Posted by Siamang on: 11.19.2007 /
By Siamang
Over at Quintessence of Dust, Stephen Matheson has certainly got an intruiguing perspective.
He’s a Christian, and also an Associate Professor of Biology at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. His perspective is not one we hear very much. Sometimes we hear scientists who are also Christians talk about the science. It’s interesting to hear a scientist talk about his faith.
This is part of the conversation where I cannot contribute except by listening, and pointing his blog out to other people who want to listen.
Saturday’s post caught my eye. He’s writing about the difference between the natural history of the Earth as uncovered by science, and the narrative of creation as outlined in the Bible. But he also writes about this in regards to the “problem of evil” and how he thinks about these things.
Let me explain a little more about why I think evolutionary theory is no different from other science in its potential to undermine belief. Science, to me, is the rational exploration of God’s creation. This ongoing exploration has enabled humans to assemble reliable explanations for innumerable phenomena of interest: sunrise and sunset, moonlight, weather, growth and development of plants and animals, causation of various diseases. Some of these are phenomena for which biblical writers offered “explanations” that are either incorrect (on a plain reading) or are not natural explanations at all. In my view, various “scientific” accounts in the Bible are easily seen to be folk science or, more generously, what John Calvin called “accommodation.” This fact about scripture was known to many Christians long before anyone even dreamed of an ancient earth or common descent. Evolution came very late to that game, and it seems to me that those who claim to reject faith upon reading in Genesis about the “two great lights” in “the vault of the sky” are on better footing than those who reject Christianity because evolution falsifies “each according to its kind.”
…
But I can offer this additional observation regarding “what makes me tick”: I see my faith and my reading of scripture as radiating out from the life of Jesus. His incarnation, life, death, and ascension are The Story. I don’t start at the beginning, with the ancient Near Eastern cosmology, then work my way through till I get to Pentecost. I really do focus on Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega.
As I explained before, my emphasis on Christ’s preeminence makes the academic issue of Adam’s actual home address a mere curiosity.
In the same article Stephen also makes some interesting points about the problem of evil. I enjoy the clarity with which Stephen describes his thinking on reconciling Genesis with the creation science sees around us, and reconciling a world that includes suffering with a God that is the author of Good.
It’s not my point of view… but I’m not going to argue that in this post. I just like Stephen’s ability to help me see his views.
I’m not doing it justice by quoting it in parts. Go read the entire piece.
-Siamang.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Steven Carr
1 11/24/07 5:18 AM | Comment Link |‘I really do focus on Jesus, the Alpha and the Omega.’
Jesus had a lot to say on why innocent people suffer tragedy.
His compassion for the innocent victims of tragedy is truly moving, and even today, I can hardly read it without tears welling up in my eyes.
Luke 13:4-5 ‘Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them - do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.’
These words of comfort have touched millions of people whose lives have been affected by tragedy.
Comment by: Laura M.
2 11/26/07 3:14 AM | Comment Link |I don’t see what’s comforting about that phrase, Steven.
The last thing I would want to hear if someone I loved died is that they should have repented first of their guilt. What guilt?
There’s nothing comforting about the topics of guilt and repentence when dealing with the recent death of a loved one.
Comment by: Mike O
3 11/26/07 11:06 AM | Comment Link |I think you need to read it in context - the point of that story is that there are people who think if something bad happens to you, it’s because you did something wrong to deserve it - they were sinners so the tower fell on them. What Jesus was saying was that you can’t draw that conclusion.
I’m not sure why that constitutes “words of comfort,” but maybe I’m just missing Steven’s point.
Comment by: Steven Carr
4 11/26/07 12:47 PM | Comment Link |That was indeed Jesus point.
These people had done nothing wrong , so unless you repented, you too would perish.
Comment by: Mike O
5 11/26/07 1:56 PM | Comment Link |If you look at the passage in context (below), I think what Jesus is doing is trying to deal with people’s “at least I’m better than them” attitude. It’s hard to tell, but that seems to make sense.
I think what Jesus is saying is, “Who are you trying to kid?!? You think that happened to them because they were so evil? They were no worse than anyone else - they just died, that’s all.”
Not exactly sure how the transition to “repent or you will also perish” works, because even if you repent, you still die. I guess I never really thought about that before.
On a side note - I’m reading through Luke now, and I’ve got chapter 13 slated for tomorrow. maybe this will give me a chance to put some thought into it.
Steven, how do you explain that transition - it’s a little strange at first glance.
Comment by: Steven Carr
6 11/26/07 2:32 PM | Comment Link |The compassion of Jesus for those innocent victims of tragedy is deeply moving.
Especially when he tells other people that they are just as bad as those that died, and also deserve to get it in the neck.
