I remember vividly an episode from my teenage years. Like all teenagers, I had a rebellious streak. I didn’t want to abide by all of the rules and impositions my parents had instituted. I wanted to stretch my wings. Do the things that I wanted to do. I was very much like most teens in the world. And on one such occasion, I lost my temper. I wanted to do a particular thing–I don’t remember what it was–and I was denied. I threw a fit.
And my dad responded, “Whenever you think you are grown enough to do what you want to do, just pack your suitcase and leave.”
I went to my room and pulled out my suitcase. And then I began to plan. I had exactly $274 in my wallet. I would go to my friend Kevin’s house. It was a long walk, but I could make it. I would ask to stay there. But what then? Would they let me stay long term? Would they feed me? Would they buy me clothes? What would happen if I spent all my money and had nothing left? What would happen then? Where would I find myself. Visions of standing at the end of a sidewalk with no place to go, no place to stay, broke and alone filled my head.
I put my suitcase up.
Maybe you can relate, but I want to intentionally shift the focus of this story, because I don’t want us to think about us for the time being. I want to shift the focus of this story to my dad. Because it is only in hindsight that I can see what my dad was doing. He was giving me up. I worded that last sentence very carefully. My dad was not giving up on me. He was giving me up. Essentially he was saying, “If you want your freedom, take it! There is the door. Go!”
Even though I didn’t know what my dad was doing at the time, when I began thinking about it, it scared the hell out of me. I realized I still needed my parents. Freedom wasn’t all it was cracked up to be.
What would happen if God granted us that freedom? What if God gave us up? We don’t have to wonder what would happen. We know. We have a biblical history of what that looks like, and that biblical history informs St. Paul as he continues laying out his condemnation of humankind in the book of Romans. Once again, I warn you, this journey is a dark journey for a while. We will travel in darkness before we see the light. And once again–like last week–I offer my apologies in advance. We will not get to Jesus’ saving action today. We will not hear John 3:16-17. Our hearts must be prepared to hear the Gospel. As I said last week, by the time we are done with the next two chapters either our hearts will be hardened so that we no longer want anything to do with God, or they will be crushed to the point that we rediscover just how amazing God’s love through Jesus is. We will rediscover amazing grace.
Last week, I ended my sermon revealing how we are deserving of God’s wrath because we do not honor or worship Him as God. We chase our idols of family, wealth, status, free time, government, and the like. We chase them because we believe they will bring us fulfillment. We believe they will bring us safety and security. We believe they will bring us true life. But they do not. They lead us down a path of destruction. Deep down, there is a part of us that knows this, but as Paul said last week, we deceive ourselves. We tell ourselves that we are just fine–that there is nothing wrong with what we do or what we live for. Stubbornly, we cling to our idols.
And this is where Paul continues today. Verse 24, “Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, 25because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.” God said, “If you want your freedom to follow your heart’s desire, you have it. Go get it!” One commentator said it best. God did not simply give us freedom. No, that would mean we would be without desire and free to choose whatever we wanted. God gave us the freedom to pursue the lusts of our hearts. Not only did God say, “Go pack your suitcase.” Essentially God said, “Here, let’s pack. And then after helping you pack, He shoved you out the door.” Sometimes there is no reasoning. Sometimes there is no begging and pleading. Sometimes there is no sitting down in a rational, loveable manner and showing another the consequences of his or her actions. Sometimes a heart is hell bent on trying to get what it wants, and no matter what you say; no matter what you do; you will not prevent a person from trying to get it.
Have you ever tried to keep an alcoholic from getting another drink?
Have you ever tried to keep an addict from taking another hit?
Have you ever tried to keep a sexual pervert away from porn?
Have you ever tried to keep a Cowboy’s fan from reliving the 90's? Okay, perhaps that last one wasn’t fair.
But you know the futility. You know the impossibility. And if you have ever reached your wits end, you know what it is to give a person up. You know what it is to let that person go on in his or her self-destructive behavior. And if you are angry enough, you push them toward rock bottom.
When humanity decided to worship the creature instead of the creator because of the stubbornness and warping of their hearts, God gave them up.
Verse 26, For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. I can hear the thoughts of some of you. “Oh, here we go. Time for some gay bashing.” I can hear the thoughts of others, “Now, it’s time to bring the hammer on the gay agenda and show them what God really feels toward those sinners. Time to tell them to repent of their sinfulness or end up in hell.”
First off, there will be no gay bashing–unless you call explaining what Paul says here gay bashing. And a Christian is not allowed to bash anyone–much less condemn a person to hell, so don’t expect me to do that either. These verses have been used as clobber verses toward gay people, and when used in such a fashion, they drive people away from the Good News. They drive people away from Jesus. This must never be our purpose. But we must not shy away from what Paul is conveying in these words either. He is making a very salient point.
