One last big question religion pretends to answer is: Why is there evil in the world? We might consider "evil" to be synonymous with suffering, for the sake of clarity. Why do people suffer? Religious imagination actually makes this question more complicated that it needs to be.
Some answers offered through religion imagine a whole array of supernatural beings, good and evil, fighting for the precious commodity of human souls. It makes sense that if you're going to invent a supernatural to worship, you would also find it convenient to invent other lesser supernatural beings to answer other troublesome questions. That angels and demons and souls are not real things hasn't stopped religious institutions from perpetuating the idea that human suffering is caused by supernatural activity. Some religious communities even encourage people to invent their own personal stories of encounters with angelic or demonic forces, and the community accepts these inventions as fact in order to bolster a framework that is easily dismantled by thinking through how poorly it aligns with measurable, observable reality.
Other religious answers are less complex, keeping the supernatural involvement down to one entity who controls all things. In such a mythology, one god is responsible for all of the helpful and harmful experiences people have. The question then becomes why a god would cause harm to weaker, less capable beings. Some conclude that a god is punishing and rewarding people for their behavior, but this idea also becomes difficult to maintain unless the god in question is either capricious or outright malicious. In other words, the idea of an omnipotent supernatural punishing and rewarding people only works if the character of that supernatural makes it unworthy of adoration and admiration.
Observing that people who are devout in their practice of a religious tradition suffer just the same as heathens without a religious tradition should be a fly in the ointment. Some religions answer this complication by suggesting that their god tests the faithful by causing or allowing suffering, and that the reward for this testing happens in an afterlife. We've already dismissed the idea of an afterlife, but it is an easy last resort when a religious leader doesn't want to have to answer for promises of reward. Who can call a person to account when there is no way to verify or deny such a promise of posthumous reward for suffering? One can also perhaps bear the suffering of others more easily (or even callously) if one clings to a belief that an afterlife reward awaits those who suffer in their actual real life.
What all of this boils down to is that religions can't satisfactorily answer the question of suffering, but they are all equipped to make something up that can't be verified or falsified. Any valid attempt to refute answers that rely on supernaturals are met with nonsensical replies, like suggesting that one's faith must be strong in order to understand spiritual truths. Or, the oft-abused retort, from New Testament writings, "The wisdom of this world is foolishness to god." So, indoctrination in many religious traditions includes learning rebuffs to protect one from thinking through one's assertions with any sort of integrity to reality. Maintaining a particular religious mythology is more important to some people than finding an answer to human suffering that aligns meaningfully with reality.
One convenient facet of basing answers to suffering on supposed supernatural will or promised reward in an afterlife is that human beings are off the hook. If a god wants someone to suffer, then there is nothing for a human being to do, although perhaps the person experiencing the suffering should be told to straighten up and fly right so that their suffering would end. Likewise, if suffering now leads to reward in an afterlife, there is no reason to address human suffering. Human beings can ignore any suffering of others they find distasteful, confident that those individuals will be well rewarded after they die.
Even more convenient, when religious institutions connect human suffering with their concept of sin, they can justify the mistreatment or oppression of others. When you believe that an individual's suffering is directly tied to that individual's sinfulness or wrongdoing, then the individual can be blamed for whatever harmful experiences happen in their lives. While people within the religious tradition are seen as being tested by suffering, people outside that religious tradition -- experiencing the same suffering -- might be seen as being punished by a god for bad behavior. This allows religious leaders to use religion to encourage the dehumanization of other people. In other words, their answer to human suffering is to willfully cause more suffering.
For this reason, religion cannot meaningfully answer the question it poses regarding the existence of evil or suffering. Even though some religious groups imagine supernaturals that are benevolent and engage in practices that seek to create wholeness, the non-real foundation of their actions is easily corrupted and abused by those who imagine a different sort of supernatural or refuse to address their own culpability. We must look outside religious constructs to find meaningful answers.
Human suffering might be put into two categories: suffering caused by nature, and suffering caused by human action. Natural suffering would include all of the hardships people face that are not caused by human activity: weather events, genetic conditions and many diseases, attacks from wild animals, etc. Nature has certain features that are unpleasant for individuals to experience, but overall contribute to a balanced ecosystem. The suffering of human beings because of natural events has no greater meaning, although people can potentially learn things from the experience. Natural events are amoral -- there is no will or purpose behind them. Natural events are just things that happen, and human beings have to supply their own meaning as they recover and rebuild in the wake of such an event.
We still feel grief and pain at this kind of suffering, and that grief and pain can connect us with other human beings or isolate us. We can better manage our grief, though, when we are honest about the source of our suffering.
