Haven't written many spiritually related (and especially personal) posts of late. Just haven't had much to say despite having much on the mind. In the eyes of many who I feel a kindred spirit with, I'm probably about as fallen as one can get.
No church now in... oh... a long time...
I did read Real Live Preacher's book and enjoyed it immensely. Recommend it to all although some will find it... coarse... but maybe that's why I liked it so much... I can certainly be... coarse...
I'm finding myself now in what I might call an observant spiritual stage. Not observant in the sense meaning devoted but observant meaning I'm doing a lot of observing, perceiving, watching.
For example, the other night I watched (on TV) a room full of nuns pray the rosary for 30 solid minutes. Over and over again they prayed to the virgin Mary. The repetition was... in my view... distracting but what I saw (rather than heard) is what I thought to be most interesting. The look of devotion found on so many of the faces of these nuns. There were a few who were older but it was the younger ones that captured my attention. No one, despite the repetitive, some might call rote, even mechanical nature of their prayers, could deny that these ladies were communicating to, even with, their Lord (yes, I'm aware they were praying to Mary but I'm allowing that it was purposed in knowing and loving Christ).
I found myself... envious... desiring that kind of... oneness... with God. It was rather moving (this despite the fact that I muted the sound and simply watched them pray, over and over again). Some of those nuns were... enraptured and seemed clearly to have something I no longer do.
Which brings me to Mike's post titled 'Jesus sighting'. In it he points to Mac's rather witty, humorous and... slanted... series of posts detailing the outing of Jesus.
To say that this Jesus is a little different from the God the nuns have dedicated their lives to is to be more than just a bit understated. Mac's Jesus is hip, he's witty, and he's approachable and yes, he's been apparently tied up and kept in the closet of a megachurch. This Jesus is so... anti-God. His divinity is diminished (seemingly) and his humanity overplayed. He's down on Dr. Phil and Jonathan Edwards. He makes jokes about the Inquisition. About salsa blankets (or more specifically their purpose). He uses the word fuck and wuss in the same sentence. He implies that He said more than is written in the Gospels, much more. He straightens out any confusion as to how the Sodom story is to be interpreted. And then he makes jokes about coming out of the closet, implying that such outings are the farthest thing from wicked. All of this in the context of Mac's problems with your typical megachurch. Or at least Mac's typical megachurch. Or at least what Mac thinks is a typical megachurch. Something I'm sure Mac wouldn't in any way generalize about so that his story might be... more appealing, more acceptable... to your typical post-modern, progressive, non-violent, anti-war, leftist Christian...
But I digress...
The bottom line is that Mac thinks he's found Jesus. And this Jesus is... shall we say... non-traditional, not conservative, very hip, and although it's really not referenced at all there's no way he would've voted for Bush. No way. No freaking way... man...
Mac spins a good yarn and I'm sure it'll be linked to quite a bit by those who lean not toward the starboard side of the wider church.
But let there be no doubt, this Jesus doesn't exactly square with the Jesus described in more than a few Scriptures. And that, despite my rather "fallen" state, is unsettling.
Which brings me to Reverend Sensing's somewhat more traditional struggling with a most non-Gumby like Jesus:
Throughout the entire eighth chapter of John, Jesus seems argumentive, impatient and even dismissive. He comes close even to appear contemptuous of his interlocutors, "the Jews," to the point of insulting them in v 44, "You are from your father the devil... ."
This is not a Sunday School portrait of Jesus. Here is no smiling Jesus suffering the children to come to him. This is an in-your-face, bluntly spoken Jesus who has little time for or patience with people who won't sign on to his program right now. Let's face it, this is not a pleasant man to be with, at least some of the time.
Yet Jesus is John is also a man of definite purpose and mission. He knows what he is supposed to do and nothing is going to keep him from doing it. This Jesus is goal oriented and determined. His mission in life and repeats in John 8 that God "sent" him to do the Father's work. If he has to step on a few toes to accomplish it, so be it.
Reverend Sensing ends his devotional thoughts with this closer:
When we ministers strive to Christlike, I wonder whether we are aware of what we're really striving for. Do we think about or accept that Christlikeness might sometimes rub people the wrong way? Does Christlikness mean stepping on a few toes, or dismissing people who don't get with the (our) program?
This isn't the only place in the Gospels where Jesus seems unkind or harsh - see Matthew 23:33, for example, where Jesus is denouncing some Pharisees:You snakes, you brood of vipers! How can you escape being sentenced to hell?
Not a warm embrace, that.
As a minister, I need to ponder more closely and thoughtfully what it means to imitate Christ. Maybe I need to think about what is my sense of mission, what is my purpose and how I carry them out in a Christlike manner.
Mac's Jesus is certainly one I'd rather hang with. He'd be my buddy, my pal, my most tolerant and merciful friend quick to overlook my... coarseness...
Yet it requires a letting go of Reverend Sensing's Jesus... and I'm not ready to do that yet and there's a part of me (a large part of me) that thinks I better never be ready to go there.
One of the blessings of last year or me was to read a book called The Prophetic Imagination by a wonderful old OT theologian, Walter Brueggemann. In an age when everyone wants Jesus and God to be on their side (Falwell wants to get people saved and baptized and teach them to vote Republican, the post you referenced wants Jesus to be a friendly guy who works at the Gap, etc.), Brueggemann reminds us about God's freedom, righteousness---and dangerousness. I've since learned it's a theme of the 50+ books he's written. It's become a constant reminder for me. God is on God's side. God is on the side of truth and righteousness. God is on our side by his own choice, not ours. God being on our side does not mean that he turns a blind eye to our sin. God being on our side does not mean that he acts in ways that are predictable or in ways that we want.
Posted by: Zossima | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 07:53 AM
God is not “on our side”. He is on the side of holiness & righteousness. Insomuch as He desires us to be on His side, He has made a way through His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus paid our ransom. The magnitude of that is lost on a people who have made tolerance superior to obedience.
It reminds me of the many times I have heard people say “when I get to heaven I’ll ask Jesus…” How about “When I get to heaven I’ll fall on my face…”
In Jesus’ day they could not believe He was God, in the middle ages they could not believe He was man. We struggle (and right so) with the truth that He was both, that He still condemns sin and holds His people accountable.
We have fallen under the same condemnation found in the OT, “each one did what was right in his own eyes”
I could rant on, but will not.
(your welcome)
Thanks for the post and the reminder.
Posted by: Nicks | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 09:08 AM
I say a loud amen to Zossima's comments.
Posted by: rick | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 09:47 AM
Rick, the good news is we're all fallen, none more than any other. (I say "good news" because being fallen is a prerequisite for grace.) The better news is we're all made in the image of God, none more than any other.
Here's a suggestion for you. Since you say you'd rather hang with Mac's Jesus... go ahead. Sit with him a while and see if he speaks.
Posted by: Mike | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 10:57 AM
Good post (and I'll ditto what Nicks said).
I got the feeling from your post that you'd rather be a spectator than a participator. It's good to have a "buddy and pal" next to you for spectating, but without the love relationship you can not get to the participation. Every day you spectate is a day of lost opportunities.
It's easy to stay on the sidelines and play it safe, watching the wheels go round and round. God did not promise us an easy life, but He did promise to help us. I posted/linked on an essay about hope and pain yesterday, and I think you would benefit from reading it.
May you be bountifully blessed.
Posted by: MarcV | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 12:47 PM
One particular morning in the days of my own Enlightenment/midlife crisis, I awoke contemplating the admonition that refusal of the Holy Spirit was the worst sin one can commit.