More than a few scholars find it odd that Paul begins with homosexual acts for aren’t there other commands–other revelations of God which are seemingly more important? I mean, Paul himself argues later in Romans and in the book of Galatians that the entire law can be summed up in one great command, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Why not begin with that command? Why begin with homosexual, sexual relations?
In this section of the book of Romans, Paul is showing us what happens when God gives us up. Paul is showing us what happens when God gives us the freedom to pursue the warped desires of our hearts. Paul is showing us the consequences of what happens when we replace God with idols. Nearly every scholar I consulted for this sermon agreed that the finely woven fabric of what God created begins to fray and come unraveled when we don’t have God in His proper place. Nearly every scholar said that when God is not the center of our lives and worship, then our lives begin to descend into chaos. God’s created order unravels. This is important. Let me say it again. God’s created order unravels.
So why start with homosexual behavior? Let me ask you a question: what is the first recorded command in the Bible? What is the first thing that God told humankind after He created them? Do you remember?
Let’s take a look. Please pick up the Bibles in your pews and turn to Genesis chapter one. For those of you who have forgotten the books of the Bible, knock the dust off, and turn to page one... Skip down to verse 27, and let’s read verses 27 and 28 together, “27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
So, what is God’s initial command to humanity? “Be fruitful and multiply and have stewardship over the earth.” Can a man and a man be fruitful and multiply? Can a woman and a woman be fruitful and multiply? You know the answer to that question. And before anyone starts in on me: yes, I am aware that there are couples who cannot have children, and no one thinks they are sinning. I am aware there are people who actively work to make sure they have no more children, including myself and no one causes a stir. But this isn’t about having children or not having children. It’s about how God ordered creation and how that order is maintained. Homosexuality is against that created order, and it contradicts the very first command given to humanity–a command which was issued BEFORE the giving of the Law to the Jewish people–a command woven into the very fabric of creation.
Paul begins with homosexuality for these reasons. Not that it is above other sins. Not that it is because homosexuality condemns a person to hell. I mean, as Timothy Keller says, “I know very well that heterosexuality doesn’t get you to heaven.” Not that it is to be the focus of the church’s activity in the world. Paul shows that when the Creator is replaced, even the most basic order of creation begins to be violated.
And then, it gets really, really bad. Verse 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind and to things that should not be done. 29They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents, 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. God gave them up to pursue the desires of their hearts, and in doing so, their minds became debased; warped; unhinged. The created order began to suffer even more. Take another look at that list of vices that St. Paul puts forward. Tell me that you have managed to escape every one of those vices. Tell me you have been able to avoid such things your whole life through. Tell me that to this day, you never boast, become greedy, spread gossip, or get upset at what someone else has. Tell me that you are not under the power of sin. Even you are corrupt and violate God’s natural order of things. God has given you over to the freedom to pursue the desires of your heart.
And the picture of reality isn’t pretty. Think about a world full of those vices. Think about a world full of people who are greedy, selfish, envious, foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Think about a world full of strife, deceit, murder, slander, and gossip. Think about a world where people applaud you for getting away with evil–where people encourage you to give into your every desire; where people affirm every decision you make whether it seem good or bad; where people call you a prude for doing good. Where people long for the hero to fall and gleefully laugh when he does. Would you like to live in that world? Do you believe that we thrive in such a world? Would you agree that a world like that could be described as hell?
When God gives us up to the freedom to pursue the desires of our hearts, then that’s exactly where we end up. Hell is not simply a reality after we die. It’s already here. It takes place when we replace God with idols. It takes place when we demand our freedom from God’s rule. God says, “Okay. Let me help you pack your bags. Let me walk you out the door. Good luck.” Continue down the path, and sooner rather than later, we will find ourselves at the end of some God-forsaken sidewalk with nowhere to go; nothing to do; alone; abandoned–in hell. Amen.
Showing posts with label Consequences of Sin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consequences of Sin. Show all posts
Monday, September 19, 2016
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
Having a God Complex
On a message board frequented by yours truly, I was accused a couple of times (by the same poster) of having a "God complex."
It would be easy to vociferously deny such a charge. I think most of us readily would. But, instead of denial, perhaps it might be worthwhile to think such a charge through.
First, let's ask: what is a "God complex?"
Googling the term brings up some interesting definitions. Apparently, there is no one settled definition:
This website defines it as Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited.
The FreeDictionary: A popular term for a personality flaw commonly seen in physicians, especially surgeons, who perceive themselves as omniscient—i.e., God-like—and thus treat others as mere mortals.
The Christian view of humanity starts with the notion that each and every one of us are trapped by this innate selfishness--this innate desire to be God ourselves.
It would be easy to vociferously deny such a charge. I think most of us readily would. But, instead of denial, perhaps it might be worthwhile to think such a charge through.
First, let's ask: what is a "God complex?"
Googling the term brings up some interesting definitions. Apparently, there is no one settled definition:
This website defines it as Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited.
