Tom Hanks faces protestors on way to Lincoln Cathedral to film scenes from the da Vinci Code
Oscar-winning actor Tom Hanks was faced by protestors including nuns, as he began filming scenes for the upcoming film adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code in Lincoln yesterday.
The demonstration took place outside Lincoln Cathedral, which is doubling for Westminster Abbey. The Cathedral staff at Lincoln only agreed to allow filming after the movie's producers made a GBP100,000 donation.
Hanks, who will only be in Lincoln for two days, was chauffeur-driven the short distance from his five star hotel to the historic location - and he briefly waved at a small gathering of fans, who vied with demonstrators for his attention, before disappearing inside.
The cathedral's Dean, The Very Rev. Alec Knight, has dismissed Brown's 20 million-selling book as "a load of old tosh", but he was unable to turn down the offer which gives priceless publicity to his spiritual home.
However, demonstrators outside the cathedral have taken exception to Brown's questioning of their religious beliefs, and were led in a 12 hour prayer vigil by Catholic nun Sister Mary Michael.
The 61-year-old says, "I just don't think it is right that they are filming this story here. I know the Bishop and Dean argue that it is fiction - and it might even be brilliant fiction - but it is against the very essence of what we believe."
(For further comments see http://www.theologon.org.uk/ and select one-page documents “a God who trusts us to tell the truth” and “a God who is part of the human story”: much more is available elsewhere on the web)
Monday, October 31, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Rev Prof Amjad-Ali on the Cartoon Controversy
The “da Vinci Code” and Mary Magdalene
The Independent Foreign Service syndicated an article – yet another article – headed, “More grist to the ‘Da Vinci Code’ mill’, by Peter Popham, which was reprinted in The Star, Johannesburg, on Mon Oct. 17.
The headline is revealing: Dan Brown’s novel, “The da Vinci Code” has become an international best-seller. But more that that – it has spawned a whole industry of debate, discussion and refutation.
Why is this so?
Dan Brown abandons the normal conventions of the historical novel. Normally, in a historical novel, there is reference to a number of public facts – that is events which are generally accepted as historically verifiable. These facts provide the framework within which the novelist constructs the story. In his Introduction, Dan Brown actually says that he is following this tried and tested approach: he claims that all the facts to which he refers are historically verifiable. But this is not the case. On the contrary, he presents as fact a great many happenings that are either not part of the historical record, or are simply contrary to it (for some details, see www.theologon.org.uk and select one-page document “a God who trusts us to tell the truth”: much more is available elsewhere on the web).
Peter Popham’s article mentioned above demonstrates the cavalier treatment of historical truth which characterises Dan Brown and his admirers. The article contrasts a sensual and provocative picture of Mary Magdalene which has recently gone of show at Ancona in Northern Italy, with Leonardo’s chaste and enigmatic Mona Lisa. Now the plot thickens. The Magdalene is normally attributed to Giampietrino, a pupil of Leonardo. But Popham quotes a certain Carlo Pedretti, who we is a “Leonardo expert”, who thinks that the figure normally regarded as John the Baptist is Leonardo’s Last Supper is actually a portrait of Mary Magdalene. Dan Brown and Carlo Pedretti are just about the only people who actually think this may be true. Pedretti thinks that there is a strong case for ascribing the Magdalene portrait to Leonardo himself. Peter Popham piles further speculation on to this by saying that it would be no surprise if Leonardo, who carried round with him the Mona Lisa because he was so fond of it, also took along the Magdalene, with its “shame-free eroticism”. Really? Hardly anybody is willing to state that Leonardo actually painted the Magdalene – even Giampetrino only floats it as an idea worthy of further investigation. Popham has built onto this the speculation that Leonardo actually carried it with him everywhere! He concludes with a speculative question, “Did Leonardo depict Mary Magdalene in the act of seducing Jesus?”
Why should anyone find this kind of nonsense even remotely plausible – and why is it worth space in Newspapers all over the world?
