The
Relational Nature of Suffering
Abstract
This essay explores the Relational
Nature of Suffering by weaving together Biblical, philosophical,
theological, ecological, and biological perspectives. Scripture presents
suffering as a communal reality bound to covenant and divine presence, while
the Fathers of the Church, medieval thinkers like Augustine and Aquinas, and
Reformers such as Luther interpret it as a transformative path within the body
of Christ. Modern voices, including Martin Buber, Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer, and
Moltmann, emphasize dialogue, solidarity, and God’s participation in human
pain. Indian philosophy and relational thought highlight suffering as embedded
in interconnectedness, resonating with Christian theological relationalism.
Contemporary insights from ecology, neuroscience, and sociology further reveal
suffering as systemic and collective. By integrating these perspectives, the
essay argues that suffering, rather than isolating, calls for solidarity,
ethical responsibility, and hope in a relational framework.
INTRODUCTION
Suffering is among the most
profound and universal dimensions of human existence. From the cries of the
psalmist to the lamentations of exiled Israel, to the anguish of Job, the biblical
narrative makes clear that pain is never a private matter alone—it is entangled
with covenant, community, creation, and God. The Christian tradition, in its
many epochs and voices, has sought to understand suffering not as an isolated
misfortune but as a relational reality that reveals, disrupts, and transforms
bonds between persons, societies, and the divine.
Philosophical, theological, and
cultural approaches have long grappled with the meaning of suffering. For the
Church Fathers, suffering was a school of love and communion. Medieval
theologians framed it as purgative, linking it to the passion of Christ. Modern
thinkers, such as Martin Buber, Karl Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Jürgen
Moltmann, emphasized encounter, solidarity, and divine co-suffering as central
to Christian faith. Contemporary theologies further widen the horizon, showing
that suffering implicates not only individuals but also ecosystems, social
systems, and interreligious solidarities, demanding ethical and communal
responses.
In recent decades, insights from
biology, psychology, and cultural studies have illuminated suffering as
relational. Neuroscience demonstrates that pain activates empathy circuits;
sociology reveals that trauma is often shared across generations; ecological
science shows that the degradation of creation is a collective wound. Together,
these voices affirm that suffering is not merely to be explained but to be
engaged—through presence, compassion, and shared responsibility.
This essay explores the relational
nature of suffering across biblical, patristic, medieval, modern, and
contemporary perspectives. It argues that suffering, while disruptive, bears
the potential to disclose communion, deepen solidarity, and invite transformation.
By placing theological insights in conversation with philosophical, scientific,
and interfaith perspectives, this study highlights that suffering, when
embraced relationally, can become not only a site of struggle but also a
wellspring of resilience and hope.
Structure of the Essay: The discussion will begin with
biblical foundations, showing how Israel and the early Church located suffering
within covenantal and communal frameworks. It will then turn to patristic and
medieval thought, with Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther offering theological and
pedagogical interpretations. Next, it will engage modern relational voices,
including Buber, Barth, Bonhoeffer, and Moltmann, who emphasized dialogue,
solidarity, and divine participation in human pain. The essay will then examine
contemporary and interdisciplinary perspectives—ecological, biological, and
interfaith—highlighting new insights into suffering as a shared and systemic
phenomenon. Finally, a synthetic conclusion and appraisal will assess the
contributions, limitations, and future directions of relational approaches to
suffering.
A. Biblical Foundations
The Bible presents suffering not
merely as an individual phenomenon but as a profoundly relational reality.
Human pain is narrated in connection with God, neighbor, community, and
creation itself. To understand suffering relationally is to recognize that
lament, endurance, and hope are always embedded in dialogue and covenant.
1. The Book of Job: Dialogue and
Divine Encounter
Job’s suffering illustrates the
deeply relational character of human pain. Though described as a righteous man,
Job undergoes immense loss, prompting dialogues with his friends and ultimately
with God. His cry, “Why did I not perish at birth?” (Job 3:11) reflects not
only existential anguish but also the relational rupture between divine justice
and human expectation. The speeches of Job’s friends reveal how suffering
destabilizes social bonds, as they oscillate between empathy and judgment.