This is the sort of thing that inspires Stephen Matheson, who focuses on Jesus , when it comes to the problem of evil.
But perhaps I am a little too quick when accusing Jesus of reacting to the tragedy of innocent people by denying that anybody is innocent.
As the Good Book says ‘Let he that is without sin cast the first stone.’
Perhaps I also am too quick to condemn everybody as being guilty.
Comment by: Siamang
7 11/26/07 2:39 PM | Comment Link |Steven,
Your tone seems ironic and combative.
You might get better responses to your thoughts if you ask what people feel about the passages you quote.
Otherwise, if I can speak for my Christian friends here, it seems like you’re setting folks up. I don’t know who would want to engage in that type of conversation.
Comment by: Mike O
8 11/26/07 8:45 PM | Comment Link |Oh, I get it … Ya got me!
Comment by: Steven Carr
9 11/26/07 11:39 PM | Comment Link |Who would want to engage in that type of conversation?
People who actually believe Jesus showed compassion to innocent victims of tragedy?
People who praise Jesus, but hate to see the words of Jesus quoted?
Comment by: Mike O
10 11/27/07 4:02 AM | Comment Link |Steven, what exactly is your point? That you think Christians are whacked because we see Jesus as ‘good’ or ‘compassionate?’ Join the club. Or perhaps it’s nothing more than that you think Matheson is somehow misguided for believing in him?
Do you weep every time you hear about someone who died unjustly? The 35w bridge collapsed - did I weep because it was a local story? No, but it did give me cause to step back and consider things. So does me using that story as an illustration make me a cold-hearted bastard like Jesus?
Was your point that Jesus was somehow not compassionate? If you citing one story of Jesus using actual events to illustrate a point makes him cold and heartless, then maybe me citing another story would remedy that. But somehow, I don’t think another bible story from a bible-banger will help. So what exacly was your point?
Or were you just taking a poke at the silly Christians?
Comment by: Steven Carr
11 11/27/07 5:38 AM | Comment Link |‘Do you weep every time you hear about someone who died unjustly?’
I knew that they had not repented, and so had perished like the people killed by the Tower of Siloam.
Were they worse sinners than the people not killed?
No, the people not killed are just as much sinners as the people who were killed.
But they will perish too, if they don’t repent.
I find it hard to follow the example of Jesus, but strangely satisfying at the same time.
Comment by: Laura M.
12 11/27/07 11:37 AM | Comment Link |Mike, I do weep every time I hear about someone who died unjustly. I also often weep when the idea occurs to me on any given day of how unjust life so often is for so many people . So much random and pointless suffering.
What was the point of asking Steven that question? Are you assuming that he doesn’t weep enough for vicitms of tragedy? That he’s somehow not compassionate? Why assume that?
Sorry , but I’m honestly not following your point in comment #10.
I doubt anyone would buy the idea that Jesus’ character was basically cold and heartless, but in this one particular instance he was certainly less than compassionate, which ,imo, makes him less than perfect.
Comment by: Laura M.
13 11/27/07 11:59 AM | Comment Link |If I’m going to comment on this thread I should make an effort to have something to say about the original post by Siamang.
I agree that
as regards
As far as finding his points about the problem of evil interesting, I wholly disagree. It’s same old -same old, near as I can tell. I would love to hear something new or interesting about ‘the problem of evil’.
Heck, I’d probably convert to Christianity if any Christians had anything to offer to explain why a loving father who builds an amazing garden and an awesome kingdom for his children then chooses to allow over half of his children to be born live out their lives and then die down in the dungeon. A steaming hot, bone dry living hell that is teaming with disease, little food, and no clean water.
Comment by: Mike O
14 11/27/07 9:20 PM | Comment Link |Hi, Laura. Regarding your post in #12 - my point in asking that question to Steven is that he seemed to be poking fun at Christians/Jesus for being so harsh (you will all perish!!!) when really in my opinion he was just using an actual event for an illustration. Do you weep every time you refer to an unjust death? I mean “weep?”
Shawn Taylor (football player) just died today. Assuming his death was really the result of a burglary (I have no idea), it is unjust and undeserved, but I don’t “weep” over it. I think it’s sad and a terrible waste, but that’s about the extent of it.
What was so uncompassionate about Jesus’ using those stories as an example to make a point? he was dealing with proud, holier-than-thous, not the mourners of the accident. It’s a completely different situation.
Comment by: Laura M.
15 11/27/07 10:56 PM | Comment Link |I agree that it’s not uncompassionate to make a point that needs to be made if there are eternal consequences. It’s not what Jesus said here, it’s how he said it. His tone comes across as harsh (slightly, not extremely).
The commandment is to love everyone, even the holier-than- thous, isn’t it? I’m not getting why his tone should be different with them than with the mourners. Surely their attitude stems from fear and insecurity. I think a perfect being could find a more loving way to tell the same story.
