According to Steven Keillor in his God's Judgments: Interpreting History and the Christian Faith, the fundamental obstacle for Christians' interpreting historical events is the philosophical stance called "worldview." Mark Noll writes the foreword and admits he's a worldview thinker and Keillor's got him thinking.
The big book for worldview is by David Naugle, called Worldview: The History of a Concept (Eerdmans, 2002). Worldview, Keillor contends, has a blindspot when it comes to seeing God's judgments in historical events. By the way, Keillor is not a clear writer. If he is against "worldview thinking," I kept asking myself, what is "worldview thinking"?
In worldview thinking, evil is talked about but without the concept of the Judge. This like talking about crime and not talking about a police force. He refers to this unwillingness to see catastrophe as judgment from God as the "agnostic gag rule." In part, worldview emerges from the Enlightenment and therefore postmodernity's critique of Enlightenment means critique of worldview.
Assuming we know what worldview thinking is, a cranky Keillor argues that worldview thinking -- since it assumes the knowing self at the center of the universe -- cannot come to grips with tragic history because it refuses to begin as a self under the judgment of God. Here's his point: "The question confronting the self is how to escape God's judgment, not whether a tree exists in reality or in the mind, or how the self can know if a tree exists or whether the word tree represents reality" (54).
The Bible confronts us not as testimony, not worldview knowledge. Now we get something bordering on a definition of worldview thinking: "Worldview thinking stresses the knowing self that believes because it perceives the intellectual coherence of the Christian faith" (54). And "Belief is warranted [that's a worldview term if there ever was one] due to the trustworthy character of the Testifier not because the testimony is so clearly true, even self-evident, as to form the conclusion to a syllogism" (54). [Dang if this doesn't sound like Barth.]
"The Christian faith is not the knowing self's worldview. It is God's view of the helpless, guilty self..." (56). What warrants such faith is promise becoming event -- ie fulfilled prophecy.
On 9/11: Falwell and Robertson focused on sins that anger them the most. Insted, "a more objective, cautious approach" will focus on actions of the USA and the West that anger both Islam and God.
1. US support for Israel? not adequate.
2. UN sanctions against Hussein's Iraq? not adequate.
3. American troops in Saudi Arabia?
4. Globalization that enriches the West?
Our view of economy is Enlightenment stuff; not Scriptural. Rampant materialism.
5. Western culture is decadent? Yes, Islam and God are angered. Apostasy is found in Western culture.
6. The terrorists themselves? The mujahideen are the creation of the CIA. God is using one of our Cold War tools against us.
9/11 is God's judgment on the USA for materialism, cultural immoral exports, and our own use of terroristic guerrilla units.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
This topic reminded me of a best selling book I read, and you probably also read, some 20 years ago- WHEN BAD THINGS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE by Rabbi Harold Kushner who had lost his young son. I found parts of two reviews on Amazon that express two perspectives better than I can-
>
>
Doug
I don't know why the quotes didn't post or why an earlier post was deleted, but I'll try the quotes again-
Jared Ballin quote-
The first words in Kushner's book relay to readers, "This is not an abstract book about God and theology." However, Kushner makes countless references to theologies concerning abstract thoughts about god. For example, Kushner has this to say about suffering, "God does not cause our misfortunes. Some are caused by bad luck, some are caused by bad people, and some are simply an inevitable consequence of our being human and being mortal, living in a world of inflexible natural laws." This view was forged in Kushner's mind from the point that he was a theological student; therefore, this represents a theology, which Harold Kushner assured his readers would not be a concern of his book. Even so, Kushner's use of basic theological commentary plays an integral role in communicating his message to readers, even if he had not intended to include theological content.
One of Kushner's greatest motivations for writing this book was for "the people who wanted to go on believing, but whose anger at God made it hard for them to hold on to their faith and be comforted by religion." Kushner conveys to readers his acknowledgement of God's limitations to the "laws of nature, the evolution of human nature and to human moral freedom." Instead of denouncing God's existence or his faith in God, Kushner denounced the idea that everything happens for a reason, according to God's plan. Instead, Rabbi Kushner portrays much of life's occurrences and happenings to be completely random and outside the realm of God's control.