Suffering caused by human action is different. Sometimes, suffering is the result of human ignorance or negligence, but people are still accountable for their actions. A person might say that they never knew there was a connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, but their actions are still a contributing factor to their suffering. There is some evidence to suggest that even some "natural" events like wildfires are exacerbated by human activity. The answer to this sort of suffering caused by negligence is two-fold. First, we must learn to more accurately predict the consequences of our actions. Second, we must choose to act in such a way that minimizes suffering and increases well-being for the greatest number of people. There is nothing supernatural in any of this. This way of thinking places responsibility squarely on human beings. This is less convenient than most religious responses to suffering, but it is more realistic.
Again, our pain and grief at this kind of suffering is also very real. Recognizing human responsibility is not a way of alleviating that grief. We need one another for that very reason; expressing grief and caring for one another in times of suffering is one of the functions of meaningful, authentic community.
There is another category of suffering caused by human action, however, and this is the most challenging to address because it seems closest to a traditional definition of evil. Some suffering is caused by human beings willfully and knowingly doing harm to other human beings. When a human being uses a weapon to hurt another human being, there is no question of ignorance or negligence. When human beings willfully use chemicals or artillery or biological agents to cause harm, there is no question of ignorance or negligence. There may have been a time when human beings could claim ignorance when they oppressed or marginalized a population, but that time has passed. Human beings have a propensity for willfully and knowingly causing harm to other human beings, and this suffering requires a different response that either natural suffering or suffering caused by actual ignorance or negligence.
We cannot blame supernatural forces for the harm that human beings perpetrate on one another. We must look to ourselves in order to find meaningful answers and solutions. The most succinct answer as to the cause of this suffering is that when people experience fear, they react. Fearful people often create suffering. This may seem overly simplistic, but the solution to irrational fear is rather demanding and counter-cultural. When people are accustomed to reacting to their fear (and justifying or dismissing any harm done as a result of their reactivity), suffering is guaranteed. The only way to address human suffering caused by human fearfulness is to address the root fear. While this would ideally become a societal practice, it's more likely that change will begin (and is beginning) with individuals committed to living more intentionally.
There are countless examples regarding how fear connects to human beings causing suffering. People are afraid of all sorts of things. We fear scarcity of resources and power. We fear being ignored or taken for granted -- being invisible. We fear being oppressed or exploited. We fear being unlovable or unacceptable because we fear being ostracized and cut off and alone. We fear not having our needs and wants met, and we fear being unworthy of having our needs and wants met. Human beings live in an environment of constant fearfulness. It take real work to recognize what fears are driving us, what we actually want, and how we can move toward what we want in a way that creates wholeness. This is the most meaningful answer to suffering that we can possibly embody, and it will take some time to learn to do things differently, especially if we are accustomed to reacting to fear on a regular basis.
As we proceed beyond clarifying the right questions, the goal of dismantling irrational fear, decreasing suffering, and increasing well-being will be a primary topic. For now, it can suffice that we have a viable way of asking questions about suffering that don't resort to religious imagination or the invoking of supernatural will and afterlife rewards. Moreover, we actually have a more meaningful question than Why is there suffering? It is much more potent and evocative for us to ask What fears are prompting me to create suffering instead of creating wholeness? and What am I going to do differently? If a growing number of people are willing to ask the right questions, we can find more meaningful and transformative answers for our lives and for our world.
To summarize the interrelated questions we can meaningfully ask and address in the weeks ahead:
How do I live in such a way that I'll be satisfied with how I influence the world around me?
What am I passionate about? What is my personal life dream that creates greater wholeness in the world?
Where do I find a genuine sense of belonging? Where do I find authentic community?
What fears get in my way? How can I dismantle those fears and understand what I actually want?
How can I get what I most deeply want and need by creating less suffering and greater wholeness?
Showing posts with label natural disasters. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural disasters. Show all posts
Monday, December 7, 2015
Monday, November 5, 2012
2 Samuel 1-5: God Does Not Appoint Leaders, Send Hurricanes, or Determine the Outcomes of Wars
Back in chapter 16 of the First Book of Samuel, the biblical narrative suggests that God chose David to be the next king of Israel. He had chosen Saul before, but he wound up regretting that decision, so apparently he was hoping for better luck with David. When one reads the first five chapters of the Second Book of Samuel, it's apparent that not everyone agreed with God's decision. David and his supporters apparently had to fight for acknowledgement from the rest of the Israelite people, at least in the account in Samuel. The book of Chronicles doesn't mention all of the infighting among the Israelites, since this would presumably be poor form. After the fact, it's easy to read some kind of intelligent plan at work, but the truth of the matter is that it was the actions of people that determined leadership, just as it is today.
