In our interactions with others, whether they be Christian or otherwise, we need to set boundaries. With this in mind, I submit the following exercise of setting my own personal boundaries implicitly based in biblical foundations, as I prayerfully understand them, for others to glean what they will. We must keep in mind that the theological liberties (in an authorized, not inherent, sense) that are afforded us, specifically those that allow us to hold to our differences concerning the faith, are given, not as an inerrant right, but as an allowance of grace. The Lord is very aware of our inadequacies and, more to the point, our stubbornness.
Since it is not a right that we disagree, but an opportunity (for one or both sides to be incorrect without being subject to complete consequence) given to us as a concession for our deficiencies, we must not be content or complacent in our disagreement, for proper/right understanding is at stake (See note: The Importance of Right Doctrine). Instead, we should work diligently with each other through study, prayer, and healthy dialogue to try to bridge the gaps and to try to establish more faithful perceptions of truth that can be agreed upon if enough patience and explanation take place within healthy dialogue.
All involved must remember that if we are to truly consider ourselves brothers and sisters in the faith, then it is our duty, an obligation we owe to each other in the name of love, to treat each other as such. If we are children of God, adopted by grace through faith in Christ, then we all (Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Wesleyan-Arminians, to name a few) must be concerned for the well being of each other, wanting God to be exalted in proper understanding of His divine truth. We are not each other’s enemies. It is important that we keep an openness, realizing that each side potentially has something to offer.
Often times, our theological differences are a matter of semantic over-emphasis as a matter of protecting our own position. In other words, one might choose to use a term (e.g. prevenient grace for the Wesleyan and common grace for the Calvinist), simply because it leans toward one camp over another, but the same person might hold a very nuanced definition of the term that other's might never realize if they do not ask. Just as we should never pigeonhole a person based on their affiliation to a particular political movement (e.g. calling all who are concerned with social and/or environmental justice “liberals”), we should never assume we know all there is to know about a person’s beliefs because he or she considers himself or herself a Calvinist or Wesleyan (or anything else for that matter). Moreover, if time is taken to fully listen and attempt to understand others' positions, instead of wasting time coming up with a counter argument that might be gratuitous, missing all that the person is saying in the first place, then one might (in many, but certainly not all cases) come to realize that the other person’s views are not so different after all, and might not differ in the least, except for emphasis and terminology.
On the one hand, one should not presume to know the extent of another's theological understandings until that person has thoroughly exhausted all the resources that the person in question has provided. Keep in mind, there does come times when there is a need to argue for one's own side in light of another's statement, even when one has not read all that the person whose position is in question has provided. In those instances it is important to note that the position that one is arguing against is an assumed position, unless the person has provided concrete evidence on the particular topic, even if more is stated elsewhere. In other words, all theological dialogue (at least those conversations that do not include a heretical voice) should be participated in with a sense of humility by all those involved. However, because right understanding is at stake, this is not to say that dialogue should not be done passionately. It should. It should be done with a passion to discover truth.
On the other hand, as for the individual making the initial argument, it should be his or her duty in the first place to explain terms to the fullest extent that the individual is capable, especially for those terms that are central to the arguments. Remaining vague in order to maintain use of loopholes and to avoid entanglement is not respectful of the argument or the person one is trying to persuade. In fact, it might be deception. One should be willing to take his or her argument out its logical conclusion to test the strength of one’s case. To do anything less is to risk misleading others by an esoteric rant on tradition. This is not to suggest that one must be fully studied on any matter he or she wishes to discuss, only that they should have a humility in their words (even acknowledging gaps when they are apparent) if it is the case that there remains more to be gleaned, and is this not the case the majority of the time?
Often times, we hide behind the concession of grace that allows us to disagree, not wanting others to pop our theological bubble. We often agree to disagree before any discussion has ever happened, wanting to avoid all conflict. However, if one detects such a weakness in his or her own understanding, then the best thing for that person might be to learn from others, even those that do not align with his or her own tradition. This can be a painful process (I've been there), but through pain comes growth (I would rather betray tradition than betray/ignore truth).
Keep in mind to test the spirit of others who wish to dialogue with you concerning theology. Some are out there to cause dissension and not unity. Others are not spiritually mature enough to discuss disagreement without resorting to anger and/or ad hominem attacks. However, once you do decide to enter into dialogue, be sure to listen intently, not assuming you know precisely what the other is going to say before they say it, and always allow the other to have the chance to qualify any ambiguous statements.
As a final statement, I must recognize the fact that sometimes the only resolution will be to maintain disagreement. This is not the preferred outcome, but, at least until a later point in time when both/all companies involved have had a chance to reflect, some level of disagreement must be tolerated for the sake of brotherhood, and the greater good is being unified as the one body whose concern is not self promotion, but others, especially the lost, who benefit little from our internal bickering and much from our unified efforts. In other words, never allow the perfect to be the enemy of the greatest possible good. Sometimes, the perfect scenario is inhibited by influences outside our control, and, in those cases, we should not resort to an extreme in which those involved are stifled from any further dialogue or common work together.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Our Place as Participants in The Redemption Story
Note: While I usually reserve my longer theological writings for the ministry website, I felt led to place this article on my blog as well. I felt led to do so because the following expresses where my heart is now in Christian ministry. Also, further revision might be made in the near future, but I was anxious to share as soon as possible. I hope you enjoy.
"...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." -The Apostle Paul, Philippians 2:12
For one to think that he or she as an individual is the end of the redemptive purposes of God, to think that the individual soul is that goal and beyond each of us there is no more concern so that we are not responsible in ourselves to move forward in the process of redemption (of self and others) is to think too highly of ourselves and too lowly of our privilege as believers. To put this a bit more simply, we should not assume that it is God's prerogative to set us free in salvation so that we might live in comfort knowing that we are "good to go," all the while living as we wish, wallowing in our sin. Salvation is the beginning to every Christian story, not the end. Once we accept Christ, we are not done; we are just starting.
If it were the case that God had no eschatological goal/s within human history, but only wished to set apart a people for future glory, the modern, Western equating of justification to salvation would be a much more viable option for coming to understand God's dealing with humanity's crisis of sin. In other words, if God had no particular will for the trajectory of human history, but only wanted to establish true relationship with each of us after death, then it would make sense that all He would need to do is forgive us of all our sins, past, present and future, and allow us to go on unchanged until death and glorification. This is not to say that this would necessarily be the case, only that it would make much more sense than it does in light of the way things really are. We are not in an intermission awaiting death.
The eschatological goals of God (the goals that bring this age to completion in harmony with God's will) are purely set on the redemption of all things. Moreover, all that is God's that pertains to this reality is called to join Him in this redemption process, and are we not part of this "all" as Christians? Are we not His to do with as He wishes? As we will further discuss in a moment, we are called as representatives, ambassadors, of our King to the world. Representatives must reflect the character of their king in order to demonstrate what they mean when they suggest that their king acts this or that way, especially if the king's ways are so totally foreign to the ways of the people the representatives are in dialogue with. And our King's way is certainly foreign to the world to which we present His message; is it not?
In light of this reality, Christian righteousness cannot merely be alien righteousness imputed by the blood of Christ through the forensic pardoning of justification. For to represent God is to be like God, and to be like Him, we must be transformed by Him. While it is certainly true that we are righteous simply for the fact that we are hidden in Him, this cannot lead us to believe this is all that God has in store for us in the redemption process. To be His representatives we must be changed to be made like Him. If it is our purpose in salvation to fulfill this call, then being made righteous has to be a part of that process so that others will take notice of what it is to be like God, and this is only done by the impartation of righteousness by the Spirit of God. In other words, this is not done by our own means; we are only being made in His likeness because Christ has afforded us the opportunity to be temples of the Spirit, where the Spirit has the chance to work in us in order to make us whole.
