This article was published yesterday, September 19, 2007 in the Boston Herald.From Associated press.
photo courtesy Yahoo News
Annoyed as hell, Nebraska senator sues God
Lincoln, Neb.- The defendant in a state senator's lawsuit is accused of causing untold death and horror. He can be sued in Douglas County, the legislator claims, because He's everywhere.
State Sen. Ernie Chambers has sued God. Irked by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he's trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against... Anybody.
The lawsuit claims God has made terroristic threats, inspired fear and caused "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
Chambers, who skips the legislature's morning prayers and often criticizes Christians, added God has caused "fearsome floods... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes." He's seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.
Chambers said his lawsuit was triggered by a federal suit filed against a state judge who recently barred such words as "rape" and "victim" from a sexual assault trial. The accuser in the criminal case, Tory Bowen, sued that judge, claiming he violated her free speech rights.
"This lawsuit having been filed and being of such questionable merit creates a circumstance where my lawsuit is appropriately filed," Chambers said.
A federal judge last week expressed doubts about whether Bowen's lawsuit "has any legal basis whatsoever" and said sanctions may be imposed against Bowen and her attorneys if they fail to show cause for a lawsuit.
While different people may find different aspects of the events this article documents disturbing, or amusing, I hope to focus for this blog on one central issue.
Senator Chambers states he is "trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against... Anybody." Yet by his actions and criticisms, crowned by this dubious legal action, he certainly proves to take a dim view of the Christian faith, those who practice it, and believe in Him or not, God Himself.
I have to wonder what the response of his constituents would have been if he had brought suit against Allah, Budda, or Ganesh. Certainly the ACLU would get involved if a Muslim, or a Buddist or Hindu complained. The man could loose his senate seat over the political fallout of such a careless act, but somehow it is acceptable today to ridicule God in the public eye, just to make a point. I feel prayer is called for here, both for the senator who so willingly proclaims to be the enemy of God by his foolishness, and for a nation that has so little faith in God that this kind of foolishness has become acceptable.
18 comments:
I fear for Senator Chambers. We are clearly instructed not to mock God.
I was so shocked to hear of this Soj, even though I should not be knowing the world well from my long time being of it. A Brother at work showed me the article, and I knew immediately it needed a response from me because of this mans audacity, and because as a Christian I feel this kind of thing demands a reproach in righteous anger. I hope more Christians see this and respond accordingly.
I think your reaction to this is too serious for the content of the article. You even stated that he was proving a point. So when should we expect the lightening bolts? If I were God, and I am definitely not, I'd be laughing hysterically!
Somehow I don't see your irreverence as funny David. And as Sojourner said we are told not to mock God. The problem here is how he tried to make his point, making light of God, and so Christ and the Holy Spirit, the other two persons of the godhead. Maybe a liberal theology makes laughing at God easy, but like so much of liberal theology this to goes against any sound interpretation of of Scripture. Part of the problem with this kind of foolishness is that it is not taken seriously enough.
For Pete's sake, the accused IS Allah, Mike. What do you think the senator meant in talking about God inspiring terrorism? Sen. Chambers may not have any interest in organized religion or may be aggressive toward all spirituality, this report doesn't tell us about his views, just his practice of skipping the prayers. Frankly, if I were an elected official I would not only skip the prayers, but work to have them removed because they don't belong in our legislative bodies. Who is chosen to pray comes awfully close to the state establishing a religion, it certainly is an endorsement. Just look at the outrage over a Hindu leading prayers in the Capitol.
This is about the extreme litigiousness of our society, which is certainly a problem. Is a publicity stunt involving accusations against God based on faulty human understanding a mockery of God or a mockery of the humans who create the language and theology? Are natural disasters "acts of God"? If so then why not hold God responsible? Are the terrorist correct in understanding their actions as pleasing to God (Allah)? Then again, why not take that to court?
The reason not to is that it is a frivolous case since God cannot be subpoenaed, which is exactly Sen. Chambers' stated intention. If there is an attack on religion here then Sen. Chambers should be pressed to respond before we assume.
BTW Mike, nice picture in the Sturbridge Villager. I was wondering if you used the pancakes as teaching opportunity. I was imagining a take on Jonathan Edwards "flapjacks in the hands of an angry God" ;-)
OK, I just did some more reading and found that the case accuses God of making terroristic threats, so he is not just taking on the humans.
