natalie's narrative

Theodicy

Last week I went with a friend to a twenty-something’s church service. Aside from some fun little tidbits of idolatry (one of those posters of “In God We Trust” superimposed over an American flag), the message that the speaker brought was actually a great call to Christians to address suffering in a compassionate, Christlike way. There was a mention, though, of something that has bothered me ever since.

The speaker’s response to how an all-powerful, loving God can co-exist with an evil, pain-filled world (theodicy) was that God works under a different framework than we do. He then promptly moved on to continue his talk. I know that theodicy is an extremely difficult issue, so of course I wasn’t expecting him to solve thousands of years of theological brainbuster-ing in a 30-minute talk. I guess what bothers me is many Christians’ lack of willingness to press further toward a different response. I just can’t say, “It’s all a mystery and God has his reasons, his own standard,” and move on. I’m sorry, but that has to be a twisted standard and I’m not sure about following a god like that. Frankly, the problem of suffering is a serious challenge to my faith.

On Tuesday's “Fresh Air” on NPR, Bart Ehrman, chair of the religious studies department at UNC Chapel Hill, addressed theodicy. His religious credentials include degrees from Moody, Wheaton, and Princeton Theological Seminary. He was a member of Youth for Christ and a pastor. The question of suffering, however, eventually led him to become an agnostic. He includes a description of his emigration from Christianity in his new book, God’s Problem:

In an earlier book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, I have indicated that my strong commitment to the Bible began to wane the more I studied it. I began to realize that rather than being an inerrant revelation from God, inspired in its very words (the view I had at Moody Bible Institute), the Bible was a very human book with all the marks of having come from human hands: discrepancies, contradictions, errors, and different perspectives of different authors living at different times in different countries and writing for different reasons to different audiences with different needs. But the problems of the Bible are not what led me to leave the faith. These problems simply showed me that my evangelical beliefs about the Bible could not hold up, in my opinion, to critical scrutiny. I continued to be a Christian—a completely committed Christian—for many years after I left the evangelical fold.

Eventually, though, I felt compelled to leave Christianity altogether. I did not go easily. On the contrary, I left kicking and screaming, wanting desperately to hold on to the faith I had known since childhood and had come to know intimately from my teenaged years onward. But I came to a point where I could no longer believe. It's a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it.

Usually “free will” is given as a response to theodicy, but for Ehrman, that is not enough. He wants to know why, every five seconds, a child dies of hunger. Nobody’s choosing to make this child die of starvation. And can natural disasters fall under the category of free will? Ehrman discusses classical explanations for theodicy: suffering is a punishment for our sins, it’s a test of faith, it’s redemptive (something good will come out of it). The interview also includes Ehrman’s explanation of the book of Job as a compilation of two different genres by two authors. 

A few quotes from the interview:

“If there is a God, he certainly is not the God of the Christian tradition who is all-powerful and over this world and intervening in this world periodically to help people. I think that if there is a God, God is so far beyond anything that we can imagine that we literally cannot imagine him.”

His thoughts on hell: “If there is a God in the world […], then surely God is not more cruel than any human being who’s ever lived. And there’s no human being who’s ever lived who’s subjected eternal torment on anyone else.” Ehrman believes hell was a doctrine invented by the early Christians mainly to convert people. 

His interview made me wonder if we have put so many strictures on who God is that we’ve created this problem ourselves. I wonder if our Western epistemological categories have twisted the meaning of all-powerful and all-knowing? Or maybe I need to visit the Sudanese congregation over in Wheaton, or spend more time with other Christians who are still so after much suffering...

Just me and Jesus?

I picked up UnChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity…and Why it Matters at the library, and wanted to share a “contribution” from Chuck Colson. This surprised me, since when I think of Colson—besides his prison fellowship—I think of his workbook my youth group went through in junior high or high school, called How Now Shall We Live? It pretty much had all of the religious right talking points, so it was encouraging to read his contribution, titled “The Gospel in its Fullness.” He begins:

The good news is summarized in 1 Corinthians 15: “Christ died on the cross for our sins,” so that we can be redeemed. That is the narrow definition that most evangelicals embrace. I think we are wrong in limiting it to that. (86). 

Instead, Colson says that the gospel is the kingdom of God breaking into history, “what the Hebrews called shalom, or peace, or wholeness, extending to every facet of life: the sick healed, the captives freed, the oppressed released, right relationships restored with God and humanity (86).

