 |
|
|
|||||||
|
See where fundamentalism gets ya?Tony Jones asked those of us who are involved in the NJ regional cohort to think about promising theories of theodicy for the emergent church in the wake of the Tsunami. I think that a post-evangelical hermeneutic stears us away from the interpretation of this travesty by some fundamentalists. Check out what Henry Blackaby, the author of the popular 'Experiencing God' series, has to say. You can read about it here. This should offer a secondary conversation on how one's understanding of Scripture impacts one's theology in general and view of theodicy in particular.posted by Jake at 1/25/2005 10:09:00 PM  
25 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts The Heresy of Inerrancy (Part 3) ------------ More Baptist Conflict ------------ Not a good sign ------------ Ruth 1: Reflections (1:1-5) ------------ Ruth 2: Reflections (1:6-22) ------------ Ruth 3: Reflections (2:1-23) ------------ Ruth 4: Reflections (3:1-18) ------------ Ruth 5: Reflections (4:1-12) ------------ Blogger anonymity ------------ The Barreto Admiration Society ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
Jake,
Been enjoying your blog, particularly the emergent view of inerrancy (even if I don't agree with much of it). I would be interested to know the theodicies that emerging theologians/thinkers such as yourself mihgt find to be consistent with your overall paradigm. At first pass, I would assume that the standard Augustinian theodicy won't pass the mustard. But it seems to me (being an Augustinian)that neither standard arminian nor free will theism theodicies really get God off of the hook. Last stop - process theology. But I can't imagine that the emerging paradigm wants to end there. I look forward to whatever discussion follows. Posted a link to your blog on my own, by the way.
Gerald, thank you for your question and for reading my blog (even if you don't disagree). Though I am probably far less equipped to remark on Augustine's theology than you are, here is MY view of theodicy (at least on 1/27/05;)). Augustine, like Paul, was straddling two worlds: the one of platonic dualism via his classical education and work with Plotinus, and the other of Semitic origin alla Ambrosian influence. In his views of theodicy, which you are correct in bringing up in light of Blackaby's comments, Augustine seems to merry a platonic notion of the impassiblity of God with a Hebrew notion of a vengeful or a detached God. In an Emergent context (and by this I am speaking for my understanding and not for all Emergers together!) I wish to challenge such foundations. The truth of the situation, as I understand it, is that we don't know why horrible attrocities happen in our world. Rather than trying to make sense of such events that are beyond our control I propose that we allow mystery to remain a mystery. Our role is not to answer why, but to respond in the name of Christ with love and support. I have been influenced by the Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar's take on world history as theodrama and on Jewish philosphies in the wake of the Holocaust. In this conceptualization we are able to enter into a narrative in which neither we nor God are in charge of what happens. I think that God cries with us in the wake of such travesties. This does not flow from a desire to 'let God off the hook' but rather it flows from my view (albeit inpartial) of the way in which God interacts with God's creation.
Jake, Very nice. I deem you sufficiently qualified to comment on Augustine’s theodicy. First, I would affirm your assertion that God cries too. Christ’s weeping over Jerusalem reflects the heart of his Father as much as his own. But I don’t think that an Augustinian theodicy necessarily erects an insurmountable wall between God’s providence and God’s sorrow in relation to his own providence. Certainly nothing was more ordained than the “Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world,” yet certainly nothing grieved God more. Even as I parent I am forced to will things that grieve me (i.e. leave for class when my son wants dad to stay home and play). To state that God can do anything, does not mean that God can do everything. Even Augustine’s God has choices.
