There was an elderly gentleman who lived just down the road from a junior high school. Everyday, two young boys would walk by his house and bang on his garbage cans. No amount of yelling, cussing, or threatening would stop them. So, one day, the old man changed tactics.
When the young boys came by and banged on his trash cans, the old man spoke, “Hey boys. Stop what you are doing and come here for a moment. I have a deal I want to make with you.”
The two boys cautiously approached the old man who had yelled at them countless times.
The old man spoke, “Gentlemen, I have had a change of heart. I used to hate you banging on my trash cans, but I have discovered that it is now music to my ears. Here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to pay you each a dollar a day to bang on my trash cans to your heart’s content. Is that a deal?”
The boys couldn’t believe their luck, and they readily shook. Everyday the following week, they banged on the trash cans with reckless abandon.
After a week, the old man called the boys to his porch. “Boys,” he said, “I hate to tell you this, but the landlord went up on my rent. I’m only going to be able to pay you seventy-five cents a day next week.”
The boys said, “That’s okay,” and then proceeded to bang on the trash cans another week.
After that week, the old man called the boys up once again. “I’m sorry, boys,” the old man said. “Cable t.v. went up. I’m only going to be able to pay you fifty cents a day next week.”
The boys looked a little forlorn, but they said, “Well, I guess that’s okay.” And they proceeded to bang on the trash cans every day the following week.
The next week (you know where this is going, right?), the old man called the boys once more. “Boys, I hate to break it to you,” he said, “but the old lady had to have dental work, and I’m out quite a bit. Next week, I’m only going to be able to pay you a quarter each day.”
The boys then said in disgust, “There’s no way we’re going to bang your trash cans for only a quarter. We quit!”
And the old man has enjoyed his afternoons of quiet ever since.
Now, we can talk about all kinds of things with this joke: the wisdom of the elders, how to trick folks, even the foolishness of living in a home near a junior high school, but what I would like to spend a bit of time on is being paid for your labor. This joke effectively highlights that if we don’t feel like we are getting paid for our labor–even if we are tricked into it; then we get angry. We have been taught that our time and our efforts are extremely valuable. We have invented a system of commerce–capitalism–that hinges on the idea that our time, energy, and efforts are valuable and worth compensation. We believe that if we work hard enough, our efforts should pay off.
Get a good education, and you will receive a good job.
Work hard at your job, and you will be paid, appreciated, and get a raise.
Dedicate yourself to improving your abilities, and you will climb the corporate ladder.
Practice hard enough in a sport, and you will excel.
And the list goes on.
This is so deeply ingrained in our being that those who believe in God oftentimes apply it to their life of faith. We are basically taught that if you are good enough, then you will receive God’s blessings. If you do wrong, God will bring curses. More than a few have a deeper belief in karma than anything else. If you do ill, then eventually, the universe will pay you back. And we generally believe we are on the good side of the equation. I mean, if you think about it, what is at the heart of that age old question, “What did I do to deserve this?” Have you asked that question? I’ve heard it numerous times. I used to say it. What did I do to deserve losing my job? What did I do to deserve getting sick? What did I do to deserve my family breaking up? What did I do to deserve my car breaking down? At the heart of that question is the idea that you don’t think you deserve this to be happening to you. At the heart of that question is the thought that you’ve been doing enough good to deserve good in return. Basically, you are thinking that you are owed a good life because you are working to be good.
There are many preachers and pastors who actually preach this kind of thing and grow large churches by this preaching. Just believe enough. Just pray enough. Just put enough in the offering plate. Just attend worship enough. Sing loud enough. Say the right words in prayer. Do all the right things, and God will rain blessing down upon you. This message resonates deeply because it gives us control–control over our lives and control over God.
St. Paul would have gone ballistic against this kind of thinking!! First off, he would have argued vehemently that you don’t deserve any sort of blessing in your life. From Romans chapter one verse 18 through chapter three verse 20, Paul has laid out his case that all have fallen far short of God’s required ways of living, and the only thing we deserve is God’s wrath. But in a shocking twist, Paul says we have been made right with God–not by any action that we undertook, but by God’s action through Jesus Christ. “We have been saved by grace through faith in Christ Jesus whom God set forth as a sacrifice of atonement.” When we deserved death, God gave us life–as a gift, Paul says.
And now, Paul is going to go through great pains to show that this was how God sought to make people right all along. Not through their work. Not through some sort of quid pro quo. But through sheer grace–effective when we trust in God. And Paul will use the example of Abraham to show this.
We begin in Romans chapter 4 verse 1: What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Paul reaches back into the deep history of Judaism to start with Abraham. Abraham is considered the patriarch of the Jewish faith–the one to whom God made the covenant to start the Jewish people. If Paul can show that Abraham was justified by faith and not by works, Paul gives Christianity a very, very strong footing.
Paul revisits the argument we dealt with last week about boasting. If Abraham were justified by his works, then indeed he would have something to boast about; but Paul says Abraham does not–especially before God. Why is this important?
Let’s do a bit of biblical history. As you read through the Old Testament, you will see that God gave the Law to Moses hundreds of years AFTER Abraham lived. Abraham did not have the Law. He was actually outside of the Law. The Jewish rabbis knew this, so they came up with the idea that Abraham managed to follow the Law unconsciously; instinctively. Because Abraham was able to do this, he was considered righteous before God.
But Paul knows better. He knows that Abraham didn’t follow the Law. Abraham was a polytheist before God called him. This means Abraham worshiped many gods. Abraham also lied and said that Sarah, his wife was actually his sister during a trip to Egypt. That caused a whole lot of problems according to the Bible. Even after God promised Abraham an heir, Abraham worried that God was acting too slowly, and he took a slave of his, Hagar, and had a child with her to be his heir. This was not trusting God, and Abraham certainly cannot boast about this. Then, when Abraham’s wife Sarah actually had a son, she became jealous of Hagar’s son and demanded Abraham drive him off. Abraham gave in to Sarah’s jealousy and drove Hagar and her son off. Does this sound like following the Law? Certainly, it does not. Abraham was not righteous because he followed the Law, and Paul points to the scriptures to show this as he quotes Genesis 15 verse 6, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”
Now, I want to point out here, as did the commentaries, that the Bible does not say, “Abraham believed IN God.” The words are, “Abraham believed God.” Abraham trusted God. Abraham believed that what God had said was true. Abraham trusted in the promises of God, and this is what made Abraham righteous. It was not any action that Abraham took. It was not any following of the rules. It was a trust that God would do what God said He would do. It was not something earned. It was something given.
This is the point that Paul follows up with beginning in verse 4Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. 5But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. This goes back to my opening comments about being paid. If you work for something, you expect to be paid. You have a claim against the one who you worked for. You can demand your rights. You can demand your wages. If God justifies by works, then you can demand that God pay you. But, Paul says, you don’t work for God’s justification. He gives it to you as a gift. God even makes the ungodly righteous when the ungodly trust that He will do so.
This claim, that God would justify the ungodly, flew in the face of what the Law said. For the Law unequivocally said that God would punish the ungodly. There were many texts that could be cited. Of course, the problem with this is that all are ungodly. All would be punished. The only way they can be justified is by a gracious act of God.
And Paul points that such gracious acts have not only been done to Abraham, they were done to David as well. Paul ends by quoting Psalm 32 which is attributed to David: ‘Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.’ David knew that such sins are covered by God and not by works of the Law. The Psalm points this out.