What Dan Brown has succeeded in doing is to give a platform to all those post-Christians in the West who harbour a grudge against the church, and who find that the rise of feminism provides them with a convenient stick with which to beat the church. Brown angles his attack with some cunning: ostensively it is on the Roman Catholic Church and the Opus Day order which are targets of his attack. Protestants appear to get an easier ride. However, his fanciful rewriting of the story of Mary Magdalene is also a re-writing of the story of Jesus, and one that is completely destructive of any kind of Christian faith. I say this not because Jesus could not have married, or that if he had it would have somehow disproved his divine status (see www.theologon.org.uk and select one-page document “a God who is part of the human story and shares our human experience”). But the Jesus of the gospels is the Jesus whom God raised from the dead. The story of the resurrection and the account of commissioning of his followers to reach out to all humankind and to include all within his new community of love and peace are central to the New Testament as a whole, and to the four gospels in particular. This is totally incompatible with a story about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and secretly establishing a dynasty. It is the very bedrock of Christianity which is at stake here.
It might seem odd that after nearly 200 years of critical study of the Bible, and the exploration and rejection of all sorts of fanciful reconstructions of Christian origins which attempt to displace the resurrection and the church from the central role in Christianity attributed to them by the New Testament, an even wilder suggestion should gain a hearing across the western world. The difference is that earlier speculations were intended to be taken seriously, and studied seriously. Brown is offering us a sort of joke – one can easily imagine him saying, “But isn’t it amusing to tell this sort of story about Jesus, and to give the old fogies who will be shocked a bit of a fright?” And then, if we attempt a serious response, no doubt we will be told, “It’s only a novel, it’s only a bit of fun”.
It may be a bit of fun, but if so it is a joke in very bad taste. Just now, it may seem acceptable because of the immense power of the feminist lobby in western culture, and the growth of post-Christian new age thinking which is in reaction against the perceived patriarchalism of traditional Christianity. This is a rather sleazy kind of joke. Let us hope it is quickly forgotten.
Theo Simpson
See also www.theologon.org.uk and select one-page document “a God who trusts us to tell the truth” and
www.theologon.org.uk and one-page document “a God who is part of the human story and shares our human experience”)
The Independent Foreign Service syndicated an article – yet another article – headed, “More grist to the ‘Da Vinci Code’ mill’, by Peter Popham, which was reprinted in The Star, Johannesburg, on Mon Oct. 17.
The headline is revealing: Dan Brown’s novel, “The da Vinci Code” has become an international best-seller. But more that that – it has spawned a whole industry of debate, discussion and refutation.
Why is this so?
Dan Brown abandons the normal conventions of the historical novel. Normally, in a historical novel, there is reference to a number of public facts – that is events which are generally accepted as historically verifiable. These facts provide the framework within which the novelist constructs the story. In his Introduction, Dan Brown actually says that he is following this tried and tested approach: he claims that all the facts to which he refers are historically verifiable. But this is not the case. On the contrary, he presents as fact a great many happenings that are either not part of the historical record, or are simply contrary to it (for some details, see www.theologon.org.uk and select one-page document “a God who trusts us to tell the truth”: much more is available elsewhere on the web).
Peter Popham’s article mentioned above demonstrates the cavalier treatment of historical truth which characterises Dan Brown and his admirers. The article contrasts a sensual and provocative picture of Mary Magdalene which has recently gone of show at Ancona in Northern Italy, with Leonardo’s chaste and enigmatic Mona Lisa. Now the plot thickens. The Magdalene is normally attributed to Giampietrino, a pupil of Leonardo. But Popham quotes a certain Carlo Pedretti, who we is a “Leonardo expert”, who thinks that the figure normally regarded as John the Baptist is Leonardo’s Last Supper is actually a portrait of Mary Magdalene. Dan Brown and Carlo Pedretti are just about the only people who actually think this may be true. Pedretti thinks that there is a strong case for ascribing the Magdalene portrait to Leonardo himself. Peter Popham piles further speculation on to this by saying that it would be no surprise if Leonardo, who carried round with him the Mona Lisa because he was so fond of it, also took along the Magdalene, with its “shame-free eroticism”. Really? Hardly anybody is willing to state that Leonardo actually painted the Magdalene – even Giampetrino only floats it as an idea worthy of further investigation. Popham has built onto this the speculation that Leonardo actually carried it with him everywhere! He concludes with a speculative question, “Did Leonardo depict Mary Magdalene in the act of seducing Jesus?”
