I would buy that book in a second.
[+/-] Can I Get an Amen? |
[+/-] Heck No At All! |
I was talking to a friend the other night about some of my recent entries and I realized he had entirely the wrong impression of why I think about what I do. At least, he and I disagreed, and I realized that I hadn't made my position as clear as I thought I had. So this is to explain why I write about the dark side of God and such things.
This will sound pretentious, but I read something in Plato's Republic that's analogous to my situation. The character Glaucon challenges Socrates, the protagonist, with a fairly persuasive argument in favor of living unjustly. Glaucon (wonderful name) stresses that he does not agree with the argument he's presenting - he believes, or wants to believe, that justice is superior to injustice - but he has not yet heard an argument in favor of justice that is as persuasive as he would like it to be. For this reason, he presents Socrates with an argument against justice that is as strong as he can make it and challenges Socrates to overcome it, hoping, of course, that he can.
I hope (I'm not certain) it's clear to the reader that I don't have a vested interest in proving God to be unjust. Where would that get me? I really want God to be just, in fact I would do almost anything to continue to believe in God's justice, except ignoring or shrugging off evidence against it. I have long held the conviction that if I am to truly and resolutely believe in something, I must subject it to serious scrutiny. Not a mock-trial. Not a perfunctory, cursory scan of the evidence. I'm talking about honest, diligent examination.
This is why I sometimes write about the wrath of God and other things unbecoming of a devout Christian. Because I don't know anyone else who does, and I take my faith seriously enough to want to discover, to the best of my abilities, whether my beliefs are contradictory or flawed. I have no beef with those of you who find fault in my arguments (that's half the reason I blog) or the presentation thereof. But for those of you who think I'm an apostate, a God-mocker or a recreational doubter, hopefully this clears a few things up. If you still object to the questions I ask, I'm quite willing to discuss this further. And if you still object after that, no one's forcing you to read my blog.
I just remembered I wrote something similar to this a few months ago. I rather liked that post.
[+/-] The God of Wrath |
By now you've probably heard at least one fundamentalist group claim that the flood is God's judgment against New Orleans for Mardi Gras and other such wickedness. Various people have brought these claims to my attention, expressing their horror, disgust, disbelief and so forth, both at the idea of God destroying a city out of wrath and at those who have the heartlessness and gall to suggest it.
These claims of judgment immediately reminded me of a book of apologetics I browsed over the summer (Evidence that Demands a Verdict), specifically the chapter detailing the fulfillments of certain Biblical prophesies. These prophecies turned out to be almost exclusively about the violent destruction of wicked cities.
A quick scan of the prophetic books of the Old Testament reveals a remarkable fixation on judgment. One who reads these books might be forgiven for thinking that God spends most of his time pouring out wrath on immoral cities and nations. In a similar vein are the stories of the great flood in which God drowned all of mankind, the incineration of Sodom and Gomorrah, the ten plagues on Egypt, Joshua's genocidal conquest of the Promised Land, David's raiding parties (in which he left no woman or child alive), and the mass killing at the climax of Esther. If you read through the Bible it's hard not to notice God's habit of pouring out destruction on cities and nations as a whole (to say nothing of punishing children for their father's or even distant ancestor's sins). Mention this to most Christians and they'll tell you something about how God is just, or how it would be wrong not to punish evil people for their wrongdoing, or how actions have natural consequences...
Maybe you think the Egyptians (all of them, as a race) had it coming to them for enslaving the Israelites. Maybe you can explain why it was necessary or even compassionate for Jewish warriors to wipe out whole tribes, down to the last woman and child. Maybe you believe that we are "fallen" and God is holy, and this somehow gives him the right to wipe out "evil" cities. Maybe in your mind this is enough for Tyre, Sidon or Ashkelon. Is it enough for New Orleans?
Watch the News. See destruction. See grief. See the dead, the dying and the desolate. See the rich in safety and the poor in misery. See the statistics, and then see the people who make them up. See chaos. See despair. See the ruin and carnage created by a hurricane - an "act of God". Drink it in, feel it, and then tell me that a good and righteous God is punishing these people for their wickedness.
I don't believe you can. And I don't believe you could praise the God who destroyed Tyre, Sidon or Ashkelon, if you had been there. If you could see in the pages of your Bible what you see on the nightly news, if the genocide and destruction could be real to you, I think you would take a different view of Christianity and it's God. Your Bible stories are the stories of New Orleans, South-East Asia, September 11th, Somalia, Rwanda and the Holocaust, told by those who claim catastrophes as the judgment of an vengeful God. Your Bible is soaked with the blood of the dead and the doomed. You Bible is the chronicle of the conquests of the Lord of Hosts.
I cannot tell you if Katrina is the wrath of the Christian God. But I can tell you that He has orchestrated countless similar disasters. Do not forget this, Christian. Do not ignore it or excuse it or conceal it. You must deal with this fact if you believe your Bible: your God is a god who slaughters nations, destroys cities, and takes vengeance on children for their father's sins. Your God is a god of wrath.
