Existential growth
I used to wonder why people would thank God for protecting them in some kind of accident when he didn't protect them as much as he could have. For example, why should I thank God for protecting me in the accident I just had whenever he could have got my car back under control. Or, why thank God for healing me when he just could have kept me from getting sick in the first place? Here's why: Life is a lot better being the person thankful for what they have than being the person who wants more. I'd rather be the person who thanks God for protecting me than the one who wants God to have prevented it all in the first place.
posted by Aaron Perry at
11:27 AM
10 Comments:
So the daughter who saw her father shot by a "defence contractor" (why can't CNN just say "mercenaries"?) in Iraq because he protested her molestation should say, "Thank you God that he didn't shoot my mother, too."
Hmmm. Not sure I'm in with you on this one.
Crusty
I haven't read the story. Do you have a link?
I don't think the example you mention is completely parallel. Perhaps the situation would be more parallel if the father did not die. In that case if she is genuinely thankful that her father was not dead, then I think my thought still works: That kind of character would be remarkable; that kind of activity would be, I think, part of 'the good life.' There would be more grace in her life if she saw providence in the life of her father rather than in the evil of his shooter.
While outrage and wrath are completely understandable and healthy reactions to such an injustice, living with those feelings will ruin the life of the one who holds them. If ingratitude is the root of the first sin (as Barth suggested), then being ungrateful continues the effects.
4 posts in 3 days. are you turning over a new leaf?
hmm. i guess my question is, how do you reconcile your personal thankfulness response with your non-deterministic view of a God who created free-willed beings and as One who does not micromanage events? how can you be thankful for providence if you don't think providence is that specific? i'm asking out of curiousity. (similarly, i have found myself being thankful for being spared, yet i rarely if ever EXPECT God to have prevented it...i don't expect, and have never really expected God to keep me safe). I am not a determinist. And I don't think you are either, if I recall correctly. So, why is the natural response to give him credit for doing so? I'm genuinely curious. Perhaps the answer lies in the degree to which the thankful person views God the Father as impersonal or personal; as caring or as emotionally distant.
There was a link on Drudge to a JAG magazine article about recent attempts to bring contractors under soldiers' justice. Until now, the contractors have been immune from punishment for crimes like the one I mentioned above. The link's not there this am. Sorry.
Crusty.
And Jo asked a very good question even if we come at the question from very different places. Minimalistic accounts of sovereignty end up highlighting the "caringness of God" and the result, sadly, is a "misery loves company" metaphysic in which God is the most miserable beyond which nothing can be conceived. (This is a common critique of Moltmann et al).
let me make sure i'm hearing the question properly. can i ask the question like this? "how am i thankful for God's personal protection while not believing God micromanages the universe?" that God does not act in specific ways in all instances does not mean that he does not act in specific ways at times. there is nothing deterministic in this notion. neither does this deteriorate into a simple general 'caring,' either. God, of course, does care and, i believe, does suffer in the humanity of Jesus. the necessary move, of course, is to know when God has acted (protecting me) and when God has not (letting the car slide out of control). or to know when God has acted in a specific way and when he has not.
terry tiessen's suggestion is that God determines everything based on his knowledge of counterfactuals. perhaps God knows (as Tiessen's God is likely temporal) that my car out of control does not result in my death or injury. that God protects by his decision to determine that event (and not another). (i still don't quite understand why a determining God would need such a resource of counterfactual knowledge.)
greg boyd's move is to say that God was prevented from protecting me by another force--perhaps a demon or the devil.
i don't think i need to explain anything prior to God's act (a universe with rogue beings, ala boyd; a universe determined to have this event via counterfactual knowledge, ala tiessen) to ground a belief in God's protective action. this seems to me just to be the witness of the biblical story: God acts in good ways from time to time. so, for me the better question is: why should I not expect him to have acted this way now?
aaron, i guess that explains the logical inconsistency, and it makes sense. i was more asking about the process---the immediate psychological tendancy. why do some of us naturally expect God to have been involved and to care about details that matter to our well-being, and others of us do not? (i was trying to understand the process, i wasn't demanding an logical defense). for me the epistemic certainty of a truth about God is not verfied only through logic but also through the idea of 'does it work' when humans relate to God with this truth in this way? does this view of God help to make an emotionally and spiritually wholesome human being? does this truth foster a non-distorted healthy experiential relationship with God grounded in the reality of our existence? the above method is why i don't get far in theological debate: for me, logic is necessary, but psychology and truth 'working in trans-human experience' is vital.
so i was curious about your experience and your ability to believe a philosophy, not so much curious about you defending the philosophy or belief in a logical paradigm.
in short, my question was a psychological and existential one.
Good word!
When we got in an accident in 2002, I thought "I should have prayed that God protected the car instead of only praying for our protection!" When I say that now, I know that it was pretty selfish. However, it was also a new car and we were in a hurry because Adam's mom was dying. The accident only slowed us down from seeing her.
But great insight. I have definitely had those thoughts.
hey jo. sorry, i misunderstood your question. re: why do some of us interpret God's acting one way and not another, i have no idea. well, i guess i have an idea--better/worse social relationships; b/w ecclesial relationships; b/w family relationships; b/w theology. lots of things.
when you ask: "does this view of God help to make an emotionally and spiritually wholesome human being?", my answer is yes. karl barth saw the root of sin in the garden as ingratitude--wanting other things, not being grateful for what God had given. even if i don't completely agree, ingratitude is an (sometimes understandable) effect of sin. even if people have lots of need, being grateful for what they do have is a better life, seems to me.
when you ask, "does this truth foster a non-distorted healthy experiential relationship with God grounded in the reality of our existence?" i object to the question. i think the belief that being grateful is better than being ungrateful does foster a non-distorted experience of God. but i don't know why i would have to ground that belief in the "reality of existence." what room would there be for "conversion" if everything had to be grounded in existence? too often our existences mislead us. that is not to say that existence cannot change--that's exactly the hope of conversion. but if i present a gospel--a good news--then to the despaired this view of reality certainly *won't* be grounded in their existence, though i still think the gospel a *reality*.
what do you think?
i think i need to think some more, that's what i think...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home