The FreeDictionary: A popular term for a personality flaw commonly seen in physicians, especially surgeons, who perceive themselves as omniscient—i.e., God-like—and thus treat others as mere mortals.
Definitions: God complex--A
god complex is an unshakable belief characterized by consistently
inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility. A
person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of error
or failure, even in the face of complex or intractable problems or
difficult or impossible tasks, or may regard personal opinions as
unquestionably correct. The individual may disregard the rules of
society and require special consideration or privileges.
God complex is not a clinical term or diagnosable disorder, and does not
appear in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
The first person to use the term god-complex was Ernest Jones His
description, at least in the contents page of Essays in Applied
Psycho-Analysis describe the God Complex as belief that one is a god
Wikipedia cites the Definitions.net definition.
It's intriguing to think about these definitions and perhaps put them together in some sort of fashion. I will do this to formulate my own definition of a "God complex."
Definition: An unshakable belief that one knows how the world operates and should operate, and that others who do not share the same thoughts are unintelligent, ignorant, and contemptible.
How's that for a working definition? If you do not agree with this definition, then the rest of this post probably will not make much sense. I invite you to offer your own definitions in the comments section.
For those of you still reading, I now invite you to ponder the accusation as I will. Do I have a "God complex?" Do I believe that I know everything and how everything should work. Do I hold others in contempt when they do not share my view of the world?
Immediately, most of us, including myself respond, "Absolutely not! I do not know everything. I profess my ignorance!"
(Yet, do you say this because deep down you know this to be true, or do you say this because you know it is the right answer that one must speak in public?)
Despite my initial rebuke of the accusation, I must also give myself pause. For do I not oftentimes believe I have the answer to what ails the world? Do I not believe I have the correct interpretation of data? Do I not believe if everyone else simply did as I did and thought as I thought, then the world would be a better place to live?
Be honest with yourself. Brutally honest.
How many of us are guilty of doing exactly these things? How many of us would like to write a prescription for the world and have it followed to a tee? How many of us become angry or upset when others refuse to consider our prescription or point of view?
No one that I know escapes doing this. No one.
Do I have a "God complex?" I most certainly do. I would argue every one of us does, and our self-righteousness is deadly to our relationships, to our society, to the world.
The Christian view of humanity starts with the notion that each and every one of us are trapped by this innate selfishness--this innate desire to be God ourselves.
It was not the action of eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden which was the Original Sin. Rather, it was the desire to be "like God," and not in a good kind of way. Being "like God" in our ability to love unconditionally, forgive when spit upon, be creative, and so on is a good thing. But wanting to be "like God" and function as the be all and end all is not. It is the latter which gets us into mounds of trouble and has gotten us in trouble for generation after generation after generation.
But is there a way out of such behavior? Is there a way for us to escape our "God complexes?"
Not if you aren't willing to see that you have one. Not if you aren't willing to see that you try to place yourself as God and tell everyone what to do. Not if you aren't willing to acknowledge that you at some level believe you know what is best and believe everyone else should be just like you.
Only when you are willing to acknowledge this and believe that it is wrongheaded--and that you are broken in this selfish desire are you ready to hear the message of grace.
And that is another lengthy post.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
The Knowledge of Good and Evil
"Why did God restrict humans when He placed them in the Garden of Eden? Why didn't He want them to have knowledge?"
I've watched numerous Youtube debates between atheists and believers, and this question has popped up numerous times. Several answers have been given. Many of them rather adequate, but none I have heard take the following view.
First, the background text:
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’ Genesis 2: 15-17
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ 2The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ 4But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; 5for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. Genesis 3:1-7
Why did God restrict knowledge?
Well, one must be a bit careful in asking this question, because as the story tells us, God did not restrict all knowledge. He only restricted the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of how things work. The knowledge of beauty, the knowledge of love, the knowledge of trust, one could even argue scientific knowledge and the knowledge of the earth was open to humankind. Only one type of knowledge was restricted: the knowledge of good and evil.
So, let's rephrase the question to reflect reality: why did God restrict the knowledge of good and evil?
Well, was there a need for such knowledge?
God had provided the man and woman with food, shelter, purpose, safety, and community. There was nothing they lacked. All was taken care of. There was no need for the knowledge of good and evil.
However, there was need for the ability of man and woman to make a choice. Without some sort of choice and free will, then there can be no relationship. God does not desire a forced relationship but one of trust, and He trusted man and woman to obey one simple rule. "Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil." You don't need this. All is taken care of.
I mean, from a practical standpoint, what would our lives be like if we did not have to worry about what was good and what was evil? What would our lives look like if we did not have to think through the consequences of our actions to see if they would produce good or evil? How many of us stress over decisions knowing if we get them wrong, there will be negative results? The knowledge of good and evil--even in the limited fashion we have them now--causes moral, ethical people angst and stress.
God did not want the pinnacle of His creation to bear such a burden; especially in paradise.
