Reflecting on Tragedy

I recently returned from a brief trip to Knoxville.  At this moment, Knoxville is a city shaken by tragedy.  Last Sunday (July 27), a man wielding a shotgun entered Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church and began shooting, leaving two dead and seven injured.  As I sat in the church I grew up in yesterday, a church less than two miles away from the shooters home, the fear in the audience was almost tangible.  With ever creak of the backdoor, the audience turned fearing what may lie on the other side of those doors. A moment of silent prayer by the congregation followed by an eloquent prayer by our pastor began the service.  Calls for peace were almost as boisterous as the question of “why” such a tragedy happened.

As I sat in the service I couldn’t help but notice the tendency we have as people to dwell on the question why.  If you doubt how pervasive the question of evil’s existence is, I dare you to travel to any local Christian bookstore and find five books that don’t deal with it.  Look first in the trash, because no one is reading them.  As I reflect on my own experience of asking the question “why” I can’t help but notice how often I have changed my answer to my why questions.  Questions that I have asked such as why I was born in Knoxville, why was I gifted in the way that I was and not in another way, etc. have all had a pleathora of answers.  No answer to these questions has been complete and a dare say close to correct (if a correct answer even exists?). With every season, a new spin is placed on any of the numerous times I have asked “why”.  This has lead to my suspicion that “why” is impossible to answer in the moment.

I also note in my experience that the “why” question gives rise to rogue individualism.  As I ponder “why” tragedies like the one last Sunday happen, I see that the solution to such a question is thought on the other end of isolation and silence.  Certainly “why” questions don’t give rise to response.
In light of such a tragic moment, I believe a better question that we, as the people of God can ask is how.  Instead of “why” did it happen, “how” are we to respond to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.  Or “how” are we to be changed by such an event so that the deaths of the innocent aren’t in vain.  Our believe in the one God forces us to conclude that God is in some way involved in the events that took place.  Because of this, we have much we can learn and change as people because of it.  I admit that I don’t know what that “how” looks like right now, but I know it will be a lot more active than if we dwelled on “why.”

Monday – August 27, 2007 – 10:33 A.M.

Ecc. 3:1-10
“1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: 2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted; 3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; 4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; 5 a time to throw away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; 6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to throw away; 7 a time to tear, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; 8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace. 9 What gain have the workers from their toil? 10 I have seen the business that God has given to everyone to be busy with.”

For there to be a time when an action is deemed appropriate and another moment which translates it’s converse as equally appropriate renders absolutes absolutely imaginary. Thus, ethical behavior, under the sun, is purely subjective and situational.

Many have manipulated these words as propaganda for their own agendas. Many have invalidated the wisdom of Qohelet through the ambitious ego. Indians to Iraqis have suffered at the hands of the misunderstanding of such words. These words seem rather unbiblical. Consider the tension of Qohelet’s concession for hate and that arrived at by the author of 1st John, “All who hate a brother or sister are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life abiding in them (1 Jn. 315).” More so, how do the words of Qohelet find interpretation through lens of Jesus’ word and practice? I suppose that these words, as must difficult texts suffer, could undergo a transformation to the realm of the spiritual. One could say that it is “sin” that is to be hated. This soft-sale renders Qohelet’s argument incoherent. If the “negative” is regarded as “spiritual”, wouldn’t the “positive” necessarily be also. Thus, if we are to hate sin are we to love…. insert your favorite Christian cliché. More so, wisdom is necessarily practical. Thus, Qohlet’s words are to be understood practically. The contradiction cannot be skated around so thoughtlessly; it must be dealt with.

A wise man once told me that contradiction in the Bible is not a place for frustration but for joy. In the face of contradiction stands the opportunity to learn – learn not purely in the academic realm. It is naïve to assume that any author as well versed in the revelation of God, as any of the biblical authors, are unaware of contradiction. John is not composing his wisdom unaware of that of Qohelet, but in light of it. Thus, contradiction is their highlighter.

The first glaring revelation of the percope appears in the opening verse. Qohelet’s observation concerns itself with humanity. It’s scope or intention is not to elaborate on the revelation of God. His observation deals with the prevalent practice “under the sun.” However, this is not ultimately Jesus’ concern. His concern is to elaborate a new form of ethic – those in a humanity who have experienced a new birth.

Qohelet’s wisdom warns against sweeping generalization. Under the sun there is no exclusively right answer. However, with a change of origin comes a change in ethic. In light of the revelation of God, there exists one absolute – his person. Thus, for those under the banner of this revelation, ethic is always objective – finding it’s quality in it’s relation to obedience. What is gray under the sun becomes black and white. The endless possibilities and the complexity of judging on a contextual basis is filtered to one – either obedience or disobedience.

But under the sun, all are subject to the moment. Although partaking in the new birth, humanity under the revelation of God also partakes in the common one. Although subject to the voice of God, righteous ethic requires a sensitivity to the voice of God within the moment. One moment could find you welcoming the crowd in obedience…the next sending them away in obedience. Thus, righteous ethic, even for the Christian, requires an acute sensitivity to the moment. It is impossible to respond to the moment without experiencing it. To live in the future, or in the past, renders righteous ethic impossible.