I would agree, incidentally, that the common Calvinistic/Augustinian notion of impassibility does not provide a particularly helpful theodicy (perhaps logically, but certainly not existentially). Such notions can tend to present God as an unmoved, unaffected, celestial crystal. But I don’t wonder if perhaps the traditional concept of immutability does not fairly reflect Augustine. I would suggest that Augustine’s view of immutability is limited to God nature/essence, and not his will. In other words, God can and does react to the free decisions of created moral agents, but always does so consistent with an immutable nature. Thus God’s will in response to various external stimuli is mutable - in that he really does change his will in relation to the mutability (of both will and essence) of his creature - but always changes his will consistent with his immutable nature. Augustine was very pointed in his comments that man’s will is free (though in a compatibilistic sense – to use contemporary terms), and that God genuinely responds to man’s free decisions. For Augustine, culpability makes no sense apart from freedom. But such an understanding of immutability need not undermine the entire Augustinian theodicy that all things, both good and evil, cannot occur apart from his will (either permissive or active). His omniscience and omnipotence makes this certain. And even open theists would have to acknowledge that God knew of the tsunami before it happened, or at the very least, possessed the ability to stop it before it hit shore. Perhaps you could provide more clarity to your statement “God is not in charge of what happens.” In what ways would you depart from Augustine’s understanding of omnipotence or omniscience in order to make this assertion?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Being more web developer than theologian theodicy was a new term to me. I had do some
research.
I agree that we should avoid specific interpretation of the reasons for the tsunami. Yet I am shocked by Tom White's statement in the Associated Baptist Press article that "We do not agree that God was behind the deaths," and I am stunned by other authoritative statements that God was not judging sin at all in bringing the tsunami to shore.
Todd Johnson, in the same article, has a much better approach: "We don't want to write God out of the equation, as the secular world would do." Aside from some specific revelation from God about His purposes in unleashing the tsunami -- and I would be a skeptic about anyone claiming God told them directly -- we simply do not, cannot know His purposes. They are invisible. Yet we do know a few things:
1. God is sovereign.
2. We are sinners.
3. Death is God's judgment for sin.
From these truths, it is clear that the tsunami, which resulted in death, is a judgment from God. The mystery is why the tsunami stopped at claiming only some two hundred thousand lives, instead of engulfing the rest of the world. Sure, He promised not to re-flood the world as in Noah's day -- but the point remains that every human being alive is a dead man walking, living under a right and just death sentence. The timing and means of God's execution of each person's sentence is entirely up to Him; we have no right that it should not be enacted at any point, and by any means. We can only wonder, when we hear of any disaster, why it did not occur to us; and we can thank God that He has been merciful to us.
We should forgive ourselves, though, for attempting to comprehend God's secret purposes behind the tsunami. Our minds are designed by God Himself to seek order and understanding out of the world, after all.
What seems entirely meritless, however, is the effort by many Christians to claim that God had nothing to do with the tsunami whatsoever, that it wasn't in any way a judgment for sin. Since when does God need spin doctors? Christians don't need to be running a PR campaign for God -- He can take care of Himself.
It seems particularly foul that any Christian would attempt to comfort a grieving world by suggesting that God had nothing to do with the tsunami. Tell that to a person who has lost loved ones: will it stop them from blaming God? Will it convince them that the Gospel is off the hook, that Christianity should still be a viable faith option for them (once their grieving is over and they resume their faith-shopping)?
Tsunami victims, and the entire world, need to wrestle with God. They need to be angry with Him. Who would have told Jacob, in Genesis 32, not to worry about God, that his brother Esau would go easy on him the next day? Who would have told David, in I Samuel 12, not to blame God for the approaching death of his newborn son? If anything, such illogical, insincere attempts only disqualify Christians from having a legitimate voice in the world's great marketplace of ideas.
A better model is Job's friend Elihu. God rebuked three of Job's friends for blaming his tragedies on specific sins. Elihu, however -- whose words were echoed by God, rather than repudiated -- turned Job's attention back to the principle of God's greater goodness and holiness:
"You have said in my hearing -- I heard the very words -- 'I am pure and without sin; I am clean and free from guilt. Yet God has found fault with me; He considers me His enemy. He fastens my feet in shackles; He keeps close watch on all my paths.' But I tell you, in this you are not right, for God is greater than man" (Job 33).
God Himself is the measure of right and wrong. At times we believe Him to be in the wrong, but we must struggle and wrestle with Him until our own sense of rightness and wrongness are informed by, and conformed into, His. This often occurs with a deeper appreciation of His holiness, our own sinfulnesss, and the staggering sacrifice He made on the cross.
