... sovereignty as power ...
The idea of sovereignty contains the notion of an ability to control other people or things by sheer power, the arbitrary or informed and reasonable exercise of one's will that limits the freedom or actions of another. I'd like to explore this idea further because I think the ideas we have, particularly in Christendom (this is too broad a sweep of course ), are incongruent with what the texts as a whole suggest, they offend reason, and they create stumbling blocks for others who might otherwise explore their human-being-as-created more fully.
I have often used these ideas in my work when trying to explain the reasons why someone like me would choose, by virtue of the authority I have as a Principal, to limit some of the freedoms my students think they should have. In the end students come to understand that some of the 'sovereignty', authority and power I have is bestowed upon me with an understanding that I have the judgment and wisdom necessary to limit their freedoms ... for their sakes. They also learn that my power to limit freedom and action is constrained by elements of law(human) and moral code.
I understand myself to have limited my own actions and freedoms by choosing to enter into a marriage relationship. The success of this relationship depends, in part, on the extent to which my partner and I put self-chosen boundaries on our freedom as formally unmarried people in the interest of serving each other. When our children were born we further limited our freedom and actions to meet the needs of our family. So, these are examples of how human beings limit the freedom to act they have in the interest of others. It may be a 'stretch' for some to think of this as limiting one's personal sovereignty but this is how I understand the term.
When we use the term 'sovereign' with human leaders in mind the term suggests authority and power to the extent that leaders can speak and act with greater effect over a greater number of people. Rulers have been referred to as 'sovereigns' in as much as they are recognized as having more power and governmental authority to impose their ideas on others by acts of law or ... will. Human history teaches us nothing if not that people in power who impose themselves on others unjustly, or who take themselves too seriously as 'sovereign', or who do not have a clear enough understanding of the fragility of their positions of sovereignty, power and authority, will have their power and sovereignty limited by the greater power and sovereignty of someone else or the masses.
In every case we understand our freedoms to be limited either by the nature of being human in the cosmos (we can't fly as humans without technology) or by others imposing constraints upon us. One's power to control one's life is limited by the existence of others who also have the desire to control their lives and well-being and may have personal objectives that run up against those of another.
Now, no human being can never claim to being absolutely sovereign. To be absolutely sovereign one would need to possess the power to exist without constraints. This would suggest an existence with the ability and facility to control one's environment in every way and in which the environment did not present any constraining limitations on thought or action. Human being is finite, transitory, and fragile. We exist as beings with limitations of knowledge, power, and physical ability; any sovereignty we possess is in some sense bestowed upon us by our abilities of reason and choice.
In religious thinking and conversation the idea of sovereignty, with respect to God, takes on meaning suggested immediately above. In most instances when someone asserts that God is sovereign they mean that God has unlimited knowledge, unlimited power and unlimited extension in space. In the language of religious conversation God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent and these features of the Divine metaphysic are intertwined in very important ways as we try to make sense of human-being-in-the-cosmos and human-being-in-relationship to God.
All his leads us to a couple of central questions. What are the senses in which God is limitless, that is, absolutely sovereign? Further, to what extent is this notion of sovereignty to be applied beyond the Divine metaphysic to the Divine ethic. By this I mean to ask: Is there any sense in which God's sovereignty is constrained by ethical principles or moral law?
There are at least two ways to approach this question. An analysis of the concept of sovereignty runs up on our understanding of the Nature and Character of God, some of which are bound to be stipulative. The most simple approach is also the most argumentative one. It is to take the commonly held notions of sovereignty as applied to God, which may have both metaphysical and moral implications, and explore the ways in which the notion of divine sovereignty is congruent with lived human experience and statements about God out of the sacred texts. This leads into debates about (a) hermeneutics and exegesis, (b) who understands the biblical languages most thoroughly, (c)the nature of broader cultural influences on the writing, translating and understanding of the texts commonly used as sources.
My sense is that many hold to an idea of the 'sovereignty of God' that does violence to the idea of a God of love, mercy, grace and kindness. It is here that one's understanding of the 'natural' attributes of God run into His moral characteristics and confusion sets in. Most often conversations about calamity are the most useful as heuristics for getting at the confusion about the nature and character of God. A very recent calamity will serve the purpose.
A few days ago my daughter went to a concert in our town at which a local Christian band was playing. At the beginning of the event a young man took the platform and said, "Isn't it amazing that God knew about this event from the foundation of the earth?" Now, the suggestion is that everything that occurs happens with God's advance knowledge (remember... many believe that He has unlimited knowledge). Sometime later, at the concert, some equipment came crashing to the floor causing the floor in front of the stage to collapse and two or three dozen people to fall to the basement floor some 12 - 15 feet below. Fortunately the number of injured were few and the severity of most of the injuries was slight. However, there was at least one person who was injured seriously and I understand that the person is experiencing paralysis from the neck down.
I wonder... how does the young speaker, or anyone else, make sense of this calamity in the context of a theology of God's unlimited knowledge, power and presence? The answer for those who believe in God's absolute sovereignty is simple enough: 'God knew it, God may have caused it, God certainly allowed it if nothing else, God had the power to stop it, but God, in His sovereignty has allowed it for some redemptive purpose'. This can be the only answer because there is nothing in this framework that allows for an alternative explanation. Some will say this was an act of evil directed by the Adversary and other malevolent spirits ... and well it may have been ... but this does nothing to assuage the uncertainty around the nature and character of God.
When bad things happen people of faith who live in a Augo-Calvinistic theological view have no 'reasonable' answers that exonerate the character of God. This must not be underestimated or trivialized. The unbeliever reasons as follows: 'If God is sovereign in any sense, then God is ultimately responsible for the harm caused.' When this argument is made the Character of God is called into question. You see, there are no accidents because God causes or allows everything.
My reading of the Judeo-Christian texts, the sources for our ideas of God, suggests that God is 'sovereign' and (READ CAREFULLY) His sovereignty extends as far as to having made choices in creating free moral agents to LIMIT the extent of His own sovereignty. Some will say this is a self-refuting argument but it is not. Really, this argument makes sense if one rejects the Augo-Calvinistic theology and reads the texts well. There are numerous instances of God having changed His mind and of God having made statements indicating that His actions are contingent upon human choices. This means that the definition of 'sovereignty' we presently use (as stated above) is not the one that the texts suggest.
I'd like to make a distinction here that is simple but critical in understanding the nature of God as this relates to His character. God has the natural power to do unfathomable things by human reckoning; He can heal the incurable; He can make things disappear; He can make things come into existence. What God WILL NOT do is act outside the principles of justice and fairness and impartiality as is required in His position as the governmental Sovereign and King of universe.
The governmental order of the universe is defined by the existence of free moral beings (human and angelic) who live under the terms of the Law. Rules for mental and physical action have existed for eternity. As I see it, the Trinitarian Community has lived, lives now and will forever live in the harmony of love because those in the Community (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) choose to love one another all the time and can observe the positive outcomes of love. When They chose to create free moral agents they took a risk and limited their sovereignty in the sense that they would forever be in a most amazing and humbling relationship with Their creatures. They designed free moral agents to choose to enter into the Triune love story, a choice over which God had no ULTIMATE control. Sure, God could cause people to live perfect lives but this would undermine the very reason for creating them...to experience the bliss of freely chosen love.
God is a King and has governmental authority. God's actions are public in the sense that He is careful to be fair in allowing every free agent to choose their destinies and the consequences that follow. This means that the exercise of His mere power (His Natural attributes) is mediated by the moral imperative to be fair and non-arbitrary. recall that the Adversary challenged God's integrity in the matter of Job. The claim of Satan was that Job served God only because he had been blessed rather than because of God's intrinsic value. It should be noted that God COULD NOT arbitrarily exercise power lest He be charged with being unjust relative to others.
Now it is the case, and we learn this from the narratives of the Incarnate One, that God can act in response to the intercession or intervention of created beings. Now the humility and integrity of God can not be understated in this regard. God has, in His sovereignty and by virute of what He has created and the nature of it, that those who live in loving relationship with Him and who conform to standards of moral life designed into our being, can make requests of God and expect to be answered. The texts also suggest that the friends of God can make declarations of authority in the world on His behalf because this is what was originally in the mind of God at creation. In other words, the power of God is at the disposal of His creatures but ONLY it they meet reasonable requirements that even He CANNOT suspend.
The authority of God to exercise is infinite power is limited by the ethical requirements of God-as-Moral-Being and God-as-Moral-Governor. The authority of God to exercise power indiscriminately (because He has it) is limited by His authority as a Moral Being. God's sovereignty is limited to the extent that He has the sovereignty to do so. And God limits the exercise of His power as a Being who is both, just and loving and for whom the risk of creating free beings was worth the outcomes, particularly in light of the life, death and resurrection of the Son.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
On Sovereignty
Why must God be 'sovereign' in the ways defined by western Christendom? I picked up a book entitled, God is Not Great by Hitchens out of curiosity and find there ...again ... the same tired old arguments against the existence of God. As usual the naysayer trots out arguments against the existence of God for reasons of defects in the character of God.
Among other arguments Hitchens makes, there is this thorny issue of God's sovereignty, and it seems that Hitchens has not explored God concepts outside the orthodoxies of what have become 'historic' orthodoxies in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I am of the view that what we have as 'historic' Christianity is a result of a misreading of texts that have come to us. The notion of sovereignty is one of the ideas with which we labor for a couple of reasons.
Sovereignty as we understand it in the west is something of a borrowed idea. The texts, even as we have them now, suggest that God limited the extent of His (excuse the use of the masculine for the moment) sovereignty - read control - by creating beings that are really and truly incipient. The texts suggest something different from what our philosophizing and conversing has produced. I mean that we have adopted something of a Hellenistic idea of sovereignty that is not entirely accepted elsewhere. If it is the case that God changes His mind about actions He will take in response to human action, He is not sovereign in any sense of the word as we... in the west ... currently understand it.
When one says that God is sovereign we generally take this to mean that God is in complete and utter control of all events, all of the time, either by causing them to occur or by allowing them to occur for some redemptive purpose. This is the point at which naysayers leave the conversation. If God is 'sovereign' in the sense suggested by much of orthodox Christianity, then all evil and suffering is God's doing ... and there is really no way 'round the conclusion.
Perhaps we need to re-think God with a view of sovereignty suggested by the texts. It may be that God chooses to interact with persons and intervene in the affairs of incipient beings contingent upon their responses. Perhaps we need to consider God in the context of His self-chosen limitations ... a difficult conceptual shift to make because it does violence to beliefs constructed over centuries.
Among other arguments Hitchens makes, there is this thorny issue of God's sovereignty, and it seems that Hitchens has not explored God concepts outside the orthodoxies of what have become 'historic' orthodoxies in Christianity, Islam or Judaism. I am of the view that what we have as 'historic' Christianity is a result of a misreading of texts that have come to us. The notion of sovereignty is one of the ideas with which we labor for a couple of reasons.
Sovereignty as we understand it in the west is something of a borrowed idea. The texts, even as we have them now, suggest that God limited the extent of His (excuse the use of the masculine for the moment) sovereignty - read control - by creating beings that are really and truly incipient. The texts suggest something different from what our philosophizing and conversing has produced. I mean that we have adopted something of a Hellenistic idea of sovereignty that is not entirely accepted elsewhere. If it is the case that God changes His mind about actions He will take in response to human action, He is not sovereign in any sense of the word as we... in the west ... currently understand it.
