Posts
Trying out new churches has always been hard for me. "Will the people accept me?" "Will I get anything out of the sermon?" "Will I have a worthwhile experience?" "What type of people will be there?"
Well, this morning, I tried out a new church. Over the past six months, I've been attending the Latin mass for a conservative Catholic church. It is so conservative that the people there carry around copies of The Wanderer, a conservative Catholic newspaper. I used to read a series of books called Opposing Viewpoints, which presented both sides of various issues. They often drew from The Wanderer for the conservative side.
I have liked this church because the priest refers to Latin, Greek, philosophy, and the church fathers. I've gotten a lot of food for my mind there, and I've interacted with the priest's sermons on James' Thoughts and Musings.
But the church has been a disappointment to me for the past few weeks. The priest who ordinarily preaches there has been gone, and so I've had to hear other speakers. And their sermons are pretty lame, to say the least. Some of them have said straight out that there's not even a need for their homily, but that's part of the service, and so they had might as well say something. I walked out of those services empty.
There is another church that I've passed a few times in my walks. It's close to me, but it's kind of in the middle of nowhere, so I wasn't sure what type of church it was. I knew it was Protestant, but I didn't know if I'd get anything meaty out of it, or just the usual evangelical cliches. You can never tell with these backwoods sorts of churches. But I decided to give it a try.
I usually feel rather isolated in Protestant settings. When I walk into my Catholic church, the people there are saying "Hail Mary"s before the service, and so I use that time for my own personal prayers. In Protestant settings, however, people socialize before the service. I'm sitting there thinking "Come on, when's this service going to start?" At the Protestant church that I attended this morning, people came up to me and shook my hand, but we didn't get into any conversations.
But to its credit, the pastor came up to me and shook my hand. And that doesn't always happen. I've been to churches in which the pastor looks at me as if I'm a creature from outer space. At this church, I got that look from some of the congregants, but there were friendly people as well.
At the beginning of the service, the pastor got up and said that nothing turned out as he expected. The overhead projector was not working, and other things were not going so well. But he gave the service over to God and expected God to do wonderful things. I admired his faith and anticipation, probably because I've often heard "Expect good things" from one of my favorite preachers, Joel Osteen.
We started the praise and worship, and I had a hard time getting into that. I've not sung praise songs for a long time. One of the songs was "Nothing but the blood of Jesus," and I had a hard time singing it, mainly because I have struggled with blood atonement on this blog. At first, I wrestled with my cold reaction to the song, but then I asked myself why I felt so cold. After that, I felt more at peace.
The kids went up to sing, and I liked their song. It had a soft tune, and it was about wanting to fall in love with God. That's how I feel. I want to love God. At this other meeting I went to on Saturday, a person said about religion, "I just don't feel it. I don't know what everyone is getting so excited about." I could identify with him because I have experienced those dry times myself. At this moment, I find things in the Bible that interest me, but something is missing. I want to fall in love with God. And, yet, I don't just want to accept a dogma and assume that it is all there is to know. That would be boring! That's what I like about looking at all sorts of approaches to the Bible--not only Christian, but also Jewish and historical-critical. I have a desire to learn new things rather than seeing the evangelical approach as the end-all-be-all. But I also want to fall in love with God.
As the service continued, I did something that I was often afraid to do in the past: I filled out my name, address, and phone number on an attendance sheet. Normally, I'm afraid to do this. I fear that a bunch of militant evangelicals will come to my apartment and try to shove their religion down my throat. But these people weren't imposing themselves on me, partly to my joy, partly to my sadness (because of my feelings of isolation). But this woman sitting beside me gave me a Bible so I could write down my information, and that was really nice of her.
Eventually, we got to the sermon. I could tell that the church was evangelical, since it emphasized blood atonement (Anselm style) and the need to witness. The preacher was extolling the Passion of the Christ, and he said that the Jews only gave people thirty-nine lashes because forty could kill someone. I didn't exactly agree with that. I mean, why couldn't thirty-nine lashes kill someone? But the preacher told a story that I had already heard about the actor who played Jesus, Jim Caviezel, only, this time, the story made an impact on me. During the filming, Jim Caviezel actually got struck with one of those torture elements, and he went into convulsions as a result. The preacher told us that Jesus received lashes from those sorts of devices two millennia ago, and he submitted to that pain for us. I rarely think about Christ sufferings on my behalf, probably because it's not often put to me that concretely.
The preacher then said that there are thirty-nine root causes of disease, and Christ received thirty-nine lashes, one lash for each sickness. For the preacher, Christ died not only for our spiritual healing, but for our physical healing as well. He then went to the audience and picked up a baby who had been healed of Down's Syndrome. The baby had an extra chromosome when he was in the womb, and then it was gone. The doctor didn't know how it happened.
I like hearing those kinds of experiences. I have been so removed from the evangelical community for so long, that I haven't heard too many stories about God's activity in people's lives. And that has worried me. I've feared that those experiences would become a distant memory for me, and that Christianity would then become so theoretical in my mind that I would ultimately reject it.
I do participate in an evangelical online prayer board. Sometimes I read of healings, and sometimes I do not. But it's been a while since I heard something like the healing mentioned in that church.
I have no problem with believing that Jesus heals today. I don't think that he always does, and he has his reasons for that. But I admire people coming to God with faith and expectation. The Bible says that God rewards that. That is not to say that those who continue on with their diseases or die do so because of a lack of faith. There is a certain divine experience that can occur when a mother raises a child with Down's Syndrome, for example. Such children are so unconditionally loving, and parents can learn a lot about the love of God by raising them. But God is also good when he shows us his compassion and his power through physical healing. The mother of that child was a single mother who came to church one day for the first time, not knowing what to do. Well, I'm sure that she will keep coming back after that miracle. She has tasted and seen that the Lord is good.