God’s response in Job 38:41 reframes Job’s suffering within the vast relational
web of creation, situating his pain within cosmic order rather than isolating
it as private tragedy.
2. Prophetic and Exilic Traditions:
Collective Suffering
The Hebrew prophets interpret
suffering as corporate and relational. Jeremiah laments: “Is there no balm in
Gilead? Is there no physician there?” (Jer 8:22) is a cry not only for personal
anguish but for the suffering of Israel as a people estranged from God. The
communal laments of Lamentations, “How lonely sits the city that once was full
of people!” (Lam 1:1), portray suffering as exile, a broken relationship
between God and his covenant people. Thus, Israel’s pain is inseparable from
its covenantal bond with Yahweh.
3. The Psalms: Relational Lament
and Trust
The Psalms raise the voice to the suffering
in a dialogical way. In Psalm 22, the psalmist cries, “My God, my God, why have
you forsaken me?” (Ps 22:1). Such words were later taken up by the Gospel
writers to understand the cry of Christ on the cross. Here, suffering is not
silent resignation, but a protest that presupposes a relationship. Psalm 42
captures the oscillation between despair and hope: “My tears have been my food
day and night” (Ps 42:3), followed by the exhortation: “Hope in God; for I
shall again praise him” (Ps 42:5). The psalmist’s pain exists within covenant
dialogue, where lament is itself an act of faith.
4. Christ’s Passion: Relational
Abandonment and Solidarity
The New Testament locates suffering
at the heart of Christ’s passion. On the cross, Jesus cites Psalm 22: “My God,
my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mk 15:34), expressing the depth of
relational abandonment. Yet, paradoxically, the cross becomes the supreme
revelation of relational solidarity—God with humanity in suffering. Isaiah’s
Servant Song, “Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases”
(Is 53:4), anticipates this relational bearing of suffering by the Messiah.
Christ’s suffering is thus simultaneously vertical (relation to the Father) and
horizontal (solidarity with humanity).
5. Pauline Theology: Suffering in
the Body of Christ
Paul interprets suffering as
relational participation in Christ and the community of believers. In 1
Corinthians 12:26, he writes: “If one member suffers, all suffer together with
it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it.” Suffering is not
borne in isolation but within the relational organism of the Body of Christ.
Furthermore, Paul situates human pain within the cosmic dimension of creation:
“We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now”
(Rom 8:22).
This passage extends suffering beyond human experience, portraying creation
itself as relationally entangled in human destiny, awaiting redemption.
B. Patristic and Medieval Witness
The early Church Fathers and
medieval theologians interpreted suffering not as an isolated reality, but
always as relational between God and humanity – within the body of Christ and
in the cosmic order. Their writings shaped the theological grammar of suffering
for subsequent Christian thought.
1. Patristic Voices
For Augustine, suffering is
integrally linked to love and the disruption of right relationship. In “City of
God”, he interprets human misery as the consequence of disordered love (amor
curvus), where the will turns inward rather than upward to God. Yet suffering itself can
become relationally transformative: “God judged it better to bring good out of
evil than to allow no evil to exist.” Here, Augustine frames
suffering as a relational pedagogy, drawing humanity back into communion with
God through patience (patientia) and hope.
The Cappadocians, like Basil the
Great and Gregory of Nyssa, emphasized the communal dimension of suffering.
Gregory, in “On the Soul and Resurrection”, presents human pain within the
framework of participation in divine life, suggesting that suffering draws the
soul toward its goal in God. Basil, in his homilies,
stresses charity and solidarity with the poor and sick, making suffering a call
to relational responsibility within the Christian community.
Gregory’s “Moralia in Job”
interprets Job’s trials as paradigmatic for the Christian life, where suffering
is not punishment but relational discipline. He describes suffering as a fire
that purifies love and binds the sufferer more intimately to God. His commentary became
foundational for medieval spiritual interpretations of suffering.