When one says that God is sovereign we generally take this to mean that God is in complete and utter control of all events, all of the time, either by causing them to occur or by allowing them to occur for some redemptive purpose. This is the point at which naysayers leave the conversation. If God is 'sovereign' in the sense suggested by much of orthodox Christianity, then all evil and suffering is God's doing ... and there is really no way 'round the conclusion.
Perhaps we need to re-think God with a view of sovereignty suggested by the texts. It may be that God chooses to interact with persons and intervene in the affairs of incipient beings contingent upon their responses. Perhaps we need to consider God in the context of His self-chosen limitations ... a difficult conceptual shift to make because it does violence to beliefs constructed over centuries.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Meditations on the Passion and Traditions of Meaning Making
Well AB…you were asking if I would have anything for Resurrection Day and I have, although the meditation is about two moments during Jesus’ passion that have always demanded our attention and resulted (in my experience) in a kind of wonder at His remarkable toughness in seeing His mission through. I suppose this reflection is as much about how we read narratives out of antiquity, especially ones that have religious or spiritual significance, as it is about the substance of the Jesus narrative from 29-30 A.D. In any case…here are some thoughts.
My meditations are those of a layman; I offer them with as much deference to those who make it their business to know biblical languages, history, and culture, as I am able. This year I thought I would offer a meditation that will bring one horizon of understanding to meet another. This ‘other’ horizon to which I bring my own has a history and an inertia that dwarfs every other, including that of the historic Eastern Church.
From the time I first came to surrender to God I had misgivings, not about God, Jesus, the Presence of the Holy Spirit … any of that. My misgivings were about some of what I was reading in the biblical texts about the Man … Jesus. The readings birthed a dissonance that remained until I stumbled on to some possible alternatives. So…here are two bits of reading that are rather important because they are about the Person of Christ in the walking out of His eternal passion narrative on earth. The events happen within hours of each other in the narrative; I consider them important for what they say about HOW Jesus died. If nothing else matters… nothing matters more than worshipping God in Spirit and in truth. Nothing matters more than that we worship God as He is, not as we think He is. This is, at times, more easily said than done because the inertia of church tradition pushes the atypical to the fringe of community experience for all sorts of understandable reasons. As it turns out, my initial doubts about the transmission and translations of the stories, had answers in the Eastern Church tradition and the texts of Aramaic origin.
Anyway…the first bit of the story I found puzzling was the account of Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane on the night he was betrayed and arrested. During this time of agony and attack the writer records Jesus as pleading with the Father in prayer for the ‘cup’ to ‘pass from Him’. Western church tradition teaches that Jesus, in His humanity and weakness, was asking for a way out of the trial set before Him. The second incident is recorded in a passage in His last moments during which Jesus says, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” Again, western tradition teaches that Jesus uttered this cry as a conscious echo of the cry of David in Psalm 22 of the Old Testament who, it is said, felt abandoned, forsaken of God, in a time when he under duress from every side. My suggestion, as a reader, is simply this: these two descriptions of Jesus seem to me to be … out of step … with the descriptions of Jesus offered by the same writers, in the same texts. So, I am wondering if a consistency of image is lost due to faulty transmissions of the story in translation? I am wondering why the western biblical tradition on these important texts is so different to the eastern biblical traditions? The answers to these questions are simple but complicated in that the unraveling of a narrative of theologically informed
As a reader – remember I am a layman in theological matters and the sophistications of bible knowledge – I find my sensibilities jarred by the contrasting images of Jesus I see, particularly at the end of His earthly sojourn. The contrasting images are in what western tradition suggests about Jesus by what is recorded as Jesus’ words and deeds in the garden and at Golgotha and what the same tradition reveals about Him up to His arrest AND between His arrest and the crucifixion. Teaching that comes out of tradition on these passages casts Jesus, at least in my reading, in negative light. He appears to be weak, irresolute, even cowardly and pathetic. At the very least He has, in these two moments, lost His sense of purpose and direction. What is peculiar about these pieces of the narrative as they have come to us in tradition are the juxtaposed images of Jesus, one that makes Him a man worthy of adoration and awe, and the other making Him the object of pity. I think there is one image of Jesus consistently communicated in the texts but this requires a rethinking, and, dare I say it, a rejection of the transmitted texts as codified in western theological orthodoxy. Allow me a lengthy review of the ‘historical moment’
Background to the Two Pieces of Text
I am struck by a couple of features of Jesus’ nature and character as a man, particularly in the last months, weeks and days of his time on earth. I am most taken by His amazing tenderness and sensitivity particularly in circumstances demanding remarkable toughness of mind, resiliency of spirit, and clarity of vision. I find Jesus, each time I read the passion narrative and the events leading to the last week, making every effort to be clear about whom He is and what He is about. I find Him always ‘in charge’ in these ways: (1) He never seems to be caught off-guard. (2) He does He allow Himself to be distracted or occupied with anything other than what He had come to humanity to accomplish. (3) His interactions with people are always…perfect… never fanciful, never superfluous but always pointed and resonating the fullness of His humanity. (4) He ensures that the substance of the message was His; no one else is permitted – in His presence – revisionism. I find it remarkable that Jesus, knowing into what He was moving, would make choices and take directions to ensure His purposes would not be thwarted by accident or design. There is a flow to the Jesus narrative revealing His remarkable resoluteness and wisdom; as readers we must also be aware of the significance of this period in order to appreciate the Accomplishment.
Between the Spring of A.D. 29 and April of A.D. 30 Jesus’ ministry took Him in an out of Jerusalem at least three times, once for the Feast of the Tabernacles, the second time for the Feast of Dedication, and the last time for the Passover. Between the Spring of A.D. 29 and October of A.D. 29 Jesus ‘withdrew’ into the countryside for a couple of three reasons: (1) intensive training of the disciples, (2) His own preparation and, (3) safety. During this period Jesus feeds thousands of people…twice, publicly (and privately) rejects political position and power, reveals His authority over nature (He walks on water), teaches on His identify as the ‘Bread of Life’ in Capernaum, has a significant encounter with some religious leaders who had come from Jerusalem to see His ministry firsthand, heals and delivers countless people, predicts His death, resurrection, and the coming of the Kingdom … twice, experiences the mountaintop transfiguration with three disciples present, and continues to teach and exemplify what life in the Kingdom meant.
Near the end of this period, after He had explained what would happen to Him in the coming weeks, the record (*see note below) says, “As the time approached for him (Jesus) to be taken up to heaven,” (Luke 9:51) and “after his brothers had left for the feast,” (John 7:10) “Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:51) Now…as a reader of narratives, I am puzzled by the inclusion of this bit of description offered by Luke. Bear in mind that I am reading the narrative as a line of action of which Jesus is the central character but I am also mindful of the end. When the writer says that ‘Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem’ we are to notice this. This little phrase gives us something of a window into the mind and attitude of Jesus in the days after He finished His ministry, teaching, and prophetic warnings to the disciples. He knew the critical time of the atonement was fast approaching. He knew that their passions had been enflamed either in support of He and His ministry or against Him. He knew what His end would look like and where it would occur. He knew too, that He would have to be careful to stay in charge of the flow of His own history…his destiny. With this phrase Luke wants us to know that Jesus has every intention of fulfilling His purpose, prophesied so often and so clearly. As readers who know the end of the story we also need to mindful that the Passover was months away and that Jesus would be in and out of Jerusalem during very unstable, emotional, politicized times. The religious leaders of the time were intimately aware of His claims and the potential implications to their continued status, wealth, religious structures, and tenuous political relationship with the Roman government. Jesus needed to be wise in His movements without neglecting His mission.
In the fall and winter of A.D. 30 (October – December) Jesus made His way into Jerusalem. While at the Festival of Dedication, Jesus taught in the temple frequently and during this time the divide continued to widen between He and the religious leaders. Jesus makes His identity claims known…again…and chastises the religious leaders for their hypocrisy and corruption. Some people picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy. On another occasions His enemies tried to seize Him but ‘He escaped their grasp’. Keenly aware of the times and the signs, Jesus leaves Jerusalem and travels in the areas of Judea, Samaria and Galilee; in each place He continues to define Himself and the Kingdom of Heaven.
In this period (in the winter) Jesus leaves His travels around the countryside and goes back up to Jerusalem (John 10:22) for the Festival of Dedication. During this visit in the temple the Jews (as described by John) twice picked up stones to kill Jesus and twice He escaped them. It was during this visit to the temple that Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”
By January, in 30 A.D., before Jesus made His final return to Jerusalem, He was already avoiding places where (as the texts describe it) Jews would be waiting for Him and seems to have made Perea His base of operations. It is during this time that Mary and Martha called upon Jesus to come to Bethany to heal their brother Lazarus. Jesus chooses to travel into Judea, away from Bethany, and returns later to find Lazarus dead. Jesus then resurrects Lazarus from the dead amid much attention from the crowds and the religious establishment. The Sanhedrin (a council of religious leaders) met and determined to have Jesus capture and killed when the time was right. It was at this time that “Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the Jews. Instead He withdrew to a region near the desert …where He stayed with His disciples.” (John 11:45)
By now Jesus has successfully defined the terms of the engagement with His enemies through the nature and substance of His teaching, his restorative actions, and the rejection of the religious orthodoxy of the day. His adversaries determined to arrest Him and have Him killed. He was being watched very carefully as the Pharisees continued to seek opportunities to apprehend Him and have Him killed. Jesus continued to minister to the delight of the crowds who came to hear Him. He knew that He would need to be wise in walking out the remainder of His life; it was clear to Him that if His enemies had their way…He would be stopped before becoming the Passover atonement.
On their way back to Jerusalem from Perean countryside Jesus explains in detail to the twelve (who He had taken aside) what would happen to Him in the coming days in Jerusalem at the Passover. During this time many of the religious leaders had gone up to Jerusalem for the time of ceremonial cleansing before the day of atonement and were anxiously seeking Jesus, who had not yet arrive in the city. Jesus was completely aware of everything that was to befall Him and it appears, was under no illusions about any of it.
In the six days prior to His arrest Jesus arrived in Jerusalem midst the adulation of the crowds. In this time Jesus seized an opportunity to further define Himself and His mission by teaching from a parable in which He claims to be the vineyard owner’s son, sent to win over the workers, only to be killed by them. This, clearly, was an incendiary teaching as far as the Pharisees and teachers of the law were concerned. This teaching was Jesus’ statement of his identity as the Son and Messiah as well as a foretelling of His own fate. (Mat 21, Mark 11, Luke 20
I am laboring the review to draw a conclusion from the texts. Jesus was…and is…unlike any other person. His thinking, teaching and actions in the months, weeks and days leading to His crucifixion are marked be clarity, courage and commitment to His purposes. There is nothing in the record suggesting He might have any hesitations or doubts neither about what He was to accomplish nor about how it would be accomplished. Everything about Him demands our attention, devotion, adoration and admiration.
Now... there is depth…a texture of human experience around Jesus, the disciples, and the small community of friends traveling with Him in His last days on earth that can hardly be fathomed from our place in time. Even to write about it seems somehow… shallow… but I need to press forward. On the night He is arrested, Jesus meets in the evening with His closest companions, shares a last meal with them, teaches, comforts, warns and prays for them. After this ‘last supper’ Jesus takes His closest companions (John, Peter, James) to a place familiar to, the garden at Gethsemane, where He experiences something unfathomable to any person. Jesus asks His friends to intercede and moves away to pray as He continues to experience the weight of His passion…His mission…becoming the atoning sacrifice for human sin. I suggest that their is’becomingness’ in this short time as Jesus literally feels and experiences something of the pain of separation from the Father He had never experienced.
