Elementary school girl on bicycle hit and killed by school bus
So, this happened just two miles from my house (as the crow flies), and in my home school district. I did not know this child or her family, but she attended the same schools as my own children. There's been a lot of "God must have needed another angel" garbage spewed by a more than a few people I've encountered since the accident. I find that kind of trite wallpapering over a tragedy of this kind abhorrent. Why do people do that?! What's so wrong about railing at this God for something this unspeakable? Why do people insist on running interference for God, or absolving God? Fucking hell.
Comments
The sentimental claptrap you mention is, I suppose, a way for some people, at least, to cope with the event.
True, alas.
No doubt it's all meant kindly, but it's often way over the top, I think.
They're not removed. Neither are you. Shit happening on the other side of the world is not the same as shit happening near home. It's why you were moved to post here. You are having to get through this. So are others in your community.
I’m horrified by the “God must have needed another angel” garbage. (I’ve never, that I can recall, heard it from someone in a church I was part of; it seems, at least in my experience, to arise in certain Christian traditions I’m not part of. But I have encountered it.) I typically hear it as either a coping strategy or attempt to understand—this is the only way I can make sense of this in the wider framework I see the world in—or as something they think will comfort the parents. (And to be fair, I’ve known of parents whom it did comfort, because it was a coping strategy/explanation that made sense to them.)
I think it’s horrible theology and problematic in many ways, but people don’t generally react logically to grief and tragedy, at least not at first.
Yes, and railing against god/the general random awfulness of the universe, or whatever, is an equally legitimate way of coping.
That said, it's best to be very careful and sensitive (if possible) towards those immediately affected.
I've noticed a phrase cropping up in films, often when a character is referring to someone who has just died, and says to the spouse *I'm sorry for your loss.* Is this in common use? It depends on how it's said, and in what tone, but it's simple and direct. More could obviously be added, if appropriate, and if the person affected wants it.
Indeed. Would it not be better to share a profound theological truth in these circumstances? When unspeakable harm comes, why can the faithful offer nothing more substantial?
Like what? What theological truth would you offer to the bereaved parents?
The faithful, however moved by charity, cannot honestly offer certainty, though.
What profound theological truth can be offered when something awful, like this, happens?
I am reminded of the quote from Paul Claudel: “Jesus did not come to explain away suffering or remove it. He came to fill it with His presence.”
This. Just being there is sometimes enough, for the moment, anyway.
The less actually said, the better, perhaps.
Hell if I know. I don't count myself among the faithful any more, and part of the reason why is because there doesn't seem to be a more profound theological truth for these kinds of issues. All I know is when they happen there seems to be reduction to the inane.
I understand offering our own human presence, even silently. I've done that. I do that. My struggle in these instances is that no sufficient explanation, especially for the faithful, is available to them.
This may sound odd coming from someone who practiced law for 35 years, but for me, answers that matter don’t come from explanations that anyone provides. They come from experiences and relationships. They are something wrestled with, explored, meditated on and lived into rather than explained or analyzed. They take time. For me, “I’m here for you” is infinitely more valuable than any attempt to provide a sufficient explanation.
As I said, that’s me. That’s how my brain and my personality are wired. I definitely don't assume everyone else is wired that way.
As an aside you’re not a million miles away (IIRC) from a tragic and generally forgotten mass accidental killing of school children?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillingham_bus_disaster#:~:text=The Gillingham bus disaster occurred,aged between nine and thirteen.
I might argue that "God wanted another angel in Heaven" is, in fact, rooted in a profound theological truth, ie. the deceased is still part of God's universe, and is now re-united with God, and you can eventually be re-united with her in the afterlife.
BUT...
It's not something I would say to a random victim of bereavement, unless I knew they shared the underlying worldview. And, even then, I'd be careful about just dropping it into the condolences willy-nilly.
(I'll also say I don't really care for schlocky, sentimental portrayals of children as angels, but I do know people who are moved by that sorta thing, and would probably respond well to the line.)
Sometimes I think God may ask us to comfort those who grieve without talking about anything important to us, even God. If someone who is grieving wants to bring up faith, I'd talk, but not otherwise. I do not pretend to be confident or skilled with such work, but I definitely approach it thinking to let the one who is the most hurt lead.
Yes, you're right.
When I was with the Ambulance Service, we had a regular patient (by then quite elderly) whose son was one of the youngsters killed. Another of our regulars had worked for the same Company (as had his wife), and they both knew the driver and conductress involved.