But as is the wont of human nature--we are never satisfied with what we have. There is something that always wants more. We cannot simply enjoy that which is around us and our situation in life no matter how good or how bad it is. We cannot simply be satisfied that our needs are provided for--want takes hold.
"Eat of the fruit for then you will be like God knowing the difference between good and evil."
I can be like God. I can have all knowledge then. I will no longer be limited or have any boundaries. I will be truly free.
Well, it didn't exactly turn out that way, did it? Broken trust. Broken relationships. Blame game.
Here's a question I haven't heard ex posited on: if after eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and knowing that blaming another for one's own actions is evil, why then did the man and woman do exactly this after eating?
Apparently, knowledge doesn't exactly lead to doing. Furthermore, even if we have knowledge, human minds are limited in their ability to calculate fully the consequences. We may think one thing seems good, but when implemented it becomes evil. And something may appear evil but when implemented it brings about good. Who but God can fully know good and evil?
And so, God kept it from us. In paradise, we didn't need it. And now that we have some idea of it, neither can we implement it nor can we fully grasp good or evil fully.
Seems like God was pretty smart in His restriction in that light.
I've watched numerous Youtube debates between atheists and believers, and this question has popped up numerous times. Several answers have been given. Many of them rather adequate, but none I have heard take the following view.
First, the background text:
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.’ Genesis 2: 15-17
Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, ‘Did God say, “You shall not eat from any tree in the garden”?’ 2The woman said to the serpent, ‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.” ’ 4But the serpent said to the woman, ‘You will not die; 5for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. 7Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. Genesis 3:1-7
Why did God restrict knowledge?
Well, one must be a bit careful in asking this question, because as the story tells us, God did not restrict all knowledge. He only restricted the knowledge of good and evil. The knowledge of how things work. The knowledge of beauty, the knowledge of love, the knowledge of trust, one could even argue scientific knowledge and the knowledge of the earth was open to humankind. Only one type of knowledge was restricted: the knowledge of good and evil.
So, let's rephrase the question to reflect reality: why did God restrict the knowledge of good and evil?
Well, was there a need for such knowledge?
God had provided the man and woman with food, shelter, purpose, safety, and community. There was nothing they lacked. All was taken care of. There was no need for the knowledge of good and evil.
However, there was need for the ability of man and woman to make a choice. Without some sort of choice and free will, then there can be no relationship. God does not desire a forced relationship but one of trust, and He trusted man and woman to obey one simple rule. "Don't eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil." You don't need this. All is taken care of.
I mean, from a practical standpoint, what would our lives be like if we did not have to worry about what was good and what was evil? What would our lives look like if we did not have to think through the consequences of our actions to see if they would produce good or evil? How many of us stress over decisions knowing if we get them wrong, there will be negative results? The knowledge of good and evil--even in the limited fashion we have them now--causes moral, ethical people angst and stress.
God did not want the pinnacle of His creation to bear such a burden; especially in paradise.
But as is the wont of human nature--we are never satisfied with what we have. There is something that always wants more. We cannot simply enjoy that which is around us and our situation in life no matter how good or how bad it is. We cannot simply be satisfied that our needs are provided for--want takes hold.
"Eat of the fruit for then you will be like God knowing the difference between good and evil."
I can be like God. I can have all knowledge then. I will no longer be limited or have any boundaries. I will be truly free.
Well, it didn't exactly turn out that way, did it? Broken trust. Broken relationships. Blame game.
Here's a question I haven't heard ex posited on: if after eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and knowing that blaming another for one's own actions is evil, why then did the man and woman do exactly this after eating?
Apparently, knowledge doesn't exactly lead to doing. Furthermore, even if we have knowledge, human minds are limited in their ability to calculate fully the consequences. We may think one thing seems good, but when implemented it becomes evil. And something may appear evil but when implemented it brings about good. Who but God can fully know good and evil?
And so, God kept it from us. In paradise, we didn't need it. And now that we have some idea of it, neither can we implement it nor can we fully grasp good or evil fully.
Seems like God was pretty smart in His restriction in that light.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Who is Welcome?
A Facebook colleague shared the following blog post:
When my abuser is welcome at the table and, I am not.
Pertinent quotes:
It’s the cool thing in more progressive branches of Christianity now to talk about how EVERYONE is welcome at the communion table. I should be glad about that, I guess...
But this trend in Christianity where EVERYONE is welcome scares me.
Maybe it’s because of the time when a former friend of Abe’s, who knew my back story, told Abe and I that we had to be grateful that Jesus forgives rapists. Who told us that because we could not see rapists as sinners just like us, we must not know Jesus like he does.
Or maybe it’s because of the people who cut off all ties to me because I’m not all that cheery and positive in my critiques of abusive systems and ideologies. Those same people who talk about how they long to sit down at the communion table with popular spiritually abusive leaders in a show of grace and forgiveness.