2. Medieval Synthesis
Aquinas integrates Aristotelian
philosophy and Christian theology, interpreting suffering (especially passio)
as part of the relational nature of embodied existence. In the Summa
Theologica, he insists that suffering is not only privation but also a
means of merit through charity, since “the passion of Christ wrought our
salvation because he suffered out of love”. For Aquinas, suffering’s
relational dimension lies in its orientation: when borne in love, suffering
unites the believer with both God and neighbor.
Medieval mystics such as Julian of
Norwich and Meister Eckhart explicate the relational intimacy that suffering
opens between the soul and God. Julian’s famous assurance, “All shall be well,”
arises from her vision of Christ’s wounds as a relational embrace of human
suffering.
3. Reformation Insight
Luther’s theology of the cross (Theologia
Crucis) radically reframes the suffering of relational. Against
triumphalist theologies, he insists that God is revealed precisely in weakness
and suffering.
For Luther, suffering is not simply endured; rather, it becomes the very locus
of divine relationship: “It is not sufficient for anyone, and it does him no
good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes Him in the
humility and shame of the cross”. Suffering thus manifests
God’s relational self-disclosure in Christ and shapes the believer’s life of
faith and community.
Summary
From Augustine’s pedagogy of
suffering, through Gregory’s exegetical insights, Aquinas’s metaphysical
synthesis, and Luther’s theology of the cross, the Christian tradition
consistently refuses to see suffering as isolated. Rather, it is a relational
event—binding the believer to God, shaping communal solidarity, and situating
human pain within divine providence.
C. Modern Relational Thinkers
The modern period saw a decisive
turn from abstract metaphysics toward existential, dialogical, and historical
understandings of suffering. Against the backdrop of war, oppression, and
cultural upheaval, relational thought emphasized suffering as an event of
encounter—between persons, between humanity and God, and within the community
of life.
1. Martin Buber (I-Thou)
Buber’s relational philosophy
centers on the distinction between I-It (objectifying) and I-Thou (relational)
modes of existence. In suffering, the human
person is often reduced to an “It”—an object of pity, avoidance, or even
exploitation. Yet Buber insists that genuine healing emerges when suffering is
met in an I-Thou encounter, where the sufferer is recognized as a subject in communion.
God Himself is the Eternal Thou who meets humanity most profoundly in
vulnerability and suffering. For Buber, suffering becomes relationally
redemptive when it is borne together in dialogue and mutual presence.
2. Karl Barth: God’s Solidarity in
Christ
Barth rejects all attempts to
explain suffering through speculative theodicy. In the Church Dogmatics, he
insists that God does not stand aloof from human suffering but enters it fully
in Jesus Christ.
The cross is not an abstract solution to evil but God’s concrete act of
solidarity. For Barth, the relational meaning of suffering is that God chooses
to be with humanity in its deepest affliction. Christ’s passion reveals that
suffering is not separate from God but becomes the very arena of divine
presence and reconciliation.
3. Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Suffering
for and with Others
Bonhoeffer’s prison writings
articulate a profoundly relational theology of suffering. In Letters and Papers
from Prison, he declares: “Only a suffering God can help”. This suffering is not
passive resignation but active participation in Christ’s vicarious
representative action (Stellvertretung). Bonhoeffer interprets
discipleship as Mit-leiden—suffering with Christ for the sake of others.
In the face of Nazi terror, he embodied the truth that suffering is not endured
in isolation but in solidarity with the oppressed and in participation in God’s
suffering love.
4. Jürgen Moltmann: The Crucified
God
Moltmann revolutionized
20th-century theology by affirming that God Himself suffers. In The Crucified
God, he argues that the cross reveals the mutual suffering of the Father and
the Son in the Spirit. Far from impassibility, God
enters the relational depths of abandonment, making divine love present in the
very absence of God (Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani). For Moltmann, human
suffering is taken up into God’s own relational life, offering hope not by
eliminating pain but by transforming it within the trinitarian embrace.
