In the wake of the Orlando massacre, we had evangelical leaders talk about how Christians were "grieving" or the nation was "mourning" this crime. Even "weeping". Now, this is well-meaning. It's an attempt to show that Christians care about the lost–including homosexuals. And it's a way of distancing ourselves from Westboro types.
That said, the anonymous way that words like "grief" and "mourning" are thrown around cheapens the principle. I'm not confining my remarks to this particular incident.
If we're honest, I think the only people whose death we really grieve over are people we're very close to. Not mere acquaintances. Not strangers.
There's rhetorical inflation at work. To prove how caring we are, we overextend the notion of grief and mourning. But we need to reserve those words for something more personal, more intimate, than 50 strangers dying at once.
Why does the Orlando massacre get framed in terms of grief and mourning, but a plane crash killing hundreds does not?
In addition, it's only natural to feel worse about some deaths than others–even when it's strangers. I'm more saddened by the death of one 2-year-old (Lane Graves), killed by an alligator, than the Orlando shooting. I'm more saddened by the Columbine massacre than the Orlando shooting.
The world is full of tragedies. Full of atrocities. But every tragedy isn't my tragedy. I'm not heartbroken about every tragedy or atrocity. There's a difference between empathy or compassion and grief. It's one thing to be compassionate about the suffering of others, but it's something else to act as if their loss is your loss. That's just make-believe.
This is a very insensitive and arrogant sounding post. There was no reason to post your personal opinion under such raw conditions. So you personally don't mourn or grieve for the people murdered in Orlando. So? God watch a movie and eat popcorn and soda to keep you're flaccid mind busy. So you have more sadness over one person who died than another. So, what? You think the way you think and feel is the way all others think and feel?
ReplyDeleteWhat gives you the right to judge the feelings and motives of others? Oh, yes, it's a free country. I forgot.
Yes, you may just be expressing what you think is truth but, personally, you're being judgmental and highly un-Christian displaying such hardness towards the tragedy of others. As far as every tragedy not being your tragedy, the famous pastor and poet, John Donne, would tell you:
"No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee."
Note, "any man's death diminishes me," Donne continues, "because I am involved in mankind."
Your blog note here was inappropriate and insensitive as well as giving a sense of being judgmental and self-righteous. It is not at all reflective of the Christ who grieved for all having died for all.
i) Your screed is hypocritical. About a quarter million people die every day. Do you personally grieve for each one? Hardly. Do you grieve equally for everyone who dies? Hardly.
DeleteThere are lots of people murdered in Orlando over the course of year. Not to mention other cities. Do you even pay attention?
It's just cheap, self-flattering sentiment to pretend that you go into mourning whenever you hear about someone's death.
You practicing virtue signaling. Making an ostentatious public display to show off how good you are compared to the people you attack. It's funny how oblivious you are to your own holier-than-thou attitude.
ii) The liberal establishment is very selective about what tragedies it highlights. It has exploited this massacre to promote the LBGT agenda and demote the rights of Christians and gun-owners. The outrage is cynical and calculated.
iii) There are evangelical leaders who admonish Christians that it's our duty to grieve in situations like this. They are telling us how we ought to think and feel. I didn't initiate that.
iv) There's nothing "judgmental" or "self-righteous" about pointing out that some deaths naturally affect us more deeply than others. For you to act otherwise is just an exercise in sanctimonious make-believe. It's not what you really feel. It's not how you behave on a daily basis. You don't really believe what you're saying. It's just unctuous playacting on your part.
v) And, no, it's not true that "any man's death diminishes me." Consider the death of Haman in the Book of Esther.
I replied earlier but don't see it and I do see replies made hours afterwards have been entered so, in case I did something wrong, I'd like to re-post a reply.
Deletei) The point of my comment was essentially twofold in that I feel it is inappropriate to castigate people for referencing "grief" for the emotions they are feeling or to even question whether it's genuine or not while the wounds are still raw. Job's friends should have sat down silently with him a little longer (Job 2:13).
ii) As I read the blog, it seemed to me the subject of his castigation were primarily Christians and not the liberal establishment, and castigating them for hypocrisy where he says that, while talk of grieving may be well-meaning, "Now, this is well-meaning. It's an attempt to show that Christians care about the lost–including homosexuals. And it's a way of distancing ourselves from Westboro types."
(Note, that the last sentence re: Westboro contradicts any impression that the writer of the article thought it was "well-meaning, since he assumes an ulterior motive in their expression of feelings).