Two Brief Puzzling Passages:
1. The Gethsemane prayers…
It is in these moments of the pathos…the solitary experience of ‘becoming sin’ … that Jesus is said to cry out to the Father asking that the ‘hour might pass from Him’. Here is where my reflections take me to a place of utter admiration for the Man because I choose to experience the narrative in what I would call a full, harmonious manner. You see, as I read the gospel writers’ narrative of the garden prayer I ‘read’ Jesus as having His prayer answered. I came to an almost irrational admiration of Jesus, the Man, the weeks, days, and hours prior to His arrest because of His courage in the face of adversity while He had the presence of mind and fullness of spirit to continue to serve anyone who needed Him. I cannot imagine that the same Person would - admittedly under duress that no human…no person has ever experience - ask that He be spared from the Moment. So, as I read the gospels as one narrative I find:
• Jesus’ soul is overwhelmed with agony (and this is very important) to the point of death,
• Jesus prays that this cup, or this hour, would pass from Him,
• Jesus affirms that nothing is impossible for God,
• The angel is sent to minister to Him and strengthen Him,
• Jesus is in agony such that his sweat were as drops of blood (I have read that under this kind of duress blood actually comes through the skin and is a sign of imminent death),
• Jesus prays that ‘if it is not possible that the cup be taken away unless I drink from it, may your will be done’,
• He prays a third time, one can only assume, in the same way, and then wakes His friends to let them know that He was about to be arrested.
So… there is the short narrative pieced together from the gospels. Here’s what it suggests to me about Jesus, consistent with what I have learned about Him up to this point. The narrative suggests to me that the Jesus was burdened, grieved, in agony, and under such duress that He was… literally… about to die in the garden. Jesus calls out to the Father asking that He not die there (that present ‘cup’ of death) in the garden, rather that He completes the full mission, as prophesied. His prayer is answered in so far as an angel is sent to strengthen Him there in the garden…in physical crisis…at that time. Jesus’ life is spared in the garden by God’s intervention and He is strengthened to the extent that He can go through the many indignities that follow.
I understand… it is common to the point of being orthodoxy to suggest that Jesus cried out in this manner in the garden in his weakness as a man. It is said taught that Jesus, at this critical time of duress, asked the Father if there would be some way that He might avoid the ignominy of the next hours altogether. I cannot see my way clear to this conclusion. I see Jesus, in the garden, doing just the contrary. At a time when He might have physically expired He asks that the Father intervene so that He could undergo all that was necessary to COMPLETE the offense.
I suggest this reading of the narrative, not to be contrary, but to invite people into an understanding of the Man, Jesus, which I think inspires confidence and admiration for His human (and divine) courage and commitment to our human well-being. It is with this in mind that I beg your indulgence for one more comment on, or re-reading of, the passion narrative.
2. The Cry from the Cross-.
One of the texts that troubled me as a reader and believer from the earliest days of faith was the pathetic cry of Jesus from the ‘tree’. In His last moments, and having come through a horrific experience (including the Garden of Gethsemane) Jesus is said to have cried out, in public, ‘My God! My God! Why have you abandoned (or forsaken) me?’
This seems, on the surface, to be completely out of character for the Man to cry out. I mean…how could Jesus, as clear as He was about who He was and what He was accomplishing in His substitution and atoning death, even ask the question of God? This question never made sense to me. How could He, in one moment, welcome a repentant criminal into paradise, offer forgiveness to his executioners for not knowing what they were doing, and then in the next moment accuse God of abandonment?
There are three things to say about this. First, God does not leave nor forsake those who are wholly given to Him. Jesus was not forsaken by God and His identity in that moment as the Passover Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world doesn’t obfuscate the fact that Jesus He died as an innocent person for the sins of others. Now… this statement has some implications, not the least of which is an alternative (tough not completely alien) understanding of the atonement. Second, I suggest that He didn’t say what the western tradition of teaching and translation asserts and that this statement is as much a theological position as it is a translation of the words of Jesus. Third, the tradition of the western church is that Jesus, at this moment, had ‘become sin’ and that God (the Righteous and Holy Judge) could not maintain anything but separation from Jesus at his moment. I understand this point of view. However, even if I accepted that Jesus had literally ‘become sin’ at this moment, I cannot understand how He could ask, in the face of 30 years of personal experience in walking with God, understanding the nature of the Kingdom, and understanding the nature of the atonement, the question.
I suggested by an alternate reading of the narrative above; Jesus, rather than being pitied in His last hours as one weak and irresolute, should be admired for His courage and tenacity in the face of unimaginable struggle and conflict (both internal and cosmic). Here again, the inertia of western tradition militates against what I would suggest is a more consistent and full understanding and appreciation of the Man, Jesus, as our eternal Hero, Savior, and Lord.
I came to my growing admiration for Jesus - in the manner described above- quite by accident. I was in the Canadian Bible Society Bookstore in Vancouver and came across an English translation of the Bible from the Aramaic by Lamsa. As is my habit, I search different translations for an alternative reading of what I believe are problematic translations of the ‘tricky’ passages. What I discovered was a reading of the passage above that was consistent with the Jesus I had come to admire. The Aramaic translates the passage above, and the passage in Psalm 22 in the following way:
And at about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lemana Shabakthani! Which means My God, My God, for this I was spared (Mk 15)
If this translation from the Aramaic to English is accurate, a consistent edifying image of the Man – Jesus - as tough-minded, clear thinking, purposeful and resolute is revealed. Here is how I make meaning of the statement. Jesus never once shrunk away from His mission nor did He ever deflect any responsibility or suggest that any blame be apportioned to the Father for His situation. I’d like to suggest that Jesus was thanking God for ‘sparing’ Him from an early death, perhaps in the Garden (or even before when many were trying to kill Him), so that He could accomplish all that had been predicted.
Some will ask, “Then what of the direct reference to the twenty second Psalm? Is Jesus not quoting from the Psalm of David?” I can only reply that if one accepts the traditional western view of both passages this is a fair question. It would be important from a prophetic and spiritual perspective to defend the reference Jesus made to the Psalm. However, it should be noted that the Davidic complaint recorded in Psalm 22 is translated in a similar manner by the translators and teachers from the eastern church tradition as the question uttered by Jesus on the cross. Again, one tradition of translation presents a startlingly different image of the Savior I believe is more consistent with the narratives of His life and purposes.
I should add that another translator of the Aramaic reads the text as follows: “My God, My God, Why have you spared me?” and suggests that Jesus is asking why, believing that He had accomplished His mission, His earthly life lingered. (Youman).
What do these re-readings mean? For me they mean that, as a reader, I can read the texts and hold in abeyance the many instances of puzzling oddities with the confidence that, at some point the Life and message of God in Jesus will cohere…make sense… and be an answer to others. Second, they mean that a coherent image of Jesus is possible and that He can be admired and adored without reservation.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
*Note: I used two translations of the Bible. A helpful tool as far as historical flow and chronology is area concerned is A Harmony of the Four Gospels (Second Edition), The New International Version (1996). This is O. Daniel’s compilation of the gospels into a chronology of events and is published by Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, Michigan). The second translation I read is the Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text. This is George M. Lamsa’s translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta and is not without its shortcomings for reasons I will not explore now. Paul Youman is translating the Peshitta into English the substance of which (the Gospels and Acts to chapter 15 so far) is on the World Wide Web to review.
My meditations are those of a layman; I offer them with as much deference to those who make it their business to know biblical languages, history, and culture, as I am able. This year I thought I would offer a meditation that will bring one horizon of understanding to meet another. This ‘other’ horizon to which I bring my own has a history and an inertia that dwarfs every other, including that of the historic Eastern Church.
From the time I first came to surrender to God I had misgivings, not about God, Jesus, the Presence of the Holy Spirit … any of that. My misgivings were about some of what I was reading in the biblical texts about the Man … Jesus. The readings birthed a dissonance that remained until I stumbled on to some possible alternatives. So…here are two bits of reading that are rather important because they are about the Person of Christ in the walking out of His eternal passion narrative on earth. The events happen within hours of each other in the narrative; I consider them important for what they say about HOW Jesus died. If nothing else matters… nothing matters more than worshipping God in Spirit and in truth. Nothing matters more than that we worship God as He is, not as we think He is. This is, at times, more easily said than done because the inertia of church tradition pushes the atypical to the fringe of community experience for all sorts of understandable reasons. As it turns out, my initial doubts about the transmission and translations of the stories, had answers in the Eastern Church tradition and the texts of Aramaic origin.
Anyway…the first bit of the story I found puzzling was the account of Jesus in the garden at Gethsemane on the night he was betrayed and arrested. During this time of agony and attack the writer records Jesus as pleading with the Father in prayer for the ‘cup’ to ‘pass from Him’. Western church tradition teaches that Jesus, in His humanity and weakness, was asking for a way out of the trial set before Him. The second incident is recorded in a passage in His last moments during which Jesus says, “My God! My God! Why have you forsaken me?” Again, western tradition teaches that Jesus uttered this cry as a conscious echo of the cry of David in Psalm 22 of the Old Testament who, it is said, felt abandoned, forsaken of God, in a time when he under duress from every side. My suggestion, as a reader, is simply this: these two descriptions of Jesus seem to me to be … out of step … with the descriptions of Jesus offered by the same writers, in the same texts. So, I am wondering if a consistency of image is lost due to faulty transmissions of the story in translation? I am wondering why the western biblical tradition on these important texts is so different to the eastern biblical traditions? The answers to these questions are simple but complicated in that the unraveling of a narrative of theologically informed
As a reader – remember I am a layman in theological matters and the sophistications of bible knowledge – I find my sensibilities jarred by the contrasting images of Jesus I see, particularly at the end of His earthly sojourn. The contrasting images are in what western tradition suggests about Jesus by what is recorded as Jesus’ words and deeds in the garden and at Golgotha and what the same tradition reveals about Him up to His arrest AND between His arrest and the crucifixion. Teaching that comes out of tradition on these passages casts Jesus, at least in my reading, in negative light. He appears to be weak, irresolute, even cowardly and pathetic. At the very least He has, in these two moments, lost His sense of purpose and direction. What is peculiar about these pieces of the narrative as they have come to us in tradition are the juxtaposed images of Jesus, one that makes Him a man worthy of adoration and awe, and the other making Him the object of pity. I think there is one image of Jesus consistently communicated in the texts but this requires a rethinking, and, dare I say it, a rejection of the transmitted texts as codified in western theological orthodoxy. Allow me a lengthy review of the ‘historical moment’
Background to the Two Pieces of Text
I am struck by a couple of features of Jesus’ nature and character as a man, particularly in the last months, weeks and days of his time on earth. I am most taken by His amazing tenderness and sensitivity particularly in circumstances demanding remarkable toughness of mind, resiliency of spirit, and clarity of vision. I find Jesus, each time I read the passion narrative and the events leading to the last week, making every effort to be clear about whom He is and what He is about. I find Him always ‘in charge’ in these ways: (1) He never seems to be caught off-guard. (2) He does He allow Himself to be distracted or occupied with anything other than what He had come to humanity to accomplish. (3) His interactions with people are always…perfect… never fanciful, never superfluous but always pointed and resonating the fullness of His humanity. (4) He ensures that the substance of the message was His; no one else is permitted – in His presence – revisionism. I find it remarkable that Jesus, knowing into what He was moving, would make choices and take directions to ensure His purposes would not be thwarted by accident or design. There is a flow to the Jesus narrative revealing His remarkable resoluteness and wisdom; as readers we must also be aware of the significance of this period in order to appreciate the Accomplishment.
