The other day I was having a brief conversation with a young man who is typical of the eccentric "fundy" zealot. I try very hard to be friendly and encouraging with this guy so as to help him move along in his christian maturity. Sometimes this is very, very difficult. Our conversation stayed primarily at the level of cordial exchanges as is common to small talk. He proceeded to ask of my "studying". As a former zealot of the sort I knew exactly his intent. He wanted two things: first, to make sure that I was "in the word", and two, to share what he was studying and what "new" things he was "taught" in his bible reading. So I obliged as is tactful of christian brotherhood and told him of my studying in Matthew. At which point he stopped me and shared what God had "laid" on his heart. Somehow I get the feeling he just wanted to talk, but that is neither here nor there. God had burdened him with the people of Rochester. This is very well and good, maybe I could learn a few things from his evangelistic mindset. It is true the gospel needs to be confessed, even if, as Paul says, it is done in antagonistic ways (Philippians, I believe?). He proceeded to make a theologically powerful statement. It began with his description of the crime rate in Rochester and how it is higher (I don't know how true this is) than the city of New Orleans. He made hasty conclusion that God "sent" hurricane Katrina to New Orleans because of their crime and sinfulness. God was, in his mind, the primary agent in leveling New Orleans a few years ago. This thinking is common especially with people who make generalizing theological conclusions based upon narrative passages in Scripture (Sodom and Gomorrah, for example). Whether or not this is legitimate theological practice is debated. Any way, making the connection between Rochester and New Orleans' crime rates he continued... and you can see where he went with this. Rochester is soon going to experience "judgment" at levels proportionate to the level of hurricane katrina. At this point I became somewhat disturbed, but contained myself. I didn't respond to his statement. I nodded and allowed the conversation to close. This was very difficult given my nature to confrontation (according to my mother).
I got to thinking how I would approach this type of thinking in the future. How would you help a person who is for all practical purposes convinced that NATURAL disasters are products of divine agency and tied primarily to judgment? No doubt, God could use judgment like this. However, does the fact that hurricanes constantly bombard the coastal regions of the Gulf not mean anything to him? After all, studying hurricane in the US will demonstrate that hurricanes typically land on the gulf coast. What about L.A.? Surely L.A. is just as wicked given it size, but we rarely hear of hurricanes. Oh, right, never mind, I forgot. They get earthquakes! Wait, but they built on a fault line! Still, that wouldn't matter much I suppose. Simply because tornadoes only occur in the Midwestern, USA and no where else means that whenever a tornado touches down it means judgment? What about the hurricanes that do not make landfall? Are they judgment directed toward the birds who sit on top of the water? What about Haiti? Does the fact that it is one of the poorest countries in the world mean that God is judging them in their daily struggle for simple survival. They exist on a fault line. But no, it's judgment.
What about little disasters? Like the hitting your head on a light fixture? Is this to be interpreted as divine judgment? What about a flu? Is this divine agency or simply a virus? Any way, the point he was trying to make was Rochester needs a wake up call. Surely this is true, but does this mean the we are headed for serious disaster of Katrina-like proportions? I guess Lake Ontario could flood and drown the city.
The lens through which fundamentalists read the bible and thus matters of everyday life is a matter of needed study and refutation. But, I am afraid the belief that "I am just reading the bible for what it says" is to powerful of a modus operandi, to real as a meta-narrative to allow for critical thinking.
I got to thinking how I would approach this type of thinking in the future. How would you help a person who is for all practical purposes convinced that NATURAL disasters are products of divine agency and tied primarily to judgment? No doubt, God could use judgment like this. However, does the fact that hurricanes constantly bombard the coastal regions of the Gulf not mean anything to him? After all, studying hurricane in the US will demonstrate that hurricanes typically land on the gulf coast. What about L.A.? Surely L.A. is just as wicked given it size, but we rarely hear of hurricanes. Oh, right, never mind, I forgot. They get earthquakes! Wait, but they built on a fault line! Still, that wouldn't matter much I suppose. Simply because tornadoes only occur in the Midwestern, USA and no where else means that whenever a tornado touches down it means judgment? What about the hurricanes that do not make landfall? Are they judgment directed toward the birds who sit on top of the water? What about Haiti? Does the fact that it is one of the poorest countries in the world mean that God is judging them in their daily struggle for simple survival. They exist on a fault line. But no, it's judgment.
What about little disasters? Like the hitting your head on a light fixture? Is this to be interpreted as divine judgment? What about a flu? Is this divine agency or simply a virus? Any way, the point he was trying to make was Rochester needs a wake up call. Surely this is true, but does this mean the we are headed for serious disaster of Katrina-like proportions? I guess Lake Ontario could flood and drown the city.
The lens through which fundamentalists read the bible and thus matters of everyday life is a matter of needed study and refutation. But, I am afraid the belief that "I am just reading the bible for what it says" is to powerful of a modus operandi, to real as a meta-narrative to allow for critical thinking.