But simply "letting God off the hook" for disasters like the tsunami does nothing to assist this process, and gets us no closer to understanding our Maker. The attempt instead assumes that God's reputation cannot bear the consequences of His own acts, in effect judging the Judge Himself -- a prideful and perilous endeavor.
P.S. I wrote "We can only wonder, when we hear of any disaster, why it did not occur to us; and we can thank God that He has been merciful to us." However, I should have added that we should weep, as Jesus wept (John 11), for the dead. Simply because we deserve the death penalty from God does not mean that this is a happy, or even a neutral, affair. It is a great comfort that Jesus wept over Lazarus' death, as He would weep over our own. Yet the rightness of death as a judgment for sin stands.
In case you're interested, I formulated the ideas above into a more coherent article at http://home.hobson.net/rum/judgingtheJudge.html
This was something I thought about writing after I heard a preacher get on TV right after the tsunami struck and say, "Geology has nothing to do with theology." Thanks for blogging about this, Jake -- it kicked me into gear to get it written!
Jake and Forester,
A couple of quick thoughts and then I leave this discussion till Jake posts something else that I want to weigh in on. First, it seems that theodicy finds its most useful purpose in addressing not death generally, but tragedy specifically. In other words, few appeal to the fact that thousands (hundreds of thousands?) died of old age during the weeks immediately following the tsunami as evidence that God does not exist. It is not the death caused by the tsunami that arouses the questions that theodicy must address, but the fact that so many died so suddenly and tragically, seemingly out of step with what we regard as normal.
In this regard I think that Forester's comments above (though I fully agree with them) somewhat miss the main mark of what theodicy must address. Granted, death is God's judgment of sin, but why do some die asleep in their soft bed, full of years, while others die suddenly in a rush of fear and bewilderment? That is the question for theodicy. Ultimately, I agree with both of you that we simply cannot know the why of the tsunami, but nonetheless I have no hesitancy affirming (unlike Jake, I think) that it could not have happened apart from God's will, thus he had some reason for it. Yet I (and Augustine)concede that His ways are past finding out.
And finally, Jake, I am not so much interested in debating theodicy, as much as I am ultimately wondering how open to free will theism post-evangelicals such as yourself might be. Do you find it an acceptable theodicy?
Peace.
P.S.
Forester, I read some of your blog posts. Liked 'em.
Mike, I appreciate your post. Glad to see that you put so much thought into your post. Here are some challenges I would pose to your response. When you write:
"1. God is sovereign.
2. We are sinners.
3. Death is God's judgment for sin.
From these truths, it is clear that the tsunami, which resulted in death, is a judgment from God" I want to press you on your definition of sovereignty. Are you espousing I kind of 'puppeteer' view of God (in which God is in Heaven controling everything)? Do you think that everything that happens is God's countermove to some move made by fallen humanity? Furthermore, your argument seems a bit falacious. You are assuming that a direct, causal relationship exists when one cannot be proven (called 'affirmation of the consequent' in techincal terms). Your opinion that "it is clear that the tsunami, which resulted in death, is a judgment from God" seems neither "clear" nor causal. Perhaps a more even-handed remark would sound like this: "in the Bible we read about God smiting folks for sinful behavior; therefore, in light of the disasterous effects of the Tsunami, we are led to ask whether God may in fact be acting in commensurate ways." Anything stronger than this significantly weakens your argument in my opinion.
Next, I would like to challenge the modernist undertones I detect in your comment. You write, "Our minds are designed by God Himself to seek order and understanding out of the world, after all." I agree that we try to systematize the events of our lives within our own metanarratives, but sometimes such attemts are offered in a way that God is trapt in our little boxes. Why not let mystery stand? Why must we either a) let God off the hook or b) make God out to be the villain? A better response seems to be that we don't know why this happened. We pray, we cry, we dialogue in love, and we serve, but we do not utter dogmatic rationonalizations to placate our modernist sensibilities.
Kudos for writing, "Christians don't need to be running a PR campaign for God -- He can take care of Himself." I totally agree.
In response to Gerald's comments above I wrote, "The truth of the situation, as I understand it, is that we don't know why horrible attrocities happen in our world. Rather than trying to make sense of such events that are beyond our control I propose that we allow mystery to remain a mystery. Our role is not to answer why, but to respond in the name of Christ with love and support." I stand by this statement.