I should also remind you that, whether one thinks their "grief" is with ulterior motives or genuine, the point is that there are some in the Christian community (much, perhaps, to the your and the blogger's surprise) who are putting feet, so to speak, to their expressions of sorrow, which amounts to much more than teary eyes. So, as I see it, on two counts is this castigation inappropriate: one, because the wound is still raw, and two, because such a *general* remark against the Christina community can only be interpreted as judgmental.
iii) Apparently, you'll need to charge the Bible with the same kind of manipulation (Romans 12:15). It's not the fault of other's that you may feel unable to be genuine in grief, but others can.
iv) Maybe not. But there is the appropriate time and now, as I've already stated and in my opinion, is not the time. In any case, whether or not everyone in the Christian community is "sanctimonious" or not, where do you or the blog-writer get to judge the whole of the Christian community?
Jesus knew what was in all men. Are you making the same claim?
v) Maybe another's death does not diminish you in some way, if that's the way you feel. From my perspective, maybe we need to learn the freedom expressing grief for the enemy whom we had to kill in wartime.
Any man's death is tragic in the sense that we are all made in God's image, both enemy and victim's.
That we may not have learned that yet might answer why, if it is true, our - and your - "grieving" is sanctimonious.
One final remark: It is interesting that I felt the need to answer Anderson Cooper of CNN on a point similar to here, about the inappropriateness of criticizing when a tragic event is still raw. See: https://www.facebook.com/nelson.banuchi/posts/1256259027727001
"I feel it is inappropriate to castigate people for referencing 'grief' for the emotions they are feeling or to even question whether it's genuine or not while the wounds are still raw. Job's friends should have sat down silently with him a little longer (Job 2:13)."
DeleteI didn't "castigate" anyone who is actually grieving. Rather, I criticized evangelical leaders who presumptuously suppose the nation is grieving over this event or else that Christians ought to be grieving over this event.
My post had nothing to do with people who are actually bereaved, but with the evangelical leaders who presume to speak on behalf of others: they just assume they know how people must be reacting to the incident or should be reacting to the incident.
"and castigating them for hypocrisy…"
That's your inkblot inference. That's not an implication of what I said.
"Westboro contradicts any impression that the writer of the article thought it was 'well-meaning,' since he assumes an ulterior motive in their expression of feelings)."
That's you filtering what I wrote through your own value system. Don't impute your assumptions to me.
"I should also remind you that, whether one thinks their 'grief' is with ulterior motives or genuine, the point is that there are some in the Christian community (much, perhaps, to the your and the blogger's surprise) who are putting feet, so to speak, to their expressions of sorrow, which amounts to much more than teary eyes. So, as I see it, on two counts is this castigation inappropriate…"
You have a bad habit of recasting what I write, what you would mean if you wrote it–then attacking me for what is just your own projection.
You change the subject to people who are "putting feet…to their expressions of sorrow" (whatever that means).
Perhaps you're alluding to Christians who donated blood. If so, there's absolutely nothing in my post that criticized their action in that regard.
"because such a *general* remark against the Christian community can only be interpreted as judgmental."
I didn't make any general remark about the Christian community. Rather, I commented on evangelical leaders who take for granted that Christians or Americans generally are either in a state of mourning or ought to be mourning this event.
Cont. "Apparently, you'll need to charge the Bible with the same kind of manipulation (Romans 12:15)."
DeleteThis is another example of your nasty mindset. You act as if I agree with your interpretation of Rom 12:15, but defiantly reject Paul's exhortation.
i) To begin with, major commentators (e.g. Fitzmyer, Moo, Schreiner) think that refers, not to believers grieving with unbelievers, but believers grieving with fellow believers. The discussion shifts back to the community of faith, where it began.
ii) And even if it refers to relations between believers and unbelievers, you fail to draw an elementary distinction between compassion and grief.
iii) Moreover, even if it referred to grieving with unbelievers, that hardly refers to grieving over everyone who ever died. Rather, Paul's audience included pagan converts to Christianity. Most of their relatives or acquaintances were still pagan. Christian converts should be sharing in the joys and sorrows of those they know.
" It's not the fault of other's that you may feel unable to be genuine in grief, but others can."
You are deep into self-deception if you imagine that you are grieving for everyone who dies. As I said before, about 250,000 people die every day. You're hardly overcome by grief for their demise. You'd never have a chance to recover, since another 250,000 die, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year.
Once again, if you were honest with yourself, you'd distinguish between empathy and grief. It's not as if every death leaves you grief-stricken. Not even close.
"In any case, whether or not everyone in the Christian community is 'sanctimonious' or not, where do you or the blog-writer get to judge the whole of the Christian community?"
I wasn't talking about sanctimony in the Christian community, but you in particular. Your comments.
And I never judged "the whole Christian community". That evinces your inability to read.
