn how to cope with death and better comfort those who have experienced great loss.

[J. Wootton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm overdue for a reread of this short, well-written trio of essays. Hauerwas overturns 1st-world expectations that modern medicine will be godlike in its ability to hold back death and relieve suffering. He argues that holding drugs, devices, and doctors to a divine standard, while limiting recognition of divine activity to medical intervention, means missing out on the good work both are really doing.

[Christian Zbihley · Rating 3 out of 5]

To summarize what I gleaned from Hauerwas about suffering is this quote: "the "problem of evil" is ... the challenge to show why those with the right beliefs do not always win in worldly terms. Theodicy in the theoretical mode ... is but the metaphysical expression of this deep-seated presumption that out belief in God is irrational if it does not put us on the winning side of history. This explains the extraordinary presumption that a crisis of faith is created by "bad things happening to good people."

My interpretation of this excerpt along with the suppositions in the book is that suffering is the question:

Why when our actions and intents are seemingly just and pure does the outcome we seek not actualize?

Therefore, I evolved my understanding of suffering as the dissonance between what we believe ought to happen to good/innocent/[insert virtue] people versus what actually occurs. We label that dissonance as evil or suffering, but, in reality, it's our own interpretation as a purely personal experience (that can be shared with others in so many words but off topic). Thus, "why does God allow suffering?" is a poor question and, rather, why and how we experience suffering is much more interesting.

Hauerwaus really helped me gain some ground in my own thoughts about suffering. he was just really hard to understand at times but I am also not a theologian so take from this review what you will

[Kyle · Rating 5 out of 5]

The great Stanley Hauerwas argues here that 1) theodicy isn't really a problem. It's a problem for philosophical deism but not for the Christian narrative. 2) There is no answer or explanation for innocent suffering. Beyond that he poses critical questions about the suffering of children and the role of medicine in today's society.

Some might be frustrated by Hauerwas' lack of answers or firm directives other than calling the church to lament and be fellow sufferers. (Note: he doesn't think we should be passive victims to suffering either. There is a place for healing.) I believe that in this regard Hauerwas is correct. Biblically speaking there aren't such things as theodicies because suffering isn't actually a problem. Instead there is lament. There is mutual care and support. There is a God who loves.

As a short and extremely well-written thick look at these topics I recommend this for anyone questions concerning sickness and suffering.

[Lyndon · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Our medical technologies have outrun the spiritual resources of our society, which lacks all sense of how life might properly end." (p. 123). In this brief yet challenging work, Hauerwas asks of modern medicine, Modernity and the suffering: what does the way we suffer and die tells us about ourselves and our society? There is no 'reason' given; instead, the place of narrative, of caring, and of God's provision is explored.

[Raghu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book - explores the relationship between current medical practice in alleviating patient suffering and Christian ethics.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

I availed myself of this book having read in Hauerwas's memoir Hannah's Child his description of the wider context of his first wife's ill health in which the ideas in this book were first formulated (even if it doesn't deal directly with that as subject matter).

It's an interesting, fairly loosely-structured thing. Whether I'm reading his main thesis correctly or not, here are my take-aways...

Unsurprisingly, with a subtitle like this one, theodicy (ie why does God allow suffering?) is a subject for discussion. The contention is that theodicy is more or less a post‐Enlightenment concern. The New Testament church doesn't seem to question why God doesn't remove all suffering. Instead, suffering is taken as a given and it is our response to it that matters. That perspective carries on through the Middle Ages.

Under the influence of the philosophy of theism during the Enlightenment however, and a shift in perspective regarding what God should be doing for us as humans, along with a growing notion that suffering should be able to be eliminated from the human condition, theodicy arises as a theological category.

When faith was lost in God getting rid of suffering, that onus was shifted to medicine, which in some ways has been hoisted by its own petard because it seems to back itself to be able to remove suffering - if not now, then sometime in the future when it's made more discoveries.

Hauerwas says that there is no watertight philosophical or theological solution to the question of theodicy (that's been my opinion too), but anyway the theodicy question is fundamentally flawed. It doesn't line up with those early Christian perspectives or our fundamental experience of suffering. What practical difference does it make to come up with a clever explanation for suffering (an abstraction), when the day to day human experience is that suffering simply is, and we have to deal with it as an existential reality?

Hauerwas looks at suffering unflinchingly, using as his primary example children with terminal illnesses. There's no theologising this. Nothing can make it ok.

Instead, the move is to bring narrative - the telling of stories about human experience - into the picture and have that exist in the context of relationship and community where the experience of suffering is shared. Thereby making meaning (while sitting with all the unanswerables) and sharing the load.

In his critique of modern medicine, Hauerwas argues that story - helping a person process illness and mortality within the context of their own particular personal narrative - is what often goes missing in favour of imposing treatment after treatment almost for the sake of treatment.

Thoughts of a corrective to this and an investment in narrative and relationship puts me in mind of my mate Dr Andrew Corin who, alongside his medical practice, has actively and intentionally worked at sharing stories (through modes of both fiction and non-fiction) of the lives of elder people, returning dignity to the experience of old age by the act of storytelling.