The majority Western worldview of redemption that has its roots in reformation thinking is inadequate when it suggests to the world that salvation is mostly concerned with justifying the sinner, as if we are an end within ourselves and have no real purpose once we are saved. At the time of the Reformation, it was the reformer's job, such as Martin Luther, to (in the words of Timothy Tennet) defend the doorway of faith. Justification is that work of God that introduces the believer into the faith. It is the entry into the faith. For so long, the church of that day had been preaching the idea that the church itself was the entry way to salvation, and the reformers were reminding the church that it is by Christ that we enter into the church. It is by grace through faith alone that we come to know Christ. This had been lost, and the reformers had to put all their efforts to reestablish this truth. This explains why Luther had such issue with the book of James, wishing to remove it from Scripture. To continue with Tennet's analogy, while Luther was in the doorway of faith, James was in the living room, teaching us, not how to become a Christian, but how to live as one.. In His faithful defense of the doorway that teaches us how to become a Christian, Luther began to ignore what lay in store for the believer. He sometimes ignored the fact of how we are to be a Christian once we are one.
Today, this reformational over-emphasis might not be explicitly expressed by the leaders of the Western church, but it is surely implicitly expressed when these teachers focus so heavily upon justification (what God does for us) with little to no mention of sanctification (what God does in us) when reflecting upon salvation, and what a danger it is to only tell partial truths. While justifying pardon is a crucial point within the order of salvation, we were not bought by the blood of Christ in order to be set free in a purely autonomous sense, even if only until death. In fact, humans cannot be purely autonomous. We must choose who we will serve. We will always be dependent upon the will of God (if we are to truly submit to Him). We were bought at a price for a purpose, to be God's, not our own.
It is not within God's eschatological, redemptive purposes to remove our responsibility and redemption from the realm of space and time, or space-time, however you wish to look at it. Instead, the story of redemption, which is His will, is unfolding around us, and hopefully, if we are submissive, through us. We are to be participants within the story. God has deemed it necessary that redemption break through in the here and now, and while sin, death, and the lost will remain with us, as the weeds remain with the wheat until harvest, we are called to over come sin in the here and now so that we might join hands with the Father as we serve His purpose in saving souls. Therefore, sanctification (actual change) is not an option, but a necessary part of salvation, if the saved is afforded the time here on earth to minister after justification (In other words, while we can be saved even moments before death, if we are given the grace to remain in the world, we must move forward).
Our call to be demonstrators of God's holiness in order to impact the world is given throughout the Scriptures, but for lack of space, I will give but a few examples. The first portion of Scripture that comes to mind explicitly demonstrates our playing a crucial role in the redemption story: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). It is certain that we are called to forgive the transgressions of others when they harm us, but, as my pastor, David Yarbrough, recently reminded us as his congregation, this is not what our Lord is specifically referring to at this juncture. Instead, Jesus says this very thing after telling His disciples to receive the Spirit of God. With the Spirit, we are called to spread the good news of God's forgiveness to the world. We are God's agents of redemption. While, as Pastor Yarbrough reminded us that Sunday morning, we cannot forgive others their sins ourselves, we, as temples, have the ability to bring the Spirit within us out into the world and the ability to proclaim God's forgiving power as the Spirit speaks through us. Thus, our call within the redemption story allows us the privilege to share with new believers, as well as brothers and sisters who have stumbled, that by the acceptance of Christ, their sins have been forgiven.
The next portions of Scripture demonstrates for us that it is not our call to merely proclaim the good news, but to live it out, to demonstrate for the world that our sins are really forgiven and that God has the power to deal with them within us as we live set-apart, holy lives. First, let us look at the OT foundation for this concept: "...the nations shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when through you I display my holiness before their eyes...I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and [make you] be careful to observe my ordinances" (Ezekiel 36:23b, 27). Up to this point the Lord is admonishing His people, Israel, for not being good representatives among the nations of the world. Instead, they have made God seem weak and have profaned His name because they had not been living holy lives. In order for us to be representatives, we must take on that Spirit, which allows us to "follow [His] statutes and [to] be careful to observe [His] ordinances." This is affirmed in the NT by Christ when He tells us through The Sermon on The Mount: "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).
For us to be part of the redemption story has been God's intent since the beginning. His eschatological purpose for His people to be a part of the redemption story has been revealed time and time again, and has always been God's purpose for His people, as demonstrated in His promise to Abraham, the blood father of the nation of Israel and the Spiritual father of all who call upon the name of the Lord: "...in you all the families of the world shall be blessed" (Genesis 12:3b). God has called us, His people, for a purpose. We do not sit in waiting. We are to join in His work, for He has called us to do so: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). He is with us to the end of the age, until His eschatological goal has been fulfilled He will be working through us for that goal.
In conclusion, I have often heard it said and wholeheartedly agree that Christianity is the only religion that concerns what God does for us instead of what we do for God/gods. However, we need to understand this in its fulness. While it is true that Christianity is largely about what God does for us, we must not allow that to make vague the truth that another aspect of the Christian life concerns what God does in us. Consequently, Christianity concerns what God does through us. For what would be the point of changing us in the here and now if this change was not to make any sort of outward, even social, impact. And this is why I suggest that it would be much more sensible to accept the equating of justification alone with salvation, if God had given no revelation of an eschatological goal in redemption. If I am not called to represent God, then it is not as important that I reflect His image. But, if I am, then it is of utmost importance, and we must dismiss any thought that would have us assume otherwise.
"...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." -The Apostle Paul, Philippians 2:12
For one to think that he or she as an individual is the end of the redemptive purposes of God, to think that the individual soul is that goal and beyond each of us there is no more concern so that we are not responsible in ourselves to move forward in the process of redemption (of self and others) is to think too highly of ourselves and too lowly of our privilege as believers. To put this a bit more simply, we should not assume that it is God's prerogative to set us free in salvation so that we might live in comfort knowing that we are "good to go," all the while living as we wish, wallowing in our sin. Salvation is the beginning to every Christian story, not the end. Once we accept Christ, we are not done; we are just starting.
If it were the case that God had no eschatological goal/s within human history, but only wished to set apart a people for future glory, the modern, Western equating of justification to salvation would be a much more viable option for coming to understand God's dealing with humanity's crisis of sin. In other words, if God had no particular will for the trajectory of human history, but only wanted to establish true relationship with each of us after death, then it would make sense that all He would need to do is forgive us of all our sins, past, present and future, and allow us to go on unchanged until death and glorification. This is not to say that this would necessarily be the case, only that it would make much more sense than it does in light of the way things really are. We are not in an intermission awaiting death.
The eschatological goals of God (the goals that bring this age to completion in harmony with God's will) are purely set on the redemption of all things. Moreover, all that is God's that pertains to this reality is called to join Him in this redemption process, and are we not part of this "all" as Christians? Are we not His to do with as He wishes? As we will further discuss in a moment, we are called as representatives, ambassadors, of our King to the world. Representatives must reflect the character of their king in order to demonstrate what they mean when they suggest that their king acts this or that way, especially if the king's ways are so totally foreign to the ways of the people the representatives are in dialogue with. And our King's way is certainly foreign to the world to which we present His message; is it not?
In light of this reality, Christian righteousness cannot merely be alien righteousness imputed by the blood of Christ through the forensic pardoning of justification. For to represent God is to be like God, and to be like Him, we must be transformed by Him. While it is certainly true that we are righteous simply for the fact that we are hidden in Him, this cannot lead us to believe this is all that God has in store for us in the redemption process. To be His representatives we must be changed to be made like Him. If it is our purpose in salvation to fulfill this call, then being made righteous has to be a part of that process so that others will take notice of what it is to be like God, and this is only done by the impartation of righteousness by the Spirit of God. In other words, this is not done by our own means; we are only being made in His likeness because Christ has afforded us the opportunity to be temples of the Spirit, where the Spirit has the chance to work in us in order to make us whole.
