The following article was written by Bible Teacher, Terry Norris, in response to a recent Time magazine article by N. T. Wright titled, “Christianity Offers No Answers About the Coronavirus. It’s Not Supposed To.”
In a Time magazine article dated 29 March 2020, Professor N. T. Wright addressed the issue of Christianity’s response to catastrophes such as the current COVID-19 epidemic. The title of the article, “Christianity Offers No Answers About the Coronavirus. It’s Not Supposed To,” indicates his perspective. The article implies that sometimes bad things happen for which there are no explanations, and Christianity’s proper response is simply to sit back and silently let things play themselves out. Christians, who themselves are experiencing the difficulties, may sympathize with others who are going through the hard times, but don’t really have a resolution to the problem—they shouldn’t even look for one.
N.T. Wright is a distinguished theologian and prolific writer whose many years of studying and teaching scripture cannot be taken lightly. Perhaps the limitations inherent in writing articles for magazines (deadlines, space and format requirements, etc.) forced him to give a less-than-complete response to the issue. Whatever the case, it seems clear that Christianity does have, and is responsible to give, a positive response to people going through hard times.
I am not going to respond to Dr. Wright’s article sentence by sentence (except in his conclusion). That would take too long and would not be altogether profitable. You can read the article for yourself. Rather, I will address key issues (both hermeneutical and theological) as they appear in the article. One final caveat: As is true of all those who deal with God’s word, Dr. Wright’s comments are shaped by the ecclesiastical tradition in which he was trained, and that tradition gives him a focus that is different from ours. However, in the end, we are all subject to what the Word says.
Dr. Wright begins by noting that the Coronavirus epidemic has put us in an unusual situation: it has cut us off from personal connections that we usually enjoy. This has had a disorienting effect on people. He recognizes that some Christians will want to provide a reason for this event (“A punishment? A warning? A sign?”) and discounts the effort as a “knee-jerk” reaction. He attributes this impulse to the influence of Rationalism on Christianity during the Enlightenment (1600s-1700s), which sought a rational explanation for everything.
Now, rationalism itself is not necessarily bad; it all depends on how one uses it. There are two kinds of rationalism: Secular rationalists seek human answers for everything, even things that can’t be explained. Christian rationalists seek explanations for things that happen because God is reasonable and has a plan. However, they (at least, the rational ones) also recognize that God doesn’t owe us an explanation and doesn’t always give us one. Rationality is part of the divine image in which we were created, so we are rational creatures and naturally want to know “Why?”
Wright implies that the influence of rationalism was unfortunate because sometimes things happen that don’t have a rational explanation. In those situations, he suggests that we should just sit and wait “without hope.” Providing a reason may lead one to a false hope since any suggested reason may be false, so it’s better not to hope at all. The problem with this is that the Christian never waits without hope; he waits for hope (Hebrews 6:17-20).
“In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath, so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.
This hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which enters within the veil, where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”
If there is no valid reason for tragedy and no reason to hope, then what is one to do? Dr. Wright suggests that we “recover the biblical tradition of lament.” He defines lament as “what happens when people ask, ‘Why?’ and don’t get an answer.” He suggests that we get to the point of lament when we broaden our focus from ourselves to the whole world. To illustrate lament, he cites some psalms (e.g. Psalm 88) in which the writer finds no relief for his sorrows; he is trusting God, but finds no deliverance. Wright even cites Psalm 22 and Christ’s quoting of the opening line on the cross as an example of His hopeless lament. Unfortunately, this example doesn’t serve Wright’s purposes since Christ referenced the Psalm to emphasize what was happening at the moment—He was fulfilling Messianic prophecy. It wasn’t about His sorrowful and hopeless condition, because He had hope (Hebrews 12:2).
Wright extends lament to God in order to emphasize that the “answer for everything” that some Christians expect is not always there. Even the Source of that expected answer hurts just as we do. God was sorrowful at man’s sinful condition before the flood, at Israel’s abandonment of Him, and when Lazarus died. I suppose knowing that God feels sorrow as we do is also a means of comfort, but an unfortunate implication of this connection is that God is just as helpless as we are during difficult times. Wright doesn’t say that, and I doubt that he would agree with it, but I think that it is a reasonable inference.