That morning was different because I followed the thought with a realization, "What if it is all bullshit, including the warning not to refuse to believe?"
The collapse of that load-bearing (and I am using 'load' in a particular way) strut pretty well facilitated the collapse of the entire structure.
I can't engineer and introject particular beliefs based on the fear of reprisal if I don't, then legitimately believe them. My rational mind doesn't go there, and I have no intention of surrendering it up.
Posted by: The Owner's Manual | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 01:17 PM
One particular morning in the days of my own enlightenment, I woke up contemplating the thought that though a nice enough guy, I was by no means perfect, or sinless. I thought if there is a god, he probably will expect me to pay for my lapses in morality.
Seems to make sense in a world that operates on a “you get what you deserve” rational.
Imagine my surprise when I found out I was right.
Image my joy when I found out about grace.
Someone was going to pay for my sins, but it wasn’t me.
My rational mind can’t go anywhere but to the cross, that is the strut that holds up the entire structure.
Posted by: Nicks | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 02:08 PM
Hi All,
Mac here. Jesus shows up on His own.
Thanks for the plug Rick.
I think you missed the "disclaimer" at the end. I admit, it is subtle but here is what was written at the very end (part 12)
"Tell them what you like," he said calmly. "Just make sure they understand the huge gap between a piece of 'what if' fiction and the non-fiction reality that exists all around them right now, today."
There is no possibility of doing a fictive piece on Jesus that is well-rounded. He is too big...too many facets.
I chose to emphasize aspects which revealed both how Jesus is silenced in the modern Church, and how de-personalizing Megachurches and Consumer Christianity have become.
And I thought it would be interesting, along the way, to take a crack at several theological issues just for fun. But it is clearly a theological "what if" and does not take into account the other more severe aspects of Jesus as revealed in the N.T.
As for implying that Jesus said more than is recorded is fairly obvious. The Gospels present the absolute best snapshots of Jesus from four unique angles at differing times and places. His ministry was three years long, we only have a small percentage of that (unless He sat around silent for months at a time). Apparently we have all we need in them (and I am a biblical conservative).
The core of my rather one-sided depiction was also Incarnation, something often lost as well. God is on our side because "God became flesh and dwelt among us full of grace and truth." As for God being on a political side I think that is rather shallow.
I am not very political. You assume I am leftist. The other day a famous writer and artist accused me of being Marxist. What is it with you people? Such assumptions!
So I'll go on record, if I am a Marxist, I'd be Harpo. If I lean to the left it's because I am banking for a turn.
Jesus is always hip because He is trans-cultural and trans-historical. Moreover Jesus is alive, here today. Therefore Jesus is always relevant.
If you have other critiques please share them on my blog.
______________________
Posted by: Mac | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 02:49 PM
oh..and on the "closet thing" I was just trying to be funny.
Posted by: Mac | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 02:51 PM
I think including the rosary in your post provides such an interesting contrast, Rick. For several years I worked in a Catholic school as a teacher assistant, and had the unique opportunity of being immersed in the Catholic faith while remaining protestant. Over the years I’ve developed a deep appreciation for the rosary. The Hail Mary, the Glory Be, the Our Father all provide a chance to commune with God without having to focus on generating my own words. It is easier to focus on God.
Martin Luther said, “I cannot by my own reason or strength come to God or know him”. God saves us, he delivers us. We cannot silence him because we haven’t that kind of power over him. If we hold to the idea that Jesus is present and active in the world today then criticism of his church, however fashionable the current faux pas, must be approached delicately so as to avoid implying that Jesus is incapable of fixing the problem. His strength is made perfect in our weakness, so he will make everything right in his time.
Cool Guy Jesus seems to be popping up everywhere. And hey, he's cool. There’s nothing wrong with recognizing that, but focusing on that image has the potential to blind us to his depth. Jesus is ancient and almighty too. I guess praying the rosary in the chaos of 2005 is one of the ways I experience that depth. Thanks.
Posted by: Leslie | Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 06:34 PM
Nicks, my post clearly made the distinction that God is first and foremost righteous and holy. I did state that he is "on our side by his own choice". I am surprised that provoked a response from anyone. But I'm going to take issue with the negative reaction.
I agree with your statement that he makes it possible to be on his side. Of course. But the very process you describe is God being on our side. If God were not on our side, we could not be on his. That absolutely does not mean he condones our sin. It means that he has compassion on us. It means that he has identified with us in our sinful alienation from God. He not only identified with us, he went way beyond it in his death and the resulting separation from God that from my reading of Paul was complete separation, something that we are graced to not experience and that even the lost will not experience this side of eternity.
I think this is important because your statement represents the typical conservative American christian view of salvation, which is that Jesus' death was about substitutionary atonement. We are all sinners, etc. That's true. But Jesus died for victims, too. Jesus never uses the word "gospel" in the context of "dying for sinners". Nor does Paul. Jesus uses the word to emphasize his identification with and liberation of the poor and needy, the victims. Salvation is so much more than the fire insurance that is the result of a view that says that God does not or cannot identify with us but rather stoops down to save a bunch of sloven losers.
Further, the idea that God identifies with us is important if we are going to be like Jesus. Being like Jesus is about far more than moral virtue, it is about taking up our cross, becoming the least, serving our brothers and sisters and serving the lost. It's about selling everything to buy the pearl of great price and about leaving the 99 sheep to go get the one.
So, thank you Father and Son for identifying with me.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 10:14 AM
I would like to shout a loud amen to Zossima's second comment. I think Jesus would too but he's tied-up and gagged in the closet.
Posted by: rick | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 10:37 AM
Zossima and Leslie rock!
Posted by: Mac | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 10:39 AM
“your statement represents the typical conservative American Christian view of salvation, which is that Jesus' death was about substitutionary atonement.”
Zossima,
100 times, yes. Lets not limit it to America. John called it hilasmos in 1 John 2:2; and again in 4:10, the idea of propitiation. Hebrews puts it in context with the OT understanding of a substitunatry sacrifice. The Passover Lamb, Yom Kippur, etc. All pictures of substitunatry atonement. That is what it was all about.
Once a person comes to see Jesus as a servant in light of substitunatry atonement, the OT, the crucifixion, 1 John, Romans, Hebrews, and Philippians 2, how could they do anything but give themselves unreservedly to the service of the poor and needy? It is a by-product of substitutionary atonement, not a separate work. And it flows from a desire to be more Christ like, the gratitude of the forgiven empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: Nicks | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 02:31 PM
>>That is what it was all about.
No. That is part of what is is about. Substitutionary atonement is far from the only metaphor employed for salvation. What about the Exodus and return from exile (delivering people out of bondage and slavery)? What about the marriage and family metaphors? And again, Jesus does not speak of taking care of the poor as a by-product of gratitude for being saved. It is *the gospel* for him. Look it up.
>>Once a person comes to see Jesus as a servant in light of substitunatry atonement, the OT, the crucifixion, 1 John, Romans, Hebrews, and Philippians 2, how could they do anything but give themselves unreservedly to the service of the poor and needy?
