Grief in France and thoughts on Charlie

            I first became aware of Charlie Hebdo when I heard about the terrorist attack on January 7^th. My initial response was unattached; twelve people dead is tragic, but tragedy happens all the time.

            But for my French friends around me it was not something to be unattached about, it was personal. It was an attack in their nation. It was the targeted assassination of well known and dearly loved public figures. I think this is inpart why the cry for solidarity has been “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie), because so many people can identify with those killed at Charlie Hebdo. I have heard stories of people who grew up reading comics and articles by those killed, whether published by Charlie Hebdo or in other magazines. Satire and the idea no subject is too sacred to escape mocking is a deeply held French value; it seems to date back at least to the writings of Voltaire and the Enlightenment which are both at the core of the French identity. Regardless of opinions concerning this freedom of speech, the attack on Charlie Hebdo feels like an assault on French values and culture. France is not my country, but it is my host country. French culture is not my culture, but it is my friends’ culture. So I want to stand with my friends and grieve this attack.

            My concern now is what the backlash will be. We panic when something as foundational as our culture or worldview is threatened. France is characterized by a unique brand of militant secularism known as laïcité which seeks to restrict the expression of personal beliefs in a public setting. This philosophy confronted with the large North African Muslim population now living within France has made anti-immigrant sentiments and questions of religious freedoms into hot topics of debate since before we arrived in France. I fear this new attack will only fuel the view religion is fundamentally incompatible with French culture, and spur a rise in actions against immigrants, specifically North-Africans, and Muslims. Already laïcité and Islamophobia place restrictions on religions of any sort.

            The Muslim community in France is as deeply grieved by this attack as the rest of the French people, but now bears the added weight put on them by political powers and mob mentality. Extremists, both those who plotted the attack as well as the National Front (the ultraconservative, nationalistic, and Islamophobic political party), want to use this attack to divide the people of France and further their agendas. They want to force Muslims to say either they condone Charlie’s images against Islam and condemn Wednesday’s attack, or they condemn the images and condone the attack. But this is a false dichotomy, and many Muslims feel caught in the middle. A Muslim friend of mine said he has been hurt three times now: first when Charlie Hebdo published their cartoons, second was the attack on Wednesday, and now a third time when people began saying all Muslims are terrorists.

            People have also begun spreading “Je ne suis pas Charlie” (I am not Charlie) on social media as a reaction to those killed at Charlie being viewed as martyrs of free speech. In the wake of this attack people are questioning and responding to the previous published works of Charlie Hebdo. The tension which erupted with the attack is still lingering and everyone is in a reactive mood. It has been noted social media polarizes people and viewpoints; we either agree 100% or we are opponents. People feel the need to critique and comment upon every single point of deviation they may have with another person’s thoughts. Add this to something has volatile as Charlie Hebdo, and we get a potential social media storm with overly defined and simplistic battle lines dividing people.

            This is missing the true need right now. Whether the past actions of those at Charlie Hebdo were wise, disrespectful, funny, or imprudent is not the issue. Twelve people are dead in what was an attack on a cultural value. We do not have to agree 100% with Charlie Hebdo’s policies to be grieved by this attack or to mourn with those around us. “Je ne suis pas Charlie” at worst seems to say those who died deserved it, and at best invalidates the grief of everyone affected by the attack. It may not be meant as invalidation of others' grief, but it is perceived as such, and I cannot agree with that. Now is not the time to ponder Charlie Hebdo’s policies, it is a time to mourn together. If you do not feel comfortable changing your profile picture to “Je suis Charlie” don’t, but please do not nullify another’s grief. Division will not bring peace; it will spark only violence and fear. Our only hope is that we can love others and work together through this.

            Please pray for France: pray for unity, peace, and understanding.

My New Year's Resolution is Learning to Grieve Better (part 4)

The conversation about grief and learning how to healthily grieve does not end with the close of 2014. And I obviously do not know everything. But over this last year I have accumulated this list of blog posts and articles I have found helpful and thought provoking. I hope you too find these of assistance. If you know of or find other resources on learning to grieve, please post them in the comment section.