5. Process and Relational Theology
Process thought views reality as
fundamentally relational, composed of events in dynamic interconnection. Whitehead understands that God
is not a distant, immutable being but the “fellow-sufferer who understands”. Charles Hartshorne and John
Cobb extended this vision, interpreting suffering as woven into the relational
fabric of the cosmos. In this perspective, God does not override creaturely
freedom but receives and redeems the world’s pain into the divine life.
Suffering thus becomes relationally significant as part of the ongoing
co-creation between God and the world.
6. Other Modern Voices
Simone Weil saw suffering (malheur)
as the radical opening of the self to God’s relational presence through
attention and consent. Paul Tillich framed suffering within the “courage to
be,” where existential anxiety becomes the site of encountering God as the ground
of being.
Contemporary Feminist and
Liberation Theologies interpret suffering relationally as solidarity with the
oppressed. Dorothee Sölle, in Suffering, insists that unrelieved suffering
isolates, but redemptive suffering builds communities of resistance and hope.
Summary
Modern relational thinkers
dismantled abstract explanations of suffering and re-centered it in the lived
encounter with God and others. Buber taught the dignity of dialogical
recognition; Barth declared God’s solidarity in Christ; Bonhoeffer embodied vicarious
suffering for others; Moltmann revealed suffering within the Trinity; and
process thought articulated a relational metaphysics of divine co-suffering.
Each reaffirms that suffering is never an isolated condition but always a
relational event where love, presence, and transformation are possible.
D. Contemporary and Emerging Voices
(Ecological, Biological, Interreligious, Indian)
Contemporary relational thought expands
the horizon of suffering beyond the individual to include ecosystems, social
systems, interreligious solidarities, and even the relational constitution of
organisms. New dialogues between theology, philosophy, and the sciences
converge on a pivotal claim: suffering is a signal of relational rupture—and
healing unfolds as relational repair.
1. Ecological Theologies:
Creation’s Groaning and Planetary Suffering
Building on Romans 8:18-25, Eco
theologians interpret environmental degradation as the “groaning” of creation
in travail, a profoundly relational image in which human sin reverberates
across the biotic community. Sallie McFague
conceptualizes the world as “God’s body,” so ecological harm becomes a wound to
a theologically construed relational whole. Elizabeth A. Johnson extends
this to a “deep incarnation” of the Logos into material history, binding
the suffering of creatures to the redemptive sweep of God’s love. Pope Francis's “Laudato Si” gives
a magisterial articulation of integral ecology, insisting that social and
environmental sufferings interpenetrate—“one complex crisis.”
Liberationist and feminist
ecologies stress that the poor and women disproportionately bear ecological
harms. Suffering here is
intersectional and relational, linking environmental breakdown with patterns of
domination and exclusion.
2. Biological and Cognitive
Sciences: Empathy, Interdependence, and Relational Biology
Neuroscience, like Rizzolatti and Iacoboni
suggest, suggests that we are wired for relational attunement: mirror neuron
systems correlate with empathic responses to others’ pain. While the scope of
mirror-neuron explanations is debated, evidence supports a neural basis for
perceiving and sharing others’ effects, making compassion not merely a moral
aspiration but an embodied capacity.
From Maturana and Varela’s
autopoiesis to Robert Rosen’s relational biology, organisms are best understood
as networks of relations rather than isolated substances. Disease, on this view, often
reflects breakdowns of systemic relations (cell–tissue–organ–environment).
Theologically, this resonates with ecclesial and ecological images of the Body
in which suffering is borne communally and addressed systemically.
Evolutionary biology links costly
caregiving (to offspring, kin, even non-kin) with group survival—suggesting
that altruistic response to suffering enhances fitness in social species. Theologically, such findings
can be read (non-reductively) as nature’s parable of agapeic relationality.
3. Interreligious Solidarities and
Comparative Relational Insight
Conversation partners (e.g., John
Cobb; Raimon Panikkar) explore the convergence of Buddhist karuṇā
(compassion) with Christian agapē, each reading suffering through dependent
origination (Pratitya Samutpada) or communion. The Bodhisattva vow (bearing
others’ suffering) and Christian discipleship (taking up the cross) both enact
relational responsibility for the afflicted.