Utilizing ancient texts as well as modern occurrences, Kushner provides examples to support a theory, which concerns suffering made popular by existentialists like Victor E. Frankl, who believes that meaning can be found in suffering. Furthermore, that once meaning is discovered in a certain social ailment, suffering ceases to be suffering at all. Kushner confers with Frankl's sentiment, adding his own thoughts when he says that bad things happen to us and "do not happen for any good reason, which would cause us to accept them willingly... We can redeem these tragedies from senselessness by imposing meaning on them." Kushner's reference to examples from ancient texts, like when Moses was able to descend a mountain with two heavy tablets inscribed by God, fighting through pain and mental anguish and fueled by hopes of conveying the inscriptions to his people, portrays the worth of a continuation of faith in God and his teachings.
And Y. Dumbrava quote-
If you are a Christian, this book isn't for you. It is full of blashphemy, concluding that we must "... forgive God" and that we must love God "... even if He isnt perfect"... Since when was God in need of forgiveness? Isnt it that "... God so loved the world" and it wasnt us that loved God? I have no words in describing this book. It is full of error, because it does not base it self on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All this book does is frees you from the thought that you are a sinner, and that it isnt your fault, and that actully you are a good person. Why do bad things happen to good people? Wrong question. There are no good people in the world in the first place. " for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God..." The world is in sin. The world DOES NOT HAVE GOOD PEOPLE!! Only by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ you are made righteous. I beg you in the name of Jesus Christ to stay away from this book. It hasnt helped 4 million people, but it lied to them. Kusher, please turn from your ways and come to Jesus, then will you understand the life question "WHY"!
Doug
Ben,
I see Rom 13.1-8 as a sort of "parenthetical" section in the middle of Paul's "ethical" exhortations. But it is also "ethical" in that it reminds his readers what their relationship is with the State. That's all.
Paul doesn't tell them to spend time trying to figure out who exactly is God's "messenger" or the minute details about the execution of God's wrath. He simply tells people to leave all vengeance up to God, however that gets worked out. NT Wright writes, "The contemptuous references in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny show only too well how Romans would naturally regard a cult like Christianity: a reputation for antisocial behavior was almost automatic, and the church should take care not to live up to it." http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Romans_Theology_Paul.pdf
I think Paul was taking care not to anger the authorities, while at the same time telling the Roman Christians to keep their heads down and stay under the radar. Ch 12 and the rest of ch 13 are about living peaceably with all, so far as it depends on them.
I say again: God became *vulnerable*. That's the pattern in Jesus' life, and that's the pattern in Rom 12-13 wrt how Christians are supposed to relate.
Off to the local Masterworks Chorale now; we're rehearsing Faure's "Requiem".
Dana
Re #24
I am thinking of Romans 1 where Paul explains God's judgement on the human race, Peterson in The Message puts it like this, "...God quit bothering with them and let them run loose. And then all hell broke loose..." Maybe that is why 9/11 happened. I also think of what Jesus said, that God did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it.
I can't seem to look at human suffering objectively. A dear friend, only 48, has been diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer. I torment myself trying to understand how the world works, why God would let this happen. Ultimately I see that I can only live by faith, for I've yet to hear anything better than God becoming man to save the world.
...as far as I understand Keillor I would disagree...I'm not sure you can just take the innocent out of the equation simply because it is inconvenient (I may be simplifying)...God seems to be the advocate of the innocent...I don't see God as more concerned about events than he is about an individual...Keillor's thesis as you have stated (9/11 is God’s judgment on the USA for materialism, cultural immoral exports, and our own use of terroristic guerrilla units.) assumes that the USA is the chosen people of God (USA replaces Israel), that's probably not a good assumption in light of the Church...it also seems that if God is a judge he is often asleep at the wheel and/or inconsistent in his sentencing...graceandpeace y'all
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.