Now, Paul is actually not trying to emphasize David. He is trying to emphasize what God did in making Abraham righteous. He will continue this argument throughout the rest of the chapter. He wants to make it abundantly clear that when God began the Jewish religion, He did so outside the Law, and the founding Father was made righteous not by works of the Law, but by grace–sheer, undeserved grace.
This is a frightening thing for some. This is a frightening thing for religious belief because it means that we are not in control of God in the least. What do I mean?
Timothy Keller once shared an illustration of a lady whom he was trying to convert to Christianity. He told her the Gospel and that we are not saved by our works but by sheer grace. The lady to whom he was talking responded that this was a scary idea. Keller pressed her to say why. She responded, “Well, if I am saved by my works, then I can make a claim on God. I have my rights. I can say, ‘I’ve done this, God owes me.’ But, if I am saved by sheer grace, then there is nothing God can’t ask of me.”
Abraham knew was made righteous by God and not his actions, so when God asked Abraham to leave his family, his safety, his security, and go to a land that he knew nothing about, Abraham left. That’s scary to think about. That puts us into a world where we have no control. We are totally dependent upon God. Where we can’t know the future or plan for it. How many of us want that kind of life?
My guess is none. We like safety. We like security. We like having some control. We like to
think that we can bargain with God and obtain rights for doing the right things. But it doesn’t work that way. It works in a totally different way. We can’t claim anything from God. Instead, God claims us. God claims us. And He says, “Trust me. Above everything else, trust me.”
It would be a scary prospect to simply trust God in such a fashion. It would be terrifying–IF WE DIDN’T ALREADY KNOW HOW MUCH GOD LOVED US. For that is the piece of the puzzle that we must focus on. We must remember the cost God paid for us. It cost Him the Son. It cost death on the cross. God sacrificed Himself for us because He loved us. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son so that all who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. You were bought with great price. God doesn’t owe you anything. He has already given everything for you. The only question remains: will you trust Him? Amen.
Showing posts with label Tim Keller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tim Keller. Show all posts
Monday, November 14, 2016
Monday, September 12, 2016
The Grace that no Longer Amazes: Romans 1:18-23
Our foray into the book of Romans begins to take a dark turn. I say this because in the next two chapters, Paul lays out a scathing condemnation of humanity. Paul reveals to his audience just how sinful they are–how sinful we are. There are many who will not like what I have to say in the coming weeks. Many would like to pretend that they are generally good, decent people who commit a few mistakes, sure. Everyone commits mistakes. But tell a person he or she is deserving of God’s wrath, then you are likely to receive a tongue lashing. We are a culture that has become desensitized to God’s wrath. We have been so exposed to a loving, gracious God, that the thought of grace no longer even amazes us.
I watched a lecture this week by Dr. R.C. Sproul, and he told a very interesting story. He said that he began teaching an introduction to the Old Testament course in theology at a particular college to all 250 students. He laid out how students would be graded for the class. There would be a series of papers turned in throughout the semester due on a certain date. If the paper were not turned in, the students would receive a failing grade. Sproul said that at the first due date 225 students came with their papers and 25 did not. The 25 pleaded with Sproul saying that they were making the transition from high school to college; they had made bad time management choices and needed more time. Sproul granted them more time, much to their delight. The next due date came, and this time 200 students came with their papers, and fifty did not. Once again the begging and pleading ensued. Once again, Sproul offered an extension. At this point, Dr. Sproul became very, very popular on campus. All the students loved him. According to Sproul’s story, they even sang a song to him!
But then, the final due date arrived. This time, 150 students handed in their papers. 100 did not. Sproul approached a young man and asked, “Do you have your paper to turn in?” The young man replied, “Hey, don’t worry about it prof. I’ll have it for you in a couple of days.” Sproul picked up his grade book, looked at the young man again and said, “You don’t have your paper?” The guy replied, “No.” Sproul marked in his grade book and said, “F.”
Sproul continues, “There was this gasp in the room. And I looked and said, ‘Johnson, where’s your paper?’ ‘I don’t have it, sir.’ I said, ‘F. Reynolds, where’s your paper? F.’ And as if it were orchestrated...they call cried out with one voice, ‘THAT’S NOT FAIR!’
“I said, ‘What did you say?’ ‘We said that’s not fair.’ I said, ‘Beech, weren’t you late with your paper last time?’ He said, ‘Yes sir.’ ‘And you are late this morning?’ He said, ‘Yes sir.’
“So, I gave you an F for today, and it’s justice that you want? I’m going to give you justice. I’m going to change your grade for the last one, the one you were late for, and I’m going to give you an F for that one. O.K.? Now, who else wants justice. You people be careful about ever asking for justice because you just might get it?”
Sproul continues, “But what happened? They became accustomed to my grace. First they appreciated it. Then, they expected it. Finally, they demanded it, and that’s who we are.”
That’s who we are. When it comes to God’s grace; His love; His mercy in this day and age–we no longer appreciate it. Most of us expect it. And many demand it. This is why there is a severe lack of humility in many churches today. This is why many Christians come across as arrogant and self-righteous. They believe they deserve grace–they deserve God’s love. And a Christian who is not afraid of God’s wrath or a person who is not afraid of God’s wrath, will not hear the Gospel as good news; will not ever have a change of heart; and will never experience the fullness of peace that the Gospel delivers.
Today, we begin a journey towards humility. Today we will begin to have our toes stomped on unmercifully. When Paul is done with us, our hearts will either be hardened to the point that we want nothing to do with God, or our hearts will be crushed and ready to hear what God has done when we least deserved it.
Paul begins, “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.” There was a time in recent Christian history when theologians wanted to get as far away from God’s wrath as possible. They believed this painted God as arbitrary, judgmental, liable to blow up at a whim and punish whoever He wanted whenever He wanted without regard. The idea that God could get angry to the point of dealing death toward His creation was shoved as far back as possible in favor of a God who simply loved and wanted to be loved. The majority of theologians today have repented from this because the horrid events of the 20th century: the Holocaust; the killing fields; the murder of millions of people in Russian pogroms woke them up to the reality of evil. And if God is a just God; if God cares even a smidgen for His creation, then He cannot stand such evil acts. God’s anger must burn hot at sin or God is not good!! Let me say that again: God’s anger must burn hot at sin and injustice, or God is not good! This is what is behind Paul’s words here. Ungodliness is sin against God. Wickedness is injustice or sin from one human against another. God hates these sins with a passion. They bring about His wrath.
But one might argue, how can someone who has never known God or known God’s commands stir God’s anger? Isn’t that injustice on God’s part? Paul says unequivocally that God’s anger is stirred against ungodliness and injustice–of those who suppress the truth. Can EVERYONE know the truth?
Paul anticipates this argument as he continues, “19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;” Paul probably has Psalm 19 verses 1-4 ringing in his head as he dictates these words. This Psalm reads:
The heavens declare the glory of God
the skies proclaim the works of his hands
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
No sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
Paul believes in what we call today, natural revelation–that we can come to know God–His power and His divinity–through the natural world. This is not anything new for most people. Most people believe that we can come to know some sense of right and wrong; some sense of justice; some sense of God through looking around the world. Hence, every single culture around the world has some form of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Babies have a sense of fairness and justice. It is innate within each and every person who is in his or her right mind. No one is without excuse. And if there is a universal law, where did that law come from? Paul argues that those who suppress the truth are those who claim it comes from anywhere and everywhere but God.