Modern Vedāntins like Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan construe duḥkha as misrelation born of avidyā,
while Christian theology frames it as fractured communion—two grammars, one
relational intuition. Abhishiktananda (Henri Le
Saux) and Bede Griffiths pursue a contemplative synthesis: suffering clarifies
the ego’s entanglements and opens to communion in the Ground.
Jain ahiṃsā extends
relational responsibility to all sentient life. Sikh seva (self-giving
service) translates compassion into structured solidarity (free kitchens,
disaster relief), embodying communal responses to suffering.
4. Contemporary Christian
Relational Theologies
Following Jürgen Moltmann,
theologians articulate divine co-suffering and public hope: God’s trinitarian
life embraces creaturely pain without collapsing it. Dorothee Sölle contends that
unprotested suffering isolates, while “suffering-with” builds communities of
resistance and hope.
John Zizioulas maintains that the
person exists from and toward communion. Suffering thus signals
broken communion yet can deepen ecclesial participation: “If one member
suffers, all suffer together” (1 Cor 12:26) becomes ontology, not metaphor.
Karl Barth’s rejection of abstract
theodicies and insistence on God’s self-giving in Christ keep suffering
tethered to a covenantal relation rather than metaphysical speculation. Martin Buber’s I–Thou
continues to animate pastoral and clinical contexts: recognizing the sufferer
as Thou, not It, is the first act of healing.
Process and open-relational
theologies of Cobb, Pinnock, Rice – present God as responsive and affected—not
helpless, but relationally involved. The value (and risk) of
creaturely freedom entails that God works persuasively, luring creation toward
shared goods even amid pain.
5. Social Suffering, Trauma, and
Structural Sin
Medical anthropologists like Arthur
Kleinman emphasize that suffering is socially produced and distributed—war,
poverty, racism, casteism, and displacement embed pain in systems. Theologically, this is
structural sin, requiring structural conversion. Contemporary trauma studies by
Shelly Rambo redirect attention from explanation to accompaniment—Holy Saturday
as a theological space for survivors where breath and witness sustain fragile
continuity.
Churches, gurdwaras, temples, and sanghas function as relational
infrastructures—rituals, food-sharing, small groups, chaplaincy, and advocacy
translate compassion into durable practices that carry sufferers.
6. Emerging Directions
Eco-trauma & Multi-species
Justice: from coral bleaching to zoonoses, suffering is entangled across
species; theological ethics turns to restorative practices (rewilding,
watershed covenants).
Digital mediation, like AI,
Technics, and care, can either isolate or amplify relational care. Suffering
read through caste, race, and empire insists on historicized relational repair through
Postcolonial and Dalit Theologies. Ecclesial lament can reform communal affect by
preventing the privatization of pain and sustaining shared endurance. It can be
helped through Affect Theory & Liturgies of Lament!!
Summary
Across ecology, biology, and
interreligious conversation, contemporary voices converge on a single claim:
suffering is constitutively relational. It signals rupture in our bonds—with
God, neighbor, creatures, and our bodies—and invites repair through solidarity,
justice, and communion. Theology, when practiced relationally, resists
explanation at a distance and chooses presence, participation, and public hope.
CRITIQUE
This essay has a bird’s view of the
relational nature of suffering across biblical, philosophical, theological,
ecological, biological, and interreligious perspectives, demonstrating that
suffering is neither isolated nor purely individual. From the covenantal
dialogues of Scripture to the communal insights of the Church Fathers, the
pedagogical reflections of medieval theologians, and the dialogical and
existential emphases of modern and contemporary thinkers, a consistent theme emerges
that suffering is a relational event that calls for presence, solidarity, and
ethical engagement.
The essay’s strength lies in its
integrative approach. By juxtaposing Biblical, patristic, medieval, and modern
thought with ecological and biological insights, it illuminates the
multi-layered dimensions of suffering. The inclusion of thinkers as Martin
Buber, Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer, Moltmann, and process theologians highlights the
dynamic interplay between human and divine relationality. Contemporary
ecological, social, and interfaith perspectives further extend this vision,
underscoring that suffering is embedded not only in human interactions but
within cosmic, environmental, and systemic networks.