Colson shares that he asks people he meets the question, “What is Christianity?” He says half will usually respond, “A relationship with Jesus” (87). He goes on: 

That is wrong. The gospel cannot be merely a private transaction. God didn’t break through history, through time and space, to come as a babe, be incarnated, and suffer on the cross just so you can come to him and say, “Oh, I accept Jesus and now I can live happily ever after.” That’s not why he came…Jesus came as a radical to turn the world upside down. When we believe it is just about Jesus and yourself, we miss the whole point. (87) 

He even remarks that he doesn’t like using the phrase “accept Christ,” since our faith involves more than that. It’s the “most revolutionary story ever told” (88).

Dualism and the environment

McLaren's Everything Must Change includes a great quote from Wendell Berry (from his book What Are People For?) about the church and our treatment of the environment:

...the churches, which claim to honor God as the "maker of heaven and earth," have lately shown little inclination to honor the earth or to protect it from those who would dishonor it….The organized church comes immediately under compulsion to think of itself, and identify itself to the world, not as an institution synonymous with its truth and its membership, but as a hodgepodge of funds, properties, projects, and offices, all urgently requiring economic support….If it comes to a choice between the extermination of the fowls of the air and the lilies of the field and the extermination of the building fund, the organized church will elect—indeed, has already elected—to save the building fund. […] No wonder so many sermons are devoted exclusively to “spiritual” subjects. If one is living by the tithes of history’s most destructive economy, then the disembodiment of the soul becomes the chief of worldly conveniences” (141-142).

Many Christians have a disembodied theology that separates the spiritual from the physical, placing more importance on the spiritual. “Saving souls” is of utmost importance, while fighting poverty doesn’t get as much attention. I do think more churches are broadening their focus to include the “physical” issues such as poverty and homelessness, but perhaps years of dualistic thinking have already taken their toll. If we consist of nothing more than souls that will eventually “be extracted like a Hostess Twinkie from its cellophane wrapper either at death or at the end of the world,” why should we care about wellness or our physical health? (138). If we eventually get to start over with a new earth, why care for the one we have right now? 

McLaren calls this phenomenon the “disembodiment of the soul” (142). He points out: “When we stand outside our bodies and the creation in which they participate, we feel liberated from creaturely restraint, liberated from all duty as embodied, environmented creatures” (142). Actually placing ourselves within our environment, our physical location, and then thinking about our place theologically would have to result in some radical changes.

If I’m to be a participant in God’s ecosystem, thus a good steward of the resources She has blessed us with, I need to think about the extent to which my lifestyle harms the earth. This has been a challenge for me, just starting out and living on my own. Everything really must change when I start thinking about reducing my impact on the environment…it gets overwhelming! I think that’s where community should come in, so as a people we can articulate what this type of lifestyle entails. We seem to have the spiritual disciplines down—or at least plenty of books have been published and sermons preached on this issue. Why not incorporate a more embodied, holistic view of the Gospel, one that addresses our output of plastic and paper, or our use of water? Sometimes I think my generation of Christians is more interested in that than the building fund…

Driver's licenses for the undocumented...

Via Bender's Immigration Bulletin, I found an opinion on why states should allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. I've always believed that a population that lives in the shadows makes for an unsafe community, since they are less likely to report things to the police, and Bruce Schneier, the author, agrees. Schneier is a security expert, and he gives a thorough explanation of why the undocumented should be issued licenses. He remarks:

"In reality, we are a much more secure nation if we do issue driver's licenses and/or state IDs to every resident who applies, regardless of immigration status. Issuing them doesn't make us any less secure, and refusing puts us at risk."

[...]

Removing the 8 million-15 million illegal immigrants from these databases would only make law enforcement harder. Of course, the unlicensed won't pack up and leave. They will drive without licenses, increasing insurance premiums for everyone.

[...]

We are all safer if everyone in society trusts and respects law enforcement. A society where illegal immigrants are afraid to talk to police because of fear of deportation is a society where fewer people come forward to report crimes, aid police investigations, and testify as witnesses.

And finally, denying driver's licenses to illegal immigrants will not protect us from terrorism. Contrary to popular belief, a driver's license is not required to board a plane. You can use any government-issued photo ID, including a foreign passport. And if you're willing to undergo secondary screening, you can board a plane without an ID at all. This is probably how anybody on the "no fly" list gets around these days.

The whole essay can be found here: Driver's Licenses for Immigrants: Denying Licenses Makes Us Less Safe.