21for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. There is a blatant mistranslation in this text in verse 21. It should read “for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless hearts were darkened.” The importance of this translation will become clear in a moment.
Paul continues in his argument saying that even though people knew God–even though they knew of His revelation through creation–they did not honor Him or give thanks to Him. They refused to worship God. This led them to become futile in their thinking; have darkened hearts; and to become foolish. How does this happen?
This happens because everyone worships. Yes, everyone worships. I don’t care if you are an atheist, a staunch believer, or even a Christian in name only. Everyone worships something. Some may disagree with me greatly, but here is the argument laid out for you:
We as human beings don’t just live–we all live for something. Something in this life gives us meaning; gives us direction; gives us purpose; gives us hope; gives us a sense of value. Timothy Keller puts it best when he says, “There has to be something which captures our imagination and our allegiance, which is the resting place of our deepest hopes and which we look to to calm our deepest fears. Whatever that thing is, we worship it, and so we serve it. It becomes our bottom line, the thing we cannot live without, defining and validating everything we do.” In days of old those things were literally idols–images made from wood and metal, but in our days, such idols have been changed but are still none-the-less idols: money, sex, justice, peace, prosperity, work, family, friends, busyness, power, climbing the corporate ladder, science, technology, free time, the government and a host of other things capture our hearts’ imagination and lead us to become foolish.
How does this happen? Let me read to you the comments of atheist David Foster Wallace in his commencement speech at Kenyon College:
Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship, and the compelling reason to maybe choosing some sort of God or spiritual type thing to worship is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you choose to worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure, and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age starts showing you will die a thousand million deaths before they finally grieve you. Worship power and you will end up feeling weak and afraid and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect being seen as smart and you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is they are unconscious. They are default settings.
When your heart’s imagination is captured by anything other than the Creator, you will become enslaved. It will demand your time; your money; your energy; your entire being, and then you will delude yourself into thinking you are just fine. You will justify what you are doing over and over and over again. You will make excuses for your behavior and your thoughts. When others confront you with your behavior, you will get angry and frustrated, and you will say, “I can stop this at any minute,” knowing full well you cannot and will not–until your heart changes. Your stubborn, darkened heart makes you a fool. Your worship of things other than the Creator turns you into a fool.
And now we must all ask ourselves: what do we worship? What consumes our heart and mind and our thoughts day in and day out. What do we think about in our spare time? What does our life revolve around? Odds are, it is not God. None of us, and I mean none of us are focused with all our being upon Him. We have traded worship for our Creator for things that are created. Therefore, we stand under God’s wrath. We deserve God’s wrath. God’s anger is kindled against us.
And now, I must end with an apology. I apologize for ending this sermon right here and right now. For years, I have included in my preaching the Gospel. I have brought you time and again to the point where you hear the soothing message of what God has done for you through Jesus Christ. I have pronounced the Gospel in a nutshell: John 3:16-17 with reckless abandon. But I cannot do this today. This book is forcing us to reflect upon the state of our hearts; upon the state of our sinfulness. We must continue through the darkness so that when the Gospel is announced at the end of chapter 3, we will once again discover just how amazing grace is. Amen.
I watched a lecture this week by Dr. R.C. Sproul, and he told a very interesting story. He said that he began teaching an introduction to the Old Testament course in theology at a particular college to all 250 students. He laid out how students would be graded for the class. There would be a series of papers turned in throughout the semester due on a certain date. If the paper were not turned in, the students would receive a failing grade. Sproul said that at the first due date 225 students came with their papers and 25 did not. The 25 pleaded with Sproul saying that they were making the transition from high school to college; they had made bad time management choices and needed more time. Sproul granted them more time, much to their delight. The next due date came, and this time 200 students came with their papers, and fifty did not. Once again the begging and pleading ensued. Once again, Sproul offered an extension. At this point, Dr. Sproul became very, very popular on campus. All the students loved him. According to Sproul’s story, they even sang a song to him!
But then, the final due date arrived. This time, 150 students handed in their papers. 100 did not. Sproul approached a young man and asked, “Do you have your paper to turn in?” The young man replied, “Hey, don’t worry about it prof. I’ll have it for you in a couple of days.” Sproul picked up his grade book, looked at the young man again and said, “You don’t have your paper?” The guy replied, “No.” Sproul marked in his grade book and said, “F.”
Sproul continues, “There was this gasp in the room. And I looked and said, ‘Johnson, where’s your paper?’ ‘I don’t have it, sir.’ I said, ‘F. Reynolds, where’s your paper? F.’ And as if it were orchestrated...they call cried out with one voice, ‘THAT’S NOT FAIR!’
“I said, ‘What did you say?’ ‘We said that’s not fair.’ I said, ‘Beech, weren’t you late with your paper last time?’ He said, ‘Yes sir.’ ‘And you are late this morning?’ He said, ‘Yes sir.’
“So, I gave you an F for today, and it’s justice that you want? I’m going to give you justice. I’m going to change your grade for the last one, the one you were late for, and I’m going to give you an F for that one. O.K.? Now, who else wants justice. You people be careful about ever asking for justice because you just might get it?”
Sproul continues, “But what happened? They became accustomed to my grace. First they appreciated it. Then, they expected it. Finally, they demanded it, and that’s who we are.”
That’s who we are. When it comes to God’s grace; His love; His mercy in this day and age–we no longer appreciate it. Most of us expect it. And many demand it. This is why there is a severe lack of humility in many churches today. This is why many Christians come across as arrogant and self-righteous. They believe they deserve grace–they deserve God’s love. And a Christian who is not afraid of God’s wrath or a person who is not afraid of God’s wrath, will not hear the Gospel as good news; will not ever have a change of heart; and will never experience the fullness of peace that the Gospel delivers.
Today, we begin a journey towards humility. Today we will begin to have our toes stomped on unmercifully. When Paul is done with us, our hearts will either be hardened to the point that we want nothing to do with God, or our hearts will be crushed and ready to hear what God has done when we least deserved it.
Paul begins, “18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.” There was a time in recent Christian history when theologians wanted to get as far away from God’s wrath as possible. They believed this painted God as arbitrary, judgmental, liable to blow up at a whim and punish whoever He wanted whenever He wanted without regard. The idea that God could get angry to the point of dealing death toward His creation was shoved as far back as possible in favor of a God who simply loved and wanted to be loved. The majority of theologians today have repented from this because the horrid events of the 20th century: the Holocaust; the killing fields; the murder of millions of people in Russian pogroms woke them up to the reality of evil. And if God is a just God; if God cares even a smidgen for His creation, then He cannot stand such evil acts. God’s anger must burn hot at sin or God is not good!! Let me say that again: God’s anger must burn hot at sin and injustice, or God is not good! This is what is behind Paul’s words here. Ungodliness is sin against God. Wickedness is injustice or sin from one human against another. God hates these sins with a passion. They bring about His wrath.
But one might argue, how can someone who has never known God or known God’s commands stir God’s anger? Isn’t that injustice on God’s part? Paul says unequivocally that God’s anger is stirred against ungodliness and injustice–of those who suppress the truth. Can EVERYONE know the truth?
Paul anticipates this argument as he continues, “19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;” Paul probably has Psalm 19 verses 1-4 ringing in his head as he dictates these words. This Psalm reads:
The heavens declare the glory of God
the skies proclaim the works of his hands
Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no words;
No sound is heard from them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world.
