Why is God so Angry? Understanding the God from the Old Testament

In Pastoral Essays in Honor of Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament, we find an essay by Mark S. Smith titled ‘Why is a Loving God so Angry in the Bible?’ In his essay, Smith outlines a problem for readers of the Old Testament: the depiction of a wrathful and cruel God in the Old Testament. The problem is evident—how does one reconcile the idea of a loving God in texts that portray God as a vengeful God?

The idea of thinking of the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament in binary ways, that is, the former being a wrathful God and the latter being a loving God is debunked by Smith. The notion of a wrathful God is mentioned several times in the New Testament, as one can find the notions of a loving God in the Old Testament as well. Yahweh’s love for Israel is mentioned in, Deut 7:8;Hos 3:1; Kgs 10:9; Chr 2:10; Ps 47:5; Isa 43:4; Jer 31:3; Mal 1:2 and many more parts of the Old Testament. In a similar way, the New Testament talks about the wrath of God in Jn 3:36; Rom 1:18; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6; Rom 2:5; Thess 1:10; Rev 6:16-17; 11-18; 16:19; Mt 13:41-43; 49; 18:34-35.

 Instead, Smith points to the heart of the problem by challenging the notion of love and divine anger as two opposites, and calls this perception ‘not biblical.’ Put simply, Smith argues that anger cannot be labeled as bad. To do this, is to insert into an ancient text a modern standard. Smith explains that, ‘authors of the scriptures did not view divine love and divine anger as opposite emotions but as related emotions.’ For the Israelite of the time, divine love and divine anger were part of the same covenant explains Smith, ‘In Israel’s own religious context, divine love represented God’s recognition of human fidelity to the covenantal relationship with God, while divine anger aimed at Israelites commonly resulted from their failure to keep their covenant relationship with God.’

To truly understand this concept of divine anger; Smith goes on to explain the origin of human anger within the context of the scriptures. He claims that anger in the mind of scripture writers is link to several themes: subordination to authority, protection of family and fierceness. Anger among humans is no different than how the writers will portray the anger of God, claims Smith. Throughout scripture God’s authority is compared to a disregarded husband or father, a property owner who has been robbed, a defied political leader, or a spurned covenant partner—in other to emphasize the authority that has been broken by God’s subordinates. Idolatry and the breaking of The Law or religious violations are also manifestations of the transgressions of God’s authority and therefore call for his anger. God also manifests his anger at situations of social injustice and at the maltreatment of the least of Israel as well. Divine anger explains Smith, ‘is not simply a restoration of divine authority,’ however, ‘it is an act of persuasion on God’s part, to remind Israel that God is Israel’s rightful authority.’ In the mind of the ancient writer, divine anger is the declaration of ownership by God that establishes Israel’s as its own—not expressing possession but rather mutuality and oneness.

Understanding how scripture writers thought of anger leads us to understand how anger is connected to love, as two sides of the same covenant.  Divine anger is a demand of ownership rooted in oneness and covenant mutuality; it is a manifestation of fierceness—to put it all on the line for a cause; divine anger represents the wellbeing of one’s own: children, family, loved ones, and favored ones. To put it all together, ‘[divine anger is]…a powerful claim of divine concern for human suffering,’ Smith claims.

Smith’s essay identifies one of the greatest challenges in reading the Old Testament, the problem of reconciling a loving God with a description of a vengeful God. Not only does this problem have tremendous theological implications of how we read and understand the Old Testament, but because of this, it also has theological implications of who God is and how we can experience God based on our understanding and perception of these texts. To this day, I know more Catholics and Christians alike who speak of God in the Old Testament as a completely different God than the God of the New Testament, or perhaps more frequently as a God who is no longer to be studied or taken into consideration and therefore forgotten altogether because the full revelation of Jesus Christ in the New Testament outdates him.