Between the Spring of A.D. 29 and April of A.D. 30 Jesus’ ministry took Him in an out of Jerusalem at least three times, once for the Feast of the Tabernacles, the second time for the Feast of Dedication, and the last time for the Passover. Between the Spring of A.D. 29 and October of A.D. 29 Jesus ‘withdrew’ into the countryside for a couple of three reasons: (1) intensive training of the disciples, (2) His own preparation and, (3) safety. During this period Jesus feeds thousands of people…twice, publicly (and privately) rejects political position and power, reveals His authority over nature (He walks on water), teaches on His identify as the ‘Bread of Life’ in Capernaum, has a significant encounter with some religious leaders who had come from Jerusalem to see His ministry firsthand, heals and delivers countless people, predicts His death, resurrection, and the coming of the Kingdom … twice, experiences the mountaintop transfiguration with three disciples present, and continues to teach and exemplify what life in the Kingdom meant.
Near the end of this period, after He had explained what would happen to Him in the coming weeks, the record (*see note below) says, “As the time approached for him (Jesus) to be taken up to heaven,” (Luke 9:51) and “after his brothers had left for the feast,” (John 7:10) “Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem.” (Luke 9:51) Now…as a reader of narratives, I am puzzled by the inclusion of this bit of description offered by Luke. Bear in mind that I am reading the narrative as a line of action of which Jesus is the central character but I am also mindful of the end. When the writer says that ‘Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem’ we are to notice this. This little phrase gives us something of a window into the mind and attitude of Jesus in the days after He finished His ministry, teaching, and prophetic warnings to the disciples. He knew the critical time of the atonement was fast approaching. He knew that their passions had been enflamed either in support of He and His ministry or against Him. He knew what His end would look like and where it would occur. He knew too, that He would have to be careful to stay in charge of the flow of His own history…his destiny. With this phrase Luke wants us to know that Jesus has every intention of fulfilling His purpose, prophesied so often and so clearly. As readers who know the end of the story we also need to mindful that the Passover was months away and that Jesus would be in and out of Jerusalem during very unstable, emotional, politicized times. The religious leaders of the time were intimately aware of His claims and the potential implications to their continued status, wealth, religious structures, and tenuous political relationship with the Roman government. Jesus needed to be wise in His movements without neglecting His mission.
In the fall and winter of A.D. 30 (October – December) Jesus made His way into Jerusalem. While at the Festival of Dedication, Jesus taught in the temple frequently and during this time the divide continued to widen between He and the religious leaders. Jesus makes His identity claims known…again…and chastises the religious leaders for their hypocrisy and corruption. Some people picked up stones to kill him for blasphemy. On another occasions His enemies tried to seize Him but ‘He escaped their grasp’. Keenly aware of the times and the signs, Jesus leaves Jerusalem and travels in the areas of Judea, Samaria and Galilee; in each place He continues to define Himself and the Kingdom of Heaven.
In this period (in the winter) Jesus leaves His travels around the countryside and goes back up to Jerusalem (John 10:22) for the Festival of Dedication. During this visit in the temple the Jews (as described by John) twice picked up stones to kill Jesus and twice He escaped them. It was during this visit to the temple that Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.”
By January, in 30 A.D., before Jesus made His final return to Jerusalem, He was already avoiding places where (as the texts describe it) Jews would be waiting for Him and seems to have made Perea His base of operations. It is during this time that Mary and Martha called upon Jesus to come to Bethany to heal their brother Lazarus. Jesus chooses to travel into Judea, away from Bethany, and returns later to find Lazarus dead. Jesus then resurrects Lazarus from the dead amid much attention from the crowds and the religious establishment. The Sanhedrin (a council of religious leaders) met and determined to have Jesus capture and killed when the time was right. It was at this time that “Jesus no longer moved about publicly among the Jews. Instead He withdrew to a region near the desert …where He stayed with His disciples.” (John 11:45)
By now Jesus has successfully defined the terms of the engagement with His enemies through the nature and substance of His teaching, his restorative actions, and the rejection of the religious orthodoxy of the day. His adversaries determined to arrest Him and have Him killed. He was being watched very carefully as the Pharisees continued to seek opportunities to apprehend Him and have Him killed. Jesus continued to minister to the delight of the crowds who came to hear Him. He knew that He would need to be wise in walking out the remainder of His life; it was clear to Him that if His enemies had their way…He would be stopped before becoming the Passover atonement.
On their way back to Jerusalem from Perean countryside Jesus explains in detail to the twelve (who He had taken aside) what would happen to Him in the coming days in Jerusalem at the Passover. During this time many of the religious leaders had gone up to Jerusalem for the time of ceremonial cleansing before the day of atonement and were anxiously seeking Jesus, who had not yet arrive in the city. Jesus was completely aware of everything that was to befall Him and it appears, was under no illusions about any of it.
In the six days prior to His arrest Jesus arrived in Jerusalem midst the adulation of the crowds. In this time Jesus seized an opportunity to further define Himself and His mission by teaching from a parable in which He claims to be the vineyard owner’s son, sent to win over the workers, only to be killed by them. This, clearly, was an incendiary teaching as far as the Pharisees and teachers of the law were concerned. This teaching was Jesus’ statement of his identity as the Son and Messiah as well as a foretelling of His own fate. (Mat 21, Mark 11, Luke 20
I am laboring the review to draw a conclusion from the texts. Jesus was…and is…unlike any other person. His thinking, teaching and actions in the months, weeks and days leading to His crucifixion are marked be clarity, courage and commitment to His purposes. There is nothing in the record suggesting He might have any hesitations or doubts neither about what He was to accomplish nor about how it would be accomplished. Everything about Him demands our attention, devotion, adoration and admiration.
Now... there is depth…a texture of human experience around Jesus, the disciples, and the small community of friends traveling with Him in His last days on earth that can hardly be fathomed from our place in time. Even to write about it seems somehow… shallow… but I need to press forward. On the night He is arrested, Jesus meets in the evening with His closest companions, shares a last meal with them, teaches, comforts, warns and prays for them. After this ‘last supper’ Jesus takes His closest companions (John, Peter, James) to a place familiar to, the garden at Gethsemane, where He experiences something unfathomable to any person. Jesus asks His friends to intercede and moves away to pray as He continues to experience the weight of His passion…His mission…becoming the atoning sacrifice for human sin. I suggest that their is’becomingness’ in this short time as Jesus literally feels and experiences something of the pain of separation from the Father He had never experienced.
Two Brief Puzzling Passages:
1. The Gethsemane prayers…
It is in these moments of the pathos…the solitary experience of ‘becoming sin’ … that Jesus is said to cry out to the Father asking that the ‘hour might pass from Him’. Here is where my reflections take me to a place of utter admiration for the Man because I choose to experience the narrative in what I would call a full, harmonious manner. You see, as I read the gospel writers’ narrative of the garden prayer I ‘read’ Jesus as having His prayer answered. I came to an almost irrational admiration of Jesus, the Man, the weeks, days, and hours prior to His arrest because of His courage in the face of adversity while He had the presence of mind and fullness of spirit to continue to serve anyone who needed Him. I cannot imagine that the same Person would - admittedly under duress that no human…no person has ever experience - ask that He be spared from the Moment. So, as I read the gospels as one narrative I find:
• Jesus’ soul is overwhelmed with agony (and this is very important) to the point of death,
• Jesus prays that this cup, or this hour, would pass from Him,
• Jesus affirms that nothing is impossible for God,
• The angel is sent to minister to Him and strengthen Him,
• Jesus is in agony such that his sweat were as drops of blood (I have read that under this kind of duress blood actually comes through the skin and is a sign of imminent death),
• Jesus prays that ‘if it is not possible that the cup be taken away unless I drink from it, may your will be done’,
• He prays a third time, one can only assume, in the same way, and then wakes His friends to let them know that He was about to be arrested.
So… there is the short narrative pieced together from the gospels. Here’s what it suggests to me about Jesus, consistent with what I have learned about Him up to this point. The narrative suggests to me that the Jesus was burdened, grieved, in agony, and under such duress that He was… literally… about to die in the garden. Jesus calls out to the Father asking that He not die there (that present ‘cup’ of death) in the garden, rather that He completes the full mission, as prophesied. His prayer is answered in so far as an angel is sent to strengthen Him there in the garden…in physical crisis…at that time. Jesus’ life is spared in the garden by God’s intervention and He is strengthened to the extent that He can go through the many indignities that follow.
I understand… it is common to the point of being orthodoxy to suggest that Jesus cried out in this manner in the garden in his weakness as a man. It is said taught that Jesus, at this critical time of duress, asked the Father if there would be some way that He might avoid the ignominy of the next hours altogether. I cannot see my way clear to this conclusion. I see Jesus, in the garden, doing just the contrary. At a time when He might have physically expired He asks that the Father intervene so that He could undergo all that was necessary to COMPLETE the offense.
I suggest this reading of the narrative, not to be contrary, but to invite people into an understanding of the Man, Jesus, which I think inspires confidence and admiration for His human (and divine) courage and commitment to our human well-being. It is with this in mind that I beg your indulgence for one more comment on, or re-reading of, the passion narrative.
2. The Cry from the Cross-.
One of the texts that troubled me as a reader and believer from the earliest days of faith was the pathetic cry of Jesus from the ‘tree’. In His last moments, and having come through a horrific experience (including the Garden of Gethsemane) Jesus is said to have cried out, in public, ‘My God! My God! Why have you abandoned (or forsaken) me?’
This seems, on the surface, to be completely out of character for the Man to cry out. I mean…how could Jesus, as clear as He was about who He was and what He was accomplishing in His substitution and atoning death, even ask the question of God? This question never made sense to me. How could He, in one moment, welcome a repentant criminal into paradise, offer forgiveness to his executioners for not knowing what they were doing, and then in the next moment accuse God of abandonment?
There are three things to say about this. First, God does not leave nor forsake those who are wholly given to Him. Jesus was not forsaken by God and His identity in that moment as the Passover Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world doesn’t obfuscate the fact that Jesus He died as an innocent person for the sins of others. Now… this statement has some implications, not the least of which is an alternative (tough not completely alien) understanding of the atonement. Second, I suggest that He didn’t say what the western tradition of teaching and translation asserts and that this statement is as much a theological position as it is a translation of the words of Jesus. Third, the tradition of the western church is that Jesus, at this moment, had ‘become sin’ and that God (the Righteous and Holy Judge) could not maintain anything but separation from Jesus at his moment. I understand this point of view. However, even if I accepted that Jesus had literally ‘become sin’ at this moment, I cannot understand how He could ask, in the face of 30 years of personal experience in walking with God, understanding the nature of the Kingdom, and understanding the nature of the atonement, the question.
I suggested by an alternate reading of the narrative above; Jesus, rather than being pitied in His last hours as one weak and irresolute, should be admired for His courage and tenacity in the face of unimaginable struggle and conflict (both internal and cosmic). Here again, the inertia of western tradition militates against what I would suggest is a more consistent and full understanding and appreciation of the Man, Jesus, as our eternal Hero, Savior, and Lord.