The preacher talked about how we can determine whether a thought is from God or Satan. He referred to Mark 16:7 in which Jesus commands the women to go tell the disciples and Peter of his resurrection. A few days before, Peter had cursed and ranted, claiming that he did not know Christ. But Jesus' goal was not to shove that in Peter's face. He wanted Peter to have a new beginning.
The preacher said that God does not give us a spirit of fear, but one of power, love, and a sound mind (II Timothy 1:7). So we can rest assured that thoroughly negative thoughts are not from God. I've often heard Joel Osteen say the same thing, but I liked the way that this particular preacher tied that concept to Scripture.
The preacher offered other insights: about how Peter gave himself away as a follower of Jesus because he talked like him, and we become like Jesus the more we hang around him; about how God offers us a supernatural change, so that we can walk out of church different from what we were before. That appealed to me. He also mentioned God not throwing in our faces that we may have cursed the day before. Well, I had cussed the day before. And the preacher said that God can use us: we don't have to be good-looking, or thin, or have a sparkling personality for God to do so. Most of the people in that church were attractive, even the ones who were overweight. But I liked the preacher making that point.
Afterwards, some music was playing, and a few of the people were speaking in tongues. And, believe it or not, one of them offered an interpretation of what she was saying: that God loves us and wants to heal us. I used to be freaked out by tongues, but I'm not so much anymore. I see it as a display of God's presence within the church service. I don't like the way some charismatics act as if they're more spiritual than those who do not speak in tongues (like me), but I did not detect that sort of spirit in this church. The message, after all, was that God loves us.
After the service, I asked the woman sitting next to me about the mid-week service and the Sunday school. For some reason, I felt hungry for more, and I don't entirely know why. These people may not have taken Hebrew or Greek. They probably read the entire Bible in light of their evangelical beliefs, without a regard for biblical diversity or other interpretations. But I feel that they can offer me something that I don't presently have. Maybe they can give me some practical insights into the Scriptures.
And so I went for the exit and shook a few hands. As I went out the door, one of the women who gave me that "he's a creature from outer space look" said "Come back, James." I said "Thanks," then I said her name, a social skill that I am practicing. And I may very well go back. I'll have to see.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Rejoice in God's Wrath
Felix offered an interesting response to my post, Yancey, Kushner, and Prayer. I was complaining about the existence of evil and life's unfairness (as usual), and Felix replied as follows:
"That is why I stubbornly believe in an 'Apocalypto' ---which means an end of an era of this age. God at some time in human history (which you and I may or may not see in the flesh) will balance the books. It is His nature. For anyone to coldly and stoicly argue the opposite does an injustice to the 'justice and fairness' of God. Plus having a belief in God balancing the books keeps me sane, though others seem to enjoy being afraid of the concept."
I agree with Felix overall. The problem of evil does pose a significant challenge to Christianity, but (unlike atheism) Christianity at least offers the hope that God will bring evil to an end.
And that is why there are people in the Bible who actually rejoice in God's wrath. Isaiah 14:5-7 says about the fall of Babylon:
"The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers, that struck down the peoples in wrath with unceasing blows, that ruled the nations in anger with unrelenting persecution. The whole earth is at rest and quiet; they break forth into singing."
Similarly, the final verse of Nahum says concerning the destruction of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria:
"There is no assuaging your hurt, your wound is mortal. All who hear the news about you clap their hands over you. For who has ever escaped your endless cruelty?"
As these passages make clear, Assyria and Babylon wreaked destruction and terror on a lot of nations. So it is no surprise that these nations are happy about their oppressors' downfall. Not only do they have a sense of satisfaction that justice has been done and that God cares about their pain, but they also get a respite from oppression. What victim wouldn't be happy about this? It's like the defeat of the Empire in Return of the Jedi, or (more realistically) the deaths of Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
But here is my problem with the whole wrath issue, and here is why some may be afraid of the concept: For evangelicals, anyone without Jesus is going to hell. And this does not only apply to Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. It applies to your nice Jewish or Buddhist neighbor, or that happy-go-lucky secularist you know who has problems with religion and church. Some of them are really good people who help others. And many are not particularly good or bad--they're just regular people, like me. I have a hard time rejoicing in God's wrath against them.
I often feel that, when evangelicals defend hell, they appeal to the worst examples of human wickedness. In Christian scholar N.T. Wright's defense of the doctrine, for example, he refers to people who sell young girls as sex slaves. For N.T. Wright and other Christians, such activity cries out for justice.
But not everyone going to hell in evangelical doctrine is that bad.
At the same time, evangelicals have a point. If they are wrong, then there is a question that confronts us: How good do you have to be to go to heaven? And how bad do you have to be to go to hell? At least for evangelicals, one has to be perfect to go to heaven, period, and, since no one can reach perfection, we all need Christ as our personal Savior. Such a binary system seems less fuzzy than other systems.
"That is why I stubbornly believe in an 'Apocalypto' ---which means an end of an era of this age. God at some time in human history (which you and I may or may not see in the flesh) will balance the books. It is His nature. For anyone to coldly and stoicly argue the opposite does an injustice to the 'justice and fairness' of God. Plus having a belief in God balancing the books keeps me sane, though others seem to enjoy being afraid of the concept."
I agree with Felix overall. The problem of evil does pose a significant challenge to Christianity, but (unlike atheism) Christianity at least offers the hope that God will bring evil to an end.
And that is why there are people in the Bible who actually rejoice in God's wrath. Isaiah 14:5-7 says about the fall of Babylon:
"The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers, that struck down the peoples in wrath with unceasing blows, that ruled the nations in anger with unrelenting persecution. The whole earth is at rest and quiet; they break forth into singing."