This problem is best communicated in one of the most angry and bloodiest depictions of God in the Old Testament, the Book of Ezekiel. The Book of Ezekiel is divided into three sections: Ezekiel 1-24 describes the oracles against Judah and Jerusalem before 586 BC, Ezekiel 25-32 describes the oracles against foreign nations and Ezekiel 33-48 describes the oracles of hope and restoration for Judah. The book is situated in the fifth year of the exile in 593 BC. At the time, Jews were found in Egypt and Palestine alike—no longer bound to one particular location. (Boadt, 338) Ezekiel emerges as a unifying voice—that extended further than a land, kinship or temple rituals. (Boadt, 339)

Ezekiel’s God is full of anger. In chapter 6 God condemns Israel’s idolatry and proclaims slaughtering Israel and scattering the bones, ‘I will lay the corpses of the people of Israel in front of their idols; and I will scatter your bones around your altars,’ Ez 6:5.  In Chapter 8 God condemns abominations in the temple where priests and elders were blaspheming God, he announces that his wrath will be unstoppable and he will not know mercy, ‘I will act in wrath, my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity,’ Ez 8:18. In chapter 11—13 God condemns false prophets and counselors and calls for a wind to break out and a deluge of rain to destroy all, ‘In my wrath I will make a stormy wind break out, and in my anger there shall be a deluge of rain, and hailstone in wrath to destroy it’ Ez 13:13.  In chapter 16 God calls Israel a prostitute and calls to stone her, ‘They (man who you slept with)…shall bring up a mob against you, and they shall stone you and cut you to pieces with their swords,’ Ez 16:40. 

These passages are gory and violent and these are only a few examples found in Ezekiel. For anyone who reads these passages for the first time or does so in isolation and without a context, the image of God must be difficult to conceptualize. In Ezekiel 14, God’s judgment is justified, as God proclaims that only those who are righteous will be saved, remembering Noah, Daniel and Job. It is easy to interpret all of Ezekiel in the light of this passage. That is, with the mind of righteous anger, divine wrath, or just judgment—where the sinful many will be condemn but the holy few will be saved by their own righteousness. After all, this is a theme throughout the scriptures and this interpretation parallels the New Testament and the words of Jesus’ when he proclaims that narrow is door of salvation for example. It also helps the reader depart from the horrific blood thirst of God. This interpretation is also supported by chapter 18, where Ezekiel highlights individual responsibility and God proclaims individual righteousness and individual sinfulness, ‘It is only the person who sins that shall die’ Eze 18: 4. This interpretation serves to appease the notion of an unjust God but not of a violent and wrathful God however. 

The problem becomes evident in this depiction of God in Ezekiel, and the question resonates: ‘How can a loving God be so violent, cruel and vengeful?’ In the past, my interpretation was limited to two approaches when I encounter passages such as Ezekiel’s wrathful and vengeful God. The first, to interpret them in the light of divine wrath, as we can see from Ezekiel 14 and 18, where God’s wrath was limited to those that are sinful only and led to believe that his punishment must be just and divine and therefore far beyond comprehension.

However, this interpretation did not solve the problem that is the oxymoron of a loving and vengeful God. A second interpretation I had when I encountered passages as the ones found in the Book of Ezekiel was to see these texts in the light of the New Testament, to have to emphasize the loving Jesus Christ, as the full revelation of God, and trump a critical view of the Old Testament. The result of this interpretation was to think of chastisement out of love. Often we have heard these difficult texts to be aligned or compared to the images of a loving father who must be stern to correct his children. As a father disciplines his son, so does the God of the Old Testament chastises his children out of love. Needless to say both of these interpretations never sufficed.