(Links are in no particular order)

• http://www.alifeoverseas.com/outlawed-grief-a-curse-disguised/
• http://sarahbessey.com/depression-fault/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2014/02/should-we-medicate-grief-2/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2014/08/grief-shaming-why-some-people-believe-your-grief-over-robin-williams-is-misguided/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2014/05/if-youre-dealing-with-complicated-grief-seek-first-your-therapist-not-your-pastor-2/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2014/06/when-is-the-last-time-you-had-one-of-these/
• http://sarahbessey.com/learning-obey-sadness/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2014/03/10-reasons-we-are-not-vulnerable-with-each-other/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2014/04/eight-examples-of-disenfranchised-grief/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2014/03/grief-online-the-dos-and-donts-of-internet-etiquette/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2013/12/11-worst-and-best-things-to-say-at-a-funeral-3/
• http://sarahbessey.com/lament-sandy-hook/
• http://www.calebwilde.com/2014/12/surviving-grief-and-the-holidays/

My New Year's Resolution is Learning to Grieve Better (part 3)

It has been a while since I posted about my 2014 New Year’s Resolution of learning to grieve well (parts 1 and 2 here and here), and with 2014 drawing to a close here is one of the last two posts. On this side of 2014 I still have a lot to learn about grieving well.

I am inspired by Jesus’ words and actions in John 11. Word comes to Jesus that Lazarus, a dear friend of his, is sick, and in verse four Jesus begins by telling us the end of the story. “This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it” (John 11:4) are Jesus’ words. From the start everything Jesus does is rooted in His knowledge of how this will end. He knew Lazarus would live again and it would be for God's glory. So after the news of Lazarus’s sickness comes Jesus waits for Lazarus to die.

When at last Jesus arrives in the town of Bethany, and he meets Lazarus’ sisters Martha and Mary, he does not offer up vague platitudes. He does not make excuses or give well intended but empty words. He cries with them (John 11:35). Even though Jesus knows the sisters’ grief will soon be turned to awe, the Lord God Almighty-Creator of the Universe-now human, weeps with them. He is present with them in their grief. He is not bothered by their mourning or their lack of His eternal perspective, He is not uncomfortable with their emotions, He instead meets them where they are in their grief. And that is awesome. I want to be like Jesus for others. Just as the Lord has met with me in my times of grief, I want to be able to meet others too.

In 1 Corinthians 12:26 Paul writes “If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it” and again in Romans 12:15 “Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep.” In a world where people are uncomfortable with each other’s grief, may we the Church incarnate the truth of being there with those who mourn, of grieving with those who grieve. May we be known as a Church who weeps well together.

I am still in the process of discovering how to embody this truth and follow Jesus in walking in the ways of His Kingdom. Will you walk with me? Can we as the Church walk together in our grief and learning to grieve?

Viral Gospel Part 3.

 Today’s post is the third and final part of my “Viral Gospel series”. The Gospel is like a virus in its ability to transform culture and lives. We see this illustrated in a biological process known as transduction.

As discussed in Viral Gospel part 1. the goal of a virus is to infect a cell, use the cell’s machinery to build more viruses, and then release the daughter virions (individual virus particles) to go infect other cells. But sometimes in the chaos of a virus’ hostile takeover of a cell, instead of packing a copy of the viral nucleic acid into a daughter virion, a chunk of the host cell’s DNA is added instead. When this daughter virion goes on to infect another cell, instead of inserting viral nucleic acid into the new cell, the bit of previous host’s DNA is added. This viral accident can be used by biologists as a tool for making cells express novel genes.

Like a virion introducing new genes into an existing genome, the Gospel brings new life to our human cultures. The Gospel does not condemn culture or impose an ancient culture upon us today, but engages with, redeems, and transforms our modern culture.

When we encounter the Gospel we do not have to reject everything we have known; we do not have to disown our old way of life. Instead we can allow the transcendent truth of the Gospel into our lives and begin discovering how this interacts with us and our culture. We do not have to behave like first century Palestinian peasants to follow Jesus, we can learn what it means to be followers today in our twenty-first century context. This journey of transformation is something Christians have been experiencing and experimenting with for centuries. We see an example of this in the New Testament debate about circumcision. The early church had to wrestle with how the Gospel related to both the culture and the belief concerning circumcision.