The majority Western worldview of redemption that has its roots in reformation thinking is inadequate when it suggests to the world that salvation is mostly concerned with justifying the sinner, as if we are an end within ourselves and have no real purpose once we are saved. At the time of the Reformation, it was the reformer's job, such as Martin Luther, to (in the words of Timothy Tennet) defend the doorway of faith. Justification is that work of God that introduces the believer into the faith. It is the entry into the faith. For so long, the church of that day had been preaching the idea that the church itself was the entry way to salvation, and the reformers were reminding the church that it is by Christ that we enter into the church. It is by grace through faith alone that we come to know Christ. This had been lost, and the reformers had to put all their efforts to reestablish this truth. This explains why Luther had such issue with the book of James, wishing to remove it from Scripture. To continue with Tennet's analogy, while Luther was in the doorway of faith, James was in the living room, teaching us, not how to become a Christian, but how to live as one.. In His faithful defense of the doorway that teaches us how to become a Christian, Luther began to ignore what lay in store for the believer. He sometimes ignored the fact of how we are to be a Christian once we are one.
Today, this reformational over-emphasis might not be explicitly expressed by the leaders of the Western church, but it is surely implicitly expressed when these teachers focus so heavily upon justification (what God does for us) with little to no mention of sanctification (what God does in us) when reflecting upon salvation, and what a danger it is to only tell partial truths. While justifying pardon is a crucial point within the order of salvation, we were not bought by the blood of Christ in order to be set free in a purely autonomous sense, even if only until death. In fact, humans cannot be purely autonomous. We must choose who we will serve. We will always be dependent upon the will of God (if we are to truly submit to Him). We were bought at a price for a purpose, to be God's, not our own.
It is not within God's eschatological, redemptive purposes to remove our responsibility and redemption from the realm of space and time, or space-time, however you wish to look at it. Instead, the story of redemption, which is His will, is unfolding around us, and hopefully, if we are submissive, through us. We are to be participants within the story. God has deemed it necessary that redemption break through in the here and now, and while sin, death, and the lost will remain with us, as the weeds remain with the wheat until harvest, we are called to over come sin in the here and now so that we might join hands with the Father as we serve His purpose in saving souls. Therefore, sanctification (actual change) is not an option, but a necessary part of salvation, if the saved is afforded the time here on earth to minister after justification (In other words, while we can be saved even moments before death, if we are given the grace to remain in the world, we must move forward).
Our call to be demonstrators of God's holiness in order to impact the world is given throughout the Scriptures, but for lack of space, I will give but a few examples. The first portion of Scripture that comes to mind explicitly demonstrates our playing a crucial role in the redemption story: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). It is certain that we are called to forgive the transgressions of others when they harm us, but, as my pastor, David Yarbrough, recently reminded us as his congregation, this is not what our Lord is specifically referring to at this juncture. Instead, Jesus says this very thing after telling His disciples to receive the Spirit of God. With the Spirit, we are called to spread the good news of God's forgiveness to the world. We are God's agents of redemption. While, as Pastor Yarbrough reminded us that Sunday morning, we cannot forgive others their sins ourselves, we, as temples, have the ability to bring the Spirit within us out into the world and the ability to proclaim God's forgiving power as the Spirit speaks through us. Thus, our call within the redemption story allows us the privilege to share with new believers, as well as brothers and sisters who have stumbled, that by the acceptance of Christ, their sins have been forgiven.
The next portions of Scripture demonstrates for us that it is not our call to merely proclaim the good news, but to live it out, to demonstrate for the world that our sins are really forgiven and that God has the power to deal with them within us as we live set-apart, holy lives. First, let us look at the OT foundation for this concept: "...the nations shall know that I am the Lord, says the Lord God, when through you I display my holiness before their eyes...I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and [make you] be careful to observe my ordinances" (Ezekiel 36:23b, 27). Up to this point the Lord is admonishing His people, Israel, for not being good representatives among the nations of the world. Instead, they have made God seem weak and have profaned His name because they had not been living holy lives. In order for us to be representatives, we must take on that Spirit, which allows us to "follow [His] statutes and [to] be careful to observe [His] ordinances." This is affirmed in the NT by Christ when He tells us through The Sermon on The Mount: "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).
For us to be part of the redemption story has been God's intent since the beginning. His eschatological purpose for His people to be a part of the redemption story has been revealed time and time again, and has always been God's purpose for His people, as demonstrated in His promise to Abraham, the blood father of the nation of Israel and the Spiritual father of all who call upon the name of the Lord: "...in you all the families of the world shall be blessed" (Genesis 12:3b). God has called us, His people, for a purpose. We do not sit in waiting. We are to join in His work, for He has called us to do so: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age" (Matthew 28:19,20). He is with us to the end of the age, until His eschatological goal has been fulfilled He will be working through us for that goal.
In conclusion, I have often heard it said and wholeheartedly agree that Christianity is the only religion that concerns what God does for us instead of what we do for God/gods. However, we need to understand this in its fulness. While it is true that Christianity is largely about what God does for us, we must not allow that to make vague the truth that another aspect of the Christian life concerns what God does in us. Consequently, Christianity concerns what God does through us. For what would be the point of changing us in the here and now if this change was not to make any sort of outward, even social, impact. And this is why I suggest that it would be much more sensible to accept the equating of justification alone with salvation, if God had given no revelation of an eschatological goal in redemption. If I am not called to represent God, then it is not as important that I reflect His image. But, if I am, then it is of utmost importance, and we must dismiss any thought that would have us assume otherwise.
Monday, February 14, 2011
What We Lost and What is at Stake
To say of humanity that we are lost does not begin to bring about the sort of anguish that should be brought about in light of our fall and depravity. The real question is this: What are we lost from? For it is not just life that we lost, but a sort of life, a way of being that is hard if not difficult to grasp by the sinful heart, but, if only glimpsed at, will create a deep and devastating longing that can last a life time. That our God is a God that would will our happiness forever is a concept that has been lost on humanity and even some Christians. But that is why we were created, and that is exactly what we threw back into God’s face when our own selfishness led to a desire for what was not ours to take. The tree and its fruit represents more than mere disobedience; it represents a whole shift in being, a gaining of a perspective, the knowledge of good and evil, which was not really a gain at all, but a loss. This tree represents division between man and God. It represents a division within man himself, man who was created to desire God now, through disobedience, has taken on a new desire, a desire that leads to death, a desire for self. The tree represents the desire of self over God. But who is capable of lifting himself up? Strong as one may be, no one can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. We were made to be carried by God, but we chose the fruit of selfishness which created and revealed in man a division between good, outward focused reality and evil, inward focused reality. If the fall of man, demonstrated in the selfish act of choosing from the one tree that man was to ignore, created a division, a break in the human nature, what is the nature that we lost? We lost the nature of God, being made in His image, and this being demonstrated in the separation of man from God. And what is the nature of God, the image, which we lost? God is love. We lost love. To make our fall anything less than the loss of love is to downplay the sheer horror of what was truly given up by our transgression. This is not to say that God stopped loving us, but something even worse. While God continues to love, we chose to set up a barrier so that His love could not reach us and fulfill us as it once did. If God would have just given up, it might not sting so badly, but in His persistence we see the horrible reality of what sort of love we transgressed. We have tried various theologies to numb and downplay the issue. In anguish, some have suggested we really did not lose much. We are merely pawns in God’s game. We shift the blame or make it trivial. But, we must face reality. We threw love back in Love’s face. How retched? But, hear the good news. We are called to return. We all are called. While love was lost, while love was stripped from Love, Love never stopped searching for the objects of His desire. While we did not want to have anything to do with Love, Love never changed. He still desires us. In order to turn from the sin that we fell into, we must turn from the self, and this is done by the grace of Love. Our own broken nature calls us back to Love, but we cannot tear down the barrier we set in place. All we now have is a plea to Love. Thank Love that it is the nature of love to return to the lost, to even those who have betrayed Love for spite. There is no other motive of Love, but love. Try as we might to shift the story, we will eventually have to accept the truth that what we lost was God, what we have lost is Love. Love is at stake, not mere life, but life abundant with Love. What is at satke is God, the God of our fulfillment. He seeks us all in Love, for Love does not discriminate or show favoritism. Oh how lost we would be if Love was not loving. Praise Him.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Considering Pleasure and Virtue in Service to Others: A Not So Obvious Conclusion
Often times, situations present themselves that have moral consequences. As people concerned with morality, many Christians are quick to offer their opinions concerning what the proper response should be to these situations. We are quick to form ethical suggestions without fully realizing the intricacies of the situation or the affects of our decisions. Quick response is often unwarranted. Christians should never act nor decide without God. Instead of consulting God, many will jump the gun. I have been guilty of this on several occasions, but by the grace of God I am becoming more aware of my need to seek Him before I speak.. I think the following interaction will demonstrate how careful consideration and willful obedience can give us an answer that is not immediately thought of.
