When the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage several weeks ago, I wrung my hands for exactly zero seconds. The outcome was expected, and it was the correct legal outcome.
I do not believe it was the correct moral outcome, but it was the correct legal outcome.
I am purposely making that distinction because it is an important one. A very important one.
I am not like some within the Christian Church.
I do not believe the U.S. is the new Israel or new Jerusalem.
I do not believe the U.S. is a Christian nation. It could be argued well that it never has been.
I do not believe we can transform the U.S. into the kingdom of God.
I do not believe it is the Church's job to impose morality through the use of the law.
I believe that well-meaning Christians have tried to impose morality and justice and other such things by the use of the law; however, while managing to get laws passed, it has simply driven certain behaviors into hiding where they lurk until striking out. (See, Roof, Dyllan and racism) The changing of laws do not change human hearts.
The Civil Rights Movement
I do want to take a moment to talk about the importance of the Church working in society for its betterment. I am the father of two bi-racial girls. I hazard to think about what their lives would have been like 60 years ago or so. I hazard to imagine them being required to drink out of separate water fountains and sit apart from the rest of our family because of asinine laws like Jim Crow. I am most certainly glad those things are outlawed!!
And I am thankful that the thrust of power that came to overturn those unjust laws came through the Black Churches in our nation. For certain, there were many involved in the process of other religious faiths and traditions, but those represented a minority. The public figures of the Civil Rights Movement were pastors, and Martin Luther King, Jr. was, of course, the chief figurehead.
King's genius was not simply his passion for non-violence, but also his willingness to call a nation that considered itself Christian to account. In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail," King basically said, "You know, you say that you are Christian. You say that you follow the Bible. Why are you not following its basic principles of justice, fairness, and equality?" It was and is a fantastic letter.
An appeal to such a collective conscience is a master-stroke of genius, and it worked! It worked brilliantly!!! To change the laws. And to change behaviors.
But it did not change the hearts and minds of many. Perhaps this is where the Civil Right's Movement failed. For the prejudice that was overtly embodied in Jim Crow Laws and segregation was now driven deep into people's hearts. And it hasn't gone away at all.
So, should another similar movement be staged today? Do more laws need to be changed to prevent covert racism? Should the Church strive for such a thing in this current climate?
I am highly suspect of trying to accomplish such a thing, because the climate of the U.S. has changed and changed dramatically.
A View Backward to Go Forward
The Christian Church is one of the more unique institutions in the global scheme. 90% of Muslims live in the Middle East and Africa. 90% of Hindus live in India. 90% of Buddhists live in Asia. Only Christianity is evenly distributed throughout the globe. Christianity has been able to survive under all sorts of governments and rulers--even those that severely persecuted the Church. In a rather head scratching note, the more the Church is persecuted, the more it seems to grow and thrive.
Part of the reason for this, I am convinced, is that Christianity grew up in a hostile culture. It clashed with its parent religion of Judaism and also with the surrounding Roman Empire. It proclaimed that Jesus was God--anathema to Jews and subversive to Romans. In both cases, the death penalty could be sought for adherents (for blasphemy or for subverting the rule of Caesar).
Yet, despite the danger, one does not see anywhere in the early Church petitions to the governments to legalize Christianity. One does not see the apostle Paul standing before governors and asking them to change the law. No. Paul seeks to convert. Paul seeks to bring people to Jesus Christ and then allow the power of God to transform those hearts and minds.
It's a far cry from how the Church tends to operate in the U.S. today. For a brief time, the U.S. adopted our ethical framework when making decisions. For a brief time, we could count on people being in and understanding what it meant to have a Christian ethical framework. At one time most of the U.S. had a Christian worldview, but there has been a divorce.
Ethics are no longer rooted in God.
The source and norm for ethics in the U.S. is the Constitution, and the ethical moorings of the Constitution are...
Who knows?
An Ethical Hodgepodge
Reason according to some.
"Do whatever makes you happy as long as you hurt no one," according to others.
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," according to more.
"Truth is what we make it; truth is relative," according to others.
We have no agreed upon ethical basis for defining truth, justice, happiness, or the like. We have no system of ethics underpinning our national discussion. In fact, what very often happens is a clash between ethical systems without folks even aware that such systems are clashing.
The results can be quite confusing and disheartening. People are quick to hurl insults toward each other. Oppressed becomes oppressor. The opposition gets vilified. We cry out "do unto others as you would have them do unto you!" But the practice ends up being "do unto others as I think should be done unto them."
Lord, save us.
Thank God, He has.
Which is why I haven't done any hand wringing.
A Christian Ethical Framework
You see, the Christian ethical framework seeks the will of God. Believing that God has indeed revealed His will to us, we earnestly believe we should seek it out. However, when we discover what that will is, we know it is impossible to uphold. We know we can never live up to it.
Think about this in your own life at this point. Most of us have a certain standard of how we expect others to live. Do we live up to our own standard? Recently, in a discussion, I pointed out that a gentleman called out Christians for being judgmental was himself making a judgement against Christians. Fortunately, he was of the thinking sort and realized exactly what he was doing. "It must be a condition of humanity," he said. I heartily agree. A condition we cannot save ourselves from. We need a Savior.
That Savior, according to Christianity, is Jesus who lived the life we were supposed to live--loving God and loving neighbor as self completely; and He died the death we deserved upon the cross--paying the penalty for our disobedience and inability to fulfill God's will. Jesus did this while we were still sinners--undeserving of such radical love.
To understand that we do not fulfill the will of God...
To understand that we do not deserve God's love and acceptance...
To understand that it was given to us at great cost to God...
Humbles a heart. It takes away pride in any sort of moral accomplishment one may perceive. It allows one to see one's own brokenness. One still seeks God's will, but then understand that God's will includes loving others as we were loved--broken people loving other broken people. This is done no matter what kind of government sits in power--or what kind of ethical framework is embraced by the surrounding culture.
Gay marriage is legal.
Two consenting adults having sexual relations is legal.
Selling a rock as a pet is legal.
Making millions of dollars without sharing is legal.
Consuming alcohol to excess is legal.
Yelling at your spouse is legal.
Calling someone an a$$hole is legal.
Looking at a woman with lust is legal.
Doesn't mean any of those things are moral, but instead of pointing fingers and decrying the immorality of others, I believe Christians are called to roll up their sleeves and do some very hard work--very hard work--seek conversion of others to the Christian worldview. To seek the change of heart and not simply the change of law.
The Need for Government
There is no doubt that we need government and we need just laws. Without government and laws, society falls into anarchy. There is also no doubt that Christians need to be involved in politics. We have a duty to work for the welfare of our neighbor (How that gets played out is oftentimes a point of contention, granted.). I cannot imagine the Church standing idly by while injustice is perpetrated upon people.
And the Church is indeed guilty of both standing by and perpetrating injustice upon people. We have only to look into our history at the times when the Church held power (middle ages) or--for the most part--walked hand in hand with those in power (Nazi Germany). In both of these cases, great tragedy befell minorities as the vast majority of Christians supported or turned a blind eye to injustice.
I believe this happens when the Church aligns itself with the structures of power within a given nation. Therefore, the Church must maintain a critical distance without becoming disengaged. The Church must have a voice within the public square without aligning itself with any group seizing power. The Church must be a powerful voice without seeking power itself. And, oh and this is the tricky part--the Church must not be swayed to endorse any seeking power because of a promise of favorable legislation.
It is far too tempting to allow ourselves to endorse certain candidates who promise action on particular issues to win our votes. An appeal to our own desire of power and getting what we want through legislation can be very, very tempting. However, I think that this does great damage to our primary calling--to proclaim Jesus and not the Law.
"For the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. It is the smallest of seeds, but when planted it becomes a tree so large the birds of the air long to build their nests within."