Another example is the Christmas tree. Skeptics like to point out possible pagan roots or animistic traditions of the Christmas tree as though this somehow invalidates the holiday. There is nothing inherently evil about decorating with a tree, even if pagans used to worship it. The Gospel does not say “because this [insert cultural good, artifact, tradition] was used for idolatry (or other sin), it must be disowned.” Instead the Gospel teaches us how to take these things and re-purpose them for the Gospel. This is how we redeem an object or custom. People used to worship trees, instead of raining on their parade let us use this familiar tradition to now point to Jesus. People celebrated the winter solstice and prayed for the sun to return, let us celebrate Jesus’ birth at the same time of year and utilize this existing cultural momentum to teach about Jesus’ coming as the true light and new life which people have long hoped for.

So what does this mean for us now? How do we allow the Gospel to transform us? What in our lives, in how we live, has not been changed by the Gospel? How can we be transformed by this truth? The miracle of Christmas is the incarnation of our Savoir. We reflect back upon this great mystery and we look forward to this coming reality, to Jesus’ second advent. The question for us now is how do we incarnate the message of God’s incarnation today, in our context, to our neighbors?

Share your thought and ideas in the comment section, I know I still have a lot to learn

Viral Gospel Part 2.

In Viral Gospel Part 1. I discussed the components of a virion (a virus particle) and what this can illustrate for us about the truth and expression of the Gospel and how to address the issues of false gospels and vaccination. Today’s post will delve more into the first century Palestinian context in which Jesus used the word “gospel”.

When Jesus started his ministry he was anything but ignorant of the cultural context into which he as the Savior had stepped. There are a few things we as aliens to this historic moment need to know. Palestine was an occupied land ruled by the Empire of Rome. It was a backwater territory in the vast empire, but an important trade-route, so despite the continuous thorn the Jews were in the side of Caesar the empire would not let this area go. The praetorium, the local center of the empire’s administration, taxation, and military housing in Jerusalem (where Jesus was brought before Pilate) was built next to and taller than God’s temple as a declaration to the subjected people of Israel who was truly Lord of the land.

It is important to understand when Jesus used the word “Gospel/Good news” which is a translation of the Greek word “εὐαγγέλιον” (euangelion), this word had very specific connotations. “Gospel” was Caesar’s word. “Gospel” was a declaration of victory, prosperity, or peace, and was an important aspect in the cult of Caesar. That’s right, cult of Caesar. Dating back to 42 B.C. when Julius Caesar was posthumously deified and Caesar Augustus declared himself “Son of God” it became the civil religion of the Empire to worship Caesar. Common civil duties like the meeting of the local assembly (Greek “ἐκκλησία”, ekklesia, the same word later used for “church” in the New Testament) and paying taxes to Caesar included worship of Caesar as God’s son (this adds some context to Jesus’ talk about rendering to Caesar and to God, but that will be another blog post). Below is a link to a picture of a denarius of Caesar Augustus Tiberius, Caesar at the time of Jesus’ ministry, with the inscription which translates “Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius#mediaviewer/File:Emperor_Tiberius_Denarius_-_Tribute_Penny.jpg

Jesus’ strategy with his word choice is similar to a virus exploiting a host cell. When a cell is infected with a virus, the viral nucleic acid seizes control of the cell’s machinery and repurposes it to begin creating viral proteins (which form new capsids, the protein shells of virions) and copies of the viral nucleic acid. When Jesus came rather than creating new terminology he hijacked Caesar's promises like a viral take over. He took these preexisting political words of his day, and he redefined them to illustrate the contrast and incompatibility between Kingdom and Empire. By using the word “gospel” Jesus was calling people to put their allegiance not in the empire with its military superiority, but in his kingdom; not in Caesar who ruled the world, but in the Messiah who came to die for and save the world. His goal was to expose the futility of weapons, selfish power, and war; to show another way of living was possible. Jesus’ subversive use of “gospel” foreshadowed his true purpose: demonstrating true power by dying at the hand of the empire’s war machine for those who do not deserve it.

Just as gospel was a declaration of victory accomplished, we can be confident in Jesus’ completed work of salvation. Caesar may have reigned over an empire spanning the known world, but Jesus’ death and resurrection prove He has come to save us and has conquered death. The Gospel continues to call us away from the lust of empire: comfort at the exploitation of others, military power, and control, and to die to ourselves and serve those who, like us, do not deserve it.