A Look Back: Reverend Tom Honey on God and the Tsunami

[Occulus]

I'm crossposting this here from my GD post because I thought it might be of special interest to this subforum's members.

This was recorded in early 2005, following the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean. I have recently seen several people ask the question "how could God let this happen?" here following the earthquake in Haiti (some in a snarkily acerbic manner), and I think this man's words are as relevant to that question now as they were when he spoke them.

You can view the video of his talk here, at the TED website. The Technology, Entertainment, and Design conference takes place each year in Monterey, CA, and has hosted speeches from luminaries such as Al Gore, Stephen Hawking, and Jane Goodall. A portion of the transcript from Rev. Honey's 2005 TED talk follows:

I am a vicar in the Church of England. I've been a priest in the Church for 20 years. For most of that time, I've been struggling and grappling with questions about the nature of God. Who is God? And I'm very aware that when you say the word God, many people will turn off immediately. And most people, both within and outside the organized church, still have a picture of a celestial controller, a rulemaker, a policeman in the sky who orders everything, and causes everything to happen. He will protect his own people, and answer the prayers of the faithful.

And in the worship of my church, the most frequently-used adjective about God is "almighty." But I have a problem with that. I have become more and more uncomfortable with this perception of God over the years. Do we really believe that God is the kind of male boss that we've been presenting in our worship and in our liturgies over all these years?

Of course, there have been thinkers who have suggested different ways of looking at God. Exploring the feminine, nurturing side of divinity. Suggesting that God expresses himself or herself through powerlessness, rather than power. Acknowledging that God is unknown and unknowable by definition. Finding deep resonances with other religions and philosophies and ways of looking at life as part of what is a universal and global search for meaning. These ideas are well-known in liberal academic circles, but clergy like myself have been reluctant to air them, for fear of creating tension and division in our church communities; for fear of upsetting the simple faith of more traditional believers. I have chosen not to rock the boat.

Then, on December 26th last year, just two months ago, that underwater earthquake triggered the tsunami. And two weeks later, Sunday morning, ninth January, I found myself standing in front of my congregation -- intelligent, well meaning, mostly thoughtful Christian people -- and I needed to express, on their behalf, our feelings and our questions. I had my own personal responses, but I also have a public role, and something needed to be said. And this is what I said.

Shortly after the tsunami I read a newspaper article written by the Archbishop of Canterbury -- fine title -- about the tragedy in Southern Asia. The essence of what he said was this: the people most affected by the devastation and loss of life do not want intellectual theories about how God let this happen. He wrote, "If some religious genius did come up with an explanation of exactly why all these deaths made sense, would we feel happier, or safer, or more confident in God?"

If the man in the photograph that appeared in the newspapers, holding the hand of his dead child was standing in front of us now, there are no words that we could say to him. A verbal response would not be appropriate. The only appropriate response would be a compassionate silence and some kind of practical help. It isn't a time for explanation, or preaching, or theology; it's a time for tears.

A full transcript is available on the page that opens via the above link. Please take the twenty minutes to watch the whole thing. Even though I'm not religious in the least, I found this man's words deeply thought-provoking back then (and relevant to our own society in many ways), and I think what he says might have meaning for many here today.

[trotsky]

1. It seems like theology over the last several hundred years...

has been all about trying to find a much more complicated and intellectual-appearing way to say "god works in mysterious ways."

[54anickel]

2. Sure seems that way. Should that be considered a bad thing? - Being OK with accepting mystery? n/t

[trotsky]

3. Accepting mystery is one thing.

Science does it all the time. However declaring it the ultimate *answer*, as theology does whenever the questions get tough, actually answers nothing.

[54anickel]

4. I've not understood theology to declare anything as "ultimate". I had a priest use it once in a

while instead of saying "I don't know" when I was a kid in catechism. I remember the George Carlin shtick about being Irish Catholic where a priest would give him the "Well, it's a mystery" line.

Theology is simply the study of religious faiths, practices and traditions. It develops theories of how people experience, understand or relate to god. I suppose that's why there are so many different theologies and why they're constantly evolving. I don't think theology is meant to provide "answers" in the same sense as science. Theology is not the same black and white way of thinking that we've come to know since the enlightenment. Personally, I don't think it can be, nor would I want it to be --- wouldn't that sort of theological thinking lead to the "absolute truth" kind of fundamentalism we're seeing now?

I don't know what you mean by tough questions, I think any question about how people experience, understand or relate to god/gods is tough and can only be answered with theory. Obviously, the more pertinent information used regarding a religious faith (history, practices, traditions, etc) to reflect upon, the more informed a theory will be. But there's always going to be a lot of unknowns in the study of religions and their god(s). Mystery becomes the placeholder.