Your kidding, right? Honestly, are even 10% of American christians as grateful as you describe---so grateful that they are caring for the poor with even 10% of their time? Instead, we had our sins forgiven and now we can read Rick Warren books, drive big cars, and vote for lower taxes and conservative judges. When salvation is interpreted only as "*my* sins are forgiven so that *I* can go to heaven when I die", I think this is what happens. If salvation were interpreted as a group of people being brought forth so that they can live like Christ now, the world could be changed. If salvation were interpreted as Christ's victory over all that is born of the nihil here and now, the church in America might actually thrive instead of being in steep decline.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 04:43 PM
And substitutionary atonement in the passages and examples you cite, particularly in the OT is always for a people. The individually-focused notions we have about salvation, the Bible, community, and even personhood were entirely foreign to the people of the OT and only emerging (via Greek culture) to the people of the NT. Our whole approach to the Word has more in common with Western thinking than it does with Jews and Christians of Jesus' day.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 04:50 PM
Oh Zossima,
Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law, he came to fulfill it. Clearly this speaks to substitutionary atonement. It's why we sing Agnus Dei. Granted, you have included this as part of your definition of salvation, but the other side of the liberation salvation coin raises issues for me.
Yes, Jesus took care of the poor and the needy. But to say that this was his main focus, and to suggest that we as Christians are to roll up our sleeves and work towards eradicating oppression skews things a bit in my mind. We are not God. We are not Jesus. Jesus is God. His work here on Earth reconciled the separation of God and man – a separation that was created by man and fixed by God. It was not a metaphor. We did nothing. All the glory must go to God. Only from that position can we approach anything with a spirit of truth and righteousness.
The problem with making the gospel all about the poor, is that it somehow elevates them to make them more worthy of salvation than the rich. In some contexts it can be a subtle prejudice. This is my whole thing with criticizing mega-churches. Mother Teresa said it so clearly as she always did, "We have no right to judge the rich…We do not believe in class conflict but class encounter: where the rich save the poor and the poor save the rich." We are all in the same spiritual boat, and it has nothing to do with our bank accounts. ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’.
If taking care of the poor is *the gospel* for Jesus, then sin becomes a socio-economic infraction. If this is the case, then what are the sins of the poor? I would suggest that sin possesses a broader definition.
>> “If salvation were interpreted as. . . the world could be changed. If salvation were interpreted as Christ’s victory over all that is born of the nihil here and now, the church in America might actually thrive instead of being in steep decline.”
From these words, it sounds as though the success or failure of the church rests entirely on man’s interpretative skills. But unless the Lord builds the house, the labourers toil in vain.
Zossima, you are an informed, linear thinker. I really respect that. One point of unity for Mac & I to share is that you rock. Still, it seemed like you were saying that Nicks’ substitutionary atonement perspective is simply a selfish way to get to heaven. Ouch. I know you are passionate about this subject...
Posted by: Leslie | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 07:24 PM
Your kidding, right?
Nope. Your right, that is what’s wrong. But because it is not in your experience does not mean it’s not happening. The “do good deeds theology” is equally as wrong on the other end.
And substitutionary atonement in the passages and examples you cite, particularly in the OT is always for a people.
Did you notice that the OT moves from the individual to the family to the tribe to the nation? It’s the model.
Substitutionary atonement is far from the only metaphor employed for salvation.
Substitutionary atonement is not a metaphor for salvation. It is the ultimate expression of Grace.
One of us has seriously missed the point.
I’ll go on thinking its you, you go on thinking its me.
Posted by: nicks | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 07:46 PM
No, Nick. The ultimate expression of grace is that we can be one with God and each other, just as Jesus and the Father are one. (John 17)
And if substitutionary atonement is the "ultimate expression", why does Jesus say so little about it, particularly when he uses the word "gospel", which we take to be synonymous with substitutionary atonement.
Finally, Nick, please show me that even 10% of christians are giving even 10% of their time to help the poor and needy---or even to genuinely befriend the lost in the love of Christ. If 10% of christians are doing it, you should have no problem showing it. This is an extremely consumerist christian culture.
Leslie, I certainly have no intention of making the gospel all about the poor. There are "poor" beyond the physically poor, including me by virtue of my sin. My sin makes me both a victim (I inherited and learned it) and perpetrator (I choose to do it). But Jesus *never* used the word "gospel" outside an immediate social setting.
The error is in making salvation something that is primarily "out there", realized when Jesus returns. Jesus himself taught that the kingdom is here, just not fully realized.
>>If taking care of the poor is *the gospel* for Jesus, then sin becomes a socio-economic infraction. If this is the case, then what are the sins of the poor? I would suggest that sin possesses a broader definition.
I suggest you take that up with Jesus and Paul. I don't think it is "taking care of the poor" or even that the poor are taken care of that is the good news ("gospel"). It is that the power of God is present by his own doing through the blood of Jesus for those who follow him to bring about justice and conquer death ("nihil") in his name and for his glory.
Jesus himself, though never suggesting that the poor are without sin---clearly he told them to "sin no more"---, made it very clear that it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom. I'll suggest we'd all be better off to understand what justice is in God's economy.
I certainly do not think that the substitutionary atonement perspective is in and of itself a selfish way to get into heaven. Again, it is clearly biblical. I do think that an inordinate emphasis on it coupled with a consumerist, individualistic American culture coupled with an eschatology that says that this world is all pretty useless and destined to be burned provokes very selfish behaviors in American christians.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 08:31 PM
>>Did you notice that the OT moves from the individual to the family to the tribe to the nation? It’s the model.
Well, you're trying to say that is a "model" for God's interaction with man, which is quite a statement to extract from the way a story is told. Adam and Even and Noah were clearly dealt with as individuals because they were the only ones. Abraham was because God was calling him to be the first of a people in his image. But Exodus and return from exile are about a people. The Church is about a people. The sins of Achan and Annanias and Sapphira are about a people. Jesus' mission was to a people. Your "model" is the product of your western worldview, not anything that an Israelite would have understood. Do some history homework, please.
Posted by: Zossima | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 08:35 PM
Interesting conversation. I'll stay out of it, except to say that the gospel is about the poor (among other things). I believe this is the yardstick we'll be measured against.
Remember when he said not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord, yada yada yada?
Remember when he said when you did it to the least of these, you did it to me?
Posted by: Mike | Wednesday, August 17, 2005 at 10:37 PM
Hi Zossima. Before I begin I want to make sure you know I’m not pounding my fist over any of this. I’ve been wanting to explore these ideas with you for a while.
>>I certainly have no intention of making the gospel all about the poor.
But to Nicks you said,
>>>And again, Jesus does not speak of taking care of the poor as a by-product of gratitude for being saved. It is *the gospel* for him.
The expanded definition of poor you offered seems then to include everyone. If so, then are not the 10% of Christians you mentioned poor and in need of being taken care of? I’m not trying to be a smart-alec I’m trying to sort this out.
>> The error is in making salvation something that is primarily “out there”, realized when Jesus returns.
What if this is only part of the error? In my view, the error extends to the thinking that after Christ has made me a new creation, that it becomes my job to be God. I’m very much agreed that we don’t do enough, but if my actions aren’t an outpouring of God’s own work, if my actions are born out of obligation then a sweet truth has turned sour. Jesus said come to me all who are weary...my yoke is easy and my burden is light. Not to give us reason to put our feet up, but that we might find out when we rest in him, then his power and his glory and healing and restoration may be dispensed in a way that honours him, not us. It’s a fine distinction I guess, but nevertheless one that rocked the church during the reformation.
Now, I know from our previous conversations that you have made this distinction in your mind. But, there are many who embrace a social gospel who haven’t and the implications of their thinking make them every bit as guilty as the most consumerist Christian.
You see I think the reason that it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom is because they're tempted to rely on their own resources. They think they can do it themselves, rather than relying on God.
>> It is that the power of God is present by his own doing through the blood of Jesus for those who follow him to bring about justice and conquer death (“nihil”) in his name and for his glory.
