Whenever there's gnashing of teeth in the Bible, a theological danger zone is sure to follow, complete with blinking lights and signs to slow down, have caution.
After all, there is nothing more troublesome to theologians and people of faith than the problem of evil, which is the question of how a good God can allow evil in the world. It has plagued humans for centuries and captured the imaginations of Christianity's most engaged thinkers, from Augustine to Iranaeus, from John Hick to Marilyn McCord Adams.
And there is no surer biblical sign of evil is there than gnashing of teeth.
So I was close to gnashing my own teeth when I read the Gospel passage for this past Sunday, where Jesus tells the disciples that, "The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew. 13:49-50).
Biblical passages like this one never cease to trouble me, because we're all flawed. We've all made mistakes. And recognizing that we are all in need of God's grace makes it difficult to say that any of us deserves to be saved more than anyone else.
That said, I nearly took my night guard out when I started thinking about this passage in relation to the terror attacks that took place in Norway. News reports tells us -- and I've seen firsthand -- that Norwegians are a peaceful people, loving toward their families and generous toward their neighbors. The adults, and perhaps more disturbingly, the children, did nothing to deserve the violence wrought upon them by Anders Breivik.
If there's a candidate from this past week who seems most likely to be thrown by angels into a fiery furnace, shouldn't it be him?
And yet, the rub is that Jesus also says that one of the most important commandments for all who follow him is this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31). So the Bible simultaneously says that the evil shall be damned and yet, they should be loved.
Now there's a paradox that makes Zeno's or Russell's or even "Which comes first the chicken or the egg?" look easy to solve.
Given the incongruity of these teachings, it's no small wonder that some Christians are militantly in favor of punishment and judgment -- not just in the world to come but in this one as well -- while others adopt a kind of let's-just-love-everybody outlook that can feel too idealistic.
But I'm beginning to wonder whether there might be a middle ground.
The Bible says: The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The angels will judge.
God will judge.
But as for me, as a member of the human race, the Bible tells says to love our neighbors as ourselves, and so that's what I must do.
Now, that doesn't mean love is without accountability. When someone like Brevik commits a violent crime, perhaps the best way to love is to give the offender a long time-out, send him to prison and while incarcerated, encourage him to take accountability and realize the magnitude of grief he caused. If that kind of reflection is beyond his capability, then, for the sake of his soul, the loving response is to keep him in a place where he cannot perpetrate more crimes (this assumes that the prison is not an abusive environment in and of itself, which, unfortunately, many penal institutions are).
In other words, love equals caring plus responsibility, not caring minus responsibility, and sometimes the most loving thing we can do is to say, "No more. You cannot go on like this."
As I considered all of this, I found myself in the car with my husband, listening to a news report about the memorial service held at Oslo Cathedral for those who died in the attacks. The reporter, Steve Evans, was interviewing a Canon at the Cathedral by the name of Elisabeth Thorsen, and he caught our attention when he asked her this challenging question:
"The person who caused this day of grief is a Christian. What do you make of that?"
She replied, "I've heard that he is a Christian." She paused and it sounded like she inhaled sharply,
"I mean, it's very difficult to talk about that, what he has done today, because people also feel anger and great sorrow, but in church we say that we are all sinners, no matter what we have done. If it is big or if it is small, we are all sinners, and if he wants to be a Christian ... he has to ... work with the bad things that he has done and try to follow Christ."
"Can he be forgiven?" the reporter continued.
Elisabeth Thorsen replied, though her voice seemed to be breaking, "I believe in forgiveness also for him."
Follow Danielle Tumminio on Twitter: www.twitter.com/revdtumminio
Sandip Roy: The Perils of Anti-Immigration Politics: Lessons From Oslo
Anders Breivik, Anti-feminist MRA? — The Good Men Project
Oslo Bombing: Anders Breivik Confesses to Releasing YouTube Video ...
Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Norway attacks: profile of suspect Anders Behring Breivik - Telegraph
Anders Behring Breivik Identified As Suspect In Norway Shooting
Norway gunman fired for 1.5 hours on island - Yahoo! News
Oslo Shooting: Read Anders Behring Breivik's Internet Comments ...
Anders Behring Breivik: profile of a mass murderer | World news ...
