Victorian Bushfires
Like many Australians, over the past few days I have been distraught and captivated by the devastation of the Victorian bush fires. That so much death and destruction is possible in such a short period of time, and that we are so powerless to defend ourselves in the face of such dangers is difficult to comprehend.
While shock gridlocks one part of my brain – another part is thinking how do I process this as a Christian? Given that I believe in a sovereign benevolent God, how can I make sense of these events?
As I look around me, I notice Christian leaders making statements about how our thoughts and prayers are with those who have experienced loss. And this is right. Our first response is one of empathy. In fact this is one of the great distinctives of the Christian faith. We have a God who became man in Jesus, took on our flesh, lived our life, cried at the death of his friends, suffered injustice and was ultimately crucified. And because of all this we have a God who can sympathise with us in our weaknesses.
I also notice Christian organizations launching appeals. Again, this is right. We ought to respond when and where we can in practical ways. The number crunchers tell us that Christians are on average the most generous and philanthropic citizens.
But the prime minister and premier call for empathy and generosity. As Christians, what can we say beyond this? My local newspaper headline reads ‘hell fires’. Biblically speaking, fire is often used as an image or instrument of judgment. What can be said in this regard?
Controversial Christian minister Danny Nalliah yesterday said, according to Melbourne paper The Age, that the fires were a result of God’s judgment upon “INCENDIARY” abortion law reforms that last year made Victoria “the baby-killing state”. “God’s protection has been taken off the state, and Satan is having a go at the nation.”
This line of thinking is unpopular and unpalatable, but is there any truth to it? Didn’t God after all burn Sodom and Gommorah for their sins?
Drawing links between Sodom and Gommorah and the Victorian bush fires is problematic. The account in Genesis 19 does not read like a natural disaster that happened to burn a town(s) in its path as was the case in Victoria. According to Gen 19:24 burning sulfur rained down on the city, and on the city alone. The point of the narrative is that God’s judgment was decisive and specific.
If you did want to find a biblical parallel to the Victorian bushfires, better is Luke 13. Here a tower in Siloam appears to have fallen without warning, killing 18 people. Jesus is asked if people incur such wrath because they “were worse sinners.” Jesus’ response is to say that they were not worse sinners. To draw the parallels to Victoria, we cannot conclude that the people of Kinglake specifically or of Victoria at large are any better or worse than other Australians. Such conclusions are erroneous.
But there is a sting in the tail to what Jesus says. His next line is: “But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:5) Jesus’ message, like it or not, is that while there is indiscriminate and apparently unfair ‘justice’ in life – all humanity (outside repentance) sits under judgment and will one day perish.
Let me be clear about what I am, and am not saying here. I am not saying that Jesus’ or the Christian view of personhood is that we are all bad and deserve to die. Humanity has been made in God’s image, and God is good. The proverbial little boy who says “God made me, and God don’t make junk” was right. All humans, both those who believe in Jesus and those who don’t, remain capable at times of reflecting God’s image in the way they love, care, and forgive. To be balanced we ought also say our desire for justice and our disgust to think that some might have deliberately lit fires that cased this devastation is also a way in which all humanity reflects God’s character.
Rather, the Christian view of personhood is that, in Adam, who acted as the representative of the human race, we have all fallen short of God’s standards (perfection) and that have all come under judgment. And its not just Adam, or people who light bushfires who deserve God’s judgment. None of us manages to live to our own standards, let alone God’s. The way to avoid judgment is not to be better than your neighbour, but to repent of your inability to make things right with God by yourself, and to believe that in Jesus you can again have peace with God.
What does this mean regarding the bushfires? Am I saying that the fires are judgment for sins? No – and yes. No – I do not believe we can conclude that God caused the fires so as to specifically judge persons who have since lost their lives. First, God did not cause them. They were a combination of naturally occurring events and human actions. Second, the fires were widespread and indiscriminate. But yes – the fires are a consequence of the fact that we live in a broken world – broken by human rebellion God. Natural disasters are a consequence of human sin, and in that sense they function as a self imposed result of our (corporate humanity that is) rejection of God.
