Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Divine Judgment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Divine Judgment. Show all posts

Friday, March 25, 2011

Disaster and the Rhetoric of Sacrifice -- Sightings

The ongoing disaster in Japan has caught the imagination of the world.  It has given the world a new perspective on Japan and its people.  We see people seem to take things in stride, don't loot, follow directions, etc.  Of course there's another side -- a culture that includes principles of honor/shame has made it difficult for the government and corporate leadership to be forthcoming about the real threat of the damaged nuclear plants.  It goes to show you that cultures are complex!  We've also been watching as a small group of volunteers risk their lives to try to fix the damaged plants.  There is a cultural element to this as well that raises questions of how we understand and honor those who sacrifice their lives for others.   Beyond all of this we've heard words about divine judgment from American and Japanese figures.  Yuki Miyamoto, a Professor of Religious Studies at DePaul University helps us understand the complexity of the situation in this Sightings piece.  I invite you to read and respond.

****************************



Sightings 3/24/2011



Disaster and the Rhetoric of Sacrifice
-- Yuki Miyamoto

Nearly two weeks have passed since a catastrophic earthquake and violent tsunami devastated northeastern Japan. Officials are struggling to calculate the still-mounting death toll and to assess the full scope of destruction, while efforts to avert meltdowns at crippled nuclear power plants intensify. Natural disasters, so often worsened by human failures, activate our religious imaginations.

Too often in times of crisis explicit religious expressions are appalling. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina stimulated an outpouring of hateful sentiment; the hurricane was deemed by some to be God’s punishment for homosexuality in New Orleans. In 2010, Pat Robertson infamously attributed the earthquake in Haiti to the Haitians’ “pact with the Devil.” Now, in connection with Japan’s current plight, right-wing firebrand Glenn Beck has speculated that the quake and tsunami were a “message from God.” To this he added, with telling ambiguity, that he is not “saying” that God caused the earthquake, but also not “not saying” it.

Religious rhetoric has also cropped up in Japan. Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara has claimed that the calamity is a “divine punishment.” “Japanese politics,” Ishihara remarked, “is tainted with egoism and populism. We need to use the tsunami to wipe out egoism, which has attached itself like rust to the mentality of the Japanese people over a long period of time.” Ishihara, a conservative politician whose troubling record also includes racist and sexist comments, later retracted his remarks and offered an apology.

More subtle than such explicit remarks, however, is the religious aura developing around the group of Japanese persons working to contain radiation and incapacitate nuclear reactors on the verge of meltdown. Dubbed by the Western media as the “Fukushima 50,” (though the group comprises more than fifty workers), these volunteers are dousing the burning reactors with water at close range. As the Guardian has put it, the Fukushima 50 “are the nuclear power industry's equivalent of frontline soldiers, exposing themselves to considerable risks while about 800 of their evacuated colleagues watch from a safe distance.” Here aptly analogized with soldiers, these volunteers evince a will to sacrifice themselves on behalf of their country.

As Chris Hogg of the BBC notes, Japan is fond of “heroes who sacrifice everything for the greater good,” in this case a country steeped in a tradition that holds the nation as sacred. Dying for the nation thus evokes a religious sensibility. For example, a Japanese newspaper reported that one woman sent a text message to her husband on the team, saying: “Please be a savior (kyuseishu) of Japan.”

The risks of the Fukushima 50 are indeed of heroic proportions, a fact I appreciate all the more from my comfortable vantage point here in Chicago, thousands of miles from the accident site. At the same time, an unsettling feeling has crept upon me—a feeling that recalls the unease I have experienced at the Yasukuni Shinto shrine in Tokyo, where soldiers who died for the “sacred” Japanese nation-state, which emerged in the nineteenth century and is embodied in the deific emperor, are enshrined. Deifying soldiers who have given their lives on behalf of the country, however, has the effect of glorifying and upholding, rather than challenging, the conditions giving rise to the disasters of war.

Within this religio-political tradition, civilians may also be granted the status of deity after death in Japan. For example, in the Saga prefecture of southwest Japan, one shrine is dedicated to police officer Masuda Keitaro, who devoted himself to treating those suffering from cholera in 1895. He himself eventually fell victim to the epidemic he was fighting and passed away. Since containment of the disease coincided with Masuda’s demise, the officer’s death was deemed a sacred sacrifice, and he was enshrined as a protector of the villagers from disease.