The Kingdom of God begins with the seed of the Gospel in our hearts. It grows as more and more hearts are tuned to God--not to the Laws of a nation. And the Gospel roots out evil intentions, hatred and prejudice--the very root causes of hatred and division within our species. But it all begins with the change of heart--the primary focus, I believe of spreading the Gospel--of changing another's worldview.
Not an easy task, but the one mission the Church was given straight from the one who died for the world.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Monday, June 23, 2014
A "Psychological" Crutch
I just got back from the Caribbean. My father-in-law celebrated his 70th birthday by taking his family on a seven day cruise, and it was a fabulous time. I have several reflections regarding this cruise and will take a little bit of time to visit them in the next few days/posts.
My kids never have been on a cruise. This was my third. To say that my children were a little overwhelmed would be a slight understatement. They were absolutely amazed by the experience, and my joy on this cruise was simply watching them as they experienced new thing after new thing after new thing.
Of course, there were a few not-so-new things: like swimming. We swam every day of the cruise whether on ship or at the beach. The kids love swimming.
My son; however, is not a strong swimmer. He's still in the beginning of learning, and for the first couple of times we went to the pool, we did not take his swim jacket. Instead, he spent his time jumping from the edge of the pool into my arms. Over and over and over again, he would jump and have me push him to the side. He never tired of this little game. Of course, I got a little tired of it. You can only get splashed in the eyes with salt water so much before you need a break--much to my son's chagrin.
"Daddy, catch me!" he would say as I stopped for a breather. And before you knew it, he was hurling himself toward me knowing I would catch him. He never feared going under because he knew I was there to lift him up and get him to safety.
Sigmund Freud said that humankind invented God to be such a safety net--at least psychologically. In our despair; in our times of frustration; in our times of unknowing; in our times of a felt need of assistance; we could turn to a heavenly "father figure" who would emotionally help us through certain situations. He believed a sign of maturity was getting past this need to the point which we could rely upon ourselves and face situations without the need of such a psychological crutch.
There are many who have argued, I think successfully, that one could turn Freud's argument around and say that atheism could also be seen as a psychological crutch in facing reality--a crutch in the sense of not having to deal with some sticky questions in the moral arena. But at this time, I do not want to go down that road.
Rather, I would like to ask a couple of questions:
1. Are there times when "crutches" are required?
2. Do we ever reach a point when we do not need a "crutch"?
To the first, I would argue--absolutely.
To the second, I would say--probably not.
My son definitely needs my help swimming at this point. If I, or someone else does not help him, he would drown. Period. He requires my presence to get him through this stage of swimming.
But what happens when he learns to swim on his own? Will he need me any longer? No. He won't. This is a step in maturation for certain.
But I do not think you can compare the maturation in achieving the ability to swim with the maturation in living what I would call the good life.
That last term deserves some defining, I think. I define the good life as a life lived to a particular moral standard: one who does not cheat, steal, kill, destroy--who seeks the greater good for his or her self and for others as well. Who is compassionate, kind, understanding, and respectful of others no matter how one is treated to the contrary. Who does not think only of one's self, but readily and willingly seeks the betterment of one's neighbor and tries to paint all one's neighbor does in a positive light. I could probably add a few things, but let this suffice for now.
Can anyone achieve this kind of life? Can anyone perfectly attain it? Can we as a species overcome our own, instinctive self-interest to become such people without assistance?
I personally do not believe so. I personally believe we need guidance, assistance, a crutch to lean on when we fail over and over and over. Other humans are inadequate in helping us achieve the good life, for in some way or another, no human being can live the perfect, good life.
But there was one who took on human flesh, lived among us, and achieved this kind of life. Christians call Him God incarnate: Jesus. He lived the life we should live, and rather than hold this achievement over our heads and look down upon us as inferior beings, He loved us and called us to follow Him. He looked upon our brokenness and our failings; He endured our misdeeds--misdeeds that cost Him His life, and rather than call for revenge, said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
I know my own misdeeds. I know my own brokenness. I know I cannot achieve the good life on my own. I know I fall far short of it. It would lead me to despair if I didn't know I had a crutch to lean on--a crutch of forgiveness; a crutch of grace.
I don't think it is a psychological one.
I think it's real and an absolute necessity for anyone who seeks to live the good life.
My kids never have been on a cruise. This was my third. To say that my children were a little overwhelmed would be a slight understatement. They were absolutely amazed by the experience, and my joy on this cruise was simply watching them as they experienced new thing after new thing after new thing.
Of course, there were a few not-so-new things: like swimming. We swam every day of the cruise whether on ship or at the beach. The kids love swimming.
My son; however, is not a strong swimmer. He's still in the beginning of learning, and for the first couple of times we went to the pool, we did not take his swim jacket. Instead, he spent his time jumping from the edge of the pool into my arms. Over and over and over again, he would jump and have me push him to the side. He never tired of this little game. Of course, I got a little tired of it. You can only get splashed in the eyes with salt water so much before you need a break--much to my son's chagrin.
"Daddy, catch me!" he would say as I stopped for a breather. And before you knew it, he was hurling himself toward me knowing I would catch him. He never feared going under because he knew I was there to lift him up and get him to safety.
Sigmund Freud said that humankind invented God to be such a safety net--at least psychologically. In our despair; in our times of frustration; in our times of unknowing; in our times of a felt need of assistance; we could turn to a heavenly "father figure" who would emotionally help us through certain situations. He believed a sign of maturity was getting past this need to the point which we could rely upon ourselves and face situations without the need of such a psychological crutch.
There are many who have argued, I think successfully, that one could turn Freud's argument around and say that atheism could also be seen as a psychological crutch in facing reality--a crutch in the sense of not having to deal with some sticky questions in the moral arena. But at this time, I do not want to go down that road.
Rather, I would like to ask a couple of questions:
1. Are there times when "crutches" are required?
2. Do we ever reach a point when we do not need a "crutch"?
To the first, I would argue--absolutely.
To the second, I would say--probably not.
My son definitely needs my help swimming at this point. If I, or someone else does not help him, he would drown. Period. He requires my presence to get him through this stage of swimming.
But what happens when he learns to swim on his own? Will he need me any longer? No. He won't. This is a step in maturation for certain.
But I do not think you can compare the maturation in achieving the ability to swim with the maturation in living what I would call the good life.
That last term deserves some defining, I think. I define the good life as a life lived to a particular moral standard: one who does not cheat, steal, kill, destroy--who seeks the greater good for his or her self and for others as well. Who is compassionate, kind, understanding, and respectful of others no matter how one is treated to the contrary. Who does not think only of one's self, but readily and willingly seeks the betterment of one's neighbor and tries to paint all one's neighbor does in a positive light. I could probably add a few things, but let this suffice for now.
Can anyone achieve this kind of life? Can anyone perfectly attain it? Can we as a species overcome our own, instinctive self-interest to become such people without assistance?
I personally do not believe so. I personally believe we need guidance, assistance, a crutch to lean on when we fail over and over and over. Other humans are inadequate in helping us achieve the good life, for in some way or another, no human being can live the perfect, good life.
But there was one who took on human flesh, lived among us, and achieved this kind of life. Christians call Him God incarnate: Jesus. He lived the life we should live, and rather than hold this achievement over our heads and look down upon us as inferior beings, He loved us and called us to follow Him. He looked upon our brokenness and our failings; He endured our misdeeds--misdeeds that cost Him His life, and rather than call for revenge, said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."
I know my own misdeeds. I know my own brokenness. I know I cannot achieve the good life on my own. I know I fall far short of it. It would lead me to despair if I didn't know I had a crutch to lean on--a crutch of forgiveness; a crutch of grace.
I don't think it is a psychological one.
I think it's real and an absolute necessity for anyone who seeks to live the good life.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Do We Have a Purpose?
This morning, as I was running, my thoughts turned to whether or not human beings have a purpose.
Of course, I believe we do. As a believer in God, particularly the Christian God, I believe we were created for a reason which is highlighted in the Christian worldview.