Tell me, Christian, (because I carry this same burden) how do you deal with this knowledge?
11 comments:
Jacob
Thanks Patmos, but I'm don't think we're talking about the same thing. For God to destroy someone's life in order to get their attention is one thing (and maybe in some cases that's what Katrina was about - who knows?) but I'm talking about God completely destroying cities and nations in wrath. In such cases God is no longer interested in "revealing" himself to people, he's saying he's given them up to hell, and he's wants them there right now.
Anonymous
First of all, I admire your honesty in discussing this topic. The "wrath of God" is a topic that many Christians want to skirt around or ignore it, and call those who bring it up crazy fundamentalists, but it is plainly a teaching of the Bible (books of Joshua, Judges, much of Samuel and Kings, many minor prophets, Revelation, etc..) It is also clearly visible in the world around us; catastrophes happen, and God either causes them or refuses to stop them. In most cases, it's probably the latter...
Why does this happen? I don't pretend to know, but I can offer these suggestions (which you have probably also encountered and found- for you- to be insufficient.)
#1 is that pain and death happen to us all. We may live so comfortably here in Canada that we tone it out, but it's still real. We may be killed young in a disastr or die of old age in a rest home, but death comes to us all. Measured against eternity, the time or method of death seems less relevant. (BTW I realize that this sounds pretty harsh; I am not suggesting that the loss of loved ones isn't extremely painful or that I would want to die in a flood. I just want to point out that everyone dies at some point.
#2 is that we can not see what the net result of such a tragedy will be. The evil that results (death, suffering, loss of property) is plain and easy to see. The long-term good that might possibly result is not; unlike God, we have limited vison. It is at least theoretically possible that more total "good" (using a consequentialist approach to ethics- you may have learned about that in school) might result from a natural disaster than would without. Is that the case for Katrina? I don't pretend to know. At first glance it would seem no. But what does God see?
#3 I believe that God sometimes does just say "enough is enough" and pour down the wrath. Is it pleasant to think about? No. Am I comfortable with this? Not at all. It does seem to happen, however (Sodom and Gomorrah being the obvious example, as is Noah's flood.) Is New Orleans more sinful than other cities, more deserving of wrath? I don't think it is, although the widespread violence and rape following the destruction do show that some very evil deeds occur there. Why new Orleans and not another place? Is New Orleans actually under God's judgement? Once again, I don't know.
I guess that, unlike you Jacob, I trust the Bible to be pretty reliable, and thus I am left with no choice to believe in a God who is sometimes wrathful, even if I don't find the idea appealing.
Why does this happen? I don't pretend to know, but I can offer these suggestions (which you have probably also encountered and found- for you- to be insufficient.)
#1 is that pain and death happen to us all. We may live so comfortably here in Canada that we tone it out, but it's still real. We may be killed young in a disastr or die of old age in a rest home, but death comes to us all. Measured against eternity, the time or method of death seems less relevant. (BTW I realize that this sounds pretty harsh; I am not suggesting that the loss of loved ones isn't extremely painful or that I would want to die in a flood. I just want to point out that everyone dies at some point.
#2 is that we can not see what the net result of such a tragedy will be. The evil that results (death, suffering, loss of property) is plain and easy to see. The long-term good that might possibly result is not; unlike God, we have limited vison. It is at least theoretically possible that more total "good" (using a consequentialist approach to ethics- you may have learned about that in school) might result from a natural disaster than would without. Is that the case for Katrina? I don't pretend to know. At first glance it would seem no. But what does God see?
#3 I believe that God sometimes does just say "enough is enough" and pour down the wrath. Is it pleasant to think about? No. Am I comfortable with this? Not at all. It does seem to happen, however (Sodom and Gomorrah being the obvious example, as is Noah's flood.) Is New Orleans more sinful than other cities, more deserving of wrath? I don't think it is, although the widespread violence and rape following the destruction do show that some very evil deeds occur there. Why new Orleans and not another place? Is New Orleans actually under God's judgement? Once again, I don't know.
I guess that, unlike you Jacob, I trust the Bible to be pretty reliable, and thus I am left with no choice to believe in a God who is sometimes wrathful, even if I don't find the idea appealing.
Lucid Elusion
Hey, J;
My take on the whole thing (Yes, since school has re-convened, I think blogging will also re-convene)? Not much. No answers, really, excapt that I allow and expect God to do what He wants when He wants without needing to explain Himself. So what if what He does doesn't seem to match up to what we expect Him to be like in our puny conceptions of the all-powerful creator of that which is/was/will be? Do you really expect that He'll be predictable & follow every one of your expectations? I don't. I let Him be God; I follow His leading, even if that includes scary things—scary things like humbly following a God who can destroy whatever or whomever He wishes whenever without having to answer the question of "why?" Partially, this is me learning lessons of faith and lessons of fearing the Lord. There are no easy answers, and the only place you'll get even remotely close to an answer is to ask Him for one, though He may pull a Job on you and tell you to mind your own business...