“ In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words”
He also cites Romans 8:26 as an example of God’s lamenting, but his use of that reference is problematic as well. He says, “St. Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit ‘groaning’ within us, as we ourselves groan within the pain of the whole creation.” This is simply a misquote and a misapplication. First, the Holy Spirit’s groanings are not within us, as though He were sharing our sorrow. The point here is that the Holy Spirit’s groaning is in response to our inability to communicate our concerns to God. Being part of the Trinity, He picks up at the point of our inadequacy and translates the inexpressible concerns of our hearts into adequate “heavenly” expression. Also, I don’t think that our groaning in this context is within the scope of creation’s groaning (verses 19-22). Creation groans because of the curse; we groan because our concerns go beyond our ability to express them. Is that the result of the curse? Maybe, but Paul doesn’t make that connection.
He wraps up his discussion regarding God’s participation in lament by saying, “The ancient doctrine of the Trinity teaches us to recognize the One God in the tears of Jesus and the anguish of the Spirit.” Theologically, I don’t see how the doctrine of the Trinity (the nature of God and the interactions between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) teaches this specific lesson. They certainly share their compassion for mankind, but where do we see in scripture any indication of which one feels what or which actions of any of them indicate what they are feeling? Again, the groaning of the Spirit is not a participation in our sorrow since our groaning is not about lament. In logic, this would be a non-sequitur fallacy—the conclusion does not follow from the evidence.
Wright’s summary statements in the conclusion do a good job of wrapping things up, but are just as problematic as is the discussion in the body of the article. In order to be thorough and clear, it would be good to consider these statements one at a time.
He summarizes his first point with, “It is no part of the Christian vocation, then, to be able to explain what’s happening and why.” Maybe we should not expect to be able to give an explanation for everything that happens, but surely, it is part of the Christian vocation to give an explanation when one is available, and beyond that, to offer hope. After all, God is sovereign, and even though His sovereignty is focused on the good of His children (Romans 8:28), unbelievers may be encouraged to turn to the One who is not limited by time to take care of those inexplicable times.
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
He continues: “In fact, it is part of the Christian vocation not to be able to explain—and to lament instead.” Not being able to explain everything is the result of limited revelation, but it calls for trust, not lament. We may, in our humanity, hurt because of the inexplicable and painful (painfully inexplicable?) things we experience, but beneath the grief should be trust.
Related to that, “As the Spirit laments within us, so we become, even in our self-isolation, small shrines where the presence and healing love of God can dwell.” Again, in the context of Romans 8, the Spirit does not lament within us; He identifies with us and compensates for our spiritual inadequacies. Also, healing comes from trust, not lament. As we trust, we grow—even in isolation, which prepares us for better connectedness when the isolation is over.
Finally, he ends with some positive outcomes of responding appropriately to trying times: “And out of that [the indwelling of God’s healing love] there can emerge new possibilities, new acts of kindness, new scientific understanding, new hope. New wisdom for our leaders? Now there’s a thought.” These outcomes are reasonable, but I don’t think they would come from the means he proposes, especially new wisdom for our leaders. I don’t see how our leaders would benefit from Christianity’s response to such epidemics if mere lament is all it has to offer. Besides, they don’t pay much attention to Christianity as a source of guidance.
Overall, I agree with his point that Christianity doesn’t always have an answer for everything that happens, and that it is sometimes necessary to accept with contentment what God gives, even if it is unpleasant. However, I am not sure about his interpretation and application of some texts. Also, he limits Christianity’s response to unanswerable situations to lamenting that they are happening. It’s almost as though he is saying that Christians are helpless in times of catastrophe and can only cringe in the corner. Rather, the Christian’s perspective on God’s sovereignty in such times can have a positive impact on the culture—if that culture is willing to listen. He does conclude on a positive note, that such experiences can have positive outcomes, but he doesn’t show how those outcomes are produced. He leaves us without an explanation as to how to achieve the answer he gives.