"maybe we need to learn the freedom expressing grief for the enemy whom we had to kill in wartime."
i) My post wasn't about "the enemy". I never characterized the victims of the Orlando massacre as "the enemy".
ii) And there's no trace of grieve over Haman's demise in Esther.
What you've done is to put your moral narcissism on public display. Pretending to feel something you don't feel and can't feel, to impress others with your superior piety. It's all talk. Just saying that's what you think doesn't make it so.
I recently heard a pastor say that we, as Christians, should be willing to take a bullet for a gay or muslim. Assuming that we have no other overriding obligations (family to take care of, etc.), should we be willing to die for total strangers, even unrepentant sinners?
ReplyDeleteThe New Testament ethic is that, as brothers and sisters in Christ, we demonstrate ultimate love by laying down our lives for our friends, i.e., our fellow Christians. While we may certainly render service under obligation or otherwise to unbelievers, our principal relational duties are to God first and to the household of God after that.
DeleteKen already gave an excellent response to Unknown's query.
DeleteThere is no general answer to that question. It's too broad. The appropriate course of action depends on the specifics of the situation.
Let's vary the illustration a bit. Suppose I'm a high school student. There's another classmate I know is homosexual.
Suppose we both happen to be at a public beach. He goes swimming. He begins to drown. Should I jump in to save him? Sure.
Suppose, instead, a reputed pimp of a child prostitution ring begins to drown. Should I jump in to save him? You've got to be kidding!
I'd let him drown. That would save his victims.
<>
DeleteWhy? What would motivate you to save him? Suppose you knew there was a high likelihood that you would die saving him (e.g., taking a bullet). It's not as if being a practicing homosexual is a victimless sin. It sounds crass, but wouldn't it be better for (or more loving of) society in general for you to be alive rather than him?
"Why? What would motivate you to save him?"
DeleteChristian mercy. Perhaps the hope that my intervention would be a powerful Christian witness to him. Friendship evangelism on steroids.
"Suppose you knew there was a high likelihood that you would die saving him (e.g., taking a bullet)."
Harder to say what I would do or should do in that situation. For one thing, if I'm at high risk of dying in the process, isn't this probably a futile effort to save his life? We'd both die.
"It's not as if being a practicing homosexual is a victimless sin."
That applies to many sins. It's a matter of degree.
Take homosexual activity between consenting adults. Who's the victim?
"It sounds crass, but wouldn't it be better for (or more loving of) society in general for you to be alive rather than him?"
Depends, in part, on the influence it might have on him.
Steve, re: your illustration of the homosexual and pimp drowning, are you serious?
DeleteThat is an illustration so obviously inimical to the Biblical record as it reveals God in Christ and the message of the Cross (Jn 3:16; Rom 5:6-10). It also reveals your mindset as one who easily takes his place on the judgment seat of Christ.
Dang! I can only assume that is the Calvinist mind at work...sad :(
I guess that's the Calvinist mind at work.
So now you admit that you were using my post as a pretext to attack Calvinism, having previously feigned indignation at the (alleged) inappropriateness of the timing. Thanks for unwittingly demonstrating your hypocrisy.
DeleteIn the hypothetical, I didn't create the situation in which a pimp is drowning. The question is whether I have an obligation to intervene.
If I save his life, he will likely resume his business as a child sex trafficker. Given the choice between harm done to the pimp and harm done to child prostitutes, I opt for protecting kids from sex trafficking.
You, by contrast, deem it more important to rescue the pimp than rescue his victims. If Arminian theology has a problem with my priorities, so much the worse for Arminian theology.
Let's see, you say my illustration about the homosexual and the pimp drowning is "obviously inimical to the Biblical record".
DeleteIn my illustration, I said I'd save my gay classmate from drowning. So you think I should led him die? I guess that's the Arminian mind at work…sad :-(
Steve, this is what I see as the Scriptural view of how a saint should respond to the drowning pimp. Save him, sacrificing one's life if needed, show him Christ's love, give him the gospel, and offer him to respond to it. Also, prosecute him to the full extent of the human law so he never tastes freedom again on earth. If he is truly saved, he will accept his lifelong incarceration with repentance and maybe lead a prison revival. Then, there is a lifetime of work remaining to minister to the victims of the pimp. As long as someone is alive, there is always hope.
DeleteUnless, the original thought is based on an understanding of reprobation, and a subconscious supposition that reprobate people sin more, and therefore the pimp is reprobate and without hope for salvation. Is this accurate?
My hypothetical isn't based on the presupposition that the child sex trafficker is reprobate. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't.
DeleteRather, it's a question of prioritizing the prevention of actual or potential harms. On the one hand, there's the possibility that he will repent if I rescue him.