It's not entirely forgotten - there's a memorial plaque on the Dockyard wall, at the site, and it does usually get an anniversary mention in the local press.
A thoughtful and sensitive way of dealing with such an issue.
I thought/hoped it would still be a thing locally, but such things fade from national consciousness.
As a child visiting my grandparents in the 1980s it was a regular day out to go over the road and ‘see the Lanfranc boys’ - but outside Croydon who remembers them?
Which wasn’t completely mad - my uncle had been at school (that school) with them.
That's probably what Jesus would have done.
Or it could be theological nonsense.
Angels aren't dead people. You don't die and then get issued a pair of wings and a harp.
You mean it's nonsense because people don't become angels specifically, OR it's nonsense because people don't survive death in any way at all?
But then, it's taken me 50 years to get to this point. And I'm just starting to see it this way. So YMMV and almost certainly will.
These Vigils often seem to be made up of a very wide cross-section of the local community, including faith groups of all sorts. I guess they give people an opportunity to show collective solidarity, sympathy, and support for those affected by whatever has happened.
I find the images of these Vigils very moving.
Plus the whole “angels aren’t dead people” thing, too.
🕯🕯🕯
🕯🕯🕯
People do not become angels.
A friend recently shared a quote with me which talked about walking a knife's edge between a number of pairs of opposites, of which I found the most striking: Righteousness and Empathy. It keeps striking a month later. And it gets precisely to your question.
I think people are afraid of the appearance, maybe the state, of unrighteousness by giving an appropriate, passionate, empathetic, human response.
Jesus wept over his dear friend's death that Christians believe he could have prevented, and believe that he knew he would remedy. Our best model responded with empathy and passionate grief -- as he was preparing to raise his friend from the dead. I don't understand why people are afraid to follow his lead.
Then too, there is the book: When Bad Things Happen to Good People by Rabbi Kushner. Kushner concluded while G-d may be benevolent he is not all powerful in preventing tragic things from happening.
I would hope the parents of this girl has strong support from caring people. People who do not spew the crap about needing another angel in heaven. One of the psalms I used in funerals concerning people dearly loved is Psalm 116, especially the line Precious in the eyes of God is the death of those he dearly loves. I firmly believe God is grieving with the girls parents. They need someone who can share in that grief.
The sudden death of a child if very traumatic. Often, the parents end up divorcing and they may never find wholeness again.
Huffington Post had a good article on how people can help parents who are grieving the loss of a child. Maybe you can be that agent @The_Riv
In your particular belief system, there are many forms of folk religion and a lot of people in fact believe they do.
Job is a miserable example, IMO, because God is a supreme asshole. He lets Job go through holy hell just to win a bet with Satan. That's fucked up. And then he justifies himself to Job with chest-thumping, "I'm big God man, you puny human person, you shut up." If I believed in God, I would say that this story was written by an enemy of God to make him look bad. Because he looks really really bad.
God above it's nice to hear someone actually say that. Job's only redeeming feature is challenging the "you must deserve your suffering in some way", and its modern form "everything happens for a reason" narratives.
Thanks.
And, you're right, people don't become angels. But the charge of unreality applies to any comprehensible statement you can make about the afterlife, since the afterlife is outside space and time, but we say things like "He's now with the Lord", which implies a relationship with God that's bound by space and time.
It's a story FFS and probably one of the earliest in the Bible. I don't get from it what you do. It's wonderful poetry and not to be taken as theology. But it is a warning not to be a 'Job Comforter' and offer glib explanation for the world's horrors.
"A new pimple on the nose of the Great Pixie!"
Or angels aren't dead people.
Whether one believes this or not is another matter altogether...
Am I the only one who grew up on The Littlest Angel? (My mother loved the book, though she also found ways to point out to us that people who die don’t really become angels.)
It's a nice thought, but I don't know how people in their circumstance would feel about a complete stranger attempting that. If I'm honest, and it were me, I wouldn't want it -- at. all.
Went into a real funk? Love that understatement there. Job's assessment of G-d, to quote the move My Cousin Vinny, is "dead-on, balls accurate. And as far as Rabbi Kushner goes, my take is that if G-d is not all-powerful, he isn't G-d. And I have no use for a demigod.
Yes, I think you're right - it's NOT orthodox theology...although quite which god/God it's supposed to picture is pleasingly ambiguous.
As poetry, and as a warning not to be glib, it's spot on.