Similarly, the final verse of Nahum says concerning the destruction of Nineveh, the capital of Assyria:
"There is no assuaging your hurt, your wound is mortal. All who hear the news about you clap their hands over you. For who has ever escaped your endless cruelty?"
As these passages make clear, Assyria and Babylon wreaked destruction and terror on a lot of nations. So it is no surprise that these nations are happy about their oppressors' downfall. Not only do they have a sense of satisfaction that justice has been done and that God cares about their pain, but they also get a respite from oppression. What victim wouldn't be happy about this? It's like the defeat of the Empire in Return of the Jedi, or (more realistically) the deaths of Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
But here is my problem with the whole wrath issue, and here is why some may be afraid of the concept: For evangelicals, anyone without Jesus is going to hell. And this does not only apply to Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein. It applies to your nice Jewish or Buddhist neighbor, or that happy-go-lucky secularist you know who has problems with religion and church. Some of them are really good people who help others. And many are not particularly good or bad--they're just regular people, like me. I have a hard time rejoicing in God's wrath against them.
I often feel that, when evangelicals defend hell, they appeal to the worst examples of human wickedness. In Christian scholar N.T. Wright's defense of the doctrine, for example, he refers to people who sell young girls as sex slaves. For N.T. Wright and other Christians, such activity cries out for justice.
But not everyone going to hell in evangelical doctrine is that bad.
At the same time, evangelicals have a point. If they are wrong, then there is a question that confronts us: How good do you have to be to go to heaven? And how bad do you have to be to go to hell? At least for evangelicals, one has to be perfect to go to heaven, period, and, since no one can reach perfection, we all need Christ as our personal Savior. Such a binary system seems less fuzzy than other systems.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Matthew 1:21: Jesus Saves!
I'm in the early chapters of Matthew for my daily quiet time, but I don't want to give you Christmas posts during the Easter season. And so I'll write a post today that is appropriate for Good Friday.
Actually, this post has been on my mind for the past month or so, before Good Friday even entered my radar screen. When I was reading Zechariah and Malachi, I was going to comment on the tendency of the Israelites to fall continually into sin, even after the exile. Then, I got to Matthew 1, and my study of the prophets gave me thoughts about Matthew 1:21 and Jesus' role as Savior. And so I've finally gotten to this post, and it comes at the right time!
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Matthew 1:21, an angel tells Joseph, "[Mary] will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (NRSV).
What could this have meant to Joseph when he first heard it? The Jewish religion already had means of atonement: people repented to receive forgiveness, and they offered sin offerings for unintentional sins. Every Day of Atonement, the high priest would supervise a ceremony that released the sins of Israel into the wilderness, giving the nation a fresh start. Why would Jesus need to save his people from their sins, when Israel already had ways to get God's forgiveness?
Often, Christian sermons and Jesus movies (including the controversial Last Temptation of Christ) present the following scenario: the Jews were looking for a political Messiah who would deliver them from Roman oppression, but God instead gave them Jesus, who was more interested in their spiritual salvation than their liberation from Rome. So was Joseph's reaction to the angel, "He'll deliver us from our sin? Is that all? I'm already a pretty decent guy. I do an honest day's work and pay my bills. What I don't like are these oppressive rulers! What are you going to do about that?"
Actually, I think that the angel's message would have resonated with Joseph, if not the entire nation of Israel. Why? Because sin was continually tripping them up, dragging them down, and holding them back.
This is evident in the Old Testament story of Israel. The Israelites sinned through their idolatry, oppression of the weak, dishonesty, and adultery, and so God sent them into exile. During their time in Babylon, God promised to restore them to their land. He said that he would reconstitute the Davidic monarchy and defeat Israel's Gentile enemies.
But that didn't exactly happen. Sure, the Jews returned to their land, but there was no restoration of the Davidic monarchy, plus Israel was still subservient to a foreign power.
And the post-exilic prophets attributed Israel's lackluster restoration to one crucial factor: sin. Third Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all point out that Israel is holding up the show when it comes to her restoration. She is doing many of the same sins that got her into exile in the first place (e.g., oppression of the weak, Sabbath breaking, etc.), along with some new ones (e.g., offering defective animals to God). And Ezra and Nehemiah discuss such sins in their narratives on post-exilic times. The post-exilic prophet Third Isaiah sums up the situation quite well: "See, the LORD's hand is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. Rather, your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear" (Isaiah 59:1-2).
Plus, even after her exile, Israel did not feel fully forgiven. Ezra prayed to God, "O my God, I am too ashamed and embarrassed to lift my face to you, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens. From the days of our ancestors to this day we have been deep in guilt" (Ezra 9:6-7). Even after Israel had taken her punishment, she didn't feel like she could look God in the eye.
Israel needed spiritual salvation in order to possess political salvation. And God promised to accomplish this in the prophets. God wanted Israel to dwell in the land, and yet her doing so was contingent on her obedience to him. Consequently, God vowed to spiritually regenerate the people of Israel, to program them so that they would naturally avoid sin and pursue righteousness (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:26-28). And God also said that he'd forgive them and cease to remember their sins (Jeremiah 31:34; Micah 7:19).
So what went through Joseph's mind when he heard the angel's promise? Probably that God was about to redeem Israel from her continuous cycle of sin and punishment, which continued even after the exile. A sinful human nature led to Israel's exile and managed to follow her home, allowing the same problems to creep up even after her restoration. God would free her from the penalty of sin through the death of Jesus Christ. And, more importantly, he would deliver her from sin itself.
N.T. Wright's ideas planted some of the seeds for this post, so I want to give him credit. Happy Good Friday!
Actually, this post has been on my mind for the past month or so, before Good Friday even entered my radar screen. When I was reading Zechariah and Malachi, I was going to comment on the tendency of the Israelites to fall continually into sin, even after the exile. Then, I got to Matthew 1, and my study of the prophets gave me thoughts about Matthew 1:21 and Jesus' role as Savior. And so I've finally gotten to this post, and it comes at the right time!