Paul believes in what we call today, natural revelation–that we can come to know God–His power and His divinity–through the natural world. This is not anything new for most people. Most people believe that we can come to know some sense of right and wrong; some sense of justice; some sense of God through looking around the world. Hence, every single culture around the world has some form of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Babies have a sense of fairness and justice. It is innate within each and every person who is in his or her right mind. No one is without excuse. And if there is a universal law, where did that law come from? Paul argues that those who suppress the truth are those who claim it comes from anywhere and everywhere but God.
21for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools; 23and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. There is a blatant mistranslation in this text in verse 21. It should read “for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless hearts were darkened.” The importance of this translation will become clear in a moment.
Paul continues in his argument saying that even though people knew God–even though they knew of His revelation through creation–they did not honor Him or give thanks to Him. They refused to worship God. This led them to become futile in their thinking; have darkened hearts; and to become foolish. How does this happen?
This happens because everyone worships. Yes, everyone worships. I don’t care if you are an atheist, a staunch believer, or even a Christian in name only. Everyone worships something. Some may disagree with me greatly, but here is the argument laid out for you:
We as human beings don’t just live–we all live for something. Something in this life gives us meaning; gives us direction; gives us purpose; gives us hope; gives us a sense of value. Timothy Keller puts it best when he says, “There has to be something which captures our imagination and our allegiance, which is the resting place of our deepest hopes and which we look to to calm our deepest fears. Whatever that thing is, we worship it, and so we serve it. It becomes our bottom line, the thing we cannot live without, defining and validating everything we do.” In days of old those things were literally idols–images made from wood and metal, but in our days, such idols have been changed but are still none-the-less idols: money, sex, justice, peace, prosperity, work, family, friends, busyness, power, climbing the corporate ladder, science, technology, free time, the government and a host of other things capture our hearts’ imagination and lead us to become foolish.
How does this happen? Let me read to you the comments of atheist David Foster Wallace in his commencement speech at Kenyon College:
Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship, and the compelling reason to maybe choosing some sort of God or spiritual type thing to worship is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you choose to worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure, and you will always feel ugly, and when time and age starts showing you will die a thousand million deaths before they finally grieve you. Worship power and you will end up feeling weak and afraid and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect being seen as smart and you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is they are unconscious. They are default settings.
When your heart’s imagination is captured by anything other than the Creator, you will become enslaved. It will demand your time; your money; your energy; your entire being, and then you will delude yourself into thinking you are just fine. You will justify what you are doing over and over and over again. You will make excuses for your behavior and your thoughts. When others confront you with your behavior, you will get angry and frustrated, and you will say, “I can stop this at any minute,” knowing full well you cannot and will not–until your heart changes. Your stubborn, darkened heart makes you a fool. Your worship of things other than the Creator turns you into a fool.
And now we must all ask ourselves: what do we worship? What consumes our heart and mind and our thoughts day in and day out. What do we think about in our spare time? What does our life revolve around? Odds are, it is not God. None of us, and I mean none of us are focused with all our being upon Him. We have traded worship for our Creator for things that are created. Therefore, we stand under God’s wrath. We deserve God’s wrath. God’s anger is kindled against us.
And now, I must end with an apology. I apologize for ending this sermon right here and right now. For years, I have included in my preaching the Gospel. I have brought you time and again to the point where you hear the soothing message of what God has done for you through Jesus Christ. I have pronounced the Gospel in a nutshell: John 3:16-17 with reckless abandon. But I cannot do this today. This book is forcing us to reflect upon the state of our hearts; upon the state of our sinfulness. We must continue through the darkness so that when the Gospel is announced at the end of chapter 3, we will once again discover just how amazing grace is. Amen.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
The Lessening of Religious Intensity
While reading last night, I was struck by the following words by church historian Rodney Stark in his book The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World's Largest Religion:
Stark uses the term "monopoly" rather loosely, and I would use the equivalent as dominant. Stark readily admits that no culture has a complete monopoly religion--all cultures have some sort of religious diversity, but his point, I think, has to do with how as generations pass the mantle, the level of religious intensity wanes. Whereas the religion at first stood against many of the cultural values and norms, as time passes, the religion accommodates those same norms and values. If the leadership is well paid and "seldom depart for other careers", the religious intensity drops further.
There is no doubt in my mind that Christianity in the west has made such cultural accommodations, and I will not even delve into the theological battles between progressive and conservative Christianity. That tiresome war will never cease.
What I would like to share is a personal observation rooted and grounded in congregational experience.
I have served long enough in my current setting to see three generations of Christian families worship. That is somewhat of a rarity in these days of massive mobility and families being scattered to the four winds. So, what do I see?
The oldest generation is entering their twilight, but when I first arrived, many were still vibrant and able to get out easily. You could count on them being at worship and church events like clockwork. Rarely did they miss any event. Their involvement and faith life was intense, to say the least.
The next generation--a bit less intense. Instead of regular, weekly worship, church attendance has lessened to two to three times a month. Sometimes, especially during seasons of harvest (or hunting) attendance is less. This group is less apt to attend certain church functions, and attendance at Bible study is extremely rare. Church is an option among many options, and the other options win at an alarming rate.
The third generation--second removed from the first--is the least intense of all. Church is actually more of a nuisance than anything. It is one more thing in a long laundry list of activities that one can be involved in, and it is the least fun of them all. Character building and entertainment can all be wrapped up in weekend sports. God can be worshiped in a deer stand or on the lake. Verbal commitments to attend activities are broken without a second thought. This does not mean this generation is not moral or concerned with dealing with a broken world--far from that. In fact, many are working hard to help others and make a difference, but they don't see how being actively involved in a congregation helps with this process.
These are broad generalizations. There are exceptions to the rule, and for that I am thankful. In fact, I have several congregation members who have traveled in the quite the opposite direction. Their parents and previous generations have not been active in the church and had no religious intensity what-so-ever. Their involvement is light-years ahead of previous generations; however, many of these folks are still caught up in the busy-ness of our current society. They want religious intensity and involvement in the church community, but it is a struggle. I am greatly thankful that these folks are dedicated to that struggle.
As I ponder these things, I wonder just what can be done to reverse such a thing? Does this have to be the natural progression of things? Does religious intensity have to decline?
I don't think it does. I think the faith can be passed down, but it is a much more difficult job. Somehow the head and heart must be captivated; captured; by the radical love of God.
Simply finger pointing and telling people to do good things or get their act together isn't going to do it. (Witness the contempt many in society have toward churches who do just this.)
Just telling everyone God loves you just the way you are isn't going to do it. (Witness the rapid decline of denominations who use this as their central proclamation.)
Somehow, I think we must find a way to do as Tim Keller said in a lecture I watched numerous times. "You've got to drill down with the truth, and then put the dynamite in. Then, you've got explosive transformation."
And that's a lot of work.