The present threat of illness is of a different sort, but like Masuda, the Fukushima 50 are widely hailed as “sacrificial” heroes for their noble and necessary endeavors. Without wanting to diminish the genuine dedication and risk of this group, however, one might call critical attention to the problematic religious underpinnings of the worshipful attitude with which they are being treated, for such attitudes may mask a latent nationalism that sees the nation as sacred and therefore infallible; such attitudes—hardly unique to Japan—may explain in part the Japanese government’s reticence about the full extent of the threat of nuclear disaster.

Whatever the case, the religious tradition and sacrificial rhetoric that inform such attitudes threaten to divert attention from investigations of what “necessitated” the risk, and potential deaths, in the first place. The glorifying rhetoric of sacrifice in service of the greater good potentially deflects attention from the task of interrogating the conditions that gave rise to disaster—in this case, the matter of nuclear power: its threat to individuals, communities, and the global environment.

We do not know, of course, if the Fukushima 50 will someday be enshrined as deities for their sacrifices. But perhaps the best show of gratitude we might now offer would be to turn a critical eye to our own complicity in the disaster to which they respond. Japan has for too long relied on uranium and plutonium for energy, notwithstanding the fact that there is no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste, nor to make the power plants that convert these elements into usable energy entirely secure.

In gratefully considering the risks and efforts of the Fukushima 50, we must move beyond potentially-distracting religious rhetoric and sensibilities to remind ourselves who is accountable for their lives, and why we have so far failed to choose a safer energy alternative that would not require such risks.


References

Max Blumenthal, “Blaming Katrina on Gays, Israel, and Man-on-Horse Sex,” Huffington Post, September 5, 2005.

Nicholas D. Kristof, “Some Frank Talk about Haiti,New York Times, January 20, 2010.

Elizabeth Tenety, “Glenn Beck: Japan earthquake ‘message’ from God,” The Washington Post, March 15, 2011.

Tania Branigan and Justin McCurry, “Fukushima 50 battle radiation risks as Japan nuclear crisis deepens,” Guardian, March 15, 2011.


Chris Hogg, “Japan Hails the heroic ‘Fukushima 50’,” BBC News, March 17, 2011.


“Tokyo shōbō chō: Hibaku to tatakai hōsui—kazoku ‘kyūseishu ni’” (“Tokyo Fire Department: Watering and battling against radiation exposure—‘be a savior,’ said the wife,”) Yomiuri Online, March 21, 2011.


Komatsu, Kazuhiko. Kami ni natta hitobito: Nihonjin ni totte “Yasukuni no kami” towa nani ka (People who became gods: What ‘Yasukuni Deities” means to Japanese) (Tokyo: Kobunsha, 2006).



Yuki Miyamoto holds a PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity School and is an assistant professor in the Department of Religious Studies at DePaul University. Her book Beyond the Mushroom Cloud: Commemoration, Religion, and Responsibility After Hiroshima is forthcoming from Fordham University Press.

----------

This month’s Religion and Culture Web Forum is written by D. Max Moerman and entitled “The Death of the Dharma: Buddhist Sutra Burials in Early Medieval Japan.” In eleventh-century Japan, Buddhists fearing the arrival of the "Final Dharma"--an age of religious decline--began to bury sutras in sometimes-elaborate reliquaries. Why entomb a text, making it impossible for anyone to see or read it? And what do such practices teach us about the meaning and purpose of texts in Buddhism and other religions? Max Moerman of Barnard College takes up these questions with responses from Jeff Wilson (Renison University College), James W. Watts (Syracuse University) and Vincent Wimbush (Claremont Graduate University).


----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Why so much concern about Hell?

I've yet to go to Hell and back -- Hell, Michigan that is!   

With that bit of humor I thought I'd weigh into the big debate surrounding hell and universal salvation that has been stirred up by Rob Bell's yet to be released book entitled Love Wins (Harper One, 2011).  I've yet to read the book, so all I can go on is the video, which I've already posted, and the Harper publicity efforts that promise a provocative read (one thing people need to understand about the publishing industry is that if they hope to sell books in this day and age, then publishers have to get provocative). 

With that said, I'd like to ask a question:  Why are people making such a big deal about Hell (not the village in Michigan this time)?  Why do some people think that without a doctrine of Hell the Christian faith crumbles?   
    
If you read the New Testament closely you'll notice that they give at least some attention to an afterlife.  Resurrection is an important doctrine in early Christianity.  The promise of union with God in the heavenly realm figures prominently in the gospel proclamation.  If heaven is part of the equation, so is judgment. 