A real life, active example of goodness in the face of human frailty. Which, you see, is really where it's at.

[Chris McMillan · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5 stars. Hauerwas starts by examining Peter DeVries’ “The Blood of the Lamb.” In this, he makes a strong case against traditional attempts at theodicy. He examines the suffering experienced by children with leukemia. In this context, traditional theodicies (i.e. free will, character formation, glorification of God) fall flat. He ultimately concludes we must look to a “‘suffering God’ whose power is expressed in the weakness of love.’ And this must be placed within the ongoing narrative of God’s redemption of creation through the cross and resurrection of Christ.”

His discussion of medicine was excellent. Most notably, I was especially struck by his discussion of chronic illness. He quotes from an article by Thomas Long that describes fictional histories. These are formed by patients through selective attention, emphasis, and forgetfulness to form a helpful narrative. Hauerwas (via Alastair McIntyre), however, calls Believers to a narrative “not of our own making” but rather “creatures of a gracious God who discover we do not have to ‘’make up’ our lives.” He also touches upon the drive for medical intervention at the expense of promoting quality of life.

Hauerwas closes with a few beautiful quotes from Nicolas Wolterstorff’s “Lament of a Son,” which has a similar premise — suffering oftentimes can’t be explained. Instead of offering solutions, “come sit beside me on my mourning bench.”

Favorite Quotes:
— “Wanderhope swims in the sea of faith — that is, he is surrounded by the storied habits of a people whose way of life is so God-determined that even their unbelief is a form of faithfulness.” — Pg. 30
— “The suggestion is that Wanderhope is comforted by a God who suffers with us, who can share our agonies — who has, in short, become like us… rather, our only hope lies, and whether we can place alongside the story of the pointless suffering of a child like Carroll a story of suffering that helps us know. We are not there by abandoned.” - Pg 34
— “Science aims at the discovery of truth, and it succeeds precisely when it discovers a truth. Medicine, on the other hand, seeks jointly the expansion of knowledge to cure individual patients; but the aim of the first is in service of the second. It is only with actual cure that medicine considers itself tk have accomplished success.” - Pg 117

[Evan Beacom · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nice reflection on the problem of evil with a focus on the human response in medical contexts, and especially on the suffering/death of children, which is least amenable to tidy explanations (e.g. nature, fair-innings, outcome of sin, divine chastisement).

One main thesis I take away is the notion of political liberalism as sustained by the common fear of death, and cooperation insofar as we can try to cheat it together; however the result is that without a shared story of life and death, each of us at that time must make up the story, the significance, the meaning of our death, alone. In such a society there is no proper role for dying persons. I commend Hauerwas for the focus on children, who cannot say "I have run the race" or "I've lived a good life" in the same an elderly adult can. Without this easy out, he is left concluding that while a relationship with God does not alleviate suffering or obviate death, only relationship (with God and other people) can provide a story and community to contextualize the life-and-death narrative (and so alleviate our loneliness). Furthermore, when given (by a creator, I assume), the story of one's life is to be discovered, not invented, and this is freeing.

[Lynne · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hauerwas is a distinguished Protestant theologian. I found this book has a strong start, recounting a novel's story as the ground upon which he builds this book. But it just collapses for me because it becomes confoundingly complex and obtuse as a theological argument.

As a parish pastor /theologian/therapist, I am exhausted by professional thinkers who don't seem to care that their complex arguments are impossible for most people to follow. I spent hours patiently feeling impatient with the writing. This book is an example of tomes that are written for other scholars, and have so little impact on the "lay" believer and Christian community member. This is why I so rarely read theology or philosophy. If the purpose of writing is communication, I'm not sure to whom or why many write at all.

[Jo · Rating 4 out of 5]

In form, a book that seems to have emerged from several academic papers and considerable attention to three other works: Peter DeVries' "The Blood of the Lamb," Penny Giesbrecht's "Where is God When a Child Suffers?," and Myra Bluebond-Langner's "The Private Worlds of Dying Children." Hauerwas spends much more time summarizing, analyzing, and considering the arguments of these other authors than he does advancing his own ideas about the topics. Still, a rich, valuable, and considered discussion of modern medicine and individuals--especially children--in relation to death, dying, suffering, and pain.

[Stephen Bedard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a challenging but rewarding book to read. Hauerwas questions the quest to understand how a powerful and loving God can allow suffering. He argues that is an enlightenment question and that it looks to the God of the philosophers more than the God of the Bible. He argues more for a trusting in God and a focus on the suffering Christ.
The second part of the book looks at the way people (not just Christians) rely on medicine. He notes that people are more interested in cure than care. It includes a moving section on children dying of leukemia.
I recommend this book for anyone interested in the problem of suffering.