On the other hand, he is actually harming children. Gravely harming innocent kids. And there's no likelihood that he will repent. That's possible, but unpredictable. I cannot act with that expectation.
Given a choice, the danger to him takes back seat to the danger to his actual and prospective victims.
Unknown,
DeleteLet's flesh out your hypothetical. Take two cases:
i) Suppose I have a homosexual (or Muslim) coworker. We and some other employees are having lunch in the courtyard when a sniper in the clock tower strikes.
I and most of the other employees make it back into the building. But when I look back, I see that my homosexual coworker is pinned down. He's in mortal danger. Or maybe he's wounded.
Should I make a run for it? Should I try to rescue him, thereby exposing myself to the sniper? Act as a decoy so that he can make a run for it, or pull him to safety in case he's injured?
That would certainly be an admirable thing to do. Whether I have an absolute duty to do so is a harder to say. It might be supererogatory (above and beyond the call of duty).
ii) Suppose I'm on a sinking ship. Too many passengers for too few lifeboats. I'm right by a lifeboat before it fills up. I have a chance to grab a seat for myself.
But should I defer to other passengers? In that case, my duty is more clear-cut. I ought to forfeit my opportunity to save myself for their sake.
Nelson,
DeleteYou have many opportunities to put your professed altruism into practice. Consider the victims of ISIS and Boko Haram. Why don't you fly to Africa or the Middle East and offer yourself as a substitute? Offer your own life in their place? What are your waiting for?
Steve, are you the one who posted that blog? I hadn't realized it before.
DeleteI'll just say two things and end my part of this conversation:
1. No pretext. Just an observation noting the the conclusion to Calvinist teachings.
2. You illustration re: who you save (although hypothetical) just shows you're not that far from Westboro; it just may be you would save neither. You already revealed the nature of what you see as self-sacrifice.
'nuf said.
i) Let's see: you began by attacking me for supposed insensitivity given the timing of my post in relation to the "raw conditions".
DeleteHowever, you've tipped your hand. You were spoiling for an opportunity to bash Calvinism, and you exploited the Orlando massacre to do so. Nice to see your duplicity on full display.
ii) My post had nothing to do with Calvinism. That's just your agenda.
iii) Actually, I explicitly said that I'd save the drowning homosexual classmate.
What's revealing is how you consistently misrepresent my stated position, so that you can indulge in self-congratulatory moral posturing. This is all about you using Calvinism as a foil to flaunt your imagined sense of spiritual superiority.
iv) As I noted before, there are many hotspots around the world which provide you with ample opportunities to sacrifice your life to spare others. If you actually believed what you said, you'd be dead by now.
Instead, you're a vainglorious moral peacock who *talks* about self-sacrifice–as a safe substitute for putting your cost-free rhetoric into practice. You haven't begun to pay a price for your purely theoretical altruism.
Sorry for those 2 deletes. In any case...and although this particular issue was not the subject of this blog...
ReplyDeleteTo UNKNOWN: If you consider that Jesus' death was for sinners, his enemies...therein, as a follower of Christ, you might find the answer.
To KEN ABBOTT: I don't think anyone is denying that we have, in general, principle duties, and Unknown already took that into consideration with his question (note how he qualified it).
As such, you are not suggesting that we are under no obligation, if necessary and if perceived as the leading of the Spirit, to give up our lives for those who are not saved...are you?
Nelson: Those are quite a few qualifiers. I don't believe that Scripture places an obligation upon anyone to sacrifice his life automatically. Such may come as a consequence of our higher obedience to God, such as suffering persecution even unto death. We may be called upon to sacrifice self in defense of others, the idea being that Christians do not hold this life so dearly that we cannot lay it down for the good of another. But neither do we think life is so cheap as to be thrown away. How one may be called to respond in a given situation is governed by a conscience informed by Scripture, prayer, and the wisdom of fellow believers.
ReplyDeleteMy intent in the first response was to establish the principle that Scripture teaches we have a stronger obligation to the household of God than we do to humanity in general. Many read the Bible loosely and apply its guidance without discernment in keeping with the erroneous doctrine of the universal brotherhood of man. All men are God's creatures and of high value and dignity paramountly because they have the image of God. But only the people of God are his children; the covenant community and its covenantal obligations extend only to those who are in Christ.
ABBOTT: I think we generally agree on the issue of Christians sacrificing their lives. Not much else to say on that end, except that it is not the point of both the blog and my first comment with your initial comment to me and my reply to you.
DeleteThe main point I sought to make was the inappropriateness in timing to what was stated on the blog and the wrong attitude in which it seems to have been conveyed. It's unfortunate, but understandable it being Father's Day, that the blogger has not yet responded.