Thoughts on the border wall

"Mexicans were living there eating frijoles before American revolutionaries ate baked beans at the signing of the Constitution? That's awkward."

A take on why building a $1.2 billion fence along the US/Mexico border is ridiculous can be found here. In the midst of fear and "homeland security," we're too forgetful about the history of the land along the Rio Grande. The piece also mentions that the only actual terrorist to have been caught entering the country was crossing from the Canadian side.

The Chicago Tribune quoted the mayor of Brownsville [Texas] on Jan. 16: "To appease people in Middle America, they are going to kill our communities along the border. The rest of America has no idea how we live our lives here. We are linked by the Rio Grande, not divided by it." Linked? By a border? Not divided? What a concept.

On a related note, my boyfriend found a video during his daily Univision.com visit that tells a few stories of people who have lived along the border for years--their families, for generations. The report is in Spanish, but one quote (my translation) in particular got my attention:

"We didn't come to the United States; the United States came to us."

Green suburbs?

An article today in the New York Times points out how much of a challenge it can be to live green in the suburbs, since many environmentally damaging things are so ingrained in our lifestyle. We can do a lot to reduce our negative impact, but suburbanites may have to make more drastic changes:

But the problem with suburbs, many environmentalists say, is not an issue of light bulbs. In the end, the very things that make suburban life attractive — the lush lawns, spacious houses and three-car garages — also disproportionally contribute to global warming. Suburban life, these environmentalists argue, is simply not sustainable.

“The very essence of the post-Second World War America suburb militates against ‘greening,’ ” said Thomas J. Sugrue, a professor of history and sociology at the University of Pennsylvania. “Given the almost complete dependency of suburbanites on the car, it’s an uphill battle.”

And a lot of even the little things can be a challenge to implement:

Alexander Lee, the 33-year-old founder of Project Laundry List, which tries to revive the use of clotheslines to save energy, has run into plenty of resistance from suburban community associations, many of which have regulations restricting them, he said.

“There are three complaints,” Mr. Lee said. “It will lower my property values. That’s what poor people do. Also, I don’t want anyone to see my underwear — what I call the ‘prudery’ objection.”

I think it will take a large-scale effort from everyone, but if we can build an interstate highway system, why can’t we build a public transportation system? Maybe it boils down to our unwillingness to give up the independence of our own cars?

All things

Colossians Remixed and Everything Must Change complement each other well. Both books address the church’s non-response to oppressive social structures. Is it such a bad thing that our faith is relegated to the “spiritual” realm, without addressing the real, physical institutions or situations in our neighborhoods or nations? Once individuals are changed one-by-one, shouldn’t our society be okay?

The church today is what Colossians Remixed authors Walsh and Keesmaat (hereafter W & K) call a “dualistic church in an imperial context,” which is just what Paul warned against in Colossians (94). No longer possessing a “comprehensive vision” of Colossians, we’re instead fixated on “incanting anemic souls into heaven,” as Wendell Berry has remarked (94).

Colossians 1 says that by Christ “all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him” (1:16-17). Paul goes on: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (1:19-20). 

W & K hone in on two words: “all things.” Do “all things” include the Pentagon and our economy, or just all of our prideful/lustful thoughts? If Scripture says that God reconciles all things through Christ, have we really fleshed out what this means? Paul wasn’t referring only to an individual’s sin; rather, “the power of this good news must permeate all of life” (94).

What’s wrong with a faith that focuses mainly on one’s “spiritual life” or personal relationship with Christ? According to W & K, the problem with such narrow, spiritualistic renderings of the thrones and dominions mentioned is that they fail to address the earthly structures of oppression. 

Many Christians, upon hearing talk of structures and oppression, shut down the discussion and dismiss the ideas as Marxist or influenced by liberation theology. Many of these same people have probably never picked up a Marx reader or a Freire or Gutiérrez book. W & K address these concerns, pointing out that many discussions of oppression in fact take root in the story of Scripture, such as the prophets and the Gospels. W & K continue:

[W]hen the Christian community abandons discussion of oppressive social structures, there are consequences. In the first instance, if the Christian voice is absent, then the discussion necessarily goes on without a Christian perspective. It is not surprising that other worldviews and categories of analysis fill in the void. And if Christians don’t like those worldviews—whether they be Marxist, anarchist, “green” or whatever—then they really have no right to complain. After all, these same upset Christians had left the world of oppressive social and economic structures for someone else to worry about. (94) 

Not responding can be very harmful for Christians. W & K quote Wendell Berry again, and he says in strong language that the church has stood silently on the sidelines while hypercapitalism disregards the environment and destroys communities. The church “has flown the flag and chanted the slogans of the empire. It has assumed with the economists that ‘economic forces’ automatically work for good,” that “‘progress’ is good.” We’ve “admired Caesar and comforted him in his depredations and defaults.” In our “de facto alliance with Caesar, Christianity convenes directly in the murder of Creation” (94-95).