[Alex Strohschein · Rating 2 out of 5]

The gist of this I can appreciate - that efforts at theodicy are ultimately in vain and that we here must endure the mystery of evil while being friends and (not cheap) comforters to one another through our presence. But I found this brief book disappointing in that there are so many extracts from Peter de Vries' semi-autobiographical novel 'The Blood of the Lamb' and academic Myra Bluebond-Langner's study 'The Private Worlds of Dying Children' that these two authors almost deserve co-author credits with Stanley Hauerwas who typically just provides a light gloss of their writings.

[John Morgan · Rating 3 out of 5]

The argument is difficult to follow. There were many pages I reread several times because I couldn’t follow the argument and still couldn’t understand after rereading it. It doesn’t help when the content of the footnotes take up most and sometimes almost all the page. There were moments in the book where I learned something of God and suffering. But this isn’t a book like what most people think when they think of a theodicy. The purpose of the book is to tell us where the question of God’s relationship to suffering came from and why it’s a dumb question to ask. This is a book I would put way down on my list of books on theodicy.

[Carlo · Rating 5 out of 5]

“I cannot promise readers consolation, but only an honest account as I can give of why we cannot afford to give ourselves explanations for evil when what is required is a community capable of absorbing our grief…I am convinced that it is only as we are able to locate our lives in relation to those lives which manifest God’s glory that we are graced with the resources necessary to live with our silences.”

[Cody Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

While not presenting any clear solutions, Hauerwas raises some good questions about suffering and theodicy. I especially appreciate how he crafts the message around stories, since that is ultimately where we find meaning - he thus illustrates part of the solution by his manner of writing (so clever)!

[Sean Stillman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Significantly helpful insight and not just for those with a primary interest in palliative care. Anyone engaged in the pastoral care of the dying and their families, or supporting medical professionals this book brings together some helpful arguments and practical advice written with sensitivity and wisdom.

[Caleb McCary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a powerful and helpful little book. Whether you are in the medical community or not, you will face suffering and health issues so this is applicable well beyond the medical field. Highly recommended.

[Courtney · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really thought provoking opinion on theodicy and suffering in the world. Very sad book, but worthwhile to read in order to understand suffering as well as reacting to other's grief.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honest assessment of grief, especially when a child is lost. Weaving together novels and theology, Hauerwas speaks to suffering and how it impacts our relationship with God.

[Kathleen Krynski · Rating 3 out of 5]

In theory I do agree with the premise of this book (that the project of theodicy is incoherent). As a good student of postliberal theology I'm obliged to say that the whole Enlightenment project and rationalism are antithetical to the historic Christian worldview, etc etc etc. But the fact remains that we live in a rationalist society, where real people ask "How can God be good if we suffer seemingly for no reason?" Christians do non-Christians a disservice unless we at least attempt to honestly engage with the question.

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

My first introduction to Hauerwas's work and I will say:

1. There were a lot of lengthy quotations directly embedded into his writing.
2. A lot of the points repeated themselves a bit more than they needed to and were a bit overly sentimental for a book on such a direct subject (suffering of people, especially children).

BUT, that being said, there were parts of this book that absolutely, and concisely, changed my view of what it means to suffer or to prepare to die as a human in this life.

The question of suffering or evil is a classic conundrum religion, especially Christians, have had to navigate and defend. Many times, religion is seen as a stricly positive ideal but we forget that the psalms and many of the books of the Old Testament were lamentable, and sorrowful. We pray the rosary with the "sorrowful mysteries" and recognize the key events of Christ's passion.

To trust God, is not to say we can avoid suffering, or that there is always some bigger plan for when a child nesslessly suffers. Until the 17th century, almost no one questioned the existence of God when bad things happened, and bad things DID happen.

If this is a modern phenomenon, then what has caused this change in perspective? The ideas thrown around by Hauermas and his multitude of sources is our current overly empircal, medical-focused society where we have this false illusion that medicine is a concrete answer to our suffering, although we know we must die one day anyways.

On that note, we also prefer to extend our life physically without necessarily improving our quality of life, something that is a very recent notion and was not shared in the past. This likely has contributed to the meaning crisis where we are more likely to die lonely and burdened instead of preparing for a natural death after a "normal life span".

[LeeAnn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a challenging book to understand and see the viewpoint as it is not a typical look at pain, suffering and death. It does not ask question, "Why does God allow suffering?", but rather he argues on "theological grounds against the very idea of theodicy as a theoretical enterprise and then concentrates on how medicine as an activity of service becomes distorted when we try to use it to eliminate the silence created by death."
Early Christians didn't see their suffering as a point on which to ask, "God why would you allow this to happen?" but they saw it as an opportunity to live more faithful in their walk with Christ, It wasn't a "metaphysical problem needing a solution rather it was a practical challenge requiring a communal response."
He has a lot of interesting points regarding our society's view of medicine and finding cures, delaying death, even at the cost of a lower quality of life, however much longer we can extend it. Is there a limit to medicine? Should our society consider a limit? "Our medical technologies have outrun the spiritual resources of our society, which lacks all sense of how life might properly end." Should be a good book to discuss at bookclub, especially among our medical community of the Mayo Clinic.