-----------------------------------------------------------
In Matthew 1:21, an angel tells Joseph, "[Mary] will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins" (NRSV).
What could this have meant to Joseph when he first heard it? The Jewish religion already had means of atonement: people repented to receive forgiveness, and they offered sin offerings for unintentional sins. Every Day of Atonement, the high priest would supervise a ceremony that released the sins of Israel into the wilderness, giving the nation a fresh start. Why would Jesus need to save his people from their sins, when Israel already had ways to get God's forgiveness?
Often, Christian sermons and Jesus movies (including the controversial Last Temptation of Christ) present the following scenario: the Jews were looking for a political Messiah who would deliver them from Roman oppression, but God instead gave them Jesus, who was more interested in their spiritual salvation than their liberation from Rome. So was Joseph's reaction to the angel, "He'll deliver us from our sin? Is that all? I'm already a pretty decent guy. I do an honest day's work and pay my bills. What I don't like are these oppressive rulers! What are you going to do about that?"
Actually, I think that the angel's message would have resonated with Joseph, if not the entire nation of Israel. Why? Because sin was continually tripping them up, dragging them down, and holding them back.
This is evident in the Old Testament story of Israel. The Israelites sinned through their idolatry, oppression of the weak, dishonesty, and adultery, and so God sent them into exile. During their time in Babylon, God promised to restore them to their land. He said that he would reconstitute the Davidic monarchy and defeat Israel's Gentile enemies.
But that didn't exactly happen. Sure, the Jews returned to their land, but there was no restoration of the Davidic monarchy, plus Israel was still subservient to a foreign power.
And the post-exilic prophets attributed Israel's lackluster restoration to one crucial factor: sin. Third Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi all point out that Israel is holding up the show when it comes to her restoration. She is doing many of the same sins that got her into exile in the first place (e.g., oppression of the weak, Sabbath breaking, etc.), along with some new ones (e.g., offering defective animals to God). And Ezra and Nehemiah discuss such sins in their narratives on post-exilic times. The post-exilic prophet Third Isaiah sums up the situation quite well: "See, the LORD's hand is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. Rather, your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear" (Isaiah 59:1-2).
Plus, even after her exile, Israel did not feel fully forgiven. Ezra prayed to God, "O my God, I am too ashamed and embarrassed to lift my face to you, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens. From the days of our ancestors to this day we have been deep in guilt" (Ezra 9:6-7). Even after Israel had taken her punishment, she didn't feel like she could look God in the eye.
Israel needed spiritual salvation in order to possess political salvation. And God promised to accomplish this in the prophets. God wanted Israel to dwell in the land, and yet her doing so was contingent on her obedience to him. Consequently, God vowed to spiritually regenerate the people of Israel, to program them so that they would naturally avoid sin and pursue righteousness (Jeremiah 31:33; Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:26-28). And God also said that he'd forgive them and cease to remember their sins (Jeremiah 31:34; Micah 7:19).
So what went through Joseph's mind when he heard the angel's promise? Probably that God was about to redeem Israel from her continuous cycle of sin and punishment, which continued even after the exile. A sinful human nature led to Israel's exile and managed to follow her home, allowing the same problems to creep up even after her restoration. God would free her from the penalty of sin through the death of Jesus Christ. And, more importantly, he would deliver her from sin itself.
N.T. Wright's ideas planted some of the seeds for this post, so I want to give him credit. Happy Good Friday!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Yancey, Kushner, and Prayer
I'm still working my way through Philip Yancey's Prayer: Does It Make a Difference? It has quite a few gems, let me tell you! But, recently, I found myself comparing this book to another book that I read several years ago: Harold Kushner's When Bad Things Happen to Good People.
Kushner is a Conservative rabbi whose son was born with progeria, a disease that includes rapid aging and an early death, usually at the age when normal children undergo puberty. Kushner and his wife once saw God as a benevolent parent, who takes care of people and works out their lives for good. But Kushner's experience with his son challenged his conception of God, as did the stories of other people's suffering. Kushner concludes that God allows evil because he's unable to do otherwise: he's not omnipotent. For Kushner, God cannot overturn human free will or the laws of nature. Kushner's God is as outraged about evil as we are, and he'd stop it if he could, but he can't. He can, however, give us the strength to endure, and prayer is a channel through which that occurs. Kushner appeals to the story of Jacob. At first, Jacob's relationship with God was quid pro quo: Do this for me, and I'll serve you. Later, Jacob outgrew this childish religion, for he realized that he needed God for strength.
Interestingly, there are areas in which Yancey overlaps with Kushner, only he doesn't go so far as to deny divine omnipotence. For Yancey, God is reluctant to interfere in human free will and the laws of nature. He can do so if he wants, and he has sometimes done so in the past, but he doesn't make a habit of it. Ordinarily, God will not suspend natural laws at the whims of human beings. Yancey also says that he doesn't really pray to God for favors, but for the company. He mentions a victim at a Nazi concentration camp who made the harsh journey with God through prayer, and experienced joy as a result.
I've not read Yancey's Where Is God Where It Hurts? or Disappointment with God, so I'm not familiar with his overall theodicy. I've heard that he distinguishes the bad things that happen in life from the will of God, which seems to imply that evil exists despite God's will. In his book on prayer, however, he appears to believe that God is in control and does what he does for good reason. He points out the positive outcomes of certain unanswered prayers. The death of David's son by Bathsheba, the fall of Judah to Babylon, and the thorn in Paul's flesh, for example, all served a good purpose.