Still, how is challenging God to defend God's position mocking God? If that is the case then tell Abraham, Moses and Job among others not to stand up to God. Abraham bargained with God for the sake of Sodom. Moses held God to the promises of the covenant to spare the people when they were worshiping the golden calf. Job demanded explanations for his suffering.
Sen. Chambers seems to have taken the Job role here.
By the way Mike, you seem to think I have little reverence for God, or am somehow participating in the alledged mockery here. I just think our concerns here are more exaggerated and "fight-picking" oriented then what really concerns me. Although the story is interesting, and it raises some questions, it is hardly something that will keep me up at night when I see so many other larger problems in our world and injustices. Look what just happened in Louisiana with those accused black students, or the fact that we are still fighting an ill-conceived war, or that many in our midst struggle to make ends meet. I bet God is more grieved of the mess we are making of His world then the alledged mocking of this one individual, who appears at worst, a little loony and at best, a rep for the Andy Warhol school of popularity.
I did not know the UCC was now admitting mosques as members, that is truly unitarian. Alla is not God Ian, not God of the Bible certainly, "Thou shall have no other gods before me." I think is the line. The article does indicate the senator's disposition as it tells us he 'often criticizes Christians', and even more telling is that he chose to mock God to make his point. America is spiritually asleep in a large sense Ian, and I feel that this kind of disrespectful display from our leaders is a symptom of the greater disease, as is it's acceptability by the general public, and Christians in particular. I don't think senators are chosen to pray, but go to prayer by choice, although I will admit I am not sure how that works, having never attended a prayer session of the senate. The voluntary act of prayer does not necessarily constitute an endorsement, but a personal choice in my thought.
Ian, did you see the pic online, or in the paper? I would like to send the link to my dad if you have it. Like the J.E. adaptation, good for a laugh!
Abraham, Moses, and Job all dealt with God respectfully and directly, not in jest to make another point at His expense, Primarily as they were Believers interacting with God personally, this is not mockery.
As Mr. Chambers is not, by any indication a believer, and so mocks what he does not fear, or understand. My concern is that this has become acceptable in a nation founded on Christian principals, and by primarily God fearing men.
I am not truly looking to pick a fight, and there are many other problems going on in the world today I will agree. This is I feel systemic of a fallen world, and the fact that it has become acceptable to make a public spectacle of such actions, is proof of how far America has fallen away from the Cross. In all of Scripture I see no basis for the belief that God would not find this offensive. Seems to me God, who is jealous for the affection of His Creation, would not find this funny, or appreciate the fact that we may.
Mike, what I find interesting is your assessments of God's Mind. Isn't that a bit presumptious to KNOW the Mind of God? I may have an idea of what God might be concerned about based on the Bible and Tradition, but to KNOW the Mind of God? I guess each of us thinks they know what God would think on any given topic.
Beyond speaking on behalf of God, how can you speak on behalf of Ernie Chambers? I am very tired of arguments based on assumptions of other people's motives and/or unstated beliefs. None of us here know Ernie Chambers' beliefs, just his actions. The only belief that he is putting forth is that the legal system is broken.
Granted, he criticizes Christians and opposes state-sponsored chaplains (I found that in my Internet search). So do I, does that make me a non-believer?
I don't expect politicians to behave like believers. My concern is not about "America falling away from the cross" but that Christians witness to the truth and work for the common good. The best place for this prophetic voice is outside the government speaking truth to power. The God I serve if big enough to handle any mockery and doesn't need me or anyone else to defend the divine honor.
David, I am not sure where you read that I claimed to 'KNOW' the mind of God, as I can not find this assertion in my posts. I have to my knowledge made no such claim to this ability, only to have read His Word, and based my arguments on it to the best of my abilities. Ian, This discussion is based on the information available, only God knows the hearts of men. As for God, He has given us volumes, clearly stating how He views many things. The tree is known by it's fruit, In the context of the article the tree can be defined enough to draw a tentative conclusion for the point of discussion. As a shepherd of God's people it is sad to know you are not concerned with America's state of Faith, this too is systemic of greater problems. Nothing in our nations founding documents tells us that our officials can not publicly declare or practice their faith, indeed the writings of many of our country's founders and leaders proclaim a firm faith in God. It is only in a rapidly growing secular population that we see a crumbling of our social integrity, and the failure of leadership by our elected officials as fear of being 'politically incorrect' outweighs integrity. The God you serve may not need defending, but the lost and the weak Christians in our nation certainly need better examples of reverence, especially in light of Mr. Chambers antics, and the weak presentation of the Gospel by so much of our churches. These failures are what help to make a lukewarm people. Rev. 3:16 "So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot i will vomit you out of My mouth."