£∙℮.
My take on the whole thing (Yes, since school has re-convened, I think blogging will also re-convene)? Not much. No answers, really, excapt that I allow and expect God to do what He wants when He wants without needing to explain Himself. So what if what He does doesn't seem to match up to what we expect Him to be like in our puny conceptions of the all-powerful creator of that which is/was/will be? Do you really expect that He'll be predictable & follow every one of your expectations? I don't. I let Him be God; I follow His leading, even if that includes scary things—scary things like humbly following a God who can destroy whatever or whomever He wishes whenever without having to answer the question of "why?" Partially, this is me learning lessons of faith and lessons of fearing the Lord. There are no easy answers, and the only place you'll get even remotely close to an answer is to ask Him for one, though He may pull a Job on you and tell you to mind your own business...
£∙℮.
Anonymous
Jacob, it's amazing how you give God the Characteristic of a man.
Jacob, I have the sense that you think that those who lived by the old convenant had it hard and we have it normal. Well, they had it normal; we have it pretty good. We live in the age of grace.
Slaughter is term used to describe mankind's actions. God is just. The best part is, we cannot expect to understand how or why. No matter how much theology, phylosophy, and tradition you study, I know we as a race cannot understand all the workings of God. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. Yet Paul states that we have the mind of Christ in 2Cor 2. We have a glimpse of God and His character, but only a glimpse. Don't worry Jacob, the day will come when you can stand before, beside, behind, or in Christ in heaven and come to an understanding. Later days.
Jacob, I have the sense that you think that those who lived by the old convenant had it hard and we have it normal. Well, they had it normal; we have it pretty good. We live in the age of grace.
Slaughter is term used to describe mankind's actions. God is just. The best part is, we cannot expect to understand how or why. No matter how much theology, phylosophy, and tradition you study, I know we as a race cannot understand all the workings of God. His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. Yet Paul states that we have the mind of Christ in 2Cor 2. We have a glimpse of God and His character, but only a glimpse. Don't worry Jacob, the day will come when you can stand before, beside, behind, or in Christ in heaven and come to an understanding. Later days.
Jacob
It's not enough to say "We've got it good" or "God is just". What I'm asking here is how can we possibly reconcile these Biblical demonstrations of "justice" with what we innately understand to be just? If our righteous anger is aroused by hate, genocide and mass destruction in modern times and perpetrated by humans, why do we ignore or accept these same atrocities in Biblical times and (allegedly) sanctioned by God?
It's easy to say God is smarter than us and one day we'll understand. It's easy to justify the aspects of our God that disgust us by appealing to the aspects that endear us. But if God's "justice" is not only different from but diametrically opposed to our sense of justice, how can we still call it justice? If the demonstration of God's "love" seems hateful to us, how can we call it love? I'm not content to ignore the claims in the Bible that appall me, and I cannot worship a God whose actions repulse the best parts of my character.
It's easy to say God is smarter than us and one day we'll understand. It's easy to justify the aspects of our God that disgust us by appealing to the aspects that endear us. But if God's "justice" is not only different from but diametrically opposed to our sense of justice, how can we still call it justice? If the demonstration of God's "love" seems hateful to us, how can we call it love? I'm not content to ignore the claims in the Bible that appall me, and I cannot worship a God whose actions repulse the best parts of my character.
Anonymous
I understand your concern, Jake. I agree with you that we have an innate sense of right and wrong, of justice and injustice, that is accurate or at least tends towards accuracy. The thing with drawing a parallel between the stories of God's wrath in the Old Testament and the tangible tragedy of Hurricane Katrina is that the stakes have completely changed. First of all, it is reductive and ignorant to paint the examples of so-called "divine retribution" with the same brush. The various episodes of God's wrath in the Bible are extremely complex and multifaceted. In spite of God's decision to destroy a city or displace a nation, he remains merciful, he does not leave these people without a way out -- it is never all or nothing.
Furthermore -- and I think that this is even more important -- to read the past from the perspective of the present is always necessarily misinformed. I would add that it may even be impossible for us to do otherwise; however, pretending that we -- who stand on the shoulders of several millenia of cultural shifting and evolution -- can understand the expectations and social reality of these ancient people (especially there conception of "justice," "nature," "goodness," "violence," "the divine" -- not in the abstract [I would agree that these concepts remain more or less constant in their theoretical manifestations] but in terms of their day-to-day actuality in the lives of ancient individuals) is just plain arrogant.