I recently had an interesting question posed to me by a close friend who likes to ponder life. We all know that helping others is seen as a positive action by most persons of our society and is a mark of good Christian living. Doing good is not just seen as a positive action by Christians, but the larger society in general affirms this as well. In light of this, my friend must have begun to ponder why people do good deeds for others. Therefore, he posed a scenario followed with a question that the scenario brings to light. In essence, he said that we often do good deeds for others by using our talents. Those who practice their talents often enjoy doing so. Therefore, we often help others, not for their sakes, but for our own. Thus, my friend posed the question: Is it a selfish act to help others when we do so because we merely enjoy the task that is required to assist those in need?
The scenario was a bit more specific, which helps with my answer. My friend framed his scenario in the realm of vocation. So, let us say that you are a computer expert. A person you know little about has a computer that crashes, and you quickly volunteer to help. Let us make the scenario even more interesting by suggesting that this person needs his computer to do some good will project; say he is the manager of a food bank. Now, while you are aware that your good deed will provide great assistance to the owner of the computer as well as a local food bank and all the people it feeds, you do not volunteer to fix the computer for that reason. Instead, you do it because you enjoy the work. You simply take on the task of fixing the computer because you like fixing computers, not because some kind soul is in need. Is there something wrong with this?
To our Christian sensibilities, we might, at first, wish to say that this self-fulfillment is not a good motivator for good deeds. Besides, our righteous acts are but filthy rags before God; are they not? But should we then assign blame to the person who does his work happily for no other reason than he or she enjoys it? In this scenario the act of helping is not done so for righteousness’s sake. Therefore, the person is not guilty of trying to please God by doing a good deed apart from God’s power. The wrong would be to pose as good Samaritans for praise, when one is not. If the motivation was not enjoyment of work but praise for the self by those the worker helps, then the person helping is in the wrong. This is not to suggest that we should not accept thanks.
Another wrong would be found in the person who has all means to help, enjoys his or her work, and yet still refuses for no other reason than spite. I might add that I feel it to be more morally insensitive and reprehensible to deny help simply for the fact that one does not wish to pretend to care. In other words, to deny help because one does not want to commit a selfish act due to the fact that he or she will only do it for the satisfaction of a job well done, is, in itself, a selfish act, a looking out for one’s own interest (not being seen as selfish) over the interest of others.
Surely selfless acts of love are greater than mere self-fulfilling actions, but enjoying the talents we are given is a positive attribute, as long as we do not use our gifts to the detriment of others, and, in the scenario provided, people only benefit. Finding pleasure in work is more close to redemption than we might think. God's plan for mankind was not for us to sit on a fluffy white cloud while playing a harp, as many envision heaven to be. Instead, when God created the good realm for which we would live, he intended us to work the land. In other words, part of our original design was to take pleasure in our work and in progression (Gen 2:15). Therefore, enjoying our talent because it makes us feel somewhat whole is, in many ways, praise of God and His purposes, whether we realize it or not.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying work. In the scenario given, helping others is an incidental. The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with working for pleasure, even (or should I say especially) when this work is helpful. Now, after one realizes that he cares little that he is helping others, it might be advantageous to try to develop sensitivity for our fellow man, through God’s help. While there is nothing wrong with helping for the enjoyment of the work, it might point to the fact, if one does not care either way that he or she is helping, that another issue needs to be taken care of. But, that issue does not concern the enjoyment of work, it is only brought to light by the situation at hand. Moreover, one might need to be mindful to thank God for the ability to enjoy work and for the fact that this work does help others.
Once again, I do not find the motivation to help because we enjoy the work to be negative in and of itself, although it might be more virtuous to couple this desire with the desire to serve. In fact, in and of itself, I find this to be a positive sign that one is moving towards God’s purposes, God’s original intent being that we enjoy life and this life would include work. In fact, it might be a more negative thing for the person who helps others through labor and does so for some sense of wanting to do good deeds, but does so while hating what it is to work. Work is not punishment. It is fulfillment. Part of the curse of sin is that it makes work somewhat more laborious and difficult, but if we can rise above the difficulty to find pleasure in labor, we have returned closer to our original purpose purposed by God.
I recently had an interesting question posed to me by a close friend who likes to ponder life. We all know that helping others is seen as a positive action by most persons of our society and is a mark of good Christian living. Doing good is not just seen as a positive action by Christians, but the larger society in general affirms this as well. In light of this, my friend must have begun to ponder why people do good deeds for others. Therefore, he posed a scenario followed with a question that the scenario brings to light. In essence, he said that we often do good deeds for others by using our talents. Those who practice their talents often enjoy doing so. Therefore, we often help others, not for their sakes, but for our own. Thus, my friend posed the question: Is it a selfish act to help others when we do so because we merely enjoy the task that is required to assist those in need?
The scenario was a bit more specific, which helps with my answer. My friend framed his scenario in the realm of vocation. So, let us say that you are a computer expert. A person you know little about has a computer that crashes, and you quickly volunteer to help. Let us make the scenario even more interesting by suggesting that this person needs his computer to do some good will project; say he is the manager of a food bank. Now, while you are aware that your good deed will provide great assistance to the owner of the computer as well as a local food bank and all the people it feeds, you do not volunteer to fix the computer for that reason. Instead, you do it because you enjoy the work. You simply take on the task of fixing the computer because you like fixing computers, not because some kind soul is in need. Is there something wrong with this?
To our Christian sensibilities, we might, at first, wish to say that this self-fulfillment is not a good motivator for good deeds. Besides, our righteous acts are but filthy rags before God; are they not? But should we then assign blame to the person who does his work happily for no other reason than he or she enjoys it? In this scenario the act of helping is not done so for righteousness’s sake. Therefore, the person is not guilty of trying to please God by doing a good deed apart from God’s power. The wrong would be to pose as good Samaritans for praise, when one is not. If the motivation was not enjoyment of work but praise for the self by those the worker helps, then the person helping is in the wrong. This is not to suggest that we should not accept thanks.
Another wrong would be found in the person who has all means to help, enjoys his or her work, and yet still refuses for no other reason than spite. I might add that I feel it to be more morally insensitive and reprehensible to deny help simply for the fact that one does not wish to pretend to care. In other words, to deny help because one does not want to commit a selfish act due to the fact that he or she will only do it for the satisfaction of a job well done, is, in itself, a selfish act, a looking out for one’s own interest (not being seen as selfish) over the interest of others.
