Ok, no book to review today, just some thoughts. It is almost cliche to talk about the assumption that all a pastor does is preach on Sundays, but it is something that comes up every once and a while. Not just the work that is done on Sundays, but the work that is done during the week. I think it is a question of the tasks of the pastor. What is a pastor supposed to be doing all week.
I think some would prefer the pastor to visit the sick and leave it at that. I wonder about such an assumption. It is important to visit the sick, but that can't be all. What does it say theologically if the role of the pastor is to just visit the sick and preach? What does such a visit do for the person visited. If I were part of a high church movement, then I might be able to draw upon the sacramental traditions, especially in a healing ministry. Yet I shirk away from the idea that the pastor brings special powers to the side of the sick. On the other hand, I do feel that the presence of the pastor can help the sick be aware of God's presence - this is good. So visits are good.
At the same time there is much more to do. I believe the pastor is in many ways the face of the church to the community. The pastor is the one who is in the community serving the needy, helping those in distress and sharing the gospel. This is vague, and the specifics can take time.
The pastor is to pray for the people.
The pastor is to prepare meetings, to prepare budgets, to answer mail, and take care of the nitty gritty stuff of the church. If it is a large church, then that is a totally different issue (then the pastor is to raise money). It is important for the pastor to do this work because it is part of the forming of a community.
I think this is closer to the crux of what the pastor does. The pastor forms a community. The pastor calls the members of the congregation to visit the sick, to answer phones, to be present in the community, to pray, and to study. The pastor leads the formation and to a degree is a part of the formation. Theologically, I would argue that this sets the pastor apart. Theologically I would argue this is why the pastor is ordained. The pastor leads the community on behalf of God/Holy Spirit. The pastor guides the community as he or she has been called by God. This is a big trust issue because sometimes the way the Holy Spirit leads may not seem to be the best way according to many. This itself is a topic for another time.
The point is, the pastor has to do a lot during the week that at times seems to very much be church work, and at other times seems to be "busy work." Yet if the pastor is connected to the Holy Spirit, then it all is good work. I hope.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
evil exists.... deal with it
There is a long line of people who have attempted climb a Mount Everest of human existence – why do we suffer. Or perhaps to reference the good rabbi – “Why do bad things happen to good people?” The question of theodicy has taken down many worthy theologians and philosophers and yet the line of individuals waiting to climb the mountain wraps around the mountain again and again. I recently read an article that attempts to tackle this very problem. John Schneider’s article “Seeing God Where the Wild Things Are: An Essay on the Defeat of Horrendous Evil” is the article in question. It is part of a larger work Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil edited by Peter van Inwagen (a collection of theologians and philosophers all making a group expedition up the beguiling mountain of theodicy).
Schneider starts by charting out the current landscape of discourse concerning theodicy, specifically in the Christian Orthodox arena. He begins referencing J.L. Mackie’s article “Evil and Omnipotence” as a ground braking work. I have not read the article yet, but will try to get to it. Regardless, Schneider’s article is one that can be read without previous knowledge of Mackie’s work.
Schneider starts by making a number of theistic claims: God exists, is good, is omnipotent, etc…. and then invites Christians theologians to return or stay involved in the philosophical debate of evil and the rationality of a deism in the human experience. It reminds me of Abraham’s epistemological claim for the sake of Christianity in the discussion of epistemology. It is good that Schneider is being honest about his claims. He then considers the idea of “horrendous evils,” which is an evil that makes one question one’s purpose of life. This is the evil that causes unrest in the conscience of humanity. Schneider discusses other Christian responses to theodicy, pointing out their faults and failings. There is a problem with giving not enough power to God (Hick), or taking free will away from humanity. There is the question of the suffering of God and how that can occur with an all powerful, all perfect God. Schneider surveys the landscape well before turning to the crux of his argument.
The argument starts with the book of Job. It starts with a common interpretation of Job (especially the end of the book), and then considering some alternative options for understanding the biblical book. Schneider’s interest is in the final conversation between God and Job. Many understand that conversation as God telling Job to not question and accept that some things are just beyond understanding, and Schneider is not happy with this reading and offers another reading suggested by other scholars. This reading considers the symbolic aspect of God controlling the Leviathan, the chaos and the hope which it gives to Job. In this particular reading of Job, the author is claiming that God is in control of the chaos. Job was finding chaos in his life, and God was suggesting that never was Job out of the Lord’s care.
Schneider finally takes this reading of Job to the gospel of Mark. In Mark, Jesus is depicted as one who is in control of the chaos through a narrative reading of the text. Even in the chaos of the cross itself, we should find some hope that God is ultimately in control, hence the resurrection.