I came to my growing admiration for Jesus - in the manner described above- quite by accident. I was in the Canadian Bible Society Bookstore in Vancouver and came across an English translation of the Bible from the Aramaic by Lamsa. As is my habit, I search different translations for an alternative reading of what I believe are problematic translations of the ‘tricky’ passages. What I discovered was a reading of the passage above that was consistent with the Jesus I had come to admire. The Aramaic translates the passage above, and the passage in Psalm 22 in the following way:
And at about the ninth hour, Jesus cried out with a loud voice saying, Eli, Eli, lemana Shabakthani! Which means My God, My God, for this I was spared (Mk 15)
If this translation from the Aramaic to English is accurate, a consistent edifying image of the Man – Jesus - as tough-minded, clear thinking, purposeful and resolute is revealed. Here is how I make meaning of the statement. Jesus never once shrunk away from His mission nor did He ever deflect any responsibility or suggest that any blame be apportioned to the Father for His situation. I’d like to suggest that Jesus was thanking God for ‘sparing’ Him from an early death, perhaps in the Garden (or even before when many were trying to kill Him), so that He could accomplish all that had been predicted.
Some will ask, “Then what of the direct reference to the twenty second Psalm? Is Jesus not quoting from the Psalm of David?” I can only reply that if one accepts the traditional western view of both passages this is a fair question. It would be important from a prophetic and spiritual perspective to defend the reference Jesus made to the Psalm. However, it should be noted that the Davidic complaint recorded in Psalm 22 is translated in a similar manner by the translators and teachers from the eastern church tradition as the question uttered by Jesus on the cross. Again, one tradition of translation presents a startlingly different image of the Savior I believe is more consistent with the narratives of His life and purposes.
I should add that another translator of the Aramaic reads the text as follows: “My God, My God, Why have you spared me?” and suggests that Jesus is asking why, believing that He had accomplished His mission, His earthly life lingered. (Youman).
What do these re-readings mean? For me they mean that, as a reader, I can read the texts and hold in abeyance the many instances of puzzling oddities with the confidence that, at some point the Life and message of God in Jesus will cohere…make sense… and be an answer to others. Second, they mean that a coherent image of Jesus is possible and that He can be admired and adored without reservation.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
*Note: I used two translations of the Bible. A helpful tool as far as historical flow and chronology is area concerned is A Harmony of the Four Gospels (Second Edition), The New International Version (1996). This is O. Daniel’s compilation of the gospels into a chronology of events and is published by Baker Academic (Grand Rapids, Michigan). The second translation I read is the Holy Bible From the Ancient Eastern Text. This is George M. Lamsa’s translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta and is not without its shortcomings for reasons I will not explore now. Paul Youman is translating the Peshitta into English the substance of which (the Gospels and Acts to chapter 15 so far) is on the World Wide Web to review.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
A Response to the man with a Tumor ...
“What would you say to the man with a tumor?”
Note: This post came out of a conversation I had with someone I know about God’s role, if any, in causing or allowing sickness and suffering. The occasion for the original conversation had nothing to do with a newspaper report I later read and to which I refer below. This post contains parts of a letter I wrote to this person in answer to her question, “What would you say to the man with the tumor?” So … if this sounds like a letter … it is. I should also add that a friend of the church leader who was the subject of the article wrote me in response to say, in essence, that the newspaper piece did not fairly express the views of his friend AND that his friend was doing well in his treatment.
I am in conversations often with people about what the Christian response to suffering is and what it ought to be. I don’t agree (as you know) with the dominant view in the church. Until recently I have not spoken out against this view in anything but private conversations but it has become necessary to do so. I have only had brief conversations with a few in our faith community about these doctrinal positions. This (see below) newspaper article is an example of why we think it is so important to be prepared with answers from the scripture that make sense and inform our actions.
The article begins, “The leader of one of Canada’s largest churches is sick with cancer and fighting for his life, and detailing the whole experience in public – in sometimes graphic detail – on the internet.” The man suffering is the moderator of the United Church of Canada. He had a tumor removed and is now waiting for radiation therapy. He is asking questions that trouble Christians in times of suffering. He is quoted from his blog: “I don’t believe in a God who protects one while millions of others suffer and die. Sure, I’d like God to give his or her head a shake and say, ‘Wow, all these people are praying for David. What was I thinking when I gave him that tumor! Abracadabra-shazam!’ [But] that doesn’t seem to be happening.” This man is suffering and, as a leader in the religious community, is publicly suggesting that God is responsible. This view is held by many in the church and is one of the reasons why so many on the outside of faith … stay outside.
(Note: As I understand it, the moderator, may have a more ‘open view’ of God than is communicated in the news article and be arguing ( though it is not explicit) that what he is quoted as saying about God is in fact a view with which he does not agree. I hope this is the case. In either case, the issue of whether or not God has a direct and active role and presence in any suffering doesn’t seem to go away. My response to the question asked by my friend I will leave below in so far as it addresses the central questions.)
Before I answer the man I need to make a necessary detour. I feel compassion for him in his suffering. I feel more compassion for him as one who is confused about the nature and character of God than as one suffering in his body. I say this because this man’s beliefs about God exempt him from a faith in the One who loves, heals, delivers and saves. Herein lies the tragedy. If God is responsible (as he seems to believe) he will die angry, bitter at God, and without faith that any petition for healing would be heard much less answered. If God is not responsible, as I believe, the man will still die angry and bitter at God but (and this is surely the maddening futility of the whole affair) the bible does not present God in this way. This man is wrong. The dominant theological teaching in this area of suffering is misguided. I also feel something like ‘dread’ for the man because, as one recognized as a religious leader in the Christian church he is making an indictment against God... publicly.
The man quoted (or misquoted) in the article is putting language to an indictment on God that many make. This is very serious. We are not to be stumbling blocks. We are to handle the words and ideas rightly. James, the brother of Jesus once warned the church about the importance of teaching when he wrote, “My brethren, let not many teachers be among you; but know that we are under a greater judgment. For in many things we all stumble. Anyone who does not offend in word, this one is a perfect man and able also to subdue his whole body. In my opinion too many who have an audience or a pulpit are not as cautious as they should be; words and ideas matter and can profoundly impact the hearers. Having said that, I hasten to add that much of what I find objectionable theologically is the ‘current orthodoxy’ and many people have come to these views by virtue of the inertia of tradition rather careful and reflective reading of the biblical texts.
(To my conversation partner I wrote the following.) Without discussing how I might engage the man in conversation the substance of my answer to him would be as follows: (1) God did not give him the tumor and there is no biblical evidence that God does this kind of thing. In fact there is ample biblical evidence to the contrary. (2) His beliefs about God may stem from erroneous thinking about the nature of God as it relates to His character. (3) His beliefs about God may stem from having adopted ideas about sovereignty, infinity, omnipotence or omniscience that, though widely held in the church, are not biblical. (4) Jesus is the interpretative lens through which/whom one should read the bible relative to God’s character and intentions for His creation AND Jesus lived (and died, and rose, and ascended) with a view to reclaiming what had been lost as a result of humankind giving authority to the Adversary. (5) The many ways we talk about God’s actions in the cosmos are at best, unfortunate euphemisms and at worst, outright misrepresentations of who He really is. For instance, to say that God ‘allowed’ this man’s tumor in any other sense than is congruent with living in a fallen world where free moral beings have chosen to live in unimaginable rebellion is simply wrong. Others say such things as: “Everything happens for a reason,” or “God has everything under control” or “God’s thoughts are not our thoughts”, none of which are carefully thought through. (6) In brief, God loves this man with the tumor too much to intend to hurt him and then cause his suffering. Any belief to the contrary is a lie. (7) His convictions about God could be different and need to be different for any hope for the healing of his body.
My hope is that as we converse on these questions we start by becoming reacquainted the teaching of Jesus about the nature of the conflict that exists in the cosmos and the nature and extent of His atoning sacrifice as the definitive act of warfare. It is important to emphasize that the tool for a renewing of this man’s mind is the inspired and intelligent re-reading of the biblical texts. It is also important to be mindful of reading the texts carefully and cautiously, aware of the theological horizons of understanding we might be bringing with us as we read and think. We must commit to coming to conclusions about the nature and character of God from a reading of the texts rather than by a reading of the texts as informed by a ‘school of thought’.
On the general question of why suffering exists the answer seems clear; free moral beings (both angelic/demonic and human) chose (and continue to choose) to live their lives outside of what God intended for them. When these choices were made, sin and all of its consequences (both governmental and natural) entered the world and we have been living with the dreadful consequences ever since. God has cooperated with those who love and follow Him and those who understand His ways to battle and win against the Adversary and others who have rebelled. I would add that ALL suffering is directly or indirectly a consequence of the original rebellion in heaven and the later earthly rebellion (which continues to this day) during which humankind relinquished the amazing authority God gave to us over to Satan.
What all of this means for the man with the tumor is that God did not, ‘willy-nilly’ choose to act in afflicting him while others remained in relative good health. This would suggest that God is arbitrary and capricious … unfair in His dealings with some human beings. What this really means is that something has gone terribly wrong in the cosmos as a result of rebellion; the suffering continues while God waits for His reclaimed, renewed and newly authoritative ‘little Christs’ to extend His rule and reign ‘on earth as it is in heaven’.
The man with the tumor ( Note… or those for whom an Augusto-Calvinistic world-view is the horizon of understanding which use to make sense of this for themselves or the suffering man.) is asking the question, ‘Why, if God is all-powerful and all knowing and a God of love, are millions of people suffering and dying? Those who have a reformed theological perspective cannot offer a thoroughgoing and consistent response because they have misunderstood what the texts say about God’s omnipotence and omniscience. They must say that God is love AND because He knows the future as objective realities (that we do not know because we are finite … so the argument goes) there must be a reason for the suffering that exists as a mystery of God’s goodness. This does no good for the sufferer who feels the pain of the tumor and the indignity of being on the receiving end of something so horrible at the hand of God. The other metaphysical issue that enters in has to do with the power of God. If God is powerful enough to stop all sickness and suffering but chooses not to use His power in this way … He is either sadistic or … is there another option?
Here is what, in my opinion, is revealed in the biblical texts. God creates free moral beings capable of choosing to be in an unending love story with Him. This could only be possible if those He created could chose otherwise and … so they did. When God created He took a ‘risk’. This notion of ‘risk’ must be carefully framed, explained, and understood with God’s incomprehensible intelligence, creaturely freedom and cosmic warfare in mind. In brief, freedom to love must have its contradictory. If we cannot choose to accept God’s invitation into love, the eternal love story that the Triune God has experienced, we would not experience what He does nor what He wanted to share. God, by making us free, limited the extent of both, His knowledge and the use of His power. Suffering is caused by free moral agents BUT it can be addressed by God, FAIRLY, only by cooperating with, or working with, those who are living within His intended design and authority. These people are those who have been rescued by Jesus and have undertaken to love God and His creation in acts of restoration.
Implicit in this view is the answer to the question about suffering. Suffering continues in times and places where the rule and reign of God does not exist. On the face of it this means that, His rule and reign do not exist either because the Adversary and its forces have authority (directly or indirectly) and/or because God’s people are not exercising their authority by ignorance, absence of faith, and/or mistaken thinking. Having said this there are instances of ‘abnormality’ and ‘suffering’ that trouble and vex me. For instance, it seems that there are answers in principle for things like genetic defects and the suffering caused by them but it ‘sounds’ presumptuous and ‘clinical’ to offer them.