But my thoughts actually turned to several debates I have watched on Youtube; particularly those debates involving Richard Dawkins. Richard was asked questions about the purpose of human life several times, and (if I am remembering correctly) he seemingly dismisses them as absurd questions.
Many seem to be revolted at Dawkins' comments, but I think I understand them. I think.
Dawkins, as a biologist does not think in terms of purpose. Plants and animals don't have a purpose. They are, and they strive to survive. A dog does not think of itself as having a purpose. Neither does a cat, dolphin, eagle, giraffe, whale, and so on and so forth. As far as we know, no animal ever debates and wonders about why it is here. IF (a big if) we are simply another animal in a long line of animals that has ever lived on this planet, then why should we be any different? Why should we contemplate our purpose? The question is actually irrelevant and not worth asking. We are here. We evolved from other animals. We are driven to survive, and one day we will either evolve or die out. End of story. There is nothing more to contemplate.
IF, (as I said earlier) we are simply another animal.
Now, here is the rub, at least as I see it.
IF (a big if) we are simply like another animal, then what is to prevent us from acting like animals? I mean, I study nature--not as a biologist, but as a hunter. I know how animals act in nature--and even in domesticated settings. They vie for power; for food; to be the apex predator or mate. They cooperate, but only when it is in their best interest to cooperate--so that they can get something out of it.
I'm waiting...
And will remain waiting.
Philosophers have wrestled for eons trying to figure out what distinguishes us from other animals. Whenever something has seemed adequate, it is usually found lacking in some particular manner. This is why Stephen Hawking famously said, "Philosophy is dead." Philosophy hasn't been able to give us the answer.
Hawking tries from a scientific perspective. So does Dawkins. In my estimation, they leave much wanting. They fail to offer any insight as to why we should behave any differently than any other animal in the animal world.
This is one of those reasons, I believe science is incomplete. Because of its base assumptions, it cannot address these important questions.
Something more is needed.
I believe we need purpose.
Of course, I believe we do. As a believer in God, particularly the Christian God, I believe we were created for a reason which is highlighted in the Christian worldview.
But my thoughts actually turned to several debates I have watched on Youtube; particularly those debates involving Richard Dawkins. Richard was asked questions about the purpose of human life several times, and (if I am remembering correctly) he seemingly dismisses them as absurd questions.
Many seem to be revolted at Dawkins' comments, but I think I understand them. I think.
Dawkins, as a biologist does not think in terms of purpose. Plants and animals don't have a purpose. They are, and they strive to survive. A dog does not think of itself as having a purpose. Neither does a cat, dolphin, eagle, giraffe, whale, and so on and so forth. As far as we know, no animal ever debates and wonders about why it is here. IF (a big if) we are simply another animal in a long line of animals that has ever lived on this planet, then why should we be any different? Why should we contemplate our purpose? The question is actually irrelevant and not worth asking. We are here. We evolved from other animals. We are driven to survive, and one day we will either evolve or die out. End of story. There is nothing more to contemplate.
IF, (as I said earlier) we are simply another animal.
Now, here is the rub, at least as I see it.
IF (a big if) we are simply like another animal, then what is to prevent us from acting like animals? I mean, I study nature--not as a biologist, but as a hunter. I know how animals act in nature--and even in domesticated settings. They vie for power; for food; to be the apex predator or mate. They cooperate, but only when it is in their best interest to cooperate--so that they can get something out of it.
- I had two female dogs who wanted to be dominant. They fought constantly; horribly; terribly; over things my wife and I considered minor. But any "minor" pack violation would set them off. We ended up having to keep them separate for over 8 years.
- One day, while sitting in a deer blind, I heard the most God-awful sound. A hawk swooped down out of the sky and killed a quail right before my eyes. The strong killed the weak to devour it and gain strength.
- Oftentimes, the offspring of another male is killed by a dominant male looking to spread his genes. Survival of the fittest and natural selection.
- Beta males and females turn to manipulative ways to further their advancement within particular colonies of species bypassing honesty and justice for self-serving need.
- Again, observations from a deer stand: one morning I watched 11 whitetail bucks in a field. Half the time they spent eating the other half fighting for dominance.
- Nearly every animal species lives in a hierarchy. There are those at the top and those at the bottom. Those at the top live well. Those at the bottom aren't so lucky. That's just the way nature is organized for the most part.
- Polygamy is the rule in nature. Monogamy is the exception.
I'm waiting...
And will remain waiting.
Philosophers have wrestled for eons trying to figure out what distinguishes us from other animals. Whenever something has seemed adequate, it is usually found lacking in some particular manner. This is why Stephen Hawking famously said, "Philosophy is dead." Philosophy hasn't been able to give us the answer.
Hawking tries from a scientific perspective. So does Dawkins. In my estimation, they leave much wanting. They fail to offer any insight as to why we should behave any differently than any other animal in the animal world.
This is one of those reasons, I believe science is incomplete. Because of its base assumptions, it cannot address these important questions.
Something more is needed.
I believe we need purpose.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
What God has Done
A rather intriguing thing happened in my life and in the life of this blog this past week.
First, my blog post 10 Things You Can't Say or Do or Believe or Whatever While Following Jesus was picked up by the ELCA website Living Lutheran. Then, the blog post from Living Lutheran was picked up by the ELCA Facebook page. Then, conversation about my post ensued with both positive and negative comments, including some who know the author of the post I cited in my original article. Even the author of the original article put his two cents worth in about my blog post. Two intriguing things stood out:
1. If Christianity isn't about what we are supposed to do, why did Jesus spend so much time talking about how we are supposed to interact with our neighbor?
2. If Christianity isn't about what we are supposed to do, why is there such a thing as discipleship?*
When I read some of the comments, I think I got a glimpse of what that German monk had to deal with so long ago when he kicked off the Reformation. Never mind that I ended my original piece with the comment:
Then ponder how you may be called to share that love with others--without lists but instead with a Leader you are called to imitate.
Grace doesn't mean you aren't called to do things. Not in the least. And I guess the folks wondering about discipleship missed that part about imitating the Leader, but I think that's a bit beside the point.
Look. I stand by what I say. Christianity isn't about what we do. It's about what God has done.
I mean, first of all, Christianity isn't simply an ethical path. Jesus wasn't some kind of mystical sage full of wisdom. Nearly all of His teachings are found in the Old Testament. Yours truly is absolutely astounded when I hear folks say, "We don't follow the Old Testament law anymore."
Really? So, you mean the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself is something you don't follow anymore?
"That's different. Jesus told His followers to do that."
You mean, Jesus quoted the Old Testament in regards to that. Check Leviticus 19:18 out.
In fact, it could be argued that Jesus is speaking about the Natural Law here. This particular teaching is found in just about EVERY code of ethics around the world and is central to just about EVERY religion. Jesus is saying nothing new-at all. And if He is just one of many other types of teachers of morality; well, then there is really nothing special about Him. That's just the facts. So, yes, Jesus did talk about how we should live with one another, but there was nothing particularly special about that teaching when compared to other cultures and religions. (Check C.S. Lewis' commentary about this in Mere Christianity.)
Secondly, if you think you are really a disciple of Jesus and you are gung ho about doing what Jesus says and you think you have the moral authority to tell everyone what it really means to follow Him correctly (by doing this and not doing that), well, then I first challenge you to accomplish that top 10 list I posted in my blog, but if that isn't good enough I'll only ask you to do one other thing. It's a simple matter really, because Jesus actually said there was one thing we couldn't do and still be His disciple:
So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. Luke 14:33
There are no exegetical gymnastics to get you out of that one. This is indeed a direct translation of the koine Greek. There are no textual variants. You could argue that Jesus was simply talking to His immediate disciples, but what is to prevent anyone from saying that about ALL of Jesus' teachings?