Or maybe it’s because of the way I see so-called progressive Christians in powerful positions react when my friends who are gay or trans* or disabled or people of color say, “Hey, this person/ideology is oppressing us.”
EVERYONE is welcome. But more and more it seems the “EVERYONE” that Christians are really going after is abusers.
And why not? How radical and Jesus-like does that sound? Abusers and survivors, sitting at the same table. Sharing the same bread and wine. The lion lying down next to the lamb.
Sure. That sounds great. Excuse me while I go have a panic attack or two.
I apologize for the length of that quote, but I do not want to diminish what Sarah Moon is saying. She's been abused. She's been raped. She's terrified of coming to a place where her abuser is welcomed, and she senses that she is not--not that she isn't welcome, she knows that, but where it seems like there is little compassion, comfort, or even safety for her.
Everyone is welcome. That is the mantra. No boundaries. Anything goes.
This is one of those responses to pluralism that has infected the church--yes, I used infected purposely.
The idea that everyone is welcome has never been embraced by orthodox Christianity. It wasn't embraced by Jesus. It wasn't embraced by Paul. So where did this idea come from? Where did people start buying into the idea EVERYONE is welcome at the table of the Lord?
It's About Grace
Progressive Protestantism is enamored with the concept of grace. I don't blame them in the least. I am too. When I hear the words of Romans 3
21 But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
and Ephesians 2
8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
my heart quickens. This central doctrine of Christianity is something I cling to and refuse to let go of.
But there is a dark side to the concept of grace. A dark side which reared its head in the early church and still rears its head even to this day. It's called antinomianism. That's the fancy word for it. The less fancy word is lawlessness or anti-law.
You see, Christianity is both law and gospel. The laws are the commands of God, the commands of Christ, the admonishments to live our lives according to God's will and do the works He commands. The gospel is the acclamation that since we are unable to accomplish living the commands of Christ to perfection, we are forgiven and set free to live our lives striving to achieve perfection (follow the law) without worrying about being punished when we fail.
There is a bit of tightrope walking that I am doing in that last paragraph. I hope you can see it. In no way, shape or form does grace git rid of the law. In no way, shape or form does grace nullify the commands of God or the commands of Jesus. They are still in effect. What is gone is that we are no longer under the discipline of that law should we fail. (Galatians 3:25). But that certainly does not mean we are allowed to simply break the law. Far be it. For the same person (St. Paul) who wrote that we are no longer under the DISCIPLINE of the law also wrote: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)
So, as Christians, we are free from the discipline of the law, but we still strive to uphold it. This is important for without the Law, there are no boundaries; and in Christianity, there are definitely boundaries.
Who is Out?
The idea that Jesus showed this radical love and accepted everyone regardless of who they were and what they did is simply asinine. It is a misreading of Jesus. The very fact that Jesus died for the world does not mean that He accepted everyone and believed everyone was welcome. There is a very important teaching to illustrate this point, and it applies to Sarah Moon's situation as well as to the understanding of boundaries in the church. From Matthew chapter 18:
Jesus teaches: 15 ‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. 18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Would that the church follow these instructions!! But alas, I can hope, can't I?
First off, we must recognize immediately Jesus saying, "If another member of the church sins against you..." There is definitely right and definitely wrong going on here. And how do we know what sin is? How do we know what is right and what is wrong? The Law. We cannot abolish the Law!!! It is necessary for clarity and boundaries and helping us know what is sin!!!
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.
That's the first step. Now, if I were counseling Sarah or any other woman or man who had been abused by another, I would never counsel them to go alone. There are exceptions to things, and this is one of them. I would counsel them to bypass this step and move to step two--for protection's sake and for courage's sake.
I know intimately people who have been abused. I know the pain inflicted upon them. I know their desire and want to avoid those whom have harmed them, but I also know that if one tries to avoid everyone and every situation that one might encounter an abuser, then the one who was abused becomes trapped. This is not good. The church, in whatever form that might take, should provide a safe place for someone who has been abused to find courage, strength, healing, support, a place to break down without judgement and other means of emotional, physical, and spiritual healing. We cannot diminish these things.
And one of those things is the courage to stand up to those who committed the abuse with the knowledge that person will not be allowed to harm him or her again--the courage to announce, "You sinned against me!"
Now, here is a very important piece. Jesus says, "If the person repents, you have gained a brother."
This might cause some consternation because forgiveness comes with difficulty. The healing is not necessarily done at that moment, but it none-the-less must take place. Reconciliation is hard--very hard. If you don't think so, just listen to some of the voices in minority communities these days when dealing with the effects of the Jim Crow laws. There are still demands for retribution--even given to generations born well after these laws were in effect. Forgiveness does not come easy. Forgetting never happens. Which is why support from those abused should never, ever be withdrawn until the abused say, "I am healed."
But that is just one scenario. "If he repents..."
What if he doesn't?