This presents me with a dilemma. Which should I prefer: A God who hates evil but is powerless to do anything about it, or a God who temporarily permits it for some unknown reason? I can sympathize with Kushner's sentiment that there are some things that don't have any justification: they are just plain evil. To seek a justification for them seems cold and inconsiderate, and it appears to trivialize evil's depth. For some, it presents evil as good in disguise.
But a God who is powerless against evil can't give much strength or hope. I wonder how Kushner believes people can find strength in his version of God.
I once had a professor who wrestled with theodicy, and a historical-critical approach to the Hebrew Bible helped him out. In the Hebrew Bible, God continually struggles against chaos, which is depicted as a dragon. It's quite a battle, but God wins in the end. In the Septuagint, however, God is omnipotent, so evil exists with his permission. My professor liked the Hebrew view (or, rather, that particular Hebrew view) rather than the Greek one, for he thought that it presented a decent theodicy. It upheld God's hatred of evil along with his eventual defeat of it, after a lot of struggle, of course. In this Hebrew scenario, God is not powerless against evil, but neither is he all-powerful enough to stop it anytime he wishes. In a sense, it preserves the best parts of Kushner and Yancey.
Personally, I think that God permits evil for a reason: He wants to show us that evil is evil, and that good is good. He can tell us this until he's blue in the face, but we only get it when he actually shows us. Of course, this view too has its problems. How does it account for accidental deaths? And does it make other people guinea pigs for my moral education?
Kushner doesn't particularly like the "God permits evil for an unknown reason" approach, for he asks if we would say the same about Hitler's deeds. Kushner equates this theodicy with saying something like "Hitler killed people, but he had a good reason that's unknown to us." But we should assume right off the bat that God is not Hitler. God may permit evil for a reason (and a season), but we know from his moral standard, his activities on behalf of justice, and the character of Christ that he takes no pleasure in doing so.
Kushner is a Conservative rabbi whose son was born with progeria, a disease that includes rapid aging and an early death, usually at the age when normal children undergo puberty. Kushner and his wife once saw God as a benevolent parent, who takes care of people and works out their lives for good. But Kushner's experience with his son challenged his conception of God, as did the stories of other people's suffering. Kushner concludes that God allows evil because he's unable to do otherwise: he's not omnipotent. For Kushner, God cannot overturn human free will or the laws of nature. Kushner's God is as outraged about evil as we are, and he'd stop it if he could, but he can't. He can, however, give us the strength to endure, and prayer is a channel through which that occurs. Kushner appeals to the story of Jacob. At first, Jacob's relationship with God was quid pro quo: Do this for me, and I'll serve you. Later, Jacob outgrew this childish religion, for he realized that he needed God for strength.
Interestingly, there are areas in which Yancey overlaps with Kushner, only he doesn't go so far as to deny divine omnipotence. For Yancey, God is reluctant to interfere in human free will and the laws of nature. He can do so if he wants, and he has sometimes done so in the past, but he doesn't make a habit of it. Ordinarily, God will not suspend natural laws at the whims of human beings. Yancey also says that he doesn't really pray to God for favors, but for the company. He mentions a victim at a Nazi concentration camp who made the harsh journey with God through prayer, and experienced joy as a result.
I've not read Yancey's Where Is God Where It Hurts? or Disappointment with God, so I'm not familiar with his overall theodicy. I've heard that he distinguishes the bad things that happen in life from the will of God, which seems to imply that evil exists despite God's will. In his book on prayer, however, he appears to believe that God is in control and does what he does for good reason. He points out the positive outcomes of certain unanswered prayers. The death of David's son by Bathsheba, the fall of Judah to Babylon, and the thorn in Paul's flesh, for example, all served a good purpose.
This presents me with a dilemma. Which should I prefer: A God who hates evil but is powerless to do anything about it, or a God who temporarily permits it for some unknown reason? I can sympathize with Kushner's sentiment that there are some things that don't have any justification: they are just plain evil. To seek a justification for them seems cold and inconsiderate, and it appears to trivialize evil's depth. For some, it presents evil as good in disguise.
But a God who is powerless against evil can't give much strength or hope. I wonder how Kushner believes people can find strength in his version of God.
I once had a professor who wrestled with theodicy, and a historical-critical approach to the Hebrew Bible helped him out. In the Hebrew Bible, God continually struggles against chaos, which is depicted as a dragon. It's quite a battle, but God wins in the end. In the Septuagint, however, God is omnipotent, so evil exists with his permission. My professor liked the Hebrew view (or, rather, that particular Hebrew view) rather than the Greek one, for he thought that it presented a decent theodicy. It upheld God's hatred of evil along with his eventual defeat of it, after a lot of struggle, of course. In this Hebrew scenario, God is not powerless against evil, but neither is he all-powerful enough to stop it anytime he wishes. In a sense, it preserves the best parts of Kushner and Yancey.
Personally, I think that God permits evil for a reason: He wants to show us that evil is evil, and that good is good. He can tell us this until he's blue in the face, but we only get it when he actually shows us. Of course, this view too has its problems. How does it account for accidental deaths? And does it make other people guinea pigs for my moral education?
Kushner doesn't particularly like the "God permits evil for an unknown reason" approach, for he asks if we would say the same about Hitler's deeds. Kushner equates this theodicy with saying something like "Hitler killed people, but he had a good reason that's unknown to us." But we should assume right off the bat that God is not Hitler. God may permit evil for a reason (and a season), but we know from his moral standard, his activities on behalf of justice, and the character of Christ that he takes no pleasure in doing so.
Zechariah 12:10: Who Is the Pierced One?
Zechariah 12:10 has a variety of translations and interpretations.