I didn't say that I wasn't concerned about America's state of faith, though that is not a completely unfair representation of my position. First of all, as a pastor, I am first of all concerned about the spiritual well-being of the flock I have been called to serve. Second, I am concerned about the state of faith of people not institutions. It could be said that I don't care about the state of faith of America, but am concerned about the state of faith of Americans.
I am also not convinced that this "founding fathers were believers" is anything more than revisionist history. They certainly couldn't have been Fundamentalists or Evangelicals (in the sense of that belief system being a modification of Fundamentalism) since those theologies did not exist at that time. Although much "God-talk" can be found in writing of that time, many of the founders were Deists whose believe in God meant that God was distant and rather disinterested in human behavior. I'm not sure that that is the "Christian nation" you would choose.
So Mike, I guess you'd consider Ian and his church part of the problem? Since he's obviously preaching a "weak, watered down Gospel". At this point Mike, I am begining to grow impatient with your linear responses to every issue, every rebuttal, every reply. By the way, blogging isn't always about winning. Sometimes its about listening. You continue to demonstrate that you are not listening to either Ian or myself in the way you feel you need to discredit any Christian who may not hold the narrow Bible interpretation you hold to.
As far as your ability to know the mind of God, let's examine your words once again:
"Seems to me God, who is jealous for the affection of His Creation, would not find this funny, or appreciate the fact that we may".
You said "seems to me". Not, according to the Bible, or one could surmise, or "by deduction I've concluded", hence my own conclusion that you "seem to know the mind of God".
Finally, I want to say this; I've met you and I like you and God has certainly done some wonderful things in your life, but like a knee-jerk liberal, you are similar in your approach from the right on virtually every issue. Your references to "an increasingly secular society" has no basis in fact. Your ideas that churches (like Ian's) are preaching a watered down Gospel, devoid of any Biblical underpinnings and are lifeless and fruitless in their application is at best a poor assessment of the situation or at worst a lazy stereotyping. I've listened to Ian's sermons online, and they are filled with life changing applications and loaded with Scripture, taken straight from the Common Lectionary, where the majority of the churches in the free world fellowship around the same Scripture. I find only a brief reading of Scripture at most fundamentalist churches followed by an hour of pastoral expository which puts the focus on man instead of God. If God's Word is important to you, you need to acknowledge that Catholic churches, UCC Churches and even Methodist Churches are likely reading more Scripture in their services than most evangelical churches.
The reason I've gone off on this tangent is because I have experience will both camps. The conservatives preach a narrow salvation message each week, followed by a salvation check, usually at the end of the service, followed by a boatload of guilt and remorse that often left me numb to God for Monday morning. The progressive Church is more concerned about how society is treating one another as a whole. Whether Christian or non, black or white, gay or straight, American or non...God is no respecter of persons. I'm not neccessarily saying one is better than the other. But the "me and my salvation" focus of the mainstream evangelical church is far from a God focused theology. It's not the weak presentation of the Gospel that's hurting the church, it's the poor representation of Jesus that is hampering the church. If this post comes off as harsh, cruel or mean, I apologize for that. We are all trying to make our points, and sometimes I care too much about making mine.
You all have made some valid points. They do not change my original position: I fear for Senator Chambers. If I were sitting next to him when a thunder storm threatened, I'd move away fast.
Soj, a couple points to your insistence on being afraid of getting too close to Senator Chambers. I will agree that the Bible says not to mock God. But the Bible also says that we should not fear, because God is with us and loves us and protects us. I can't remember any Biblical examples of God using a lightening bolt to extinguish a mocker.
Granted, God used other means and methods to get His point across, but some of that is more mythological than actual. All I can say is a reverent respect for God can be achieved without all the fire and brimstone.
David, my comment about moving away from the senator was an attempt at humor. I have no doubt that God can handle the situation with or without lightning and that if He chooses lightning, He can aim accurately. He undoubtedly might have reasons to aim at me.
Of course, God loves us. On that point, we agree whole-heartedly. In fact, we agree on alot of things. Remember that goal about common ground? It was a good one, but I guess if we all sit around and agree with each other, there won't be a lot of discussion. :(
Fair enough Soj. You need to use the (lol) a bit more more so I can pick up the humor. I appreciate you very much. And I hope you continue to blog here. I value our friendship and your balanced blogging.
Post a Comment