In this election season, as with some previous elections, certain Christian leaders are suggesting that the outcome of the presidential elections will reflect either God's blessing on America or God's judgment. To listen to some people speak, it is as if the elections have nothing to do with voters or the electoral college and everything to do with divine intervention. While there is nothing inherently morally or ethically wrong about seeking comfort from a belief in a divine plan, the ramifications of that belief are potentially dangerous, especially when people stop thinking for themselves and allow other extremist views to abuse their belief in divine providence for personal gain.
It's healthily optimistic to say that good can come from any circumstance, or that there is something to be learned from every situation. This kind of thinking prompts people to take some measure of responsibility for outcomes in their lives, and it encourages awareness of opportunities rather than restrictions. When this thinking shifts to some external entity, however, it becomes more dangerous. It blurs the clear lines between the things over which people have authentic power in their lives and the things that are beyond their control. On the one hand, if it becomes God's responsibility to work everything out for good, then personal power is minimized. People develop a perception of themselves as weak and incapable. On the other hand, if people believe that God is going to work things out for their benefit (often at a cost to someone else) this can lead to a sense of superiority that is unwarranted and harmful.
To address the first scenario, people are simply not weak and incapable. There are systems in place in various parts of the world that are oppressive, and there are natural limits to what an individual can control. In terms of how one is going to live in the midst of one's circumstances, however, people have power over their own choices and decisions. Even in America, where most twenty-first century citizens know nothing of real oppression, if circumstances don't line up to our desires, we cry out as though our value as human beings was at stake. Some people believe that they are oppressed when someone merely voices an opinion different from theirs. Of course, some of this is for show. Melodramatic righteous indignation can be convincing. People are not really so weak that another person's opinion can harm them. And yet, we often play the victim rather than create the lives we truly want.
There are places in the world in which dictators and tyrants take action against defenseless innocent people. Some people would suggest that the United States military takes action against defenseless innocent people. This certainly reflects an authentic powerlessness to control the behavior of those who are willing to abuse their authority at the expense of others. Our power as human beings does not extend to the actions of others, but everyone everywhere has the personal capability to manage their own thoughts and behaviors if they choose to do so. Sometimes this is admittedly a challenge.
Belief that God is in full control of all the world's activities often gives people a skewed sense of reality, though. If God exerts such active control that he chooses leaders, then God is also responsible for all of the tyrants and malevolent dictators in various parts of the world. If God sends hurricanes to punish a group of people, he is also responsible for every natural disaster that has made life more challenging for deeply religious people. He is responsible for every earthquake, tsunami, and mudslide that profoundly impacted the very impoverished people the Bible says are worthy of compassion. If God chooses sides in war and justifies the military actions of believers, then he is accountable for all of the "collateral damage" in terms of innocent lives and economic and political turmoil that results from those military actions. Is he also responsible for traffic collisions? Plant explosions? Gang violence? The housing bubble? Where does his control over people's actions stop and personal responsibility begin?
The ancient Israelites looked at their history and saw successes and failures, heroes and tyrants, and they determined that their god was responsible for their circumstances. Other peoples in the ancient world had similar perspectives. Various Roman emperors, ruling a thousand years after David, even believed that declines in Roman culture could be remedied by returning to more fervent worship of the Roman gods. Due to the tenacity of their beliefs, the Israelites would eventually claim that their god was responsible for placing foreign oppressors in power, for allowing the Israelites to be taken into exile, for orchestrating the outcomes of wars of all the nations around them. It is a perspective that ignores the capability and responsibility of individuals and communities and places control squarely in the hands of an imaginary figure that cannot be controlled.
Except that God can be controlled, in the minds of the ancient Israelites and in the minds of twenty-first century Christians. For the ancient Israelites, God was susceptible to their behavior. If they were faithful to the requirements of their cultural religion, then God would show them favor. If they misbehaved, then God would exercise judgment and wrath. The actions of the people controlled the actions of God. Today, some people believe that they can pray circumstances into being, that fervent prayer will convince God to sway the election in their favor, will help the poor and oppressed in other parts of the world, will change laws about abortion and marriage rights. Prayer is thought to keep people safe on the roads, when actual skill and awareness as a driver probably has more of an impact in that arena. In the minds of some people, if enough people pray with enough faith, no other action is required. As if God will take care of the details and work everything out to benefit us, often at the expense of the less faithful -- or at least at the expense of the people who do not agree with us. The twisted ramifications of this kind of belief are staggering.