Unless I have missed something, Schneider is offering a understanding to the issue of evil that many have considered before. To claim that God is in control, and has tamed the chaos of the horrible evil does not seem that removed from the Calvinistic claim that God is in control of all of our lives. How is this answer different from a soft predestination? Hartshorn has criticized such a response, as has Caputo and others. They have argued for a weakness of God that does not force a happy ending out of the most horrendous situation. Schneider is offering a good synopsis of current creative exegetical work of Job and Mark, but is not offering anything new to the larger discourse of theodicy.
Further, I do not find the same kind of hope that Schneider offers in his understanding of Job. The only hope I can find is that even those whose lives are lost in horrible evil (i.e. the holocaust) are not lost in vain. God can make that life worthwhile. This does not answer the problem of evil, but find hope in the face of evil. I fear this could lead toward the cheap answer to suffering: this is all done for a reason. Or to look for a silver lining in the horrendous situation.
I agree with Schneider’s entrance of Mark. Mark give us the Trinitarian foundation of hope that God suffers, and find hopes in the suffering. This gives some hope without a pie-in-the-sky kind of Pollyanna sunshine. It does not offer a good answer for why evil occurs, but does if it does one can find some hope in the suffering. In the end it is a good essay, but nothing new in this climb up the question of theodicy.
Schneider starts by charting out the current landscape of discourse concerning theodicy, specifically in the Christian Orthodox arena. He begins referencing J.L. Mackie’s article “Evil and Omnipotence” as a ground braking work. I have not read the article yet, but will try to get to it. Regardless, Schneider’s article is one that can be read without previous knowledge of Mackie’s work.
Schneider starts by making a number of theistic claims: God exists, is good, is omnipotent, etc…. and then invites Christians theologians to return or stay involved in the philosophical debate of evil and the rationality of a deism in the human experience. It reminds me of Abraham’s epistemological claim for the sake of Christianity in the discussion of epistemology. It is good that Schneider is being honest about his claims. He then considers the idea of “horrendous evils,” which is an evil that makes one question one’s purpose of life. This is the evil that causes unrest in the conscience of humanity. Schneider discusses other Christian responses to theodicy, pointing out their faults and failings. There is a problem with giving not enough power to God (Hick), or taking free will away from humanity. There is the question of the suffering of God and how that can occur with an all powerful, all perfect God. Schneider surveys the landscape well before turning to the crux of his argument.
The argument starts with the book of Job. It starts with a common interpretation of Job (especially the end of the book), and then considering some alternative options for understanding the biblical book. Schneider’s interest is in the final conversation between God and Job. Many understand that conversation as God telling Job to not question and accept that some things are just beyond understanding, and Schneider is not happy with this reading and offers another reading suggested by other scholars. This reading considers the symbolic aspect of God controlling the Leviathan, the chaos and the hope which it gives to Job. In this particular reading of Job, the author is claiming that God is in control of the chaos. Job was finding chaos in his life, and God was suggesting that never was Job out of the Lord’s care.
Schneider finally takes this reading of Job to the gospel of Mark. In Mark, Jesus is depicted as one who is in control of the chaos through a narrative reading of the text. Even in the chaos of the cross itself, we should find some hope that God is ultimately in control, hence the resurrection.
Unless I have missed something, Schneider is offering a understanding to the issue of evil that many have considered before. To claim that God is in control, and has tamed the chaos of the horrible evil does not seem that removed from the Calvinistic claim that God is in control of all of our lives. How is this answer different from a soft predestination? Hartshorn has criticized such a response, as has Caputo and others. They have argued for a weakness of God that does not force a happy ending out of the most horrendous situation. Schneider is offering a good synopsis of current creative exegetical work of Job and Mark, but is not offering anything new to the larger discourse of theodicy.
Further, I do not find the same kind of hope that Schneider offers in his understanding of Job. The only hope I can find is that even those whose lives are lost in horrible evil (i.e. the holocaust) are not lost in vain. God can make that life worthwhile. This does not answer the problem of evil, but find hope in the face of evil. I fear this could lead toward the cheap answer to suffering: this is all done for a reason. Or to look for a silver lining in the horrendous situation.
I agree with Schneider’s entrance of Mark. Mark give us the Trinitarian foundation of hope that God suffers, and find hopes in the suffering. This gives some hope without a pie-in-the-sky kind of Pollyanna sunshine. It does not offer a good answer for why evil occurs, but does if it does one can find some hope in the suffering. In the end it is a good essay, but nothing new in this climb up the question of theodicy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)