Because erstwhile monopoly religions inevitably are relatively lax, lazy, and worldly, most of their opposition will come from groups promoting a far more intense faith--from sects, that being the name given to high intensity religious groups. Monopoly religions slide into accommodation with their social surroundings even when they were first established by those committed to an intense faith. One reason that a monopoly religion drifts toward laxity is that religious intensity is never transmitted very efficiently from one generation to the next. Inevitably, many of the sons and daughters of sect members prefer a lower-tension faith than did their parents. So long as leadership positions in a sect are restricted to those who are committed to the original standards, a sect can sustain a relatively high level of intensity. But when these positions are hereditary, and when they are highly rewarded as well (so that the less "religious" seldom depart for other careers), the institution will soon be dominated by those favoring a lower level of intensity. (Kindle Edition page 38)
Stark uses the term "monopoly" rather loosely, and I would use the equivalent as dominant. Stark readily admits that no culture has a complete monopoly religion--all cultures have some sort of religious diversity, but his point, I think, has to do with how as generations pass the mantle, the level of religious intensity wanes. Whereas the religion at first stood against many of the cultural values and norms, as time passes, the religion accommodates those same norms and values. If the leadership is well paid and "seldom depart for other careers", the religious intensity drops further.
There is no doubt in my mind that Christianity in the west has made such cultural accommodations, and I will not even delve into the theological battles between progressive and conservative Christianity. That tiresome war will never cease.
What I would like to share is a personal observation rooted and grounded in congregational experience.
I have served long enough in my current setting to see three generations of Christian families worship. That is somewhat of a rarity in these days of massive mobility and families being scattered to the four winds. So, what do I see?
The oldest generation is entering their twilight, but when I first arrived, many were still vibrant and able to get out easily. You could count on them being at worship and church events like clockwork. Rarely did they miss any event. Their involvement and faith life was intense, to say the least.
The next generation--a bit less intense. Instead of regular, weekly worship, church attendance has lessened to two to three times a month. Sometimes, especially during seasons of harvest (or hunting) attendance is less. This group is less apt to attend certain church functions, and attendance at Bible study is extremely rare. Church is an option among many options, and the other options win at an alarming rate.
The third generation--second removed from the first--is the least intense of all. Church is actually more of a nuisance than anything. It is one more thing in a long laundry list of activities that one can be involved in, and it is the least fun of them all. Character building and entertainment can all be wrapped up in weekend sports. God can be worshiped in a deer stand or on the lake. Verbal commitments to attend activities are broken without a second thought. This does not mean this generation is not moral or concerned with dealing with a broken world--far from that. In fact, many are working hard to help others and make a difference, but they don't see how being actively involved in a congregation helps with this process.
These are broad generalizations. There are exceptions to the rule, and for that I am thankful. In fact, I have several congregation members who have traveled in the quite the opposite direction. Their parents and previous generations have not been active in the church and had no religious intensity what-so-ever. Their involvement is light-years ahead of previous generations; however, many of these folks are still caught up in the busy-ness of our current society. They want religious intensity and involvement in the church community, but it is a struggle. I am greatly thankful that these folks are dedicated to that struggle.
As I ponder these things, I wonder just what can be done to reverse such a thing? Does this have to be the natural progression of things? Does religious intensity have to decline?
I don't think it does. I think the faith can be passed down, but it is a much more difficult job. Somehow the head and heart must be captivated; captured; by the radical love of God.
Simply finger pointing and telling people to do good things or get their act together isn't going to do it. (Witness the contempt many in society have toward churches who do just this.)
Just telling everyone God loves you just the way you are isn't going to do it. (Witness the rapid decline of denominations who use this as their central proclamation.)
Somehow, I think we must find a way to do as Tim Keller said in a lecture I watched numerous times. "You've got to drill down with the truth, and then put the dynamite in. Then, you've got explosive transformation."
And that's a lot of work.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Why Change?
Ismael commented on my last sermon, and he asked a very good question:
If I'm doing good and helping other people causing as little harm as I can... why to change?
Why indeed?
Of course, the simple answer is, one shouldn't. I mean, I think we should all do good and cause as little harm as possible.
But let's delve a little bit deeper. First, let me ask: what is good? How do you know what is good? What is bad? What is indifferent?
Do you judge it based upon a particular outcome or the results? Do the ends justify the means?
Do you judge something to be good because there is such a thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic worth?
If there is no God and no transcendent reality, then there is no such thing as intrinsic worth and intrinsic goodness. That which is good or that which is bad is only a matter of perspective. (Nietzsche) I have seen a few attempts to argue for transcendence (Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought), but I think they fail to establish any sort of true argument for something beyond; or in other words to get to an "ought" from "is".
And if there is no way to establish something good because it is necessarily good by definition, then one is almost forced to enter into teleological ethics. (The end result is the most important.) Of course, teleological ethics rests on the premise that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number, but why should that be the case? What grounds do you have for suggesting that this ought to govern our thought? (That is the first problem.) The second problem comes when the greatest good for the greatest number adversely affects the minority. It was the greatest good for the greatest number to have slaves do all the agricultural work in the U.S. 200+ years ago. It was not good for the slaves themselves, of course; but what recourse do you have for proposing that things should change? The arguments against slavery all came from establishing the fact that slaves were people who had intrinsic value and worth and should not be claimed as property. It was an appeal, not to the greater good, but to the Greatest Good--transcendent goodness.
We could probably spend more time arguing this point, but I will not belabor it any longer. Ismael agreed with much of what I said in my sermon by his own admission in regards to transcendence and ethics. Therefore, I will move on to the next issue--the issue of motivation.
Why does one engage in doing good and limiting the amount of harm caused? If one is not engaged in doing good because something is inherently good (there is no transcendence), then essentially there are two motivations for doing good: 1) I like doing good and feel like what I am doing is good. 2) The other person needs me to do something for them, and I do it for their sake.
#1, I think we can agree is selfish motivation. If I am pursuing good because of how it makes me feel, then I am engaging in it because I get a certain benefit from it. I feel better about myself. I feel good about what I have done and accomplished.
One may ask: what is wrong with this?
Nothing, to begin with. The problem comes when others do not share your vision of what is good. If I am a tolerant person who believes in allowing folks freedom to do things, then (by definition) I must also be tolerant of those who are intolerant. Rarely does anyone do this. In fact, those who preach tolerance are oftentimes vehemently opposed to those they deem intolerant. They become just as self-righteous as those whom they deem intolerant! Examples abound of this throughout the blogosphere. One will suffice.
Before the ELCA website Living Lutheran changed its format and did away with comments, a very interesting exchange took place in a discussion over the ELCA's change to allow practicing homosexual clergy. "Michael", a proponent of the change, adamantly defended the church's new position by saying, "If there are those in the church who don't like the decision, then they can just find another church." Do you see the hypocrisy in the statement? For if "those in the church who do not like the decision" should just find another church, then why didn't "Michael" do so when the church held the opposite position previously? Why did "Michael" and others who fought for change simply leave previously? Answer: Self-righteousness. It pervades our churches and our society. Why?
This is the inevitable outcome of doing things for one's self. It becomes all about me, and I become self-righteous, narcissistic, and I even use others to accomplish what I want, convinced I am doing good. (I do not say such things as someone who is immune from this. I have been there, done that in a real way and am in a constant battle with my self-righteous, self-centered self.)
#2, might not seem to be such a bad thing. I mean, we should do good to others for their sake and not our own. We should be sensitive to their needs and concerns and do our best to ease their suffering. There doesn't seem to be a downside to this one.
On the surface.
But as one who has experienced such things; as one who works in a helping profession, I can say quite honestly, if you live for others and try to satisfy their needs and ease their sufferings, you will burn out. There is not enough of you to go around. Plus, you will run into someone who does not have any boundaries who will literally suck you dry and take every ounce of energy you have.