I had not approach the text critically before and the understanding of anger for the scripture writer was not something familiar to me before. Smith points to the heart of the problem as he redirects my understanding of divine anger as it is linked to the notion of human anger for the scripture writers. Anger was not perceived as naturally bad in the scripture writer’s mind, instead it was the opposite. In a time where war and strive were part of a daily experience, being ready for combat was seemed as a value. God’s anger was perceived as the notion of being ready to fight for the ultimate cause. Smith points to the vast difference of how we come to understand anger bringing a new understanding to scripture. Anger now is understood very differently than how anger was perceived back in the time of the scripture writers. Whereas today anger seems to be placed as a reaction and considered negative, one that yields to hate and violence, this was not the case for the ancient writers. Anger and love were not polar opposites for the scripture writers, in fact, they were related. As mentioned, Smith refers to love and anger as two sides of the covenant, ‘God shows love to those who keep the covenant and anger to those who don’t’ Ezekiel’s God in many ways is showing anger as a manifestation of his love—of a deep desire to restore the covenant with his people. As Smith states, the ‘…ultimate aim at divine anger is not simply restoration of divine authority. It is an act of persuasion of God’s part.’ Divine anger is a declaration of love—of mutuality, of oneness, of a promise, a covenant. God’s violent words are approach very differently for the writer at the time.

In short, the God of Ezekiel can be read in two ways. Either, he is a maniac God at the verge of unleashing all his infinite power in retribution for a people who have failed him in all ways possible or as Smith’s suggests, as a God’s whose anger is ‘a powerful claim of divine concern for human suffering.’ And so the old question of, ‘What is God so angry?’ Turns out says more about our ‘modern sensitivities’ and the paradox that we place in the text, rather than with the intentions of the writers at the time.

Reading Smith’s interpretation of the anger of God—I come across understanding anger in a completely different light. In our world view, anger is perceived negatively but this is because it is automatically associated with violence and or hatred. However, they are not same but far from it. Instead, I dare to say that the Old Testament God and Smith’s insight help me understand the holiness of anger. There is no holiness in violence or in hatred—but there is in anger. When anger stirs us deeply—when it indignities us, when it moves us to action, when we feel other’s pain and suffering—this anger is not only justified but it comes from God. In other words, we are embodying God’s own displeasure and God’s own anger. Jesus turns tables at the scene of merchants making money by invoking people’s faith, how many times do we not feel indignant of false prophets, faith-telemarketers, who at the cost of people’s faith are making money? Likewise, God is moved by anger in Exodus, he hears the cry of his people and commissions Moses to deliberate them. Does God move social-workers, politicians, and all those who work for the greater good and welfare of all by the righteous anger that is provoked out of the selfishness of few? Shall we not too feel anger at the poor working conditions of many throughout the whole world? Are we not called to liberate them from their condition? God is fill with anger when the Law is broken. “For Thus says the Lord: The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.” Lev 19:34. Is God’s patience not provoked when we break the law and treat foreigners with animosity? Do we ourselves not feel righteous anger when we see a group people treated differently based on their place of origin, their social status, economic status, education, sexual orientation, or race?

This new understanding also shines light on my ministry and work. Often, because of our modern values, we can see anger and automatically be turned off by it. We often disengage if we are communicating with an angry person and this is reasonable if things are escalating or if they are yielding to violence in any form. However, it is true also, that anger it’s a call for disciples to engage at its deepest core. The Book of Ezekiel, ultimately, it’s a book of pain: A book that unfolds the deep pain that Yahweh feels for the turning away of his people and the pain of his people as they feel forgotten in the midst of suffering and hopelessness.

At the time of the writer, the idea of a God who feels pain deeply was as foreign to them, as the idea of a God that gets angry and loves at the same time is to the modern reader. The Book of Ezekiel shows both of these. With no need to provide a profound psychological analysis, where there is anger—there is pain. In some way, people who express anger are expressing suffering, for it is much easier to express anger which shows resilience and fierceness, than to express pain, which shows vulnerability and dependence. Ezekiel, embodying the lonely voice of a prophet, that is, carrying the message of Yahweh that is ignored or much worse defied, is echoing in the mist of suffering, turn into your pain and raise your dependence on God.

As a teacher, interacting with high school students, anger is frequent and often runs wild. I can see that often, this anger is projected or displaced, but often the real issue is never at hand. It is finally when layers unfold, that there is at the core, a source of pain and suffering. When that comes to the light—Yahweh proclaims, ‘A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.’ Eze 36: 26. Ultimately, this is my take away from the Book of Ezekiel and from ‘Why is a Loving God so Angry in the Bible?’ the proclamation of dependence and vulnerability from Yahweh to Israel. When students go to this place of hurting, they can only rely on something bigger for healing. This is an experience that seems to be true for anyone that experiences anger. For those that anger at injustice, there is a pain for people that move them. When my students are angry, there is hurting of some sort. When I become angry, I questioned my hurting and I come to the encounter of a new heart. 