IF CHRISTIANITY IS ABOUT WHAT YOU DO, YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN IF YOU HAVE POSSESSIONS at least according to what Jesus teaches--yeah, that same Jesus that teaches us an awful lot about how we are supposed to interact with God and with our neighbor.
Enter GRACE. Christianity is about what God has done.
We know what the right thing to do is.
We can't do it.
God takes care of matters on the cross.
We try to accomplish whatever we can out of love--and love doesn't say, "YOU CAN'T DO THIS!!"
Love says, "I love you anyway. I give you your inheritance anyway even though I am still alive. I come running to you anyway when you return home. I invite you to the party anyway even though you have shamed me. And I will keep letting you go; I will keep running to you; I will keep inviting you even though you keep messing up. I will rejoice when you do things according to my will, but I will not punish you because you cannot achieve perfection. You are my child, and you will always be."
Yeah, that's what God has done and is doing. Only that kind of love can change a person...
Only the love of God can change a person...
Nothing we do can.
*I am reframing the original comments and putting them into question form. Believe me, some of the comments weren't as nice as the questions. :-)
First, my blog post 10 Things You Can't Say or Do or Believe or Whatever While Following Jesus was picked up by the ELCA website Living Lutheran. Then, the blog post from Living Lutheran was picked up by the ELCA Facebook page. Then, conversation about my post ensued with both positive and negative comments, including some who know the author of the post I cited in my original article. Even the author of the original article put his two cents worth in about my blog post. Two intriguing things stood out:
1. If Christianity isn't about what we are supposed to do, why did Jesus spend so much time talking about how we are supposed to interact with our neighbor?
2. If Christianity isn't about what we are supposed to do, why is there such a thing as discipleship?*
When I read some of the comments, I think I got a glimpse of what that German monk had to deal with so long ago when he kicked off the Reformation. Never mind that I ended my original piece with the comment:
Then ponder how you may be called to share that love with others--without lists but instead with a Leader you are called to imitate.
Grace doesn't mean you aren't called to do things. Not in the least. And I guess the folks wondering about discipleship missed that part about imitating the Leader, but I think that's a bit beside the point.
Look. I stand by what I say. Christianity isn't about what we do. It's about what God has done.
I mean, first of all, Christianity isn't simply an ethical path. Jesus wasn't some kind of mystical sage full of wisdom. Nearly all of His teachings are found in the Old Testament. Yours truly is absolutely astounded when I hear folks say, "We don't follow the Old Testament law anymore."
Really? So, you mean the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself is something you don't follow anymore?
"That's different. Jesus told His followers to do that."
You mean, Jesus quoted the Old Testament in regards to that. Check Leviticus 19:18 out.
In fact, it could be argued that Jesus is speaking about the Natural Law here. This particular teaching is found in just about EVERY code of ethics around the world and is central to just about EVERY religion. Jesus is saying nothing new-at all. And if He is just one of many other types of teachers of morality; well, then there is really nothing special about Him. That's just the facts. So, yes, Jesus did talk about how we should live with one another, but there was nothing particularly special about that teaching when compared to other cultures and religions. (Check C.S. Lewis' commentary about this in Mere Christianity.)
Secondly, if you think you are really a disciple of Jesus and you are gung ho about doing what Jesus says and you think you have the moral authority to tell everyone what it really means to follow Him correctly (by doing this and not doing that), well, then I first challenge you to accomplish that top 10 list I posted in my blog, but if that isn't good enough I'll only ask you to do one other thing. It's a simple matter really, because Jesus actually said there was one thing we couldn't do and still be His disciple:
So therefore, none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions. Luke 14:33
There are no exegetical gymnastics to get you out of that one. This is indeed a direct translation of the koine Greek. There are no textual variants. You could argue that Jesus was simply talking to His immediate disciples, but what is to prevent anyone from saying that about ALL of Jesus' teachings?
IF CHRISTIANITY IS ABOUT WHAT YOU DO, YOU CANNOT BE A CHRISTIAN IF YOU HAVE POSSESSIONS at least according to what Jesus teaches--yeah, that same Jesus that teaches us an awful lot about how we are supposed to interact with God and with our neighbor.
Enter GRACE. Christianity is about what God has done.
We know what the right thing to do is.
We can't do it.
God takes care of matters on the cross.
We try to accomplish whatever we can out of love--and love doesn't say, "YOU CAN'T DO THIS!!"
Love says, "I love you anyway. I give you your inheritance anyway even though I am still alive. I come running to you anyway when you return home. I invite you to the party anyway even though you have shamed me. And I will keep letting you go; I will keep running to you; I will keep inviting you even though you keep messing up. I will rejoice when you do things according to my will, but I will not punish you because you cannot achieve perfection. You are my child, and you will always be."
Yeah, that's what God has done and is doing. Only that kind of love can change a person...
Only the love of God can change a person...
Nothing we do can.
*I am reframing the original comments and putting them into question form. Believe me, some of the comments weren't as nice as the questions. :-)
Thursday, January 16, 2014
If They Found the Bones of Jesus (Part 2)
Further thoughts about why I would cease to call myself a Christian if the bones of Jesus were found:
Christianity is not a system of morals.
Let me be very careful here. Christianity does have a moral component. There is no doubt about that. We are called to live a certain way individually and corporately. We are called to a high standard of living with one another. Jesus outlines this very, very clearly.
But much of what Jesus taught was not new. Even the command to love one's neighbor as one's self was quoted from the Old Testament and is found in some form or fashion in just about every world religion and culture. Many of the great moral teachers taught the same thing as Jesus. In fact, this is one of those arguments used by atheists to diminish the Christian worldview.
If Christianity were just one more attempt to teach the world morality, then if they found the bones of Jesus, I could easily continue to call myself a Christian without any sort of intellectual problem.
But Christianity goes much further than simply being a moral system. It goes much further than simply being a system of justice. Christianity is about God's reconciliation of the world unto Himself.
Without the resurrection, the proclamation of Christianity falls short. There is no reconciliation. There's just one more dead wanna be Messiah.
Without the resurrection, we are still under the Old Covenant with its legal code. Either become Jewish and work to follow the law or one is screwed. And then those sticky questions arise as to whether or not one can be a gentile convert to Judaism or if one can only be a "God-fearer."
Without the resurrection, grace is essentially null and void. It's right back to works/righteousness. And hey, I've already figured out, I don't even come close.
Without the resurrection, I'm toast.
Might as well enjoy what I can.
But if Christ is raised from the dead...
Well, that changes everything.
Christianity is not a system of morals.
Let me be very careful here. Christianity does have a moral component. There is no doubt about that. We are called to live a certain way individually and corporately. We are called to a high standard of living with one another. Jesus outlines this very, very clearly.
But much of what Jesus taught was not new. Even the command to love one's neighbor as one's self was quoted from the Old Testament and is found in some form or fashion in just about every world religion and culture. Many of the great moral teachers taught the same thing as Jesus. In fact, this is one of those arguments used by atheists to diminish the Christian worldview.
If Christianity were just one more attempt to teach the world morality, then if they found the bones of Jesus, I could easily continue to call myself a Christian without any sort of intellectual problem.
But Christianity goes much further than simply being a moral system. It goes much further than simply being a system of justice. Christianity is about God's reconciliation of the world unto Himself.
Without the resurrection, the proclamation of Christianity falls short. There is no reconciliation. There's just one more dead wanna be Messiah.
Without the resurrection, we are still under the Old Covenant with its legal code. Either become Jewish and work to follow the law or one is screwed. And then those sticky questions arise as to whether or not one can be a gentile convert to Judaism or if one can only be a "God-fearer."
Without the resurrection, grace is essentially null and void. It's right back to works/righteousness. And hey, I've already figured out, I don't even come close.
Without the resurrection, I'm toast.
Might as well enjoy what I can.
But if Christ is raised from the dead...
Well, that changes everything.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Ignorance of the Past: Part 2
Sometimes I think we give ourselves too much credit in our "modern" world.