Why should anyone find this kind of nonsense even remotely plausible – and why is it worth space in Newspapers all over the world?
What Dan Brown has succeeded in doing is to give a platform to all those post-Christians in the West who harbour a grudge against the church, and who find that the rise of feminism provides them with a convenient stick with which to beat the church. Brown angles his attack with some cunning: ostensively it is on the Roman Catholic Church and the Opus Day order which are targets of his attack. Protestants appear to get an easier ride. However, his fanciful rewriting of the story of Mary Magdalene is also a re-writing of the story of Jesus, and one that is completely destructive of any kind of Christian faith. I say this not because Jesus could not have married, or that if he had it would have somehow disproved his divine status (see www.theologon.org.uk and select one-page document “a God who is part of the human story and shares our human experience”). But the Jesus of the gospels is the Jesus whom God raised from the dead. The story of the resurrection and the account of commissioning of his followers to reach out to all humankind and to include all within his new community of love and peace are central to the New Testament as a whole, and to the four gospels in particular. This is totally incompatible with a story about Jesus marrying Mary Magdalene and secretly establishing a dynasty. It is the very bedrock of Christianity which is at stake here.
It might seem odd that after nearly 200 years of critical study of the Bible, and the exploration and rejection of all sorts of fanciful reconstructions of Christian origins which attempt to displace the resurrection and the church from the central role in Christianity attributed to them by the New Testament, an even wilder suggestion should gain a hearing across the western world. The difference is that earlier speculations were intended to be taken seriously, and studied seriously. Brown is offering us a sort of joke – one can easily imagine him saying, “But isn’t it amusing to tell this sort of story about Jesus, and to give the old fogies who will be shocked a bit of a fright?” And then, if we attempt a serious response, no doubt we will be told, “It’s only a novel, it’s only a bit of fun”.
It may be a bit of fun, but if so it is a joke in very bad taste. Just now, it may seem acceptable because of the immense power of the feminist lobby in western culture, and the growth of post-Christian new age thinking which is in reaction against the perceived patriarchalism of traditional Christianity. This is a rather sleazy kind of joke. Let us hope it is quickly forgotten.
Theo Simpson
See also www.theologon.org.uk and select one-page document “a God who trusts us to tell the truth” and
www.theologon.org.uk and one-page document “a God who is part of the human story and shares our human experience”)
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Bush warned of environmental disaster of "biblical proportions"
American evangelical leader warns Bush of an environmental crisis “of Biblical proportions”
Polluters will have to answer to God, not just government, says Richard Cizik. Vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, Cizik is a pro-Bush Bible-brandishing reverend zealously opposed to abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem-cell research. He is also on a mission to convert tens of millions of Americans to the cause of conservation, using a right-to-life framework. Cizik has been crisscrossing the United States in recent months, spreading the doctrine of "creation care" to evangelical Christians.
Citing the Bible, Cizik says "it is sinfully wrong -- it is a tragedy of enormous proportions -- to destroy, degrade, or despoil the earth." And he maintains that subscribing to the "creation care" agenda does not mean people "have to become liberal weirdoes." With his leadership, NAE, one of the most politically powerful religious advocacy groups in America, released a manifesto last year urging its members to adopt eco-friendly living habits and exhorting the government to lighten America's environmental footprint. Next month, the organization will begin circulating a charter calling on its member network and top-level Beltway allies to fight global warming.
