It is a comfort to one's soul to fight evil that is outside of us- injustice, oppression, poverty and so on. In a sense this is also a part of fighting evil within ourselves- the evil of apathy, greed and selfishnessness. However the liberation theorists I have encountered usually give up some of the virtues of the more orhotodox Christians in order to uphold the above values. Some of these may be personal values like clean language, grace, sexual fidelity and constraint, faithfulness to the the whole of the Bible in its inerrancy and resisting the temptation to take some of it with a pinch of salt, patience with people who do not readily subscribe to their thinking and so on.
There are people who respond to this by saying that Christians have no business "being nice", rather they need to be righteous, meaning uphold social justice. While it is true that there is a lot of prissy piety out there in Christian circles reflecting in our music, dressing and a list of do's and don'ts that reduce our faith into Pharisiasm, it is equally true that these values stem from a desire not just to do right by our fellow man but to please God in our thinking and actions. While Christians can enjoy a glass of wine, they often decline refills due to a desire not to go overboard.
Orthodox Christians often accuse liberation theorists of trading away this kind of personal holiness for their "causes". As Malcolm Muggeridge once said, it is far easier and more self-sffirming to hold a placard out in a street protest than actually do something righteous. In my view this is only partially true. The fact is, most liberation theology adherents I know have struggled long and hard with personal sin and guilt to the point where they have questioned themselves and the general interpretation of sin in God's Word. This manifests itself in our politics. In North America, the question of gay marriage is a case in point.
Mark Young, Denver Seminary President's point about voting in a way that allows the Gospel the best possible access into people's lives, speaks to us clearly here. Do we think homosexual behavior is sinful? If so, is it anymore sinful than a child stealing a cookie? Are we guilty of anything far wrose or at least, equally bad? I think most Christians would agree that sin, sinful behavior, propensity to sin, ambiguity about sin and its definition are all part of our messed up nature and mental make up. Is it possible for a Christian to lovingly reach out to the gay community with Christ rathern than condemnation, and just let Christ lead him or her into a full understanding of the Truth (which if we are honest we must admit we too are only still learning)? I think it is.
You see, as my friend Mat pointed out in the last blog post, simply because a liberal espouses liberation theology, it doesn't automatically become wrong. Conservatives allowed liberals to corner the market on this thinking. In the meanwhile they have failed to see the essential connection between Christ's message of personal salvation and the idea of opposing sin everywhere- both inside and outside of ourselves. Liberals in turn have also failed to see the connection between the sin or evil that exists out there in the world and the very personal sin in our own hearts (and not just in terms of being able to have more resources while the 'poor' does not).
To the conservative I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus whipped the money-changers out of the temple. To the liberal I say, I wonder what you would have done when Jesus let the repentant Mary Magdalene pour her life savings on to His feet in the form of the expensive perfume.
It is telling that Jesus lets Judas know that the 'poor' will always be around. I've often wondered what this means. Could it mean that we are living in a 'Long Defeat', as JRR Tolkien said and Sara Groves sang, and Dr. Paul Farmer believes is the end of all our labor, even his labor of hope in Haiti?
In the book on Farmer's remarkable work of sacrifice and justice in Haiti, “Mountains Beyond Mountains”, author Tracy Kidder uses this phrase, 'The Long Defeat'. Dr. Farmer is quoted in this book:
"I have fought the long defeat and brought other people on to fight the long defeat, and I’m not going to stop because we keep losing. Now I actually think sometimes we may win. I don’t dislike victory…. We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers, no, it’s not worth it. So you fight the long defeat."
Farmer has made it known in other interviews that there are glimpses of the [final] victory that we get on earth, but our earthly efforts in and of themselves are a series of long defeats that lead up into the final victory that is not of the earth (this is all my paraphrasing).
If this is indeed the case (and Dr. Farmer is an adherent of liberation theology though I'm not sure to what extend he takes it), then is our vision of heaven simply a heaven on earth, where we bring justice to those who do not have it? What is justice after all? If everyone were wealthy will that suffice? Surely not. If everyone were mindful of others and generous will that be it? Will not there by still incidents which are beyond our comprehension- natural disasters, death, severance of relationships? At such a point when we have achieved (this is an assumption) all there is to achieve in terms of social justice and redemption, but we feel the pain of being human, would we then question God as to why He made us this way? Would we then conclude, after all is said and done, that God is simply a social construct, and that He has outlived His purpose? If that is all there is to life, would we feel the pinch of a nagging hope that there is more to heaven than out unidimensional view of earthly justice?
If there is indeed a heaven beyond the earth, then is it in anyway connected to our recreating such a heaven here on earth? What did Jesus mean when he taught us to pray 'You Kingdom come; Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven"? Or, do we simply sigh and say that all injustices will be righted in heaven and do absolutely nothing about earthly injustices? Why are we the 'tweeners' who live between the two earthly advents of Christ? What is our purpose here on earth? If we have none, maybe they should hold us all down in baptism so we would go straight to heaven.
Clearly the liberation theorists and the orthodox Christians have a lot to learn from each other. We cannot offord to trade insults or dismiss each other because there is a lot of work that is still undone.
As someone who came to faith in college firmly among those who hold the orthodox view, I spent about 13 years coming around to respecting liberation theology. It could have taken a far shorter time frame. Let me explain why.
Life in Christ is a journey when we learn more and more about His character and therefore His purposes. It is remarkable that the vast majority of liberation theorists I know actually had a conversion experience that the orthodox Christians would view as a clearly identifiable point of coming into salvific faith- the point at which one prays the conversion prayer and is ushered into the Kingdom. Over the years, especially as they worked with the 'poor', they moved into a theology that is decidedly unorthodox. Very rarely have I encountered someone who was 'born again' into liberation theology. The passion that accompanies personal salvation from personal sin has been key in the vast majority of these cases to their ardent witness and eventual participation in social justice movements. As Sara Groves sang in her characteristic story-song manner, 'I love because He loved me when I had nothing.' This is Biblical. When we are set free we are free to give and set others free. If we have not experienced freedom our passion must be questioned (gently). Some of us may even believe we have always been free simply because we have not experienced the poverty that others do. The fact is, we are all- without exception- slaves until Christ sets us free. Some are economic slaves, others are sexual slaves, yet others slaves of affluence, education deprivation, racial injustice, indifference, passion, addictive behaviors, and on and on. Freedom in Christ is clearly what inspires us to be modern day abolitionists.
In my early years in Christ I encountered many dear and well-meaning friends who tried to talk me into liberation theology. It may have worked if they had helped me connect the dots between personal accountability to God and personal accountability to people. Personal sin and external evil. Personal salvation and social redemption. It may have helped if someone sat down with me and envision for me the radical and radically true idea that personal accountability to people is not simply an option, one of the many 'mionistries', like 'mercy ministry'; but an essential part of the salvation that Christ has won for me. It may have helped if I could only understand then what I understand now- that being incarnatiunal in people's lives is the only way to bring Christ to them; just as Jesus was and is incarnational into the human experience and our own lives. It may have helped if I could only understand that being incarnational necessarily means being sacrificed- whether on the cross or in terms of a life spent with people who need us.
A dear friend who tried to talk to me about liberation theology had a radically unorthodox interpretation of the Bible. He insisted, without any reference to Biblical, traditional, logical or other evidence, that the Antichrist in the Bible referred to us, people who do nothing to oppose injustice in the world. Other liberation theorists try to make the case that sin is only the enjoyment of resources at the cost of others. Broadly this means that those of us who are relatively well off (anyone who has a roof over her head and food to eat is in this category) are well off only because in a direct or indirect way we exploit or have historically exploited or are benefitting from such exploitation of those outside this category. If anyone tried to interpret the whole of the Bible this way, the argument does not go far without encountering serious challenges. What would they say about the apostle Paul's suggestions to Christian slaves? He said in 1 Corinthians 7:20-22, "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."
Lastly, I realize that we are all on a journey to discover truth. We need to keep our eyes wide open to God's visions. I realize of course that orthodox Christians also tend to be obnoxious in their witness to liberation theorists. Who hasn't encountered those of us (and perhaps we ourselves may be guilty of this) who rebuke a fellow believer with a glass of win in his hand but practise fiscal dishonesty in tax returns, property purchases and divisive church politics, not to mention the sex scandals that have rocked both the Evangelical and Catholic leadership? The charge of hypocrisy is the third serious form of sin or evil that we encounter (personal sin and evil that is external and unattached to humans are the others) in the list of (I would also say ONLY) objections to Christianity or belief in God in general.
The fact remains though that we can and must work together. While I see and experience Christianity for the unique experience it is, I also know that the desire for justice is within all of us- atheist, Christian, Hindu or anyone. I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a spark of the divine in us or anywhere near it, but I would consider it as God-given, and a part of the appeal that draws us to Christ. If there is sin out there we must work together. If people of different persuasions could begin a discussion on the deepest matters in life, I'm convinced that social redemption, and not philosophical debate, is the beginning.
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus. Show all posts
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Book Review- A Better Freedom- Michael Card
Once every few years a book comes along that questions everything we know about ourselves, God, reality, work and life. When we read these books we are confronted with the heady elixir of unchartered territory and the sweet familiarity that this rings true.
Michael Card's new book 'A Better Freedom' is truly Biblical orthodoxy, and is empirically verifiable in our lives. There is little that we could question in this volume, but it stirs the pot and gives us a breadth of perspective that either provokes old defenses to action or lays our contentions to rest.
For me this has been the latest in a series of epiphanies that have confronted old dragons and slayed them with the Truth. The marvelous aspect of this has been that the words of this book appeal not only to my desire for Biblical, logical, linguistic and historical accuracy, but it blunts the non-arguments that the 'St Paul versus Jesus' school of thought has been putting forward.
In contemporary American experience, prejudice is a dark, sinister motif to be avoided at all costs. When we hear about Michelle Obama's ancestry which includes a great great grandmother who was a former slave girl (even in her childhood) and gave birth to a mixed race boy, we cringe- rightly so- but we heave a sigh of relief and self-congratulation that it is the progeny of this former slave that now graces the White House as First Lady. Yes- that is indeed beautiful and we need to feel the pride of the moment. But the Bible's references to slavery often ring against our ears and hearts with annoying vagueness. Paul in his writings has pieces of advice for both slaves and masters, but we do not see a William Wilberforce in Paul rousing slaves to action against their masters, Christian or not- and we feel the irony. Didn't Christ come to set us free from the yoke of all bondage?
Michael Card's look at slavery is instantly sensitive and affirming of Jesus' call for us to be slaves of righteousness or slaves of Christ. His insistence that those of us who are in situations of slavery are indeed in a dark place but those who are not owned by Christ are in worse slavery is a transforming truth. This theme resonates through his illustrations of Christ's parables, over 60 percent of which have to do with the theme of slavehood, often translated "servant-hood" in English versions. It brings up people who identified themselves as slaves- Paul, Mary ("handmaiden" in the KJV actually makes the word milder than it should be), Stephen, John and others who also exemplified with their lives what it meant to be owned. He also illustrates through Jesus' life and specific actions that our Lord himself considered his life as a slave's life. He, the Master, came as a slave and died a slave's death, served us so that we who are in bondage might be freed to become his slaves. The Master becomes the slave to be the Master. The slaves die to be free to be slaves to the Master.
What struck me most was the parable of the prodigal son which Card talks about. Perhaps this should be called the parable of the Legalistic Son, as it is as much about the 'good son' as it is about the prodigal. Consider the setting. Jesus is talking to a motley group of sinners and lawyers. He tells three parables- the parable of the sheep that was lost and is found, the parable of the woman who searched for and found the lost silver coin, and finally the parable in question- that order. The first two end with a feast, a celebration because the lost has now been found. The final parable ends with a celebration to which the 'good son' is invited, but we are left with the father's invitation and no answer from the son. There is no closure. The explanation is clear enough. Card says, with Jesus nothing is as it seems. While the prodigal speaks to the wretch that was lost and now is found, the good son is the archetype of the Pharisees and lawyers who are invited and need to respond to Jesus' call. The prodigal prepares a lame speech that he will deliver to his dad on returning home, but he never gets a chance to say it all. He says, "'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son." But he also wanted to say, "make me like one of your hired men." He never gets the chance because the father showers him with kisses, covers him with the best robe, puts a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. He then throws a big party- and as Card points out parables with this extravagant celebration and kindness (and there are several that Jesus told) are clear indications of our Father's attitude towards repentant sinners. The prodigal hoped to be a slave to the father, but he becomes as a prince. The 'good son' says, "All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends."
Card asks us, Who was the slave between the brothers? Those who would be slaves in humility and brokenness find that true freedom comes from slavery to Christ. Those that think they are free are in reality slaves.
Michael Card's new book 'A Better Freedom' is truly Biblical orthodoxy, and is empirically verifiable in our lives. There is little that we could question in this volume, but it stirs the pot and gives us a breadth of perspective that either provokes old defenses to action or lays our contentions to rest.
For me this has been the latest in a series of epiphanies that have confronted old dragons and slayed them with the Truth. The marvelous aspect of this has been that the words of this book appeal not only to my desire for Biblical, logical, linguistic and historical accuracy, but it blunts the non-arguments that the 'St Paul versus Jesus' school of thought has been putting forward.
