Contrasting Theological Conclusions to the Asian Tsunamis

Here are two theological responses to the Asian Tsunami. "Tsunami, Sovereignty & Mercy" by John Piper more or less represents the typical Calvinist-evangelical response to the great tragedy and the other response by Bishop N.T. Wright, "Meanings of Christmas: In the New World There Will Be No More Sea" is indicative of a more emergent-friendly approach. Historical Sidenote: The Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 which killed 30,000 people happened on All Saint's Day exactly when the churches were fullest with worshipers. After the French clergy explained the disaster as "a punishment for the sins of the people of Lisbon," a shocked and enraged Voltaire penned the classic Candide in a 3-day frenzy of passion. This satirical book is often credited with being the death knell of the medieval theology which had lingered into the 18th Century. What is now needed, I think, is another Candide to level the same bombardment to the kind of theology that would pen the Asian Tsunamis to the sins or unworthiness of the Asian people who were affected (keep in mind many churches were swept away with full congregations as it hapened on a Sunday morning). Although this is not what Piper's saying openly, I think it's rather implicit in his article. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

Comments

[Steve K.]

Greg, Thanks for pointing us to these two articles. I'm very interested to read both of them. Although I haven't read it yet, I do have the experience of having read some of Piper's other theology, and having sat under his teaching at Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis for three years -- so I know where he's coming from.

From Piper's perspective a tragedy like this tsunami (or 9/11) is not about the Asian people who were affected, but rather about God and His sovereignty and His righteousness and His coming judgment on the earth. In Piper's theology (from what I understand) God is fully in control at all times and He has some purpose in creating this catastrophe and the loss of all these lives. It is God's purpose that is ultimately all-important, and it's not necessarily that the people of SE Asia were *more* sinful or *more* deserving of death (because Piper would say we're all horribly wretched without Christ and deserving of judgment).

To his credit, Piper is very outspoken against any "prosperity gospel"-type belief that would argue that God promises health and wealth to His followers. Piper openly espouses (and encourages) a realistic picture of the Christian life that includes suffering and even death for one's faith in Christ (e.g. taking the Gospel to fishermen in Sri Lanka).

At the same time, there is alot that Piper leaves between the lines, and if taken to their logical conclusions result in interpretations like you've made. Having said all that, I'm sure I'll find much to appreciate from both perspectives, but my personal theology now gravitates more toward the N.T. Wright way of thinking.

[Goyito]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your thoughts. I chose the John Piper article not to demean this man of God whom I respect (more on this later) but because it is representative of a common evangelical view current in the U.S. This view finds its unity in the "sovereignty of God" and so filters much of its theology around the "who's in control" question. While I certainly don't discount the sovereignty of God I think this is the wrong focus when wrestling with the theological implications of a tragedy. The question is not "is God in control" (and again I'm not saying He's NOT in control) as much as it is about how we as believers must adapt and live in a "stuff happens" universe. The rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous, gravity pulls both the righteous and the unrighteous to the ground, and the waves crash on the righteous and the unrighteous. In a universe such as this as God has ordained we must live and proclaim that, in spite of the threat of disaster,,,

[Reed Thomas]

Greg,

I am not quite sure I can take Piper "out to sea" with the flow of the Calvinist "God is sovereign and therefore ultimately and solely responsible for everything good or evil" tide even though I see that flow within his writings. The rationale comes back, yet again, to the sovereignty/free will dichotomy. Can we please move beyond such rudimentary dualisms? The interaction between God (who is sovereign) and man (who was given free will by the sovereignty of God) is the great Dance in which we get to participate. There is evil in the world, due in part to man’s exercise of free will. However, the tsunami was not any man’s doing (Despite the rumors that George W. Bush was really behind it). It is a tragedy. By blaming God for not stopping it, the image that gets painted, is of a sadistic, maniacal, schizophrenic deity who from time to time delights in wiping out mass quantities of humanity. Who would want to believe in such deity? Therefore it is used as an excuse to not believe. Alas, the Dance is not always an easy thing. Tragedy provides an opportunity for people to love their neighbors.

[conita]

Just a few comments. I have not yet read the articals but look forward to reading them. Greg, I think you will remember the story. Where is your God now? In this tradgedy, God is there...God is crushed under a train, God is weeping over his lost grandparents and husband, God is burying the dead, God is in and apart of all the suffering because God is with us. No I am not saying everyone is God I am saying that God is with us in suffering and in joys and God willingly joins. God I believe also finds a way into this story though those who act as his hands and feet in providing aid to those in need.
Reed, It was not George W. who is to blame it is that pesky North Korean leader...he has a tsunami machine and if he won't let us in to look around for it we are going to take him out of power so we can find his weapon of mass destruction. (Please note...this is said very tounge in cheek)
Conita

[Goyito]

Yesterday the power went out as I was typing my post above so I frantically posted it before my laptop battery with its whopping 3 minute reserve gave out. What I was getting at was that what philosophers call "natural evil" (disasters and other tragedies born of natural causes) and how we shouldn't be too quick to place God as the cause behind it. Reed pointed out the theological problems latent in a God's sovereigny/human free will dichotomy and Connie commented on the fact God is there among the suffering - suffering and mourning along with them.

This all bring us to the fact that really all we can do is to recognize that something terrible has happened, many people are dead, many others survived, and a large part of the world is now in pain and mourning. Pondering the theological implications of this disaster is important but, in the end, won't matter much to the suffering. I believe loving our neighbor means doing everything we can to bring relief and assistance to those affected by this disaster. If the end result among the church is not to increase our assistance in this part of the world then we are no better than the scribe and Pharisee who passed the man on the roadside who had been beaten and robbed and left for dead.