We are responsible for our lives and our actions. As individuals, we are responsible for our personal choices and decision, and as a collective we are responsible for the outcomes of our collective decisions. God did not put David on the throne of Israel; a bunch of people with swords and the will to use them put David on the throne. God does not send hurricanes to punish sinners; hurricanes and other disasters are just a natural part of the world we inhabit. God does not determine the outcomes of wars, and belief in God does not justify any measure of violence against other human beings. Violence in the world is fully the responsibility of the people who carry out the violence, whether they be gang members or decorated soldiers. God is not a valid scapegoat for human atrocities.
And God is not responsible for elections. Whoever wins or loses, God is not trying to send any sort of message of approval or disappointment. Elections are determined by people. Perhaps there are problems worth addressing in the system by which leaders are elected, but those problems are within the sole purview of human beings, not an external divine agent. If we want our lives to be better, it is our responsibility to make them so. If we want other people's lives to be better, then we must do more than toss pennies into a wishing well. If something within us is calling us to take action to connect with other people, then we are responsible for taking that action. If we want our country to be a better place, then it is up to us to connect with other people in this enormous community -- to connect with them and listen to them, without being so self-assured of our superiority that we will accept no view but our own.
God did not appoint David to leadership, and God is not pulling strings today. But the divine nature within us is constantly at work, calling us to act in ways that are congruent with our deepest selves, seeking connection with other people, challenging us to set aside fear and take responsibility for our impact in the world, for our impact on other people. When belief in God becomes an excuse for people to set aside personal responsibility, it is time to examine that belief very critically. When belief in God becomes an excuse for feeling superior, it is time to examine oneself very critically. When belief in God becomes an excuse for hatred and violence, it is time to look in the mirror and ask, "What do I stand for?"
When Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God, he used one word to summarize that ideal: love. The ancient Israelites didn't get it. Their histories are full of the evidence that they floundered to make sense of their cultural religion. Their beliefs led them in many directions as a result. If our belief leads us in any other direction than love, then our belief serves neither us nor the world. Whether you believe in God, in the divine within each person, or in something else entirely, the only valid application of that belief is ultimately love. How is that love being expressed in your life and speech and actions today?
In this election season, as with some previous elections, certain Christian leaders are suggesting that the outcome of the presidential elections will reflect either God's blessing on America or God's judgment. To listen to some people speak, it is as if the elections have nothing to do with voters or the electoral college and everything to do with divine intervention. While there is nothing inherently morally or ethically wrong about seeking comfort from a belief in a divine plan, the ramifications of that belief are potentially dangerous, especially when people stop thinking for themselves and allow other extremist views to abuse their belief in divine providence for personal gain.
It's healthily optimistic to say that good can come from any circumstance, or that there is something to be learned from every situation. This kind of thinking prompts people to take some measure of responsibility for outcomes in their lives, and it encourages awareness of opportunities rather than restrictions. When this thinking shifts to some external entity, however, it becomes more dangerous. It blurs the clear lines between the things over which people have authentic power in their lives and the things that are beyond their control. On the one hand, if it becomes God's responsibility to work everything out for good, then personal power is minimized. People develop a perception of themselves as weak and incapable. On the other hand, if people believe that God is going to work things out for their benefit (often at a cost to someone else) this can lead to a sense of superiority that is unwarranted and harmful.
To address the first scenario, people are simply not weak and incapable. There are systems in place in various parts of the world that are oppressive, and there are natural limits to what an individual can control. In terms of how one is going to live in the midst of one's circumstances, however, people have power over their own choices and decisions. Even in America, where most twenty-first century citizens know nothing of real oppression, if circumstances don't line up to our desires, we cry out as though our value as human beings was at stake. Some people believe that they are oppressed when someone merely voices an opinion different from theirs. Of course, some of this is for show. Melodramatic righteous indignation can be convincing. People are not really so weak that another person's opinion can harm them. And yet, we often play the victim rather than create the lives we truly want.
There are places in the world in which dictators and tyrants take action against defenseless innocent people. Some people would suggest that the United States military takes action against defenseless innocent people. This certainly reflects an authentic powerlessness to control the behavior of those who are willing to abuse their authority at the expense of others. Our power as human beings does not extend to the actions of others, but everyone everywhere has the personal capability to manage their own thoughts and behaviors if they choose to do so. Sometimes this is admittedly a challenge.
Belief that God is in full control of all the world's activities often gives people a skewed sense of reality, though. If God exerts such active control that he chooses leaders, then God is also responsible for all of the tyrants and malevolent dictators in various parts of the world. If God sends hurricanes to punish a group of people, he is also responsible for every natural disaster that has made life more challenging for deeply religious people. He is responsible for every earthquake, tsunami, and mudslide that profoundly impacted the very impoverished people the Bible says are worthy of compassion. If God chooses sides in war and justifies the military actions of believers, then he is accountable for all of the "collateral damage" in terms of innocent lives and economic and political turmoil that results from those military actions. Is he also responsible for traffic collisions? Plant explosions? Gang violence? The housing bubble? Where does his control over people's actions stop and personal responsibility begin?