The beginning of John 17 records Jesus saying this: Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
In fact, Jesus was quite clear to make the differentiation that he posed no threat to the current reigning earthly power. “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews”. John 18. Perhaps this is just my western Sunday School upbringing talking, but it has always been my understanding that part of the disappointment with Jesus was that the prophecies had been read to expect a messiah that would free the Jews from earthly oppression...and then he came saying his kingdom wasn’t of this world.
>>I do think that an inordinate emphasis on it coupled with a consumerist, individualistic American culture coupled with and eschatology that says that this world is all pretty useless and destined to be burned provokes very selfish behaviors in American christians.
Selfish behaviours are the result of a sinful nature. It is the essence of humanity. Society has been made into the scapegoat.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 11:52 AM
This has been some great dialogue.
Jesus really was about the poor, or the margianlized. Here's the scary part for me, once I come to that realization I am faced with being confronted by Jesus every day of my life and how rarely I actually am willing to follow him. If I could only make this about my personal moral sin I could keep thinking it was all about me.
As far as substitutionary atonement is concerned, that is ONE way (of numerous)SOME Christians have viewed the death nof Jesus.
I like to look at his life. God came to LIVE, God chose life, not death as a way to redeem humanity. God entered our world and became one of us and religious and politcal powers killed him. They killed him for a reason. The killed him for the way in which he lived. They killed him for what he "lived for". I suspect when those who follow him start to live in the manner in which he lived and for the things in which he lived the religious and politcal powers will kill them as well.
I think Mac's posts were classic! Like I told my sweet 74 year old momma who loves Joel Olsteen. "It is a good message, but has nothing to do with Jesus' message here on earth."
Posted by: rick | Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 06:16 PM
other rick,
>>If I could only make this about my personal moral sin I could keep thinking it was all about me.
This sounds noble but it is really an ugly contortion of the concept of redemption. That Christ removed my sin is about Christ. The fact that all humans have sin that needs removing, and that we are all offered the opportunity to have it removed by Christ is what unites us. To make “it” all about “the poor” separates “the poor” from those who do not equate themselves as such. It presents Christians as some kind of white knight who sweeps in to save The Poor. Somehow that type of class system doesn’t jive with the unity of John 17 that is often trotted out. I believe you and I have danced this dance before. . .
>>God chose life, not death as a way to redeem humanity.
No he didn’t. Jesus died on the cross and rose again in 3 days. He often spoke about his coming death & resurrection. When he died, the curtain of the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom. This is hugely significant. At the point of death he said, “it is finished”. He was saying he’d accomplished his task. And I repeat, in John 17 just before he was arrested (and died) he said, “Father, the time has come...” God chose death as a way to redeem humanity and came back to life trumpeting the victory.
I suppose this confirms my status as a fundamentalist. You are welcome to update your readers.
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 08:10 PM
Hi Leslie, my sister in Jesus Christ. Greetings and love in the name of Jesus! It is always a joyous moment to find your words written in a spirit of love and kindness. Blessings to you this evening, sister.
Why is it that so many folks are so caught up in sin? I can't undestand why so many Christians who are free by the grace of God continue to dwell on how sinful they are. We are redeemed people and when God sees us God sees the righteousness of Christ. At the same time, we do sin... we still kill and hate our enemies in the name of God. We stll ignore the poor and defenseless although our SAVIOR was completely opposed to killing and not talking care of the poor and I occasionally have a cigar.
If you think that Jesus' death is the extent of God's incarnation you have greatly missed a HUGE part of the beauty of God becoming human. Yes, God died for humanity but God LIVES for humanity.
I know some folks actualy believe that God was just so pissed off at folks that he decided to kill Jesus, 'cause by gosh, God needed revenge and justification against sin so God acts just like an immature human... he kills to feel better.
So I tdisagree with you ttally. :) I think you have missed a HUGE part of the message of Jesus Christ. HUge! YES HE DID! Yes, God really did chose LIFE as the way of redeeming HUMANITY. Redemption begins at BIRTH... even DEATH couldn't keep God from LIVING! So YES, YES, YES, God Lived, Leslie, God did not come to die... God came to LIVE! And God wants to give you life as well... TODAY. Open your heart to the LOVE of God and allow God to help you LIVE. Redemtion doesn't begin at Jesus' death, it begins with God... for us that mean the womb of Mary.
Posted by: rick | Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 11:38 PM
>>Why is it that so many folks are so caught up in sin?
I’m not. I just like to remember what God has done for me and give thanks.
>>If you think that Jesus' death is the extent of God's incarnation. . .
I don’t. But I do think that it was this sacrifice that fulfilled the law in order for me to be forever forgiven.
>>I know some folks actualy believe that God was just so pissed off at folks that he decided to kill Jesus. . .
Who thinks this?
>> So I tdisagree with you ttally. :) I think you have missed a HUGE part of the message of Jesus Christ. . .
Thanks, your message has come through loud and clear.
Posted by: Leslie | Friday, August 19, 2005 at 11:22 AM
Leslie, thank you for your thoughtful and insightful comments. Your statement about us wanting to be God reminded me of something I wrote down recently:
Let me start this response by quoting something you said, then circle back around to clarifying (for myself, too) what I think about the poor and salvation.
>>In fact, Jesus was quite clear to make the differentiation that he posed no threat to the current reigning earthly power. “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews”.
Throughout the gospels, the words translated “kingdom” in the gospels mean “rule” or “authority”. I interpret Jesus' statement to mean that his kingdom is neither born nor conducted according to the ways of the world. Thus, his followers didn’t fight his arrest or for his installation as rightful king of Israel. This passage comes after the marvelous chapters 13-17. Jesus spoke John 17 (largely about unity) after demonstrating in John 13-16 quite a bit about the kingdom, including that it would be based on the towel, not the sword (John 13). Again, his kingdom is not of this world, in which ownership, legal restrictions, force, etc., –in short, the ability to coerce—are the basis of authority.
Jesus posed no threat to Pilate or Rome in that he did not intend to overthrow them by force. But the type of love and service taught and exemplified by Jesus in chapter 13-17 (13 in particular) is always a threat to the “reigning earthly power.” It is an existence that can only subvert those power structures because it freely gives without expectation of return, turns the other cheek, chooses to be the servant, doesn’t lord authority over others “like the Gentiles”, loves enemies, etc. This is radical stuff! It brings people together and that in and of itself stands in entire opposition to the world and to sin.
So, let me use some of those thoughts to jump back to the issue of the gospel and the poor. You pointed out some inconsistency in my statements, and I do have my own confusion at a certain level and am still thinking through so much with regard to this.
Aspects of salvation in my thinking: (1) It is not merely about “being forgiven so that I can go to heaven”. Jesus said, “Now this is eternal life—that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.” Jesus defines it in terms of quality of relationship. We are forgiven for relationship with God and each other. (2) God’s movements toward people (and his compassionate identification with them) and his actions on their behalf throughout scripture are very earthy. The Exodus, return from exile, Jesus declaration of his mission, etc., all are rooted in the here and now, not in some existential encounter with God that secures us a special place in the afterlife. And all these types of salvation are for the oppressed. How much more the cross! (3) The kingdom and salvation are for all creation, not just for mankind. Numerous scriptures attest to the renewal of all things. That is not to equate man with tree but to again place God’s redemptive work in the midst of creation which has huge ramifications for our conceptions of justice.
We have Jesus announcing the “gospel of the kingdom of God” (the “good news of God’s rule”) for the oppressed. He states that it is hard for the rich to enter. He makes it clear that the “haves” (generally the Pharisees whom he is confronting) struggle to see their sin or the extent of it. He chastises them for their oppression of the very people they are called to serve. He calls those who follow him to selfless servitude via self-renunciation and giving to others. Again, it’s all very earthy (present) and very oriented toward the oppressed or subverting that in us and around us which oppresses others. I wish we’d wrestle with this far more than we do. We’ve made “salvation” very safe.