Well, there are a series of steps to continue on with including exposing the sinner to the entire church. Yeah, I know all about privacy laws and such things, but in order for infection to be dealt with, it must be exposed. In this case, if an unrepentant sinner refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing--refuses to come to grips with what he did to damage another, then the church must act.
"Treat that one as a Gentile or tax collector."
These were outsiders in the Jewish society. They were not allowed certain privileges when it came to worship and the holding of positions in Jewish society. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't come in contact with such folks. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't care about or love them. They were now restricted though. There were certain things they were not allowed to participate in.
In the early church and as the church grew, this meant excommunication--a refusal of the Lord's Supper. Until repentance was shown, the means of grace would not be allowed to this person.
Boundaries. They were important then. They are still important now.
St. Paul knew this--knew it well. He had to deal with a situation in Corinth which was not healthy, and once again, we see him drawing the lines in the sand with a particular church member:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ --1 Corinthians 5:9-13
How quickly we forget such admonitions from both Jesus and Paul. How quickly we forget that they drew boundaries, lines in the sand, which should not be crossed. How quickly we forget that radical grace meant radically new ways of living and transformation of the heart and soul.
Who is welcome? Well, all sinners are welcome. There is no doubt about that. But sinners who are accused of sinning against another and refusing to repent according to Matthew 18 are not. The church has had means of dealing with such things since its inception. Somehow, there are those who have forgotten.
When my abuser is welcome at the table and, I am not.
Pertinent quotes:
It’s the cool thing in more progressive branches of Christianity now to talk about how EVERYONE is welcome at the communion table. I should be glad about that, I guess...
But this trend in Christianity where EVERYONE is welcome scares me.
Maybe it’s because of the time when a former friend of Abe’s, who knew my back story, told Abe and I that we had to be grateful that Jesus forgives rapists. Who told us that because we could not see rapists as sinners just like us, we must not know Jesus like he does.
Or maybe it’s because of the people who cut off all ties to me because I’m not all that cheery and positive in my critiques of abusive systems and ideologies. Those same people who talk about how they long to sit down at the communion table with popular spiritually abusive leaders in a show of grace and forgiveness.
Or maybe it’s because of the way I see so-called progressive Christians in powerful positions react when my friends who are gay or trans* or disabled or people of color say, “Hey, this person/ideology is oppressing us.”
EVERYONE is welcome. But more and more it seems the “EVERYONE” that Christians are really going after is abusers.
And why not? How radical and Jesus-like does that sound? Abusers and survivors, sitting at the same table. Sharing the same bread and wine. The lion lying down next to the lamb.
Sure. That sounds great. Excuse me while I go have a panic attack or two.
I apologize for the length of that quote, but I do not want to diminish what Sarah Moon is saying. She's been abused. She's been raped. She's terrified of coming to a place where her abuser is welcomed, and she senses that she is not--not that she isn't welcome, she knows that, but where it seems like there is little compassion, comfort, or even safety for her.
Everyone is welcome. That is the mantra. No boundaries. Anything goes.
This is one of those responses to pluralism that has infected the church--yes, I used infected purposely.
The idea that everyone is welcome has never been embraced by orthodox Christianity. It wasn't embraced by Jesus. It wasn't embraced by Paul. So where did this idea come from? Where did people start buying into the idea EVERYONE is welcome at the table of the Lord?
It's About Grace
Progressive Protestantism is enamored with the concept of grace. I don't blame them in the least. I am too. When I hear the words of Romans 3
21 But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith. He did this to show his righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed; 26it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies the one who has faith in Jesus.
and Ephesians 2
8For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast.
my heart quickens. This central doctrine of Christianity is something I cling to and refuse to let go of.
But there is a dark side to the concept of grace. A dark side which reared its head in the early church and still rears its head even to this day. It's called antinomianism. That's the fancy word for it. The less fancy word is lawlessness or anti-law.
You see, Christianity is both law and gospel. The laws are the commands of God, the commands of Christ, the admonishments to live our lives according to God's will and do the works He commands. The gospel is the acclamation that since we are unable to accomplish living the commands of Christ to perfection, we are forgiven and set free to live our lives striving to achieve perfection (follow the law) without worrying about being punished when we fail.
There is a bit of tightrope walking that I am doing in that last paragraph. I hope you can see it. In no way, shape or form does grace git rid of the law. In no way, shape or form does grace nullify the commands of God or the commands of Jesus. They are still in effect. What is gone is that we are no longer under the discipline of that law should we fail. (Galatians 3:25). But that certainly does not mean we are allowed to simply break the law. Far be it. For the same person (St. Paul) who wrote that we are no longer under the DISCIPLINE of the law also wrote: Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:31)
So, as Christians, we are free from the discipline of the law, but we still strive to uphold it. This is important for without the Law, there are no boundaries; and in Christianity, there are definitely boundaries.
Who is Out?
