How can a loving, all powerful God allow the earthquake in Haiti?

Watching the devastation in Haiti leaves one with many emotions. Some of the images we see on television and the web are just too gruesome and horrifying to look at. As we process everything, most of all us are left asking the question - “why?”. Why would such an unfortunate catastrophe take place in a country that has already been ravaged by such misfortune throughout its history? For horrific events such as war and acts of violence, we can at least blame human beings: leaders of countries and select groups of individuals. For natural disasters, there is no finger to point at mankind - only at nature (from an atheistic point of view) or to a higher being: God. How can anyone reconcile belief in an all powerful and loving God with the images that we have seen coming out of Port-au-Prince?

I am not going to try play God and provide analysis as to what he was thinking (unlike a famous tele-evangelist who insinuated that the Haitians were receiving their punishment from God for taking part in voodoo over the centuries). There is a personal and loving God that exists, and I am not he. The God of the Bible, in my opinion, is beyond my highest thoughts and wildest imaginations and it is not my or anybody else’s responsibility to try to rationalize his actions. It would be like a three year old child trying to provide advice to his or her parents on an important career move. However, I would like to describe three key points that provide me with reassurance in the face of suffering: 1) there is a God who understands our sufferings; 2) there is an afterlife that awaits and 3) there is a resurrection.

I believe God understands our sufferings because that is essentially what his son did for us. The perfect Christ suffered a grueling death on the cross - a death that he didn’t merit in the slightest. As numerous eyewitnesses at the time can account for, some 2000 years ago Christ took the sufferings that we as human beings deserved. He suffered far more than human suffering or death - he endured cosmic rejection (unjustified separation from God) in bearing the sins of all mankind. Any reading of the gospels will describe in detail Christ’s sufferings on earth. We read that Christ cried out to God “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?” We see an image of a man who was in great agony and sleep deprived, knowing that his death was imminent. We read in the gospel of Mark that “his soul was overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death”. God, through Christ as part of the triune God, didn’t just stay up in the heavens, completely detached, and robotically call the shots. He endured human suffering - for us. Just as we are asking “why”, so too did Christ. He can indeed empathize with our current sufferings.

In addition, there is hope that a better life awaits us - a life in heaven free from the pain, evil and suffering of this current life here on earth. Our lives are just like a drop in a bucket in comparison to eternity. Regardless of our quality of life and the number of years we spend on this earth, we all will die. There is hope in the Christian message that there is a place where all of our daily sufferings will be alleviated.

After Christ’s death, the gospel of Matthew details how, following an earthquake of all things, an angel appeared before Jesus’ mother and her friend to inform them of the good news - the Christ had risen. Following his brutal death, Christ would rise again and walk the earth for a few weeks, enabling masses of people to see for themselves his wounds, before ascending into heaven. As a result of his death and resurrection, Christ made it possible for us to have this eternal life described in the paragraph above. The apostle Paul noted that: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” This fulfilled the prophet Isaiah’s proclamation about Christ’s death (which most scholars believe was written 8 centuries before Christ): “He will swallow up death for all time.” There is a resurrection that overcomes death. And we all have access to be a part of this resurrection.

It is important that we all come to an understanding of the problem of suffering and evil. It is not just a problem for a person of faith. Anybody, regardless of their beliefs, needs to come to an understanding about the problem of suffering vis-à-vis his or her own worldview.

It is most difficult to fully understand sufferings on earth, especially with our human perspectives and understanding. Most of us have never endured anything near to the pain and suffering that the people of Haiti are going though at this very moment. I am writing about suffering as I sit comfortably on my sofa in one of the richest and safest countries in the world. That said, it is for some of the reasons above that I believe that I don’t have to guess God’s motives for the sufferings mankind endures on earth. And it is for the reasons above that we can believe that there is a living hope beyond our earthly sufferings.

Those annoying fundamentalist religious zealots

Check out the photo on the left. This is an ad from the London Atheists. A current ad campaign is currently being run in New York. Do you find this offensive?

Many will criticize Christianity and other mono-theistic religions because of the invasive means in which their adherents seek to convert others. They don't like the way in which those from established religions try to "impose" their faith on others. The greatest outcry tends to come from atheists themselves. Perhaps you are turned off to those "fundamentalist" religious zealots whom seek to "proselytize"?

Which made me think, what do these terms in quotes actually mean? A search to the dictionary revealed the following definitions:

Proselytize: To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
Fundamentalist: Strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.

This begs the question - are these atheist organizations guilty of “fundamentalism” and “proselytizing” in these advertisements? The answer, unequivocally, is yes, and in answer to the question I posed in the opening paragraph, this is not offensive. Whatever our beliefs, we all have the right to share our views on whichever platform we deem necessary and try to influence society based on these inherent views (so long as they are legal).

We all are fundamentalist and seek to proselytize. And we should all be willing to confront different views in order to determine truth.