We live in a very punitive culture. We all agree on the importance of God’s righteousness. Yet we Americans (and Westerners or first-worlders in general, I think) view that in terms of satisfaction for wrong-doing. We all are guilty. Jesus paid the price. Etc. That is true. But there is no justice if justice does not exist for the oppressed. That doesn’t happen enough in our culture, in my estimation. We’re tough on criminals, but not really tough on crime or compassionate about its effects. Christians in the third world have more in common with David who laments and wonders where God is than with us who our painfully aware of our guilt and need for atonement. I think that if we were born in a third world country, if we were christian, we wouldn't privilege substitutionary atonement to the almost exclusion of other aspects of salvation.
So, yes, I think salvation is for the poor. That is not at the exclusion of the rich. But again, Jesus is clear that it’s hard for the rich to get in. It’s not his fault or his choice. It’s because the rich have more to lose. We’ve made it pretty easy for the rich, though. It’s too easy for me to be a christian. Jesus didn't make it easy for the rich, and we, the richest people in the history of the world, should wrestle with that.
The reason salvation is for the poor, though, is not because God favors them over the rich. It is because the kingdom is here and now and the kingdom and salvation are about redemption and restoration (not just forgiveness) of all things (not just people). It is because God’s justice demands that poverty does not exist, and God’s justice requires that there be justice for the oppressed and the restoration of all things to the quality of relationship with God that God intended from the get-go. The poor, as Jesus taught, are more receptive than the rich. Hence, his willingness to invite the beggars to his party, rather than those who aren’t as interested.
Now, I recognize the possibility of being “poor in spirit”. I recognize that a rich person can truly be a follower of Jesus who has placed all at Jesus’ disposal. I recognize that God gives grace to the humble and can humble any one of us at any moment.
But I think that in addition to it being hard for the rich to be in the kingdom because of their own self-reliance, if we are to take Jesus’ teaching seriously, it is hard for them to enter because they are unwilling to do what is necessary to be the followers of Christ by divesting themselves of the self-interest that keeps them from bringing justice and relief to the downtrodden, which is a necessary part of seeing the kingdom come to fruition.
Okay, that’s way too long. Rick is going to start sending us bills for his storage space. ; )
Posted by: Zossima | Friday, August 19, 2005 at 12:39 PM
Zossima, thanks for being so willing to plow through this with me!
>> ...Without such a duty guarding the divinity of God the duty to imitate God would be empty because our concept of God would be nothing more than the mirror image of ourselves – Miroslov Volf
Important stuff to consider these days. I almost think ‘empty’ isn’t a strong enough word though. To me it's at the heart of the fall – a humanist dethroning of God.
My issues with all of this are mostly about order & sequence. I want justice for all, I want the oppressed to be free, the hungry fed and the homeless sheltered. What I see happening as social justice issues take rise in the church is that the cart gets put before the horse.
C.S. Lewis said that when first things are first, second things are amplified not diminished. I’d say relationship with Christ is first & freedom of the oppressed in this case is second. If Christ is first, the rest naturally follows. That said, I realize more & more everyday the truth of Luther’s words “I cannot by my own reason or strength come to God or know him”. Everything about my relationship with Christ is thanks-be-to-God, it is he who has done a great work in me & for that I give thanks. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem & everyone shouted hosanna, he told the Pharisees that if his people kept quiet the stones would cry out instead. I’m certain the success of God’s plan does not hinge on human effort. Furthermore, I don’t strive to be like Christ. eek! I’m not Christ. Instead, he moulds me into the person he wants me to be. He is the vine who gives me life. I go to him and he fills me up and lights my path. Overall, this is how I look at things.
>>Jesus posed no threat to Pilate or Rome...But the type of love and service...is always a threat to the “reigning earthly power.”...This is radical stuff! It brings people together...
Agreed. Isn’t this threat then a by-product & not the original goal? The current focus of social issues seems to have driven a wedge in the church. People are angry with comfortable Christians who aren’t doing enough. I’ve been there myself in spades. But it’s classic Mary & Martha dynamics – one sitting at the feet of Jesus, the other annoyed & working. Who did Jesus say had her priorities straight? Stopping at the feet of Jesus lets us be shaped by him so he can make opportunities for service that we’ll be invited to participate in when we’re ready.
>>Aspects of salvation in my thinking: (1)...(2)...(3)...
I pretty much join you here too. Especially including creation in salvation. As far as The Exodus & oppression: why were the Israelites in Egypt anyway? Drought. God prepared for it by placing Joseph in Egypt years earlier. If Jacob’s family hadn’t faced famine, they’d have remained happily in Canaan. Still, God is capable of dropping manna from heaven. Couldn’t he have used other means & prevented the bondage faced by the Israelites altogether? I’m not at all saying he wanted them to be enslaved, but I do think he views oppression from a broader perspective than us. Our limited perspective makes it difficult for us to even understand justice.
>>...God’s justice demands that poverty does not exist...
What passage of scripture brings you to this conclusion?
>>...the restoration of all things to the quality of relationship with God that God intended from the get-go.
I’m just not sure God intended for the restoration to be fully completed here on Earth. Romans 8:
Yes, he began a good work in us now, & will be faithful to complete it when Christ returns.
God “wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth”. 1 Tim 2. I think Jesus’ comment about the rich entering the kingdom speaks to a problem at the core of humanity. We all want to be seated on the throne. Everyone starts out in the Garden of Eden so to speak, and the serpent tries to dissuade everyone of their need for God. For the rich the serpent has more ways to trick them into thinking they are on the throne. If only people would stop listening to the lies.
Posted by: Leslie | Sunday, August 21, 2005 at 07:03 PM
Not at all... it's exchanges like this one that make blogging worthwhile... keep up the God work folks...
Posted by: Rick | Monday, August 22, 2005 at 11:05 AM
A Presbyterian, married Catholic, we both go to both churches. Some of my best poems come from inspiration of a Catholic homily (sermon). Because it forces me to see from a different perspective, it helps me to see what I can't see. But, we must be willing to listen to those who we are sure are wrong, in order to hear what they hear. Zossima, i am sure i see things you don't see. Will you listen to me and hear them?
There is correction, which requires I care for you. Criticism, which can be done without caring. Will we correct, or criticize? In churches this can be a major danger.
Has anyone read "Exodus, Why Americans are fleeing Liberal Churches for Conservative Christianity" by Dave Shiflett?
Catholics don't leave soon enough, Protestants leave too soon.
Posted by: Presbypoet | Monday, August 22, 2005 at 06:32 PM
Presby, tell us more... please...
Posted by: Rick | Monday, August 22, 2005 at 09:36 PM
Leslies said: "I’d say relationship with Christ is first & freedom of the oppressed in this case is second. If Christ is first, the rest naturally follows."
I used to believe this as well, but statistically this doesn't hold true. Especially with evangelical Christians who often claim Christ as Lord and savior are weak in issues of social justice. I am now at a place where I think that one major way we have a relationaship with Christ is by works of soical justice. Matthew 25.
Perhaps if Christ is really first, then yes. That is rare. Barna just reported that evangelical christians rank poorly on issues of social justice, divorce, and giving. Asa amatter of fact the divorce rate among ec is greater (after conversion) than other mainline churhces. It would seem that Christians who put Christ FIRST and other issues second would somehow have the pieces fall into place, which they don't.
