• Home
  • About
  • Podcast Archive
  • Subscribe (RSS)
  • Subscribe (iTunes)
  • Deacons
  • Live Events
  • Advertise With Us

Homebrewed Christianity

Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.

Living the Questions

You are here: Home / engaging / Theology in the wake of Tragedy

Theology in the wake of Tragedy

July 21, 2012 by Tripp Fuller 21 Comments

The classic theological responses to tragedy have found a quick voice in the aftermath of the  Aurora Colorado shootings:  “It was God’s will.  It is part of God’s plan.  We cannot understand it, but God had a purpose in these deaths.”  The inadequacy of these traditional answers warrants an alternative proposal.  Here are the four theological points I take in to these type of situations ministerially.  They were put together in a Providence seminar with Frank Tupper.

1.  God permits [no, God tolerates] but does not purpose violence and murder.  A broken and angry young man, not God, killed and injured the 71 victims in Aurora Colorado.  Adolescent rejection, cultural violence, privileged narcissism, violence in culture, video games, sheer randomness – these provide partial but inadequate explanation of this monstrous mystery.  However, the mysterious power of evil should not be confused with the gracious mystery of God.  From the horrors of Auschwitz to the shock of Aurora evil involves human freedom and historical indeterminacy, which shape the specific context of God’s action and rule.  The activity of God in all things does not mean God controls everything.  That several victims experienced God’s presence in the massacre does not mean that God willed or predetermined it.  The God of Jesus does not “send” evil to us; rather, God gives us strength in it, hope through it, and eternal promise beyond it.  Jesus taught us to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done” acknowledging that God’s will is not yet done on earth as it will be in heaven.  The life, death and resurrection of Jesus constitutes the essential paradigm of Christian faith, but we should not superimpose the story of Jesus onto history’s bloody killing fields and glibly turn them into the inscrutable handiwork of God.

2.  God “works in everything for Good,” bringing good out of evil, joy out of sorrow, life out of death; but the work of God “in everything” does not mean that God decreed this event from “before creation” as part of a great “plan” that we cannot fathom.  Not everything that happens is the design and intention of God.  To interpret violence and murder as part of an eternal divine plan does not honor God, and such an interpretation trivializes ghastly evil into some kind of ultimate good.  The light that God brings out of this darkness does not negate its sinful character and origin, nor does God’s purpose in the aftermath of such senseless tragedy assume some preordained purpose in the evil itself.  Jesus taught us that God is “Abba, Father,” “a Motherly Father,” “a Fatherly Mother,” One who surpasses the best of all parents, an identity which contradicts the assertion that God “wills” the death of any “little child.”  God works for good in everything, but the good that God Accomplishes does not nullify the evil done or its devastating consequences.

 3.  The provision of God assures us of God’s presence but not God’s protection.  The gift of life includes vulnerability to illness, accidents, randomness and violence.  God’s action in Biblical history affirms our exposure to countless dangers in human existence.  To say that God chose to protect the survivors wrongly implies that God refused to protect the victims.  Life is oftentimes arbitrary, but the God of Jesus remains faithful:  God preserves us whenever possible, and God is “with us” when deliverance proves unavailable.  We do not trust God on the condition that God will always “deliver us from evil,” but we prayerfully trust God because this God loves each and all of us, personally and individually, as God’s own children.  Jesus characterization of God as Abba suggests a powerful parental model of God’s relationship to the world, a model of joyful self-investment as well as risky self-limitation.

4.  Following Jesus means commitment to the Jesus way of love, the life-style of God’s kingdom, Jesus’ Abba-vision of God.  Jesus assures us:  “God knows my name.  God sees my face.  God intends joy for my life.”  We trust the Spirit’s leading in doing God’s will today, and we journey in the hope of resurrection into God’s eternal tomorrow.  As the memory of the dead & living, innocent & guilty tells us, the wholeness of life available to us at any stage of life roots in our relationship to God – forgiveness and acceptance, guidance and responsibility; growth toward maturity through worship, meditation, prayer; the generosity of Jesus’ friendship extended to others.  Whatever life’s circumstances, we find courage and meaning in the gracious mystery of this God, the One whom Jesus dared to call, “Abba.”

  • Share on Facebook.
  • Share on Twitter.
Filed Under: engaging, latest, news, thinking
19 comments
  Livefyre
  • Get Livefyre
  • FAQ
Sign in
+ Follow
Post comment
 
Link
Newest | Oldest
StephenJosephCorell
StephenJosephCorell 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Thanks so much for this post, Tripp.  I have been listening to the TNT podcast and have found so much honestly-sought, critically-examined truth that I can both relate to and embrace, and everyone involved here at Homebrew has helped me to re-examine a religion which I had abandoned as patriarchal and judgmental.  In response to this particular post, I think as Christians we miss the point of the gospel when we fail to understand that hope is not a vertical expression of God's complete control, but rather an incarnate response to the natural chaos of existence (first expressed by God in Christ) which we are asked to participate in through our empathetic response to the uncertain nature of suffering.   I love you guys.  You are doing a good work here.

trippfuller
trippfuller moderator 5pts

 @StephenJosephCorell thanks!