Mike, your thoughts would be tightened if you operated more in the subjunctive mood and less in the indicative or even imperative mood. You and I have a different view of the nature of the Bible and consequently how God chooses to act in God's created order. These are hermeneutical differences that lead to theological disagreement. You may be right, quite frankly. And I would be the first one to confess that I could be wrong. My problem with Blackaby and other 'fundamentalists' is the dogmatic insistance that their view, and only their view, is correct. Pride cometh before a fall. I hope to see you commenting on future posts.
Gerald, for the record, I am not an Augustine scholar and, from what your brother tells me, you are. Therefore, I am happy to dialogue with you about 'free will theism' or inerrancy or whatever but I have neither time nor ability to go any deeper into Augustine's theology of evil and providence. I am teetering dangerously close to reductionism as it is and this is an error I wish to obviate if possible.
Both you and Forrester seem to press for a view of sovereignty that you assume is the only way to think. Have you read anything by Hans Urs von Balthasar? Perhaps this dogmatic insistance--which is birthed (I think) in a platonic view of the impassibility of the Divine, nursed through the modernist years of the Enlightenment and sent off into the world in full-blown fundamentalism today--stems from fear? Perhaps you argue so vehemently for God's providence because you are afraid of a little ambiguity and uncertainty? Perhaps such a view functions as a Scooby-Doo nightlight; which helps you sleep soundly? I don't know. I am far less concerned with defending God's sovereignty to the extent that everything that transpires in Heaven and on earth is God's direct action. To some degree God is soverign in that God created the world and hence the created order is under God's jurisdiction. However, I don't think (and I could most certainly be wrong) that God controls us like will-less puppets on a string. This does not stem from any need I have to "let God off the hook". I just prefer not to envision God as a capricious child.
In response to your question Gerald, I cannot speak for all of emergent in regards to "free will theism". We are having a meeting with emergent pastors and students on Tuesday. I imagine that I will post a few thoughts after that. Also, I would like you to offer your connotation of this before I respond with my opinion because I am not sure if you are speaking in the Armenian, Derridian or Wittgensteinian sense.
You guys make me tired.
Todd's out, but I'm still in. I'll reply to each section of your comments, Jake, in a separate post in order to keep it organized. First, you wrote:
"From these truths, it is clear that the tsunami, which resulted in death, is a judgment from God" I want to press you on your definition of sovereignty. Are you espousing I kind of 'puppeteer' view of God (in which God is in Heaven controling everything)? Do you think that everything that happens is God's countermove to some move made by fallen humanity? Furthermore, your argument seems a bit falacious. You are assuming that a direct, causal relationship exists when one cannot be proven (called 'affirmation of the consequent' in techincal terms). Your opinion that "it is clear that the tsunami, which resulted in death, is a judgment from God" seems neither "clear" nor causal. Perhaps a more even-handed remark would sound like this: "in the Bible we read about God smiting folks for sinful behavior; therefore, in light of the disasterous effects of the Tsunami, we are led to ask whether God may in fact be acting in commensurate ways." Anything stronger than this significantly weakens your argument in my opinion.
Yeah, I anticipated this objection, which I why I formulated it a bit differently when I posted it on my website (even before you raised these questions):
"Yet we do know a few things:
1. God is sovereign over natural events.
2. We are sinners.
3. Death is God’s judgment for sin.
These general truths are woven throughout the entire fabric of Scripture (they’re particularly encapsulated in Colossians 1, Romans 1-2, and Genesis 3, respectively). So according to God’s own words, all natural events occur within the locus of His control, and all deaths occur because of His judgment of human sin. By both counts, and despite the attempts of some Christians to argue otherwise, the death-bearing tsunami did come from God. Period."
The goal in focusing on God's sovereignty over natural events is to continue the discussion of the tsunami without sliding full-tilt down the rabbit hole of predestination versus free will. And you're right that the line "it's clear that the tsunami ..." was an intuitive jump, skipping over the middle step that I later included in the revision posted on my website.