The idea that Jesus showed this radical love and accepted everyone regardless of who they were and what they did is simply asinine. It is a misreading of Jesus. The very fact that Jesus died for the world does not mean that He accepted everyone and believed everyone was welcome. There is a very important teaching to illustrate this point, and it applies to Sarah Moon's situation as well as to the understanding of boundaries in the church. From Matthew chapter 18:
Jesus teaches: 15 ‘If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. 16But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. 18Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Would that the church follow these instructions!! But alas, I can hope, can't I?
First off, we must recognize immediately Jesus saying, "If another member of the church sins against you..." There is definitely right and definitely wrong going on here. And how do we know what sin is? How do we know what is right and what is wrong? The Law. We cannot abolish the Law!!! It is necessary for clarity and boundaries and helping us know what is sin!!!
If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone.
That's the first step. Now, if I were counseling Sarah or any other woman or man who had been abused by another, I would never counsel them to go alone. There are exceptions to things, and this is one of them. I would counsel them to bypass this step and move to step two--for protection's sake and for courage's sake.
I know intimately people who have been abused. I know the pain inflicted upon them. I know their desire and want to avoid those whom have harmed them, but I also know that if one tries to avoid everyone and every situation that one might encounter an abuser, then the one who was abused becomes trapped. This is not good. The church, in whatever form that might take, should provide a safe place for someone who has been abused to find courage, strength, healing, support, a place to break down without judgement and other means of emotional, physical, and spiritual healing. We cannot diminish these things.
And one of those things is the courage to stand up to those who committed the abuse with the knowledge that person will not be allowed to harm him or her again--the courage to announce, "You sinned against me!"
Now, here is a very important piece. Jesus says, "If the person repents, you have gained a brother."
This might cause some consternation because forgiveness comes with difficulty. The healing is not necessarily done at that moment, but it none-the-less must take place. Reconciliation is hard--very hard. If you don't think so, just listen to some of the voices in minority communities these days when dealing with the effects of the Jim Crow laws. There are still demands for retribution--even given to generations born well after these laws were in effect. Forgiveness does not come easy. Forgetting never happens. Which is why support from those abused should never, ever be withdrawn until the abused say, "I am healed."
But that is just one scenario. "If he repents..."
What if he doesn't?
Well, there are a series of steps to continue on with including exposing the sinner to the entire church. Yeah, I know all about privacy laws and such things, but in order for infection to be dealt with, it must be exposed. In this case, if an unrepentant sinner refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing--refuses to come to grips with what he did to damage another, then the church must act.
"Treat that one as a Gentile or tax collector."
These were outsiders in the Jewish society. They were not allowed certain privileges when it came to worship and the holding of positions in Jewish society. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't come in contact with such folks. It doesn't mean that Jesus didn't care about or love them. They were now restricted though. There were certain things they were not allowed to participate in.
In the early church and as the church grew, this meant excommunication--a refusal of the Lord's Supper. Until repentance was shown, the means of grace would not be allowed to this person.
Boundaries. They were important then. They are still important now.
St. Paul knew this--knew it well. He had to deal with a situation in Corinth which was not healthy, and once again, we see him drawing the lines in the sand with a particular church member:
9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons— 10not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since you would then need to go out of the world. 11But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother or sister who is sexually immoral or greedy, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber. Do not even eat with such a one. 12For what have I to do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to judge? 13God will judge those outside. ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’ --1 Corinthians 5:9-13
How quickly we forget such admonitions from both Jesus and Paul. How quickly we forget that they drew boundaries, lines in the sand, which should not be crossed. How quickly we forget that radical grace meant radically new ways of living and transformation of the heart and soul.
Who is welcome? Well, all sinners are welcome. There is no doubt about that. But sinners who are accused of sinning against another and refusing to repent according to Matthew 18 are not. The church has had means of dealing with such things since its inception. Somehow, there are those who have forgotten.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Satan Moves to Kill God Once Again
Satan: You know I'm really going to have a field day with this whole hell stuff.
God: You always think you will have a field day with the way I operate.
Satan: I know, I know, and you always seem to have the upper hand, but not this time. I've got you now.
God: Oh really?
Satan: Yes. You see, since you aren't trying to make people scared of hell and make them follow you out of fear...
God: Yep.
Satan: And since you give them what their hearts' desire...
God: Yep.
Satan: I will lead them to think they have absolutely no reason to fear you at all. I will lead them to think they can have their desires without any consequences. After all, you love them so much that you will just bring everyone to salvation. I'll make them think that a loving God certainly wouldn't condemn anyone to hell. It's just not in your nature to do such a thing. After all, you can't hate, can you?
God: You would be wrong.
Satan: Wait a minute. Did you just say that you are capable of hatred?
God: Indeed, I AM.
Satan: Now I am confused once more. I thought I was the King of Hatred. It is I who make people loathe one another.
