Discussing
Norway’s ‘memory wound’ and our calling to remember

Norway's 'memory wound' - a planned monument to the 2011 massacre on Utoya Island - should prompt Christians to consider how we're called to remember.

Thanks for helping us think through this, David. I think you're right that Biblical monuments predominately mark God's providence - and serve as a way for future generations to learn about and remember that providence. But I don't know if that precludes Christians from valuing monuments like this "memory wound," which exist to mark great tragedy. Not only is there an element of tragedy in many of the Biblical monuments (the deaths of the Egyptians who pursued the Israelites through the Red Sea), but if a monument like Norway's serves as part of a healing process, that seems to be a Biblical value as well.

In the New Testament and since the primary monument of God's work has been the cross, a memorial to an act of brutality that resulted in salvation and restoration. The focus on personal relationship with Christ. The offer of adoption extended to each of us makes the idea of a memorial that lists names and expresses the value of each, a memorial expressing the sanctity of each life, a memorial portraying the powerful gash and void each lost life represents, seems consistent with how the cross represents His expression of value for each of us.

I find "memory wound" to be an accurate and helpful description for all who experience loss, whether an individual or a nation. In the aftermath of the horrific event in Norway, trying to capture a way to memorialize a corporate grief may require something "jarring" as a way to honor the victims and recall the emotional responses at the same time. Holocaust museums come to mind as monuments to the worst and best of the human experience, and often name the victims so that they are not forgotten.

Biblical monuments are indeed about memory and God's provision. But I wonder if this is more description than prescription, and not intended to be aesthetically normative? Perhaps the authentic, gut-wrenching laments of Scripture serve as a model for the kind of memorial Lin and Dahlberg have in mind, one that not only remembers but may even invite those who gather around it to remember the memorialized event in a new way. This may not be their intent, but having visited the Viet Nam memorial I was forced to ask myself if it is possible to remember those who died and the events that brought about their deaths in a new way, looking through the "gash" and the "void" for a glimpse of redemption.

Thanks for the comments. Dave, I'm glad you brought up the Holocaust, because I've been thinking about it, now that there is a Holocaust memorial on (almost) every continent. And the Holocaust is certainly something present day Jews (and many others) do not want to forget, ever. But working on this essay, I was unable to convince myself that building memorials to disasters is biblical. Should we not, then, keep building memorials to the Holocaust? I don't know, honestly. I don't want to forget it, and I don't want my grandchildren to forget it, either. For very practical reasons.

The cross, Moherring, is another matter altogether. Certainly it was a disaster in the narrow sense of murdering the most innocent of all persons. But the cross, especially the empty cross Protestants prefer, symbolizes the ultimate act of God's providence, His victory over death and our sin. Now that is worth remembering for sure!