[patrick]

Greetings - found your site from Bill Arnolds (Poet In Motion) - very interesting articles, thanks for putting these together!
For days after this disaster, I didn't know how or what to pray (not sure I still do!?) - it truly is a "stuff happens" universe - I am still amazed and overwhelmed things like this happen... I should be shocked and amazed when things "work"!
I appreciate Conita's words... "God is there"... I may not understand, may not be able to get my mind around that... but, I believe that... and that has to be good enough for this side of heaven!
God's peace!

[Geoff]

It is not at all what Piper is saying. Read Luke 13.

[Goyo]

Geoff, Luke 13 is exactly my point (I'm assuming you're referring to verses 1 - 9). I don't mean to attack John Piper - as I said to SteveK back in January (see above) - but I chose Piper's article because it is representative of a common evangelical view current in the U.S. This view finds its unity in the "sovereignty of God" and so filters much of its theology around the "who's in control" question. The people questioning Jesus in the Luke 13 passage wanted to know why the world seems so random ("why do bad things happen to good people?", is how it's commonly posed today). As you probably know, the common theology of Judaism in Jesus' day was that there was a connection between bad things happening to a person and the judgment of God. Jesus addressed the wrong-headedness of that kind of simplistic thinking here and also in John 9 (where Jesus addressed the question of sin's connection to sickness).

I know that Piper didn't intend the article to be an in-depth theological treatise of suffering and the will & sovereignty of God, but I do wish he would've been a little more careful in the short article. After all, he leaves the possibility of Satan having caused the tsunami (in point no. 2) as well as the tsunami being the judgment of God (point no. 3). What bothers me about that kind of thinking is not so much what Piper himself believes but what is being communicated to otherwise well-meaning Christians. I'me specifically referring to the kind of conclusion where the tsunami is viewed as being the judgment of God on those "sinful, wicked Hindus & Muslims" and the smug, haughty attitudes it can produce in Christians. And then we become precisely as the Pharisees were in John 9 - saying that these sinners got what they deserved.

[Geoff]

Jesus pointed out that this didn't befall them b/c they were more sinful. But Jesus does view it as judgment.

The emerging movement seems to blanche at God's holiness, man's sinfulness, and God's right to execute His justice. I believe it has to do with putting emotion over the norm of Scripture.

You are concerned about how smug Christians can be. But error on top of error. The answer to smugness is not to denegrate God's justice.

That is why Luke 13 is important. Jesus shows the balance. He explicity affirms God's judgment, while telling the others that they should also repent.

[Goyo]

I'm not saying that God doesn't retain the right to execute His justice. Surely we are worthy of the full measure of God's righteous, divine justice. But is God's love and compassion as illustrated in the life and character of Jesus negated by some higher idea of "justice"? I understand your warning (rebuke?) of putting emotion over Holy Scripture but if this is the gospel, Geoff, then how could anyone not react to it with some level of emotion? You seem to be pretty sure that the emerging movement is misguided but can I ask you to consider that the reformers, though they added many good things to the history of the church, also could've been misguided? Specifically I'm talking about when they applied a modern idea of legal justice to scripture and bound God to some higher form of "justice" to which He has no choice but to obey in spite of His love and compassion. Unfortunately the concept of a loving, compassionate God causes indignancy to swell up in so many. If this is so in your case (I'm not saying it is), then go back to Luke 13 and read what follows the tower of Siloam incident: you'll find that Jesus will heal and set free in spite of our human condition and contrary to the seeming theological "boundaries" people try and bound Him to (when He healed a woman on the Sabbath and in a synogogue of all places!). Many will be indignant to this, saying things like, "but God is HOLY and JUST! How can He be THAT forgiving?!" Yeah, that's just as shocking as Jesus healing on the sabbath, isn't it?

[Geoff]

God's mercy is not obliterated by His justice, but His justice is not obliterated by His mercy either. He has mercy on whom He has mercy. His ways are inscrutible.

If God is not bound by justice and holiness, Paul wouldn't write that the God provided the cross so God could be both just and the justifier of those who believe. Not that justice is a concept divorced from God's being. It wasn't the Reformers fault that the Greek words for just/justify/righteousness have a legal background in Hebrew and Greek. Nor would it be surprising that a letter to Romans, for example, to a culture steeped in law would couch things in this culturally sensitive way.

I think the emerging movement has some very good insights into a joyless orthodoxy/legalism but they paint with a broad brush and are overreacting. Their emotions, in certain segments (it is a broad movement), will divorce them from the authority of Scripture and they will be devoured by heresy in short order.

In this matter, the problem seems to be that you are afraid that Christians will become haughty and think that those people were sinners and we're all high and mighty. That's not what Luke 13 says. The text acutally says that everyone is deserving of this.

[Goyo]

Yes, Geoff, I agree that we're all sinners separated from God. We absolutely deserve the full punishment and all the pains and fires of hell. This is sure. However, God's justice and holiness make Him the best of all Saviors. He is truly able to redeem and this isn't conditional to us praying the sinner's prayer, wearing WWJD? bracelets, or getting our propositions 100% correct. God is love. He is merciful and compassionate. Jesus told us that He only does what He sees His Father doing and when you see Him you've seen the Father as well. Jesus illustrated in His time on earth the full compassion and love of the Fatehr. This should be a comfort to sinners and rankle those who are proud of their humility and self-righteous in their righteousness. Geoff, don't separate your head from your heart. If anything, our theologies need more heart. Love is not an intellectual ascent...it's a head over heels infatuation. We serve a God who is head over heels in love with us and who has very emotionally and passionately expressed this love to us in Scripture.