In contemporary American experience, prejudice is a dark, sinister motif to be avoided at all costs. When we hear about Michelle Obama's ancestry which includes a great great grandmother who was a former slave girl (even in her childhood) and gave birth to a mixed race boy, we cringe- rightly so- but we heave a sigh of relief and self-congratulation that it is the progeny of this former slave that now graces the White House as First Lady. Yes- that is indeed beautiful and we need to feel the pride of the moment. But the Bible's references to slavery often ring against our ears and hearts with annoying vagueness. Paul in his writings has pieces of advice for both slaves and masters, but we do not see a William Wilberforce in Paul rousing slaves to action against their masters, Christian or not- and we feel the irony. Didn't Christ come to set us free from the yoke of all bondage?
Michael Card's look at slavery is instantly sensitive and affirming of Jesus' call for us to be slaves of righteousness or slaves of Christ. His insistence that those of us who are in situations of slavery are indeed in a dark place but those who are not owned by Christ are in worse slavery is a transforming truth. This theme resonates through his illustrations of Christ's parables, over 60 percent of which have to do with the theme of slavehood, often translated "servant-hood" in English versions. It brings up people who identified themselves as slaves- Paul, Mary ("handmaiden" in the KJV actually makes the word milder than it should be), Stephen, John and others who also exemplified with their lives what it meant to be owned. He also illustrates through Jesus' life and specific actions that our Lord himself considered his life as a slave's life. He, the Master, came as a slave and died a slave's death, served us so that we who are in bondage might be freed to become his slaves. The Master becomes the slave to be the Master. The slaves die to be free to be slaves to the Master.
What struck me most was the parable of the prodigal son which Card talks about. Perhaps this should be called the parable of the Legalistic Son, as it is as much about the 'good son' as it is about the prodigal. Consider the setting. Jesus is talking to a motley group of sinners and lawyers. He tells three parables- the parable of the sheep that was lost and is found, the parable of the woman who searched for and found the lost silver coin, and finally the parable in question- that order. The first two end with a feast, a celebration because the lost has now been found. The final parable ends with a celebration to which the 'good son' is invited, but we are left with the father's invitation and no answer from the son. There is no closure. The explanation is clear enough. Card says, with Jesus nothing is as it seems. While the prodigal speaks to the wretch that was lost and now is found, the good son is the archetype of the Pharisees and lawyers who are invited and need to respond to Jesus' call. The prodigal prepares a lame speech that he will deliver to his dad on returning home, but he never gets a chance to say it all. He says, "'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son." But he also wanted to say, "make me like one of your hired men." He never gets the chance because the father showers him with kisses, covers him with the best robe, puts a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. He then throws a big party- and as Card points out parables with this extravagant celebration and kindness (and there are several that Jesus told) are clear indications of our Father's attitude towards repentant sinners. The prodigal hoped to be a slave to the father, but he becomes as a prince. The 'good son' says, "All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends."
Card asks us, Who was the slave between the brothers? Those who would be slaves in humility and brokenness find that true freedom comes from slavery to Christ. Those that think they are free are in reality slaves.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Dawkins on Haiti and Robertson- At Long Last
Ah, here it is, the long aawited piece on Christiaanity and Haiti by Richard Dawkins. Over ht past past many months, talking to agnostics, I've understood that no amount of reasoning is sufficient reasoning for the existence of God. A friend and relative who I have chewed the fat over this one issue admitted as much a month ago. He said even if there was a good indication of 'design' existing in the universe, if every avenue of scientific discovery was covered by Biblical history, explanation , theology and logic, he would still look for a reason to disbelieve rathern than believe. He strongly affirmed this as being objective, while I let him know that this was also a form of prejudice rather than true objectivity.
I also shared with him my own feelings on this subject. I felt he was being truthful. As a matter of fact I would say that science is only a pretext for prejudice in theological discussions, even at the highest levels. This is of course hypocrisy in a way, which is what Dawkins accuses people like me of, by saying that we have no right to criticize Pat Robertson for his comments on Haiti, and that hje was simply being theologically consistent and true to his beliefs.
You see- I believe the problem of evil- in the form of internal evil (sin), evil in other people, especially those of certain faiths which affirm that sin is a reality and merits undesirable conssequences, and finally evil that is attributed to no human being (animal attacks, natural disasters, accidents, dealths of relatives, loneliness, depression, health problems, et al)- is the *only* objection ever to arise against God in the human heart.
Dawkings refuses to debate anyone other than ones with PhDs in the sciences. I don't know the reasons- it could be that he believes science is the only reliable guardian of truth, or that logic, rhetoric, theology, history and other such sources of truth are not his forte, or simply because he will not deign to debate people outside of the scientific community. But he does delve into theology in this article and many others. Of course, it is no surprise- a scientist who is also an activist for atheism is necessarily getting into theological waters.
The problem of evil confronts us with many questions, most of which Dawkins asks:
1. How can a loving God allow these things to happen?
2. How can a loving God destroy human beings?
3. How can a loving God destroy innocent people, or putting this in another way, how does he decide between Haitians and say, the Americans?
4. How can Jesus overlook the sins of Christians, especially the sin of hypocrisy?
5. When there are so many religious manipulations, so obvious and prevalent in recent and distant history, how could God allow such malpractice to continue unabated?
6. Isn't all religious persuasion only a tool for manipulation?
7. And if an atheist/Christian is honest with himself, he will also ask the question: how about my sins that I struggle with? Yes, I feel the guilt, but I can't believe God will judge me for these!
Of course, from a Christian's point of view, all of these questions have been answered by 'experts' and some which the Christians have answered for themselves. As a last point, a Christian would add that his own personal experience with Jesus negates all of this. You see, Malcolm Muggeridge had seen mostly evil in himself and around him (as he has admitted), but his encounter with Mother Teresa shook his skepticism changed his perspective. How does that happen? A hardened atheist sees reason for God's existence in a single act of a few acts of love, compared with the weight of immense evil he has seen in the wars, politics and lives around him?
This is a mystery, but a very real one. If one has felt the love of God in his heart as a believer, one reflects to an extend the same love to others. Arguably this love has changed the world.
I also shared with him my own feelings on this subject. I felt he was being truthful. As a matter of fact I would say that science is only a pretext for prejudice in theological discussions, even at the highest levels. This is of course hypocrisy in a way, which is what Dawkins accuses people like me of, by saying that we have no right to criticize Pat Robertson for his comments on Haiti, and that hje was simply being theologically consistent and true to his beliefs.
You see- I believe the problem of evil- in the form of internal evil (sin), evil in other people, especially those of certain faiths which affirm that sin is a reality and merits undesirable conssequences, and finally evil that is attributed to no human being (animal attacks, natural disasters, accidents, dealths of relatives, loneliness, depression, health problems, et al)- is the *only* objection ever to arise against God in the human heart.
Dawkings refuses to debate anyone other than ones with PhDs in the sciences. I don't know the reasons- it could be that he believes science is the only reliable guardian of truth, or that logic, rhetoric, theology, history and other such sources of truth are not his forte, or simply because he will not deign to debate people outside of the scientific community. But he does delve into theology in this article and many others. Of course, it is no surprise- a scientist who is also an activist for atheism is necessarily getting into theological waters.
The problem of evil confronts us with many questions, most of which Dawkins asks:
1. How can a loving God allow these things to happen?
2. How can a loving God destroy human beings?
3. How can a loving God destroy innocent people, or putting this in another way, how does he decide between Haitians and say, the Americans?
4. How can Jesus overlook the sins of Christians, especially the sin of hypocrisy?
5. When there are so many religious manipulations, so obvious and prevalent in recent and distant history, how could God allow such malpractice to continue unabated?
6. Isn't all religious persuasion only a tool for manipulation?
7. And if an atheist/Christian is honest with himself, he will also ask the question: how about my sins that I struggle with? Yes, I feel the guilt, but I can't believe God will judge me for these!
Of course, from a Christian's point of view, all of these questions have been answered by 'experts' and some which the Christians have answered for themselves. As a last point, a Christian would add that his own personal experience with Jesus negates all of this. You see, Malcolm Muggeridge had seen mostly evil in himself and around him (as he has admitted), but his encounter with Mother Teresa shook his skepticism changed his perspective. How does that happen? A hardened atheist sees reason for God's existence in a single act of a few acts of love, compared with the weight of immense evil he has seen in the wars, politics and lives around him?
This is a mystery, but a very real one. If one has felt the love of God in his heart as a believer, one reflects to an extend the same love to others. Arguably this love has changed the world.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The 800 Pound Gorilla
A couple of my friends responded to my last post. Thomas responded as below (sic):
Susan responded this way (sic):
I'm examining my own thoughts and wondering why I'm unable to trust fully in God's faithfulness in spite of repeated demonstrations and the Bible's insistence on his beneficence. I wonder why. Could it be that it is tougher to put into practice what I claim to believe with my lips and mind? I think that is part of it, but there may be something else.
It takes me to a sermon I heard in our church a year or so ago. Based on the book of Philippians, the pastor asked us the question: 'What is the 800-pound gorilla in the room?' He answered it for us: Death. Paul is writing this joyful letter with dealth looming large in his prison cell, but he is the one who is encouraging the Philippians, asking them to rejoice in the Lord always. The pastor also let us know that death is the 800-pound gorilla at all times whether we acknowledge it or not. We are so unused to the idea of the unpredictability of death that we are almost always unprepared for it. Yet it is the one certainty in our physical lives.
When a situation like this happens to us our thoughts turn towards our earthly responsibilities. We try to plug the holes that we can and we are forced to trust God beyond that. Many of us do this with difficulty, with trembling hearts and hoping against hope.
What do we do when this happens to a loved one? When it is an unbeliever who is suffering? Our need to share the Gospel is so imperative and the importance of offering temporal comfort so pressing, and we feel the pressure of the situation much more than the comfort of God's beneficence. Does it comfort us that God is in control when we know that someone is dying without Christ?
The only comfort I have in this situation is this: if we care so much about unbelievers, how much more does God care? He died for them and we know he does care. We can trust him fully to deal with all of us with perfect justice and perfect mercy. If we know that these unbelievers die to face an eternity away from God's presence, will we be truly comforted in eternity? When Paul makes the comment, '...I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race...' (Romans 9:3), what does he mean? Isn't this the sentiment of a man in agony over his brothers' damnation? If that is the way we feel as believers, does not the Holy Spirit grieve with inexpressible grief as to those who are perishing? When the Bible tells us that God Himself will wipe away each tear from our eyes in eternity, does it mean that our delight will be mixed with this grief? Do we need to be so comforted in heaven- or am I reading too much into the text?
I've said before that I'm happy to simply stir the pot even if I do not find answers. There must be a perfect explanation for this, I'm sure, which I do not understand. 'Beneficence' is one of the thirty cent words that theologians throw around to describe God's character. Thi is basic to our understanding of God and is central to God's actions throughout the Bible and through the ages. I do not doubt it at all. But if we were to take this beneficence for granted, I cannot imagine how we would ever witness to an unbeliever. As I have said before, the Bible contains verses which preserve this tension ('work out your own salvation with fear and trembling') while we rest in the knowledge that God's salvific action is sufficient for our redemption.
We can so amply display God's glory and truth through the love of Christ that is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. I believe that the stage settings are God's domain and we rejoice in the knowledge of the fact that He is always with us. That is His promise. So yes we can be sure that nothing that is not in God's will can happen in our lives. The verses that come to mind are (KJV), Matthew 10:
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
And also (KJV) Philippians 4:
6 Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God.
7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
" In everything by prayer...with thanksgiving..."
Isn't this suggesting that in all things we can give thanks knowing that God will respond in accordance to His love and mercy towards us? We can rest in His faithfulness. We can pray without a presumed outcome and simply praise God for his goodness and celebrate his companionship knowing that our circumstances are in His hands.When Jesus prayed in the garden of gethsamene was he not rolling His cares upon His father.He was not trying to influence God's will was He? He didnt have to do that He had only to ask and God would have sent Him his heavenly hosts. He was simply drawing comfort from His father in heaven and trusting God's will with the eventuality. God can do far more than we can ask or imagine. And the Bible also says that the Lord knows our prayers even before it is on our lips.
(KJV)Matthew 6:
8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
If He is for us who can be against us?
Susan responded this way (sic):
In so many of life's situations we are all doubters and to see how God works through all of our shortcomings and the process of perfecting His will for us is nothing short of amazing. His faithfulness in making sure we run the race and come out victorious has never failed to touch me. More and more I am convinced that He will stop at nothing to ensure that we are people of godly character and the standards are His and not ours.
Many times, I feel like He has forgotten me and I am in this abyss with no help or support. But from somewhere He comes and shows me how much He cares. It does not mean that the problem disappears but just that He is with us and has not forgotten us.
I'm examining my own thoughts and wondering why I'm unable to trust fully in God's faithfulness in spite of repeated demonstrations and the Bible's insistence on his beneficence. I wonder why. Could it be that it is tougher to put into practice what I claim to believe with my lips and mind? I think that is part of it, but there may be something else.
