Hurricane theology

Christian Century, Nov 1, 2005 by Katherine Preston, Randy Jones

THANK GOD a religious magazine takes note of prophetic concerns (largely ignored, for some reason, by the general media) after a hurricane whose effects were themselves prophesied by plenty of engineers, environmentalists, sociologists and even some politicians ("Choice words," Oct. 4).

Our hubris about ultimately controlling Earth's natural forces, especially those whose destructive effects we have exacerbated through our own folly, ignores Job's lesson: that even humans cannot thwart the ultimate processing of God's creation when it comes to the natural order of things. This "event of biblical proportions" had far more to do with human nature than God's nature. For us to ignore the inherent lessons would be an insult to the gifts of both reason and compassion that were bestowed upon us by that same wise creator God.

Katharine Preston

Essex, N.Y.

In "God in the hurricane" (Oct. 4) Samuel Wells wrote, "The one thing he [God] hasn't done is obliterate us. He did that to Jesus instead." I am appalled that a university chaplain has so little grasp of the theology of atonement that he preaches penal substitution.

The gospel story I read says that Jesus walked knowingly into the hands of the Jewish and Roman authorities and gave his life for the sake of the world. God didn't kill Jesus, the Romans killed Jesus. What God did was resurrect Jesus from the dead.

There is a very big difference between a theology that has the Creator being the Destroyer and a theology that has the Creator being the Redeemer. A God who works in spite of us and brings redemption out of death, death caused by us, is the God I find in the New Testament.

Randy Jones

Messiah Lutheran Church, Montgomery, Ala.

Samuel Wells replies ...

My sermon was trying to address God's role in the hurricane head-on. The two related dangers I sought to avoid were deism (keep God out of this) and dualism (no one knows if God will finally prevail). The desire to get God off the hook, somehow to defend God against criticism, invariably leads to dismantling the notion of God almighty. Affirming God almighty, which is essential if one is to proclaim that evil, death and suffering do not have the last word, leads to the question of how then Jesus came to die. Jesus begged that the Father "take this cup away" because he faced what no one else could ever face in quite the same way--total abandonment by the Father, or what in the sermon I called "obliteration." The good news is that God brought resurrection even out of this worst possible thing. And so we can assail God with our distress at the catastrophe of Katrina, bewildered at how God could have allowed it to happen, yet hopeful because God brought joy even out of the cross.

All atonement theories have their drawbacks, which is why none is part of the ecumenical creeds of the church. The strength of penal substitution is that it squarely seeks to address the problem of God's being almighty. I used some of its imagery because I too was trying to address that problem. The sermon was a kind of lament--of the kind that is intended as a deep affirmation of faith. For God needs no defending.