The implications of this view are staggering and troubling; staggering because it suggests that God is waiting to ‘legally’ intervene in the affairs of men and women, consistent with their freedom on the basis of the faith, actions and character of His people. In other words, and this is the troubling part, there would be far less suffering in the world if God’s people did as they were designed and intended to do. There is also the matter of Jesus’ teaching to his disciples when they asked Him why they couldn’t heal a sick person. Jesus said, “Some things only come out by prayer and fasting,” and then Jesus proceeded to heal the person.
These ideas are more than theological or intellectual titillation. I believe them to be foundational CORE beliefs because they speak of the character of God. There are pastoral, evangelistic, and practical implications of these ideas. Let me give you some instances in the form of questions:
(1) How can one pray for the sick and expect healing when this is incongruent with how they understand God’s character and His ways?
(2) Why would anyone want, or need to prayer, when everything about them and their futures are known by God as a future facts or objective realities?
(3) What do we say to people to whom we are witnessing when they ask the questions the man with the tumor asks?
(4) How can we exonerate the character of God for a world that mocks Him when what they hear from the ‘church’ is the very thing they use as the basis for their claims against Him?
(5) I wonder … do we not see more in the ways of signs and wonders, miracles and healings because our ideas prevent us from really going to a place of deep faith?
(6) Have we become anesthetized to this conversation because we have been round the operating table one too many times?
There are other questions I might ask but the hardest questions are ones I ask of myself.
Praying for the man with the tumor ...Greg
Note: This post came out of a conversation I had with someone I know about God’s role, if any, in causing or allowing sickness and suffering. The occasion for the original conversation had nothing to do with a newspaper report I later read and to which I refer below. This post contains parts of a letter I wrote to this person in answer to her question, “What would you say to the man with the tumor?” So … if this sounds like a letter … it is. I should also add that a friend of the church leader who was the subject of the article wrote me in response to say, in essence, that the newspaper piece did not fairly express the views of his friend AND that his friend was doing well in his treatment.
I am in conversations often with people about what the Christian response to suffering is and what it ought to be. I don’t agree (as you know) with the dominant view in the church. Until recently I have not spoken out against this view in anything but private conversations but it has become necessary to do so. I have only had brief conversations with a few in our faith community about these doctrinal positions. This (see below) newspaper article is an example of why we think it is so important to be prepared with answers from the scripture that make sense and inform our actions.
The article begins, “The leader of one of Canada’s largest churches is sick with cancer and fighting for his life, and detailing the whole experience in public – in sometimes graphic detail – on the internet.” The man suffering is the moderator of the United Church of Canada. He had a tumor removed and is now waiting for radiation therapy. He is asking questions that trouble Christians in times of suffering. He is quoted from his blog: “I don’t believe in a God who protects one while millions of others suffer and die. Sure, I’d like God to give his or her head a shake and say, ‘Wow, all these people are praying for David. What was I thinking when I gave him that tumor! Abracadabra-shazam!’ [But] that doesn’t seem to be happening.” This man is suffering and, as a leader in the religious community, is publicly suggesting that God is responsible. This view is held by many in the church and is one of the reasons why so many on the outside of faith … stay outside.
(Note: As I understand it, the moderator, may have a more ‘open view’ of God than is communicated in the news article and be arguing ( though it is not explicit) that what he is quoted as saying about God is in fact a view with which he does not agree. I hope this is the case. In either case, the issue of whether or not God has a direct and active role and presence in any suffering doesn’t seem to go away. My response to the question asked by my friend I will leave below in so far as it addresses the central questions.)
Before I answer the man I need to make a necessary detour. I feel compassion for him in his suffering. I feel more compassion for him as one who is confused about the nature and character of God than as one suffering in his body. I say this because this man’s beliefs about God exempt him from a faith in the One who loves, heals, delivers and saves. Herein lies the tragedy. If God is responsible (as he seems to believe) he will die angry, bitter at God, and without faith that any petition for healing would be heard much less answered. If God is not responsible, as I believe, the man will still die angry and bitter at God but (and this is surely the maddening futility of the whole affair) the bible does not present God in this way. This man is wrong. The dominant theological teaching in this area of suffering is misguided. I also feel something like ‘dread’ for the man because, as one recognized as a religious leader in the Christian church he is making an indictment against God... publicly.
The man quoted (or misquoted) in the article is putting language to an indictment on God that many make. This is very serious. We are not to be stumbling blocks. We are to handle the words and ideas rightly. James, the brother of Jesus once warned the church about the importance of teaching when he wrote, “My brethren, let not many teachers be among you; but know that we are under a greater judgment. For in many things we all stumble. Anyone who does not offend in word, this one is a perfect man and able also to subdue his whole body. In my opinion too many who have an audience or a pulpit are not as cautious as they should be; words and ideas matter and can profoundly impact the hearers. Having said that, I hasten to add that much of what I find objectionable theologically is the ‘current orthodoxy’ and many people have come to these views by virtue of the inertia of tradition rather careful and reflective reading of the biblical texts.
(To my conversation partner I wrote the following.) Without discussing how I might engage the man in conversation the substance of my answer to him would be as follows: (1) God did not give him the tumor and there is no biblical evidence that God does this kind of thing. In fact there is ample biblical evidence to the contrary. (2) His beliefs about God may stem from erroneous thinking about the nature of God as it relates to His character. (3) His beliefs about God may stem from having adopted ideas about sovereignty, infinity, omnipotence or omniscience that, though widely held in the church, are not biblical. (4) Jesus is the interpretative lens through which/whom one should read the bible relative to God’s character and intentions for His creation AND Jesus lived (and died, and rose, and ascended) with a view to reclaiming what had been lost as a result of humankind giving authority to the Adversary. (5) The many ways we talk about God’s actions in the cosmos are at best, unfortunate euphemisms and at worst, outright misrepresentations of who He really is. For instance, to say that God ‘allowed’ this man’s tumor in any other sense than is congruent with living in a fallen world where free moral beings have chosen to live in unimaginable rebellion is simply wrong. Others say such things as: “Everything happens for a reason,” or “God has everything under control” or “God’s thoughts are not our thoughts”, none of which are carefully thought through. (6) In brief, God loves this man with the tumor too much to intend to hurt him and then cause his suffering. Any belief to the contrary is a lie. (7) His convictions about God could be different and need to be different for any hope for the healing of his body.
My hope is that as we converse on these questions we start by becoming reacquainted the teaching of Jesus about the nature of the conflict that exists in the cosmos and the nature and extent of His atoning sacrifice as the definitive act of warfare. It is important to emphasize that the tool for a renewing of this man’s mind is the inspired and intelligent re-reading of the biblical texts. It is also important to be mindful of reading the texts carefully and cautiously, aware of the theological horizons of understanding we might be bringing with us as we read and think. We must commit to coming to conclusions about the nature and character of God from a reading of the texts rather than by a reading of the texts as informed by a ‘school of thought’.
On the general question of why suffering exists the answer seems clear; free moral beings (both angelic/demonic and human) chose (and continue to choose) to live their lives outside of what God intended for them. When these choices were made, sin and all of its consequences (both governmental and natural) entered the world and we have been living with the dreadful consequences ever since. God has cooperated with those who love and follow Him and those who understand His ways to battle and win against the Adversary and others who have rebelled. I would add that ALL suffering is directly or indirectly a consequence of the original rebellion in heaven and the later earthly rebellion (which continues to this day) during which humankind relinquished the amazing authority God gave to us over to Satan.
What all of this means for the man with the tumor is that God did not, ‘willy-nilly’ choose to act in afflicting him while others remained in relative good health. This would suggest that God is arbitrary and capricious … unfair in His dealings with some human beings. What this really means is that something has gone terribly wrong in the cosmos as a result of rebellion; the suffering continues while God waits for His reclaimed, renewed and newly authoritative ‘little Christs’ to extend His rule and reign ‘on earth as it is in heaven’.
The man with the tumor ( Note… or those for whom an Augusto-Calvinistic world-view is the horizon of understanding which use to make sense of this for themselves or the suffering man.) is asking the question, ‘Why, if God is all-powerful and all knowing and a God of love, are millions of people suffering and dying? Those who have a reformed theological perspective cannot offer a thoroughgoing and consistent response because they have misunderstood what the texts say about God’s omnipotence and omniscience. They must say that God is love AND because He knows the future as objective realities (that we do not know because we are finite … so the argument goes) there must be a reason for the suffering that exists as a mystery of God’s goodness. This does no good for the sufferer who feels the pain of the tumor and the indignity of being on the receiving end of something so horrible at the hand of God. The other metaphysical issue that enters in has to do with the power of God. If God is powerful enough to stop all sickness and suffering but chooses not to use His power in this way … He is either sadistic or … is there another option?
Here is what, in my opinion, is revealed in the biblical texts. God creates free moral beings capable of choosing to be in an unending love story with Him. This could only be possible if those He created could chose otherwise and … so they did. When God created He took a ‘risk’. This notion of ‘risk’ must be carefully framed, explained, and understood with God’s incomprehensible intelligence, creaturely freedom and cosmic warfare in mind. In brief, freedom to love must have its contradictory. If we cannot choose to accept God’s invitation into love, the eternal love story that the Triune God has experienced, we would not experience what He does nor what He wanted to share. God, by making us free, limited the extent of both, His knowledge and the use of His power. Suffering is caused by free moral agents BUT it can be addressed by God, FAIRLY, only by cooperating with, or working with, those who are living within His intended design and authority. These people are those who have been rescued by Jesus and have undertaken to love God and His creation in acts of restoration.
Implicit in this view is the answer to the question about suffering. Suffering continues in times and places where the rule and reign of God does not exist. On the face of it this means that, His rule and reign do not exist either because the Adversary and its forces have authority (directly or indirectly) and/or because God’s people are not exercising their authority by ignorance, absence of faith, and/or mistaken thinking. Having said this there are instances of ‘abnormality’ and ‘suffering’ that trouble and vex me. For instance, it seems that there are answers in principle for things like genetic defects and the suffering caused by them but it ‘sounds’ presumptuous and ‘clinical’ to offer them.
The implications of this view are staggering and troubling; staggering because it suggests that God is waiting to ‘legally’ intervene in the affairs of men and women, consistent with their freedom on the basis of the faith, actions and character of His people. In other words, and this is the troubling part, there would be far less suffering in the world if God’s people did as they were designed and intended to do. There is also the matter of Jesus’ teaching to his disciples when they asked Him why they couldn’t heal a sick person. Jesus said, “Some things only come out by prayer and fasting,” and then Jesus proceeded to heal the person.
These ideas are more than theological or intellectual titillation. I believe them to be foundational CORE beliefs because they speak of the character of God. There are pastoral, evangelistic, and practical implications of these ideas. Let me give you some instances in the form of questions:
(1) How can one pray for the sick and expect healing when this is incongruent with how they understand God’s character and His ways?
(2) Why would anyone want, or need to prayer, when everything about them and their futures are known by God as a future facts or objective realities?
(3) What do we say to people to whom we are witnessing when they ask the questions the man with the tumor asks?
(4) How can we exonerate the character of God for a world that mocks Him when what they hear from the ‘church’ is the very thing they use as the basis for their claims against Him?