Sometimes I think we think that just because we are more scientifically advanced, we have new and better insight into the questions of reality, morality, etc.
Sometimes I think we are woefully ignorant of the past and believe people in previous eras were simpletons because they did not have the scientific knowledge we have today.
I think this is a massive mistake. Humankind has been wrestling with such questions for thousands of years.
Such a thing was refreshed in my mind as I watched a few youtube debates between believers and atheists regarding what happens after death. The big question of morality always comes up. Why be moral if there is no God? Why be moral if there is no eternal justice?
Nietzsche took this to its logical, philosophical conclusion and said, "No reason for morality. These things are just socially constructed. All is relative."
Some atheists agree. Some do not. Some want to say there are indeed universal morals. But the evidence for such things actually is quite slim. Sure, there seems to be, across cultures the idea of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but there is also a universality in that the axiom is not followed.
Richard Dawkins himself adheres to the principle that this universal morality indeed is in culture and that evolution has helped us discover it. Yet, he still is willing to stand in front of thousands of people and tell them to publicly mock people of faith. Interestingly enough, I find, Dawkins doesn't appreciate being mocked himself. Apparently hypocrisy is not simply a phenomenon relegated to church going people.
But why even try if there is no life after death? Why even seek to do and be good if there is no judgment?
One could argue that one should do that which is good for the sake of it being good. But if one looks at the universe, at nature, at the reality of how living organisms interact, the only reason to be good is not for the sake of being good but for one's own self interest.
And that becomes the basic argument for most morality--my self interest or the self interest of the human species.
Yet, there is a problem in that. For would it not be in the self interest of the species to quarantine those who have any nasty communicable disease so that it would not spread? Would it not have been in the self interest of the species to eradicate the first man who contracted the AIDS virus so that no one else might have gotten it? We eradicate animals who have rabies so that they do not spread the disease. If man is no different than an animal, why not do the same? What makes human life so special that there is one set of rules in nature yet another set of rules in society?
Well, it's honestly because our morality isn't based in nature or in societal whim. Most of western morality is rooted and grounded in the Christian tradition, and that Christian tradition has dealt with the question of what the reality of life would be if there were no life after death.
St. Paul famously wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 32: "If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'"
If there is no life after death, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. If this life is all there is to live for, might as well enjoy it to the max. There is no rhyme. There is no reason. There is no purpose. All indeed is vanity as the writer of Ecclesiastes said. Might as well get as much as we can, live high on the hog, and enjoy whatever pleasure we can possibly enjoy. Nihilism. Plain and simple. It was around long before Nietzsche.
We would do well, I think, to give credence to those thinkers in the past. There really isn't much new that is under the sun.
Sometimes I think we think that just because we are more scientifically advanced, we have new and better insight into the questions of reality, morality, etc.
Sometimes I think we are woefully ignorant of the past and believe people in previous eras were simpletons because they did not have the scientific knowledge we have today.
I think this is a massive mistake. Humankind has been wrestling with such questions for thousands of years.
Such a thing was refreshed in my mind as I watched a few youtube debates between believers and atheists regarding what happens after death. The big question of morality always comes up. Why be moral if there is no God? Why be moral if there is no eternal justice?
Nietzsche took this to its logical, philosophical conclusion and said, "No reason for morality. These things are just socially constructed. All is relative."
Some atheists agree. Some do not. Some want to say there are indeed universal morals. But the evidence for such things actually is quite slim. Sure, there seems to be, across cultures the idea of do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but there is also a universality in that the axiom is not followed.
Richard Dawkins himself adheres to the principle that this universal morality indeed is in culture and that evolution has helped us discover it. Yet, he still is willing to stand in front of thousands of people and tell them to publicly mock people of faith. Interestingly enough, I find, Dawkins doesn't appreciate being mocked himself. Apparently hypocrisy is not simply a phenomenon relegated to church going people.
But why even try if there is no life after death? Why even seek to do and be good if there is no judgment?
One could argue that one should do that which is good for the sake of it being good. But if one looks at the universe, at nature, at the reality of how living organisms interact, the only reason to be good is not for the sake of being good but for one's own self interest.
And that becomes the basic argument for most morality--my self interest or the self interest of the human species.
Yet, there is a problem in that. For would it not be in the self interest of the species to quarantine those who have any nasty communicable disease so that it would not spread? Would it not have been in the self interest of the species to eradicate the first man who contracted the AIDS virus so that no one else might have gotten it? We eradicate animals who have rabies so that they do not spread the disease. If man is no different than an animal, why not do the same? What makes human life so special that there is one set of rules in nature yet another set of rules in society?
Well, it's honestly because our morality isn't based in nature or in societal whim. Most of western morality is rooted and grounded in the Christian tradition, and that Christian tradition has dealt with the question of what the reality of life would be if there were no life after death.
St. Paul famously wrote in 1 Corinthians 15 verse 32: "If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.'"
If there is no life after death, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die. If this life is all there is to live for, might as well enjoy it to the max. There is no rhyme. There is no reason. There is no purpose. All indeed is vanity as the writer of Ecclesiastes said. Might as well get as much as we can, live high on the hog, and enjoy whatever pleasure we can possibly enjoy. Nihilism. Plain and simple. It was around long before Nietzsche.
We would do well, I think, to give credence to those thinkers in the past. There really isn't much new that is under the sun.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Ignorance of the Past: Part 1
If we were not having the installation of our part time youth director this coming Sunday, I would be preaching on the Old Testament Lesson from the book of Habakkuk. I found it to be quite intriguing, to say the least.
The appointed text is actually the first four verses of chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 1: 1-4 reads:
The oracle that the prophet Habakkuk saw.
2 O Lord, how long shall I cry for help,
and you will not listen?
Or cry to you ‘Violence!’
and you will not save?
3 Why do you make me see wrongdoing
and look at trouble?
Destruction and violence are before me;
strife and contention arise.
4 So the law becomes slack
and justice never prevails.
The wicked surround the righteous—
therefore judgement comes forth perverted.
This was an intriguing beginning, and since it has been a long, long time since I've read Habakkuk, my interest was peaked. Essentially, the prophet is looking around at all the bad stuff going on in the world and asking, "Hey, God, what are you going to do about this? Where are you in the midst of this? Are you just going to sit up there in silence, or are you going to act?"
With a lack of action from God, "The law becomes slack, and justice never prevails."
With all the justice talk I hear in my own denomination, my ears became sharply attuned. But, as a student of the biblical text, I was not content to jump straight to chapter 2. I wanted to see what was left out: what was skipped. I kept reading.
Most of Chapter 1 held to this theme with a little added bit of worry from the prophet who saw the Chaldeans just up the road preparing for war. "Hey God, you gonna let these folks come in here and destroy us? How about a little help?"
Chapter 2 followed with God's response to Habakkuk:
2Then the Lord answered me and said:
Write the vision;
make it plain on tablets,
so that a runner may read it.
3 For there is still a vision for the appointed time;
it speaks of the end, and does not lie.
If it seems to tarry, wait for it;
it will surely come, it will not delay.
4 Look at the proud!
Their spirit is not right in them,
but the righteous live by their faith.
This is where the appointed text stops. Essentially, God tells the prophet to be patient. There is an end to come. There is a vision for the future. God's got everything under control. Live by faith. Good stuff, but that's not the whole of it. God also has some intriguing words about that future and what will happen to those who have abused their situation on earth. Interestingly enough, many of God's words to the prophet then have some strong connections to what is currently going on in our world today. Some of it is quite jaw dropping. And, quite frankly, I think it shows some of our ignorance of the past. So often we think we are dealing with stuff that is new and different. Yet, human nature hasn't exactly changed over the past several thousand years. Here's proof (All from Habakkuk Chapter 2):
What's going to happen when you go so deeply into debt that you cannot pay? It would be prudent not only of people but some politicians to listen to this one:
‘Alas for you who heap up what is not your own!’