Couldn't this also mean that you will project your feelings about yourself onto others?
This 'insight' is actually called rehabilitation, the notion that a legal system should be centered around the idea that a criminal, regardless of the severity of his crimes, is still a human being that deserves to get a chance to better himself, take responsibility and maybe even contribute to society at some time in the future.
Rehabilitation is directly opposed to revenge as a central motive of a judiciary system. It's a conceptual child of the enlightenment, humanism and secularization and at the core of many European legal systems. It demonstrably works much better than revenge-based systems like the U.S.', which are a direct descendant of the 'eye-for-an-eye' mentality of Abrahamic faiths.
Congratulations to the author of this piece, who was capable to come to a similar conclusion - after wrestling the living hell out of her religion's outdated scripture. As you can see in the threads here she is way ahead of the bulk of her fellow Christians, who are predominately busy exchanging ideas how best to punish, torture and kill criminals - consequences for society be damned.
i don't see that actually. i've scrolled through these comments and the impression i walk away with is not that a majority of christians as represented here are rushing to "the eye-for-an-eye mentality." i think it's a human impulse, that desire to inflict punishment on someone who's done something as atrocious what this man did, not an impulse specifically rooted in christianity as you seem to imply or any other religion.
the relevant christian principle here is actually to resist that temptation to hate and separate oneself from the culprit (with the implicit idea that one is fundamentally better than them). the concept of rehabilitation fits much more cogently with this principal than you give it credit for.
i would ask (sincerely, not flippantly) for you to hold off on the kind of condescension you showed the author of this piece.
nice article, ms. tumminio.
Then you need to open your eyes. One can discern the religious background of the commenters here with an accuracy of 90% or so, just by looking for keywords like "throw away keys", "bullet to the head", "til he rots", "gallows", etc.
"not an impulse specificalÂly rooted in christianiÂty as you seem to imply"
I didn't imply, I stated explicitly. It's the center-piece of my comment.
"the relevant christian principle here is actually to resist that temptation to hate"
The relevant Christian principle is always what the individual Christian chooses it to be. As you correctly stated, "it's a human impulse, that desire to inflict punishment". Cherry-picking the bible to justify such desires is a very popular Christian pastime.
"the concept of rehabilitaÂtion fits much more cogently with this principal than you give it credit for."
And yet, mysteriously, the concept of penal rehabilitation was nowhere to be found during the 1800 years or so that the church had a saying in the governing of nations.
"i would ask (sincerelyÂ, not flippantlyÂ) for you to hold off on the kind of condescension you showed the author of this piece."
It's not condescension as much as it is annoyance, and it's nothing personal. I express this attitude in every religion-related exchange with Christians and other 'people of faith' and, your disapproval notwithstanding, plan to keep doing so in the future.
but to attempt an answer to your question: a person can be a christian as one might be a democrat, or a californian. meaning that it may be a place in which you happened to be born and never gave much thought to, or that once every four years you merely cast a vote for the president. Or perhaps you are much more invested than that bare minimum. most christians who i have known do not fall back on doing the least possible work in order to retain the label. essentially, that would be preclude them from the commission of such heinous crimes.
and so they are surprised to hear that breivik identifies himself as a christian. would you prefer they took it as a matter of course?
No, the crusades lead to a much higher death toll. Breivik on the other hand obviously sees a connection between the crusades and his actions.
"a person can be a christian as one might be a democrat, or a californiaÂn."
I think the only person who is entitled to define Breivik's religious affiliation is Breivik. Freedom of religion and all that.
"would you prefer they took it as a matter of course?"
I would prefer honesty.
we have little understanding of the cause of this event. to just call him evil eliminates the need for us to understand a person's desire to harm others.
compassion is often confused with sympathy or empathy; it is neither. sympathy and empathy are in the realm of feelings. ie I feel for you or I know how you feel.
compassion is not feelings but understanding.simply put it is love and divine intelligence in action.compassion is not permissiveness far from it. if this person is a danger to others that needs to be addressed.
the universal law of cause and effect is a constant, it means what we sow we reap. we learn from our reaping. the soul would never advance without this universal law many call karma.
there is no punishment in this law but there are consequences for out choices and actions. think of the earth experience as perfectly imperfect to evolve or unfold the soul's potential.