The ancient Israelites looked at their history and saw successes and failures, heroes and tyrants, and they determined that their god was responsible for their circumstances. Other peoples in the ancient world had similar perspectives. Various Roman emperors, ruling a thousand years after David, even believed that declines in Roman culture could be remedied by returning to more fervent worship of the Roman gods. Due to the tenacity of their beliefs, the Israelites would eventually claim that their god was responsible for placing foreign oppressors in power, for allowing the Israelites to be taken into exile, for orchestrating the outcomes of wars of all the nations around them. It is a perspective that ignores the capability and responsibility of individuals and communities and places control squarely in the hands of an imaginary figure that cannot be controlled.
Except that God can be controlled, in the minds of the ancient Israelites and in the minds of twenty-first century Christians. For the ancient Israelites, God was susceptible to their behavior. If they were faithful to the requirements of their cultural religion, then God would show them favor. If they misbehaved, then God would exercise judgment and wrath. The actions of the people controlled the actions of God. Today, some people believe that they can pray circumstances into being, that fervent prayer will convince God to sway the election in their favor, will help the poor and oppressed in other parts of the world, will change laws about abortion and marriage rights. Prayer is thought to keep people safe on the roads, when actual skill and awareness as a driver probably has more of an impact in that arena. In the minds of some people, if enough people pray with enough faith, no other action is required. As if God will take care of the details and work everything out to benefit us, often at the expense of the less faithful -- or at least at the expense of the people who do not agree with us. The twisted ramifications of this kind of belief are staggering.
We are responsible for our lives and our actions. As individuals, we are responsible for our personal choices and decision, and as a collective we are responsible for the outcomes of our collective decisions. God did not put David on the throne of Israel; a bunch of people with swords and the will to use them put David on the throne. God does not send hurricanes to punish sinners; hurricanes and other disasters are just a natural part of the world we inhabit. God does not determine the outcomes of wars, and belief in God does not justify any measure of violence against other human beings. Violence in the world is fully the responsibility of the people who carry out the violence, whether they be gang members or decorated soldiers. God is not a valid scapegoat for human atrocities.
And God is not responsible for elections. Whoever wins or loses, God is not trying to send any sort of message of approval or disappointment. Elections are determined by people. Perhaps there are problems worth addressing in the system by which leaders are elected, but those problems are within the sole purview of human beings, not an external divine agent. If we want our lives to be better, it is our responsibility to make them so. If we want other people's lives to be better, then we must do more than toss pennies into a wishing well. If something within us is calling us to take action to connect with other people, then we are responsible for taking that action. If we want our country to be a better place, then it is up to us to connect with other people in this enormous community -- to connect with them and listen to them, without being so self-assured of our superiority that we will accept no view but our own.
God did not appoint David to leadership, and God is not pulling strings today. But the divine nature within us is constantly at work, calling us to act in ways that are congruent with our deepest selves, seeking connection with other people, challenging us to set aside fear and take responsibility for our impact in the world, for our impact on other people. When belief in God becomes an excuse for people to set aside personal responsibility, it is time to examine that belief very critically. When belief in God becomes an excuse for feeling superior, it is time to examine oneself very critically. When belief in God becomes an excuse for hatred and violence, it is time to look in the mirror and ask, "What do I stand for?"
When Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God, he used one word to summarize that ideal: love. The ancient Israelites didn't get it. Their histories are full of the evidence that they floundered to make sense of their cultural religion. Their beliefs led them in many directions as a result. If our belief leads us in any other direction than love, then our belief serves neither us nor the world. Whether you believe in God, in the divine within each person, or in something else entirely, the only valid application of that belief is ultimately love. How is that love being expressed in your life and speech and actions today?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Natural Disasters and Wickedness: Viewing the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as the Wrath of God
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah suggests some very interesting and disturbing ideas about natural disasters, or really any sort of disaster in life. For the mind that wants to see the universe as ordered under the control of some higher authority, stories like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah help to make sense of events that seem chaotic, with a footnote that cleverly insults certain groups of people. Briefly: God (for whatever reason) mentions to Abraham that he’s going to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, because the people there are wicked beyond redemption. Abraham pleads with him and says, “You can’t kill innocent people! Spare the cities if there are at least 10 righteous men.” God promises to look into the matter, and swears that he’ll spare the cities if even a handful of people are worth saving. As it turns out, Abraham’s nephew, Lot, is the only one worth saving, so God just warns Lot to get out of town with his family. In a striking reflection of Orpheus and Eurydice, Lot’s wife looks back at the city as they are fleeing and is transformed into a pillar of salt. Then, Lot’s two daughters get him drunk and sleep with him, becoming pregnant with children that would found two nations that were enemies of the very Israelites telling the story.