Surely selfless acts of love are greater than mere self-fulfilling actions, but enjoying the talents we are given is a positive attribute, as long as we do not use our gifts to the detriment of others, and, in the scenario provided, people only benefit. Finding pleasure in work is more close to redemption than we might think. God's plan for mankind was not for us to sit on a fluffy white cloud while playing a harp, as many envision heaven to be. Instead, when God created the good realm for which we would live, he intended us to work the land. In other words, part of our original design was to take pleasure in our work and in progression (Gen 2:15). Therefore, enjoying our talent because it makes us feel somewhat whole is, in many ways, praise of God and His purposes, whether we realize it or not.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying work. In the scenario given, helping others is an incidental. The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with working for pleasure, even (or should I say especially) when this work is helpful. Now, after one realizes that he cares little that he is helping others, it might be advantageous to try to develop sensitivity for our fellow man, through God’s help. While there is nothing wrong with helping for the enjoyment of the work, it might point to the fact, if one does not care either way that he or she is helping, that another issue needs to be taken care of. But, that issue does not concern the enjoyment of work, it is only brought to light by the situation at hand. Moreover, one might need to be mindful to thank God for the ability to enjoy work and for the fact that this work does help others.
Once again, I do not find the motivation to help because we enjoy the work to be negative in and of itself, although it might be more virtuous to couple this desire with the desire to serve. In fact, in and of itself, I find this to be a positive sign that one is moving towards God’s purposes, God’s original intent being that we enjoy life and this life would include work. In fact, it might be a more negative thing for the person who helps others through labor and does so for some sense of wanting to do good deeds, but does so while hating what it is to work. Work is not punishment. It is fulfillment. Part of the curse of sin is that it makes work somewhat more laborious and difficult, but if we can rise above the difficulty to find pleasure in labor, we have returned closer to our original purpose purposed by God.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Overcoming Sin in The Here and Now Through Christ
I have had this blog on my desktop for some time now. In a sense, I felt the content was too obvious to publish. On the other hand, the actions of Christ are always profound, no matter how many times we hear it. There are various angles that give us certain advantages that other angles do not afford. So, I offer this point of view concerning the Incarnation:
“I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” –John 16:33
Christ promises His disciples peace. In a world that He admits Christians will be persecuted and will suffer, He also suggests that we will have peace. How can this be so? The two seem mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, Christ suggests that He has conquered the world, and this conquering is to be comforting. All this sounds promising; however, how can we take courage when Christ is telling us we will still suffer? How can we, who are subject to temptation and sin, overcome the evils of the world? What exactly does Christ mean when He suggests that He has conquered the world?
It was purely for our sakes that the Christ suffered. Having all the rights, privileges, and abilities of God. Being God Himself, as one distinct person of the Trinity and of One essence with the Godhead, Christ understood that we, as humans, could not abstractly grasp His power, and He, since He came for our sakes, did not assert His power that He has all the rights to assert. (Philippians 2:6). Thus, He denied Himself His high privilege of His Lordship in order to lower Himself unto the form of man. In this, we might know and relate with Him.
Many biblical exegetes have suggested that the Incarnation was necessary so that Christ might relate to us, to understand what it is to be human and to truly suffer. To an extent, it is absolutely obvious that this is the case. It is obvious that for God to have experiential knowledge of humanness, especially suffering to the extent that we do, He must lower Himself, since God Himself is not subject to the same sort of sufferings of which humanity suffers. Certainly, it would be impossible for God to be tempted as He is without humbling Himself (Luke 4:1-13; Matthew 4:1-11).
While it is obvious that Christ came to experience our suffering, one should not lose focus of the fact that His Incarnation was not an event merely so that His knowledge might be expanded or so that He could save us, as if He had no other option. This is not to deny that His action was not the best action to perform, just that He was not limited. The omnipotent God has limitless means to accomplish His tasks. We should not deny God’s power. While experiential knowledge might never be known without the Incarnation, I suspect God could have sufficient objective knowledge of what it is to suffer. If not, He might have never sympathized with us in the first place.
Therefore, we should not imagine the purpose of the Incarnation being merely a tactic of the Almighty to gain access to our mentality and an understanding of our plight so that He might figure out how He could help us out of our situation. Instead of the Incarnation merely being an act of God so that He might relate to us, it was an act that allows us to relate Him. Just as the Word of God was given in a written form so that humanity might have proper access, so Christ comes in a form to which we can relate, our form.
The bottom line is that the Incarnation was strictly for the benefit of man. Surely it glorifies God, but He is glorious even without the Incarnation. It benefits God only in that He wishes to benefit us. Thus, this is not to deny that it might please Him to do so. The arrival of Christ in human flesh was a coming to bless us. Imagine the Most High deciding to come to this earth to suffer, to take on our sin, when He does not have to take it on, and He does this for me. He does this for you. So, how does this Incarnation bring us the peace Christ has promised us?
Returning to John 16:33, we might understand that hope in Christ can help us overcome the suffering of the tribulations of everyday life. Looking forward to the joy we will experience when there will be no more violence, war, malice and the like, when we will all be together in the presence of God, we might agree with Paul that the trials of this life will be washed away from our minds as they will not compare with the glory we will have obtained (Romans 8:18). However, what of the peace that is to be brought in this life? When we suffer temptations, we have difficulty imagining how we might overcome. We know we do not wish to sin, but sin seems, due to the temptation within, inevitable, even willful disobedience. Furthermore, we might imagine that this temptation and the subsequent sin (which we wrongfully imagine is an inevitable result of temptation) might not go away until we are dead and glorified. We unwittingly hold a low view of God’s power when we affirm this. We somehow suggest that, although Christ lives within me, the power of sin within is greater.
However, true reflection upon the Incarnation reveals quite a different reality. Once we realize Christ too was subject to temptation, yet overcame, we might begin to understand our capacity to overcome, not a capacity naturally within ourselves, but of Him, since He is within the believer through the power of the Holy Spirit. If it is true that we can live by His power, and that we find our being in Him, then we might realize that, since He has, in human form, overcome sin, then He can do the same in us. When we are tempted, we should not imagine sin’s power being too great, for His power that resides within is unimaginably greater than the power of sin. He has even shown that it is powerful enough to overcome sin even in human flesh.
In the end, we are to find our peace in Christ Himself. While external realities pose threats of temporary physical and emotional sufferings, we need not worry about that which once pulled us toward death. Christ has conquered sin. We need not suffer its reign in our lives. In His grace, all else seems to fade. For the Christian, to deny a lack of ability to overcome temptation and sin is to unwittingly degrade the power of Christ that is supposed to be within. This is not to say we cannot willfully sin, but that we do not have to do so. Therefore, the Incarnation is a blessed revelation of the power of God to overcome human temptation and sin, as demonstrated in the mighty works of Christ as He walked the earth and was subjected to many trials, just as each of us are.
If He lives within and is truly the power by which Christians live, He can do what He has proven He can do: overcome sin. Praise His holy name!
“I have said this to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you face persecution. But take courage; I have conquered the world!” –John 16:33
Christ promises His disciples peace. In a world that He admits Christians will be persecuted and will suffer, He also suggests that we will have peace. How can this be so? The two seem mutually exclusive. Nonetheless, Christ suggests that He has conquered the world, and this conquering is to be comforting. All this sounds promising; however, how can we take courage when Christ is telling us we will still suffer? How can we, who are subject to temptation and sin, overcome the evils of the world? What exactly does Christ mean when He suggests that He has conquered the world?
It was purely for our sakes that the Christ suffered. Having all the rights, privileges, and abilities of God. Being God Himself, as one distinct person of the Trinity and of One essence with the Godhead, Christ understood that we, as humans, could not abstractly grasp His power, and He, since He came for our sakes, did not assert His power that He has all the rights to assert. (Philippians 2:6). Thus, He denied Himself His high privilege of His Lordship in order to lower Himself unto the form of man. In this, we might know and relate with Him.