Scripture has many examples of folks bing healed and fed by Jesus BEFORE they became his fllowers. Many folks encounter Christ while serving others as well.
Posted by: rick | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 12:34 AM
A note on divorce among born again. One possible explanation for a higher divorce rate may be racial. From my 93 World Almanac (p.942), the divorce rate for blacks is much higher than whites. For women, whites 159 per 1,000 married couples, blacks 370. This was in 1991. Since blacks are more likely to be born again, (fewer catholics) this would skew the results.
According to Barna, the divorce rate is almost the same 33% vs 34%,
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=8
Presbyterians have one of the lowest divorce rates.
We have to be careful about statistics.
As far as who is Jesus, my current poem at poems from God, is called "Jesus the Nice Guy." That is who a lot of people want, but it isn't who you get, when you take him into your life. Wild at Heart is more like it. Just ask those moneylenders who had their tables overturned. Obedience is what is required, not just doing good.
More later.
Posted by: Presbypoet | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 03:52 AM
What we have here, is a failure to communicate…..
Leslies said:
"I’d say relationship with Christ is first & freedom of the oppressed in this case is second. If Christ is first, the rest naturally follows."
She is absolutely correct.
“I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. John 15:5 (NASB)
Good deeds apart from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit amount eternally to nothing.
“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You gave Me out of the world; they were Yours and You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. “Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. “I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. John 17:6-11 (NASB)
Jesus’ prayer on behalf of believers makes it clear that there was a separation between them and the world. And they are expected to be different. They are expected to be Godly. They are expected to be servants.
The problem is the church has stopped using the “D” word.
What ever happened to discipleship?
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect. Rom. 12:2 (NASB)
Yeah, the church in America appears to be not much different than the world, and it’s got nothing to do with demographics. It’s got everything to do with discipleship. We have jumped aboard the train of “church growth” and left those we are expected to minister to behind. We have been so afraid of being labeled as “brain washers” that we have left minds in the filth and despair of the world.
I have dozens of friends that left affluent jobs, flourishing careers, friends and family to work in places like Odessa, Rwanda, Nigeria, countries we cannot name, the jungles, the deserts, desolate cities, hopeless cities, for the cause of Christ. They are disciples. They stay because they consider their current circumstances momentary light afflictions.
They teach, they feed, they care for, they dig wells, plant crops, treat disease, mend bodies, mend souls, and they plead for help.
Posted by: Nicks | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 07:36 AM
Rick in CA. I completely agree with Nicks' diagnosis of failed communication. Wouldn't it be nice if we could navigate our way out of that.
Leslies said: "I’d say relationship with Christ is first & freedom of the oppressed in this case is second. If Christ is first, the rest naturally follows."
I used to believe this as well, but statistically this doesn't hold true.
I wonder if the difference between your perspective and mine (on this and many other issues) is that I believe that man is not capable of putting Christ first. I believe that to have a relationship with Christ in the forefront is a gift received, not an accomplishment achieved.
I believe that when operating under his or her own power man and woman will always fail at putting Christ first and at improving social justice. This is a product of our humanity.
I *don't* believe we are to only help other Christians. If I keep saying it, hopefully someday you'll start believing me.
The term “follower of Jesus” has been poisoned for me by people who call me names and assume I’m not doing enough. I suppose they do it out of passion for their cause, but I've reached the point where I cringe every time I hear it.
Now “fllowers” of Jesus as you put it here, has much more theological potential in my mind. Jesus gathers us like flowers, he loves us and tends to us and then he carries us to those who are sick and hurting that they might know God loves them. He is the one who carries & uses us. It is an honour to be invited to participate. We are vessels.
Posted by: Leslie | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 01:01 PM
Thanks Leslie,
I would agree with you, even the "power" to believe is a gift. You are probably correct in saying that even putting Christ first is an act of grace. That is how I understand salvation. God saves us. We have nothing to do with it. God does it all. It is someting we recieve or better, that is lavished upon us. Along with this, we at some point respond. I certainly believe with all my soul that we are called to respond and ONE of the ways we respond to God's love is through justice. I fail there too as well.
Posted by: rick | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 07:30 PM
Nick S, I enjoyed your comments from the Gospel of John. I would be interested in seeing how you exegete MT 25:31-46
Presbypoet, most blacks would NOT consider themselves EVANGELICAL. As a matter of fact, back are one of the least represented groups in the evangelical church.
It is amazing that the stats are that high among ec even after conversion. Amazing.
Posted by: rick | Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 07:37 PM
rick,
Barna doesn't do self identification. So it depends on beliefs, not what you call yourself. So there is a likelihood Blacks would meet the criteria for evangelical. According to Barna, evangelicals have by far the lowest divorce rate.
To focus on the main point, as a Calvinist, I am fully aware of total depravity. My best just filthy rags. Like a cat who brings a gift of a dead rat and lays it on the bed.
Yet in him, being obedient, amazing things happen. Yesterday, I witnessed to a man in India. It happened when my DSL stopped. After over an hour trying to get help, i finally was connected. When the man apologized, i told him if that was the worst thing that happened to me this week, I would be overjoyed. I mentioned my son's battle with depression, and we talked about God as he helped fix my DSL. So God used me in a way i never planned. He does that. God uses me!
There are two things going on. First, God refines us through suffering. Second, being discipled, in a body, where iron sharpens iron. We need others to hold us accountable. On our own, we stumble, with no one to pick us up. Perhaps the best definition of discipling is; to learn to hear God and be joyfully obedient. Then love one another.
Posted by: Presbypoet | Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 02:02 AM
Thanks Presby for your thoughts. I attended the National Pastors Conference in SD to years ago there were 4,000 pastors there from all over the US. There was one thing missing among all those white dudes-- black pastors. Evangelicals account for approximately 7-8% of Christians. A relatively small group of Christians.
As far as the marriage and divorce among evangelicals, evangelcial Ron Sider wrote a book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience. It reports that: Divorce rates and sexual promiscuity among Christians contradict a political pro-family stand, Sider reports. Studies reveal that 90 percent of all divorced born-again Christians divorced after they had accepted Christ. Nationally, 33 percent of all adults have lived with a member of the opposite sex without being married, compared to 25 percent for born-again Christians. Research shows that cohabitation, premarital sex, extramarital sex, and pornography are rampant problems among evangelicals.
Racism:Polling data shows that 17 percent of evangelicals and 20 percent of Southern Baptists were among the most likely groups to object to black neighbors.
Despite what many believe, most evangelicals fall way behind and are not much different than culture according to Sider the research. That's why bumpersticker theology
like "Not perfect just forgiven" has done very little to impact the conscience of Christ's Church.
I did not want to give off the point, but sometimes because we claim we have give Jesus our hearts it does very little to how we live in the Kingdom.
Thanks to Rick in Va. again for the space and hospitality.
Posted by: rick | Wednesday, August 24, 2005 at 10:37 AM
>>My issues with all of this are mostly about order & sequence...C.S. Lewis said that when first things are first, second things are amplified not diminished. I’d say relationship with Christ is first & freedom of the oppressed in this case is second.
Leslie, I agree with your concern that the necessity of glorifying God gets tossed out the window in the name of social justice. I think liberal theology elevates man to God status by making Jesus into a nice guy who worked in a soup line and making morality optional. But the other extreme is a conservative theology that says "just pray the prayer" (at least the "elect") to go to "heaven", fixates on individual morality, and damns the earth to destruction in apocalyptic scenarios that are far more pagan than Christ-ian. Dietrich Bonhoeffer had much to say about this before his murder.