It takes me to a sermon I heard in our church a year or so ago. Based on the book of Philippians, the pastor asked us the question: 'What is the 800-pound gorilla in the room?' He answered it for us: Death. Paul is writing this joyful letter with dealth looming large in his prison cell, but he is the one who is encouraging the Philippians, asking them to rejoice in the Lord always. The pastor also let us know that death is the 800-pound gorilla at all times whether we acknowledge it or not. We are so unused to the idea of the unpredictability of death that we are almost always unprepared for it. Yet it is the one certainty in our physical lives.
When a situation like this happens to us our thoughts turn towards our earthly responsibilities. We try to plug the holes that we can and we are forced to trust God beyond that. Many of us do this with difficulty, with trembling hearts and hoping against hope.
What do we do when this happens to a loved one? When it is an unbeliever who is suffering? Our need to share the Gospel is so imperative and the importance of offering temporal comfort so pressing, and we feel the pressure of the situation much more than the comfort of God's beneficence. Does it comfort us that God is in control when we know that someone is dying without Christ?
The only comfort I have in this situation is this: if we care so much about unbelievers, how much more does God care? He died for them and we know he does care. We can trust him fully to deal with all of us with perfect justice and perfect mercy. If we know that these unbelievers die to face an eternity away from God's presence, will we be truly comforted in eternity? When Paul makes the comment, '...I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race...' (Romans 9:3), what does he mean? Isn't this the sentiment of a man in agony over his brothers' damnation? If that is the way we feel as believers, does not the Holy Spirit grieve with inexpressible grief as to those who are perishing? When the Bible tells us that God Himself will wipe away each tear from our eyes in eternity, does it mean that our delight will be mixed with this grief? Do we need to be so comforted in heaven- or am I reading too much into the text?
I've said before that I'm happy to simply stir the pot even if I do not find answers. There must be a perfect explanation for this, I'm sure, which I do not understand. 'Beneficence' is one of the thirty cent words that theologians throw around to describe God's character. Thi is basic to our understanding of God and is central to God's actions throughout the Bible and through the ages. I do not doubt it at all. But if we were to take this beneficence for granted, I cannot imagine how we would ever witness to an unbeliever. As I have said before, the Bible contains verses which preserve this tension ('work out your own salvation with fear and trembling') while we rest in the knowledge that God's salvific action is sufficient for our redemption.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Praise God From Whom All Blessings Flow
I generally share news of hopes that never came to fruition, of coping with such disappointments and the nature of our faith. Four weeks ago we were in Atlanta at the wake of one of our relatives. He had died of testicular cancer that could have been cured 2 years ago but it was misdiagnosed and now he had died after suffering a heart condition in response to the powerful chemo he went through.
Other issues- difficulties at my work and for my friends at work, our own health issues, several acquaintances suffering from cancer, the death of the relative I talked about earlier, their family's subsequent emotional breakdowns. Last week when another relative was diagnosed with brain tumour (glioma) after suffering a siezure, Alma came to my home office and wept, saying 'I don't know how much more bad news I can take.' We talked on this topic that night and came to the inescapable conclusion we had come to before many times: were it not for the hope of resurrection, life is simply not worth living.
Our relative's surgery was scheduled to be on June 2nd (Tuesday) so we flew to Ft Lauderdale and stayed at their house to ease the process. As we went there the doctors let us know that it was a low grade glioma, so we had some hope.
In the morning before the surgery I read through John 11, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I shared this with the patiet's wife as well. I could put myself in the shoes of each of the doubters who questioned Jesus throughout this episode. Almost every word out of the mouths of the disciples, Martha and the Jewish frrieds of Mary and Martha are doubting comments. Let me illustrate how these doubters said almost the same things I did.
Verse 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."
Vijai: Now what, Lord? You know he is sick.
Verse 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."
Vijai (in prayer): I know you do all things to conform to your will. I believe your will cannot be changed. We simply fit into it with our prayers. I know in some way you will demonstrate your glory whether the surgery is a success or not.
Verses 8 and 9 (the disciples): "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."
Vijai (reading this): Does this mean that when we are guided by God nothing bad will happen to us? Does it mean that if we guided by God, our being stoned or not stones depends entirely on his will; and his will is always good?
Verses 12-14 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
Alma to Vijai: Perhaps this is meant for the whole of the family (the majority of whom are unbelievers). I think a healing will result and it will shake up the family.
Verse 16: Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."
Vijai (thinking): This is the verse I most identify with. It is easier to think of ourselves as dying with Jesus than living with Him. I'm so thankful that the Lord gave us these remarks and others from Thomas, who, also being Kerala's patron saint, has endeared himself to us. Sketpcism, doubt, questions with no answers- these sum up my response to Jesus. I believe that the Bible if 100 percent true- I just find it hard to apply it to my life situations. I also find it tough to interpret it correctly, especially when it comes to hoping for a healing from God.
Verse 21: "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
Vijai: Though I do not say the same thing (I know Jesus knows everything and is present everywhere, but I act like he doesn't and he isn't), my attitude is similar.
Verses 23 through 27: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."
Vijai: I do not know how to interpret Martha's thoughts. I tend to answer important questions in life on Jesus' behalf quite often, basing them on my understanding of theology. For instance, I prayed for Tommy for a healing but I always make room for a different result. This isn't like Jesus' prayer at the Garden, "Nevertheless, not my will, but your be done." I do not sweat drops of blood in asking for a miracle against incredible odds. Mine is the voice of doubt.
Verses 32 and 33: When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
Vijai: Jesus cares about our suffering. I'm convinced he doesn't let us go under the scalpel unless there is a special purpose for it. Under normal circumstances I think it is not the right response on our part to keep expecting the worst to happen and thereby hedge our bets.
Verse 35: Jesus wept.
Vijai: If this verse and others like it had been part of our church's Scripture memorization program I could have done it on my head. I'm not sure why Jesus wept when he knew that Lazarus was going to be raised. Did he weep because he saw that Lazarus' loved ones were grieving? Did he weep because of the mniracle about to happen. We often weep after a successful surgery. Were these tears of joy? John doesn't give us a clue.
Verses 36-37: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
Vijai: I rationalize it like this. I know God is all-powerful. I know God cares for us, even for our temporal well-being. I know Jesus never refused anyone who asked Him for healing, even ones who were not thankful to him, or people who did things he asked them not to do (like the man by the pool who told the priests about his healing). But I have seen prayers for healing whih were not answered in the way the I wanted them to be. This means that I have no control over such things. It also means that there are circumstances in which our temporal suffering is not negotiable. After all, we all die physical deaths. Even Lazarus died a second time. So, the question is, while Jesus can heal, will Jesus heal this time? And if Jesus does not heal, then what is my response? The above verses reveal my attitude though I would not paraphrase it that way.
Verses 38- 40: Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
Vijai: In the hospital prior to the surgery a Latin American believer came into the hospital to speak to our relative. He talked about his own healing and prayed with all of us. He said to our relative that if he believed he will be healed. All my doubts came racing into my mind and I wondered how anyone could say such things with certainty. But I was also struck by the fact that while I struggled to witness credibly to my relative, this man was so direct. "Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as your persoal Lord and Saviour?" "Do you believe what the Bible says?"
Alma and I talked afterwards and wondered if we should seek help in our church as to how to witness. It was pretty easy in the days I first became a believer. Wide eyed and excited, I would simply describe the process of my conversion and talk about the 'before' and 'after' scenarios, and leave the rest to God. Today I'm stymied, especially during such situations in which I struggle with how to meet the family's desire for temporal comfort with eternal hope. I also wonder if I may be simply perceived as being opportunistic. Before the surgery I prayed for healing with nor preconditions. Perhaps subconsciously I may have made room for a different result by I didn't dare to voice it in prayer!
Verse 43-44: When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Vijai: After the surgery we went into the recovery room to talk to our relative. The surgery was successful. The doctors said they could get most, if not all, of the tumour out. There was no blood loss. It was the best prognosis and the best result. When we went in to talk to him, I noticed he was bound with strips of cloth, and this verse came to mind, "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
Verses 45-46: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
Vijai: If miracles demonstrate God's glory to some, they also solidify the resolve of those who want to disbelieve. It is amazing enough that after a miracle of such proportions some of the witnesses plotted Jesus' death. How does this apply to us?
One of the many believers who had come to see our relative let his wife know that God will heal him and when He does, be sure to let people know about it. I'm not known for sharing news of such blessings as I am for sharing bad news and trying to make sense of it. Well, this is my attempt to understand this wonderful blessing. As you can see I have a hard time understanding blessings as well.
Do I still think that life is not worth living if not for the hope of resurrection? In a larger sense, yes. But in the here and now I just find it worth living if only to share God's love with people- in all kids of ways, sharing the Gospel, comforting them in their difficulties and other ways. As 'tweeners' who live between the 2 earthly advents of Jesus, our purpose in the world is to win the world for Him.
Other issues- difficulties at my work and for my friends at work, our own health issues, several acquaintances suffering from cancer, the death of the relative I talked about earlier, their family's subsequent emotional breakdowns. Last week when another relative was diagnosed with brain tumour (glioma) after suffering a siezure, Alma came to my home office and wept, saying 'I don't know how much more bad news I can take.' We talked on this topic that night and came to the inescapable conclusion we had come to before many times: were it not for the hope of resurrection, life is simply not worth living.
Our relative's surgery was scheduled to be on June 2nd (Tuesday) so we flew to Ft Lauderdale and stayed at their house to ease the process. As we went there the doctors let us know that it was a low grade glioma, so we had some hope.
In the morning before the surgery I read through John 11, the raising of Lazarus from the dead. I shared this with the patiet's wife as well. I could put myself in the shoes of each of the doubters who questioned Jesus throughout this episode. Almost every word out of the mouths of the disciples, Martha and the Jewish frrieds of Mary and Martha are doubting comments. Let me illustrate how these doubters said almost the same things I did.
Verse 3: So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."
Vijai: Now what, Lord? You know he is sick.
Verse 4 When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it."
Vijai (in prayer): I know you do all things to conform to your will. I believe your will cannot be changed. We simply fit into it with our prayers. I know in some way you will demonstrate your glory whether the surgery is a success or not.
Verses 8 and 9 (the disciples): "But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?" Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."
Vijai (reading this): Does this mean that when we are guided by God nothing bad will happen to us? Does it mean that if we guided by God, our being stoned or not stones depends entirely on his will; and his will is always good?
Verses 12-14 12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep. So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
Alma to Vijai: Perhaps this is meant for the whole of the family (the majority of whom are unbelievers). I think a healing will result and it will shake up the family.
Verse 16: Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."
Vijai (thinking): This is the verse I most identify with. It is easier to think of ourselves as dying with Jesus than living with Him. I'm so thankful that the Lord gave us these remarks and others from Thomas, who, also being Kerala's patron saint, has endeared himself to us. Sketpcism, doubt, questions with no answers- these sum up my response to Jesus. I believe that the Bible if 100 percent true- I just find it hard to apply it to my life situations. I also find it tough to interpret it correctly, especially when it comes to hoping for a healing from God.
Verse 21: "Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
Vijai: Though I do not say the same thing (I know Jesus knows everything and is present everywhere, but I act like he doesn't and he isn't), my attitude is similar.
Verses 23 through 27: Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" "Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who was to come into the world."
Vijai: I do not know how to interpret Martha's thoughts. I tend to answer important questions in life on Jesus' behalf quite often, basing them on my understanding of theology. For instance, I prayed for Tommy for a healing but I always make room for a different result. This isn't like Jesus' prayer at the Garden, "Nevertheless, not my will, but your be done." I do not sweat drops of blood in asking for a miracle against incredible odds. Mine is the voice of doubt.
Verses 32 and 33: When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died." When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled.
Vijai: Jesus cares about our suffering. I'm convinced he doesn't let us go under the scalpel unless there is a special purpose for it. Under normal circumstances I think it is not the right response on our part to keep expecting the worst to happen and thereby hedge our bets.
Verse 35: Jesus wept.
Vijai: If this verse and others like it had been part of our church's Scripture memorization program I could have done it on my head. I'm not sure why Jesus wept when he knew that Lazarus was going to be raised. Did he weep because he saw that Lazarus' loved ones were grieving? Did he weep because of the mniracle about to happen. We often weep after a successful surgery. Were these tears of joy? John doesn't give us a clue.
Verses 36-37: Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!" But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
Vijai: I rationalize it like this. I know God is all-powerful. I know God cares for us, even for our temporal well-being. I know Jesus never refused anyone who asked Him for healing, even ones who were not thankful to him, or people who did things he asked them not to do (like the man by the pool who told the priests about his healing). But I have seen prayers for healing whih were not answered in the way the I wanted them to be. This means that I have no control over such things. It also means that there are circumstances in which our temporal suffering is not negotiable. After all, we all die physical deaths. Even Lazarus died a second time. So, the question is, while Jesus can heal, will Jesus heal this time? And if Jesus does not heal, then what is my response? The above verses reveal my attitude though I would not paraphrase it that way.
Verses 38- 40: Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
Vijai: In the hospital prior to the surgery a Latin American believer came into the hospital to speak to our relative. He talked about his own healing and prayed with all of us. He said to our relative that if he believed he will be healed. All my doubts came racing into my mind and I wondered how anyone could say such things with certainty. But I was also struck by the fact that while I struggled to witness credibly to my relative, this man was so direct. "Do you believe in the Lord Jesus as your persoal Lord and Saviour?" "Do you believe what the Bible says?"