There are a lot of things one could latch onto in a story like this. To our culture, it may seem odd for a "righteous" man to offer his virgin daughters to a crowd of would-be rapists. It may also seem like a pretty low blow to make up an incestuous story about a group’s origins just to have another reason to hate or insult them, but human beings haven’t outgrown that tactic yet. There will be plenty of opportunities to explore relationships and how we see other people, though. The lesson of not focusing on or longing for the past seems fairly obvious in the story of Lot’s wife. This may be worth coming back to at a later time. For now, let’s concentrate on the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the cities.
In recent years, there have been some pretty destructive natural disasters. Just since the turn of the 21st century, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis have had devastating effects on cities, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and have disrupted the lives of millions of people. It seems natural to ask, “Why?” Some people even claim to know why these events have occurred, and they capitalize on the emotional and psychological devastation in the wake of destructive events for a personal agenda. Many people who claim to know why natural disasters occur hearken back to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Some claim (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the wickedness of people is the reason for the destruction. There have been exhortations to turn from sinfulness, lest we continue to encourage God’s wrath. The natural disasters we see in our lifetime are even likened to warnings of a divine parent’s growing impatience with disobedient children. In other words, we still struggle to understand why these chaotic events take place, and we instinctively turn to our understanding of the world to fit natural disasters into our existing premises. If the premise is flawed, however, any understanding of the world based upon it is going to create more problems than it solves.
First, let’s have a little perspective about natural disasters. Recent events have been devastating, but to any student of history, they are likely not surprising. Throughout recorded history, there have been floods and earthquakes and storms that have wreaked devastation. Looking back across time, there has not really been a remarkable increase in catastrophic events, even though we may hear about things and see footage much more easily than ever before.
Incidentally, this goes for disease as well, although some have suggested that certain diseases exist as divine warnings against immorality. Tuberculosis, measles, small pox, and the bubonic plague claimed more lives than any disease connected with immorality in today’s society. The Spanish Flu claimed over 50,000,000 deaths in just two years between 1918 and 1920. Malaria continues to kill over 750,000 people each year, primarily the poorest people in the poorest African countries. While people may not be willing to equate poverty with immorality, dealing with that poverty and disease has not really become a worldwide concern. So, it obviously would take a lot for a disease to catch our attention enough to incite a widespread change in lifestyle.
But to some, this does not diminish the impression that someone more powerful is punishing humanity, or some sector of the population. This mindset extends to all sorts of unwanted events from car accidents to disease to lightning strikes. If something bad has happened, some people want there to be a reason, and the easiest reason of all is to believe that the person or people did something wrong to bring hardship upon themselves. Sometimes, hardship may certainly be the result of personal decisions, but in the case of natural disasters, this rationale simply cannot apply. Why is there suffering? Why would there not be?
Archaeologists don’t have any clear evidence to shed light on the story itself. Although the story was certainly written after the fact, and the specific names of Sodom and Gomorrah were not recorded in other sources, there could easily have been sites in the region destroyed by earthquakes, volcanic activity, or even a meteor. Whether or not the story is completely factual in the historical details, we can relate to such events, because we still see cities destroyed by earthquakes, floods, mudslides, avalanches, and storms. These things are part of our ecosystem. They are natural events which occur because of natural reasons. Sometimes people get caught in the destruction, but the natural events are not specifically targeting anyone. We don’t always understand why something has happened, but that doesn’t mean a rational and natural explanation doesn’t exist. There is no reason to assume that some person or community is being punished when natural disaster strikes. They are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
To suggest otherwise should concern those who believe in an intelligent divine being who causes things to happen in the world. If we are truly able to change our behavior and thus avert further catastrophe, this is a kind of magic. Our actions should not be able to alter the decisions of an omniscient and omnipotent entity, since that would actually mean that the external divine being is at the mercy of believers instead of the other way around. It also ignores the fact that there are people who live wholesome lives, who even believe the things they are “supposed” to believe, who are struck down by natural disasters or disease.