By the way, on my own initiative I removed the "it's clear" phrase, but then added in the concluding "period" just for you. :-)
As for God smiting people ... I don't believe I attempted to make any such argument. In fact, I deliberately avoided such references, and instead focused on the Scriptures that deal with death as a consequence for all sin.
You wrote:
"Next, I would like to challenge the modernist undertones I detect in your comment. You write, "Our minds are designed by God Himself to seek order and understanding out of the world, after all." I agree that we try to systematize the events of our lives within our own metanarratives, but sometimes such attemts are offered in a way that God is trapt in our little boxes. Why not let mystery stand? Why must we either a) let God off the hook or b) make God out to be the villain? A better response seems to be that we don't know why this happened. We pray, we cry, we dialogue in love, and we serve, but we do not utter dogmatic rationonalizations to placate our modernist sensibilities."
Please reread my post, either the original on your blog or my revision. In both versions, I only suggested that this tendency was natural, though flawed. It was a tangential point I decided to include because, between those claiming the tsunami was God's judgment for Muslim violence against Christians, and those claiming the tsunami had nothing to do with judgment at all, I believe the former are engaging in a natural human response that is understandable, while the latter are committing a great disservice both to common sense and to the Gospel.
You wrote:
"Rather than trying to make sense of such events that are beyond our control I propose that we allow mystery to remain a mystery. Our role is not to answer why, but to respond in the name of Christ with love and support."
I'm glad you've reiterated this, and I think you'll agree that I've echoed the same idea in both versions of my post. But Christians HAVE been given an answer why -- a generalized one about death as a judgment for sin -- that helps to explain this confounding universe. It's not so long ago that I was not a Christian, and did not possess even this simple answer. If we Christians keep it hush, we leave the world with either Kubler-Ross' platitudes about death being a natural part of life, or Elton John's off-key croon that it's the circle of life, baby! Those are the best answers they have, and they suck. God has given us a better explanation; how dare we hold it back from them?
You could argue that talking about sin and judgment ata time of grieving is no comfort at all, and completely unloving. But that's why I focused my entire argument on the universal nature of sin, death, and judgment. It's commiseration -- we are all under the sentence of death, and it does hurt, even though it is deserved.
You wrote:
"Mike, your thoughts would be tightened if you operated more in the subjunctive mood and less in the indicative or even imperative mood. You and I have a different view of the nature of the Bible and consequently how God chooses to act in God's created order. These are hermeneutical differences that lead to theological disagreement. You may be right, quite frankly. And I would be the first one to confess that I could be wrong. My problem with Blackaby and other 'fundamentalists' is the dogmatic insistance that their view, and only their view, is correct. Pride cometh before a fall. I hope to see you commenting on future posts."
I was planning to email the link to my revised post to a few friends as a check on my theology. If that's an admission I could be wrong, well, there it is. But let's do a quick slo-mo on that sideways equation you made between me, Blackaby, and other fundamentalists! That's a first for me, being called a fundamentalist by another Christian. I'm sure many have thought it, but you're the first brave enough to say it. And yet I can't help noticing that I was arguing against both sides in the Associated Baptist Press article ...
Finally, one more response. Gerald wrote:
"In this regard I think that Forester's comments above (though I fully agree with them) somewhat miss the main mark of what theodicy must address. Granted, death is God's judgment of sin, but why do some die asleep in their soft bed, full of years, while others die suddenly in a rush of fear and bewilderment? That is the question for theodicy."
I'll say up front, Gerald, that I'm not familiar with the term theodicy, except for the quick perusal I did at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm (which wasn't that helpful). So you may find my response laughable.
I don't see any significant difference in the manner of deaths you describe: asleep in bed, or in the rush of fear and bewilderment. Yes, we'd all prefer one over the other. Yes, one hurts families and loved ones more than the other. Worse still would be a situation of rape and murder -- yet these differences are only measures of degree, incremental rather than fundamental.
Martha dies in her sleep. So does Mary. But Martha had her longjohns on, whereas Mary forgot to don hers. Does Mary have a legitimate complaint against God, that she died with a shiver, whereas Martha entered eternal life warm and cozy?