1. Let's look at the King James Version:
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
According to this translation, the person who is pierced is the one identified as "me." According to interpreters, this "me" could be God, who endured continual indignity from the Israelites. According to this view, Israel feels bad about her past treatment of God, particularly after God is nice enough to restore her and defeat her enemies. Or "me" may refer to the prophet, who experienced persecution in Israel. Once his message is fulfilled, however, his Israelite persecutors change their tune.
2. The Jewish Publication Society offers another translation:
"But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born" (NJPS).
In this translation, "me" is not the one who is pierced, but the piercing happens to someone else.
The New Revised Standard Version takes this one step further:
"And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn."
The NRSV removes "me" altogether. And, according to the Biblical Hebraica Stuttgartensia, there is a variant of the text that does precisely that.
So who is the pierced person in this scenario? Ehud ben Zvi offers the following comments in the Jewish Study Bible:
"The Hebrew is ambiguous, because it may refer to a person or a group whom they have pierced...[I]t is more likely that it refers to an individual or group within the nations. For an understanding of the verse as pointing to the Messiah from the House of Joseph, see b. Sukkah 52a. Radak reads the text differently; for him it describes such a salvation that if even one person of Israel were killed in the battle, they will be astonished."
According to ben Zvi, the object of mourning in Zechariah 12:10 can be individual or collective. Many Jewish interpreters have applied it to the Messiah of the House of Joseph, a Messiah of Israel who will get killed in God's battle against the nations. He is distinct from the Messiah of the House of David, the one who will rule Israel in the Messianic Age.
Or, for Radak, the pierced one can refer to the Israelite casualties in the battle against the Gentiles. But these interpretations distinguish the "they" who mourn from the "they" who pierce. This is possible, but Zechariah 12:10 doesn't explicitly mention the Gentiles fighting back against the Israelites and piercing them.
And then there are other interesting interpretations. In b. Sukkah 52a, the text that ben Zvi cites, another candidate for the pierced one is the evil inclination within humans. Rabbi Judah explains:
" In the time to come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the Evil Inclination and slay it in the presence of the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous it will have the appearance of a towering hill, and to the wicked it will have the appearance of a hair thread. Both the former and the latter will weep; the righteous will weep saying, 'How were we able to overcome such a towering hill!' The wicked also will weep saying, 'How is it that we were unable to conquer this hair thread!'" (translation is from my Judaic Classics Library).
So, in this view, God will kill the inclination within humans to sin. Some will marvel that they were ever able to conquer what seemed to be insurmountable temptations, while others will regret that they caved into sin too easily.
And then there is the view that the pierced one of Zechariah 12:10 is Jesus Christ (see John 19:37; Revelation 1:7). This gets played out in a few different ways. Some believe that Zechariah 12:10 began to be fulfilled in Luke 23:48 and Acts 2. In Luke 23:48, many people at the crucifixion smote their breasts, probably in repentance for their role in Jesus' death. And, in Acts 2, Jews who were involved in Jesus' crucifixion (either directly, or through Israel's overall rejection of him) repented in his name and received baptism.
Another scenario is that people will mourn at Christ's return. Ellen White, the founder of Seventh-Day Adventism, posits in The Great Controversy that God will resurrect the very people involved in Jesus' crucifixion (e.g., Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, etc.) right at the Second Coming, allowing them to see the triumph of the one they killed. And many dispensationalists apply Zechariah 12:10 to Israel's conversion to Christ at his return.
But I have a question about applying Zechariah 12:10 to the Messiah, the son of David: Doesn't Zechariah 12 say that the House of David will mourn for the one who is pierced? My impression (which could be wrong) is that Zechariah distinguishes the pierced one from the Davidic line.
I have another interpretation: Could the Israelites be weeping for all of the Gentiles they killed in the eschatological battle? In Zechariah 12:8-9, God talks about making even the weakest Jerusalemites like David and slaying the Gentiles who attack God's city. Perhaps the pierced ones are those very Gentiles. God may want Israel to mourn for them in recognition of their (the Gentiles') humanity. In this view, God did not want to kill the Gentiles, but he had to do so because of their aggression against God's people.
In Zechariah 14, we read of the Gentiles coming to Jerusalem to worship God, so God may want to impress upon the Israelites that he loves everyone, Israelite and Gentile. If the Israelites are to accept the Gentiles who come to Jerusalem, then they must honor their humanity. And one way for that to happen is for them to realize that the people they killed in battle were human beings, with their own thoughts, feelings, dreams, and people who cared about them. The Gentiles' deaths may have been necessary, but they were still tragic.
Midrash Avkir and b. Sanhedrin 39b, both Jewish sources, have a story about the Red Sea. When the Egyptians drowned, the angels wanted to sing for joy, but God stopped them. "The works of my hands are drowning in the sea, and you would utter song in my presence?" (translated by William Braude). According to this midrash, God loves even the people he has to destroy. And the point of Zechariah 12:10 may be that God will enable the Israelites to see their enemies as God sees them.
1. Let's look at the King James Version:
"And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn."
According to this translation, the person who is pierced is the one identified as "me." According to interpreters, this "me" could be God, who endured continual indignity from the Israelites. According to this view, Israel feels bad about her past treatment of God, particularly after God is nice enough to restore her and defeat her enemies. Or "me" may refer to the prophet, who experienced persecution in Israel. Once his message is fulfilled, however, his Israelite persecutors change their tune.
2. The Jewish Publication Society offers another translation:
"But I will fill the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of pity and compassion; and they shall lament to me about those who are slain, wailing over them as over a favorite son and showing bitter grief as over a first-born" (NJPS).
In this translation, "me" is not the one who is pierced, but the piercing happens to someone else.
The New Revised Standard Version takes this one step further:
"And I will pour out a spirit of compassion and supplication on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that, when they look on the one whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn."
The NRSV removes "me" altogether. And, according to the Biblical Hebraica Stuttgartensia, there is a variant of the text that does precisely that.