From the earliest days of Christianity there have been differences of view regarding God's ultimate purpose for humanity.  Some voices seem to hold out the promise of a universal reconciliation (e.g. Rom. 5:18), while others believe that at the very least those who do not believe in Christ will cease to exist (annihilation) if not eternal torment in hell.  I won't go into details here about the nature of all these positions, lets just all agree that there are texts in Scripture that promise judgment and punishment (whatever that may entail).  I will only add that the picture that is in the minds of many as to what this eternal punishment owes more to Dante's Inferno than to Scripture. 
I understand that there are texts that seem to promise eternal punishment and that theologians have taught it down through the ages.   I've been part of the conservative evangelical community.  But, having that said this, I want to ask the question:  why all the fuss about Hell? 

The answer most will give has to do with God's justice or God's honor.  Some might even ask why Jesus even needed to come to earth if there is no hell to rescue people from.  When I was teaching this to college students years ago, one of the responses was simply -- if there's no hell then why bother being a Christian?  I mean if there is no threat of punishment why bother with religion?

I'll confess here and now that I don't believe in hell and I've not believed in hell for close to 30 years.  I abandoned this belief a long time ago (back when I was studying at an evangelical seminary) for several reasons, one of which was that I didn't find the idea of an immortal soul present in Scripture.  Therefore, if one experiences judgment, and then fire, then shouldn't you cease to exist?  But ultimately there was another reason why I could no longer abide the idea that God consigned human beings to eternal punishment in hell.  I could not square this belief with the confession that God is Love.   

So, although I've not read the book, I'm in agreement with the title of Rob Bell's book -- Love Wins.   Think about it for a moment.  Jesus tells us to love not just our neighbors but our enemies (Matt. 5:38-48).  If God expects us to love our enemies and do good to them and for them, then should we expect less of God?  If we believe that a parent's love should be unconditional (yes there's room for discipline, but discipline is designed to restore not exclude) then should we expect less of God?  I simply cannot fathom the idea God's sense of honor or justice is somehow enhanced by the eternal punishment of someone for simply because they either didn't hear the gospel or didn't find it compelling (because of our lives and presentations of it).  If Jesus rejects the "proportionate justice" of an "eye for an eye" then what manner of evil does it take on our part to deserve eternal punishment in a place called Hell?  How does this enhance God's majesty or glory or honor?   If this is heresy, then so be it? 

In closing, let me put it this way:  The argument for universal salvation ultimately rests not on a specific set of biblical texts, but rather it rests upon one’s definition of God’s nature.  If it is assumed that God is love, then is it possible that God would, in the end, discard anyone?  To put it another way, if God is portrayed as a loving parent, can we truly believe that God would reject one’s own child – no matter what they had done?

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Maybe the Story of Noah isn't for Kids!

The story of Noah is a favorite of many Sunday School teachers -- isn't it a wonderful story that Noah built an ark so he and his family, along with a pair of each kind of animal might be spared from the flood. But what we don't tell the children is why this big boat has to be built.

My Disciple colleague from the west side of Michigan, Rev. David Stout, using a sort of Mr. Roger's demeanor, tells the story in a way that turns the tables on the usual presentation -- reminding us that maybe this isn't really a kids's tale after all!  The further question concerns the way we interpret Scripture and understand the nature of God.

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Lightning Strikes and Divine Disfavor -- Sightings



Religious folk have a tendency to read into natural disasters certain divine meanings.  Thus, a hurricane or an earthquake might be seen as a sign of divine disfavor.  If this is true, then what do we make of the lightening strike that struck the 62 foot tall statue of Jesus that sat (until it burned to the ground) alongside an Ohio freeway?   Well, many thought it a fitting display of divine wrath against the commercialization of the gospel or wasteful spending on frivolous things such as this.  Adam Darlage, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Chicago Divinity School puts all of this into historical context.  I think you'll find this quite interesting.

******************************************

Sightings 7/1/10


Lightning Strikes and Divine Disfavor
-- Adam Darlage


As mentioned in last week’s Sightings, until recently drivers on the stretch of I-75 between Cincinnati and Dayton had the opportunity to contemplate the six-story (62 ft.) Jesus statue at the Solid Rock Church in Monroe, Ohio, on the northbound side of the highway. On the night of Monday, June 14, however, lightning struck the statue, and the fire it sparked quickly burned the fiberglass skin and styrofoam filler. Only the blackened metal frame survived. The adjoining amphitheater was also damaged in the inferno, and officials estimate at least $700,000 worth of total damage to both structures.

To the people of the Solid Rock Church, the statue, completed in the fall of 2004 at a cost of over $200,000, was known as “King of Kings;” it depicted Jesus looking upward to Heaven with both arms raised to the sky and a cross near where his waist would be. Over the years it garnered other nicknames. Some called it “Touchdown Jesus” because the position of Jesus’ raised arms suggested to American football fans that he was celebrating a touchdown. Others dubbed it “Big Butter Jesus” for its creamy white color.