Many biblical exegetes have suggested that the Incarnation was necessary so that Christ might relate to us, to understand what it is to be human and to truly suffer. To an extent, it is absolutely obvious that this is the case. It is obvious that for God to have experiential knowledge of humanness, especially suffering to the extent that we do, He must lower Himself, since God Himself is not subject to the same sort of sufferings of which humanity suffers. Certainly, it would be impossible for God to be tempted as He is without humbling Himself (Luke 4:1-13; Matthew 4:1-11).
While it is obvious that Christ came to experience our suffering, one should not lose focus of the fact that His Incarnation was not an event merely so that His knowledge might be expanded or so that He could save us, as if He had no other option. This is not to deny that His action was not the best action to perform, just that He was not limited. The omnipotent God has limitless means to accomplish His tasks. We should not deny God’s power. While experiential knowledge might never be known without the Incarnation, I suspect God could have sufficient objective knowledge of what it is to suffer. If not, He might have never sympathized with us in the first place.
Therefore, we should not imagine the purpose of the Incarnation being merely a tactic of the Almighty to gain access to our mentality and an understanding of our plight so that He might figure out how He could help us out of our situation. Instead of the Incarnation merely being an act of God so that He might relate to us, it was an act that allows us to relate Him. Just as the Word of God was given in a written form so that humanity might have proper access, so Christ comes in a form to which we can relate, our form.
The bottom line is that the Incarnation was strictly for the benefit of man. Surely it glorifies God, but He is glorious even without the Incarnation. It benefits God only in that He wishes to benefit us. Thus, this is not to deny that it might please Him to do so. The arrival of Christ in human flesh was a coming to bless us. Imagine the Most High deciding to come to this earth to suffer, to take on our sin, when He does not have to take it on, and He does this for me. He does this for you. So, how does this Incarnation bring us the peace Christ has promised us?
Returning to John 16:33, we might understand that hope in Christ can help us overcome the suffering of the tribulations of everyday life. Looking forward to the joy we will experience when there will be no more violence, war, malice and the like, when we will all be together in the presence of God, we might agree with Paul that the trials of this life will be washed away from our minds as they will not compare with the glory we will have obtained (Romans 8:18). However, what of the peace that is to be brought in this life? When we suffer temptations, we have difficulty imagining how we might overcome. We know we do not wish to sin, but sin seems, due to the temptation within, inevitable, even willful disobedience. Furthermore, we might imagine that this temptation and the subsequent sin (which we wrongfully imagine is an inevitable result of temptation) might not go away until we are dead and glorified. We unwittingly hold a low view of God’s power when we affirm this. We somehow suggest that, although Christ lives within me, the power of sin within is greater.
However, true reflection upon the Incarnation reveals quite a different reality. Once we realize Christ too was subject to temptation, yet overcame, we might begin to understand our capacity to overcome, not a capacity naturally within ourselves, but of Him, since He is within the believer through the power of the Holy Spirit. If it is true that we can live by His power, and that we find our being in Him, then we might realize that, since He has, in human form, overcome sin, then He can do the same in us. When we are tempted, we should not imagine sin’s power being too great, for His power that resides within is unimaginably greater than the power of sin. He has even shown that it is powerful enough to overcome sin even in human flesh.
In the end, we are to find our peace in Christ Himself. While external realities pose threats of temporary physical and emotional sufferings, we need not worry about that which once pulled us toward death. Christ has conquered sin. We need not suffer its reign in our lives. In His grace, all else seems to fade. For the Christian, to deny a lack of ability to overcome temptation and sin is to unwittingly degrade the power of Christ that is supposed to be within. This is not to say we cannot willfully sin, but that we do not have to do so. Therefore, the Incarnation is a blessed revelation of the power of God to overcome human temptation and sin, as demonstrated in the mighty works of Christ as He walked the earth and was subjected to many trials, just as each of us are.
If He lives within and is truly the power by which Christians live, He can do what He has proven He can do: overcome sin. Praise His holy name!
Monday, December 13, 2010
Glorified For Our Sakes
God would be glorious without us, an obvious statement indeed, but one that needs to be affirmed nonetheless. God need not be affirmed by humans or angels in order to remain the Almighty. Therefore, when we read in Scripture that God is concerned about His Holy Name (Ezekiel 36:22), we must ask the question, “why?” Why would a God who needs no affirmation be concerned when we are not glorifying Him? He does not seem to lose anything of necessity. It seems to be a loss for the human who does not uphold God in his or her mind and not a loss for God, and this is exactly the point.
God wishes to be glorified for our sakes. It is only natural that God be glorified. He is the most glorious. God is pleased by our praise, not simply because He is being uplifted, but He is pleased because, by our uplifting of His Name, we will be blessed. And a God of outward focused love is always concerned for the sakes of those He loves. While this at first glance might seem selfish on the behalf of God, we need not come to such conclusions. God knows that those who glorify Him will draw closer to Him through the recognition of sheer truth. As we draw closer to Him, we draw further away from sin and destruction. We draw closer to life. Thus, we are the benefactors of relating to God through worship. Look for a moment at the nation of Israel.
Throughout their history, Israel goes through times of obedience and times of rebellion. As Israel rebels against Yahweh, the Lord allows them to experience the inevitable results of sin in order to teach Israel its need for reliance upon God. Thus, Israel often finds itself delivered into the hands of its enemies. While Israel is supposed to be enjoying the fruits of the promise, including living within the Promise Land, instead, as a result of rebellion, they are often dispersed among the surrounding nations, often nations hostile to the Hebrew people.
While in dispersion, the people of Israel are living far below their privilege as the people of God. As a result, the surrounding nations see that the divine promise to Israel is not being fulfilled, and, instead of attributing the lack of fulfillment to Israel’s lack of obedience to God, the other nations assume this to be a sign of the weakness of Yahweh, of the true God (Ezekiel 36:20). Thus, God states that something must change. The people of God need to be holy so that God might be glorified. But, once again, what does it matter to the Almighty when mere humans misunderstand His glory; no matter what humans think, God is still glorious.
At first, it seems that God is simply concerned for His reputation for His reputation's sake: “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you profaned among the nations to which you came” (Ezekiel 36:22). God suggests that He will send His Spirit so that Israel might have the ability to remain obedient (vv. 26, 27). While it is obvious that Israel will benefit from His outpouring, God suggests that He does it for the sake of His name, but why?
“I will sanctify my great name [through Israel], which has been profaned among the nations [by Israel]…and the nations will know that I am the Lord…” (Ezekiel 36: 23). God plans to pour out His Spirit upon Israel so that the name they profaned will be sanctified before the nations. Thus, while God says that He does not redeem Israel for its own sake, we should not assume that it is merely for His own sake that He acts. Remember, God does not say that He is merely concerned for His name, but for that name which was profaned before the nations. The corrective is for the nations, the whole world, to understand His glory. To further understand this point, we must look to God’s original and ongoing intent for calling out the nation of Israel. When God establishes His purpose for Israel in speaking to the father of that nation, Abraham, He suggests that Israel will be such a nation that it will bless the entire world (Genesis 22:18; 26:4). Thus, to redeem Israel is to continue this purpose of blessing the world. While the nations are now degrading God by their assumptions of Israel, the chosen people of the promise, God intends that the whole world know that He is the Lord, and when humans actually see the glory of God, they, more often than not, worship Him. Once again, through His glorification, we are blessed.
