Posted by binsar on 08 Oct 2007 at 04:06 pm | Tagged as: Article, Christianity
In the last two decades the world has suffered many tragedies and disasters. What I mean with tragedies and disasters are those inescapable and sometimes unexpected events that were caused by nature or human that brings suffering towards human. Indonesia has suffered a lot of them during the past decade. We can name several big events that shocked the world such as tsunami in Aceh and Nias, earthquake in Nias, earthquake in Jogyakarta, place crashed at Manado Ocean, ship sink, and many more. These events have made the nations mourn and spent a lot of energy in recovering.
The overwhelming period of continuous disasters has turned the people into a survival mode. People don’t have time to think about the ‘why’ question and will instantly have the ‘how to’ question. The pain and trauma are so intense that people sometimes didn’t know what had hit them. However these wounds will not be healed because they are distracted and turned to a ’survival’ mode. These questions will rise, sooner or later, when people have time to think about what had happened. I would argue that one of the ways of dealing with trauma is by talking about them instead of trying to bury them in the past. This is exactly why I want to address the ‘why’ question in this context.
Now what do the people think about these events? Where do they come from? Often disasters were seen by either as punishment or a test of faith from God. These two types of views are the general feeling that Indonesian has right now towards all those events. The first and the more general feeling is that God is punishing Indonesia right now. God is making Indonesia suffer because all of their past and current mistakes and sins. Because of this view, many national repentance events were taking place. Mass prayers, national prayers, istigotsah, events that indicate national repentance are happening all over Indonesia. The feeling also belongs to Christian. We have a lot of national prayers and repentance to ‘save’ and ‘ask for God’s mercy’ towards Indonesia. The second general feeling is God is testing the faith of God’s people in Indonesia. Because God is testing Indonesia, then Indonesian must react in the right manner and must not blame God for it.
However, the view that those events were some sort of God’s punishment brings forward a new idea for the people who don’t experience the suffering. If God is punishing some people, it means those who are not punished are not the guilty ones. At first, some Christian students thought that the tsunami in Aceh is a way of God’s punishment towards Aceh people who had been prosecuting Christian minority there. But a year later an earthquake hit Nias, where Christians are the majority. The idea vanished immediately. Some would even see the tsunami and other disasters as opportunities of spreading Christianity in the region. There are issues about child adoption being Christianized, relief team that were bringing mission works, and aides that are labeled with Christian symbols and writings.
For the second point of view, Indonesian people see tsunami as God’s warning towards the never ending conflict between the government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). This is an act of test and a warning from God so that people will realize their mistakes and become humble before God.
These two different types are not new. They were born out of multi-layered religiosity of Indonesian context. I will try briefly to explain why Indonesian people think this way. According to Andreas Yewangoe, a leading Indonesian theologian, there are different types of looking at disaster in Asian religions theology. I will explain a bit on some of the theologies of the recognized religions in Indonesia. In Hinduism, disaster is connected with karma, a principle saying that the world is a continuous on becoming process. Human life is an endless process (samsara) and someone must strive for moksha (the release) from the ongoing process of becoming (reincarnation) and becomes a Brahman. In Buddhism, suffering (dukkha) comes from desire. Desires produce deeds and produce a new cause. As long as human still on his four noble truth path (suffering, desire, deeds, cause).they need to take the way to reach the status of Nirvana. The idea of suffering in these two religions is thinking about disaster as an effect of your cause and doing.
In Islam, suffering is also God’s will as part of God’s creation. Suffering can also be seen as part of the test for the true faith. Based on these presuppositions, Qur’an tries to balance the reality of suffering by displaying a just and compassionate God. However, disasters are often seen as the result of human’s own actions (QS Ar-Rum: 41). Some Indonesian Islamic theologian argue that God would never let God’s people suffer therefore disasters are human own fault. Some would also say that this is the test of faith from God on how do we deal with these things. Briefly, the idea of disaster in Islam contains the two major opinions that I have stated: a form of punishment and a test of faith.
What about the idea of suffering in Christianity? Lately, I have come into an encounter to two bible studies that I have to prepare. They were on Psalm 143 and on Job 1:1-12. What fascinates me is that both texts are talking about suffering. Psalm 143 talks about the prayer of people of Israel who were on exile. The psalmist asked God to hear the prayer and respond to them. The Psalm describes that they need God’s interference in their suffering and they admit that they did something wrong. The respond towards suffering in Psalm 143 was repentance and asking for God’s forgiveness. This means that suffering is a form of God’s punishment.