Alternatively, it makes just as little sense to claim that people are simply wicked at the core of their being, and thus are deserving of whatever punishment a divine being may choose to dish out. Aside from being a very hopeless perspective that fails to acknowledge the deep beauty and value of humankind, it also doesn’t allow grounds for much to change. People cannot honestly be expected to change their immoral ways if they are intrinsically wicked, thus we would always be deserving of punishment from natural disasters at the whim of the almighty. Some would point out that this is the whole purpose of grace, which is a fine perspective, except that the application of grace would seem to contradict the concept of punishment through natural disaster. What purpose is there in extending grace and then deciding to send a tsunami or an earthquake anyway?
A simpler perspective is to assume that the natural world is neither tame nor intelligent. Natural disasters will happen, and sometimes people and communities will be within a dangerous proximity. There’s no reason to see those people as wicked or worthless, and honestly I don’t believe many people do. We have an opportunity in those moments to reassert our connection to one another, to do something to acknowledge the beauty and value of all people. It is not a divine warning message (or as powerful a fear-inducing morality lesson), but it does open an opportunity for our awareness to shift toward our ability to care for one another, an opportunity to be reminded of the things that are most important to us.
While whatever happened to those ancient cities was certainly tragic, there is no reason to attribute any more wickedness to them than any other concentration of people, and there is no reason to assume that they deserved to be destroyed. It may be simpler to see people who suffer from unexplainable catastrophe as lesser people, people deserving of what happened, wicked people. We don’t have to care as much about what happens to people like that, and we certainly don’t feel obligated to do much to help them. Perhaps it isn’t that much more difficult in times of such devastation to allow ourselves to be awakened to our commonalities as human beings, to recognize the preciousness of life and the beauty and power of human connection, and to act in accord.
There are a lot of things one could latch onto in a story like this. To our culture, it may seem odd for a "righteous" man to offer his virgin daughters to a crowd of would-be rapists. It may also seem like a pretty low blow to make up an incestuous story about a group’s origins just to have another reason to hate or insult them, but human beings haven’t outgrown that tactic yet. There will be plenty of opportunities to explore relationships and how we see other people, though. The lesson of not focusing on or longing for the past seems fairly obvious in the story of Lot’s wife. This may be worth coming back to at a later time. For now, let’s concentrate on the circumstances surrounding the destruction of the cities.
In recent years, there have been some pretty destructive natural disasters. Just since the turn of the 21st century, earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis have had devastating effects on cities, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and have disrupted the lives of millions of people. It seems natural to ask, “Why?” Some people even claim to know why these events have occurred, and they capitalize on the emotional and psychological devastation in the wake of destructive events for a personal agenda. Many people who claim to know why natural disasters occur hearken back to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Some claim (with varying degrees of subtlety) that the wickedness of people is the reason for the destruction. There have been exhortations to turn from sinfulness, lest we continue to encourage God’s wrath. The natural disasters we see in our lifetime are even likened to warnings of a divine parent’s growing impatience with disobedient children. In other words, we still struggle to understand why these chaotic events take place, and we instinctively turn to our understanding of the world to fit natural disasters into our existing premises. If the premise is flawed, however, any understanding of the world based upon it is going to create more problems than it solves.
First, let’s have a little perspective about natural disasters. Recent events have been devastating, but to any student of history, they are likely not surprising. Throughout recorded history, there have been floods and earthquakes and storms that have wreaked devastation. Looking back across time, there has not really been a remarkable increase in catastrophic events, even though we may hear about things and see footage much more easily than ever before.
Incidentally, this goes for disease as well, although some have suggested that certain diseases exist as divine warnings against immorality. Tuberculosis, measles, small pox, and the bubonic plague claimed more lives than any disease connected with immorality in today’s society. The Spanish Flu claimed over 50,000,000 deaths in just two years between 1918 and 1920. Malaria continues to kill over 750,000 people each year, primarily the poorest people in the poorest African countries. While people may not be willing to equate poverty with immorality, dealing with that poverty and disease has not really become a worldwide concern. So, it obviously would take a lot for a disease to catch our attention enough to incite a widespread change in lifestyle.
But to some, this does not diminish the impression that someone more powerful is punishing humanity, or some sector of the population. This mindset extends to all sorts of unwanted events from car accidents to disease to lightning strikes. If something bad has happened, some people want there to be a reason, and the easiest reason of all is to believe that the person or people did something wrong to bring hardship upon themselves. Sometimes, hardship may certainly be the result of personal decisions, but in the case of natural disasters, this rationale simply cannot apply. Why is there suffering? Why would there not be?