Where then is hope? Let me turn to media coverage of the bushfires. Two stories caught my attention. One was the story of a man reunited with his dog. The other was a story of a husband and wife reunited by Mike Overton and the Channel Nine helicopter. The two embraced within a scrum of media cameras. What the media is looking for is the good story on the fringe of all the bad news. Fascinating isn’t it – usually the mass media is good at giving us the bad news. But when the news is so bad we can’t comprehend it, they end up trying to find the soft edge.
What is missing in the media coverage, by and large, is an in-depth look at any of the lives that were lost. All we get is photos of people crying over mellow music. While we the general public might find a glimmer of hope in a couple being reunited, spare a thought for the hundreds who will never be reunited with their loved ones. They will find no comfort or hope in such stories. Nor will any amount of money from various appeals fill this void. In short, for those staring most starkly into this tragedy, I can see no silver lining to this cloud coming from the mouths of politicians or the stories of media outlets.
Here too the Christian story stands alone. Today I bury a parishioner, and in two days I bury my grandmother. Different from death via a tragedy I know, but still death nonetheless. These occasions will be a mixture of sadness and joy. Sadness at saying goodbye, but joy in knowing that both ladies have a hope in a life beyond their suffering and mortality. A hope that does not compare to the finding of ones pet, or a helicopter flight.
Natural disasters remind us there is a shallowness to much of modern life, a finiteness of the human condition and abilities, and the need for hope in and beyond our uncertain world. I’m relieved I have such a hope in Jesus.
David Rietveld
February 15th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
[...] Rietveld of the Wellspring Anglican church in Tasmania recently posted this article on his blog relating to the recent Victorian bushfires. While I agree with the spirit of the message, there are [...]
February 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Re wellspring of fallacies
An unnamed critique of my ‘blog’ re the Victorian bushfires appears on a website entitled “Godless business: believe us or go to hell”. Thanks for the comments, genuinely. We are all looking for the simple clarity on the other side of this complex issue, and dialogue is part of the way forward.
Let me respond to the critique. My initial comment was that I was a believer in a sovereign benevolent God who was trying to understand the Victorian bushfires from a Christian worldview. The critique says:
If there was an all powerful being looking out for his followers we might expect to see a greater ratio of the faithful making it to safety, verses those who “choose” to reject his undying love. This data is almost certainly unobtainable, but on the surface it appears the fires trapped and killed people indiscriminately.
I agree - the fires killed indiscriminately. In fact I made that very point. What conclusion can one draw from indiscriminate bushfires? I suggest it is that God did cause them so as to incinerate his enemies. People died and or lost property who were adherents to all faiths. I do not understand the suggestion that evidence of less Christian dying would be proof of a ‘god’. Christians need not fear death, and do not see it as the end. Jesus did not resist those who killed him. St Paul says that to die is to gain, and that death has lost its sting. Of course those Christians still alive who lost loved ones in the fires may well be sad, even angry at God at present. Understandably so. But Christians are not expecting vindication or ultimate blessing or justice to be dispensed in its entirety in this life. On the contrary, Jesus says following him involved taking a cross and suffering in his name.
In my initial blog I also suggested that because of the incarnation (that is Jesus becoming human and experiencing and human life with all its failings) that we have a God who can sympathise with us. Further, I said this is a great distinctive of the Christian faith. The response was:
However, to claim that this is a singular Christian trait is highly offensive to anyone of any other faith, or indeed those of no faith at all. Just because I do not believe in a great and all powerful spy camera in the sky does not mean I have no empathy for others - quite the contrary.
I did not claim only Christians are empathetic. On the contrary. In fact I said all people, Christians and believers of other faiths, could love, care and forgive. In the Christian worlds view we believe all of humanity is made in a God’s image. Thus all have some capacity to reflect God’s character. The point I was making is this: that of all the world’s faiths, and that would include atheism, only the Christian faith has a God who becomes man and dwells with us. Therefore the Christian God can understand, can appreciate what we are going through like no other god. I can understand that the comparative nature of this statement may offend some. Personally, in times of great trial, I find the knowledge of God who has experienced my world first hand incredibly comforting.