How long will you load yourselves with goods taken in pledge?
7 Will not your own creditors suddenly rise,
and those who make you tremble wake up?
Then you will be booty for them.
What goes around comes around. What happens if you are a bully?
8 Because you have plundered many nations,
all that survive of the peoples shall plunder you—
because of human bloodshed, and violence to the earth,
to cities and all who live in them.
For those who isolate themselves from the needs of their neighbor; for those who hide behind walled communities and pretend that they are above everyone else:
9 ‘Alas for you who get evil gain for your houses,
setting your nest on high
to be safe from the reach of harm!’
10 You have devised shame for your house
by cutting off many peoples;
you have forfeited your life.
11 The very stones will cry out from the wall,
and the plaster will respond from the woodwork.
For those who commit violence and build their "city", "town", "government" on iniquity--lying, cheating, stealing, etc.:
12 ‘Alas for you who build a town by bloodshed,
and found a city on iniquity!’
13 Is it not from the Lord of hosts
that peoples labor only to feed the flames,
and nations weary themselves for nothing?
14 But the earth will be filled
with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord,
as the waters cover the sea.
For those who take advantage of others sexually. (Hell, nothing has changed when it has come to this kind of stuff. We just have cell phones and cameras to record it now-a-days.):
15 ‘Alas for you who make your neighbors drink,
pouring out your wrath until they are drunk,
in order to gaze on their nakedness!’
16 You will be sated with contempt instead of glory.
Drink, you yourself, and stagger!
The cup in the Lord’s right hand
will come around to you,
and shame will come upon your glory!
Apparently, the ancients had their own versions of Mardi Gras.
God's message through the prophet is obviously a warning about such matters--a warning which has basically gone unheeded for several thousand years. The more things change, the more they actually stay the same.
The appointed text is actually the first four verses of chapters 1 and 2. Chapter 1: 1-4 reads:
The oracle that the prophet Habakkuk saw.
2 O Lord, how long shall I cry for help,
and you will not listen?
Or cry to you ‘Violence!’
and you will not save?
3 Why do you make me see wrongdoing
and look at trouble?
Destruction and violence are before me;
strife and contention arise.
4 So the law becomes slack
and justice never prevails.
The wicked surround the righteous—
therefore judgement comes forth perverted.
This was an intriguing beginning, and since it has been a long, long time since I've read Habakkuk, my interest was peaked. Essentially, the prophet is looking around at all the bad stuff going on in the world and asking, "Hey, God, what are you going to do about this? Where are you in the midst of this? Are you just going to sit up there in silence, or are you going to act?"
With a lack of action from God, "The law becomes slack, and justice never prevails."
With all the justice talk I hear in my own denomination, my ears became sharply attuned. But, as a student of the biblical text, I was not content to jump straight to chapter 2. I wanted to see what was left out: what was skipped. I kept reading.
Most of Chapter 1 held to this theme with a little added bit of worry from the prophet who saw the Chaldeans just up the road preparing for war. "Hey God, you gonna let these folks come in here and destroy us? How about a little help?"
Chapter 2 followed with God's response to Habakkuk:
2Then the Lord answered me and said:
Write the vision;
make it plain on tablets,
so that a runner may read it.
3 For there is still a vision for the appointed time;
it speaks of the end, and does not lie.
If it seems to tarry, wait for it;
it will surely come, it will not delay.
4 Look at the proud!
Their spirit is not right in them,
but the righteous live by their faith.
This is where the appointed text stops. Essentially, God tells the prophet to be patient. There is an end to come. There is a vision for the future. God's got everything under control. Live by faith. Good stuff, but that's not the whole of it. God also has some intriguing words about that future and what will happen to those who have abused their situation on earth. Interestingly enough, many of God's words to the prophet then have some strong connections to what is currently going on in our world today. Some of it is quite jaw dropping. And, quite frankly, I think it shows some of our ignorance of the past. So often we think we are dealing with stuff that is new and different. Yet, human nature hasn't exactly changed over the past several thousand years. Here's proof (All from Habakkuk Chapter 2):
What's going to happen when you go so deeply into debt that you cannot pay? It would be prudent not only of people but some politicians to listen to this one:
‘Alas for you who heap up what is not your own!’
How long will you load yourselves with goods taken in pledge?
7 Will not your own creditors suddenly rise,
and those who make you tremble wake up?
Then you will be booty for them.
What goes around comes around. What happens if you are a bully?
8 Because you have plundered many nations,
all that survive of the peoples shall plunder you—
because of human bloodshed, and violence to the earth,
to cities and all who live in them.
For those who isolate themselves from the needs of their neighbor; for those who hide behind walled communities and pretend that they are above everyone else:
9 ‘Alas for you who get evil gain for your houses,
setting your nest on high
to be safe from the reach of harm!’
10 You have devised shame for your house
by cutting off many peoples;
you have forfeited your life.
11 The very stones will cry out from the wall,
and the plaster will respond from the woodwork.
For those who commit violence and build their "city", "town", "government" on iniquity--lying, cheating, stealing, etc.:
12 ‘Alas for you who build a town by bloodshed,
and found a city on iniquity!’
13 Is it not from the Lord of hosts
that peoples labor only to feed the flames,
and nations weary themselves for nothing?
14 But the earth will be filled
with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord,
as the waters cover the sea.
For those who take advantage of others sexually. (Hell, nothing has changed when it has come to this kind of stuff. We just have cell phones and cameras to record it now-a-days.):
15 ‘Alas for you who make your neighbors drink,
pouring out your wrath until they are drunk,
in order to gaze on their nakedness!’
16 You will be sated with contempt instead of glory.
Drink, you yourself, and stagger!
The cup in the Lord’s right hand
will come around to you,
and shame will come upon your glory!
Apparently, the ancients had their own versions of Mardi Gras.
God's message through the prophet is obviously a warning about such matters--a warning which has basically gone unheeded for several thousand years. The more things change, the more they actually stay the same.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Rendering Judgement
I would like to revisit a portion of my blog from yesterday, particularly the topic of judgement. Rereading St. Paul's admonition from the book of 1 Corinthians, I think is pretty informative and extremely important in how the church relates to society these days. Please look at it again:
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
Paul makes a very definite distinction when it comes to rendering judgement upon others.
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons--not 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."
Paul here makes it clear that Christians are not to remove themselves from the world. They are not supposed to keep themselves ritually or ethically pure by refusing to interact with those who are immoral. Indeed, we as Christians are actually called to go into the world and seek out those who are living immoral lives and bring the good news of Jesus Christ to them. But there is a method we are called to use in engaging such folks, and please forgive me while I snip some of Paul's comments and reconstruct them. I do not think I am changing their meaning, but I am striving to flesh out Paul's argument.
Paul is very clear that while associating with such folks, we are not in a position to render judgement upon them. "For what have I to do with judging those outside? ...God will judge those outside." For those who are not a part of the church, we cannot render judgement upon them. Of course, we can render the judgement that we see their machinations as contrary to our own belief and value system. We can call them immoral according to the commands and Laws of God/Christ. We can refuse to participate in such behavior ourselves, and in some cases, we can and should protest certain behaviors when they are abusive, violent, and demeaning. But, aside from those circumstances, Christians are called to keep their judgements to themselves. It is not kosher to speak the following to a non-believer, "If you don't stop behaving in that manner, you will go to hell."
Such "evangelistic" methods will not bring anyone to Christ in this day and age. In fact, it will usually have quite the opposite effect. It will make you, and Christianity, seem harsh, uncaring, and self-righteous. Ixnay on the judgements of those outside the church and who are not actively in a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Ah, but what about judging from within the Church?
Again, St. Paul is quite clear. "But 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... ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’"
There is a clear line of demarcation here. If you are outside the bounds of the church, we shall not render judgement upon you, but if you are a part of the body of Christ...and you do not act accordingly...and you are being immoral...then judgement is necessary.