I go back to this statement I made (revised from above):
"The timing and method of our execution is entirely up to our Judge; we have no right that it should not be enacted at any point, and by any means. We can only wonder, when we hear of any disaster, why it did not occur to us – and we can thank God for being merciful to us."
I don't mean this as a Sunday-school answer. We really did forfeit all rights to God's favor when we rebelled against Him. I think this is especially hard for Americans to comprehend, with our Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. But that prohibition derives not so much from a criminal's rights as it does from a government's recognition that it is not God, and should therefore exercise self-restraint.
We have no Constitutional rights to shake in the face of God. We rebelled against Him, so He has no obligations to us whatsoever, aside from those He Himself has condescended to promise us -- and He has made us no promises about how we will die.
He has, however, offered us eternal life in His Son Jesus. After that, the manner of our deaths seems like small change. Once we're in eternity with God, I suspect that how we we died will scarcely be an afterthought for us.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Final quick responses:
Hans Urs von Balthasar? No.
Capricious child? Strawman.
Scooby-Doo nightlight? Amen, Dr. Freud!
HOW MUCH did I write? Well, let that be a lesson to me: never blog under a fit of insomnia. Sorry, Jake, Gerald -- and even Todd ... I'll go back to eating ice cream next time I can't sleep.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
What the heck! Don't you guys sleep? Well, I was going to walk away, but here I am again, drawn like a dunkard to his bottle.
First, Forester - I once again agree with everything you've said, particularly your comments about Americans and their constitutional rights. Your might find my post Yahweh God of Genocide very like minded. And I didn't at all find your comments laughable. You are right that the question of death generally is a question for theodicy. I just think that for myself, the real existential question of theodicy is not why will do we die, but why do some of us die so tragically?
And Jake - Wasn't it Marx who said something to the effect of, "Christianity is a crutch for the weak"? I've always agreed with him, but I don't think he takes it far enough. Christianity isn't a crutch, it's a stretcher. And it is only for the weak. In the same way, I would have to say that your comments regarding the scooby doo night light (though humurous) don't go quite far enough. It is not a night light,; it is the philial of Galadriel. When I look at my precious two year old, and think about all that could befall him, I take great comfort in the belief that God permits or wills all things for his good purposes. I know this doesn't guarantee my son's safety, but it does bring a redemptive purpose to the suffering that is sure to one day come. I don't need to know why as long as God knows. But your comments seem to suggest that not even God knows why, and that each instance of suffering has no specific purpose. It is simply meaningless bad luck (though I won't put words in your mouth). I have seen first hand people I love dearly try to navigate their way through extreme suffering without this hope and it wasn't pretty. So in regards to your night light comment - I own it without apology.
Further, I agree (and I suspect that Forester does as well) that we are not will-less puppets on a string, jerked around at the caprious pleasure of God.
Nor am I willing to concede that the Augustinian theodicy is rooted primarily in a platonic perception of the divine as immutable. I think it can be found in the Hebrew scriptures as well, and would suggest that Paul inherited his theodicy more from the Old Testament than from neo-platonic/hellenistic influences. And besides, simply stating that something is neo-platonic doesn't make it wrong.
And finally, I would tell you if I was speaking in the Armenian, Derridian or Wittgensteinian sense, but I don't I know myself. Never heard of the last guy.
And now really finally, There's an old joke that goes, "How can you tell if it's a Presbertyrian funeral?" Answer: "No one is crying." Perhaps you are reacting to this stilted a repressed version of Augustinian theodicy more than Augustine's himself. Whatever else I would say, i would affirm the following.
1. All things, both God and evil ultimately come from God.
2. Suffering and evil grieve God and should grieve us too.
3. We are to resist suffering and evil.
4. God has specific plan that he is working out through the agency of suffering and evil.
And now I'm really done. I've got to get to work on my inherancy post.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gerald, I don't think you're really done until you post that thing three or four more times ... :-)
P.S. Gerald, I found your "God of Genocide" post on your blog, and left a comment ...
Forester and Gerald. Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I appreciate your perspectives and am glad that we can dialogue in such a venue.