You will strive to live up to their expectations and their needs, and you will eventually fall. Evidence abounds for this among care-givers. Not only will you burn out, but you will spend your entire life seeking your value and worth from others. You will desperately want to hear their affirmation. You will desperately want to receive their pats on the back. And when such things are not forthcoming, you will fall deeply into despair. It is not a pleasant place to be.
Now, here is where things get interesting because one could argue for a third option. One could "change one's mind" --remember, we are not talking about changing one's actions because I think we can agree that the actions of doing good and helping others are laudable--and say, "I neither act for myself nor act for others. I seek to do good because there is an ultimate Good."
For the sake of this blog post, I will call that ultimate Good, God. Why? Well, if there is an ultimate Good--an ultimate sense of what is right and what is wrong--then that had to come from somewhere. We didn't make it up. If we did, we are right back to perspectivism and Nietzsche. If there is a natural law of what is right and wrong, then it is logical to assume a Law Giver--an ultimate Good. (C.S. Lewis develops this argument much more fully in Mere Christianity.)
Now, I must ask myself whether or not I achieve that ultimate Good? Do I accomplish the good I need? Do I do a reasonable enough job of accomplishing enough good and easing the suffering of others? Do I fulfill this sense of the natural law that I find inherent in nature?
I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that we do not. We know that we do not ease the suffering of others as much as we could. Most of the time, we give out of our abundance--where it doesn't affect our lifestyle or our ability to do the things that we want to do. We give as long as we are comfortable. We ease the sufferings of others as long as we don't feel put out by it. We enjoy the fruits of others' labor even if that labor cost someone else dearly. At the very least, we are contributors to the brokenness and injustice of this world. We do not live up to that natural law.
One may choose to argue this point, so let me delve into it just a little further. C.S. Lewis showed in his book The Abolition of Man, that nearly every culture and philosophy shared the common axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Nearly everyone I know believes this axiom should be followed. Some folks do relatively well in sticking to it, but not fully. How so? Well, if I am going to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, then if I were poor and hungry, then I would want folks to help me out whenever I was in this state. I would desire them to give me enough that I might be able to have the necessities of life. Perhaps an individual would not be able to give me enough to sustain me, but through a collective effort, I would have enough. This would mean, that if I had enough, I would give a little bit to every poor person I encounter. I would willingly and graciously give to everyone who begged, even if it were a trifle amount. The question is: do I do so? Do I give even a little bit to everyone who begs from me--who believes him or her self poor and in need? Regardless if I do not think they are in need, do I still give because the other believes he or she is in need? Does anyone fulfill this to the extent of what is required? Short answer: no.
So, where does that leave us in relationship to the Law Giver? If we are not fulfilling the Law to the extent necessary, where does that leave us? If we have no sense of shame or guilt, then it leaves us exactly nowhere. I can simply go about my life thinking I am good enough even if I don't follow the universal axioms. I can convince myself that I'm doing my part and should be satisfied with doing that part even if it isn't the fullest extent of what I can do. If you find yourself in this category, then I simply make one observation: you cannot judge another person ever. You cannot make any sort of moral judgement or statement about the beliefs and practices of another for you have no moral high ground to operate from. You cannot tell anyone "you should do unto others" because you are not following the axiom yourself, and you must be content with what others choose to do and allow them to be just as satisfied with the job they believe they are doing as you are satisfied with yours.
But if I know that I do not follow the axiom to the extent it needs to be followed, and if I have a sense of shame and guilt about this, then I know I need to do something to rectify the situation. I need to somehow make amends for not following through in doing what I know I am supposed to do. I need to make things right within myself and with the Law Giver. And how do I do that?
Every other religion and philosophy says, "Try harder." "Do more." "Overcome your selfish nature by your own strength."
The problem is, we cannot. Why? Well, first off, we are acting in our own self-interest when we do such things. We are not acting in the interest of others or in the interest of the Greatest Good. Our self is at the center, and we will head right down the path of self-righteousness. Secondly, even when we try harder, we still will not accomplish the extent of following the axioms. "Do unto others..." If I followed this to the extent necessary, I would exhaust my resources and then be dependent upon others to give to me. In a perfect world, that might work out, but we do not live in a perfect world... History is replete with folks who say try harder, and time and again, it doesn't work out.
Only Christianity offers an alternative. Only Christianity says, "You cannot make amends for your failure to follow the axioms of the Law Giver. You cannot overcome your guilt and shame by trying harder. You cannot walk a path that will not lead to self-righteousness or to self-destruction on your own. You will either be dominated by self or be dominated by others. Therefore, since you do not have the ability to change and overcome; since you cannot break out of this reality, the Law Giver will act to change the situation."
And the Word became flesh and lived among us...
God took on flesh and lived among us, not to take advantage of us (as in many of the Greek and Roman myths), but to die for us.
In no other religion or philosophy does God die on behalf of His creation. Only Christianity. (There is much, much more to it than this. Books have been written explaining this further. I am trying to condense it into a very small blog post, and I am just not doing it justice!!!)
And Christianity says, "To the extent you believe in what God has done for you, you will be able to overcome your selfish nature and accomplish following the great commands; not because you have to or because your self-worth or satisfaction or salvation depends upon it, but because you are thankful for what has been done on your behalf."
It is a radical departure from every other train of thought, and it is either crazy because it goes against the way the world works, or it is brilliant because its origins do not originate in the way the world actually works.
And it is this last point which leads me to say this is why one should change. For in Jesus we find a path that does not lead to self-righteousness (it can't because we have to acknowledge our inability to follow the universal axioms). Neither does it lead to destruction of self through trying to please others (for we do not get our value and worth from pleasing others and doing all the right things). It also answers how we are justified in not following the universal law or axioms (not by our own action but by the action of the Law Giver), and frees us from the guilt and shame of not fulfilling what we know we should do. And last, it gives us the ability to point to what we ought to do because the Laws are still in effect--they are our guide in right and wrong, but we point to them in humility not in arrogance.
(If you would like to delve into this more, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity and Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God. I cannot even come close to doing justice to what these apologists have done in explaining the Christian faith.)
If I'm doing good and helping other people causing as little harm as I can... why to change?
Why indeed?
Of course, the simple answer is, one shouldn't. I mean, I think we should all do good and cause as little harm as possible.
But let's delve a little bit deeper. First, let me ask: what is good? How do you know what is good? What is bad? What is indifferent?
Do you judge it based upon a particular outcome or the results? Do the ends justify the means?
Do you judge something to be good because there is such a thing as intrinsic good and intrinsic worth?
If there is no God and no transcendent reality, then there is no such thing as intrinsic worth and intrinsic goodness. That which is good or that which is bad is only a matter of perspective. (Nietzsche) I have seen a few attempts to argue for transcendence (Luc Ferry, A Brief History of Thought), but I think they fail to establish any sort of true argument for something beyond; or in other words to get to an "ought" from "is".
And if there is no way to establish something good because it is necessarily good by definition, then one is almost forced to enter into teleological ethics. (The end result is the most important.) Of course, teleological ethics rests on the premise that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number, but why should that be the case? What grounds do you have for suggesting that this ought to govern our thought? (That is the first problem.) The second problem comes when the greatest good for the greatest number adversely affects the minority. It was the greatest good for the greatest number to have slaves do all the agricultural work in the U.S. 200+ years ago. It was not good for the slaves themselves, of course; but what recourse do you have for proposing that things should change? The arguments against slavery all came from establishing the fact that slaves were people who had intrinsic value and worth and should not be claimed as property. It was an appeal, not to the greater good, but to the Greatest Good--transcendent goodness.