Cizik spoke recently from his hotel in New York City, where he was preparing to appear at a religious rally and wax evangelical on climate change -- a crisis, he says, of "biblical proportions." He talked about collaborating with left-wing enviro groups, the clash between evangelical beliefs and science -- and motivating 30 million constituents to provoke change in Bush's widely denounced environmental policies.
Have you endured criticism from other evangelicals over your environmental advocacy?
There are those who are concerned that by going down this road of creation care we are saying that plants and animals are superior to people. Again, much of the challenge is reframing the environmental issue for the evangelical community as a people issue. We have to say, for instance, that addressing climate change is a way of saying we care about the millions of people worldwide that might have to endure tremendous suffering and displacement from the drought, hurricanes, and flooding associated with global warming. Certainly the human trauma caused by Katrina has brought this issue home.
What is your opinion on the Bush administration's environmental track record?
I am a pro-Bush conservative, but I believe this isn't a conservative issue, a liberal issue, a Republican issue, a Democrat issue, a red issue, a blue issue, or a green issue. Has the Bush administration done what I think it should do in terms of reducing pollution and resource consumption? No. But I am modestly optimistic that there has been some momentum in the discussion in Washington and the public at large. I am confident that the administration can change its direction, and we can help them do that.
How much influence do you think you have on the direction of the Republican Party?
Our membership is 30 million strong, with 45,000 churches, 7,000 megachurches, some with billion-dollar budgets. We represent 40 percent of the Republican Party. There is a saying that "as evangelicals go, so goes the West" -- meaning our community sets trends. Is everybody in our community ready to support a creation-care agenda? Certainly not. But conservation is conservative at its roots, and they can be regrown.
Did you have a conversion moment of sorts on this issue?
Well, I grew up on a farm in the Pacific Northwest, and you know how they say: You can take the boy off the farm, but you can't take the farm out of the boy. I've always had a love for nature. I've often joked that I learned growing up that climate can seriously impact a farm family's income. There were a few rainstorms that came along and destroyed our cherry crops. We learned the hard way that you can't subdue Mother Nature.
Later in life I had a conversion experience on the climate issue not unlike my conversion to Christ. I was at a conference in Oxford where Sir John Houghton, an evangelical scientist, was presenting evidence of shrinking ice caps, temperatures tracked for millennia through ice-core data, increasing hurricane intensity, drought patterns, and so on. I realized all at once, with sudden awe, that climate change is a phenomenon of truly biblical proportions.
Richard Cizik was interviewed by Amanda Griscom Little, a columnist for Grist Magazine, where the full text of this article will be found.
FOR A ONE-PAGE CHRISTIAN REFLECTION ON THE CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, go to…www.theologon.org.uk and select one-page document “God of all creation”
Polluters will have to answer to God, not just government, says Richard Cizik. Vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, Cizik is a pro-Bush Bible-brandishing reverend zealously opposed to abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem-cell research. He is also on a mission to convert tens of millions of Americans to the cause of conservation, using a right-to-life framework. Cizik has been crisscrossing the United States in recent months, spreading the doctrine of "creation care" to evangelical Christians.
Citing the Bible, Cizik says "it is sinfully wrong -- it is a tragedy of enormous proportions -- to destroy, degrade, or despoil the earth." And he maintains that subscribing to the "creation care" agenda does not mean people "have to become liberal weirdoes." With his leadership, NAE, one of the most politically powerful religious advocacy groups in America, released a manifesto last year urging its members to adopt eco-friendly living habits and exhorting the government to lighten America's environmental footprint. Next month, the organization will begin circulating a charter calling on its member network and top-level Beltway allies to fight global warming.
Cizik spoke recently from his hotel in New York City, where he was preparing to appear at a religious rally and wax evangelical on climate change -- a crisis, he says, of "biblical proportions." He talked about collaborating with left-wing enviro groups, the clash between evangelical beliefs and science -- and motivating 30 million constituents to provoke change in Bush's widely denounced environmental policies.
Have you endured criticism from other evangelicals over your environmental advocacy?