God: Yes, you are, and you do those things impossibly well. The problem you have is that you do not understand love.
Satan: You know I hate that word.
God: I know. Your hatred is directed toward all that is good. My hatred is directed toward all that is bad. I hate seeing creatures suffer--either for the choices they make or suffering that is brought upon them through no actions of their own. I hate watching people starve because they refuse to share or distribute the plentiful food I provide. I hate seeing people perpetuate violence upon one another. I hate seeing people steal and manipulate each other to further their own means instead of building one another up in love. Yes. I know what it is to hate, but my hate is directed toward what people do--not toward people themselves. This is where I differ greatly from you.
Satan: So what does this have to do with my plan?
God: Ask yourself this: do you want to be responsible for making me angry?
Satan: Actually, I know very well what that is like.
God: And you know the consequences.
Satan: They suck.
God: And yet, you continue to rebel?
Satan: Because I don't want to be obedient to you!
God: I know that, and so you continue to bring my wrath upon you. It's your choice, but others will choose differently. They do not want to make me angry because they know my wrath is to be feared AND because they respect me.
Satan: Respect?
God: Yes. Because I love them, they love and respect me. It is their respect and desire to be obedient to me which drives them to do the works I command. You might be able to convince them that universal salvation exists, but you will never be able to convince them there aren't consequences to their actions. They know better.
Satan: How?
God: They've seen the cross.
Satan: Now what in the world does that have to do with this?
God: They know that when they continue to rebel, it is as if they are crucifying me all over again. For I must pay for their rebellion.
Satan: So, their sin hurts you? Kills you? Then I will have to convince them to sin even more!
God: And this is different from when? But I will trust them in even this. I will trust them to resist your temptations as I believe many will, because they do not want to disappoint or hurt me by their actions.
Satan: But they will!! I know they will!! I know they will hurt you, reject you, kill you!!!
God: There will be some, no doubt. But there is always forgiveness. There is always resurrection!
Satan: Do you always have a rebuttal?
God: Do you have to ask stupid questions?
God: You always think you will have a field day with the way I operate.
Satan: I know, I know, and you always seem to have the upper hand, but not this time. I've got you now.
God: Oh really?
Satan: Yes. You see, since you aren't trying to make people scared of hell and make them follow you out of fear...
God: Yep.
Satan: And since you give them what their hearts' desire...
God: Yep.
Satan: I will lead them to think they have absolutely no reason to fear you at all. I will lead them to think they can have their desires without any consequences. After all, you love them so much that you will just bring everyone to salvation. I'll make them think that a loving God certainly wouldn't condemn anyone to hell. It's just not in your nature to do such a thing. After all, you can't hate, can you?
God: You would be wrong.
Satan: Wait a minute. Did you just say that you are capable of hatred?
God: Indeed, I AM.
Satan: Now I am confused once more. I thought I was the King of Hatred. It is I who make people loathe one another.
God: Yes, you are, and you do those things impossibly well. The problem you have is that you do not understand love.
Satan: You know I hate that word.
God: I know. Your hatred is directed toward all that is good. My hatred is directed toward all that is bad. I hate seeing creatures suffer--either for the choices they make or suffering that is brought upon them through no actions of their own. I hate watching people starve because they refuse to share or distribute the plentiful food I provide. I hate seeing people perpetuate violence upon one another. I hate seeing people steal and manipulate each other to further their own means instead of building one another up in love. Yes. I know what it is to hate, but my hate is directed toward what people do--not toward people themselves. This is where I differ greatly from you.
Satan: So what does this have to do with my plan?
God: Ask yourself this: do you want to be responsible for making me angry?
Satan: Actually, I know very well what that is like.
God: And you know the consequences.
Satan: They suck.
God: And yet, you continue to rebel?
Satan: Because I don't want to be obedient to you!
God: I know that, and so you continue to bring my wrath upon you. It's your choice, but others will choose differently. They do not want to make me angry because they know my wrath is to be feared AND because they respect me.
Satan: Respect?
God: Yes. Because I love them, they love and respect me. It is their respect and desire to be obedient to me which drives them to do the works I command. You might be able to convince them that universal salvation exists, but you will never be able to convince them there aren't consequences to their actions. They know better.
Satan: How?
God: They've seen the cross.
Satan: Now what in the world does that have to do with this?
God: They know that when they continue to rebel, it is as if they are crucifying me all over again. For I must pay for their rebellion.
Satan: So, their sin hurts you? Kills you? Then I will have to convince them to sin even more!
God: And this is different from when? But I will trust them in even this. I will trust them to resist your temptations as I believe many will, because they do not want to disappoint or hurt me by their actions.
Satan: But they will!! I know they will!! I know they will hurt you, reject you, kill you!!!
God: There will be some, no doubt. But there is always forgiveness. There is always resurrection!
Satan: Do you always have a rebuttal?
God: Do you have to ask stupid questions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)