Alma and I talked afterwards and wondered if we should seek help in our church as to how to witness. It was pretty easy in the days I first became a believer. Wide eyed and excited, I would simply describe the process of my conversion and talk about the 'before' and 'after' scenarios, and leave the rest to God. Today I'm stymied, especially during such situations in which I struggle with how to meet the family's desire for temporal comfort with eternal hope. I also wonder if I may be simply perceived as being opportunistic. Before the surgery I prayed for healing with nor preconditions. Perhaps subconsciously I may have made room for a different result by I didn't dare to voice it in prayer!
Verse 43-44: When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Vijai: After the surgery we went into the recovery room to talk to our relative. The surgery was successful. The doctors said they could get most, if not all, of the tumour out. There was no blood loss. It was the best prognosis and the best result. When we went in to talk to him, I noticed he was bound with strips of cloth, and this verse came to mind, "The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face."
Verses 45-46: Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
Vijai: If miracles demonstrate God's glory to some, they also solidify the resolve of those who want to disbelieve. It is amazing enough that after a miracle of such proportions some of the witnesses plotted Jesus' death. How does this apply to us?
One of the many believers who had come to see our relative let his wife know that God will heal him and when He does, be sure to let people know about it. I'm not known for sharing news of such blessings as I am for sharing bad news and trying to make sense of it. Well, this is my attempt to understand this wonderful blessing. As you can see I have a hard time understanding blessings as well.
Do I still think that life is not worth living if not for the hope of resurrection? In a larger sense, yes. But in the here and now I just find it worth living if only to share God's love with people- in all kids of ways, sharing the Gospel, comforting them in their difficulties and other ways. As 'tweeners' who live between the 2 earthly advents of Jesus, our purpose in the world is to win the world for Him.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Gay Penguins and Our Response
A school district in Alameda, CA is in the news due to their curriculum that includes a book on two male homosexual penguins raising a baby penguin. School authorities are now trying to make it compulsory for all their students to attend the class. The age group for this class- 5 year olds.
Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.
As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.
In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.
But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.
Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.
Parents are protesting this. The story is carried on Fox News and only a few other mainstream media outlets like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comments to the reports as usual shed more heat than light. Pro-LGTB rights commentators say they cannot support hatred as shown by the protesting parents. The overriding themes are bigotry, hate, moral arrogance, ad hominem attacks on Christians. Familiar topics in the last 10 years of Right vs Left.
As a Christian I'm convinced that our uber-activism in the political sphere and the corresponding lack of interest in showing real love to the world around us have sunk our reputation. Besides the reputation it has also shown us to ourselves what we have become. A culture that insists on morality by the lawbook and not by the heart.
In this context those who hold to the Biblical position that homosexual behaviour is sinful and part of the fallen world are in the dock to answer for bigotry. Many of us will not deny the basic inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution to anyone, even if the beneficiaries contradict our moral values. Most of us will allow for hospital visitations and even civil unions. Some of us have deeply held concerns about adoptions by LGTB couples that stem from our belief that immorality is then allowed to spread. Most of us do not like the idea of our society and government reaching out to our kids with the idea that LGTB behaviour is morally sound. Even withholding our religious convictions, these issues are being hotly debated among lawmakers and many LGTB rights issues are won after a tough fight. In such circumstances, to introduce gay curricula into schools is not right. I think it is also very clear to those making the argument about our protests being bigoted and hateful that the real issue is not hate at all; only our convictions about morality. This may seem judgmental to some, but even a cursory reading of our stance on this issue will reveal to them that our condemnation of immoral behaviour is not a condemnation of the person. Indeed we know that we have huge planks in our own eyes. Pornography, infidelity, insincerity in the puplit, moneymaking scams are all gnawing at the vitals in some of our churches and perhaps even in our lives. Our faith seeks to rescue the sinner from sin.
But another possibility presents itself. We have been fighting these issues in the legal and political sphere. How can we ever rescue the sinner when we do not have love for the sinner? As Mark Young, President of Denver Seminary, said in one of his chapel addresses at DTS (Dallas), when we cast our votes, consider voting on the basis of what will help me present the Gospel in the most effective manner. Will we win hearts by our love and compassion? It is a sad reality that today we Christians are known for bigotry to the homosexual community than our love.
Yes, the Gospel is offensive. We cannot avoid stepping on anyone's toes when we speak the truth- even when we do so in love. But let the Gospel be offensive- do *WE* have to be offensive as well? Perhaps we feel we are standing up for the truth when we get offensive about these topics. Malcolm Muggeridge once remarked (about the Leftward leaning who protest against pro-lifers, right-to-lifers, et al) that it is far easier to hold a placard in the streets and shout a few slogans than actually practise moral behaviour. Worse, this also blinds us to our own sins. We think our moral outrage, rather than love, covers a multitude of sins. Maybe we should look at ourselves and ask this question: am I reflecting Jesus' love? The answer may surprise us- let's hope it will not scare us.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Waterboarding- Why are Christians Silent?
I'm apalled to hear that Dick Cheney is continuing to justify the practice of waterboarding. It is more painful to witness the silence and the absence of outrage on the part of Christians on this subject. Our leaders have become wary of the Left when making any statement that distances ourselves from the Right. Isn't this sad?
In 2005 Albert Mohler wrote an article unquivocally stating that no torture should be acceptable to us. William Land recently mentioned that torture should never be supported by Christians, no matter what.
An excerpt from Mohler's article nuances his stance by sympathizing with those may find their thoughts drifting in the direction of waterboarding:
Nevertheless, Mohler goes on to rule out creating any rules that would actually legitimize even some forms of torture:
Then he goes on to give a little room:
I wish I could really follow this line of reasoning. Mohler has my sympathy because it is difficult to put it into words. All I can understand by reading between the lines is that we Christians are trying our best to cut some slack for those whose job it is to protect us. Yes, it is true enough that often we do things that are never right but may take the place of a greater sin and therefore unavoidable. In the current discussion on torture is this a factor? Was waterboarding practised at Guantanamo Bay only with extreme moral consciousness and a sense of deep humility?
Who are we kidding? When no law exists to hold the torturers accountable and no law exists to keep the public fully aware of these proceedings (as Mohler suggests we must do), how can we be silent over this moral outrage that has happened in our day and age? Perhaps our sin lies not so much in the fact that we are nuanced in our condemnation of such torture as a legal practice as in the fact we are silent here and now, when WE have broken the rules, we are guilty of indecency. Why is our desire to protect our soldiers' reputation and the image of a fair and just nation larger than our desire for righteousness and justice? Will this somehow make our enemies stronger and more spiteful of us? How disgusting of us to pretend that our image is more important than our morality!
If we can be so bold to criticize nations such as India for human rights abuses when fighting terror or failing to protect Hindu nationalists from murdering evangelical Christians on the pretext of coersive conversion or covert CIA operations, why can we not hold our own country accountable? We seem to have taken the idea of the "New Jerusalem" so literally and so much to heart!
In 2005 Albert Mohler wrote an article unquivocally stating that no torture should be acceptable to us. William Land recently mentioned that torture should never be supported by Christians, no matter what.
An excerpt from Mohler's article nuances his stance by sympathizing with those may find their thoughts drifting in the direction of waterboarding:
As Augustine argued, the Christian soldier may kill enemy combatants as a matter of true necessity, but he can never assume that in doing so he has not sinned. Augustine's "melancholy soldier" knows that the use of deadly force against another human being is, generally speaking, sin. Yet, he also knows that a failure or refusal to kill can at times be a sin worse in both intention and effect than a decision to kill in order to save lives. In a very real sense, that soldier cannot privilege his desire to be free from the sin of killing another human being to supersede his responsibility to save the lives of innocents. As philosopher Michael Walzer argues, this is the perennial problem of "dirty hands." The honest soldier knows this problem all too well – as does the interrogator.
Nevertheless, Mohler goes on to rule out creating any rules that would actually legitimize even some forms of torture:
First, the use of torture should be prohibited as a matter of state policy – period. No set of qualifications and exceptions can do anything but diminish the moral credibility of this policy.
Then he goes on to give a little room:
At the same time, rare exceptions under extreme circumstances can be considered under those circumstances by legitimate state agents, knowing that a full accounting of these decisions must be made to the public, through appropriate means and mechanisms.
Second, a thorough and legitimate review must be conducted subsequent to the use of any such techniques, with the agents who authorized or conducted such use of torture fully accountable, even to the point of maximum legal prosecution if their use of extreme coercion is seen to have been unjustified (not simply because the interrogation did not produce the desired information, but because the grounds of justification were invalid).
I wish I could really follow this line of reasoning. Mohler has my sympathy because it is difficult to put it into words. All I can understand by reading between the lines is that we Christians are trying our best to cut some slack for those whose job it is to protect us. Yes, it is true enough that often we do things that are never right but may take the place of a greater sin and therefore unavoidable. In the current discussion on torture is this a factor? Was waterboarding practised at Guantanamo Bay only with extreme moral consciousness and a sense of deep humility?
Who are we kidding? When no law exists to hold the torturers accountable and no law exists to keep the public fully aware of these proceedings (as Mohler suggests we must do), how can we be silent over this moral outrage that has happened in our day and age? Perhaps our sin lies not so much in the fact that we are nuanced in our condemnation of such torture as a legal practice as in the fact we are silent here and now, when WE have broken the rules, we are guilty of indecency. Why is our desire to protect our soldiers' reputation and the image of a fair and just nation larger than our desire for righteousness and justice? Will this somehow make our enemies stronger and more spiteful of us? How disgusting of us to pretend that our image is more important than our morality!
If we can be so bold to criticize nations such as India for human rights abuses when fighting terror or failing to protect Hindu nationalists from murdering evangelical Christians on the pretext of coersive conversion or covert CIA operations, why can we not hold our own country accountable? We seem to have taken the idea of the "New Jerusalem" so literally and so much to heart!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Song of Gomer
It's a six hour drive from Chicago, IL to St. Paul, MN. On the way there's wonderful scenery- the Laura Ingalls Wilder historical park, Wisconsin Dells, ski resorts, many campsites and wilderness parks. On this route twice a week I travel for work. My constant companion during twelve hours is the collection of weekly podcasts that musician Michael Card publishes. As I listen to these, the picture of Jesus in my chaotic workaday world becomes clearer. Truths we have always known and treasured become dearer and more convicting.
This week was no exception. What caught my attention was Card's 'Song of Gomer'. Gomer was the unfaithful and adulterous wife of the prophet Hosea. Each time Gomer would leave Hosea, looking for sweetness in stolen waters, Hosea would go back after her and bring her back. God uses Hosea's testimony as a picture of his relationship with the unfaithful Israel. Card's song says (on Gomer's behalf),
"Don’t know what He sees in me, he is spirit, he is free
And I, the wife of adultery, Gomer is my name.
Simply more than I can see, how he keeps on forgiving me
How he keeps his sanity; Hosea, you’re a fool.
A fool to love someone like me, a fool to suffer silently
But sometimes through your eyes I see I’d rather be a fool."
On another such podcast, Card talks about Peter's denial of Jesus after he was arrested. When the rooster crowed a third time, Jesus glanced at him; he went outside of the hall and wept bitterly. Why did Peter weep? Was it because Jesus glanced at him? Or was it because Jesus still loved him despite his unfaithfulness?
God's word tells us that it is His kindness that leads us to repentance. I had in the past understood this to solely mean that his holy spirit enables our spirits to respond to him; and that without his aid we are unable to reach out and touch his hand of salvation. I wonder if it means that his act of forgiveness alone produces repentance in us- at least the kind of repentance the Bible talks about when a person becomes a born-again Christian.
What breaks our heart? Is it our sin or the knowledge of forgiveness? Sin cretainly breaks God's heart. We hate our sin, but repentance means more than that hatred of sin. Repentance means to turn away from our sin, but turn away to what (or whom)?
What brings us to the Lord when we turn to Him for the first time? Is it conviction of sin or knowledge of His forgiveness? Can anyone truly repent without having a hint of the forgiveness?
The prodigal son in the parable could have "repented" and told himself that he simply deserved to eat the pig-food and admitted his sin, even resolving to lead a better life from then. Perhaps his resolve may even have succeeded in exemplary self-control and a total break from his past life. Instead chose to go back to his father against whom he had rebelled. Why? Could it be that he knew that at his father's house he would at least what his father's servants were getting? Isn't it telling that the Father ran to him when he saw him from far away?
If we did not know grace will we ever repent? Is repentance only the conviction that we deserve penalty for our sins? If repenteance involves turning away from sin, if we do not have forgiveness can we truly turn away? Another way to ask this question is: if Jesus had not taken the hard route to demonstrate His mercy towards us on the cross, would we have repented at all? John the Baptist had followers who were repenting of their sins in expectation of the Messiah. Similarly Old Testament repentances in the life of the nation of Israel were expectant of salvation in some way.
I would be happy to know your thoughts. At this point I only have questions. Just last week my friend and I had a phone conversation in which we agreed that it is good to speculate, stir the pot and conjecture about Biblical questions as long as we do not conclude on these matters against or without the Bible's own affirmation.
I'm even happy only to be raising these questions. As I wrote in a previous blog article, we can admire God for what we do not or cannot know of Him. He is a sweet mystery that intrigues us and captures our imaginations as well as our worship.