We could probably spend more time arguing this point, but I will not belabor it any longer. Ismael agreed with much of what I said in my sermon by his own admission in regards to transcendence and ethics. Therefore, I will move on to the next issue--the issue of motivation.
Why does one engage in doing good and limiting the amount of harm caused? If one is not engaged in doing good because something is inherently good (there is no transcendence), then essentially there are two motivations for doing good: 1) I like doing good and feel like what I am doing is good. 2) The other person needs me to do something for them, and I do it for their sake.
#1, I think we can agree is selfish motivation. If I am pursuing good because of how it makes me feel, then I am engaging in it because I get a certain benefit from it. I feel better about myself. I feel good about what I have done and accomplished.
One may ask: what is wrong with this?
Nothing, to begin with. The problem comes when others do not share your vision of what is good. If I am a tolerant person who believes in allowing folks freedom to do things, then (by definition) I must also be tolerant of those who are intolerant. Rarely does anyone do this. In fact, those who preach tolerance are oftentimes vehemently opposed to those they deem intolerant. They become just as self-righteous as those whom they deem intolerant! Examples abound of this throughout the blogosphere. One will suffice.
Before the ELCA website Living Lutheran changed its format and did away with comments, a very interesting exchange took place in a discussion over the ELCA's change to allow practicing homosexual clergy. "Michael", a proponent of the change, adamantly defended the church's new position by saying, "If there are those in the church who don't like the decision, then they can just find another church." Do you see the hypocrisy in the statement? For if "those in the church who do not like the decision" should just find another church, then why didn't "Michael" do so when the church held the opposite position previously? Why did "Michael" and others who fought for change simply leave previously? Answer: Self-righteousness. It pervades our churches and our society. Why?
This is the inevitable outcome of doing things for one's self. It becomes all about me, and I become self-righteous, narcissistic, and I even use others to accomplish what I want, convinced I am doing good. (I do not say such things as someone who is immune from this. I have been there, done that in a real way and am in a constant battle with my self-righteous, self-centered self.)
#2, might not seem to be such a bad thing. I mean, we should do good to others for their sake and not our own. We should be sensitive to their needs and concerns and do our best to ease their suffering. There doesn't seem to be a downside to this one.
On the surface.
But as one who has experienced such things; as one who works in a helping profession, I can say quite honestly, if you live for others and try to satisfy their needs and ease their sufferings, you will burn out. There is not enough of you to go around. Plus, you will run into someone who does not have any boundaries who will literally suck you dry and take every ounce of energy you have.
You will strive to live up to their expectations and their needs, and you will eventually fall. Evidence abounds for this among care-givers. Not only will you burn out, but you will spend your entire life seeking your value and worth from others. You will desperately want to hear their affirmation. You will desperately want to receive their pats on the back. And when such things are not forthcoming, you will fall deeply into despair. It is not a pleasant place to be.
Now, here is where things get interesting because one could argue for a third option. One could "change one's mind" --remember, we are not talking about changing one's actions because I think we can agree that the actions of doing good and helping others are laudable--and say, "I neither act for myself nor act for others. I seek to do good because there is an ultimate Good."
For the sake of this blog post, I will call that ultimate Good, God. Why? Well, if there is an ultimate Good--an ultimate sense of what is right and what is wrong--then that had to come from somewhere. We didn't make it up. If we did, we are right back to perspectivism and Nietzsche. If there is a natural law of what is right and wrong, then it is logical to assume a Law Giver--an ultimate Good. (C.S. Lewis develops this argument much more fully in Mere Christianity.)
Now, I must ask myself whether or not I achieve that ultimate Good? Do I accomplish the good I need? Do I do a reasonable enough job of accomplishing enough good and easing the suffering of others? Do I fulfill this sense of the natural law that I find inherent in nature?
I think, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that we do not. We know that we do not ease the suffering of others as much as we could. Most of the time, we give out of our abundance--where it doesn't affect our lifestyle or our ability to do the things that we want to do. We give as long as we are comfortable. We ease the sufferings of others as long as we don't feel put out by it. We enjoy the fruits of others' labor even if that labor cost someone else dearly. At the very least, we are contributors to the brokenness and injustice of this world. We do not live up to that natural law.
One may choose to argue this point, so let me delve into it just a little further. C.S. Lewis showed in his book The Abolition of Man, that nearly every culture and philosophy shared the common axiom "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Nearly everyone I know believes this axiom should be followed. Some folks do relatively well in sticking to it, but not fully. How so? Well, if I am going to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, then if I were poor and hungry, then I would want folks to help me out whenever I was in this state. I would desire them to give me enough that I might be able to have the necessities of life. Perhaps an individual would not be able to give me enough to sustain me, but through a collective effort, I would have enough. This would mean, that if I had enough, I would give a little bit to every poor person I encounter. I would willingly and graciously give to everyone who begged, even if it were a trifle amount. The question is: do I do so? Do I give even a little bit to everyone who begs from me--who believes him or her self poor and in need? Regardless if I do not think they are in need, do I still give because the other believes he or she is in need? Does anyone fulfill this to the extent of what is required? Short answer: no.
So, where does that leave us in relationship to the Law Giver? If we are not fulfilling the Law to the extent necessary, where does that leave us? If we have no sense of shame or guilt, then it leaves us exactly nowhere. I can simply go about my life thinking I am good enough even if I don't follow the universal axioms. I can convince myself that I'm doing my part and should be satisfied with doing that part even if it isn't the fullest extent of what I can do. If you find yourself in this category, then I simply make one observation: you cannot judge another person ever. You cannot make any sort of moral judgement or statement about the beliefs and practices of another for you have no moral high ground to operate from. You cannot tell anyone "you should do unto others" because you are not following the axiom yourself, and you must be content with what others choose to do and allow them to be just as satisfied with the job they believe they are doing as you are satisfied with yours.
But if I know that I do not follow the axiom to the extent it needs to be followed, and if I have a sense of shame and guilt about this, then I know I need to do something to rectify the situation. I need to somehow make amends for not following through in doing what I know I am supposed to do. I need to make things right within myself and with the Law Giver. And how do I do that?
Every other religion and philosophy says, "Try harder." "Do more." "Overcome your selfish nature by your own strength."
The problem is, we cannot. Why? Well, first off, we are acting in our own self-interest when we do such things. We are not acting in the interest of others or in the interest of the Greatest Good. Our self is at the center, and we will head right down the path of self-righteousness. Secondly, even when we try harder, we still will not accomplish the extent of following the axioms. "Do unto others..." If I followed this to the extent necessary, I would exhaust my resources and then be dependent upon others to give to me. In a perfect world, that might work out, but we do not live in a perfect world... History is replete with folks who say try harder, and time and again, it doesn't work out.
Only Christianity offers an alternative. Only Christianity says, "You cannot make amends for your failure to follow the axioms of the Law Giver. You cannot overcome your guilt and shame by trying harder. You cannot walk a path that will not lead to self-righteousness or to self-destruction on your own. You will either be dominated by self or be dominated by others. Therefore, since you do not have the ability to change and overcome; since you cannot break out of this reality, the Law Giver will act to change the situation."
And the Word became flesh and lived among us...
God took on flesh and lived among us, not to take advantage of us (as in many of the Greek and Roman myths), but to die for us.