The stakes were different then. The God of Wrath that we see in the Old Testament was not viewed that way by the ancient people by whom he was worshipped. He was a god in the ancient mode of that word. God reveals himself to people as they are able to comprehend him. And he is always bigger than the limitations we put upon him. There was an expectation of "divine retribution" innate in the psyches of these ancient people. Also, things are different since Christ arrived on the scene. Some may assume that in terms of the grand scheme of things, Jesus was little more than a blip on the theological page. I believe that he changes everything. Tony Campolo's thoughts on the subject of Hurricane Katrina are very interesting. God, he argues, has always been a God of love. The message of God was always love, but the manner in which that message could be communicated has changed, and continues to change. And things are always so much more complicated than we pretend. (That is why, Jake, I would caution against the apparently accusatory tone that you adopt in the above post. I realize that you count yourself among those of us Christians who -- for some reason or other -- you believe to have a responsibility to explain and defend the ways of God. Nevertheless, the problem of theodicy has existed since the beginning and is not going to be solved in a mere blog entry, nor at the behest of feigned or real indignation).
For those individuals who actually believe that the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina is a modern-day "act of God," perhaps the important question that must be asked here is less "why would God let this happen?" and more "why would God have intervened in the first place?" The reduction in funding to support the Louisiana levees over the last several years, the abject poverty of those living in New Orleans, the mindboggling rape and violence that followed the Hurricane itself, the fact that the tropical storm that ultimately became Hurricane Katrina would never have turned into a Hurricane of Katrina's magnitude in the first place had it not been for the level of pollution and environmental genocide that has been committed by people over the last few decades, the reality of a government (and series of governments) who has had its priorities royally messed up for years and years... all of these "all too human" reasons stand in the way of being able to blame this one on God with any honesty or integrity. We did this. You did and I did.
A recent article in the NY Times considers the evolution of the concept of "theodicy" throughout the centuries and especially in light of this latest disaster. Very helpful in thinking through this event and coming to terms with our own responsibility.
Also, Ted Steinberg, a professor of history and law at Case Western Reserve University, wrote a very interesting article on the role we humans played in this disaster as well as another disaster that had very similar features, which took place in 1928.
In many ways, these sorts of catastrophes are karmic in nature -- faceless, without a deserving target, simply (and tragically) rain that falls on the righteous and the wicked: the natural (or unnatural) consequences of self-centered actions accumulated over many years. As Tony Campolo notes, our question should not be "why?" but "what is it that God wants me to do now?" There is seemingly irrevocable brokenness in New Orleans now: what can we do to bring healing?
Furthermore -- and I think that this is even more important -- to read the past from the perspective of the present is always necessarily misinformed. I would add that it may even be impossible for us to do otherwise; however, pretending that we -- who stand on the shoulders of several millenia of cultural shifting and evolution -- can understand the expectations and social reality of these ancient people (especially there conception of "justice," "nature," "goodness," "violence," "the divine" -- not in the abstract [I would agree that these concepts remain more or less constant in their theoretical manifestations] but in terms of their day-to-day actuality in the lives of ancient individuals) is just plain arrogant.
The stakes were different then. The God of Wrath that we see in the Old Testament was not viewed that way by the ancient people by whom he was worshipped. He was a god in the ancient mode of that word. God reveals himself to people as they are able to comprehend him. And he is always bigger than the limitations we put upon him. There was an expectation of "divine retribution" innate in the psyches of these ancient people. Also, things are different since Christ arrived on the scene. Some may assume that in terms of the grand scheme of things, Jesus was little more than a blip on the theological page. I believe that he changes everything. Tony Campolo's thoughts on the subject of Hurricane Katrina are very interesting. God, he argues, has always been a God of love. The message of God was always love, but the manner in which that message could be communicated has changed, and continues to change. And things are always so much more complicated than we pretend. (That is why, Jake, I would caution against the apparently accusatory tone that you adopt in the above post. I realize that you count yourself among those of us Christians who -- for some reason or other -- you believe to have a responsibility to explain and defend the ways of God. Nevertheless, the problem of theodicy has existed since the beginning and is not going to be solved in a mere blog entry, nor at the behest of feigned or real indignation).
For those individuals who actually believe that the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina is a modern-day "act of God," perhaps the important question that must be asked here is less "why would God let this happen?" and more "why would God have intervened in the first place?" The reduction in funding to support the Louisiana levees over the last several years, the abject poverty of those living in New Orleans, the mindboggling rape and violence that followed the Hurricane itself, the fact that the tropical storm that ultimately became Hurricane Katrina would never have turned into a Hurricane of Katrina's magnitude in the first place had it not been for the level of pollution and environmental genocide that has been committed by people over the last few decades, the reality of a government (and series of governments) who has had its priorities royally messed up for years and years... all of these "all too human" reasons stand in the way of being able to blame this one on God with any honesty or integrity. We did this. You did and I did.
A recent article in the NY Times considers the evolution of the concept of "theodicy" throughout the centuries and especially in light of this latest disaster. Very helpful in thinking through this event and coming to terms with our own responsibility.
Also, Ted Steinberg, a professor of history and law at Case Western Reserve University, wrote a very interesting article on the role we humans played in this disaster as well as another disaster that had very similar features, which took place in 1928.
