John 11:35 is, to me, one of the most profound statements in the Bible. John tells the story of how Jesus heard of his friend Lazarus who was sick and probably on his death bed. Strangely, he doesn't leave right away, and by the time he gets to Bethany Lazarus is dead. In fact, he's been dead for at least 4 days, because he was buried 4 days ago! If only Jesus had arrived earlier. After all, he is the miracle worker who has been healing people all through Palestine. If only he had left when he heard the news about Lazarus. If only... In our grief how many times have we asked ourself "if only?"
As Jesus arrives, he sees the family and his friends grieving for the loss of their friend Lazarus. He sees the crowds crying out in anguish and emotion as Lazarus lies in the tomb. Since he is a friend of Jesus, I imagine that Lazarus was around Jesus' age. Maybe they had known each other since boy hood. Maybe Lazarus left behind a wife and kids. Maybe his parents were still around and grieving the worse kind of grief, of a parent outliving their child.
Now that Jesus has arrived, you expect everything to be ok- except this time this is death! He is not healing someone. Can he bring someone back to life? As he looks around and sees his friends, maybe even his family, grieving and weeping. Jesus, the miracle worker, the fixer of problems, the One with answers suddenly does the unthinkable. John 11:35 says simply, "Jesus wept." End of sentence. No descriptor. Pointedly and suddenly, Jesus wept. He didn't cry. He didn't tear up. He wept. The one who brought forth all life wept!
Jesus' response to death is not to fix the problem. He doesn't run in and try to cheer everyone up. He is simply there. He is there in pain. He is there in sympathy. He doesn't offer a pithy statement, he weeps. He knows their pain. He knows their grief, and he allows it. He even endorses it. He weeps.
I can't explain pain. Theologically, we call this problem of pain theodicy. I have no idea why it happens. Now, I get that there is sin and because of sin there is death. I get that abstractly, but not personally. When I visit the hospital to see church members and I see cancer. I see children. I see families grieving. I don't get it. Why does it have to be this way? Why is there this problem of theodicy? Where is God?
Jesus wept.
I may not get why there is pain and death and sickness, but I do know that in the hospital room, in the funeral parlor, in the graveyard, in the loneliness of an empty house, Jesus weeps.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thinking through death
Here some thoughts from the brilliant mind of Bishop N.T. Wright from his book Surprised by Hope. I'll add some of my own thoughts as well.
"From Plato to Hegel and beyond, some of the greatest philosophers declared that what you think about death, and life beyond it, is the key to thinking seriously about everything else- and indeed, that it provides one of the main reasons for thinking seriously about anything at all."
Paul wrote in 1 Thess, "we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep...we believe that Jesus died and rose again..." (4:13).
This is creedal statement forms the backbone of any Christian confession. At the heart of our life and theology is the simple confession, "Jesus died and rose again!" For Paul, this meant that it shaped his whole understanding of death and grief. And if it shapes our understanding of death, then surely it shapes our understanding of life as well. If our theology is only good when we are healthy and happy, then our theology is worthless. However, if our deepest beliefs are rooted in the valley of the shadow of death than surely this will impact the whole of our life.
"From Plato to Hegel and beyond, some of the greatest philosophers declared that what you think about death, and life beyond it, is the key to thinking seriously about everything else- and indeed, that it provides one of the main reasons for thinking seriously about anything at all."
Paul wrote in 1 Thess, "we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep...we believe that Jesus died and rose again..." (4:13).
This is creedal statement forms the backbone of any Christian confession. At the heart of our life and theology is the simple confession, "Jesus died and rose again!" For Paul, this meant that it shaped his whole understanding of death and grief. And if it shapes our understanding of death, then surely it shapes our understanding of life as well. If our theology is only good when we are healthy and happy, then our theology is worthless. However, if our deepest beliefs are rooted in the valley of the shadow of death than surely this will impact the whole of our life.
religious pluralism
Here some thoughts from the brilliant mind of Bishop N.T. Wright from his book Surprised by Hope. I'll add some of my own thoughts as well.
on religious pluralism:
"Even a quick glance at the classic views of the major religious traditions gives the lie to the old idea that all religions are basically the same. There is a world of difference between the Muslim who believes that a Palestinian boy killed by Israeli solders goes straight to heaven and a Hindu from whom the rigorous outworking of karma means that one must return in a different body to pursue the next stage of one's destiny. There is a world of difference between the Orthodox Jew who believes that all the righteouss will be raised to new individual bodily life in the resurrection and the Buddhist who hopes after death to disappear like a drop in the ocean, losing one's own identity in the great nameless and formless Beyond."