Now, the story of Job was also a story about suffering. But Job’s suffering was different with the one in the Psalm 143. Job was a good person with a possible naught children, and a man that fears God. Nevertheless he suffered a great deal of physical and mental pain because of the test of faith that God let Satan did to him. Satan claimed that Job was faithful because God provided him with everything, then God allowed Satan to test Job. This shows that suffering can also come as a test of one’s faith. How did Job react? Job started to curse the day he was born and later on, instead of checking and reflecting on his own sin and guilt he questioned God’s justice and demands an explanation on his suffering. This is totally the opposite of the Psalm who admitted their sin and asked for God’s forgiveness. And what fascinates me more is that both occasions never curse God or God’s plan towards them. They both admitted that God is just! (compare to Psalm 73).
In sum, the ideas of disaster as a form of punishment and as a test of one’s faith are in the sphere of religious life. They become a big influence in the lives of Indonesian in looking at disaster.
Now I will bring us back to the question that we will explore in this workshop. Precisely because we need to attend the ‘why’ question, then we should look for what kind of Christology should we have for people who are suffering from disasters? What would Christ be for them in their time of need?
I have read a text from the Gospel of John that I would like to propose as the third answer to the ‘why’ question while at the same time trying to propose the ‘how’ answer to it. This text in John 9 tells a story where Jesus healed a man who is blind from birth. Seeing this man, his disciples with the idea that ‘suffering comes from sin’ ask the question, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (v.2). My interest came out of Jesus’ answer, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming when no one can work” (v. 3-4). Instead of saying who’s sin it was that caused the man blind from birth, or saying that it was a test of the man’s or disciples’ faith, Jesus said that the man was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.
This is a very disturbing answer indeed and I’m sure that there would be debates over the text itself. Why was the man blind in the first place? Or if it is God who made the man blind, then wouldn’t it be too cruel for God to let him suffer by blindness because there was a greater good that is about to be revealed? What is God’s work that was revealed through the blind man? These questions are equally disturbing as the ‘why’ question I explained earlier in this writing.
The fact that we can read from the Gospel of John is that Jesus healed the blind man. Healing through Jesus is probably the revealed work of God in this case. And through the story we can see that Jesus helped the blind man instead of looking for the story of his sin. This gives a sense of an active work to help the poor man instead of blaming, accusing, or even passively waiting for the help to come.
Telling the story of the Jesus who heals also telling the story of Jesus who suffered. Jesus knew and felt what suffering. Jesus is the Son of God and Son of Man who suffered and won. This side of Jesus is very comforting for people who feel pain in their life. They understand that Christ has suffered for them and there’s a good work of God behind their suffering. This would be an easier story to tell than a story about god’s punishment and one’s sin. Christ is the one who understands and suffers, and the one who will come back again for all the people. Suffering does not automatically mean punishment at work, rather it means the work of God is about to be revealed through Jesus.
How do I answer the ‘why’ question through John 9? I am offering the third type of answer which is ‘it happens so that God works might be revealed’ then ‘what should we do?’ My basic assumption is that we should give space for people to address their ‘why’ question to let their trauma and pain be recognized. Giving this type of answer does not mean choosing an easy escape out of the question; rather it helps us to think deeply about our question in a new perspective. It does not reject our ‘why’ question. It comes precisely because of the ‘why’ question and the willingness to spend time dealing with the question.
However we must be careful in putting Christ in our own framework since Christ will never be fully understood nor grasped by us. What I understand in my limited thinking is that the work of Christ is the work of a man, a savior that suffered, and came in a person who suffered to bring healing. He transforms the ‘why’ question without rejecting it, into a new understanding of it. I am offering the ‘how’ question for the ‘why’ question. God’s work for the blind man is about healing through Jesus. This brings us to my conclusion to the ‘why’ question by answering, ‘what would be God’s work for the victim of disasters through us?’ This is my proposal.
Binsar Jonathan Pakpahan
This paper was presented at the International Theological Conference organized by Mollucan Theological Council, The International Reformed Institute (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), The Beijers Naude Centre for Public Theology (Stellenbosch University, South Africa), and the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN), Houten, October 4-5, 2007.
Viewed 8195 times by 2355 viewers