So who is the pierced person in this scenario? Ehud ben Zvi offers the following comments in the Jewish Study Bible:
"The Hebrew is ambiguous, because it may refer to a person or a group whom they have pierced...[I]t is more likely that it refers to an individual or group within the nations. For an understanding of the verse as pointing to the Messiah from the House of Joseph, see b. Sukkah 52a. Radak reads the text differently; for him it describes such a salvation that if even one person of Israel were killed in the battle, they will be astonished."
According to ben Zvi, the object of mourning in Zechariah 12:10 can be individual or collective. Many Jewish interpreters have applied it to the Messiah of the House of Joseph, a Messiah of Israel who will get killed in God's battle against the nations. He is distinct from the Messiah of the House of David, the one who will rule Israel in the Messianic Age.
Or, for Radak, the pierced one can refer to the Israelite casualties in the battle against the Gentiles. But these interpretations distinguish the "they" who mourn from the "they" who pierce. This is possible, but Zechariah 12:10 doesn't explicitly mention the Gentiles fighting back against the Israelites and piercing them.
And then there are other interesting interpretations. In b. Sukkah 52a, the text that ben Zvi cites, another candidate for the pierced one is the evil inclination within humans. Rabbi Judah explains:
" In the time to come, the Holy One, blessed be He, will bring the Evil Inclination and slay it in the presence of the righteous and the wicked. To the righteous it will have the appearance of a towering hill, and to the wicked it will have the appearance of a hair thread. Both the former and the latter will weep; the righteous will weep saying, 'How were we able to overcome such a towering hill!' The wicked also will weep saying, 'How is it that we were unable to conquer this hair thread!'" (translation is from my Judaic Classics Library).
So, in this view, God will kill the inclination within humans to sin. Some will marvel that they were ever able to conquer what seemed to be insurmountable temptations, while others will regret that they caved into sin too easily.
And then there is the view that the pierced one of Zechariah 12:10 is Jesus Christ (see John 19:37; Revelation 1:7). This gets played out in a few different ways. Some believe that Zechariah 12:10 began to be fulfilled in Luke 23:48 and Acts 2. In Luke 23:48, many people at the crucifixion smote their breasts, probably in repentance for their role in Jesus' death. And, in Acts 2, Jews who were involved in Jesus' crucifixion (either directly, or through Israel's overall rejection of him) repented in his name and received baptism.
Another scenario is that people will mourn at Christ's return. Ellen White, the founder of Seventh-Day Adventism, posits in The Great Controversy that God will resurrect the very people involved in Jesus' crucifixion (e.g., Herod, Pilate, Caiaphas, etc.) right at the Second Coming, allowing them to see the triumph of the one they killed. And many dispensationalists apply Zechariah 12:10 to Israel's conversion to Christ at his return.
But I have a question about applying Zechariah 12:10 to the Messiah, the son of David: Doesn't Zechariah 12 say that the House of David will mourn for the one who is pierced? My impression (which could be wrong) is that Zechariah distinguishes the pierced one from the Davidic line.
I have another interpretation: Could the Israelites be weeping for all of the Gentiles they killed in the eschatological battle? In Zechariah 12:8-9, God talks about making even the weakest Jerusalemites like David and slaying the Gentiles who attack God's city. Perhaps the pierced ones are those very Gentiles. God may want Israel to mourn for them in recognition of their (the Gentiles') humanity. In this view, God did not want to kill the Gentiles, but he had to do so because of their aggression against God's people.
In Zechariah 14, we read of the Gentiles coming to Jerusalem to worship God, so God may want to impress upon the Israelites that he loves everyone, Israelite and Gentile. If the Israelites are to accept the Gentiles who come to Jerusalem, then they must honor their humanity. And one way for that to happen is for them to realize that the people they killed in battle were human beings, with their own thoughts, feelings, dreams, and people who cared about them. The Gentiles' deaths may have been necessary, but they were still tragic.
Midrash Avkir and b. Sanhedrin 39b, both Jewish sources, have a story about the Red Sea. When the Egyptians drowned, the angels wanted to sing for joy, but God stopped them. "The works of my hands are drowning in the sea, and you would utter song in my presence?" (translated by William Braude). According to this midrash, God loves even the people he has to destroy. And the point of Zechariah 12:10 may be that God will enable the Israelites to see their enemies as God sees them.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Obama and Jeremiah Wright
I wrote this article for Helium. It was part of a debate entitled US elections 2008: Will Rev. Wright's radical views harm Obama's chances? I defended the "No" side.
-------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama is a smooth operator. Ronald Reagan was called "the teflon President" because nothing could stick to him-he always found some way to deflect attention from his mistakes. When Reagan said that trees cause pollution, for example, that could have hurt him politically. But his mannerisms influenced the American people not to care so much about his errors or gaffes.
A similar scenario is evident with Barack Obama, only he is different from Reagan in his teflon nature. Reagan could dissolve criticisms with a joke, but Obama has other things going for him that make him unstoppable. First, Obama comes across as a friendly, level-headed, reasonable guy. He is the sort of person with whom you'd watch a ball game or have a beer (if you drink). He does not strike me as a wild-eyed fanatic, unlike his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Second, Obama is able to distance himself from Wright while acknowledging that Wright raises some valid points. Obama simply says that he does not have to agree with someone 100 per cent to get something out of his message. American political culture loves to put public figures on the spot. It's either all or nothing for a lot of these pundits and politicians. They act as if Obama's only choice is to totally disavow and denounce Wright's church, or to participate in it and swallow everything Wright says. But Obama can accept some things Wright preaches, disagree with other aspects, and remain a member of the church in good standing. And Obama points this out, which is why he doesn't fall into the trap that American political culture likes to set for people. Because Obama pursues a third alternative, he will probably escape any political damage from his membership in Wright's church.