Archaeologists don’t have any clear evidence to shed light on the story itself. Although the story was certainly written after the fact, and the specific names of Sodom and Gomorrah were not recorded in other sources, there could easily have been sites in the region destroyed by earthquakes, volcanic activity, or even a meteor. Whether or not the story is completely factual in the historical details, we can relate to such events, because we still see cities destroyed by earthquakes, floods, mudslides, avalanches, and storms. These things are part of our ecosystem. They are natural events which occur because of natural reasons. Sometimes people get caught in the destruction, but the natural events are not specifically targeting anyone. We don’t always understand why something has happened, but that doesn’t mean a rational and natural explanation doesn’t exist. There is no reason to assume that some person or community is being punished when natural disaster strikes. They are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
To suggest otherwise should concern those who believe in an intelligent divine being who causes things to happen in the world. If we are truly able to change our behavior and thus avert further catastrophe, this is a kind of magic. Our actions should not be able to alter the decisions of an omniscient and omnipotent entity, since that would actually mean that the external divine being is at the mercy of believers instead of the other way around. It also ignores the fact that there are people who live wholesome lives, who even believe the things they are “supposed” to believe, who are struck down by natural disasters or disease.
Alternatively, it makes just as little sense to claim that people are simply wicked at the core of their being, and thus are deserving of whatever punishment a divine being may choose to dish out. Aside from being a very hopeless perspective that fails to acknowledge the deep beauty and value of humankind, it also doesn’t allow grounds for much to change. People cannot honestly be expected to change their immoral ways if they are intrinsically wicked, thus we would always be deserving of punishment from natural disasters at the whim of the almighty. Some would point out that this is the whole purpose of grace, which is a fine perspective, except that the application of grace would seem to contradict the concept of punishment through natural disaster. What purpose is there in extending grace and then deciding to send a tsunami or an earthquake anyway?
A simpler perspective is to assume that the natural world is neither tame nor intelligent. Natural disasters will happen, and sometimes people and communities will be within a dangerous proximity. There’s no reason to see those people as wicked or worthless, and honestly I don’t believe many people do. We have an opportunity in those moments to reassert our connection to one another, to do something to acknowledge the beauty and value of all people. It is not a divine warning message (or as powerful a fear-inducing morality lesson), but it does open an opportunity for our awareness to shift toward our ability to care for one another, an opportunity to be reminded of the things that are most important to us.
While whatever happened to those ancient cities was certainly tragic, there is no reason to attribute any more wickedness to them than any other concentration of people, and there is no reason to assume that they deserved to be destroyed. It may be simpler to see people who suffer from unexplainable catastrophe as lesser people, people deserving of what happened, wicked people. We don’t have to care as much about what happens to people like that, and we certainly don’t feel obligated to do much to help them. Perhaps it isn’t that much more difficult in times of such devastation to allow ourselves to be awakened to our commonalities as human beings, to recognize the preciousness of life and the beauty and power of human connection, and to act in accord.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Genesis Chapters 5-10
Genesis chapters 5-10 covers a lot of genealogy and the story of a global flood that has parallels in about 500 stories from diverse ancient cultures from every area of the globe. Coming from a perspective that rejects the idea that natural disasters are punishments from on high, what I make of these chapters is a message relating to how we incorporate the lessons of the past into our lives in the present. My re-contextualization of these six chapters boils down to one paragraph...
Leading in from my reinterpretation of Genesis 4: It is up to us to break the spiral of fear and shame which stifles connection, and to embrace the truth and beauty and creativity that can bring us back around to satisfying relationship. This requires being boldly honest with ourselves.
In part, this bold honesty requires acknowledging the past without being chained by it. This applies to our own past as individuals, and the past of our parents and lineage. When we blindly accept the mandates of our parents and ancestors, we cease to acknowledge our own truth and beauty and creativity. Many people who went before us made decisions based on fear and shame, and it is not for us to continue along that path. Many people who went before us understood and embraced the truth and beauty and creativity within themselves and others, and we can learn much from their legacies. Therefore, we must greet the past with honesty and discernment, so that our own journeys are enhanced and not impeded by those who have gone before. Their blessings and curses only mean as much as we allow.
Leading in from my reinterpretation of Genesis 4: It is up to us to break the spiral of fear and shame which stifles connection, and to embrace the truth and beauty and creativity that can bring us back around to satisfying relationship. This requires being boldly honest with ourselves.
In part, this bold honesty requires acknowledging the past without being chained by it. This applies to our own past as individuals, and the past of our parents and lineage. When we blindly accept the mandates of our parents and ancestors, we cease to acknowledge our own truth and beauty and creativity. Many people who went before us made decisions based on fear and shame, and it is not for us to continue along that path. Many people who went before us understood and embraced the truth and beauty and creativity within themselves and others, and we can learn much from their legacies. Therefore, we must greet the past with honesty and discernment, so that our own journeys are enhanced and not impeded by those who have gone before. Their blessings and curses only mean as much as we allow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)