This is an argument I love to engage. I think one of the greatest arguments against religious pluralism is this argument of the afterlife. Now by religious pluralism I am not talking about need for different religions to tolerate one another nor am I advocating an end to inter-religious dialogue. These are fine ambitions and should be embraced by anyone claiming religious or non-religious affiliations. However, there is a form of religious pluralism that essentially argues that all religious are basically the same with the same goal. This is an ill-informed position, that I call simply ignorant. To say to a Buddhist that his goal of Nirvana is the same as mine, which is a goal of bodily resurrection, is simply ignorant and frankly offensive to both the Buddhist and the Christian. If you are going to have an argument on religious universality, please think this one through.
on religious pluralism:
"Even a quick glance at the classic views of the major religious traditions gives the lie to the old idea that all religions are basically the same. There is a world of difference between the Muslim who believes that a Palestinian boy killed by Israeli solders goes straight to heaven and a Hindu from whom the rigorous outworking of karma means that one must return in a different body to pursue the next stage of one's destiny. There is a world of difference between the Orthodox Jew who believes that all the righteouss will be raised to new individual bodily life in the resurrection and the Buddhist who hopes after death to disappear like a drop in the ocean, losing one's own identity in the great nameless and formless Beyond."
This is an argument I love to engage. I think one of the greatest arguments against religious pluralism is this argument of the afterlife. Now by religious pluralism I am not talking about need for different religions to tolerate one another nor am I advocating an end to inter-religious dialogue. These are fine ambitions and should be embraced by anyone claiming religious or non-religious affiliations. However, there is a form of religious pluralism that essentially argues that all religious are basically the same with the same goal. This is an ill-informed position, that I call simply ignorant. To say to a Buddhist that his goal of Nirvana is the same as mine, which is a goal of bodily resurrection, is simply ignorant and frankly offensive to both the Buddhist and the Christian. If you are going to have an argument on religious universality, please think this one through.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Coldplay
I went to see Coldplay last night in Oklahoma City. This was my second Coldplay show, and it did not dissapoint. Viva La Vida has a very different sound than than the previous three, and especially different than X and Y. The X and Y tour was the most engaging two hours of my life. The sound and the media were brilliant. I stood there and watched a beautiful production. Viva La Vida was different, but still amazing.
The album has a more natural sound than X and Y, and consequently used a whole lot less media. Thats not to say the show was boring to look at. Their set started with a black veil that covered the stage as they played "Life in Technicolor." Then the veil fell and the lights came on and the background, which was previously black was the cover art for the album. The first song that really used any media was "Clocks," which still wasn't a whole lot- just some intelligent lights shining lazers back into the crowd and up the back wall of the Ford Center. The strangest media were some giant globes that fell out of the ceiling and then lit up with swirls of different colors and even projections of the band that was being shown on some projectors above.
The highlight was by far "Viva la Vida." The entire band went to a "satellite" stage more in the crowd and slowly that stage went dark and Chris stayed behind to play some piece that sounded almost classical. He brought the energy way down and then you heard Will start on the timpani. The crowd went crazy and the lights came on and everyone was sining, "I hear Jerusalem bells a rining/ Roman calvary choirs a singing." Amazing. Will even rang a big bell during the song as well. This show was definitively more about the music than the X and Y tour, but with this album they should focus on the music because there are some powerful songs on this one.
Now I would be remiss if I didn't mention the opener. Jon Hopkins who was mixing music and creating his sounds while matching it to a cartoon. I couldn't even begin to describe the images of the cartoon we were watching, so here is a post from YouTube.
The album has a more natural sound than X and Y, and consequently used a whole lot less media. Thats not to say the show was boring to look at. Their set started with a black veil that covered the stage as they played "Life in Technicolor." Then the veil fell and the lights came on and the background, which was previously black was the cover art for the album. The first song that really used any media was "Clocks," which still wasn't a whole lot- just some intelligent lights shining lazers back into the crowd and up the back wall of the Ford Center. The strangest media were some giant globes that fell out of the ceiling and then lit up with swirls of different colors and even projections of the band that was being shown on some projectors above.
The highlight was by far "Viva la Vida." The entire band went to a "satellite" stage more in the crowd and slowly that stage went dark and Chris stayed behind to play some piece that sounded almost classical. He brought the energy way down and then you heard Will start on the timpani. The crowd went crazy and the lights came on and everyone was sining, "I hear Jerusalem bells a rining/ Roman calvary choirs a singing." Amazing. Will even rang a big bell during the song as well. This show was definitively more about the music than the X and Y tour, but with this album they should focus on the music because there are some powerful songs on this one.
Now I would be remiss if I didn't mention the opener. Jon Hopkins who was mixing music and creating his sounds while matching it to a cartoon. I couldn't even begin to describe the images of the cartoon we were watching, so here is a post from YouTube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
