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.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
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 …. : )
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.
‘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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)