In many ways, these sorts of catastrophes are karmic in nature -- faceless, without a deserving target, simply (and tragically) rain that falls on the righteous and the wicked: the natural (or unnatural) consequences of self-centered actions accumulated over many years. As Tony Campolo notes, our question should not be "why?" but "what is it that God wants me to do now?" There is seemingly irrevocable brokenness in New Orleans now: what can we do to bring healing?
Anonymous
I have two thoughts on this. They will be disorganized but please bear with. First I like to picture it as this: Think of a child who repeatedly did something bad. The child's parents told it and told it what was right, and yet the child continued to disobey. So finally the parents were forced to discipline the child (i.e. give it a spanking.) Now think in the Old Testament. Replace the child with humanity, and replace the parents with God. I find it makes sense, but that is a generalization. I have not studied the Old Testament nearly as much as you, Jacob, but this is what I feel God was doing. I don't believe God does this anymore. Then why does it happen?? Because God allows it to. You must remember that times then were very different from times now. Still the constant holds true that God allows suffering to take place because in the end it draws us closer to Him. Israel broke many covenants to God, which led to suffering, which brought Israel back to God. The same holds true today. God uses suffering as a wakeup call. I will touch on this part at the end of my comment.
Second. So God punished the Israelites in the Old Testament when they disobeyed. But what about all the lands and cities that were 'smited' by God's 'wrath?' This is another thought of mine, which I by no means know if it holds to be true because I have not studied the Old Testament in great depth. From what I know, which is common knowledge to me, Israel was God's chosen people. They were to be the light of the world. Israel was God's only people, until He found the right time to come to Earth and make a new covenant for the rest of the world. And in the time of the Old Testament, God struggled with Israel. My point, if you haven't gotten it already, is that God's wrath came down upon these other peoples because they weren't His chosen ones at the time. They were wicked people who were oppressing God’s people, or dragging them to damnation. And I believe, though I could very well be mistaken, that all these people were given opportunities to repent, yet never did. Think of it through the eyes of the Israelites. Does this not look like the same loving, trusting God that we all know now through His incarnation on earth in Jesus Christ? A God who saves his people from wickedness and damnation. A God who Shepard’s his people out of suffering into new life. And a God who forgives his people, even when they turn their backs repeatedly to Him. I believe it does. I thank you Jacob for bringing this issue to my attention and I hope I can study more in-depth on it.
Now before I finish this up, I’d like to hit on what I was saying earlier. God uses suffering, even today, to bring us back to Him. I didn’t say God creates suffering, but God does use it. If you want a more in-depth look at this, read Patmos’ comment. It really explains it well. Finally, I’d like to explain why I personally don’t believe God causes hurricane Katrina. The answer is very simple. God loves us all. He showed us that love Himself through Jesus Christ, and through Jesus He made a new covenant with the whole world, one that extended to everyone, even the worst of sinners. Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans is no different than a Tornado ripping through the Midwest or an earthquake destroying California. Just because New Orleans is viewed as a ‘city full of sin’ does not mean that God didn’t love each and every person in that city.
Comments and feelings on this? And by no means take this as the truth. It is just an attempt to answer a very difficult question.
Second. So God punished the Israelites in the Old Testament when they disobeyed. But what about all the lands and cities that were 'smited' by God's 'wrath?' This is another thought of mine, which I by no means know if it holds to be true because I have not studied the Old Testament in great depth. From what I know, which is common knowledge to me, Israel was God's chosen people. They were to be the light of the world. Israel was God's only people, until He found the right time to come to Earth and make a new covenant for the rest of the world. And in the time of the Old Testament, God struggled with Israel. My point, if you haven't gotten it already, is that God's wrath came down upon these other peoples because they weren't His chosen ones at the time. They were wicked people who were oppressing God’s people, or dragging them to damnation. And I believe, though I could very well be mistaken, that all these people were given opportunities to repent, yet never did. Think of it through the eyes of the Israelites. Does this not look like the same loving, trusting God that we all know now through His incarnation on earth in Jesus Christ? A God who saves his people from wickedness and damnation. A God who Shepard’s his people out of suffering into new life. And a God who forgives his people, even when they turn their backs repeatedly to Him. I believe it does. I thank you Jacob for bringing this issue to my attention and I hope I can study more in-depth on it.
Now before I finish this up, I’d like to hit on what I was saying earlier. God uses suffering, even today, to bring us back to Him. I didn’t say God creates suffering, but God does use it. If you want a more in-depth look at this, read Patmos’ comment. It really explains it well. Finally, I’d like to explain why I personally don’t believe God causes hurricane Katrina. The answer is very simple. God loves us all. He showed us that love Himself through Jesus Christ, and through Jesus He made a new covenant with the whole world, one that extended to everyone, even the worst of sinners. Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans is no different than a Tornado ripping through the Midwest or an earthquake destroying California. Just because New Orleans is viewed as a ‘city full of sin’ does not mean that God didn’t love each and every person in that city.
