An Exploration of Theodicy in Providing Holistic Healthcare
An Exploration of Theodicy in Providing Holistic Healthcare
Ryan E. Batson and Howard K. Batson
When the innocent suffer, questions, doubts and controversies are unearthed. Healthcare providers often find themselves in the context of unexplained suffering. Why does God allow the innocent to suffer? Herein lies the paradox: If God is perfect, God must therefore be omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent.1
This contradiction of an all-powerful, benevolent God and the undeniable existence of innocent suffering leaves both the patient and the physician grasping for an explanation. This question, moreover, has perplexed even the most esteemed thinkers. C.S. Lewis wrote:
If God’s goodness is inconsistent
with hurting us, then either God
is not good or there is no God:
for in the only life we know, he
hurts us beyond our worst fears
and beyond all we can imagine.2
Perhaps our own desperate desires lead us to believe that God is, by every standard we can conceive, “all good” and that all things, even evil, eventually work according to God’s will. After all, the evidence of evil and innocent suffering in this world suggests that God does not exist or, perhaps worse, calls into question the very essence of God’s character. There are many proposals, or theodicies, that seek to explain these contradictions that both patients and caregivers must face.
Among the many attempts to decipher this divine paradox are: the free will theodicy, the punishment theodicy, the natural law theodicy, and the character building theodicy.3 The explanation based on humanity’s moral freedom and the punishment theodicy find a similar solution. This premise argues that if God is good, then humanity must possess free will and exist as morally free agents. Evil, therefore, is explained in regard to the potential for choosing immoral action. God, indeed, is just and, if one suf
fers, then one must have done evil to deserve suffering. Even the followers of Jesus expressed similar thoughts during his ministry (John 9).
A second perspective interprets suffering as a by-product of natural law. Nature, being impersonal and amoral, has not been “sent” for a purpose other than maintaining environmental homeostasis: Natural disasters equally devastate the just and unjust. Others argue, however, that God’s will ultimately guides such disasters towards a future good.
A third approach is taken by a “character building theodicy” or “repentance theodicy.”4 Understanding human suffering as a means by which God guides us toward morality, the adherents to this theodicy see suffering as “God’s wake-up call.” Beyond the strengthening of one’s relationship with God, suffering can be used as an agent for discipleship. The book of Hebrews affirms this notion: “All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness” (Hebrews 12:11).
Even these varied and thoughtful solutions to innocent suffering fail to fully explain how an all-powerful, benevolent God allows tragedy in our midst. Some suffering remains beyond explanation, and gratuitous evil seems to have no redeeming value. In a final attempt to deal with the dilemma, some theologians argue that the “apparent gratuity” of suffering is a product of the limitations of human reasoning, while others claim that it will all work out in the realm of eternity.
Patients and healthcare providers looking for a single explanation capable of reconciling all innocent suffering will surely be disappointed. We must remember that our minds are finite, thus incapable of fully com
prehending the God of the cosmos. Our own journey into the question of suffering reminds us that we walk an ancient path. Job, for example, never received a full explanation regarding his unjust trials (Job 42: 1-6). Furthermore, the fruitless search for a full explanation can result in additional anguish. We can, however, affirm what we believe. The God of the Christian tradition redeems suffering for the greater good of creation. God, too, has played the role of an innocent victim. Jesus Christ, God in the flesh, came to suffer and die and, by that suffering and death, secure the salvation for all sinners alike.5 John Piper argued along these lines:
The death of Christ in supreme suffering is the highest, clearest, surest display of the glory of the grace of God. If that is true, suffering is an essential part of the tapestry of the universe so that the weaving of grace can be seen for what it really is. 6
The notion of a “suffering God” leads us to the conclusion that affliction is not meaningless and, ultimately, that suffering redeems. This principle alone can be a source of hope during seasons of suffering. God, moreover, never promises to explain the cause of our suffering. Does the Creator of the cosmos have to explain God’s self to creation? God does, however, promise to journey with us through our pain. The Psalms of lament reveal that God is concerned with the suffering of God’s people (Psalms 12, 44, 79, 126).7 Through the example of Jesus’ crucifixion, we know that we have a God who can empathize with us in every way (Hebrews 2:9-18) and who wants to comfort us in our suffering (2 Corinthians 1:3-11).
God’s “presence” through our suffering is often found in the presence of people. Healthcare providers have
the unique opportunity to walk with the afflicted in times of suffering. The presence of such suffering should motivate physicians and other healthcare providers alike to bring healing and comfort to those who search for meaning in their anguish. The physi-cian’s role, along with that of spiritual caregivers, is not to provide simplistic answers and meaningless platitudes to those who hurt. On the other hand, even when the answers are not completely clear and each patient will come to her own individual resolve, healthcare providers can guide the patient through her journey of pain and suffering. Following the incar-national paradigm, we offer to walk alongside the pilgrims who find
themselves on suffering’s journey even when full understanding still eludes both the patient and the physician. Aiding patients on their journey to self-discovery should be a part of every physician’s understanding of holistic medicine.
Ryan E. Batson is a MD Candidate at Texas A&M College of Medicine, and Howard K. Batson, Ph.D.is pastor of First Baptist Church, Amarillo, Texas.
[1] Murray, Michael J. “God, Evil, Suffering.” Reason for the Hope within. Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 1999. 84. Print.
2 Lewis, C. S. A Grief Observed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2001.
27. Print.
3 O’Mathuna, Donal. “’Why Me, God?’ Understanding Suffering.” Ethics and Medicine 15.2 (1999): 44-52. Web.
4 Dostoyevsky, Fyodor, and Constance Garnett. “Chapter 34.” The Brothers Karamazov. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 199. Print.
5 Keller, Timothy J. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Dutton, 2008. 30. Print.
6 Piper, John. Suffering and the Sovereignty of God. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2006. 82. Print.
7 Bellenger, Jr., W.H., Psalms. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1990. 23. Print.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