There are those who are concerned that by going down this road of creation care we are saying that plants and animals are superior to people. Again, much of the challenge is reframing the environmental issue for the evangelical community as a people issue. We have to say, for instance, that addressing climate change is a way of saying we care about the millions of people worldwide that might have to endure tremendous suffering and displacement from the drought, hurricanes, and flooding associated with global warming. Certainly the human trauma caused by Katrina has brought this issue home.
What is your opinion on the Bush administration's environmental track record?
I am a pro-Bush conservative, but I believe this isn't a conservative issue, a liberal issue, a Republican issue, a Democrat issue, a red issue, a blue issue, or a green issue. Has the Bush administration done what I think it should do in terms of reducing pollution and resource consumption? No. But I am modestly optimistic that there has been some momentum in the discussion in Washington and the public at large. I am confident that the administration can change its direction, and we can help them do that.
How much influence do you think you have on the direction of the Republican Party?
Our membership is 30 million strong, with 45,000 churches, 7,000 megachurches, some with billion-dollar budgets. We represent 40 percent of the Republican Party. There is a saying that "as evangelicals go, so goes the West" -- meaning our community sets trends. Is everybody in our community ready to support a creation-care agenda? Certainly not. But conservation is conservative at its roots, and they can be regrown.
Did you have a conversion moment of sorts on this issue?
Well, I grew up on a farm in the Pacific Northwest, and you know how they say: You can take the boy off the farm, but you can't take the farm out of the boy. I've always had a love for nature. I've often joked that I learned growing up that climate can seriously impact a farm family's income. There were a few rainstorms that came along and destroyed our cherry crops. We learned the hard way that you can't subdue Mother Nature.
Later in life I had a conversion experience on the climate issue not unlike my conversion to Christ. I was at a conference in Oxford where Sir John Houghton, an evangelical scientist, was presenting evidence of shrinking ice caps, temperatures tracked for millennia through ice-core data, increasing hurricane intensity, drought patterns, and so on. I realized all at once, with sudden awe, that climate change is a phenomenon of truly biblical proportions.
Richard Cizik was interviewed by Amanda Griscom Little, a columnist for Grist Magazine, where the full text of this article will be found.
FOR A ONE-PAGE CHRISTIAN REFLECTION ON THE CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, go to…www.theologon.org.uk and select one-page document “God of all creation”
Tsunami
The Archbishop's comments on the Tsunami disaster, made available by courtesy of Archdeacon Ronald Jonathan---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 January 2005
‘Archbishop, where is God in this tragedy?’ I have been asked many times since the earthquake and tsunamis.
My first answer is this.We have a God who weeps with us, wherever there is suffering and pain.
Again and again, the Christian gospel assures us that God is not an absent deity, cold-hearted and distant from our sufferings.Rather, in Jesus Christ – fully God and fully human – he shares in all the joys and pains of life.More than that, on the cross Jesus shares in mortality and death.His resurrection, rising from the grave on Easter Sunday to a new and fuller life, shows that he has broken the power of death, and so for us who trust in him, death is not the end, not the ultimate enemy who overcomes us all.
These truths are not changed by the tsunami – rather, the tsunami shows how deeply we need God’s love in life, and God’s reassurance that he is indeed greater than death.
The next question that people often ask is, ‘If God really is all-loving and all-powerful, surely he would not allow this to happen?’
Philosophers have wrestled with this over the centuries – and never reached a satisfactory answer.There is a good reason for this.Faith is not an intellectual exercise – reducing God to something our finite minds can grasp, or only being prepared to believe in the sort of God who behaves in ways we can understand.God is too big for us.And faith is about having a living relationship with the God of love who promises to be with us in all circumstances – if we are ready to accept him.
This is why Christianity has withstood the tests of time.
Repeatedly, those who face tragedy tell how they were sustained through it by – and often, only by – God’s presence with them, his love, his comfort, his strength, and his encouragement to pick up the pieces and go forward.Many of us know this in our own lives – it was my experience both on Robben Island, and later when my first wife died suddenly.When you have experienced him like this, you cannot doubt his love, and his power to transform lives.