Paul lifts up the difference here between cheap grace and costly grace. Cheap grace has no impact on me and the way I live my life. Costly grace means I am changed and transformed (sanctification), and the way I live seeks to glorify God by following God's commands. If I step out of those commands and live my life in a way that does not bring God glory, then there is a community of faith commissioned with bringing me back into line and calling me to repent. They/We are justified in doing so, and it is quite necessary.
Of course, whenever this is done, there are those who readily say, "Take the log out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck in mine."
Granted. Jesus was very clear in his instruction regarding such matters; however, He also commissioned a process of judgement which is not based solely at the discretion of any one individual. It is intimately tied to a local community of faith--the church (Matthew 18). Therefore, witch hunts driven by the ego of one individual aren't allowed. Rendering judgement is necessary and is to be carried out by and on those within the Christian faith--not on those who are outside it.
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
Paul makes a very definite distinction when it comes to rendering judgement upon others.
"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral persons--not 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."
Paul here makes it clear that Christians are not to remove themselves from the world. They are not supposed to keep themselves ritually or ethically pure by refusing to interact with those who are immoral. Indeed, we as Christians are actually called to go into the world and seek out those who are living immoral lives and bring the good news of Jesus Christ to them. But there is a method we are called to use in engaging such folks, and please forgive me while I snip some of Paul's comments and reconstruct them. I do not think I am changing their meaning, but I am striving to flesh out Paul's argument.
Paul is very clear that while associating with such folks, we are not in a position to render judgement upon them. "For what have I to do with judging those outside? ...God will judge those outside." For those who are not a part of the church, we cannot render judgement upon them. Of course, we can render the judgement that we see their machinations as contrary to our own belief and value system. We can call them immoral according to the commands and Laws of God/Christ. We can refuse to participate in such behavior ourselves, and in some cases, we can and should protest certain behaviors when they are abusive, violent, and demeaning. But, aside from those circumstances, Christians are called to keep their judgements to themselves. It is not kosher to speak the following to a non-believer, "If you don't stop behaving in that manner, you will go to hell."
Such "evangelistic" methods will not bring anyone to Christ in this day and age. In fact, it will usually have quite the opposite effect. It will make you, and Christianity, seem harsh, uncaring, and self-righteous. Ixnay on the judgements of those outside the church and who are not actively in a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Ah, but what about judging from within the Church?
Again, St. Paul is quite clear. "But 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... ‘Drive out the wicked person from among you.’"
There is a clear line of demarcation here. If you are outside the bounds of the church, we shall not render judgement upon you, but if you are a part of the body of Christ...and you do not act accordingly...and you are being immoral...then judgement is necessary.
Paul lifts up the difference here between cheap grace and costly grace. Cheap grace has no impact on me and the way I live my life. Costly grace means I am changed and transformed (sanctification), and the way I live seeks to glorify God by following God's commands. If I step out of those commands and live my life in a way that does not bring God glory, then there is a community of faith commissioned with bringing me back into line and calling me to repent. They/We are justified in doing so, and it is quite necessary.
Of course, whenever this is done, there are those who readily say, "Take the log out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck in mine."
Granted. Jesus was very clear in his instruction regarding such matters; however, He also commissioned a process of judgement which is not based solely at the discretion of any one individual. It is intimately tied to a local community of faith--the church (Matthew 18). Therefore, witch hunts driven by the ego of one individual aren't allowed. Rendering judgement is necessary and is to be carried out by and on those within the Christian faith--not on those who are outside it.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Why Should Anyone Listen to the Church? (Part 2)
As I have pondered the question of why anyone should listen to the Church, I have actually come up with many more reasons why one would be skeptical of the Church's message. It's an unfortunate list to think about.
#1. We have no clear voice to begin with. As I stated yesterday, we are a divided Church. How can a body speak with any authority when it does not have any sort of unity or shared upon definition of what is right and wrong?
As I thought about Christianity and politics, I thought about the two major groups working in society: the Christian Right and the Christian Left. Both movements seek to influence government policies. Both groups believe very strongly that their basis for doing so is grounded in the Biblical witness. Yet, the two groups disagree on nearly everything. It leaves an outsider very confused as to what a truly Christian voice is. And these two groups actually represent the extremes. There are a whole host of Christians who fall somewhere in the middle who, quite frankly, aren't as outspoken but who still have particular understandings of what it means to relate one's faith to the public square. When you add these, albeit quiet, voices, the confusion grows.
#2. Part of this stems from the fact that we have no agreed upon definition of what constitutes the Good News of Jesus Christ (the Gospel).
Is it God's reconciliation of the world unto Himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus?
Is it Redistribution of wealth (Jim Wallis)?
Is it God's solidarity with the poor?
Is it God's sacrifice of Himself as the God incarnate Jesus to pay for our sins? (Similar to the first, but phrased a little different.)
Is Salvation accomplished by God alone, or do we have a part to play in it?
Is the Gospel about heavenly matters or does it apply to earthly things as well?
#3. Depending upon what one's view of #2 is, it influences the ethics one practices--particularly how one views the commands and instructions of God given in the Biblical witness.
Does the Law focus on the individual?
On the community?
On the nation?
Does one follow the Law out of fear or out of love?
There are obviously some laws which are followed and others which are not. How does one differentiate between what is God's ongoing command and what can be left behind? For instance, why is it possible for a Christian to remove certain dietary restrictions? Answer: Because Jesus made all foods clean. Not all laws are quite so clear cut which adds to the confusion.
With no clear cut understanding of what the Gospel constitutes and how one puts together Christian ethics in the larger community called the Church--as defined yesterday by the Augsburg Confession--the Church actually sows confusion.
#4. Much of #2 and #3 comes from the inability to come up with a shared understanding of what it means to read and interpret the Bible. More than a few methodologies abound and are practiced in American Christianity. Each has their strengths. Each has weaknesses. And we darn sure can't agree which is better. When a disagreement comes to a head--well, add one more denomination to the Christian landscape. Divisiveness and confusion once again.
#4. There is much hypocrisy in the Church. The news media in our country is always ready to jump on a scandal, and the Church provides plenty of fodder. Sexual abuse by clergy. Mismanagement of funds by church leaders. Congregations fighting and splitting over doctrinal issues. All blatantly contradicting the commands of Christ and other teachings in Scripture.
Even in our passive actions, we tend to disregard what Christ calls us to. I mean, I know of few clergy who simply accept their compensation packages without scrutiny. Many "fight for every dime due to me." And who of us isn't interested in our pension plans and how much money we've saved? Which clergy among us--especially Protestant--don't like living in comfortable houses, taking vacations with family, driving nicer cars, and having expendable income to fund hobbies? Even how we live speaks volumes as to what is more important, and it proves our hypocrisy as well.
#5. Even when the Church can agree on some moral values, those values oftentimes clash with the perceived goals of a particular government. For instance, many within the Church argue that each and every human is afforded basic rights given that we are all created in the image of God. Yet, in our own nation, some of these basic human rights are denied to some because of the goal to keep everyone safe. Further, our society is based upon several announced basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our Christian faith actually has a particular way of understanding how we can best experience these rights, but those understandings are oftentimes at odds with government and culture. One need only look at what our movie culture glorifies in order to see this.
Why should anyone listen to us when such conflicts abound? Why should anyone pay us the least bit of attention when our actions fail to match our words? In the pluralistic culture that has become the United States of America, the Church is just one more voice at a very crowded table. This list does not inspire me to give credence to anything the Church says.
As I continue to think this one through, I hope that there is an answer out there as to why anyone should listen to our voice, especially when there are more than a few holes in our proclamation and action.
#1. We have no clear voice to begin with. As I stated yesterday, we are a divided Church. How can a body speak with any authority when it does not have any sort of unity or shared upon definition of what is right and wrong?