As the somewhat irreverent nicknames suggest, the statue was an easy target for criticism. Especially over the past few years as the Great Recession took its toll on the American economy, the statue came to represent to some a waste of valuable financial resources on the part of the Solid Rock Church, a “megachurch” with over 4,000 members. To others, including members of the church, the statue was a public witness to the power of faith in Jesus Christ. Darlene Bishop, a pastor at the Solid Rock Church, noted that the lightning strike only helped the mission of the church: “he (Jesus) couldn’t have gotten this much advertising if we had paid a billion dollars.” Indeed, the Solid Rock Church had insured the statue and intends to build a new one.

But it is the lightning strike itself that provides an occasion to reflect on historical and contemporary Christian responses to the destruction of churches by similar events. Lightning strikes can be interpreted differently than other natural events, in that lightning is not only instantaneous, but also more physically localized than earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, or tornadoes. These may kill hundreds, even thousands of people, but lightning usually strikes one person or one thing, as in the case of the “King of Kings.”

Our visceral response to lightning strikes owes much to the God of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, who is in complete control of lightning; see especially the book of Job on this point (28:26; 36:32; 37:3; 38:35). Legends about saints from the early church reinforce this response. According to one story, God struck down and killed the father of St. Barbara with a bolt of lightning after he beheaded his daughter for being a Christian. Moreover, our culture has been indelibly imprinted with stories of Zeus and his lightning bolt, comic book characters with the power to “zap” their enemies, and cinematic depictions of gods or demons striking down humans with lightning bolts; recall the lightning strikes from the 2006 remake of “The Omen.” In all these narratives, lightning is directed at a specific target for a specific reason.

Throughout history, when lightning did strike a church, many Christians believed that the lightning was evidence of divine wrath because of specific sins or heresies. Medieval and early modern Europeans routinely made this claim. Moreover, since the ringing of consecrated church bells was supposed to ward off thunderstorms and evil spirits, a strike was often regarded as particularly significant. In 1678 a Dutch Calvinist preacher in Orange contended that a lightning strike that torched the cloth of the main altar in the Roman Catholic cathedral church was a miracle that proved the truth of Protestant doctrine and the falseness of the Catholic Church.

To be sure, other explanations became increasingly available to Christians with the rise of modern science. Benjamin Franklin found that lightning struck elevated metallic objects, and many accepted the fact that churches with bell towers, usually the tallest building in town, were in fact quite vulnerable to lightning strikes. Some churchmen were slow to adapt his lightning rod technology in 1752, however, as they were uncomfortable ceding the point that consecrated bells actually attracted lightning instead of repelling it.

The historical Christian belief in lightning as a sign of divine wrath continues to this day, and its enduring hold on our culture becomes particularly apparent when lightning damages or destroys a church. The case of the “King of Kings” is simply the most recent example. In the days following the conflagration, blogs featured jokes about the irony of Jesus being struck down by God, as well as claims that the Solid Rock Church deserved God’s wrath because it is too materialistic. Pastor Bishop even felt compelled to confirm that the lightning was a natural event, not evidence of divine disfavor. Whether silly or serious, all of these responses draw from the same deep historical and cultural well.


Adam Darlage received his Ph.D. in the History of Christianity from the University of Chicago Divinity School in 2009. He is an instructor at Oakton Community College in Des Plaines, Illinois.


References:


For an article that covers the facts of the fire and Pastor Bishop’s response to the lightning strike, and also offers a video featuring responses by members of the Solid Rock Church, see


For a forum for online responses to the lightning strike and the resulting blaze, see the CNN.com belief blog: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/15/jesus-statue-struck-by-lightning/

An eleven-second video of the fire can be found on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUZ3d1tTbWg




----------

This month's Religion and Culture Web Forum features a chapter from literary critic Amy Hungerford's forthcoming volume Postmodern Belief: American Literature and Religion Since 1960 (Princeton University Press, August, 2010). In "The Literary Practice of Belief," Hungerford focuses upon two contemporary literary examples--the novels of Marilynne Robinson and the Left Behind series--in order "to engage (and revise) the current emphasis on practice over belief in our understanding of religion." With invited responses from Thomas J. Ferraro (Duke University), Amy Frykholm (The Christian Century), Constance Furey (Indiana University), Jeffrey J. Kripal (Rice University), Caleb J. D. Maskell (Princeton University), Edward Mendelson (Columbia University), Richard A. Rosengarten (University of Chicago Divinity School), and Glenn W. Shuck (Williams College).



----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.