So, to the heart of the issue. Is Dr. Wright correct in saying that Christianity does not have an explanation for the Coronavirus epidemic and shouldn’t be expected to? He is right in noting that some Christians come up with explanations too soon and without any foundation for them. Whether or not this is attributable to Rationalism’s influence on Christianity is, I suppose, debatable, but a more likely reason is that some believers are over zealous to read God’s hand into everything that happens. These are the people who turn every unusual natural phenomenon into a sign of Christ’s return or see the Antichrist in every dictator who comes along. These people are kooks and should be ignored. The point is that the behavior of some Christians doesn’t define the nature of Christianity; one can’t evaluate a whole ideology based on the statements of its adherents. It must be evaluated on the basis of its tenets and how well they line up with reality, or the world as we see it. So some people come up with off-the-wall explanations for the Coronavirus. Does that mean that there is no explanation or that Christianity is not a source of explanations for such things?
Christianity could be seen as the codification of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind and His dealings with mankind. It shows us how God operates, His modus operandi. If there ever were a channel for explanations from God, it would seem that Christianity is it. Clearly, He does give us explanations through His word, through diligent study of His word, through insights given by the Holy Spirit, etc. However, as noted above, that doesn’t mean that He explains everything or that we can anticipate an explanation of any given thing at any given time. So is Dr. Wright correct in saying that Christianity is not “supposed to” have an explanation for the Coronavirus? That it’s not Christianity’s job to give explanations? In part, he is. Explanations are God’s business, not ours. The world should not expect Christianity to have an explanation for everything, because God may not give an explanation for something. In such cases, our responsibility is not to fake an explanation just because we think there should be one, but to acknowledge that God hasn’t said what this is all about. We may, again, get clues from God’s word, but we need to guard against going overboard and making unjustifiable claims. If God hasn’t given an explanation, then sit back and let Him work the situation out as He sees fit. It may come as a shock to some Christians, but God really doesn’t need us to bail Him out of what we consider a difficult situation.
So, if God has not given an explanation as to why the Coronavirus has hit at this particular time and with such ferocity, how do we respond? Do we indulge in lament, as Dr. Wright suggests, and let God’s indwelling love heal the sorrow we feel because of the loss the virus has caused? I suppose that’s an option. However, God’s love is meant to be expressed, and while we may receive comfort from it, that’s not the primary reason He gives it. It seems much more fitting to Christianity to express that love to those who need an explanation for the sorrow they feel when no explanation is available. They may ask, “Why would God let this happen to me?” The “to me” shows the typical human trait of self-absorption in difficult times, as though everything that happens is about me. We need, as Dr. Wright suggests, to get our minds off of our own situation and on to other people’s situations, not to indulge in lament, but to offer the hope that God provides those who trust Him. People in difficult times need to see past the difficulty so they can survive the difficulty. It is the Christian’s responsibility to give them that vision by pointing out their human inability to regulate the things that happen to them and to point them to the One who is in control of all those things.
Difficult times are scary because we don’t know how they will work out. This is the basic fear people have of death: “What will happen to me after I die?” The Coronavirus is a reminder of that reality and revitalizes fear of the unknown. The answer to that fear is perspective. If people realize that the One who is in charge of the things they can’t control can fix it so they will not suffer any lasting harm, no matter what happens, they would have no reason to be afraid; everything will work out well for them. All they have to do is give their lives into His care. Why not trust the One who is in charge? Even if they die from the virus, that “harm” is not lasting. All they are doing is moving to a new and better neighborhood that is free from all such dangers.
A thought that occurred to me a couple decades or so ago may help to explain. I was going through some difficulties that seemed insurmountable. At least, I could see no way around, over, through, or under them. I felt doomed, as if these difficulties would never go away. I was talking to a friend about this, and he reminded me of Elijah’s difficulties with Ahab and Jezebel, how he ran from them in fear but God took care of him and eventually resolved the situation. I responded with, “Yes, but his problems were temporary.” Then the lightning bolt hit and I got some perspective. After recovering from the jolt, I said, “I guess since we are temporal creatures, all our problems are temporary.” All our problems will end at death (if not before), and if the death problem is resolved before death occurs, death is not a problem, either.
We may not have an explanation for the virus, but that’s okay. We have a hope that extends beyond the virus and puts it into perspective. That beats an explanation any day.