I thought Jesus was making an illustration and being a little harsh.
Well, I did cry actual tears when I read that the first time, and I had no idea who Shawn was. No, I’m not going to cry every time I hear the same story though. It does make my eyes hurt.
Don’t know if that answers your question.
I don’t think Jesus was uncompassionate because he didn’t cry. I do think he went a little the other way with it though.
Comment by: Laura M.
16 11/27/07 11:09 PM | Comment Link |Mike O,
If this makes any sense, here’s what I think I’m trying to say. The word compassion, to me, implies a passionate desire to bring comfort.
Jesus seemed to be trying to bring a little fear, the opposite of comfort, to people who already seemed to be wallowing in quite a bit of fear as it was.
Now I can allow mere mortals some slack in mistaking this type of tactic as being ‘compassionate’. I don’t allow the same slack to a purportedly all loving, all knowing, perfect being.
Jesus comes across as fully human in this story, and many others, imo.
Comment by: Keith
17 11/28/07 7:01 AM | Comment Link |Carr,
How’s it going? I can’t believe folks still bite when you throw out that bait … but I’ve been in their shoes.
Just wanted to say thanks for caring about the oppressed. I know that you support Amnesty International among other charitable organizations … and just wanted to say that I appreciate many of your actions even if I wonder why you prefer to pick fights with words rather than find common ground (especially when the common ground is obviously concern for victims of injustice.) Thank you for fighting the fight, bro.
It seems you see Jesus (or his followers) as an enemy to the fight against injustice. However, it seems that, at least, some Christians care greatly about the victims of injustice. Why not seek common ground?
Off The Map has a discussion page focusing on Justice and Compassion … perhaps discussing justice issues with Christians might provide some opportunity to further the causes you support.
Though if you want to argue about the goodness of Jesus that would probably be better done in places like this. Good luck, I know you’ll “win” this one.
By the way, what do you think Theophilus (likely a Roman official) would have thought of this particular teaching of Jesus. Since Luke specifically includes it in his gospel, he must have thought it had some particular importance for Theophilus. Could it be that Theophilus was separating himself from the plight of those who were harmed in tragedy thinking his wealth, position, or goodness made him immune to such danger? Could it be that Luke’s inclusion of Jesus’ warning was so that Theophilus might recognize just how much he has in common with everyday victims? Could it be that the purpose Luke had in including this pericope was to cause a Roman official to identify with victims of tragedy and increase his support for these victims. Read this passage like you listen to Dylan’s Masters of War and it comes out all different.
Common ground and good will, my brother.
Comment by: Mike O
18 11/28/07 7:09 AM | Comment Link |yeah, I get what you’re saying. I think there’s a disconnect between what people think Jesus was meant to accomplish here, and what the Bible says he was meant to accomplish.
It’s easy - and it feels good - to focus on the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness and self-control part of Christianity (those are “the fruit of the Spirit” if you didn’t know) - all the feel-good stuff. I don’t mean to discredit that in any way, but that wasn’t the total picture.
Jesus also came to right some of the religious wrongs that had become the norm in Jewish traditions. Religious leaders had gotten their focus off of God and helping people connect with God and turned it into mere religion and laws. So part of his purpose was to upset the establishment, and sometimes he was quite harsh in rebuking those who needed it.
I used to write skits for church, and I had an idea once that my wife talked me out of (she was probably right in hindsight :) ) called “The Crucifixion of Mr. Rogers” and the whole point of it was that we all know Jesus was crucified, but we forget that nobody would crucify Mr. Rogers - there was another side to Jesus that we don’t spend much time thinking about, or even explaining it away.
But as a Christian, should I really be “explaining away” the things he did (as if they were wrong), or should I be trying to understand the whole picture of what he was here to accomplish?
Comment by: Mike O
19 11/28/07 7:20 AM | Comment Link |I wish I knew. It’s not fair. They don’t deserve it.
My wife just changed the quote at the bottom of her emails a couple of weeks ago, and it applies well to what you just said …
My pesonal opinion is that God does *not* approve of the injustice you speak of. This is a fairly new mindset for me - I used to think until recently that each person had “a lot in life,” and you could either go through it with God or without him. But if you have a lesser lot than me, that’s God’s perogative.
I guess I still think that at some level, but I think there’s a reason people like you and I are blessed as much as we are. I think it’s God’s intent (whether you believe in him or not, if he exists I think this is his intent) for humanity to experience the same compassion he does - and how can that happen if we have nobody upon whom to pour that love?
I don’t think god wants them to suffer - I think he wants people with plenty to help the people in need. But people don’t.