Comments and feelings on this? And by no means take this as the truth. It is just an attempt to answer a very difficult question.
Jacob
Jeff: By no means did I mean to suggest that Katrina is the judgement of God against America, or that God is somehow to blame for this destruction, or that humanity is free from responsibility for the hurricane. My focus is on various disasters recorded and prophesied in the Bible, were we know that God is personally responsible, and that he is motivated by his anger against wickedness. The problem, I find, with talking about Biblical disasters and genocides is that we're so far removed that we treat these accounts as dry, dated religious stories. My only objective in comparing Katrina to Biblical events is to drive home that these Bible stories are about real people who were wiped out in similar ways, except that in their cases we are told that God was responsible. My point is that the revulsion we feel at the idea of God destroying New Orleans with a hurricane seems conspicuously absent regarding Biblical stories of judgement, and I don't understand why. I hope that came through in my post.
You seem to be saying that I'm pretending to understand the way ancient people thought. I hope I haven't given that impression.
I understand that these people had a different, probably darker view of God (and gods in general) than we do. I also believe that God is limited or limits himself to some extent in order to fit our expectations, or as you say, "God reveals himself to people as they are able to comprehend him". But surely your not suggesting that he would go so far as to pour out judgement and wrath on sinful people, to judge cities and nations as a whole, or to hold father's sins against their sons merely because that was what people in that time expected.
I do believe that we should be able to explain the ways of God to a certain extent. I recognize that he is much smarter etc. than I am and I have no interest in defining his every attribute or comprehending his every action, but surely we can explain enough to develop a rough understanding of his character.
The issue I'm trying to raise is not that God did something I don't think he should have and I'm mad about it. (Though as you know, I am prone to struggles of this nature.) The issue is that my (possibly mistaken) understanding of the Bible presents a God whose ideas of justice are fundamentally opposed to mine. I don't know what to do about this except to reject the Biblical portrayals of God that are incompatable with my innate sense of justice. In my head this post is an invitation to suggest alternate approaches. If that got lost in all the anger and accusation I apologize.
You seem to be saying that I'm pretending to understand the way ancient people thought. I hope I haven't given that impression.
I understand that these people had a different, probably darker view of God (and gods in general) than we do. I also believe that God is limited or limits himself to some extent in order to fit our expectations, or as you say, "God reveals himself to people as they are able to comprehend him". But surely your not suggesting that he would go so far as to pour out judgement and wrath on sinful people, to judge cities and nations as a whole, or to hold father's sins against their sons merely because that was what people in that time expected.
I do believe that we should be able to explain the ways of God to a certain extent. I recognize that he is much smarter etc. than I am and I have no interest in defining his every attribute or comprehending his every action, but surely we can explain enough to develop a rough understanding of his character.
The issue I'm trying to raise is not that God did something I don't think he should have and I'm mad about it. (Though as you know, I am prone to struggles of this nature.) The issue is that my (possibly mistaken) understanding of the Bible presents a God whose ideas of justice are fundamentally opposed to mine. I don't know what to do about this except to reject the Biblical portrayals of God that are incompatable with my innate sense of justice. In my head this post is an invitation to suggest alternate approaches. If that got lost in all the anger and accusation I apologize.
Jacob
Andrew: I agree with your first explanation of suffering, to a certain extent. The idea that God chastens his people through suffering (which is stated quite explicitly) is sufficient in my mind to explain some unfortunate occurences, such as God smiting the Israelites left and right during the Exodus. But as you said, it doesn't explain instances in which God says "I am going to wipe these people out because of their wickedness". You can't (under normal circumstances) get water from a stone, nor obedience from a dead man.
Your second point is an interesting one. From a purely utilitarian perspective, it's true that the plight of the Godless, doomed nations around Israel effectively contrast God's love for his chosen ones. (This is the logic of Malachi 1:2-5: "You don't believe that I love you? Compare yourselves to the ones I hate!") It's true that in many cases the condemned nations were warned to repent (and in the case of Jonah and Nineveh they did). From where I stand these prophecies of doom hardly seem like sufficient warning, but of course I'm not in a position to make that judgement. I guess my hang up is that it's just so damned unfair that God arbitrarily - no, worse than that: on the basis of heritage - selected some people with which to be endlessly patient, and others to be quickly and brutally desroyed. Can it really be true that "God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction [in order] to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy"? (Romans 9:22-23) A (flawed) analogy would be a judge who extends mercy to me because I'm white, but punnishes people of other races who commit the same crimes. Should I praise this judge for his kindness?
It just dawned on me that the Old Testament God is a racist. Damn.
Anyway Andrew, thanks for the comments. I'm going to go ponder.