(edit for mismatched pronoun)

[trotsky]

5. You're leaving off a bit of your theology definition.

theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

We're focusing here on that 2nd half - set off by the word "especially." How can any "study" of something end with the answer "it's a mystery"? Read Rev. Honey's words again. Science accepts mystery, but doesn't accept it as THE answer. There are tons of things that the theologians told us were unknown/unknowable but today we know them. I guess it just upsets me that once again, the god squad is walling off an area and saying "you can't think there." You can't simultaneously try to appeal to reason and squelch it.

BTW, your throwaway comment about "the same black and white way of thinking that we've come to know since the enlightenment" needs some clarification. If anything, it was pre-enlightenment (and current religious) thinking that tended to cast everything into black and white, good vs. evil, etc. It is ridiculous to associate the rebirth of reason as the reason for "black and white" thinking.

[54anickel]

6. By "black and white" thinking, I was referring more to the notion of an absolute truth. As far as

the tons of things that theologians told us were unknown/unknowable but today we know them - praise be to science for uncovering them. I don't feel it's so much saying "you can't think there" as it is you can't think "scientifically" there.

In the areas that science has provided an absolute answer ( or a sound theoory), I find it only reasonable to accept the science and apply it to rethink the theology. I believe most theologians (obviously not all as evidenced by the ID/creationist movement) would agree with that. But believe me, I hear and share with some of your frustration.

[trotsky]

7. Perhaps one of the most unsettling aspects of the "mysterious ways" defense...

is that these same people who want to claim god is unknowable, turn around and tell us there are things we do know after all. We know he loves us. We know he wants women to wear veils. We know he wants us to sprinkle water on our kids' heads. We know he sacrificed his son for our sins. If god is unknowable, how are these things known? Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

[54anickel]

9. True, you'll get no argument from me there. Experiences can be "known" by the

one experiencing, but I consider that a different type of knowledge. One can experience something they might understand as the love of god, or perhaps the abandonment of god. Their "god" can be understood as a "hook" for something outside of the self/ego to help process experiences.

Of course in the context of formal religion, creeds, traditions, rules, absolute truths can and quite often have been used to control society rather than unite it in a compassionate response to a common cause. Those things you list as "known unknowables" (veils, water sprinkling, sacrificed son) are "beliefs" which takes me back to the idea of pre-enlightenment and the change in thinking. Our understanding of the term believe changed, yet we try to apply the new understanding to the old usage. To believe on someone verses in a group of inanimate statements. To believe meant to love, prize, hold dear and commit oneself to, not believe in a set of statements as known truths or facts.

believe
O.E. belyfan "to believe," earlier geleafa (Mercian), gelefa (Northumbrian), gelyfan (W.Saxon) "believe," from P.Gmc. *ga-laubjan "hold dear, love" (cf. O.S. gilobian, Du. geloven, O.H.G. gilouben, Ger. glauben), from PIE base *leubh- "to like, desire" (see love). Spelling beleeve is common till 17c.; then altered perhaps by influence of relieve. To believe on instead of in was more common in 16c. but now is a peculiarity of theology; believe of also sometimes was used in 17c.

I agree, God is unknowable in the way we know facts, but I think "godness" or god's essence can be knowable to an individual through experience. We each can experience that essence in an infinite variety of ways depending on the individual, circumstances and relationships.

Not sure if that makes any sense to you or not. Obviously, it's hard to articulate the unknowable. :freak: :hi:

[trotsky]

11. So you escape by making your god more meaningless?

You're placing your god outside the realm of relevance. Your god becomes just a nebulous concept with no component in reality, no way for it to have any effect upon the lives of humans whatsoever. Because if it could, then it would be detectable and ultimately knowable. Instead, you make your god essentially a special imaginary friend. (Which I'm absolutely in agreement with.)

But you're upset with my hijacking of a theological thread into the defense of theology anyway.

[54anickel]

12. Hmm, never thought of it that way. I guess I'd have to ask, meaningless to whom?

I don't think I'm making my god a special imaginary friend, I don't personify god. I suppose you might call that an imaginary essence. I experience it as a sense of connection, an essence, a sense of being that contains everything and is in everything.

Imaginary? I suppose it is, but the experience is very real to me, a part of me that I cannot deny anymore than I can deny my own existence.

I think you misunderstood my reply about hijacking this thread to be a reflection upon you. Trust me, it wasn't meant to be about you or your posts. It was about me and my continued participation in this subthread trying to defend MY understanding of theological thought. I feel it distracted from the OPs original intent AND I get upset with myself when I move from sharing my thoughts to defending them. They are, afterall, just that - my thoughts and experiences that have no "real" defense.

[Jim__]

8. You're right. It's worth listening to.

I'm not a believer. However, things like the Haitian tragedy should make us all reflect. How should I live? That's a question everyone should ask. We are all somewhat aware of the transience of life; but things like this serve as a reminder of the potential imminence of death. Should that affect the way I'm living?

[54anickel]

10. Thank you for redirecting this thread back to the original focus on the Haitian tragedy. I've been

guilty of hijacking it away from that focus and into a defense of theological study.

Thanks for the call to reflection.

[rd_kent]

13. .