This week was no exception. What caught my attention was Card's 'Song of Gomer'. Gomer was the unfaithful and adulterous wife of the prophet Hosea. Each time Gomer would leave Hosea, looking for sweetness in stolen waters, Hosea would go back after her and bring her back. God uses Hosea's testimony as a picture of his relationship with the unfaithful Israel. Card's song says (on Gomer's behalf),
"Don’t know what He sees in me, he is spirit, he is free
And I, the wife of adultery, Gomer is my name.
Simply more than I can see, how he keeps on forgiving me
How he keeps his sanity; Hosea, you’re a fool.
A fool to love someone like me, a fool to suffer silently
But sometimes through your eyes I see I’d rather be a fool."
On another such podcast, Card talks about Peter's denial of Jesus after he was arrested. When the rooster crowed a third time, Jesus glanced at him; he went outside of the hall and wept bitterly. Why did Peter weep? Was it because Jesus glanced at him? Or was it because Jesus still loved him despite his unfaithfulness?
God's word tells us that it is His kindness that leads us to repentance. I had in the past understood this to solely mean that his holy spirit enables our spirits to respond to him; and that without his aid we are unable to reach out and touch his hand of salvation. I wonder if it means that his act of forgiveness alone produces repentance in us- at least the kind of repentance the Bible talks about when a person becomes a born-again Christian.
What breaks our heart? Is it our sin or the knowledge of forgiveness? Sin cretainly breaks God's heart. We hate our sin, but repentance means more than that hatred of sin. Repentance means to turn away from our sin, but turn away to what (or whom)?
What brings us to the Lord when we turn to Him for the first time? Is it conviction of sin or knowledge of His forgiveness? Can anyone truly repent without having a hint of the forgiveness?
The prodigal son in the parable could have "repented" and told himself that he simply deserved to eat the pig-food and admitted his sin, even resolving to lead a better life from then. Perhaps his resolve may even have succeeded in exemplary self-control and a total break from his past life. Instead chose to go back to his father against whom he had rebelled. Why? Could it be that he knew that at his father's house he would at least what his father's servants were getting? Isn't it telling that the Father ran to him when he saw him from far away?
If we did not know grace will we ever repent? Is repentance only the conviction that we deserve penalty for our sins? If repenteance involves turning away from sin, if we do not have forgiveness can we truly turn away? Another way to ask this question is: if Jesus had not taken the hard route to demonstrate His mercy towards us on the cross, would we have repented at all? John the Baptist had followers who were repenting of their sins in expectation of the Messiah. Similarly Old Testament repentances in the life of the nation of Israel were expectant of salvation in some way.
I would be happy to know your thoughts. At this point I only have questions. Just last week my friend and I had a phone conversation in which we agreed that it is good to speculate, stir the pot and conjecture about Biblical questions as long as we do not conclude on these matters against or without the Bible's own affirmation.
I'm even happy only to be raising these questions. As I wrote in a previous blog article, we can admire God for what we do not or cannot know of Him. He is a sweet mystery that intrigues us and captures our imaginations as well as our worship.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Who then can be Saved? The Silence Speaks to Us
I had an interesting conversation with my friend on Saturday which centered around the most asked but least answered question in Christian witness to an unbeliever. How would those who have never heard the gospel be judged? Will they go to hell?
We talked about this subject peripherally among other topics, but on later reflection I felt I needed to collect my thoughts together on this subject. The Bible is clear on some related issues: Jesus is the only way to inherit eternal life. Thus other worldviews are not ways to salvation. Anyone who enters heaven does so on the basis of his salvific death and resurrection. The way to receive Jesus is through faith in him. Those who reject Him will not inherit the kingdom and will receive punishment which is referred to as hell, interpreted by Christians variously as eternal banishment from God's presence, as a place of suffering for the wicked and as the place where Satan himself is punished eternally. To have faith one must have heard. For one to hear, another must be sent to proclaim the good news.
Romans 10:14 asks these questions rhetorically: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
The emphasis is on the one who is sent. What does this tell us? Almost every answer to the question on the fate of the unbelievers who have not heard or understood the gospel (in order to be able to accept or reject it) is almost always centered on this fact- that the ones who have heard have a great responsibility to preach to those who have not heard. But this answer does leave the listener with a sense of incompleteness. To me as well it does not achieve closure.
This link from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry sums up the dilemma:
-------------------------------------------
There are two possible responses. First, it could be that those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ will go to hell. Second, it could be that those who have never heard of Jesus Christ and the gospel will be judged in a different way than those who have heard of Jesus.
The Bible does not tell us specifically about what happens to those who have never heard. But it does say that Jesus is the only way to salvation (Acts 4:12). If it is possible that someone who has not heard the gospel can be saved, it must be through Jesus Christ and him alone (John 14:6). But, it could not be that a person who is not heard of Jesus can make it to heaven based upon being good since that would violate the scriptural teaching that no one is good (Rom. 3:10-12).
If all people who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ end up in hell, then that would be right because God would never do anything that is improper. On the other hand, if any of them end up in heaven, then it would be the right thing to do for the same reason.
But, if righteousness before God can be achieved through being good, or sincere, or by following various laws, then Jesus died needlessly: "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," (Gal. 2:21).
Because the Scripture does not specifically address this issue, we cannot make an absolute statement concerning it. However, since the Bible does state that salvation is only through Jesus and that a person must receive Christ, then logically we conclude that those who have not heard the gospel are lost. This is all the more reason to preach the gospel to everyone.
"for Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:13-14).
Following are some verses that relate to this topic:
John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
John 14:6, Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.
Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”
Rom. 10:12-15 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD will be saved.” 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!”
1 Tim. 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time."
1 John 5:11-12, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."
Rev. 20:15, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
-------------------------------------------
Charles Spurgeon said this in answer to a student’s question, (Will the heathen who have not heard the Gospel be saved?),"It is more a question with me whether we, who have the Gospel and fail to give it to those who have not, can be saved.”
I remember reading somewhere that Spurgeon believed in the 'age of accountability' for children, that is, a child who died before this age could not possibly be held accountable for sin as he/she had no real knowledge of sin and personal responsibility. He did not specify what this age may be. Logically one must assume that this differs from child to child.
If that is indeed the case, how are these children granted eternal life? Surely it could not be apart from Jesus' propitiation for their sin (which by birth is their nature). In some mysterious way Jesus' payment for sin is imparted to cover their souls as well. This concept is not from the Bible but from logic and our sense of fairness and justice. Similarly I think the case would hold good for mentally disabled persons as well. If that were so, would not the same situation apply to those who have not heard the gospel? Let's take it a step further. Would the same situation not apply to those who may have heard but not understood the gospel? This was my case prior to my conversion experience. I had heard that Jesus died for my sins, but I could not understand how. I thought his death meant that the world would somehow be made a better, less evil place. His personal gift of salvation through faith I did not yet understand.
None of these situations are explained in the Bible. The best we could conclude is what we may have said several times in the past about God's justice, that he is perfectly just and that our understanding of justice and mercy is no match for it. When the would-be executors of Mary Magdalene wanted to stone her and brought her before Jesus, the Lord effectively convicted them of their own sin and therefore their ineligibility to judge her. Later when he asked her where her accusers were, she said noone had condemned her. Jesus' response is revealing, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
His justice and mercy are perfect and we must trust the destiny of the unbelieving in his hands- our kids, those in our family who have not heard or understood the gospel, the mentally disabled, everyone. Does that make our sharing the gospel a crime? Doesn't it then make everyone accountable to believe? Yes it does for those who understand it. But this also provides for their certain salvation. Those who reject the gospel are not saved, but if the gospel is not preached, there simply is no certain salvation. This is what we must do.
I have my theory as to why the Bible leaves these issues out. Certainly the Bible does discuss with sharp focus very thorny issues apart from these. So I do not think that the Lord left these issues out because we cannot understand them at least to a degree. I think the Lord wants to preserve the tension that arises from the non-closure of these questions. He does not want us to arrive at a happy conclusion, except simply to trust his goodness. This tension prompts us not only to witness with urgency but to examine our own lives and "work out" our own salvation with fear and trembling. And if God wants to preserve that tension it behooves us to preserve it in ourselves as well. The Bible is a complete book and we need to keep its unresolved issues as such.
This is why every answer eventually comes around to the Christian's responsibility to witness, rather than a direct response to the destiny of the unbeliever. Let's live with that tension. Every great missionary endeavour has risen out of this. Who can deny that this was what motivated the apostle to apostles, Paul, when he wrote, "3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race..." Our salvation enables us to extend it to others and to take part in the sacrifical nature of bringing salvation to others that Jesus himself demonstrated. If the Bible leaves out these issues, I think it is safe to assume that it speaks to us who believe through its silence than it does to unbelievers. We are the ones to whom this silence demands to go out and preach.
We talked about this subject peripherally among other topics, but on later reflection I felt I needed to collect my thoughts together on this subject. The Bible is clear on some related issues: Jesus is the only way to inherit eternal life. Thus other worldviews are not ways to salvation. Anyone who enters heaven does so on the basis of his salvific death and resurrection. The way to receive Jesus is through faith in him. Those who reject Him will not inherit the kingdom and will receive punishment which is referred to as hell, interpreted by Christians variously as eternal banishment from God's presence, as a place of suffering for the wicked and as the place where Satan himself is punished eternally. To have faith one must have heard. For one to hear, another must be sent to proclaim the good news.
Romans 10:14 asks these questions rhetorically: "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?"
The emphasis is on the one who is sent. What does this tell us? Almost every answer to the question on the fate of the unbelievers who have not heard or understood the gospel (in order to be able to accept or reject it) is almost always centered on this fact- that the ones who have heard have a great responsibility to preach to those who have not heard. But this answer does leave the listener with a sense of incompleteness. To me as well it does not achieve closure.
This link from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry sums up the dilemma:
-------------------------------------------
There are two possible responses. First, it could be that those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ will go to hell. Second, it could be that those who have never heard of Jesus Christ and the gospel will be judged in a different way than those who have heard of Jesus.
The Bible does not tell us specifically about what happens to those who have never heard. But it does say that Jesus is the only way to salvation (Acts 4:12). If it is possible that someone who has not heard the gospel can be saved, it must be through Jesus Christ and him alone (John 14:6). But, it could not be that a person who is not heard of Jesus can make it to heaven based upon being good since that would violate the scriptural teaching that no one is good (Rom. 3:10-12).
If all people who have never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ end up in hell, then that would be right because God would never do anything that is improper. On the other hand, if any of them end up in heaven, then it would be the right thing to do for the same reason.
But, if righteousness before God can be achieved through being good, or sincere, or by following various laws, then Jesus died needlessly: "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," (Gal. 2:21).
Because the Scripture does not specifically address this issue, we cannot make an absolute statement concerning it. However, since the Bible does state that salvation is only through Jesus and that a person must receive Christ, then logically we conclude that those who have not heard the gospel are lost. This is all the more reason to preach the gospel to everyone.
"for Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard?" (Rom. 10:13-14).
Following are some verses that relate to this topic:
John 3:36, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
John 14:6, Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.
Acts 4:12, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.”
Rom. 10:12-15 "For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; 13 for “WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD will be saved.” 14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, “HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GLAD TIDINGS OF GOOD THINGS!”
1 Tim. 2:5-6, "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony borne at the proper time."
1 John 5:11-12, "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life."
Rev. 20:15, "And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
-------------------------------------------
Charles Spurgeon said this in answer to a student’s question, (Will the heathen who have not heard the Gospel be saved?),"It is more a question with me whether we, who have the Gospel and fail to give it to those who have not, can be saved.”
I remember reading somewhere that Spurgeon believed in the 'age of accountability' for children, that is, a child who died before this age could not possibly be held accountable for sin as he/she had no real knowledge of sin and personal responsibility. He did not specify what this age may be. Logically one must assume that this differs from child to child.
If that is indeed the case, how are these children granted eternal life? Surely it could not be apart from Jesus' propitiation for their sin (which by birth is their nature). In some mysterious way Jesus' payment for sin is imparted to cover their souls as well. This concept is not from the Bible but from logic and our sense of fairness and justice. Similarly I think the case would hold good for mentally disabled persons as well. If that were so, would not the same situation apply to those who have not heard the gospel? Let's take it a step further. Would the same situation not apply to those who may have heard but not understood the gospel? This was my case prior to my conversion experience. I had heard that Jesus died for my sins, but I could not understand how. I thought his death meant that the world would somehow be made a better, less evil place. His personal gift of salvation through faith I did not yet understand.
None of these situations are explained in the Bible. The best we could conclude is what we may have said several times in the past about God's justice, that he is perfectly just and that our understanding of justice and mercy is no match for it. When the would-be executors of Mary Magdalene wanted to stone her and brought her before Jesus, the Lord effectively convicted them of their own sin and therefore their ineligibility to judge her. Later when he asked her where her accusers were, she said noone had condemned her. Jesus' response is revealing, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
His justice and mercy are perfect and we must trust the destiny of the unbelieving in his hands- our kids, those in our family who have not heard or understood the gospel, the mentally disabled, everyone. Does that make our sharing the gospel a crime? Doesn't it then make everyone accountable to believe? Yes it does for those who understand it. But this also provides for their certain salvation. Those who reject the gospel are not saved, but if the gospel is not preached, there simply is no certain salvation. This is what we must do.