Your second point is an interesting one. From a purely utilitarian perspective, it's true that the plight of the Godless, doomed nations around Israel effectively contrast God's love for his chosen ones. (This is the logic of Malachi 1:2-5: "You don't believe that I love you? Compare yourselves to the ones I hate!") It's true that in many cases the condemned nations were warned to repent (and in the case of Jonah and Nineveh they did). From where I stand these prophecies of doom hardly seem like sufficient warning, but of course I'm not in a position to make that judgement. I guess my hang up is that it's just so damned unfair that God arbitrarily - no, worse than that: on the basis of heritage - selected some people with which to be endlessly patient, and others to be quickly and brutally desroyed. Can it really be true that "God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction [in order] to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy"? (Romans 9:22-23) A (flawed) analogy would be a judge who extends mercy to me because I'm white, but punnishes people of other races who commit the same crimes. Should I praise this judge for his kindness?
It just dawned on me that the Old Testament God is a racist. Damn.
Anyway Andrew, thanks for the comments. I'm going to go ponder.
Anonymous
Hi,
I don't know if you've ever read C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters but in there is a fabulous bit about large scale calamity and it’s probably the best explanation yet I have come across for suffering.
In case you aren’t familiar with the book, it’s just a collection of letters from an experienced demon to a rookie demon, telling him what to do to pull people away from Christ (whom he refers to as the “Enemy”). In this case, Screwtape (the experienced) actually warns Wormword (the rookie) about wars and natural disasters. He notices Wormword getting excited that a war is breaking out, that many will die, and he tells him that these calamities are not as good for the Underworld as they might first seem. I will quote some of it:
“My dear Wormwood,
When I told you not to fill your letters with rubbish about the war, I meant, of course, that I did not want to have your rather infantile rhapsodies about the death of men and the destruction of cities…At the present moment, as the full impact of the war draws nearer and his worldly hopes take a proportionately lower place in his mind, full of his defense work, full of [endearment toward his significant other], forced to attend to his neighbors more than he has ever done before and liking it more than he expected…and daily increasing in conscious dependence on the Enemy, he will almost certainly be lost to us if he is killed tonight…If he dies now, you lose him. If he survives the war, there is always hope…”
And some more:
“…How valuable time is to us may be gauged by the fact that the Enemy allows us so little of it. The majority of the human race dies in infancy; of the survivors, a good many die in youth. It is obvious that to Him human birth is important chiefly as the qualification for human death, and death solely as the gate to that other kind of life…
“…We have made men proud of most vices (how much they can drink, how many sexual partners they have had), but not of cowardice. Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so, the Enemy permits a war or an earthquake or some other calamity, and at once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important…that all our work is undone…The danger of inducing cowardice in [people] is that we produce real self-knowledge and self-loathing, with consequent repentance and humility. And in fact, in the last war, thousands of humans, by discovering their own cowardice discovered the whole moral world for the first time….[Such a] war, (hurricane), or revolution…awakes thousands of men from moral stupor.”
This is so fascinating to me and it sheds a new light not only on the events currently taking place around us but also on the so-called God of Wrath found in the Old Testament. If this is true (that at times of great need more people turn from their idle, complacent business to examine themselves and seek God’s help/grace/mercy/guidance) and it certainly seems to be true, then allowing a city to be destroyed or a war to break out could actually be God’s mercy instead of God’s wrath.
Peace,
Amanda
I don't know if you've ever read C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters but in there is a fabulous bit about large scale calamity and it’s probably the best explanation yet I have come across for suffering.
In case you aren’t familiar with the book, it’s just a collection of letters from an experienced demon to a rookie demon, telling him what to do to pull people away from Christ (whom he refers to as the “Enemy”). In this case, Screwtape (the experienced) actually warns Wormword (the rookie) about wars and natural disasters. He notices Wormword getting excited that a war is breaking out, that many will die, and he tells him that these calamities are not as good for the Underworld as they might first seem. I will quote some of it:
“My dear Wormwood,
When I told you not to fill your letters with rubbish about the war, I meant, of course, that I did not want to have your rather infantile rhapsodies about the death of men and the destruction of cities…At the present moment, as the full impact of the war draws nearer and his worldly hopes take a proportionately lower place in his mind, full of his defense work, full of [endearment toward his significant other], forced to attend to his neighbors more than he has ever done before and liking it more than he expected…and daily increasing in conscious dependence on the Enemy, he will almost certainly be lost to us if he is killed tonight…If he dies now, you lose him. If he survives the war, there is always hope…”
And some more:
“…How valuable time is to us may be gauged by the fact that the Enemy allows us so little of it. The majority of the human race dies in infancy; of the survivors, a good many die in youth. It is obvious that to Him human birth is important chiefly as the qualification for human death, and death solely as the gate to that other kind of life…
“…We have made men proud of most vices (how much they can drink, how many sexual partners they have had), but not of cowardice. Whenever we have almost succeeded in doing so, the Enemy permits a war or an earthquake or some other calamity, and at once courage becomes so obviously lovely and important…that all our work is undone…The danger of inducing cowardice in [people] is that we produce real self-knowledge and self-loathing, with consequent repentance and humility. And in fact, in the last war, thousands of humans, by discovering their own cowardice discovered the whole moral world for the first time….[Such a] war, (hurricane), or revolution…awakes thousands of men from moral stupor.”