Our God is not a petty God needing us to affirm Him for His own sake. Instead, He is such a God that, by His outward focused love, He would will our happiness forever. He concerns Himself with our opinion of Him for our own sakes. Otherwise, if God were concerned merely of Himself, He could simply give up on us. As previously stated, to affirm God as glorious is to be blessed through a drawing closer to Him, the source of life. However, let me not be misunderstood. Should we merely worship God because it benefits us? Not at all…
By His very nature God should be glorified. Simply because I am highly valued by God does not give me any right to become prideful. It certainly does not mean I should hold a low view of myself or others as children of God, but glorifying God is a call to give God all honor and praise, to be self-forgetful and outward focused. Less of me is more of Him, and the more of Him I receive, the more blessed I am. If we are truly to display God’s love to the world and to glorify His name, we will be like Him in that we concern ourselves with the sake of others and not with the sake of the self.
Throughout the writing process for this blog post, I worried that I might overemphasize my point. While my point is to raise awareness concerning God’s purpose for our worship in that He is focused upon us, I, of course, did not want to in turn glorify man above God. We owe our all to God. However, as I see it, this understanding of God’s want to be glorified more honors God than merely stating that He needs to be glorified for the sake of being glorified. Honestly, what does a perfect being “need” anyway? Without understanding our need to glorify brings about joyful relationship, we simply downplay the personal aspect of God and make Him out to be vain. But, if we realize that God is concerned for our sakes, we begin to glimpse into His love, and realize He is anything but vein.
Praise Him!
God wishes to be glorified for our sakes. It is only natural that God be glorified. He is the most glorious. God is pleased by our praise, not simply because He is being uplifted, but He is pleased because, by our uplifting of His Name, we will be blessed. And a God of outward focused love is always concerned for the sakes of those He loves. While this at first glance might seem selfish on the behalf of God, we need not come to such conclusions. God knows that those who glorify Him will draw closer to Him through the recognition of sheer truth. As we draw closer to Him, we draw further away from sin and destruction. We draw closer to life. Thus, we are the benefactors of relating to God through worship. Look for a moment at the nation of Israel.
Throughout their history, Israel goes through times of obedience and times of rebellion. As Israel rebels against Yahweh, the Lord allows them to experience the inevitable results of sin in order to teach Israel its need for reliance upon God. Thus, Israel often finds itself delivered into the hands of its enemies. While Israel is supposed to be enjoying the fruits of the promise, including living within the Promise Land, instead, as a result of rebellion, they are often dispersed among the surrounding nations, often nations hostile to the Hebrew people.
While in dispersion, the people of Israel are living far below their privilege as the people of God. As a result, the surrounding nations see that the divine promise to Israel is not being fulfilled, and, instead of attributing the lack of fulfillment to Israel’s lack of obedience to God, the other nations assume this to be a sign of the weakness of Yahweh, of the true God (Ezekiel 36:20). Thus, God states that something must change. The people of God need to be holy so that God might be glorified. But, once again, what does it matter to the Almighty when mere humans misunderstand His glory; no matter what humans think, God is still glorious.
At first, it seems that God is simply concerned for His reputation for His reputation's sake: “It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you profaned among the nations to which you came” (Ezekiel 36:22). God suggests that He will send His Spirit so that Israel might have the ability to remain obedient (vv. 26, 27). While it is obvious that Israel will benefit from His outpouring, God suggests that He does it for the sake of His name, but why?
“I will sanctify my great name [through Israel], which has been profaned among the nations [by Israel]…and the nations will know that I am the Lord…” (Ezekiel 36: 23). God plans to pour out His Spirit upon Israel so that the name they profaned will be sanctified before the nations. Thus, while God says that He does not redeem Israel for its own sake, we should not assume that it is merely for His own sake that He acts. Remember, God does not say that He is merely concerned for His name, but for that name which was profaned before the nations. The corrective is for the nations, the whole world, to understand His glory. To further understand this point, we must look to God’s original and ongoing intent for calling out the nation of Israel. When God establishes His purpose for Israel in speaking to the father of that nation, Abraham, He suggests that Israel will be such a nation that it will bless the entire world (Genesis 22:18; 26:4). Thus, to redeem Israel is to continue this purpose of blessing the world. While the nations are now degrading God by their assumptions of Israel, the chosen people of the promise, God intends that the whole world know that He is the Lord, and when humans actually see the glory of God, they, more often than not, worship Him. Once again, through His glorification, we are blessed.
Our God is not a petty God needing us to affirm Him for His own sake. Instead, He is such a God that, by His outward focused love, He would will our happiness forever. He concerns Himself with our opinion of Him for our own sakes. Otherwise, if God were concerned merely of Himself, He could simply give up on us. As previously stated, to affirm God as glorious is to be blessed through a drawing closer to Him, the source of life. However, let me not be misunderstood. Should we merely worship God because it benefits us? Not at all…
By His very nature God should be glorified. Simply because I am highly valued by God does not give me any right to become prideful. It certainly does not mean I should hold a low view of myself or others as children of God, but glorifying God is a call to give God all honor and praise, to be self-forgetful and outward focused. Less of me is more of Him, and the more of Him I receive, the more blessed I am. If we are truly to display God’s love to the world and to glorify His name, we will be like Him in that we concern ourselves with the sake of others and not with the sake of the self.
Throughout the writing process for this blog post, I worried that I might overemphasize my point. While my point is to raise awareness concerning God’s purpose for our worship in that He is focused upon us, I, of course, did not want to in turn glorify man above God. We owe our all to God. However, as I see it, this understanding of God’s want to be glorified more honors God than merely stating that He needs to be glorified for the sake of being glorified. Honestly, what does a perfect being “need” anyway? Without understanding our need to glorify brings about joyful relationship, we simply downplay the personal aspect of God and make Him out to be vain. But, if we realize that God is concerned for our sakes, we begin to glimpse into His love, and realize He is anything but vein.
Praise Him!
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Relational Holiness
I am slowly working on an idea that makes so much sense in my mind, but is somewhat complex to express into words. Hopefully I will, in time, develop this thought further. The necessity to express this thought became very clear to me when reading a recent article in “Christianity Today.” The article “Hipster Christianity” told of a rising trend in the American Christian culture. While the whole of the article was not completely negative, it still turned my stomach. In an effort to be relevant, I am guessing, many young Christians are rejecting the attitudes of their elders for a more “edgy” demonstration of Christian life.
As for me, one of the most chilling aspects of the hipster movement revealed in this article was the fact that hipster Christians use foul language as a means of expression, even while in the pulpit or in meaningful talks upon the faith in order to relate to the people. I have never been one to concern myself when a fellow brother or sister uses certain words that are deemed negative by society. In fact, I have been guilty of such action myself. However, the true problem of this sort of habit became painfully clear when I realized that not only are some brothers and sisters allowing themselves to become a little too relaxed around each other, but they are openly using such language as a perverted evangelical tool, allowing the world to see that the hipster does not feel he or she is above others. In other words, they cuss so as not to seem “holier than thou.”
As I began to become physically ill at the actions of some of my fellow believers, I began to notice the plank in my own eye. (Do not allow my use of this description of my own fault as a plank have you assume that I see the adoption of worldly language by the hipster culture as a speck…It too is a plank, if not a whole tree house.) We must not allow people to think that relationship with Christ is anything less than an actual changing, a perfecting, from worldly negativity to Christ-centeredness. Thus, even the occasional relaxing of the tongue around those who know my true heart is living far below my calling and privilege.
To live a set-apart, holy life does not necessitate a “holier than thou” attitude. In fact, if holiness is the character demonstrated by Christ, humbleness is surely a large part. Would we ever say Christ was pretentious simply because He did not have a slanderous tongue?
One might say, “Well, you are not Christ, and to pretend to be is pretentious.” But is that not our call? Surely, if we were not asked to follow Christ, we would be pretentious, but we are begged to follow. We are dared to follow. And how might we follow Christ’s directive to be demonstrators of God’s holiness if we cannot truly, by God’s might, be holy (Matt 5: 16; also see Ezek 36:23). God is to be shown holy by the actions of His people. Becoming popular was never the point of the Christian movement. Using the world’s negative language is to ignore and profane the holy name of God. And while the hipster might imagine that his loose tongue makes the unbeliever more comfortable when being evangelized, in effect, they are only belittling the calling of God before the nonbeliever. There is no confidence in the Christian faith for the unbeliever if he or she cannot see any recognizable differnce in the faithful.