I have my theory as to why the Bible leaves these issues out. Certainly the Bible does discuss with sharp focus very thorny issues apart from these. So I do not think that the Lord left these issues out because we cannot understand them at least to a degree. I think the Lord wants to preserve the tension that arises from the non-closure of these questions. He does not want us to arrive at a happy conclusion, except simply to trust his goodness. This tension prompts us not only to witness with urgency but to examine our own lives and "work out" our own salvation with fear and trembling. And if God wants to preserve that tension it behooves us to preserve it in ourselves as well. The Bible is a complete book and we need to keep its unresolved issues as such.
This is why every answer eventually comes around to the Christian's responsibility to witness, rather than a direct response to the destiny of the unbeliever. Let's live with that tension. Every great missionary endeavour has risen out of this. Who can deny that this was what motivated the apostle to apostles, Paul, when he wrote, "3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race..." Our salvation enables us to extend it to others and to take part in the sacrifical nature of bringing salvation to others that Jesus himself demonstrated. If the Bible leaves out these issues, I think it is safe to assume that it speaks to us who believe through its silence than it does to unbelievers. We are the ones to whom this silence demands to go out and preach.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Christmas and Our Darkness
There are people who have benefitted from hard times. The bootleggers and the crime that was fed by them during the Great Depression, the influx of gambling and the mob into Las Vegas are all examples. In my line of work the erstwhile happy days of IT services are entering and have already entered in many cases into darker terrain. Clients are spending less on streamlining business processes, improving customer and employee experiences with processes and systems and looking not so much at saving costs over a long period of time as at cutting existing cash outflow, thereby leaving no room for arguments of investing into the future.
Who makes money during a depression? There are distinct divergences in the answer to this question depending on what market you are addressing. For our purpose let's address the most basic market of all- the workaday man or woman who has lost a job or is getting paid less due to cost cutting measures or underemployment at their place of work. What do they buy at home? On special occasions like Christmas they try not to merely subsist, because Christmas as an event comes only once a year and even keeping aside the matter of faith, most families want to create memories and look beyond their troubles at this time. They spend cautiously and try to give more meaningful gifts. Peggy Noonan wrote a column about this a couple of weeks ago, asking if we were going to see the first Christmas of restraint in America.
When Christmas is over and the New Year comes in, what would they do? Clearly they need to spend on basic items like food, heating, electricity, schooling- which they cannot do without. But we may see less private school enrolment, less eating out or high end foods (organic, gourmet, imported), lower heating, less usage of electrical appliances and so on. Some may spend money on more nice-to-have items, albeit cautiously. And yes, companies realize this, so many offer financial or other commercial structuring to ease the burden; and of course they make money off it. I received a flyer from AT&T asking us to switch to a convergent product and service offering, giving us unlimited local calls, 120 HD TV channels and high speed internet for less than the price we now pay for our home phone. I have received mais from our bank asking us to consolidate our loans into a single loan, thereby allowing us to pay less on a monthly basis, but reducing our capital in the total value of our home and car. Some of these address our needs very clearly-like AT&T's offer (it didn't come with any unreasonable time commitments), others like that of the bank involve a trade-off which gives one pause for thought.
There are many ideas out there. None are so compelling to a Christian as the idea of losing something yourself so that someone else may gain. We have heard the pithy statement that 'Christmas is about giving, not getting.' Ths message comes in soundbytes from TVs, childrens' books and other media, but the example we have set so far leaves this statement fall with a dull thud.
Why is Christmas about giving? Most of are filled with thanks when someone remembers us enough to give us a meaningful gift. O Henry's story, 'The Gift of the Magi' has been told, retold, caricatured, criticized, spoofed so many times we do not think much about it. I was reminded of it today from RZIM's Jill Carattini writing in the daily devotional. She writes:
Jim Dillingham Young and his wife Della are the subjects of The Gift of the Magi, a short story written by O. Henry in 1906. Struggling to make ends meet in their one room apartment, Jim and Della have but two prized possessions between them: for Jim, a pocket watch given to him by his father, and for Della, her long, beautiful hair, of which even the queen of Sheba would be envious. When Christmas comes, Jim and Della have nothing to scrape together to buy even a simple gift for the other. Yet, longing to give something meaningful out of great love, each, unbeknownst to the other, sacrifices the greatest treasure of the house; Della sells her hair to buy her husband a silver chain for his beloved pocket watch, and Jim his pocket watch to buy Della pearl combs for her beautiful hair. Thus unfolds The Gift of the Magi and “the uneventful chronicle of two foolish children in a flat who most unwisely sacrificed for each other the greatest treasures of their house. But in a last word to the wise of these days,” writes O. Henry, “let it be said that of all who give gifts these two were the wisest.”
Why were these two the wisest? Could it be because the receiver of the gift received much mroe than the gift itself? He/she knew what it cost the other. Could it be because the giver of the gift took a step that demonstrated his/her desire to break free from themselves and love the other sacrificially? What is it about sacrifice that is so sweet and so heartbreaking? How may Jim have felt when he knew that Della couldn't benefit from his gift? Would he have felt better if Della hadn't sold her hair? Della would then have her gift but Jim would not have his. Did he feel better because Della's loss in this situation now was somehow compensated by the fact that she (like him) knew that the other loved her? Is love so strong as to give selflessly and not receive anything at all in return? But both Della and Jim did not do what they did thinking of a reciprocal gift. Maybe we could put this in another context. If we were in either Jim or Della's place, would we be the happier for what we did if the other did not give us a reciprocal gift? I'm inclined to think that we would, but I wonder- with our human inclination to sin- if that happiness would as intense when the rougher patches come up. Perhaps we need to know that acts of compassion will be rewarded, but not in the way we expect. People who do selfless acts with nothing to look forward to may be actually, even subconsciously, looking forward to something. A few years ago I read the story of a millionaire who gave away everything he had, became poor, and driven by guilt and a desire to alleviate pain, gave away his kidney, donated other organs in principle on the event of his death. He still wasn't satisfied with all that he had done. What was he seeking? If it was absolution for his sins, would he be satisfied with these enormously charitable acts? Can he now look back and say with confidence that he had done all he needed to do?
When Jesus came into the world as a baby, he demonstrated a truly selfless act, which too had a purpose that he knew it would accomplish. This was not meant to benefit himself but to fulfill his plan for humanity. Jesus also knew that this would satisfy his desire to enter into his Father's love. What does this mean? He never needed to be loved any more than he was by the Father (and vice versa), but this was a fulfillment of the love, the way by which such a love was worked out in flesh and blood. Indeed, as Hebrews 12:2 says, "Jesus the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising shame, and hath sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."
The joy that was set before him. If Jesus anticipated this joy as he looked to the excruciating death so immediately before him, was the cross an event with no visibility into the future? Are all our efforts to save the environment, feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, medical care to the suffering who cannot afford it ends in themselves? What is the joy that drives you? If it has not been defined yet, look to the cross for a possible understanding. The babe in the manger with, as Chris Rice says, his "tiny heart whose blood will save us" was the one in whom "all your hopes and fears are met tonight". Our acts of love and compassion are yearnings to transcend ourselves, to leave this troubling self-serving existence to mean something to "others" (or could it be, to that "Other", who we are often unwilling, even embarassed, to name?). If they are yearnings, but cannot be satisfied even with giving away all of ourselves, like the millionaire did, what can save us? Perhaps O Henry's moral from his story is that giving is indeed what Christmas is about, but nothing meaningful can be given or received without sacrifice. Isn't it remarkable that the most loved Christmas carols have a minor note in them that gives us the taste of what the expectation of Advent means?
Is there joy in the cross? Christmas invites us to find out. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. (Isaiah 9:6,7)" "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined. (Isaiah 9:2)"
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
The Hour and the Man
I lay awake last night, restless and thinking of why our wealth makes us dull to the gospel and soulless. Yes, we hear about Angelina Jolie and Madonna adopting infants from impoverished nations, and Bono spearheading efforts in Africa to combat HIV and AIDS. We anticipate- skeptic and believer alike- the fulfilment of the promises our President-Elect made on his unique and inspiring campaign. These are stories from the wealth of America. But these are remarkable because they are doing something counter-intuitive- and that is, sharing of their time, wealth and indeed of themselves.
I thought of Gandhi, wondering how a man could influence so many and transform the moral direction of a nation. My dad, born in 1941, tells me that when he was 5, before India's independence, people referred to Gandhi as "Gandhi Appooppan" (Grandpa Gandhi). In a remote village in Southern India, which was still a princely state and would continue to remain so until the fifties, they looked with respect to a man from faraway Gujarat and were arguably guided by his principles. Today's India has very little of those principles. Politically India's policies prior to the 90s were socialist im principle. The welfare state it created faces a crisis of epic proportions in the early 90s when policies were dramatically reversed and now has created a consumeristic nation characterized by greed and selfishness. In the turnaround which was necessary and laudable, something else happened which happens all too often- a trading away of values that called for simple living, even austerity, to make way for trumpery and shallow living. India's leadership today bears no resemblance to the one in the 40s. Martin Luther King once remarked on his trip to India, "To other countries I go as a visitor. To India I come as a pilgrim." To King, Gandhi's land held a moral clarity and courage that was unparalleled inthe world then. Gnadhi rose up in the context of an unjust and predatory governance system. Besides him so many Indian leaders then crafted a policy that was exemplary and powerful to oppose the British government with peace and civil disobedience. The hour produced the men.
Ah, but then America had Dr. King himself, a man known for his similar resistance in the face of injustice. The greatest humans in history are known for moral courage, rather than for the power they wielded, the skill they had, the money they made or the feats they accomplished. Mother Teresa, Francis of Assissi, Nelson Mandela, Diertrich Bonhoeffer- are all known for this. Others have had a moral dimension to them that fuelled their specia well-known activities, despite any failing they may have had elsewhere- Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churcill, President Roosevelt. Poets and authors are known much more for their profound thoughts on moral dilemmas and their resolutions- Dostoevsky, Tagore, Tolstoy. Those whose wealth and skills make the world a better place are often known because they make the world a better place, not because of themselves. Thus Alfred Nobel is known more for the prize he instituted than for his fortune in armaments. Bill Gates for now is known for Microsoft, but if he persists at his charity, he may be known much more for it in the future. This brings us to the celebrities who too are known for charitable activities than for their achievements in show business.
Why do we admire moral courage. Why is it so empirically verifiable that true greatness always comes in the face of adversity? In America we face an economic crisis, accompanied by unprecedented loss of jobs, wars in other countries and other worries. RZIM writer Margaret Manning asks in today's 'Slice of Infinity' if it is possible today to sing 'Joy to the World' when there is no apparent joy to be found. Can those of us who are not yet affected by the crisis be legitimately joyful when there are others who are so affected?
The fact is, these conditions are not new to many among the have-nots of this world. For them the crisis has been an ongoing affair. For the rest of us this is a new reality that is scary. Margaret tells us that Christmas means precisely this, that the promised Messiah came to a world that was truly dark- this made all the difference to a people that were on the verge of losing hope. The long-awaited Messiah was just so- he came into a sinful, evil world. To know the reality of this is to have known the reality of evil in our world, and indeed in ourselves.
In yesterday's 'Slice', writer Jill Carattini writes that John the Baptist who came to prepare the way of the Lord, actually exhorts us even today to make his paths straight, in our own hearts. To receive the Messiah, I need to feel my evil and repent from the bottom of my heart.
I mentioned that the hour produces the man- it did so 2000 years ago in Bethlehem. But that was God's gift to us and not the will of man. But isn't it true that every man who is so produced comes out of God's will? Jesus is God's Son, but the prophets were his messengers. My prayer is that we who need a prohet more than ever would get one- even if he calls us to turn away from our most familiar, beloved and sinful ways.
I thought of Gandhi, wondering how a man could influence so many and transform the moral direction of a nation. My dad, born in 1941, tells me that when he was 5, before India's independence, people referred to Gandhi as "Gandhi Appooppan" (Grandpa Gandhi). In a remote village in Southern India, which was still a princely state and would continue to remain so until the fifties, they looked with respect to a man from faraway Gujarat and were arguably guided by his principles. Today's India has very little of those principles. Politically India's policies prior to the 90s were socialist im principle. The welfare state it created faces a crisis of epic proportions in the early 90s when policies were dramatically reversed and now has created a consumeristic nation characterized by greed and selfishness. In the turnaround which was necessary and laudable, something else happened which happens all too often- a trading away of values that called for simple living, even austerity, to make way for trumpery and shallow living. India's leadership today bears no resemblance to the one in the 40s. Martin Luther King once remarked on his trip to India, "To other countries I go as a visitor. To India I come as a pilgrim." To King, Gandhi's land held a moral clarity and courage that was unparalleled inthe world then. Gnadhi rose up in the context of an unjust and predatory governance system. Besides him so many Indian leaders then crafted a policy that was exemplary and powerful to oppose the British government with peace and civil disobedience. The hour produced the men.