I think the majority of christians and people in general in the West are so caught up in the busyness of life that they are largely unaware of the issues we're discussing, are amazingly theologically illiterate (something like 80% of christians believe 'God helps those who help themselves is in the Bible'), and unconsciously borrow from liberal, conservative, Calvinist, Arminian, *and pagan*, theologies in what can only be called 'situational ethics' based on their feelings in the moment of decision. (The funny thing is that while the conservative theologians worry about “relativism” and “postmodernism”—nice buzzwords to demonize those “heathen” unsaved to whom we are to be salt and light, relativism has already won, even in their own flocks. Their real concern, though, truth be told, is just sexual relativism.) Our theologies are shaped by the communities in which we participate, and we spend far more time participating in the communities of work and leisure than we do in the community of Christ. And when this happens, God is most certainly not glorified.
Now most evangelicals believe as you do that there is a "process". That "relationship with Jesus" comes first. Fine. Go with that! One question: When are we going to serve the poor? How much "relationship" do we need before that happens? Because it isn't happening.
Jesus and the entirety of Scripture are clear that being a disciple of Jesus and the people of God requires that we care for one another and for the poor in our midst with a self-sacrificing love that embodies (we are the Body of Christ, after all) the love that Jesus has for these people. Yet billions of people live on less that $2 per day. Yet in the US something like 40 million people do not have health insurance (and citing that statistic does not in any way make me an advocate of nationalized healthcare). We should be mortified by that. But instead, according to Dobson and others, the greatest crisis this country faces is “activist judges.” Huh?
Somehow, the "process" has become very self-centered: *I* "accept Jesus" and enter into "discipleship". Discipleship seems to have a lot to do with sexual purity. We invest a lot of time arguing over what we can and cannot do. The latest innovation: As part of that discipleship I find my "call". Our self-help theologies have now even done away with the necessity of singing in the choir or teaching Sunday school or other service to our fellow church members! If "God" has given you a "vision" to build a multinational corporation, go do it! I'm not denying that God might give someone a vision to build a company. BUT loving and serving one another and care of the poor are not optional in the Word. They are not things we have to wait to be "called" to do. They are as essential as breathing for life in the Body. They are as essential as sexual purity. (And I'll suggest that if we'd get busy about the Lord's work, we'd struggle a lot less with porn, divorce, etc., just because we're busy and because we're too persecuted or too blessed to even think about those things. Porn and divorce and other immorality are both manifestations of consumerism and individualism run amok. Serving others turns consumerism on its ear.) Jesus didn't say "see if you might be called to carry my cross", he said to do it. He didn't say, "go on a spiritual fast so that you can determine whether you should help your neighbor who has three kids by different fathers and no money". He said to do it. And somehow, salvation rests on it. Whether it is what saves us or whether it is the evidence of having been redeemed doesn’t really matter at some level, because while we debate about that, we’re not doing it. Paul was “working out [his] salvation with fear and trembling.” I just prayed the prayer to get in. Where’s my fear? Seriously?
Nowhere in Scripture does it say that we have to have a correct doctrine of salvation to be saved. What we do know is that salvation is the work of Christ on the cross and that those who believe (in the first century usage of the word, there was no distinction between belief and action) will act like him. That should be enough to give us all great fear.
If we truly believe in hell, then the greatest crisis this country faces is christians who won't act like Jesus. If even 10% of the pastors who believe in the "process" would preach from Ron Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Sider is ultra-evangelical in his theology) and make care of the needy an essential part of discipleship and life in the Body rather than preaching from Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life (which is a good book), maybe we would get somewhere. One of the reasons that I have to conclude that our theology is wrong is because God is flat not being obeyed in this critical area of how we steward our time and money for the care of our brothers and sisters and for the care of the needy. If the “gospel” that we preach does not result in freedom for the oppressed and needy, then maybe it’s not the gospel. I don’t think it is, because the “gospel” that Jesus preached clearly was about freedom for the oppressed and needy.
So, all that to say, Great! If someone believes in the “process”, then I think they still have to answer for the care of the poor and explain why it isn’t happening routinely as a requisite of discipleship and of life in the Body.
Now, since we’re talking about glorifying God, let me try to frame the whole thing from that perspective. John 13-17 is one of my favorite sections of the Word. In it we get a perspective on what I think is the “divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4) in which we are to be “partakers”. John writes about this great interplay between the Father and Son. The Father is “in” the Son and the Son is in the Father. “Father glorify your Son…so that you may be glorified…” (John 13). Etc. Very beautiful. When we apply this to history with the understanding that Jesus is all about self-sharing and self-giving (Phil 2), wonderful snapshots emerge (can we ever see it clearly?). Father creates a universe and gives it to the Son to rule. Son redeems fallen creation and, particularly fallen humankind, for the Father, entering the nihil—nonexistence, death—itself and risking eternal separation with the Father. (While he believed the Father would rescue him, he didn’t truly know it until it happened.) Father exerts unimaginable power to raise Christ from the dead. Father gives Son the people whom he has redeemed for the Father as a Bride and an inheritance. Father will give Jesus the throne (typically a ruler only surrenders a throne upon death) and will enjoy watching Jesus reign. Jesus will subjugate all evil once and for all and present all things to the Father in gratitude. Always self-sharing and self-giving and complete self-emptying by both.
(Aside: What of the Spirit? I like Jonathon Edwards’ idea that the Spirit is the embodiment of the love of Father and Son, a love so holy that it is itself a person and exists from eternity because the love of Father and Son knows no beginning.)
We are invited into this (John 17)! Jesus teaching about discipleship tells us what self-sharing and self-giving and self-emptying look like (John 13). The Spirit is given by Father and Son to us to be the life of God in us that empowers us to these love and works (John 16).
So, not only does God’s justice demand it because he has chosen for it to be so, just as he has chosen that sexual immorality is sin. And not only does God’s justice demand that the oppressed be liberated for the reason that there is no justice if there is no justice for the oppressed but only justice for the perpetrators. But there is this wonderful “higher” reason: That living this way is how we exist in relationship with God. It is what being saved frees us to do. It is what we do when we are saved. It is what saves us by “working out” our own salvation, as it is in the ebb and flow of denying ourselves that we learn to be like Jesus.
Clearly, one can serve the poor and emphasize social justice without understanding Jesus or being saved. But my argument is that the redeemed do deny self and serve the needy and oppressed and work to bring about justice. I just can’t conceive of salvation without it. But let’s distinguish between the liberal idea of “serving” the poor from the overflow of society’s coffers and the conservative idea of “serving” the poor by willfully (not coercively) giving from one’s own overflow. Both are merely charity (by our modern definition, not Paul's). The evidence of salvation and indeed salvation itself is mysteriously wrapped up in the denial of self that places all that I own at Christ’s disposal by using it to serve and love my brothers and sisters in Christ and the oppressed. Yes, salvation is forgiveness of sins; but it is also restoration (to relationship with God and others) for those who have been sinned against. And that restoration is the work of the Church.
This is not about choosing capitalism or socialism or social programs and choosing sides in the political ruckus. It is about living above all of that in the freedom that God will provide, in the connectedness of the divine life in the power of the Spirit, in denial of the power of all that is of the world. It’s not about not having houses; it’s about having houses into which we receive the needy. It doesn’t deny property rights for others; but it is denying them for myself in a way that uses what God has given to his glory by rescuing others so that they can be invited into his community—in fact, so that they actually are in his community by virtue of being in our presence, his image and Body, something so beautiful that they just find themselves in it and don’t want to leave. (Or they are so repulsed by the ethic of self-sharing and self-giving that they deny Christ and persecute his people? Isn’t that the stumbling block Jesus posed?)