Like I said, this is a new mindset for me - is that enough of a reason to “explain why a loving father who builds an amazing garden and an awesome kingdom for his children then chooses to allow over half of his children to be born live out their lives and then die down in the dungeon. A steaming hot, bone dry living hell that is teaming with disease, little food, and no clean water.”
Comment by: Siamang
20 11/28/07 10:40 AM | Comment Link |I think that this mindset needs to be emphasized as a great common-ground tool.
I’m going to make a criticism of what I see in some circles of believers.
I think that what you’re saying is that humans are the potential solution for the problem of uncaused or naturally occurring evil.
What I hear from some Christians is kind of the opposite: humans are the CAUSE of the uncaused evil.
In one view, humans are the solution, in the other, humans are the problem. (Katrina? The sinful nature of New Orleans. 9/11? The gays. The Tsunami? Probably Adam’s fault too.)
Now, I personally don’t subscribe to the belief that you need Jesus to be a good person… but stipulating that Jesus can help you be a better person for the sake of discussion here…
I’m willing to accept for some people the idea that Christianity can help for them lessen the human-caused harm they might do to others in their life.
But the idea that the solution for uncaused or natural evils is a quick and easy conversion to Christianity by the affected populace is against so much of what I stand for as a person committed to compassion and justice.
When people like Pat Robertson say things like “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city.”
I think that would qualify as idolatry. That’s the idea that the symbolism of Christianity is more important than (let’s call it) the work of Christian and other hands to make the world better. It’s more important to some people that we “sign up” as Christians, and “sign up” with a right-wing political philosophy. Not just to change ourselves or make ourselves better people, but to change God’s treatment of us.
Or at least so say those whose political power is measured by the number of people who are willing to believe they speak for God.
Comment by: Mike O
21 11/28/07 1:20 PM | Comment Link |Can someone help me get this hook out of my lip?
Comment by: Keith
22 11/28/07 1:29 PM | Comment Link |Siamang,
Whew. I don’t know if that can be said any better … thank you. I agree that hope in any setting will not become reality with only superficial or semantic changes. Hence, a guy with acidic speech and selfless action may be closer to the spirit of Jesus than one might think.
By the way, sorry your post has gotten hijacked like this. Is the first time a post has been hijacked without even a single comment on the original subject? :-) This has to be a record or something.
Comment by: Keith
23 11/28/07 1:30 PM | Comment Link |:-)
Comment by: Laura M.
24 11/28/07 5:58 PM | Comment Link |It seems like what Christians are trying to ‘explain away’ is the idea that Jesus ever did anything wrong in the sense of his behavior being less then perfect.
I think Jesus’ behavior was definitely less than perfect, which doesn’t make him heartless, it makes him human.
And to me there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with being human.
Comment by: Mike O
25 11/29/07 6:23 AM | Comment Link |Sort of, but not exactly. I think humans are tools that God can use, but are not necessarily the solution in and of themselves. If you need a nail pounded into a board, a hammer isn’t the solution, a guy with a hammer is. The hammer is just a tool which can be used for good or evil - to pound a nail or bash a window. I’m not saying people just pull a Geraldine and say “the Devil made me buy that dress! God made me help that poor person!” I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying God wants us to be tools he uses to help others - and sometimes we don’t be used for that.
That was never a commonly-held belief. yes, some Christians did/do think that however.
Dude, that just makes me cringe. Doesn’t he realize that that’s the whole point?!? - people turning back to God?!?
What did Jesus say on the Cross? Father forgive them.
What did Jesus do when Peter denied him just before his Crucifixion? He took him back.
What did Jesus say when he was accused (and rightly so!) of hanging out with “drunkards and sinners?” It is not the healthy that need a doctor, but the sick.
Jesus was about people who rejected God turning back to him!
Comment by: Mike O
26 11/29/07 7:01 AM | Comment Link |yeah, but one of the tenets of our faith is that he was perfect - at least from God’s perspective. Lots of people didn’t like him, that’s why they had him killed. I guess it comes down to what is perfection?
Laura, do you mind if I use something you wrote to start my post for today? This paragraph from #13 is a nice topic.
The folks over at Justice and Compassion might be interested, too.
Comment by: Karen
27 11/29/07 11:37 AM | Comment Link |Do you mean that god allows or even causes some people to suffer so that other people whom he’s blessed will have somebody to help out and feel sorry for?
If so, that would be a cruel and arbitrary deity, at least in my mind.
Comment by: Laura M.
28 11/29/07 3:03 PM | Comment Link |Oh sorry Mike, I just read #26.
Certainly feel free to repost or use anything I ever have to say here if you think it’s useful for dialogue.
Comment by: Mike O
29 11/29/07 7:01 PM | Comment Link |Not at all! I simply mean that there will always be people in need, and we are part of the solution to that problem.