(5) I wonder … do we not see more in the ways of signs and wonders, miracles and healings because our ideas prevent us from really going to a place of deep faith?
(6) Have we become anesthetized to this conversation because we have been round the operating table one too many times?
There are other questions I might ask but the hardest questions are ones I ask of myself.
Praying for the man with the tumor ...Greg
Does God Cause Sickness? An alternate reading of John 9:1-8
An alternate reading of John 9:1 – 8
Some take the view that this passage of text supports a view of God I think is erroneous and unhelpful. Some contend that God was, and is, active in causing illness for ‘higher’ or ‘greater’ purposes that are redemptive or educative. The view that God caused the blindness of the man in this passage is supported, some say, by the nature of the response Jesus made as recorded and translated. I believe this reading is fallacious for the following reasons:
(1) The passage itself does not, on its face, give clear indication that Jesus believed this blindness was caused by God,
(2) A reading of Jesus’ other teachings does not support the view,
(3) All of Jesus’ actions contradict such a reading,
(4) Jesus words seem to contradict the belief,
(5) There is an alternate reading of the passage (from other translations) that is more congruent with a reading of the entirety of the Jesus narrative.
The bible passage reads as follows:
1 And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor that his parents, but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.
4 We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work.
5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes,
7 And said to him, “Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is translated ‘Sent’ or ‘Commissioned’). And so he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
When we read this or any other passage we must employ principles of interpretation (which I previously posted) to understand it fully. We need to read the passage while being cognizant of its location in the book of John; we must be mindful of the dualism of the gospel of John, a dualism seen even in this brief story. We must consider Jesus’ warfare teaching in the synoptic gospels and bear it in mind when we read. We must also be mindful of the culture and beliefs commonly held at the time. Given that this passage is unique in what it appears to suggest, we might study the translation itself to explore whether or not what is recorded is accurate. Going back to the grammar of the text may shed light on the meaning of the passage.
Reading the passage in the context of other documents:
I suggest that a reading of the synoptic gospels reveals Jesus’ teaching that illness, disease and sickness are, either directly or indirectly the works of the Adversary, not God. (God at War, Boyd, p.231). I mean to say that we are in a war torn world in the grip of principalities and powers long since banished from heaven and we are suffering the consequences of the fall of humankind. I suggest that some terrible things happen … by accident … but of this one can never be entirely certain.
Jesus everywhere opposes illness and disease and worked to reclaim what had been lost of God’s original intention. Jesus is quite clear about this matter in His teaching and in the example of His life. He taught the disciples to pray that it would be ‘on earth as it is in heaven’. Jesus everywhere responded to illness and disease by eradicating it and even reacted emotionally to sickness at times. I should also point out that in John 10 Jesus is recorded as saying, “A thief does not come except to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they might have life, and have it abundantly.” In this passage Jesus reiterates the essential teachings recorded in the other narratives.
Reading the passage for an understanding of the language, grammar and usage:
1.It is interesting that one of the names of Satan, Apollyon, means the ‘destroyer’ and shows up in John’s gospel. Everywhere we read in John’s work we see the binaries – good & evil, light & darkness, Reclaimer & Destroyer. There does not seem to be any middle ground in the dualism of John’s thinking and writing.
2.Looking at the grammar and word usage of the passage makes the meaning and message of the discourse very clear. We should first look at a literal translation of the words and compare the use of the words in this passage with what was the common usage of the words in other passages in the scripture. In brief, there is evidence to suggest that the passage should read differently to reflect Jesus’ invalidation of the question. Here is the passage as translated by Turner in Grammatical Considerations, who employed several of the hermeneutical principles I presented in an earlier post.
a.The original verse does not say: “he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed.”
i.The Greek has hina with the aorist subjunctive passive of phaneroo (“to manifest”). The hina here should be taken as forming the imperative, not a purposive clause. This can or should be translated as, “But let the works of God be manifested.” (As in Mark5: 23, Eph. 5:33, 2 Cor. 8:7 and as is likely the case in Mark 2:10, 5:12, 10:51)
b.What is important here is that the translation of this passage we normally read doesn’t seem to follow the pattern of usage in countless other biblical passages, or the Septuagint, or in other post-apostolic writings. The question then, is, why is this the case? I suggest that the translators have made a translation based on theological assumptions and doctrinal positions. In other words, the translators made the text fit their beliefs rather than translate the language as written and commonly used. If, as a translator I already believe that God causes sickness for some redemptive purpose and/or to ‘glorify His I might, if I am not careful, translate the language to match my beliefs. What ought to be the norm of the translator is to let the words, grammar, and common usage of the readers and writers of the time shape my beliefs. This may result in my modifying beliefs I held. Now, having said all this, I would however NOT suggest that there was anything sinister in this … it is what people do; we want to make people, events and ideas fit into a view of the world that we hold.
c.The alternate translation of the text seems to suggest that Jesus, while correcting the disciples on the view that blindness was caused either by the sin of the person or his parents – as punishment – also said simply that the blindness should be cured and that He would be glorified in the healing. There is no suggestion that the whole thing was planned and caused … so that … He could be glorified.
Reading the passage with an understanding of the ‘mindset’ of the hearers:
The message of the passage seems clear enough; the disciples believed the man’s blindness was a consequence or judgment for the sins the man or his parents committed. The question itself is interesting because the narrative is clear about the fact that the man had been blind from birth so it could not have been the sins of the blind man that resulted in his blindness. A theologian (Albert Barnes) from another era writes that some Jews at the time had come to believe in the transmigration of the soul. It was believed by many that souls of the unborn pre-existed and could sin before entering a body. There were also beliefs that the ‘sins’ of the parents could be passed on to the unborn child at or before birth. Now ... it is entirely unclear that those (including the disciples) who heard Jesus at this time held these beliefs however, it is interesting to know that the ideas seemed to be ‘current’ at the time.
It was not uncommon to believe that the evils that befell people were, in some sense, an expression of God’s displeasure with the individual. Jesus’ response was unequivocal. Yet, …we wonder. If the blindness was not the man’s sin, and it wasn’t his parents sin, and if Jesus didn’t blame Satan, it must have been as a direct result of the action of God, who, we conclude, would only have done this for the grander reason of ‘glorifying Himself’. Now, if this were true, it would also be true the life long suffering endured by this man should be accepted as OK because God ‘got something’ out of it. Some might say: ‘well, the man was instantly healed and made well. What’s the problem?’ The problem for me of course is two fold. First, the specific text and the general message of scripture do not support this interpretation and second, God’s appears to me to be at best capricious … at worst … unkind and self-serving.
What about children who are born physically damaged?
It is actually the case that children can be unwitting recipients of harm and illness caused by parental choices (I think of FAS or FAE for example). It is also the case that children can bear in their bodies and minds the unintended consequences of genetic damage carried in the DNA of parents that is passed along unwittingly. These instances are tragically unfortunate and certainly not intentional on the part of the parents.
This feature of the ‘fallenness’ of the world troubles, pains, and angers me more than others. It is particularly painful and confusing to parents of children born with difficulties that are genetically transmitted. I surmise that there may be instances of these sorts of things recorded as general observations by writers of the biblical texts as they struggled with making sense of seeing children born with abnormalities. There are two approaches to making sense of this. The first is to suggest that God caused it for redemptive purposes and the second is to say that it is a consequence of fallenness or warfare. When I suggest that this sort of thing is a consequence of warfare I would want to caution any reader from seeing every instance of this sort of thing as a peculiar and specific act of war on the individual. Rather … these sorts of things may be the consequences of hundreds and thousands of years of accumulated fallenness. (Some suggest, for example, that when the flood occurred there was a catastrophic shift in the ecology of the earth, the consequences of which we are experiencing today.)
I have heard, but have no first hand knowledge, that children born with Down’s Syndrome have been healed. To hear this … gives me hope and raises my faith relative healing for the ‘tough’ cases. I have tried to get perspective on this by reminding myself that Jesus raised several people from the dead in his day AND that His people, today, are doing similar things. This may the sort of thing that “comes out only be prayer and fasting.”
I long to see the healing of all who suffer … regardless of the causes of the damage that result in suffering. I also long to hear an end to the case against God made by people, not yet believers, whom claim my God does not love because He either causes or gives permission for people to be harmed. And, while I know of many who, through their own sickness or the sickness of others draw upon God for consolation and strength, I cannot agree that God causes all things ‘bad’ so that He can work it all together good. I think that in our attempts to make sense of evil, sickness and the suffering of the innocent we must lay blame where it belongs; it is in the rebellion of the Adversary and the others, the rebellion of mankind, and it is in the consequences of fallenness and warfare the extent of which we see but the complexity of which we do not understand. Then we must believe that God wants to reign here and then we must contend victory on earth.
With thanks to Greg Boyd and Michael Saia.
Some take the view that this passage of text supports a view of God I think is erroneous and unhelpful. Some contend that God was, and is, active in causing illness for ‘higher’ or ‘greater’ purposes that are redemptive or educative. The view that God caused the blindness of the man in this passage is supported, some say, by the nature of the response Jesus made as recorded and translated. I believe this reading is fallacious for the following reasons:
(1) The passage itself does not, on its face, give clear indication that Jesus believed this blindness was caused by God,
(2) A reading of Jesus’ other teachings does not support the view,
(3) All of Jesus’ actions contradict such a reading,
(4) Jesus words seem to contradict the belief,
(5) There is an alternate reading of the passage (from other translations) that is more congruent with a reading of the entirety of the Jesus narrative.
The bible passage reads as follows:
1 And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?”
3 Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor that his parents, but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.
4 We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work.
5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”
6 When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes,
7 And said to him, “Go wash in the pool of Siloam (which is translated ‘Sent’ or ‘Commissioned’). And so he went away and washed, and came back seeing.
When we read this or any other passage we must employ principles of interpretation (which I previously posted) to understand it fully. We need to read the passage while being cognizant of its location in the book of John; we must be mindful of the dualism of the gospel of John, a dualism seen even in this brief story. We must consider Jesus’ warfare teaching in the synoptic gospels and bear it in mind when we read. We must also be mindful of the culture and beliefs commonly held at the time. Given that this passage is unique in what it appears to suggest, we might study the translation itself to explore whether or not what is recorded is accurate. Going back to the grammar of the text may shed light on the meaning of the passage.
Reading the passage in the context of other documents:
I suggest that a reading of the synoptic gospels reveals Jesus’ teaching that illness, disease and sickness are, either directly or indirectly the works of the Adversary, not God. (God at War, Boyd, p.231). I mean to say that we are in a war torn world in the grip of principalities and powers long since banished from heaven and we are suffering the consequences of the fall of humankind. I suggest that some terrible things happen … by accident … but of this one can never be entirely certain.
Jesus everywhere opposes illness and disease and worked to reclaim what had been lost of God’s original intention. Jesus is quite clear about this matter in His teaching and in the example of His life. He taught the disciples to pray that it would be ‘on earth as it is in heaven’. Jesus everywhere responded to illness and disease by eradicating it and even reacted emotionally to sickness at times. I should also point out that in John 10 Jesus is recorded as saying, “A thief does not come except to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they might have life, and have it abundantly.” In this passage Jesus reiterates the essential teachings recorded in the other narratives.
Reading the passage for an understanding of the language, grammar and usage:
1.It is interesting that one of the names of Satan, Apollyon, means the ‘destroyer’ and shows up in John’s gospel. Everywhere we read in John’s work we see the binaries – good & evil, light & darkness, Reclaimer & Destroyer. There does not seem to be any middle ground in the dualism of John’s thinking and writing.