This is so fascinating to me and it sheds a new light not only on the events currently taking place around us but also on the so-called God of Wrath found in the Old Testament. If this is true (that at times of great need more people turn from their idle, complacent business to examine themselves and seek God’s help/grace/mercy/guidance) and it certainly seems to be true, then allowing a city to be destroyed or a war to break out could actually be God’s mercy instead of God’s wrath.
Peace,
Amanda
Jacob
I have read the Screwtape Letters. Good book. However I'm not sure to what extent I buy the suffering-points-to-God arguement, considering that at least as many people seem to be turned away from God as a result of tragedy. Some would argue that those who "fall away" in adversity never had real faith to begin with, but consider Job: he was the most Godly man on earth, and suffering still pushed his faith to the breaking point. So yes, tragedy can have a positive affect on people's lives if it refocuses them on the things that matter, but it can also destroy people just as effectively.
[+/-] Jacob Returns |
Hello, I'm back. I've been more or less computerless for the past few weeks. I've had an awesome time doing entirely non-computer related things, but I'm glad to be blogging again.
So I ended up counseling for the final week of the summer, which was totally unexpected. Ever since the camp first contacted me in January, we've agreed that I shouldn't counsel, because we disagreed on some fairly foundational points of doctrine (inerrancy of scripture, damnation for all non-Christians, etc.). But they were in desperate need of another counselor for the final week, and I decided that maybe I could do it after all. To my surprise, they agreed. I'm not very good at guessing God's will, but it seemed like an interesting coincidence to me. If the issue had come up three days earlier, I'm sure I would have never considered asking to counsel. What changed? I'd been thinking the previous few days about what I believe, and this is roughly what I'd come up with:
As a child, I defined my spirituality by my beliefs. A Christian for me was someone who held all of the correct views on matters of theology, ethics, church practice and so on. A couple years ago when my beliefs began to change, it seemed like a terribly significant occurrence. Like anyone whose faith centers on his creed, I was shaken to find that it is possible for honest beliefs to change. Of course, my changes of perspective presented a huge problem when I wanted to work with various organizations whose statements of faith clashed with mine. I thought it was impossible for people to work toward a common goal when they differ in their beliefs about such important issues as women's roles, the importance of baptism, or the chronology of the end times. Just recently I've started to think that maybe all of these issues are secondary. So here's my statement of faith:
I believe in love, first and foremost. By 'love' I mean a change of focus from ourselves to others, selflessness, others-centeredness, compassion, servanthood, self-sacrifice. I believe in the ability of love to transform both the giver and the receiver. I believe that love is the catalyst for joy, for righteous living, and for every good thing. I believe love is the beginning of everything, the reason for everything, the goal of everything. I believe that the purpose behind the universe, the existence of mankind, all of history and every act of God is the creation of a community of love.
I am one who pursues love, first. I am a Christian second, and I am a Christian because what Christianity says about love makes sense to me. I attach little value to Christian beliefs or practices, except to the extent that they nurture or demonstrate love.
I believe that I can work with people whose beliefs and practices differ from my own so long as the goal of their ministry is love, and I believe (though I respect those who disagree) that my identity as a Christian and as one who pursues love qualifies me to work with other Christians.
I wrote recently that I've been thinking of finding a new group of people with which to serve and fellowship - people who believe stuff more similar to what I believe. Now I'm thinking that maybe I can still be a part of the more conservative group I've grown up in, because maybe our unity of focus is more important than our differences of doctrine. We'll see how it all plays out.
I start school in twelve hours. It's good to be back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Post a Comment
5 comments:
The first kind of faith is good and necessary (we couldn't do much if we didn't have faith in gravity, in certain people, etc.) and even if your faith is placed in a different object than mine, I recognize that it likely has a positive effect on you personally and on those you come in contact with.
The second kind of faith makes the leap from "I believe in this" (whatever "this" may be, and on whatever grounds) to "this is TRUE". Of course for most beliefs, including religious ones, this is a rather silly thing to believe. But more importantly, it's a very dangerous thing to believe. If you're absolutely convinced that you're right, you'll tend to believe that those around you must be converted to your point of view at all cost, that those who disagree are evil and depraved, and even that you are in some kind of war against the ignorant apostates that who don't share your beliefs.
The overwhelming majority of the religion-based problems in history - from the Crusades to televangelists - could have been prevented if people were able to admit that they might be wrong.
It's a bit of a stretch from "You don't seem to have a personal relationship with God" to "maybe you're a Hindu", but you can call me whatever you wish. Incidentally, I seem to recall that there are also polytheistic and monistic branches of Hinduism, just as there are numerous sub-divisions (and breeds) of Christianity.
Post a Comment