Another question I have been asked is whether this is an ‘act of God’ or just an accident of geology.God has created an awe-inspiring universe, in which our tiny planet, through processes like this earthquake, has produced conditions which sustain life.Indeed, scientists say there was such a tiny possibility of this happening as to be almost beyond coincidence.So it is not helpful to call earthquakes ‘acts of God,’ unless we say the same of other wonders of nature, from the awesome power of the Niagara Falls, to the marvel of a butterfly emerging from a chrysalis.
There is also a human dimension, if not to the earthquake, then to its consequences.Scientists tell us that the cause of the earthquake was beyond human control.But they have also pointed out that the effects of the tsunami in many areas were worsened because of our destruction of mangroves and climatically insensitive building developments.
The Bible tells us that we should be responsible stewards of God’s creation.In this case it means that we must heed the call by the World Wide Fund for Nature and others, to ensure that reconstruction is ecologically appropriate and sustainable.We must also accept that the consequences of global warming, such as rising sea levels, are our fault, and must act to rectify matters.All of us must bear our responsibilities for this, wherever we live on this planet.
It would be wrong to think that God allowed the earthquake to punish humanity in some sort of simplistic and vindictive way – sweeping good and bad together into the sea.But at the same time, we must never forget that each one of us is accountable to him for our actions.We are not puppets – God gives us choice in how we live.
It is more helpful to see this as a ‘wake-up call’ to use our choices wisely – especially in how we share the resources of the world.Richer countries have early warning systems; Japan and San Francisco can afford buildings that withstand earthquakes.Poverty, rooted in unjust economic systems, means natural disasters always seem to hit the poorest hardest.It is also a wake-up call to recognise the ultimate realities of life – that we cannot understand and control everything, and must rely on God to direct us, and to forgive us when we fail to be the people we ought.
Whenever tragedy strikes – whether on a huge scale, like the tsunamis, or in individual lives and families, we must always remember that God never turns his back on us.‘I am with you always, to the end of time’ Jesus promised his disciples.
God also shows his love in inspiring countless loving human actions.Alongside the disaster there have been numerous stories of people risking, even forfeiting, their lives to save others; local people, devastated by their own losses, opening their homes to foreigners; and the outpouring of aid from individuals.
‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ taught Jesus.One lesson of this tragedy is that the whole human family are our neighbours.We each share the responsibility to live generously towards the entire human race, not just those affected by the earthquake.We must also remember those like the 40 million people on our planet who live with HIV/AIDS, of whom 3 million will die this year.So will another 2 million from TB, and another million from malaria.Both of these are easily curable – and we can easily afford it, if we choose to do so.
‘In all things God works for good’ says a famous Bible verse.My final answer to those who ask these questions would be that the God who overcame death on the cross can and does bring hope and new beginnings even in the darkest tragedy – it is up to us to let him touch us.
FOR A ONE-PAGE CHRISTIAN REFLECTION ON THE PROBLEM OF RECONCILING GOD’S GOODNESS AND LOVE WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF MISFORTUNE AND CALAMITY, go to…
http://www.theologon.org.uk/ and select one-page document God, calamity and disaster
12 January 2005
‘Archbishop, where is God in this tragedy?’ I have been asked many times since the earthquake and tsunamis.
My first answer is this.We have a God who weeps with us, wherever there is suffering and pain.
Again and again, the Christian gospel assures us that God is not an absent deity, cold-hearted and distant from our sufferings.Rather, in Jesus Christ – fully God and fully human – he shares in all the joys and pains of life.More than that, on the cross Jesus shares in mortality and death.His resurrection, rising from the grave on Easter Sunday to a new and fuller life, shows that he has broken the power of death, and so for us who trust in him, death is not the end, not the ultimate enemy who overcomes us all.
These truths are not changed by the tsunami – rather, the tsunami shows how deeply we need God’s love in life, and God’s reassurance that he is indeed greater than death.