Cakes, atheism and having it both ways

by Dr. Martin Slack

So the latest psychological research from Bristol University confirms what many of us knew intuitively: that children grow up with an innate belief in God and the supernatural. It is hardwired into our brains. It is not that we learn to believe in God, it is that we learn to disbelieve.

And that presents the New Atheists with a problem. They have to come up with an evolutionary reason for this innate belief. What survival advantage did religious belief convey on those who
held it?

But their problem runs deeper than that, because (in their opinion) this religious belief is false. So they not only have to reason why religious belief conveyed such an advantage, but why believing something that is false (because, of course, there is no God) would do so. Why would a false perception of the world, a faulty and erroneous interpretation of our surroundings, cause these individuals to survive (and pass on their genes) in preference to those without this belief?
And here lies the New Atheists’ problem. If we cannot trust our rational mind’s interpretation of the physical world - that there is a God - why should we believe it with regard to their atheistic thinking - that there is no God?

If our hardwired belief in God is some sort of evolutionary side effect, that never-the-less results in an erroneous, false perception of the world, why should we pay any more regard to their atheistic views? Why is evolutionary atheistic thinking not just as much an erroneous and false perception that we cannot trust as belief in God?

Which takes me back to childhood and growing up and birthday cakes. Because, as any mother will tell you, you can’t have your cake and eat it.

So you think you are important?

By Kevin Anselmo

Do you think the world revolves around you? Now of course none of us would admit to that, but we often think and behave as though it does, or should. Do you think you are important as a result of your professional and personal accomplishments? Newsflash - fast forward to 2160, some 150 years from now, and nobody on this earth will remember you.

Your job - it probably won’t even exist in 2160. Your company - it may not be around. Your family - they will all be dead and in all likelihood your lineage won’t even know your name, let alone your character traits, accomplishments or abilities.

To prove my point, let’s look at the year 1850, approximately 150 years ago. Was your job and company even in existence? How many of you know the names of your great, great grandparents off the top of your head?

Let’s look at the stars and world-class high-flyers. In 2009, Bill Gates was once again named the richest man in the world. Who was the richest man in the world in 1850? Roger Federer established a Grand Slam record after winning Wimbledon this past July. Who was the greatest athlete in 1850? Heck - even most of the sports we watch weren’t played in 1850. The world mourned the death of Michael Jackson earlier this year. How many of you can name the greatest entertainer in 1850? I am just talking about 150 years, but in comparison to the history of the world, 150 years is like, well, yesterday.

What’s my point in all this? Surely it is not to say that this life isn’t important, so let’s just take it easy while abusing the earth’s natural resources. Nor am I trying to say let’s just all go out and fulfill all our hedonistic pleasures in this short time we have an earth. Au contraire.

We should do everything possible to have an impact in this life, because there is more to our current lives than what is here in this world. As we all rightfully go about trying to fulfill our dreams and make an impact in whatever small or big way, we must also keep in mind the big picture. We must think about why we are here and where we are going after this life. In fact, we are all so very important - just not by the world’s metrics for success. Bill Gates’ money won’t be of much use to him personally when he is on his death bed one day. Put Roger Federer in the same situation and all his trophies will be of little personal value as well.

I would actually argue that in looking over the course of the last 2000 years, the most influential people were individuals who led religious movements.

"But wait," some you may say. "We are living in enlightened times. Religion is passé." Perhaps you think because we speak on Skype, send emails and surf the internet that we are so dignified, sophisticated and intelligent. People probably also felt the same way in the 18th and 19th centuries when major changes in agriculture, manufacturing, mining and transportation drastically impacted society in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. These people were so proud of their spinning jenny and the steam engine - surely they thought they were so much more dignified than preceding generations. And future generations will chuckle in thinking about how we showed off our iPhones while they use some unthinkable technology that makes the iPhone look like the Commodore 64. (Oh, that was some amazing computer from the 1980s which took like 15 minutes to boot up …..)

So why are we here and where are we going after this life? The Industrial Revolution couldn’t directly in itself answer that question. Neither can our current technological advances.

Maybe we should be enlightened enough to learn from history and realize that we are not as smart as we think. There is more to this current life than meets the earthly eye.

Breaking Bad News and the Problem of Suffering

by Dr. Martin Slack

It was late one night when one of my senior nurses found me. My fourth daughter was just a few weeks old, a beautiful, healthy, baby girl. Now I was standing in the corridor of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit where I was a consultant, with my back against the wall, feeling wretched with tears in my eyes.

I had just come out of the counselling room where I had explained to a young mother and father that their baby - as longed for and as loved as mine - was going to die. I had sat with them, explaining why this was happening, and watching as their lives crumpled in front of me.

Leaving them, I couldn’t face going back into the Unit. The contrast between my joy and their tragedy was immense. Thoughts of the injustice of it all filled my brain. The anger of not being able to do more. The wrong of a life snuffed out so soon. The pain of a young couple now inconsolable. Why God, why?

That young couple, tragically, were just one of many: Parents to be told their baby would, in all likelihood, be profoundly brain damaged, or blind, or both. Parents to whom I would carry the now lifeless body of their extremely preterm infant who had just died. Parents, who having just given birth, I had to tell that their baby had been born dead.