Latest blog post: God Never Changes ... or does She?

kenalto9
kenalto9 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

agree this is a great post from tripp. monica coleman's point in one of the recent podcasts that a process God suffers twice in these circumstances: the compassionate sharing of the suffering of the victims, and a suffering similar to a disappointed parent because the perpetrator has not been able to answer the call to not commit these crimes, also seems apt.

 

I try to trust that God is extending compassion and comfort to all the people who suffer in ways beyond our understanding.

 

Jesus has promised us a peace this world cannot give. we need to do our best to share that peace

 

ajwoods
ajwoods 5pts

I tolerate my kids destroying their bed rooms. I tolerate my wife's moods.  I do not tolerate mass murder, child sex slavery, chronic disease.  The first point is completely inadequate - no offense.

MsYvetteSmith
MsYvetteSmith 5pts

@cktygrett thanks so much for your sermon yesterday! So happy to be a part of Parkview!

cktygrett
cktygrett 5pts

@MsYvetteSmith thank you! it is His story, I'm blessed to be able to tell it. glad you are here as well!

greghug
greghug 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Excellent post. Dr. TUpper's "A Scandalous Providence" develops these points (though it's a bit "dry"--though his personal story about God/suffering is incredibly powerful);

trippfuller
trippfuller 5pts

@hankimler @darrylschafer @benbartosik thanks

Mike Horn
Mike Horn 5pts

This is a great post, Tripp!!!!

MarshallPease
MarshallPease 5pts

One Nerdy concern: if God does not purpose violence and murder, then it must come from some element in the world that is not from God. Not-God is not the same as Anti-God, but even so if the world is a mixture of God and Not-God, then there goes creation ex nihilo and there goes God's total authority and eschatological assurance. Yes? No?

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with original creation being chaotic and the possibility of individual or collective refusal of grace, but as I understand it those are not generally considered acceptable opinions. That is, in some sense the work we do is causative of the eschaton, not merely participatory. No? Yes?

 

One Sociological concern, and I just know this one is going to get me in even more trouble: It distresses me to see the level of concern focused on this (and similar) particular instance(s) of relatively small-scale violence/horror/agony, whereas the daily occurrence of less "spectacular" violence passes with small notice except to those involved although the sum of agony is vastly greater. How is this one outrage a national problem? The uproar tends to make me excessively fearful of crowds of my neighbors and distract me from local problems that I might actually be able to influence.  Maybe my expressions of horror and sympathy satisfies my need to be helpful without the need/possibility of doing anything. Maybe the pathos of the victims takes my eyes off the personal and social pathology of the perpetrator.

 

(... Tripp's responses are just as relevant to my personal tragedies as to the Slaughter of the Canaanites. The same problems arise.)

 

trippfuller
trippfuller moderator 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

 @MarshallPease i share your sociological concern but if the spectacle can lead to a more healthy arrangement that's a good thing.

 

By saying God does not 'purpose' violence and yet it happens one doesn't have to get rid of Creation out of Nothing or eschatological assurance but one does have to let the freedom of each moment impact God's desire for it.  For example, Open Theists or Moltmann would agree while keeping ex Nihilio.  Of course Process friends would say go ahead and get rid of it!

hornmike
hornmike 5pts like.author.displayName like.author.displayName 2 Like

This is an incredible piece of work here and gets us moving in a healthier direction than the same old worn out unhelpful conversations of the past. Thanks for taking the time to write it. It's quite prophetic actually.

trippfuller
trippfuller moderator 5pts

 @hornmike thanks!

joshuawalters
joshuawalters 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

Thanks for this. Helpful reminders for me in a time when I just want to cry out of confusion. One of the most significant theological discoveries in my life is precisely that idea that God can still be present in/through historical events that directly contradict the will of God. (how can we make theological sense of these tragedies without the Cross?)

trippfuller
trippfuller moderator 5pts

 @joshuawalters being able to distinguish between the presence and determination of God (at least conceptually) enabled me to keep my faith.  I think that's exactly why the cross matters.

DaveHuth
DaveHuth 5pts like.author.displayName 1 Like

@trippfuller @joshuawalters This distinction helped (helps) me stay in the game as well. Along with what might be a fifth point I carry: When people suffer, God suffers. I don't know why this helps me, but there it is.

Da stand das Meer
Da stand das Meer 5pts

@trippfuller @DaveHuth @joshuawalters Absolutely! And kudos to Tripp for a great post that deserves to be widely shared - concise without being simplistic (no mean feat...)

Da stand das Meer
Da stand das Meer 5pts

@trippfuller @DaveHuth @joshuawalters

trippfuller
trippfuller moderator 5pts

 @DaveHuth  @trippfuller  @joshuawalters I agree dave!

Trackbacks

  1. Processing Missional Theology in the Aftermath of Aurora says:
    July 21, 2012 at 8:31 am

    [...] in Aurora, Colorado, I was thankful to read my friend Tripp Fuller’s post this morning “Theology in the wake of Tragedy.”Tripp is a major proponent of what is known as process theology, but I also know his [...]

  2. Around the Blogosphere (07.27.2012) | Near Emmaus says:
    July 27, 2012 at 8:01 am

    [...] Tripp Fuller, Theol0gy in the Wake of Tragedy  [...]

Search

Subscribe via iTunes

 


Support the brew

Return to top of page

Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in