As I thought about Christianity and politics, I thought about the two major groups working in society: the Christian Right and the Christian Left. Both movements seek to influence government policies. Both groups believe very strongly that their basis for doing so is grounded in the Biblical witness. Yet, the two groups disagree on nearly everything. It leaves an outsider very confused as to what a truly Christian voice is. And these two groups actually represent the extremes. There are a whole host of Christians who fall somewhere in the middle who, quite frankly, aren't as outspoken but who still have particular understandings of what it means to relate one's faith to the public square. When you add these, albeit quiet, voices, the confusion grows.
#2. Part of this stems from the fact that we have no agreed upon definition of what constitutes the Good News of Jesus Christ (the Gospel).
Is it God's reconciliation of the world unto Himself through the death and resurrection of Jesus?
Is it Redistribution of wealth (Jim Wallis)?
Is it God's solidarity with the poor?
Is it God's sacrifice of Himself as the God incarnate Jesus to pay for our sins? (Similar to the first, but phrased a little different.)
Is Salvation accomplished by God alone, or do we have a part to play in it?
Is the Gospel about heavenly matters or does it apply to earthly things as well?
#3. Depending upon what one's view of #2 is, it influences the ethics one practices--particularly how one views the commands and instructions of God given in the Biblical witness.
Does the Law focus on the individual?
On the community?
On the nation?
Does one follow the Law out of fear or out of love?
There are obviously some laws which are followed and others which are not. How does one differentiate between what is God's ongoing command and what can be left behind? For instance, why is it possible for a Christian to remove certain dietary restrictions? Answer: Because Jesus made all foods clean. Not all laws are quite so clear cut which adds to the confusion.
With no clear cut understanding of what the Gospel constitutes and how one puts together Christian ethics in the larger community called the Church--as defined yesterday by the Augsburg Confession--the Church actually sows confusion.
#4. Much of #2 and #3 comes from the inability to come up with a shared understanding of what it means to read and interpret the Bible. More than a few methodologies abound and are practiced in American Christianity. Each has their strengths. Each has weaknesses. And we darn sure can't agree which is better. When a disagreement comes to a head--well, add one more denomination to the Christian landscape. Divisiveness and confusion once again.
#4. There is much hypocrisy in the Church. The news media in our country is always ready to jump on a scandal, and the Church provides plenty of fodder. Sexual abuse by clergy. Mismanagement of funds by church leaders. Congregations fighting and splitting over doctrinal issues. All blatantly contradicting the commands of Christ and other teachings in Scripture.
Even in our passive actions, we tend to disregard what Christ calls us to. I mean, I know of few clergy who simply accept their compensation packages without scrutiny. Many "fight for every dime due to me." And who of us isn't interested in our pension plans and how much money we've saved? Which clergy among us--especially Protestant--don't like living in comfortable houses, taking vacations with family, driving nicer cars, and having expendable income to fund hobbies? Even how we live speaks volumes as to what is more important, and it proves our hypocrisy as well.
#5. Even when the Church can agree on some moral values, those values oftentimes clash with the perceived goals of a particular government. For instance, many within the Church argue that each and every human is afforded basic rights given that we are all created in the image of God. Yet, in our own nation, some of these basic human rights are denied to some because of the goal to keep everyone safe. Further, our society is based upon several announced basic rights: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our Christian faith actually has a particular way of understanding how we can best experience these rights, but those understandings are oftentimes at odds with government and culture. One need only look at what our movie culture glorifies in order to see this.
Why should anyone listen to us when such conflicts abound? Why should anyone pay us the least bit of attention when our actions fail to match our words? In the pluralistic culture that has become the United States of America, the Church is just one more voice at a very crowded table. This list does not inspire me to give credence to anything the Church says.
As I continue to think this one through, I hope that there is an answer out there as to why anyone should listen to our voice, especially when there are more than a few holes in our proclamation and action.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Why Should Anyone Listen to the Church? (Part 1)
The question stems from something my bishop, Michael Rinehart, said at the end of a lengthy Facebook post:
Some days I feel the church has abdicated its role as a clear moral voice ik (sic) society, and as a community of reconciliation.
My question: Why should anyone listen to the church in the first place?
Let's consider an important assumption to begin with: the church has a clear moral voice in society. Does it?
Well, first, we must define "The Church." I am a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion, and I have come to see the wisdom of the Augsburg Confession's definition of the Church:
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.
In my estimation, this definition of The Church allows a very big tent. Most Lutherans accept a liberal view that our brothers and sisters in Christ include those of the vast majority of Christians found throughout other denominations. I personally do as well. I believe Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, et.al. all constitute "The Church."
Yet, there is quite a problem with this definition--this Church is hardly unified in beliefs, practices, understandings, and implementation of doctrine. We are NOT of one accord. We do NOT speak with one voice.
In fact, there are many voices presenting many views and interpretations of what it means to be Christian in one's private and in one's public life. There are many voices presenting many views about what it means to be a moral person and one of upright character. There are many voices presenting many views about what constitutes a sin and which parts of the Scriptures should and should not be followed.
In short, the American Church has no clear, moral voice. It is more like a giant cacophony of voices all crying and decrying together. In the smorgasbord that is American Christianity, one may choose a denomination or congregation based upon what that particular denomination or congregation teaches as it's particular flavor of Christianity. If the flavor isn't suitable to that person's taste, he or she may leave and seek out another.
This leads me to say, "How can the church abdicate a clear moral voice when it does not have one and hasn't had one for some time?"
This is quite problematic for the Church. For it leads to a very substantial question: Why should anyone listen to the Church anymore? Why grant it any authority, moral or otherwise in this day and age?
Unfortunately, I am going to leave it right there for the time being. The question is actually pretty new and raw for me just coming into focus yesterday afternoon. It is one thing to defend the Truth of the Christian message. It is another thing to argue why anyone should listen to it when the Church itself cannot speak with one accord on important moral issues. This is something I must ponder.
Some days I feel the church has abdicated its role as a clear moral voice ik (sic) society, and as a community of reconciliation.
My question: Why should anyone listen to the church in the first place?
Let's consider an important assumption to begin with: the church has a clear moral voice in society. Does it?
Well, first, we must define "The Church." I am a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion, and I have come to see the wisdom of the Augsburg Confession's definition of the Church:
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.
In my estimation, this definition of The Church allows a very big tent. Most Lutherans accept a liberal view that our brothers and sisters in Christ include those of the vast majority of Christians found throughout other denominations. I personally do as well. I believe Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Congregationalists, Baptists, et.al. all constitute "The Church."
Yet, there is quite a problem with this definition--this Church is hardly unified in beliefs, practices, understandings, and implementation of doctrine. We are NOT of one accord. We do NOT speak with one voice.
In fact, there are many voices presenting many views and interpretations of what it means to be Christian in one's private and in one's public life. There are many voices presenting many views about what it means to be a moral person and one of upright character. There are many voices presenting many views about what constitutes a sin and which parts of the Scriptures should and should not be followed.
In short, the American Church has no clear, moral voice. It is more like a giant cacophony of voices all crying and decrying together. In the smorgasbord that is American Christianity, one may choose a denomination or congregation based upon what that particular denomination or congregation teaches as it's particular flavor of Christianity. If the flavor isn't suitable to that person's taste, he or she may leave and seek out another.
This leads me to say, "How can the church abdicate a clear moral voice when it does not have one and hasn't had one for some time?"
This is quite problematic for the Church. For it leads to a very substantial question: Why should anyone listen to the Church anymore? Why grant it any authority, moral or otherwise in this day and age?
Unfortunately, I am going to leave it right there for the time being. The question is actually pretty new and raw for me just coming into focus yesterday afternoon. It is one thing to defend the Truth of the Christian message. It is another thing to argue why anyone should listen to it when the Church itself cannot speak with one accord on important moral issues. This is something I must ponder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)