Ah, but then America had Dr. King himself, a man known for his similar resistance in the face of injustice. The greatest humans in history are known for moral courage, rather than for the power they wielded, the skill they had, the money they made or the feats they accomplished. Mother Teresa, Francis of Assissi, Nelson Mandela, Diertrich Bonhoeffer- are all known for this. Others have had a moral dimension to them that fuelled their specia well-known activities, despite any failing they may have had elsewhere- Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churcill, President Roosevelt. Poets and authors are known much more for their profound thoughts on moral dilemmas and their resolutions- Dostoevsky, Tagore, Tolstoy. Those whose wealth and skills make the world a better place are often known because they make the world a better place, not because of themselves. Thus Alfred Nobel is known more for the prize he instituted than for his fortune in armaments. Bill Gates for now is known for Microsoft, but if he persists at his charity, he may be known much more for it in the future. This brings us to the celebrities who too are known for charitable activities than for their achievements in show business.
Why do we admire moral courage. Why is it so empirically verifiable that true greatness always comes in the face of adversity? In America we face an economic crisis, accompanied by unprecedented loss of jobs, wars in other countries and other worries. RZIM writer Margaret Manning asks in today's 'Slice of Infinity' if it is possible today to sing 'Joy to the World' when there is no apparent joy to be found. Can those of us who are not yet affected by the crisis be legitimately joyful when there are others who are so affected?
The fact is, these conditions are not new to many among the have-nots of this world. For them the crisis has been an ongoing affair. For the rest of us this is a new reality that is scary. Margaret tells us that Christmas means precisely this, that the promised Messiah came to a world that was truly dark- this made all the difference to a people that were on the verge of losing hope. The long-awaited Messiah was just so- he came into a sinful, evil world. To know the reality of this is to have known the reality of evil in our world, and indeed in ourselves.
In yesterday's 'Slice', writer Jill Carattini writes that John the Baptist who came to prepare the way of the Lord, actually exhorts us even today to make his paths straight, in our own hearts. To receive the Messiah, I need to feel my evil and repent from the bottom of my heart.
I mentioned that the hour produces the man- it did so 2000 years ago in Bethlehem. But that was God's gift to us and not the will of man. But isn't it true that every man who is so produced comes out of God's will? Jesus is God's Son, but the prophets were his messengers. My prayer is that we who need a prohet more than ever would get one- even if he calls us to turn away from our most familiar, beloved and sinful ways.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Truth without Grace
Peggy Noonan's column this Friday (today) on the Presidential elections has an air of defeat, no matter that she has been trying her best to present both sides of the argument for some time now, battling her Republican allegience to give Obama credit where he deserves it.
In this column she makes this great point (among several others):
When the press was hitting hard on the pregnancy of Sarah Palin's 17-year-old daughter, he did not respond with a politically shrewd "I have no comment," or "We shouldn't judge." Instead he said, "My mother had me when she was 18," which shamed the press and others into silence. He showed grace when he didn't have to.
As a Christian Obama's only blip in his campaign came at the time when he had some observations to make about the Bible. I think he was mauled by Conservative commentators, in particular Dr. James Dobson (which may be understandable because Obama singled him out and hinted that he was as far Right as Al Sharpton is to the Left). But Dr. Dobson's comments seemed to me lacking in Christian charity. I have listened to his radio program and certainly it is not all about politics. I think he cares about the family and the values that we cherish. But his blindsidedness has affacted him to a point where his comments in response to Obama's do not reflect Grace.
Besides this I have to say I have not seen a political candidate anywhere in the world take on detractors with the finesse that Obama has shown. The great orators among statesmen- Nehru, Churchill, et al showed at least some hints of arrogance in public. To date except for the blip above I have not actually seen Obama ruffle anyone's feathers. That is not the important thing, though- the most significant point is that he still fascinates with his ideas a nation that is used to listening to short, pithy soundbites meant to excite, anger or polarize.
Dr. Dobson's response to Obama in June brings me to another thought. I have seen Christians debating from both sides. Dobson, Robertson, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and others have crossed the line from civility to ungracious behaviour many times in these debates. Other Christians, rooting for Obama, too have followed the world's way of ranting and raving- with a caveat that we will laugh all about it in eternity anyway. While this is true, it reminds me of what a comedian once said about the American Deep South: You can say anything you want about anyone, as long as you add as a suffix, "Bless his/her soul." It is funny because it is actually true to a large extend.
The fact is Christians, whichever side they have taken, have been largely ungracious. You see it in conversations, in blogs, in emails. It seems to me that we may not be evaluated by the unbelieving neighbour so much for our allegience as our attitude. After all if we simply take sides in a debate, we will be considered simply as part of a voting bloc: Conservative vs. Liberal, Pro-life vs. Pro-choice, Capitalist vs. Socialist, Right vs. Left.
When and how do we get counted as Christians? I do not share the opinion that Christians have no role in politics as such. I think our convictions- the Gospel, the saving grace of Jesus Christ- compel us to act in the social and political sphere. All too often, due to the limited nature of the fallen world, we are forced to take sides, often compromising one value for another. We all become single-issue or two-issue voters in most elections, whichevere side we are on. We assign priorities. We sometimes get the label "nutcases" by those opposing our views. This would not matter so much if it had been just the unbelievers on the other side. But the fact is we squabble about it the exact same way as the secular world does. Though the words used are not usually as severe, I have seen words and phrases used by Christians in this debate which should not be on their minds to use at all. Schaeffer's columns (one of which I had commended on this blog) with respect to Dr. Dobson has been peppered with truths couched in language that is hurtful and sometimes (though rarely) inappropriate for a Christian.
From this and my other writings on this blog, I think it is by now clear that I feel that Christian behaviour that does not reflect Grace (as well as Truth) falls woefully short of the Lord's command. Being Pro-Life is indeed being Pro-Truth. Being Pro-Poor is surely being Pro-Truth. But being crude in our conversations about it is being Anti-Grace. Jesus, as the prologue to John's Gospel says, was full of Grace and Truth.
I have a confession to make. My faith has been shaken a few times in the course of these political debates- not severely, but shaken nevertheless. This has nothing to do with intellectual charges against the Christian worldview. Intellectually I'm convinced strongly of the truth, grace and beauty of the Gospel. I have listened to endless debates and statements from men who want to rip the Gospel apart- men and organizations like Richard Dawkins, Infidels.org, Swami Prabhupada and so on. Besides the fact that I find their positions intellectually untenable, I derive comfort from Christianity that my research into other faiths and worldviews cannot match. Christianity is Truth, and in addition it is also Good News! The comments that Obama had made in reference to slavery, capital punishment for an erring son, et al in the Jewish law are not mysterious elements to me. Slavery in the Old and New Testament were realities that when read in conext were not supported by God or His Law, but acknowledged as extant among the Hebrews as among the other Semitic peoples. In fact the Hebrews were given clear instructions to be humane towards their slaves- and from history we know that this was a benign form of domestic servitude, unlike the economic slavery that the Roman empire and pre-Lincoln America practised. Paul's writings also tell us how he regarded slaves to be free men in Christ and masters to be slaves to Christ. He considered himself to be a slave to Christ. Jesus calls himself as one who serves- quite literally, a slave. The concept of the slave that the Bible refer to is distorted by Obama's implicit suggestions about it, but we cannot hold it against him as a Presidential candidate simply because of his limited theology. After all, if our standards were so stringent, in some sense the theology of most Christian Presidents have been limited enough to warrant our displeasure. Obama's comments about stoning the errant son are derived from actual words in the Old Testament. It is important to note the distinction that Jesus made about Old Testament Law and what God actually desires. When questioned about divorcing a wife, he said, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." When questioned about stoning a woman caught in the act of adultery, he said, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Was he contradicting the Law? As He says, "Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." Jesus thus claims to be the end goal of the Law, that He came to fulfill it. The fulfillment of the Law is not found in its penal code, endless requirements, Sabbath regulations, ceremonial cleansing and so on, but its fulfillment in His Person- including his vicarious death and resurrection and the Christ-life that ensues after a conversion event in a believer's life- the gradual folding away of the flesh and the dominion of the Spirit, in which His righteousness becomes manifest.
None of these pronouncements trouble my theology, though it may trouble me that the Bible is being misinterpreted in the public sphere.
But as the Psalmist says in another context in Psalm 73, "But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled;. My steps had nearly slipped." As I watched debates among Christians, my heart sank as disappointment turned to shame and anger that these brothers would be so influenced by the world that they could address each other in the same way. I wondered almost hiding even from myself, if what the detractors keep harping about Christianity could be actually true. Individually their arguments are easily disproven. But the clamour of voices chip away at one's conviction, especially in moments like this, when one is frustrated with those who one has looked up to as leaders and exemplars. The violence over Christ in history, recent arguments about Christ's alleged non-existence, the scandal of the Da Vinci code and other gnostic writings aimed at draining divinity from Christ, the watering down of the Bible, following the cafeteria mentality of picking and choosing what one likes in the Bible while discarding others... All of these are no match for the theologically sound answers that Christians have come up with over the past 2000 years. But when one sees a community meant to reflect Christ reflecting something (or someone) else, one's faith is troubled.
In John chapter 6, when the people who witnessed Jesus' miraculous multiplication of bread and fish to feed them all were offended at his saying that he was the bread of life and that they must feed on his flesh to be saved, Jesus asked his presumably scandalized disciples if they wished to leave as well. Peter's reply finds an echoe in many troubled hearts: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God" (John 6:68-69).
The secular humanistic worldview offers a cold world with morals justified only by one's Quixotic imagination and ideals with no purpose to live or die for- a barren wasteland that is embraced with zeal by those fuelled more by indifference, misconception or animosity towards religion than those with conviction. Hinduism, with its view of the world as immaterial and illusory as Maya, a view of life as terrifyingly cyclical, only an abstract understanding of salvation that is called Moksha- and that by a lucky throw of dice in which chance, noble birth, Karma, Yoga (in its different spiritual forms), meditation and so on come together. Buddhism with its escape into the inner world so distant and disconnected with the world we live in and its myriad cries for help, with a non-exitent Deity that changes into a Deification of the Almighty Self, Islam with its rules and regulations, strictures and no hope, assurance or certain way (except by physical or spiritual Jihad) to attain salvation.
Forests of tongues, as Chesterton said:
Forests of tongues, like autumn leaves unshed,
Being not unlovable but strange and light;
Old riddles and new creeds, not in despite
But softly, as men smile about the dead.
Then I realize that I have nowhere to go. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do our spirits. In Christ there is fullness of joy.
Last week in church a ministry resident talked to us about the letter of James, chapter 3, versus 13-18. He made the point derived from this that spiritual ends cannot be achieved without spiritual means. So better programs, management, more resources and so on cannot save a dying church. The church is after all a group of people into whom God has breathed the Spirit of Life, and is thus inspired by that Spirit. Our engagements in the world are not to be governed by earthly means. When we use earthly frameworks such as governments, employers, law and other organizations, let us be mindful that we cannot push our agendas through manipulation, partisanship or out-arguing each other- if indeed our first agenda is to preach Christ and Him crucified.
As Peggy Noonan notes insightfully in her article, Eras end, and begin. "God is in charge of history." Perhaps the era of some Christian leaders have ended as well, but the era of Christ never ends.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Alienating Our Own
A few months ago my cousin, a Catholic as most of my family is, let me in on a conversation she'd had with a guest at a common Baptist friend's wedding. She was asked which church she went to- as an ice breaker, to which she replied, "a Catholic church". The answer came back promptly: "I pity you." Clearly my cousin carried this in her mind for months and later shared the incident with me.
My wife's cousin was a medical student about 7 years ago. She was attracted to the praise and worship meetings that were organized by Evangelical students, and being a religious Catholic, she felt she'd found something closer to the ideal she imagined Christian worship to be... until she began interacting with her well-meaning Evangelical friends who went to the meetings with her. They were far more interested in "holy huddles" and beyond a cursory smile or friendly hello towards her no real relationships were built, and the ones who did talk to her talked ill about the Catholic faith and just a bit about the Gospel.
Thirteen years ago, in MCC, I came to the Lord, a rare Catholic student on campus and embraced whole-heartedly the fervour and the authenticity of the Evangelical faith I found there. My mom had shared horror stories with me of Protestants, especially Pentecostals; and it was the Lord's grace that overcame much prejudice about them for me to listen to these Christian students and accept the Lord. Mom had let me know of the Pentecostal believers who visited our home to share the Gospel, of their vehemence in ridiculing the Pope and Catholicism. Quasi-Hindu practices such as penance-for-favours practised at shrines like Vailankanni drew their ire and they did not conceal their distaste for these. Mom let me know even before I went to college that the Pentecostals had specifically targetted heavily Catholic countries such as Brazil and transformed it into a Pope-hating, fire-breathing radical Pentecostal community. Her explanation for all this then was that they hated Catholicism. For an impressionable young man, this was a pretty strong seed of prejudice.
On campus in MCC, after I became a Christian, I found great joy in my new faith. I also read with a friend a book about Francis of Assissi in a book called 'A New Kind of Fool' written by an Indian Franciscan monk whose talent in music, art, photography and poetry combined to make this book an intimate look at Francis. The monk traveled through Assissi and many other places of interest to Francis-researchers and captured his impressions in art, poems, snapshots and sheet music. The life of Francis took my breath away. I was amazed to find such depth of faith. A page in the book carried a black and white photograph of an unpaved road somewhere near Assissi. The author captions it this way (my paraphrasing): "These old roads carry a special signficance, because somewhere along these roads, Francis saw a leper, dismounted from his horse and ran to embrace him." This did not go down very well with most of my friends in college. We had long discussions about Catholicism, mostly criticisms from them and nuanced agreements from me. More than the fact that Catholicism had introduced many corruptions into Christianity, my displeasure in these disputes with brothers I loved dearly was that their dismissal of Catholics and their faith was simplistic and somewhat aggressive. True friends of the Reformation they were, as I myself turned out to be later (I still am- except that I would like be a kinder gentler friend).