How could a good God allow such suffering? That is a question that prompts many to doubt the existence of God at all, good or not.

But should it? What are we saying when we ask that question? We are saying that things aren’t as they should be, that it is wrong for babies to die, it is wrong for young parents to be bereaved, it is wrong for an innocent life to be so profoundly damaged as to require constant, life-long care. But why is it wrong? Who says it is wrong? What tells us it is wrong?

We all know, instinctively, that it is desperately wrong. The innocent should not suffer.

But who says so? Evolutionary biologists, or the new atheists? No. They have no answer other than that suffering is to be expected in a world that is the product of chance and the fight for survival. But they have no answer for the cry of pain from hurting hearts.

We know it is wrong because something deep inside us tells us that the world should not be like this. And there, the God of the Christian Bible, a good God, agrees with us.

Jesus Christ Smorgasbord

By Kevin Anselmo

You have probably heard of the film Jesus Christ Superstar, produced back in 1973. Now I think we need a new film entitled “Jesus Christ Smorgasbord”. Such a title succinctly would sum up the way people in general perceive Jesus Christ.

Of course a smorgasbord is a type of meal, originally derived from Sweden, in which an array of dishes are spread out across the table. Guests pick and choose the dishes which are most appealing, leaving the undesirable on the table for others. In the 21st century, I think this image best describes how people approach Jesus Christ’s teachings. Pick and choose and leave the less desirable on the side.

I recently heard a talk from Scotty McLennan based on his book “Jesus was a liberal”. McLennan, who heads Stanford University’s religious affairs, eloquently points out some of Jesus’ more “liberal” viewpoints (the word liberal itself is of course subjective to our cultural viewpoints. McLennan is referring to liberal from the US political point of view).

Jesus Christ, based on the gospel writers portrayal of him, was indeed radical. He completely revamped the societal norms of the time. From teachings that emphasized concern for the marginalized - women, foreigners, children, the poor, tax collectors - to the way he viewed “working” on the Sabbath - Jesus Christ based on the gospel writers’ depiction was truly revolutionary. McLennan, and many others (including myself for that matter) are keen to point out these teachings of Jesus.

Less appealing are teachings such as when Jesus says that he is the way the truth, and the life. “Nobody comes to the father, but by me,” Christ states in gospel of John. Similarly, the thought of “taking up our crosses” and following Christ doesn't on the surface seem so glamorous. McLennan, and surely many others, while praising the “liberal” teachings and words of Christ, tend to downplay some of Christ’s claims to divinity. In some cases, such teachings of Christ are utterly rejected in exchange for a more universal acceptance of all religions as being equally adequate ways to salvation and God.

Belief in only Christ as the means to salvation may indeed sound unappealing. But could it be true? Believer or not, most would agree that in the last 2,000 years, few have changed the course of history as dramatically as Christ. Jesus Christ Smorgasbord may be the masses most desirable approach in coming to an understanding of this influential figure. But is it the most effective and true way of approaching and understanding Christ? A child may go to a smorgasbord and select only the deserts. Sweets are the most appealing for many of all ages, especially children. But is choosing only the desirable deserts most healthy for a human being? In the same way, is choosing only the “desirable” claims of Christ the most effective way to understanding God? As a child reluctantly eats his/her veggies, is it possible that acceptance of all of Christ’s teachings - even the unappetizing- are really better and healthier for us in the long run?

Just some “food for thought” for the next time you reluctantly eat some healthy dish that may not necessarily taste as scrumptious as your favourite dessert …. : )

The Age of Intolerance

by Martin Slack

‘May you live in interesting times’: so goes the Chinese Curse. Curse or not, we sure live in interesting times.

Over the last few weeks my attention has been caught by the number of cases in the UK (still relatively few, thankfully, but to my mind still concerning) where an employee has either been disciplined or had their employment terminated because of issues to do with their Christian faith.

Now, it is impossible for us at a distance to weigh the facts of these cases, but, nevertheless, there does appear to be something of a trend.

And that is bizarre, because at a time when so much political effort and energy is being turned to issues of tolerance, why do some Christians find themselves on the receiving end of perceived intolerance?

What is it about the Christian faith that makes it, apparently, the growing target for those who argue the loudest for the tolerance agenda? What prompts the ‘tolerant’ to be ‘intolerant’ of Christianity, or at least of some Christians?

I suspect there are (at least) two reasons. The first is the claims of Christianity to uniqueness. The Bible is unambiguous that there is only one God and only one way to God: Jesus Christ. Such claims are difficult to swallow, to be sure. The second is the willingness of Christians to express such views.

So we find ourselves in the interesting situation of the ‘tolerant’ being intolerant of a claim to unique truth. Which raises the interesting question of how tolerance relates to a claim of absolute truth. Should such a claim be tolerated?

That depends on whether it is true or not. If it is, it would be unwise to be intolerant of it.