Nevertheless, certain limitations
are apparent. First, the essay’s breadth occasionally sacrifices depth in
individual treatments, especially regarding complex Indian philosophical
traditions and emerging postcolonial voices. Second, while relationality is
convincingly foregrounded, the essay could engage more critically with counterpositions,
such as theodicies that attempt to explain suffering in abstract or
metaphysical terms, to contrast them with relational approaches. Third,
empirical scientific insights, though referenced, could be further elaborated
to explore the interplay between biology, neuroscience, and theological
anthropology.
In appraisal, the essay succeeds as
a comprehensive, interdisciplinary exploration of suffering through a
relational lens, offering both intellectual depth and practical ethical
guidance. It challenges readers to reimagine suffering not as an isolated event
but as a space for communion, solidarity, and transformation—personally,
socially, and spiritually. Since this paper is intended only to present a
bird’s view of the Relational Nature of Suffering, it takes each theme
in depth in the later developmental papers. Future work will expand these
insights by more deeply integrating empirical, postcolonial, and interfaith
perspectives, thereby enriching the discourse on suffering and relationality in
a religious, global, pluralistic context.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica.
Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger, 1947.
Augustine, The City of God. Trans.
Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin, 2003.
Augustine. The City of God. Trans.
Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin, 2003.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics,
IV/1. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956.
Basil of Caesarea. On Social
Justice. Trans. C. Paul Schroeder. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2009.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and
Papers from Prison. Ed. Eberhard Bethge. New York: Touchstone, 1997.
Brueggemann, Walter. The Message of
the Psalms: A Theological Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.
Buber, Martin. I and Thou. Trans.
Walter Kaufmann. New York: Scribner, 1970.
Cobb, John B., Jr., and David Ray
Griffin. Process Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1976.
Cobb, John B., Jr., and David Ray
Griffin. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Louisville: Westminster
John Knox, 1976.
Francis. Laudato Si’. 2015.
Gebara, Ivone. Longing for Running
Water. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.
Gregory of Nyssa. On the Soul and
Resurrection. Trans. Catharine P. Roth. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 1993.
Gregory the Great. Moralia in Job.
Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1844.
Iacoboni, Marco. Mirroring People.
New York: FSG, 2008.
Johnson, Elizabeth A. Ask the
Beasts. London: Bloomsbury, 2014.
Julian of Norwich. Revelations of
Divine Love. Trans. Elizabeth Spearing. London: Penguin, 1998.
Kleinman, Arthur, Veena Das, and
Margaret Lock, eds. Social Suffering. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1997.
Luther, Martin. Heidelberg
Disputation (1518).
Luther, Martin. Heidelberg
Disputation (1518).
Maturana, Humberto, and Francisco
Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980.
McFague, Sallie. A New Climate for
Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.
McFague, Sallie. A New Climate for
Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified
God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified
God. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Spirit of
Life: A Universal Affirmation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Newsom, Carol A. The Book of Job: A
Contest of Moral Imaginations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Panikkar, Raimon. The
Intrareligious Dialogue. New York: Paulist Press, 1999.
Pinnock, Clark, et al. The Openness
of God. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1994.
Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. An
Idealist View of Life. London: Allen & Unwin, 1932.
Rambo, Shelly. Spirit and Trauma.
Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010.
Rambo, Shelly. Spirit and Trauma: A
Theology of Remaining. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2010.
Rizzolatti, Giacomo, and Corrado
Sinigaglia. Mirrors in the Brain. Oxford: OUP, 2008.
Rosen, Robert. Life Itself. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Wright, N. T. The Day the
Revolution Began: Reconsidering the Meaning of Jesus’s Crucifixion. New York:
HarperOne, 2016.
Zizioulas, John D. Being as
Communion. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.
Zizioulas, John D. Being as
Communion. Crestwood, NY: SVS Press, 1985.
------------****------------
Walter
Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 51–54