Instead, Paul encourages the Christian community to refuse the empire and reimagine their world in God’s image—not Caesar’s. Rather than accommodation, we should “set our imagination free from the captivity of empire” and rid ourselves of a dualistic worldview that restricts the meaning of “all things” (95). A private, dualistic faith will cause us to be irrelevant to powerful forces in our world, which is precisely what our empire wants. 

How does McLaren’s book relate to W & K’s? It proposes an alternative approach to Scripture: the Bible is not a manual for ensuring a spot in heaven or creating timelines for the world’s end, but a narrative of the “partnership between God and humanity to save and transform all of human society and global self-destruction” (94). [Oddly enough, I’m on page 94 in both books!] 

Luke 9:23 is not merely a personal, private call to following Christ: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.” McLaren proposes that, since crosses were tools of public control, warnings against anyone who dare confront the empire, Jesus means: “Risk everything, including your life, to stand up to Caesar and join me in my revolution—not by fighting and killing, but by being willing to die with me” (97-98).

I think Everything Must Change is an attempt to reimagine the church’s role in the midst of an empire. Could the “everything” in the book’s title also be “all things”?

Welcoming the stranger, or "We're sorry, it's the law"?

Thanks to Julie, I came across a Jubilee Sunday booklet containing a challenging liturgy that focuses on immigration. If people from Scripture--or even Jesus--were to ask for permission to enter our country, how would we respond? Here are a few excerpts from the reading:

Adam and Eve: Our names are Adam and Eve. (Adam) We lied to the King of Kings and have been sent into exile to work the fields. (Eve) We are migrants forced to live off the land looking for work. (Both) Will you give us asylum?

Congregation: You have no documents. You will take our jobs. Go away...The United States welcomes only persons with proper documents. You have not been persecuted...you are only hungry and have no place to live. We are sorry, but you must go.

Mary, Joseph, Jesus: I am Joseph, this is my wife Mary and our son Jesus. We have had to flee our country; the king is killing all the boys less than two years of age. We fled in the middle of the night we have nothing and we have no identification. Will you give us sanctuary and asylum?

Congregation: We would like to help you, but there are laws that have to be followed. The United States’ law states that if you enter without documents, you have to seek asylum from prison. Since there are three of you, Joseph you will go to one prison. Mary, you will go to another, and Jesus, you will go to a third (until we find foster care for you, that is.) We are sorry, but that’s the law.

Jesus: They call me Jesus. I come begging for help for my twelve friends. When we got off the plane, we asked for asylum. They were being persecuted in our homeland for following me. But the U.S. government officials didn’t believe us. Everyone but me is in expedited removal.. .they are all being sent back. I managed to slip away and came here to this church to ask for help.

Congregation: The United States has laws to keep terrorists out of our country. You are one of 13 Middle Eastern men. We heard about you. You meet in rented rooms, you go into the mountains for private meetings, no one knows where you get your money, and you travel by boat and meet with strangers. You are trying to organize the poor and the oppressed. The United States does not welcome Middle Eastern men, who meet in secret. You could very well be a terrorist. Expedited removal will make certain you can’t harm us. We are sorry, but you and the 12 other men will have to leave. It’s the law.

New-Old Evangelicals

Martin Marty discusses evangelicals' burgeoning interest in liturgical churches and ancient practices. He refers to an article in Christianity Today (not yet available online) that describes this group, "this growing minority", as "weary and wary of an evangelicalism that puts too many of its bets on growth for growth's sake, triumphalism, present-mindedness, and repudiation of the Christian past."

The Sightings article can be found here: The New-Old Evangelicals.

Our immigrant history - edited

One of my friend's has a quote on her facebook profile: "If you're not Native American then you're the product of illegal immigration." It reminded me of an old political cartoon I saw a few weeks ago that highlights our hypocrisy when it comes to the history of immigration to the USA. This is from an article that Art emailed me: Republicans, Immigration and the Lessons of History. The name of the cartoon is "Looking Backward."