And, third, when Obama does make a mistake, he admits it. For example, he said that his relationship with slum-lord Tony Rezco was an error in judgment. He doesn't try to spin away his actions. We don't hear him saying something like "I didn't inhale," as we did from a certain spouse of another Presidential candidate. Overall, Obama is open and honest, and therefore he comes across as human. Obama does a good job in explaining himself in a manner that appears genuine rather than artificial. Because of that, he will most likely survive a lot of political hits.
-------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama is a smooth operator. Ronald Reagan was called "the teflon President" because nothing could stick to him-he always found some way to deflect attention from his mistakes. When Reagan said that trees cause pollution, for example, that could have hurt him politically. But his mannerisms influenced the American people not to care so much about his errors or gaffes.
A similar scenario is evident with Barack Obama, only he is different from Reagan in his teflon nature. Reagan could dissolve criticisms with a joke, but Obama has other things going for him that make him unstoppable. First, Obama comes across as a friendly, level-headed, reasonable guy. He is the sort of person with whom you'd watch a ball game or have a beer (if you drink). He does not strike me as a wild-eyed fanatic, unlike his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
Second, Obama is able to distance himself from Wright while acknowledging that Wright raises some valid points. Obama simply says that he does not have to agree with someone 100 per cent to get something out of his message. American political culture loves to put public figures on the spot. It's either all or nothing for a lot of these pundits and politicians. They act as if Obama's only choice is to totally disavow and denounce Wright's church, or to participate in it and swallow everything Wright says. But Obama can accept some things Wright preaches, disagree with other aspects, and remain a member of the church in good standing. And Obama points this out, which is why he doesn't fall into the trap that American political culture likes to set for people. Because Obama pursues a third alternative, he will probably escape any political damage from his membership in Wright's church.
And, third, when Obama does make a mistake, he admits it. For example, he said that his relationship with slum-lord Tony Rezco was an error in judgment. He doesn't try to spin away his actions. We don't hear him saying something like "I didn't inhale," as we did from a certain spouse of another Presidential candidate. Overall, Obama is open and honest, and therefore he comes across as human. Obama does a good job in explaining himself in a manner that appears genuine rather than artificial. Because of that, he will most likely survive a lot of political hits.
I Love George W. Bush
Today, NPR has a few stories that make me glad I voted for George W. Bush. They are as follows:
1. New Ob/Gyn Guidelines Stir Ethics, Legal Debate
"March 19, 2008 · The Department of Health and Human Services says organizations that oversee certification for obstetrician-gynecologists may be breaking federal law by instituting new ethics guidelines. The guidelines have stoked the debate over whether a doctor's right to refuse care trumps a patient's right to obtain it."
Basically, the "ethics" guidelines "require physicians to make referrals for abortions or other procedures they don't wish to perform themselves." Bush's Health and Human Services Department is saying, "I don't think so."
As a pro-life doctor said in the story, he wouldn't send a woman to a hitman, so why should he send her to someone he believes is a murderer? A lot of liberals talk about being "pro-choice." Apparently, they don't want doctors to choose whether or not to refer women to abortionists.
2. "Individuals' Rights Key in Landmark D.C. Gun Case" (Listen Now).
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments on the District of Columbia's law essentially banning handgun ownership in the city...For most of the past century, the courts have interpreted the constitutional right to bear arms as a collective right, linked to military service and state militias. But Tuesday, a majority of Supreme Court justices indicated that they believe the right to bear arms is an individual right, like the right of free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable searches."
Horray for the Supreme Court, which is now more conservative because of George W. Bush. I liked Scalia's argument that, historically, oppressive authorities tried to prevent militias by taking away the guns of individuals. Therefore, the part of the Second Amendment about a "well-regulated militia" fits quite well with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" (emphasis mine).
D.C. banned people from owning handguns? That is going too far. Someone else had a similar policy. Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms" (Hitler’s Secret Conversations, trans. Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens; New York: Signet Books, 1961; p. 403).
I'm glad we have a President who is serious about being a conservative, at least on abortion and gun control.
1. New Ob/Gyn Guidelines Stir Ethics, Legal Debate
"March 19, 2008 · The Department of Health and Human Services says organizations that oversee certification for obstetrician-gynecologists may be breaking federal law by instituting new ethics guidelines. The guidelines have stoked the debate over whether a doctor's right to refuse care trumps a patient's right to obtain it."
Basically, the "ethics" guidelines "require physicians to make referrals for abortions or other procedures they don't wish to perform themselves." Bush's Health and Human Services Department is saying, "I don't think so."
As a pro-life doctor said in the story, he wouldn't send a woman to a hitman, so why should he send her to someone he believes is a murderer? A lot of liberals talk about being "pro-choice." Apparently, they don't want doctors to choose whether or not to refer women to abortionists.
2. "Individuals' Rights Key in Landmark D.C. Gun Case" (Listen Now).
"The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments on the District of Columbia's law essentially banning handgun ownership in the city...For most of the past century, the courts have interpreted the constitutional right to bear arms as a collective right, linked to military service and state militias. But Tuesday, a majority of Supreme Court justices indicated that they believe the right to bear arms is an individual right, like the right of free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable searches."
Horray for the Supreme Court, which is now more conservative because of George W. Bush. I liked Scalia's argument that, historically, oppressive authorities tried to prevent militias by taking away the guns of individuals. Therefore, the part of the Second Amendment about a "well-regulated militia" fits quite well with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" (emphasis mine).
D.C. banned people from owning handguns? That is going too far. Someone else had a similar policy. Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms" (Hitler’s Secret Conversations, trans. Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens; New York: Signet Books, 1961; p. 403).
I'm glad we have a President who is serious about being a conservative, at least on abortion and gun control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)