The next question that people often ask is, ‘If God really is all-loving and all-powerful, surely he would not allow this to happen?’
Philosophers have wrestled with this over the centuries – and never reached a satisfactory answer.There is a good reason for this.Faith is not an intellectual exercise – reducing God to something our finite minds can grasp, or only being prepared to believe in the sort of God who behaves in ways we can understand.God is too big for us.And faith is about having a living relationship with the God of love who promises to be with us in all circumstances – if we are ready to accept him.
This is why Christianity has withstood the tests of time.
Repeatedly, those who face tragedy tell how they were sustained through it by – and often, only by – God’s presence with them, his love, his comfort, his strength, and his encouragement to pick up the pieces and go forward.Many of us know this in our own lives – it was my experience both on Robben Island, and later when my first wife died suddenly.When you have experienced him like this, you cannot doubt his love, and his power to transform lives.
Another question I have been asked is whether this is an ‘act of God’ or just an accident of geology.God has created an awe-inspiring universe, in which our tiny planet, through processes like this earthquake, has produced conditions which sustain life.Indeed, scientists say there was such a tiny possibility of this happening as to be almost beyond coincidence.So it is not helpful to call earthquakes ‘acts of God,’ unless we say the same of other wonders of nature, from the awesome power of the Niagara Falls, to the marvel of a butterfly emerging from a chrysalis.
There is also a human dimension, if not to the earthquake, then to its consequences.Scientists tell us that the cause of the earthquake was beyond human control.But they have also pointed out that the effects of the tsunami in many areas were worsened because of our destruction of mangroves and climatically insensitive building developments.
The Bible tells us that we should be responsible stewards of God’s creation.In this case it means that we must heed the call by the World Wide Fund for Nature and others, to ensure that reconstruction is ecologically appropriate and sustainable.We must also accept that the consequences of global warming, such as rising sea levels, are our fault, and must act to rectify matters.All of us must bear our responsibilities for this, wherever we live on this planet.
It would be wrong to think that God allowed the earthquake to punish humanity in some sort of simplistic and vindictive way – sweeping good and bad together into the sea.But at the same time, we must never forget that each one of us is accountable to him for our actions.We are not puppets – God gives us choice in how we live.
It is more helpful to see this as a ‘wake-up call’ to use our choices wisely – especially in how we share the resources of the world.Richer countries have early warning systems; Japan and San Francisco can afford buildings that withstand earthquakes.Poverty, rooted in unjust economic systems, means natural disasters always seem to hit the poorest hardest.It is also a wake-up call to recognise the ultimate realities of life – that we cannot understand and control everything, and must rely on God to direct us, and to forgive us when we fail to be the people we ought.
Whenever tragedy strikes – whether on a huge scale, like the tsunamis, or in individual lives and families, we must always remember that God never turns his back on us.‘I am with you always, to the end of time’ Jesus promised his disciples.
God also shows his love in inspiring countless loving human actions.Alongside the disaster there have been numerous stories of people risking, even forfeiting, their lives to save others; local people, devastated by their own losses, opening their homes to foreigners; and the outpouring of aid from individuals.
‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ taught Jesus.One lesson of this tragedy is that the whole human family are our neighbours.We each share the responsibility to live generously towards the entire human race, not just those affected by the earthquake.We must also remember those like the 40 million people on our planet who live with HIV/AIDS, of whom 3 million will die this year.So will another 2 million from TB, and another million from malaria.Both of these are easily curable – and we can easily afford it, if we choose to do so.
‘In all things God works for good’ says a famous Bible verse.My final answer to those who ask these questions would be that the God who overcame death on the cross can and does bring hope and new beginnings even in the darkest tragedy – it is up to us to let him touch us.
FOR A ONE-PAGE CHRISTIAN REFLECTION ON THE PROBLEM OF RECONCILING GOD’S GOODNESS AND LOVE WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF MISFORTUNE AND CALAMITY, go to…
http://www.theologon.org.uk/ and select one-page document God, calamity and disaster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)