I’ll close this tremendously long post with a thought from my friend Greg’s blog entry today:
Posted by: Zossima | Saturday, August 27, 2005 at 02:16 PM
Zossima, I’d like to frame things a bit before I begin. I’m a Lutheran who lives in a small farming community where love your neighbour is a given, regardless of whether or not your neighbour attends the church downtown...left over from the survival aspect of the pioneer days I suppose.
I attended an anabaptist, yet non-denominational bible school and was surprised to arrive and find out my Lutheran-ness made me in need of salvation. It was good though, I had to buckle down and become versed on a few matters I’d taken for granted. I stayed for 3 years, and in many ways identify with the anabaptists. I then worked 3 years in a Catholic school, and strongly identify with them too.
I’ve shared many of your frustrations with the church. I’ve been hugely frustrated. But then my health deteriorated to the point where I could no longer work much. (If it weren’t for the good graces of my family, I’d be in dire straits.) Then I became frustrated with myself for all the same reasons I’d been frustrated with the church – not very productive, not contributing much. Taking much. Once I was forced to admit to myself that I could do nothing, God began to move in ways I couldn’t have provoked or imagined. His strength is truly made perfect in my weakness. I don’t know...I guess I began to see God’s enormity once I realized my own smallness. It changed me. It’s been a good thing.
So with that – love Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and what you said about being too busy & about theological illiteracy.
>>Now most evangelicals believe as you do that there is a "process". That "relationship with Jesus" comes first. Fine. Go with that! One question: When are we going to serve the poor? How much "relationship" do we need before that happens? Because it isn't happening.
Where I would differ with some evangelicals is that I would say God is in charge of the process. He develops the relationship. What can I do to improve my relationship with the one whose name is above every name? He prepares me and that is a gift.
I think parts of the church are serving. The Salvation Army leaps to mind. But for those that aren’t, is it a good idea for people to stir around in other people’s problems without being able to hear the whisperings of the one who has the solution?
>>Jesus. . .requires that we care for one another and for the poor in our midst with a self-sacrificing love that embodies (we are the Body of Christ, after all) the love that Jesus has for these people.
Yes, but that self-sacrificing love is a supernatural phenomenon that contravenes human nature. I really feel that if it appears in me, then it is because Jesus put it there, and if I don’t have it then the only way for me to get it is to ask him. Often this requirement is twisted & drives people to try harder not to be selfish or to do good things in hopes that selfishness will flee instead of driving them to seek the one who can remove it. It can undermine Christ’s power to fix people.
>>Somehow, the "process" has become very self-centered: *I* "accept Jesus" and enter into "discipleship".
Absolutely. Self-centeredness lurks at the centre of every soul, including those in the church. It was in essence the fall of man. While God conquered it, it rears its ugly head again and again.
>>The latest innovation: As part of that discipleship I find my "call".
I’m with you here too.
>>And somehow, salvation rests on it. ... I just prayed the prayer to get in. Where’s my fear? Seriously?
Just because someone doesn’t look to people (inside the church or the government) to save the poor and oppressed does not mean they have a faith as trivial as “I prayed the prayer to get in”. At the centre of this type of discussion is man’s position with God. If we take the view that we do his work for him, then we boldly assume a pretty high position. That the creator of the universe is interested in spending time with me at all...that fills me with holy fear, and reverence, and quite often silences me.
>>If we truly believe in hell, then the greatest crisis this country faces is christians who won't act like Jesus.
But is it merely my own “act” that saves people?
>>So, all that to say, Great! If someone believes in the “process”, then I think they still have to answer for the care of the poor and explain why it isn’t happening routinely as a requisite of discipleship and of life in the Body.
I think it isn’t happening because we as highly distractive, finite humans with limited perspectives, almost no strength and very little endurance are trying to fix things by tailoring our actions to look like those of our master. The results we get are distorted shadows of the real thing. It’s not until we reach the point where we realize that we are too small, and call on God to save us that we will see things change in the way we hope.
>>John 13-17 is one of my favorite sections of the Word.
I like this passage too. Especially your explanation & Jonathon Edwards’ thoughts.
>>We are invited into this (John 17)!
Yes, as vessels.
>>But there is this wonderful “higher” reason: That living this way is how we exist in relationship with God. It is what being saved frees us to do. It is what we do when we are saved. It is what saves us by “working out” our own salvation, as it is in the ebb and flow of denying ourselves that we learn to be like Jesus.
I would say that it is in denying ourselves that Jesus is able to go to work in us and shape us according to his perfect plan. The whole free-to-live-according-to-a-higher-purpose-once-I’m-saved thinking (hearkening back to bible school days now) separates me from the “unwashed” part of the human race in a way that has always made me uncomfortable. I don’t know if that makes any sense.
>>And that restoration is the work of the Church.
But the church will fail. God will bring about the restoration as soon as the church realizes it is weak...so he can be strong.
Oh Zossima, 3 times my computer froze and I lost everything. Sigh. Hopefully I haven’t left huge holes in the constant re-typing.
Posted by: Leslie | Sunday, August 28, 2005 at 10:26 PM
One of the most striking points made in this dialogue is: "Our theologies are shaped by the communities in which we participate..."
The culture in which we find oursleves pretty much defines everything. Our language, worldview, and even our understanding of our experiences of God.
I suspect this is why many folks have different understandings of scripture and perhaps why there are over 30,000 denominations.
Why does one have to "say the magic words" in order to follow Christ? Can we not follow Christ by serving the poor? Why must I "get saved" first? Many folks "have" what they think are the right beliefs but no action. Why can't folks have the right action with out the "correct" beliefs?
I can't find anywhere in scripture that Jesus says "get saved" and then serve the poor.
The ONLY place Jesus talks about who is in and who is out in the end-- the ONLY place-- is MT 25. How come folks don't talk about that?
Posted by: rick | Monday, August 29, 2005 at 06:31 PM
Fantastic Discussion!!!
If I could add one little tid-bit...
Seems to me the 'western' flow of the church has tended to fall into a "faith=thinking" mindset. The culture of the day when scriptural writing was taking place had more of a "faith=feet" mindset. Thus we have James saying, "faith without works is dead". Luther didn't even want the book of James in the Bible, or so I've been told?
Blessings,
chuckels
Posted by: chuckels | Tuesday, August 30, 2005 at 09:33 AM
Hi chuckels! You make a good point. I just feel that feet which act without thinking often walk themselves in the wrong direction. To me both feet and thinking are important, but without faith they are a chasing after the wind.
Back when I was always having “faith without works is dead” conversations I could never reconcile it with the “all our righteous acts are like filthy rags” of Isaiah 64. But I think the reconciliation is found in the later phrases of that chapter where we are reminded that “we are the clay, you are the potter”. Any good work we do is evidence of God’s work in us. What I see growing in some parts of the church is we are the potter and You are the clay.
An earlier comment on this thread mentioned that our good works are the standard by which will be judged. It is a common thought and is a logical conclusion if emphasis is placed on the foot end of the equation. It is a basic human temptation to become proud of the size of one’s feet – metaphorically speaking, of course. :)
As for Luther, I hadn’t heard that he wanted the book of James out of the Bible before but it is quite possibly true. Considering that Luther was neck deep in the reformation, James would have been thrown at him often. . . I’ve been involved in many conversations where the book of James has been cited as proof that I was not saved. I think in those past contexts it was being misused. Today, I’ve come to see it for the precious book that it is. God is good.
I’ve often admired your ability to say more with fewer words. That is a gift!
Posted by: Leslie | Thursday, September 01, 2005 at 12:19 PM