It seems to me, that it is not enough that we begin to question the assumption of anger as a negative trait. For it is not. Furthermore, the God of Ezekiel shows us a deep pain for the suffering of his people. We feel it too when we experience holy anger—God gives us a heart of flesh. When people ask, Why is God so Angry? We can say, because God cares deeply.

The Importance of Inter-Religious Dialogue and Freedom of Religion in Fighting Extremism

Second Vatican Council brought to light the importance of Inter-Religious Dialogue in the life of mission and the life of the Church. 

The council described as bringing aggiornamento, or fresh air to the Church, defined the role of inter-religious dialogue in the Church as an integral element of the Church’s evangelizing mission. The council did not stop by pointing at the core of the identity of dialogue in the Christian life but unfolded a way in which we are to live this mission in the world.

With the world becoming more religious and many urban cities becoming hubs of mass communication making pluralistic societies—this necessity to be involve in inter-religious becomes more evident. Either people engage in talks about their faith or they simply ignore it. The good news is that this interchange happens in ways we are unaware most of the times. The Council not only made inter-religious dialogue an essential part of our lives as Christians but it also provided a way to understand and talk about our experiences with people of other faiths. The council explained that there are four forms of inter-religious dialogue: The Dialogue of life, The Dialogue of action, The Dialogue of Theological Exchange and The Dialogue of Experience.

Many believe that inter-religious dialogue needs to take place in an intellectual setting, as scholarship discourse and theological pursue only. However, this is only part of what inter-religious dialogue is. Instead, inter-religious dialogue is grounded in experience, in fact, in the experience of the other. At times, encounter is the word chosen to describe inter-religious experiences—pointing more directly at the face-to-face experience from which it derives from. The Dialogue of life for instance is concerned with ‘neighborly spirit’ sharing joys and sorrows and human problems and preoccupations with people of a different faith, the dialogue of action is concerned with the collaboration of integral development and liberation of people, that is working together with people of different faiths for problems that unite us, and the dialogue of religious experienced is rooted in the riches of spiritual traditions, prayer and contemplation, faith and ways of searching God.

Pope Francis pointed out the importance of inter-religious dialogue in a recent visit to Turkey promoting Inter-Religious dialogue and openness of faith expression. He urged ‘More inter-religious dialogue to help bring peace and end all forms of fundamentalism, terrorism and irrational fears.’ In his encyclical, Joy of the Gospel, he addresses the role of dialogue, ‘Inter-religious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christians as well as other religious communities.’ In a recent meeting in Europe’s Parliament, where extremism is a persistent threat, Mr. Tajani, ex-president of the European Parliament said, ‘who shoots in the name of God, shoots at God,’ stressing the importance of how violence in the name of religion hurts all religions alike. Pope Francis and Mr. Tajani address the same issue alike, inter-religious dialogue is not only a necessity due to our plural circumstances but also the source of peace and reconciliation to address extremism and fundamentalism.

Yet, there are many that are quick to point out that religion is in fact the problem. Many point out at ISIS and current extremist and violent group’s motifs to declare religion as the source of conflict. However, there have been many studies now that challenge this notion. The Institute of Economics and Peace in conjunction with The Religious Freedom andBusiness Foundation, found no general causal relationship between religion and conflict when looking at all of the current conflicts in the world. In fact, the most influential factor affecting peace is the government type showed the study. The study also indicated that not only is religion not a factor in conflict in the world, but a peace catalyzer. The study suggested ‘that freedom of religion is tied to higher levels of peace and that when religious people are free to do good, they bring powerful resources that can counter violent extremism and promote social advancement.’