But why are my peers, the younger Christian generations, adopting this perverted style of evangelism. In my estimation, I think the problem is largely owed to a loss in the Biblical mandate to be holy. And so a secondary question has to be asked: why have we lost our stress on the doctrine of holiness. In short, I think it is out of disgust that many have turned their noses. Sometime ago, many advocates of Christian holiness lost sight of its relational qualities and made it into a legalistic lifestyle, and the larger holiness movement has suffered ever since.
Since the Reformation, Western Christianity has had little trouble accepting God’s imputation of righteousness to believers. Imputation of righteousness simply means that God, in a forensic sense, declares His followers righteous because they belong to and are covered by Christ. However, the Christian culture has had more than a little trouble accepting God’s impartation of righteousness to believers. Impartation of righteousness simply means that God not only declares us righteous after conversion, but actually begins to transform the believer into a righteous being, not only in word but in deed.
As I said in my opening, I have a lot I want to say on the matter, but I need more time in order to flesh it all out. Therefore, I do not want to belabor my point by offering partially thought out ideas. Instead, I will come to a more abrupt end by revealing what I see as the primary issue. Holiness has largely been ignored because of the perversions others have used to distort its truth. Legalism has made many in the Christian culture become reactionary against the holiness movement, instead of engaging in the movement while using correctives to keep it on the course. While some in the movement have remained engaged despite the narrow views of others, many more have ignored the movement altogether.
The real misunderstanding comes in peoples’ concepts as to how holiness is imparted to the believer. Many have assumed that holiness is an autonomous character gifted by God but exercised by the believer. We do in fact exercise this gift, but not in a completely autonomous fashion. It is not as if God gives us a holy character so that we might be holy apart from Him. This was never the intention for humanity. We were always meant to be holy as we relate to God, but this does not mean, as so many assume, that we are only to be called holy because we belong to a holy God.
We actually are made holy, and we are actually capable of living in action a holy life by the impartation of God’s grace. But this holy character is still incumbent upon God’s presence. In other words, we are capable of being made holy, for it is our focus on and relation to Christ that makes this possible. Instead of impartation of righteousness being a gift of an autonomous, perfect character, it is a reorientation of the being away from selfishness to Christ. As Christians are drawn away from the desires of the flesh by God’s transforming grace, they begin to focus on Christ and to follow His will. Therefore, holiness is relational, for to remove Christ from the center would be to remove that which guides us into holy living.
To live as if we cannot be holy, but are merely to claim Christ’s holiness as our own without allowing it to change our orientation is to fall short of our calling. The hipster movement has missed out on the fullness of the gospel. There needs to be a revival, a reformation of the emerging Christian culture.
“Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct…” I Peter 15
As for me, one of the most chilling aspects of the hipster movement revealed in this article was the fact that hipster Christians use foul language as a means of expression, even while in the pulpit or in meaningful talks upon the faith in order to relate to the people. I have never been one to concern myself when a fellow brother or sister uses certain words that are deemed negative by society. In fact, I have been guilty of such action myself. However, the true problem of this sort of habit became painfully clear when I realized that not only are some brothers and sisters allowing themselves to become a little too relaxed around each other, but they are openly using such language as a perverted evangelical tool, allowing the world to see that the hipster does not feel he or she is above others. In other words, they cuss so as not to seem “holier than thou.”
As I began to become physically ill at the actions of some of my fellow believers, I began to notice the plank in my own eye. (Do not allow my use of this description of my own fault as a plank have you assume that I see the adoption of worldly language by the hipster culture as a speck…It too is a plank, if not a whole tree house.) We must not allow people to think that relationship with Christ is anything less than an actual changing, a perfecting, from worldly negativity to Christ-centeredness. Thus, even the occasional relaxing of the tongue around those who know my true heart is living far below my calling and privilege.
To live a set-apart, holy life does not necessitate a “holier than thou” attitude. In fact, if holiness is the character demonstrated by Christ, humbleness is surely a large part. Would we ever say Christ was pretentious simply because He did not have a slanderous tongue?
One might say, “Well, you are not Christ, and to pretend to be is pretentious.” But is that not our call? Surely, if we were not asked to follow Christ, we would be pretentious, but we are begged to follow. We are dared to follow. And how might we follow Christ’s directive to be demonstrators of God’s holiness if we cannot truly, by God’s might, be holy (Matt 5: 16; also see Ezek 36:23). God is to be shown holy by the actions of His people. Becoming popular was never the point of the Christian movement. Using the world’s negative language is to ignore and profane the holy name of God. And while the hipster might imagine that his loose tongue makes the unbeliever more comfortable when being evangelized, in effect, they are only belittling the calling of God before the nonbeliever. There is no confidence in the Christian faith for the unbeliever if he or she cannot see any recognizable differnce in the faithful.
But why are my peers, the younger Christian generations, adopting this perverted style of evangelism. In my estimation, I think the problem is largely owed to a loss in the Biblical mandate to be holy. And so a secondary question has to be asked: why have we lost our stress on the doctrine of holiness. In short, I think it is out of disgust that many have turned their noses. Sometime ago, many advocates of Christian holiness lost sight of its relational qualities and made it into a legalistic lifestyle, and the larger holiness movement has suffered ever since.
Since the Reformation, Western Christianity has had little trouble accepting God’s imputation of righteousness to believers. Imputation of righteousness simply means that God, in a forensic sense, declares His followers righteous because they belong to and are covered by Christ. However, the Christian culture has had more than a little trouble accepting God’s impartation of righteousness to believers. Impartation of righteousness simply means that God not only declares us righteous after conversion, but actually begins to transform the believer into a righteous being, not only in word but in deed.
As I said in my opening, I have a lot I want to say on the matter, but I need more time in order to flesh it all out. Therefore, I do not want to belabor my point by offering partially thought out ideas. Instead, I will come to a more abrupt end by revealing what I see as the primary issue. Holiness has largely been ignored because of the perversions others have used to distort its truth. Legalism has made many in the Christian culture become reactionary against the holiness movement, instead of engaging in the movement while using correctives to keep it on the course. While some in the movement have remained engaged despite the narrow views of others, many more have ignored the movement altogether.
The real misunderstanding comes in peoples’ concepts as to how holiness is imparted to the believer. Many have assumed that holiness is an autonomous character gifted by God but exercised by the believer. We do in fact exercise this gift, but not in a completely autonomous fashion. It is not as if God gives us a holy character so that we might be holy apart from Him. This was never the intention for humanity. We were always meant to be holy as we relate to God, but this does not mean, as so many assume, that we are only to be called holy because we belong to a holy God.
We actually are made holy, and we are actually capable of living in action a holy life by the impartation of God’s grace. But this holy character is still incumbent upon God’s presence. In other words, we are capable of being made holy, for it is our focus on and relation to Christ that makes this possible. Instead of impartation of righteousness being a gift of an autonomous, perfect character, it is a reorientation of the being away from selfishness to Christ. As Christians are drawn away from the desires of the flesh by God’s transforming grace, they begin to focus on Christ and to follow His will. Therefore, holiness is relational, for to remove Christ from the center would be to remove that which guides us into holy living.
To live as if we cannot be holy, but are merely to claim Christ’s holiness as our own without allowing it to change our orientation is to fall short of our calling. The hipster movement has missed out on the fullness of the gospel. There needs to be a revival, a reformation of the emerging Christian culture.
“Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct…” I Peter 15
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)