In no other religion or philosophy does God die on behalf of His creation. Only Christianity. (There is much, much more to it than this. Books have been written explaining this further. I am trying to condense it into a very small blog post, and I am just not doing it justice!!!)
And Christianity says, "To the extent you believe in what God has done for you, you will be able to overcome your selfish nature and accomplish following the great commands; not because you have to or because your self-worth or satisfaction or salvation depends upon it, but because you are thankful for what has been done on your behalf."
It is a radical departure from every other train of thought, and it is either crazy because it goes against the way the world works, or it is brilliant because its origins do not originate in the way the world actually works.
And it is this last point which leads me to say this is why one should change. For in Jesus we find a path that does not lead to self-righteousness (it can't because we have to acknowledge our inability to follow the universal axioms). Neither does it lead to destruction of self through trying to please others (for we do not get our value and worth from pleasing others and doing all the right things). It also answers how we are justified in not following the universal law or axioms (not by our own action but by the action of the Law Giver), and frees us from the guilt and shame of not fulfilling what we know we should do. And last, it gives us the ability to point to what we ought to do because the Laws are still in effect--they are our guide in right and wrong, but we point to them in humility not in arrogance.
(If you would like to delve into this more, I highly recommend C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity and Timothy Keller's book The Reason for God. I cannot even come close to doing justice to what these apologists have done in explaining the Christian faith.)
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
10 Things Pastors Hate to Admit Publically
I was exposed to this article by the ELCA Facebook page.
And I won't disagree with Pastor Matt at all. Not in the least. In fact, I would add my voice to his comments and say, "Right on, brother! Preach it!"
It's true--at least for me.
Did I/Do I take it personally when people leave for another congregation? Yes.
Did I/Do I feel pressure from week to week? Yes.
Did I/Do I struggle with getting my worth from ministry? Yes.
Did I/Do I regularly think about quitting? Yes, with qualification. I don't think about quitting the ordained ministry. I am almost as certain as I can be about what God has chosen me to do.
Am I completely transparent? No.
Did I/Do I measure myself by the numbers? Yep.
Did I/Do I spend more time discouraged than encouraged? This is a hard one, but leaning toward yep.
Did I/Do I worry about what you think? More than I would like to admit, especially when you are paying my salary.
Did I/Do I struggle with competition and jealousy? Yes. This one was a killer for me not too long ago.
Did I/Do I feel like I've failed you more than helped you? Sometimes. This was actually something I was trained heavily in while in seminary--I know I can't help everyone, but I sure would like to.
I understand these things very, very well. Much of my sense of worth had been based upon just these things. And in previous years, I would have done one of two things:
1. Continue to suffer in silence.
2. Blame my congregation for these things and insist they need to change so that I no longer felt these things.
That would have been my tact.
But things have changed in my life. Because I have been converted to the Gospel. Take a listen to this video beginning at the 30 minute mark. This is Timothy Keller talking at a conference on Evangelism and ramming the concept of grace home. Listen through until the 36 minute mark. Please give it a listen:
When Keller hit me between the eyes regarding where I was getting my self-worth, I knew I stood condemned. I knew I stood in the wrong place. I was getting my justification from the wrong place.
And I knew bearing it in silence wasn't an option.
I knew I couldn't beg my congregation to change.
It wasn't their problem.
It was mine.
I had and still have to an extent a heart condition.
But, things have changed.
Things are different.
Down deep, there is something within my soul which has been transformed, and I can only describe it as grace. God's worked down deep to lessen the way I feel about those top 10 things. Do I still have moments? Yep. You bet I do. But they are fewer and far between.
Grace means your self worth comes, not from all the stuff you do; not from your job; not from your accomplishments; not from your bank account; not from your family; not from how your children are doing; but from the Lord.
I don't know if Pastor Matt is going to follow up on his post. I hope he does, but I want to state the following: I do not believe pastors need to suffer in silence; I do not believe they have to change their congregation; I do not believe they have to work hard to change their stance (believe me, I think that if you try to change your perception of these things, you will fail and become even more depressed); instead, I do believe pastors need to realize the nature of grace.
"I may not have accomplished much in the eyes of the world, but the Lord and I are on very good terms."
My grandfather's statement awakened within me the reality of grace for he highlighted the most important thing in the world--the Lord and I are on good terms. And that didn't come from me. It came from Him. As does my salvation; as does my self-worth; as does my sense of whether or not I am accomplishing anything at all. It's grace. Pure, unadulterated grace, and it changes you.
And I won't disagree with Pastor Matt at all. Not in the least. In fact, I would add my voice to his comments and say, "Right on, brother! Preach it!"
It's true--at least for me.
Did I/Do I take it personally when people leave for another congregation? Yes.
Did I/Do I feel pressure from week to week? Yes.
Did I/Do I struggle with getting my worth from ministry? Yes.
Did I/Do I regularly think about quitting? Yes, with qualification. I don't think about quitting the ordained ministry. I am almost as certain as I can be about what God has chosen me to do.
Am I completely transparent? No.
Did I/Do I measure myself by the numbers? Yep.
Did I/Do I spend more time discouraged than encouraged? This is a hard one, but leaning toward yep.
Did I/Do I worry about what you think? More than I would like to admit, especially when you are paying my salary.
Did I/Do I struggle with competition and jealousy? Yes. This one was a killer for me not too long ago.
Did I/Do I feel like I've failed you more than helped you? Sometimes. This was actually something I was trained heavily in while in seminary--I know I can't help everyone, but I sure would like to.
I understand these things very, very well. Much of my sense of worth had been based upon just these things. And in previous years, I would have done one of two things:
1. Continue to suffer in silence.
2. Blame my congregation for these things and insist they need to change so that I no longer felt these things.
That would have been my tact.
But things have changed in my life. Because I have been converted to the Gospel. Take a listen to this video beginning at the 30 minute mark. This is Timothy Keller talking at a conference on Evangelism and ramming the concept of grace home. Listen through until the 36 minute mark. Please give it a listen:
When Keller hit me between the eyes regarding where I was getting my self-worth, I knew I stood condemned. I knew I stood in the wrong place. I was getting my justification from the wrong place.
And I knew bearing it in silence wasn't an option.
I knew I couldn't beg my congregation to change.
It wasn't their problem.
It was mine.
I had and still have to an extent a heart condition.
But, things have changed.
Things are different.
Down deep, there is something within my soul which has been transformed, and I can only describe it as grace. God's worked down deep to lessen the way I feel about those top 10 things. Do I still have moments? Yep. You bet I do. But they are fewer and far between.
Grace means your self worth comes, not from all the stuff you do; not from your job; not from your accomplishments; not from your bank account; not from your family; not from how your children are doing; but from the Lord.
I don't know if Pastor Matt is going to follow up on his post. I hope he does, but I want to state the following: I do not believe pastors need to suffer in silence; I do not believe they have to change their congregation; I do not believe they have to work hard to change their stance (believe me, I think that if you try to change your perception of these things, you will fail and become even more depressed); instead, I do believe pastors need to realize the nature of grace.
"I may not have accomplished much in the eyes of the world, but the Lord and I are on very good terms."
My grandfather's statement awakened within me the reality of grace for he highlighted the most important thing in the world--the Lord and I are on good terms. And that didn't come from me. It came from Him. As does my salvation; as does my self-worth; as does my sense of whether or not I am accomplishing anything at all. It's grace. Pure, unadulterated grace, and it changes you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)