Inter-religious dialogue and freedom of religion directly shape the way in which we respond to extremism and radicalism. All four forms of dialogue are able to exist because of religious freedom and inter-religious dialogue. Extremism and fundamentalism do not exist in a vacuum. That is, radicals and extremists foster fundamentalists thoughts in cultures and societies that are closed in which religious freedom is not a reality. In the same study by The Religious Freedom and Business Foundation, it was showed that countries with more religious liberty enjoyed more peaceful societies. In a similar way inter-religious dialogue seeks to confront radicalism through a theology of encounter, through all its forms, it promotes and seeks fellowship, justice and unity, it seeks out members that are becoming isolated, violent and closed-off to be members of an active and vibrant community that seeks peace and justice.

The Second Vatican Council put the primacy of inter-religious dialogue in our identity as Christians. We hold that it is necessary to share, communicate, collaborate and get to know people of other faith. Pope Francis reminds us that this notion of being Christian makes us peace-builders in a world that desperately needs it. He summarizes the foundation of these principles by saying, ‘fanaticism and fundamentalism, as well as irrational fears which foster misunderstanding and discrimination, need to be encountered by the solidarity of all believers. This solidarity must rest on the following pillars: respect for human life and for religious freedom that is the freedom to worship and to live according to the moral teachings of one’s religions.’

Why the Discourse on Radicalism is Missing the Point?

President Obama recently spoke against radicalism explaining that the United States is not at war with Islam, but with extremism. He explained, that ISIS is neither not Islamic and certainly not religious. A clear point that was faced with some resistance and criticism by some conservative networks. Why doesn't the president seem to emphasize the alliance or identification of this group as Islamic?, they seemed to ask-- a question that not only lacks a profound understanding of Islam but also an entire erroneous view on religious identity.

Let's start with the claim of who get's to decide what the identity of a group is? Well, certainly it does not only depend to the group itself but to a larger community that either accepts or rejects this identity. Despite the efforts of the KKK to identify themselves as Christian, would the larger community accept and defined them as such for example? It is not enough for a small group to claim ownership of an ideology, it is the mutual acceptance of larger community to establish that.

There is a larger misconception out there that Islam or any other religion carries innately a chance to pervert it's original message to become destructive and evil. Let's look at the fallacy of this thinking. When something becomes something that it is not, why do we still speak of the original identity as being distorted? This is what president Obama speaks of when he calls the Islamic State certainly not religious but a terrorist group. The minute the group promotes violence and terror, it has nothing to do with Islam, the same way that the KKK has nothing to do with Christianity.

There is also a major point that is not part of today's narrative of radicalisation. First of all, radicalisation or extremism is understood only through groups that promote violence. Nothing can be further from the truth when we talk about radicalisation. Ideas that promote good moral values are often radical ideas, extreme ideas, that seem to go against any current set of values or systematic belief. Furthermore, religion is in itself radical. No matter what creed, religion or faith -- if at the core, it promotes a way of living that is difficult but holds itself as very valuable it will definitely be radical.

Religion in fact has to be radical or it will loose it's appeal so to speak. However, it is radical in its message for goodness, for love, for justice, for equality, for solidarity, for peace. If Christians were not radical, how could they ever forgive their offenders? As Christ taught. The Quran surprisingly, teaches the same truth,


Terrorist groups should be identified as such, whether they are falsely trying to seek a religious identity or not. In the same way, the discourse that extremism is dangerous for the world should be understood in its own context. Religion is radical. However, radical acts of kindness certainly do not get the same coverage like the ones of violence. Goodness is radical, there is nothing practical or average about it. In fact, goodness and peace is far more radical than violence and evil. It is far more difficult and it takes a lot more work to do what is right and good.

The association of radicalisation and religion needs to be put to a halt. It detriments religion as factor or motivation for violence. While it is true that religion is radical, it is radical for other purposes. It is men that pervert religion, and not the other way around. Perhaps, the discourse needs to focus on what unites people of faith. These radical people throughout the world that share different systems of beliefs that compelled them to do what is good. Let's drop the radicalisation discourse tied with religion, call these groups for what they are terrorists, and explore the radical essence in religion that promotes good in all creeds and faiths.