In the next section the critique asks some really vital questions. Regarding why God burnt Sodom and Gomorrah and its residents and surrounding farmlands. He or she writes:
Why doesn’t God take the high road and guide his precious children back into the light? Why does he need to destroy the city now - what’s the rush for a being who lives outside of space and time? Why was God really keen to rush those people into Hell to begin their ever lasting suffering that day? How do you reconcile this behaviour with the notion of an all loving God?
I guess the underlying question here is what is the high road? Is the high road for God to guide everyone back into the light? And what if they don’t want to walk down that road? Does he force them? And if people are unwilling to respond to God, and they continue to live in ways that will harm others, as did the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah, should God just wait and wait to give them more time? What about others who might be hurt in the mean time? There are huge dilemmas in seeking to address this question within the framework suggested.
Now I don’t have all the answers either. I will only make the following comments. The Christian God is not a rapist. He does not force all people to love and obey him. The Christian God exercises a great deal of self limitation, so as to give us space to respond to him. In fact he even makes himself vulnerable in the form of a babe, and the father allows his son to be crucified. Part of God’s self limitation is that he allows us to mess up his world. He doesn’t rush in and fix everything up. He allows us to experience the consequences of our decisions. Further, the Christian God is portrayed and is to be understood as both loving and just. Not an all loving Santa Claus, nor the judgmental heavenly policeman. Both loving and justice, seen in the person and life of Christ.
Despite suggestions to the contrary, this is a point I make in my article when I say our sense of justice is also a reflection of God’s character. But anyway, the value of conversation is not to defend oneself but to further understanding. This critique takes us, most helpfully to a fundamental question. How does sin or evil or whatever you wish to call it come into our world? Clearly its there, the bushfires remind us of that. If I have understood the tenor of the critique, her/his thinking is that one cannot have a perfect loving God who has ‘created’ (in the broadest sense of the word) a world which is now broken. Even if we can agree it was humanity’s mistake, God still made us – did he not?
We brought this on ourselves due to the choices we made, so God is in the clear. Or his he?
Surely if God made us perfect, then it must have been impossible for us to sin against him (unless this is an attribute of being perfect). Given that (according to the convoluted story) Eve sinned then tricked Adam thus condemning all their descendants for all time, it becomes clear that sin IS an attribute of perfection. This certainly rings true if you read what God got up to in the Old Testament.
Of course I am being flippant - it was our choice (well, Eve’s really) and God has nothing to do with it - right? Answer me this - why can’t your God predict the results of giving us free will?
These are profound questions, and entirely worthy of our consideration. Let’s unpack the issues at stake. God chose to make humanity, according to the Bible, with the ability to be or not to be in relationship with him. Adam and Eve could maintain or to break relationship with God. Whether or not one believes in a literal Adam or Eve does not alter this point. Was it possible for God to make perfectly obedient humans who retain the ability to choose? Logic and biblical narrative suggests not. And if God genuinely gives humanity the ability to chose, it is appropriate for him to make a world where there are no negative consequences for wrong choices? I struggle to see such a world.
What about a God who predicts the consequences of human freedom? As I read the Scriptures God knew what would be the consequences of human freewill. And yet he still made us.
To draw an analogy, and clearly I am not God, my wife and I have chosen to have children. Did we foresee that at times they would anger us, offend us, cost us, and hurt us to the point where on occasion we might think even for a moment it might be better if we had not had them? Yes, we foresaw all that, even if only in shadows. And God can foresee the future in more detail than us. But we still chose to have children. Why? Because we will love them, and we hope they will love us. Of course there are differences with God, but the point remains, God made us to be in relationship with him. He hasn’t given up on us because we reject him. On the contrary, he gives us his son as a resolution to our rejection. That is the extent of his commitment to us.
And God doesn’t force all to believe in his son either. But like all actions, there are consequences for believing and for not believing in his son.
March 5th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Hey Dave
Good to see you enter the blogging world! I like your posts. And good to see the world engaging with you!
You need to get onto Twitter or Facebook next!
I’ve gave you a plug over on my blog!
March 25th, 2009 at 11:08 am
the bushfires are devastating and so far i have lost two cousins but i had two families of cousins there and most have not been found yet…