Sharon Stone recently commented that the Chinese earthquake was the result of bad karma for that country's treatment of Tibet. I'm not sure if I find it refreshing or frightening to see that people of any religion or belief system are capable of saying stupid things when trying to explain suffering in the world.
So here's a question to ponder: Why do explanations like these seem so obviously ridiculous when phrased in another religion's vocabulary, but perfectly sensible when expressed in the vocabulary of our own? Most of us find detestable any claim that some force in the universe would arbitrarily kill thousands of innocents to maintain some semblance of cosmic justice. Yet many Christian theologies of God's sovereignty claim just that - directly or indirectly, through God's action or inaction. (Yes, I know I'm not bringing up anything new here.)
Sure, some of us Christians may have cringed at Falwell and Robertson's over-the-top claims of God's use of meteorological weapons. Yet we have no problem "comforting" victims of tragedy with phrases like, "It's all part of God's plan." We share praise stories in our worship services of how God spared us a tragedy that befell our neighbors. (Rarely are the not so fortunate present at the same time to give the other side of the story in their anguished prayers.) What if a Hollywood celebrity said the same thing using some Eastern or New Age wording? Would we be repulsed? Somehow couching it in Christianese makes it all OK.
It's not that I think we should do away with talking about God's plan or not express thanks for coming through a near-miss with death. It's just that we need to wrestle with these issues and their implications more deeply in our churches. It should be OK to say how senseless this all seems. It should be OK say the traditional theological explanations aren't working for us. Deep questions shouldn't be dismissed with platitudes like "Well, it's just a mystery." Sometimes those traditional ideas about how God works seem just as insipid as Sharon Stone's red carpet comments. That doesn't mean, we don't believe in God. It just means we don't accept some of the explanations for how God works.
I am encouraged that Stone was moved to apologize. The Tibetan Foundation responded with compassion and asked her to help the quake victims. Although spoken in a different vocabulary, I believe that was God at work.
isn't it easy to see of another faith where logic breaks down, or that it's 'just stories'...yet the same things in our own religion acquire a meaningfulness of their own which sets them apart to us!
I think Miss Stone's comments are typical of what happens when we are glib, though she does point out the inherent flaw of 'karma' as a western cause and effect theory: people suffer, whether they are good, whether they are bad.
An earthquake is neither good nor bad, merely a natural phenomenon, it seems bad because it affects us tragically. Our interpretation of it is 'bad karma' but the truth is- the earth moves, we are fragile, and we experience loss painfully.
You're right- it's God's grace at work when people try to overcome their miscommunications and refuse to take offence, instead choosing to help and support each other.
Posted by: Tracy Pace | May 30, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Additionally, how many people must now think Stone's misunderstanding of karma is an accurate description what adherents of Eastern religions actually believe? Makes me wonder if people outside Christianity still think all of us believe that AIDS and 9/11 were God's punishment, that hurricanes can be re-routed through prayer or that the sun revolves around the earth.
Posted by: Don Heatley | May 31, 2008 at 09:26 AM
Sadly many people believe and teach exactly that Don, which I hope is something the emergent church will address, superstition and ego-centricity! Many Christian churches are still teaching ethno-centric values and spiritual superiority as part of their doctrines.
I think the world-wide-web and One Laptop Per Child programme will facilitate much cultural understanding and community between nations
http://www.laptopgiving.org/en/index.php
Posted by: Tracy Pace | May 31, 2008 at 06:40 PM
Why did that earthquake kill all those people?
Can you answer this question without resorting to tradition or appealing to mystery?
Why should we even talk about God or Jesus? Isn't the very existence of these deities just as traditional as the explanations about how they relate to and operate in the world? To what extent should we appeal to the workings of these deities as expressed in the Bible to provide some sort of loose precedence to explain events in our world? As for natural disaster, couldn't we legitimately appeal to the Bible (if it bears any truth whatsoever) to explain the deaths of thousands of people? Maybe with the answers that I usually hear--Like...this tragedy occurred either because A, B, or C.
Posted by: Jason | June 02, 2008 at 07:33 AM
Jason, those are excellent questions. There are ways of answering the question, "Why did_______ happen?" that do not involve tradition or mystery. For instance, one could answer that there is no "why," it was just a random event in a meaningless universe. However, there are other options besides this one and saying it was all part of God's mysterious plan.
BTW, I have nothing against talking about the mystery of God. I am very into the Eastern-Orthodox-mystical-Mystery-with-a-capital-M kind of Mystery. Not so much into the it's-just-a-mystery-so-please-stop-upsetting-our-Bible-study-with-difficult-questions kind of mystery. Mystery should never be used as a way to close down conversation and I have often seen it used that way in churches. (I am not suggesting you favor such an approach).
Back to the other options. I don't think the very existence of God or Jesus is just as traditional as the explanations of how they operate in the world. There are many differing views about these issues, all held by a variety of believers, and all can find support in the Bible. The Book of Job alone is open to multiple interpretations on the subject of theodicy. In theological discourse, Paul Tillich's "ground of being" or Process Theology's God would not be directly involved in events such as earthquakes. There are many shades of belief in between.
So there are alternatives to tragedies being meaningless random events or part of God's sovereign plan (or some oversimplification of that theology). Unfortunately, the freedom and depth of discussion that allows those other theological views to be heard is not happening in many churches. Although, such theology is commonly taught in most mainline seminaries. This is unfortunate since, in my experience, the unsatisfactory answers given about why God allows suffering in the world are a major roadblock for many people to become followers of Jesus.
So I do not object to asking where was God in the earthquake, or talking about the mystery of God. I just object to oversimplification of what the Bible has to say about it and an insistence on there being only one right answer besides meaninglessness.
Again, not implying you were suggesting that - merely clarifying.
Posted by: Don Heatley | June 02, 2008 at 04:37 PM
Thanks, Don.
Posted by: Jason | June 03, 2008 at 12:02 PM