On Becoming a Teacher...

I had never imagined that I would be a teacher. Wait, that is a lie. In high school the idea cross my mind. Actually, I wanted to become one. Somehow in high school, the idea had been planted and it sounded appealing. As a young idealist, I dreamt of touching student's minds and hearts.

 I aspired to teach because I wanted to inspire young people. I even remember coming home and yelling out, 'I'm going to be a teacher!', and having raised eyebrows as a response. And just like the idea came to mind uninvited, it left also without warning. The business of life and thoughts of other worthy careers took its place in a smooth transition. Little did I know that fifteen years later, the prophecy will come true.

I'm becoming a teacher and I have a bag load of emotions. Yes, in a way, some of them are the same ones that came to me as a teenager. The love to change and touch lives resides there as if it had never left before. Some things in life never do change or maybe we forget about them, I don't know, the point is that they are forever new. In the bag though, I also find anxiety, terror, nervousness, fear, concern, and many other things that make the bag a little heavy. 'It will be tough' people say, 'You will find no peace,' they warn me. To the sea of obstacles that come with the profession, I have chosen to be a teacher in an inner-city high need Baltimore high school. The good thing is that the warnings and concerns turn to silent responses when people hear of this.

I am not a big believer in destiny. Every time people speak of it I hear it in a cheesy way. 'It was meant to be' or 'everything happens for a reason' don't carry much meaning for me. So when I find myself asking, well how many people do get to do what they dreamed of as kids? Well, I am not sure. Some kids have much wilder dreams than others and also kids want to be something else every day. You make the calculations and make sure to carry the addition and by no means forget to round up and you get, well, who knows. Some people say that the key is never to stop dreaming, I find this a little less cheesy.

Soon I will be in front of twenty pairs of eyes staring back at me choreographed. I will move to the left and they will move with me. To the right and it will take them a little longer, and yup, they go to the right. Scary thought. Not the eyes staring back but the responsibility and accountability to all my students. The fine line that there is between authority and the abuse of power, the delicate process to motivate and inspire. All these things cross my mind, what teacher will I be? Will I be successful? Will my students be successful? Will they really stare back all the time?

I also think of all teachers. They all had their first year. In addition, I think of all my colleagues, who just like, will be teaching their first year. We are together in this. Not that being together on a sinking boat is a good situation for anybody, but hey, nothing like the feeling of helpless resignation with your fellow human being to create a fussy warm feeling inside. I pause. I do think of all teachers. Not only those who I remember first, for having a special place in my life. No, not only them. I think of all the teachers that had to do with my upbringing. That’s a lot of them, I find myself thinking. Then, I think of all the ones that taught those that I love, the teachers that educated my siblings and my parents and my grandparents. I think of the work of their hands day in and day out. One thing seems to surface the cloud of consciousness, it must be worth it.

To teach. Sometimes I equate this with, to learn. They go hand in hand. It would make sense then, that those that are excellent at teaching would be excellent in learning. To master anything, we have to become like children. Every time we enter a place and a ground that is unknown, where everything is foreign, you ask, you fall, you imitate, you try again and eventually you learn. (Yes, some fall over and over again but you have to believe they are learning with each fall and others want to avoid the pain of falling and carry an inflatable mattress to throw every time they think they will hit the ground) What if this is all it takes to be great? To have the humility to learn and to have the tenacity to get up. No, it’s not a motto or a banner, least of all a philosophy or pedagogy of learning or any other big word teachers use for the sake of increasing their lexicon or sounding too smart, it is not. I only think of it as the most important thing I want my students to learn. Nothing more, nothing less.

After all, when I give it some thought, that’s all I will want my students to learn. Life is tough. Life requires you to be humble. If you are humble, you will learn. If you learn to persevere, no obstacle is big enough. What a great lesson. That has to be rooted in a standard somewhere. In fact, I would like to cover that in Unit one of the first semester. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. The thing is though, that if I keep it in mind, I believe I will teach it somehow. I don’t know how. Maybe it will come out of my pores or out of my mouth at times—it will definitely be seen with my hands, yes, definitely with my hands. At times, a stare, a gentle act or a word of encouragement would do. I’m not sure, I can only hope that I could teach it.