2.Looking at the grammar and word usage of the passage makes the meaning and message of the discourse very clear. We should first look at a literal translation of the words and compare the use of the words in this passage with what was the common usage of the words in other passages in the scripture. In brief, there is evidence to suggest that the passage should read differently to reflect Jesus’ invalidation of the question. Here is the passage as translated by Turner in Grammatical Considerations, who employed several of the hermeneutical principles I presented in an earlier post.
a.The original verse does not say: “he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed.”
i.The Greek has hina with the aorist subjunctive passive of phaneroo (“to manifest”). The hina here should be taken as forming the imperative, not a purposive clause. This can or should be translated as, “But let the works of God be manifested.” (As in Mark5: 23, Eph. 5:33, 2 Cor. 8:7 and as is likely the case in Mark 2:10, 5:12, 10:51)
b.What is important here is that the translation of this passage we normally read doesn’t seem to follow the pattern of usage in countless other biblical passages, or the Septuagint, or in other post-apostolic writings. The question then, is, why is this the case? I suggest that the translators have made a translation based on theological assumptions and doctrinal positions. In other words, the translators made the text fit their beliefs rather than translate the language as written and commonly used. If, as a translator I already believe that God causes sickness for some redemptive purpose and/or to ‘glorify His I might, if I am not careful, translate the language to match my beliefs. What ought to be the norm of the translator is to let the words, grammar, and common usage of the readers and writers of the time shape my beliefs. This may result in my modifying beliefs I held. Now, having said all this, I would however NOT suggest that there was anything sinister in this … it is what people do; we want to make people, events and ideas fit into a view of the world that we hold.
c.The alternate translation of the text seems to suggest that Jesus, while correcting the disciples on the view that blindness was caused either by the sin of the person or his parents – as punishment – also said simply that the blindness should be cured and that He would be glorified in the healing. There is no suggestion that the whole thing was planned and caused … so that … He could be glorified.
Reading the passage with an understanding of the ‘mindset’ of the hearers:
The message of the passage seems clear enough; the disciples believed the man’s blindness was a consequence or judgment for the sins the man or his parents committed. The question itself is interesting because the narrative is clear about the fact that the man had been blind from birth so it could not have been the sins of the blind man that resulted in his blindness. A theologian (Albert Barnes) from another era writes that some Jews at the time had come to believe in the transmigration of the soul. It was believed by many that souls of the unborn pre-existed and could sin before entering a body. There were also beliefs that the ‘sins’ of the parents could be passed on to the unborn child at or before birth. Now ... it is entirely unclear that those (including the disciples) who heard Jesus at this time held these beliefs however, it is interesting to know that the ideas seemed to be ‘current’ at the time.
It was not uncommon to believe that the evils that befell people were, in some sense, an expression of God’s displeasure with the individual. Jesus’ response was unequivocal. Yet, …we wonder. If the blindness was not the man’s sin, and it wasn’t his parents sin, and if Jesus didn’t blame Satan, it must have been as a direct result of the action of God, who, we conclude, would only have done this for the grander reason of ‘glorifying Himself’. Now, if this were true, it would also be true the life long suffering endured by this man should be accepted as OK because God ‘got something’ out of it. Some might say: ‘well, the man was instantly healed and made well. What’s the problem?’ The problem for me of course is two fold. First, the specific text and the general message of scripture do not support this interpretation and second, God’s appears to me to be at best capricious … at worst … unkind and self-serving.
What about children who are born physically damaged?
It is actually the case that children can be unwitting recipients of harm and illness caused by parental choices (I think of FAS or FAE for example). It is also the case that children can bear in their bodies and minds the unintended consequences of genetic damage carried in the DNA of parents that is passed along unwittingly. These instances are tragically unfortunate and certainly not intentional on the part of the parents.
This feature of the ‘fallenness’ of the world troubles, pains, and angers me more than others. It is particularly painful and confusing to parents of children born with difficulties that are genetically transmitted. I surmise that there may be instances of these sorts of things recorded as general observations by writers of the biblical texts as they struggled with making sense of seeing children born with abnormalities. There are two approaches to making sense of this. The first is to suggest that God caused it for redemptive purposes and the second is to say that it is a consequence of fallenness or warfare. When I suggest that this sort of thing is a consequence of warfare I would want to caution any reader from seeing every instance of this sort of thing as a peculiar and specific act of war on the individual. Rather … these sorts of things may be the consequences of hundreds and thousands of years of accumulated fallenness. (Some suggest, for example, that when the flood occurred there was a catastrophic shift in the ecology of the earth, the consequences of which we are experiencing today.)
I have heard, but have no first hand knowledge, that children born with Down’s Syndrome have been healed. To hear this … gives me hope and raises my faith relative healing for the ‘tough’ cases. I have tried to get perspective on this by reminding myself that Jesus raised several people from the dead in his day AND that His people, today, are doing similar things. This may the sort of thing that “comes out only be prayer and fasting.”
I long to see the healing of all who suffer … regardless of the causes of the damage that result in suffering. I also long to hear an end to the case against God made by people, not yet believers, whom claim my God does not love because He either causes or gives permission for people to be harmed. And, while I know of many who, through their own sickness or the sickness of others draw upon God for consolation and strength, I cannot agree that God causes all things ‘bad’ so that He can work it all together good. I think that in our attempts to make sense of evil, sickness and the suffering of the innocent we must lay blame where it belongs; it is in the rebellion of the Adversary and the others, the rebellion of mankind, and it is in the consequences of fallenness and warfare the extent of which we see but the complexity of which we do not understand. Then we must believe that God wants to reign here and then we must contend victory on earth.
With thanks to Greg Boyd and Michael Saia.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Why Blog: An invitation to Conversation
There is, to borrow from Oakeshott, a 'grand conversation' into which each person is born; we belong to it and it belongs to us to the extent that we participate. We learn about the breadth and depth of the conversation as we engage in it, particularly as our horizons of understanding are extended the countless transactions. Gadamer tried to teach us that it was in the collision and/or fusions of these 'horizons of understanding' that humans come to the fullness of being ... that is, choosing the conversation wherever it may lead.
I understand the conversation into which I was born to be beautifully and richly ancient ... eternal in fact. The joy and wonder of it for me is that the conversation into which I was initiated, and first thought was merely among the human community, had its origins in the eternal narrative that is God ... a community of Persons in unending dialogue of unimaginable intelligence and ... as I later learned ... love.
The invitation was made by God to persons, some of whom are bound for a time to this earth and others who, as a rule, exist in a different matter mode but for whom the conversation is as real and as important.
As I have learned - and as we all learn - the conversational engagement is made more rich with courage, integrity, a willing ear, substance, and a some level of critical acumen. And, by critical acumen I mean the learned facility to understand points of discussion and to ask questions that further shared inquiry and conversation.
This grand conversation may be rich and satisfying, flat and uninteresting, or at times, fluid and fatiguing or narrow and painful. There seems always to be an element of risk in making the conversation because ideas are important. Ideas in conversation and action give meaning to our living and being, and, when our ideas and understandings collide with those of others, we make another journey into self-understanding. This is made more or less difficult relative to the extent to which we are able to distance ourselves from our own positions with humility.
There is a place of humility one needs to be in to have good conversation I think. This place of humility is in part ontological and, in part, ethical. Our being human is nothing if not an experience of realizing our finitude and limitations while, at the same time, feeling an ache to move beyond them. We intuit that we are not done when we die and that there is always something more to know or to experience. There is a sense that we are more than what we immediately experience and that there is nothing we can do about it as long as we remain in our skins. Ethical humility is expressed in deferring to another as persons, listening, hearing to understand, and occasionally silence in the face of contradiction and disagreement. In either case ... humility and rich conversation are partners.
So ... I blog as a feature of my condition as a person in a grand and eternal community of conversation about the meaning of our humanity. As I experience my person[ness] - particularly as I encounter ideas about God - I bring my understanding to conversation for many reasons. At times I think I have come across something that might be helpful to others because it has made a difference to me. These are time when I have a sense that I have taken a step toward greater fullness of understanding and experience.
I blog with a view to sharing the exploration and the increase of human being. It is also the case that in this enactment of the conversation there will be disagreement and it is in the conversation about God-ideas that the deepest passions and emotions are experienced as we continue trying to make sense of our humanity. Our passions are most inflamed when we try to make sense of the difficulties we experience; the tragedies and disappointments of our lived experience demand an explanation. When our tentative explanations become convictions and our lives still don't make sense it is difficult to live with the dissonance so ... we grasp, we rationalize, we ...stop trying to have it make sense anymore for fear that the pains and passions will never leave us.
So ... I need to continue to accept the invitation to conversation made to me by no less than God and to invite others to the same experience.
I understand the conversation into which I was born to be beautifully and richly ancient ... eternal in fact. The joy and wonder of it for me is that the conversation into which I was initiated, and first thought was merely among the human community, had its origins in the eternal narrative that is God ... a community of Persons in unending dialogue of unimaginable intelligence and ... as I later learned ... love.
The invitation was made by God to persons, some of whom are bound for a time to this earth and others who, as a rule, exist in a different matter mode but for whom the conversation is as real and as important.
As I have learned - and as we all learn - the conversational engagement is made more rich with courage, integrity, a willing ear, substance, and a some level of critical acumen. And, by critical acumen I mean the learned facility to understand points of discussion and to ask questions that further shared inquiry and conversation.
This grand conversation may be rich and satisfying, flat and uninteresting, or at times, fluid and fatiguing or narrow and painful. There seems always to be an element of risk in making the conversation because ideas are important. Ideas in conversation and action give meaning to our living and being, and, when our ideas and understandings collide with those of others, we make another journey into self-understanding. This is made more or less difficult relative to the extent to which we are able to distance ourselves from our own positions with humility.
There is a place of humility one needs to be in to have good conversation I think. This place of humility is in part ontological and, in part, ethical. Our being human is nothing if not an experience of realizing our finitude and limitations while, at the same time, feeling an ache to move beyond them. We intuit that we are not done when we die and that there is always something more to know or to experience. There is a sense that we are more than what we immediately experience and that there is nothing we can do about it as long as we remain in our skins. Ethical humility is expressed in deferring to another as persons, listening, hearing to understand, and occasionally silence in the face of contradiction and disagreement. In either case ... humility and rich conversation are partners.
So ... I blog as a feature of my condition as a person in a grand and eternal community of conversation about the meaning of our humanity. As I experience my person[ness] - particularly as I encounter ideas about God - I bring my understanding to conversation for many reasons. At times I think I have come across something that might be helpful to others because it has made a difference to me. These are time when I have a sense that I have taken a step toward greater fullness of understanding and experience.
I blog with a view to sharing the exploration and the increase of human being. It is also the case that in this enactment of the conversation there will be disagreement and it is in the conversation about God-ideas that the deepest passions and emotions are experienced as we continue trying to make sense of our humanity. Our passions are most inflamed when we try to make sense of the difficulties we experience; the tragedies and disappointments of our lived experience demand an explanation. When our tentative explanations become convictions and our lives still don't make sense it is difficult to live with the dissonance so ... we grasp, we rationalize, we ...stop trying to have it make sense anymore for fear that the pains and passions will never leave us.
So ... I need to continue to accept the invitation to conversation made to me by no less than God and to invite others to the same experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)