Doing practical theology ‘from the place where it hurts’: the significance of trauma theology in renewing a practical theology of suffering

ABSTRACT

Questions of suffering provoke deep challenges to our theological thinking. Despite being an intrinsic part of the human condition, suffering has occupied a problematic space in our theological history. Whilst traditional theologies have leaned on theodicy to account for the presence of suffering, these tend to concentrate the focus on the why of suffering, rather than the who, and the how. Yet questions of suffering are inextricable from the lived experience of suffering bodies. Theologies which neglect the suffering body, I propose, leave it silenced. This article looks to explore how trauma theologies might inform a practical theological response to suffering which takes the suffering body seriously; a response which is necessarily embodied, witnessed, and disruptive.

KEYWORDS:

• Suffering
• trauma
• embodiment
• theodicy
• witness

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Title inspired by a comment from Michelle Gonzalez Maldonado (2016) on her paper ‘Redeeming Race: A Theological Construction of Racialized humanity’, cited by Karen O’Donnell (2020, 3).

2 I consider that the suggestion that the early church perceived of evil and suffering differently, or employed their faith more unquestioningly, neglects the ways in which people historically engaged with religion. Lack of literacy and the orthodoxy established by aural dissemination of scripture would arguably impact the ability to consider such questions (the thornier issue of hereticism for those who might question notwithstanding).

3 It is worth noting that there are contestations in respect to the validity of claims to an Augustinian tradition of theodicy. Terence Tilley argues that ‘Augustine did not write a theodicy. He wrote numerous works to various audiences, for various purposes … Theologians amalgamate Augustinian “themes” … this practice is malpractice’ (2000, 115).

4 In MrI scans of individuals experiencing PTSD or complex trauma, it has been shown that the amygdala (or area of the brain that responds to stress) is often overactive, meaning that the body’s ‘warning’ system of hypervigilance and hyperarousal remains on high alert. Conversely, the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, the areas of the brain which deal with emotional processing and memory, present as under-active or ‘dysregulated’, meaning that our emotional responses and recollection of trauma may be diminished, or in some cases, more intense. The Science and Biology of PTSD https://www.ptsduk.org/what-is-ptsd/the-science-and-biology-of-ptsd.

5 While I am here articulating the physical symptomology of trauma, I am mindful of the dangers of ‘pathologizing’ trauma (Collins 2020, 210). Rather, in discussing trauma as ‘embodied’, I seek to highlight aspects of the trauma experience which have escaped theological attention, often to the detriment of the sufferer themselves.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Leverhulme Trust.

Notes on contributors

Eilidh Galbraith

Eilidh Galbraith Leverhulme Early Career Fellow University of Aberdeen.