I’m becoming a teacher. There will be no standing ovations or decorations. Only the success of your students—this seems to be enough. Indeed, that is enough.  

Pentecost and Social Media: An Opportunity for Communion, Activism or an End to Real Human Relationships?

According to a recent study, 1 out of 4 people use social media worldwide. The fast growing phenomenon has taken the world by surprise. Created only in 2004, Facebook has become the newest and most popular social media network and also become a powerful wealthy corporation estimated to be worth nearly 8 billion dollars. But, with the fast rapid integration of technology and social media, countless studies and research are pointing out the effects and impact that social media has on individuals and groups alike.

There seems to be several diagnosis or social problems that describe the use of social media. Many studies point out at the sense of belonging that social media creates. Whether it is in facebook, twitter, pinterest or instagram, upgrading status, publicizing photos or tweeting, creates a sense of participation worldwide. Participation that everyone seems to be seeking desperately due to the great inheritance of past movements that left humanity feeling alienated and desolated. The existential movement raised questions of individual meaning and existence and has emphasized the personal will rather than the integration of a group, the industrial revolution alienated the individual from purpose, the economic exploitation of capitalism has alienated the individual from his work and has maximized the power of individual choice leaving people wondering if they have any real impact or meaning in the world. With the turn of the century no one predicted the great need human beings will face as suddenly corporations and technological advances were making the news instead of their personal opinions. Social media seems to be a sort of cheap remedy to this global disease. Through social media, people regain a sense of meaning and participation--by having their 'voice' be seen or heard across the globe. While it provides an artificial sense of meaning, it also provides for a sense of communion. People find a sense of brotherhood in social media that they find in social-life, whether it is rooting for your soccer team, praying for a world-cause, or supporting a political agenda--social media unifies people of similar minds and interests.

This takes us to what some people would argue is the most important reason of social media--activism. The revolution in Egypt, one of the first of its kind was predominantly achieved through social media. By the

spread of 'the word of mouth' or to be more precise, the rapid spread of facebook comments and tweets, created awareness and a social movement that eventually became the revolution. From hashtags that show empathy with 200 Nigerian families that miss their abducted daughters to the rapid spread of campaigns seeking to popularize a political vote, social media not only informs but it brings about support. While many also argue that social media desensitize people from events, as cases are becoming frequent where bystanders choose to record an emergency rather than take action,  the power for spreading communal support for a cause is clearly larger.

Research shows however, that the greatest challenge for the use of social media is the disconnection that human beings have in interpersonal experiences. Millenia are already showing a great deficit in social skills--not being able to communicate clearly when it comes to doing it face to face due to the lack of verbal communication. If communication becomes primarily a written medium, researchers say that we are creating a society that would be brilliant in explaining written complex ideas and helpless in communicating a simple greeting face to face.

The Church just celebrated Pentecost. As described by the Church, this is the event where the Holy Spirit descends on the apostles as promised by Jesus Christ as they were hiding from the jews in fear of persecution. It marks the birthday of the Church because it signifies the beginning of the proclaiming of Jesus Christ to all the nations. So what does Pentecost have to do with social media? It turns out, a great deal. Whatever the position is on social media and technology in general, it cannot be ignored that it has grown to be a global culture. You embrace technology or you are left behind in the world. Social media has become a great medium that unifies the world--and therefore a big metaphor for the Holy Spirit if applied in the right manner.

Scripture says that after Peter was touched by the Holy Spirit he no longer feared the jews and proclaimed Jesus Christ that very same day and three thousand people were converted. Today, with social media--our post, photo, or tweet goes far beyond three thousand people in a matter of seconds. The question now is, do we seek for communion in God, seek justice through righteous activism or do we find ourselves losing our interpersonal humanness in the process?