I did realize of course that the word Catholicism means different things to different people. There have been people who turned to Catholicism like Chesterton and Muggeridge and others who were influenced strongly by it like CS Lewis. Francis lived in a time before the Reformation began, when there was only one mainstream church- and that was the Roman Catholic Church. Besides the practises of the church that drew Martin Luther's ire came to that extend of corruption much later than Francis' time. The later Catholic Reformation did much to clear these after the Protestant Reformation had done its work. But apart from a few believers I heard the oft-repeated criticisms of the Catholic church from my friends.
Three years later I was working in India and visiting at a believing friend's house. He and his wife talked of how a Hindu friend did not want to confess his new-found Christian faith to his orthodox Brahmin parents. He later married a Christian girl from a Brahmin background and they had a Hindu-style wedding with a former Hindu priest-turned-Christian officiating, somehow fooling the parents that he was chanting Hindu mantras! What was remarkable was that my friends believed that this was allright, while they simply could not think that a Catholic could remain in his church and be a believer.
When I listen to the retelling of Catholics' brushes with the Protestant crowd, I get the feeling that we are back in the times of the Reformation. Catholicism has greatly changed and is continually changing, and is differently practised in different parts of the world. For instance, the high theology of Pope Benedict XVI does not find any takers in syncretistic India where new age practices like Pranic Healing is practised by some in the clergy. Muggeridge and Chesterton remain names to be learned in Indian seminaries, with none of their thinking permeating the policies and practises of dioceses. Many heroes of the Christian faith could be found in Catholicism- Henri Nouwen and Josef Damien come to mind. We know that the average lay Catholic anywhere in the world pay no more than lip service to men like these. After all they are not 'canonized'.
Catholicism has a lot to settle in its cesspool of beliefs, in order that the core beliefs of Christianity may remain and all else may be weeded out. But we Evangelicals are guilty- in more instances than not- of ignoring one of basic tenets of our faith: charity. Jesus, as the prologue to John's gospel says, was full of grace and truth. We may have truth on our side (if as we say we are true to the Scriptures) but we have no grace to give in what we say or do to these Catholic brethren.
It is tough to witness to my relatives, not least because their few interactions with Evangelicals has scarred them. We have talked ad nauseam about the Gospel, the non-existent dichotomy between faith and works, the validity of the Catholic argument about the written tradition of the Word and the oral tradition that is supposedly enshrined within the Magisterium of the church and all other areas of conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants. The disconnect is so much that this has ramifications in the political level. Strong pro-lifers turn pro-choice, their faith in Christian teachings deteriorate and many turn to other religions such as Hinduism which claims to be a religion that "accepts all" in peace, although the logical and historical invalidity of this statement they do not necessarily delve into.
Why do we alienate those who are willing to listen? If salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Catholics are, arguably, those closest to us in terms of faith. They embrace mystery and paradox which many of our churches have lost as a result of the almost Deistic effect that our interpretations of Sola Scriptura have had on us. We may have good reason to question some of these mysteries, but the fact is we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In many churches this may not be true. Indeed many Evangelicals embrace the mysticism of A'Kempis and Bonhoeffer (who was Lutheran). But it simply isn't true of the majority.
Is it strange at all that churches that advocate mystic experiences that should give us pause- like the 'Latter Rain' movement- have sprung up in Protestantism? When we lose the mystery of communing with God, we feel the urgent need to replace it with something. After all, God is so mysterious and his judgments past finding out- we need to hear from Him badly. I think it will take years and years of right living and gentle corrections to win back Catholics, not to mention Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and others. Many were drawn to Jesus not because he kept contradicting them (which he did often), but because of his compassion- and the Bible says that they were like sheep without a shepherd.
My wife's cousin was a medical student about 7 years ago. She was attracted to the praise and worship meetings that were organized by Evangelical students, and being a religious Catholic, she felt she'd found something closer to the ideal she imagined Christian worship to be... until she began interacting with her well-meaning Evangelical friends who went to the meetings with her. They were far more interested in "holy huddles" and beyond a cursory smile or friendly hello towards her no real relationships were built, and the ones who did talk to her talked ill about the Catholic faith and just a bit about the Gospel.
Thirteen years ago, in MCC, I came to the Lord, a rare Catholic student on campus and embraced whole-heartedly the fervour and the authenticity of the Evangelical faith I found there. My mom had shared horror stories with me of Protestants, especially Pentecostals; and it was the Lord's grace that overcame much prejudice about them for me to listen to these Christian students and accept the Lord. Mom had let me know of the Pentecostal believers who visited our home to share the Gospel, of their vehemence in ridiculing the Pope and Catholicism. Quasi-Hindu practices such as penance-for-favours practised at shrines like Vailankanni drew their ire and they did not conceal their distaste for these. Mom let me know even before I went to college that the Pentecostals had specifically targetted heavily Catholic countries such as Brazil and transformed it into a Pope-hating, fire-breathing radical Pentecostal community. Her explanation for all this then was that they hated Catholicism. For an impressionable young man, this was a pretty strong seed of prejudice.
On campus in MCC, after I became a Christian, I found great joy in my new faith. I also read with a friend a book about Francis of Assissi in a book called 'A New Kind of Fool' written by an Indian Franciscan monk whose talent in music, art, photography and poetry combined to make this book an intimate look at Francis. The monk traveled through Assissi and many other places of interest to Francis-researchers and captured his impressions in art, poems, snapshots and sheet music. The life of Francis took my breath away. I was amazed to find such depth of faith. A page in the book carried a black and white photograph of an unpaved road somewhere near Assissi. The author captions it this way (my paraphrasing): "These old roads carry a special signficance, because somewhere along these roads, Francis saw a leper, dismounted from his horse and ran to embrace him." This did not go down very well with most of my friends in college. We had long discussions about Catholicism, mostly criticisms from them and nuanced agreements from me. More than the fact that Catholicism had introduced many corruptions into Christianity, my displeasure in these disputes with brothers I loved dearly was that their dismissal of Catholics and their faith was simplistic and somewhat aggressive. True friends of the Reformation they were, as I myself turned out to be later (I still am- except that I would like be a kinder gentler friend).
I did realize of course that the word Catholicism means different things to different people. There have been people who turned to Catholicism like Chesterton and Muggeridge and others who were influenced strongly by it like CS Lewis. Francis lived in a time before the Reformation began, when there was only one mainstream church- and that was the Roman Catholic Church. Besides the practises of the church that drew Martin Luther's ire came to that extend of corruption much later than Francis' time. The later Catholic Reformation did much to clear these after the Protestant Reformation had done its work. But apart from a few believers I heard the oft-repeated criticisms of the Catholic church from my friends.
Three years later I was working in India and visiting at a believing friend's house. He and his wife talked of how a Hindu friend did not want to confess his new-found Christian faith to his orthodox Brahmin parents. He later married a Christian girl from a Brahmin background and they had a Hindu-style wedding with a former Hindu priest-turned-Christian officiating, somehow fooling the parents that he was chanting Hindu mantras! What was remarkable was that my friends believed that this was allright, while they simply could not think that a Catholic could remain in his church and be a believer.
When I listen to the retelling of Catholics' brushes with the Protestant crowd, I get the feeling that we are back in the times of the Reformation. Catholicism has greatly changed and is continually changing, and is differently practised in different parts of the world. For instance, the high theology of Pope Benedict XVI does not find any takers in syncretistic India where new age practices like Pranic Healing is practised by some in the clergy. Muggeridge and Chesterton remain names to be learned in Indian seminaries, with none of their thinking permeating the policies and practises of dioceses. Many heroes of the Christian faith could be found in Catholicism- Henri Nouwen and Josef Damien come to mind. We know that the average lay Catholic anywhere in the world pay no more than lip service to men like these. After all they are not 'canonized'.
Catholicism has a lot to settle in its cesspool of beliefs, in order that the core beliefs of Christianity may remain and all else may be weeded out. But we Evangelicals are guilty- in more instances than not- of ignoring one of basic tenets of our faith: charity. Jesus, as the prologue to John's gospel says, was full of grace and truth. We may have truth on our side (if as we say we are true to the Scriptures) but we have no grace to give in what we say or do to these Catholic brethren.
It is tough to witness to my relatives, not least because their few interactions with Evangelicals has scarred them. We have talked ad nauseam about the Gospel, the non-existent dichotomy between faith and works, the validity of the Catholic argument about the written tradition of the Word and the oral tradition that is supposedly enshrined within the Magisterium of the church and all other areas of conflict between the Catholics and the Protestants. The disconnect is so much that this has ramifications in the political level. Strong pro-lifers turn pro-choice, their faith in Christian teachings deteriorate and many turn to other religions such as Hinduism which claims to be a religion that "accepts all" in peace, although the logical and historical invalidity of this statement they do not necessarily delve into.
Why do we alienate those who are willing to listen? If salt loses its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? Catholics are, arguably, those closest to us in terms of faith. They embrace mystery and paradox which many of our churches have lost as a result of the almost Deistic effect that our interpretations of Sola Scriptura have had on us. We may have good reason to question some of these mysteries, but the fact is we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. In many churches this may not be true. Indeed many Evangelicals embrace the mysticism of A'Kempis and Bonhoeffer (who was Lutheran). But it simply isn't true of the majority.
Is it strange at all that churches that advocate mystic experiences that should give us pause- like the 'Latter Rain' movement- have sprung up in Protestantism? When we lose the mystery of communing with God, we feel the urgent need to replace it with something. After all, God is so mysterious and his judgments past finding out- we need to hear from Him badly. I think it will take years and years of right living and gentle corrections to win back Catholics, not to mention Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and others. Many were drawn to Jesus not because he kept contradicting them (which he did often), but because of his compassion- and the Bible says that they were like sheep without a shepherd.
Monday, October 20, 2008
An Orissa in Afghanistan
The Taliban in Afghanistan, as the saffron brigade in India, kills a British aid worker because she was "spreading Christianity". Here is the news from IHT. It is a sign of the times that the popular sentiment in the West, though critical of the killers, is still indifference or an attitude that Christians should simply not tell anyone else about their faith. As for Asia, it is losing grips with reality and logic in that they attempt to kill the messenger when they cannot kill the message- and seek to justify these killings under the same sentiment expressed by indifferent Westerners. How long will we tolerate intolerance like this? We are eager to root out perceived intolerance in the form of evangelization, but we justify the brutishness of these cultures by our confused logic.
It is no surprise for a Christian, but familiar ground through history, and one accurately foretold by Jesus:
Luke 21:12- 19
"... they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. This will result in your being witnesses to them. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life."
It is no surprise for a Christian, but familiar ground through history, and one accurately foretold by Jesus:
Luke 21:12- 19
"... they will lay hands on you and persecute you. They will deliver you to synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. This will result in your being witnesses to them. But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. All men will hate you because of me. But not a hair of your head will perish. By standing firm you will gain life."
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
The King Who Would Not Be King
Following Michael Card's urging in his podcast called 'In the Studio' to engage the Biblical texts at the level of imagination, I have been reading the gospel of John. Chapters 6, 7 and 8 offer an interesting perspective of who Jesus claimed He was and who He did not want to be.
In chapter 6 he preaches to a crowd of people, 5000-strong, on the far shore of the sea of Galilee. They are hungry and he feeds them miraculously with just 5 barley loaves and 2 fish. They are filled and happy and want to make him king by force. They feel that this is the moment for a miracle-working, generous, provider-king who will throw off the Roman yoke and restore Israel to its rightful place as God's chosen nation. The bread he distributed was proof enough; they voted with their bellies. But Jesus slips away- he would not be their king, not in that sense.
For some reason, the disciples take their boat and leave to the near side of the sea, Capernaum on the North Western tip. Presumably this was because they did not want the crowd to think Jesus was going away too. The people noted that Jesus was not in the boat, but in the mountains. But as night fell, Jesus walked on the water and came to the boat, much to the disciples' amazement and fear. They proceeded to Capernaum. In the morning the people who wanted to make Jesus king were baffled to see no trace of Jesus. They traveled by the morning boats that came to town and went to Capernaum. Jesus was in the synagogue, teaching.
Jesus deftly turned their attention to their motivations for following him around. "You are looking for me, not because of the miraculous signs, but because you ate the loaves and had your fill." He then explains, "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (John 6:26, 27).
The people are a little confused. Jesus talks in metaphors. What could be the food that does not spoil? His words? What he says they must do? Repentance from their sins like John the Baptist preached? So they ask him what they need to do.
Jesus simply says" the work of God is this: to believe in the One he has sent." (verse 29).
The people realize that they are being called to do something more. They are being asked to put their faith in Him as God, the Messiah. Perhaps they already thought of Him as a promised messiah who would meet their earthly needs and would give them freedom from oppression. But he was now claiming allegiance as to God.
Incredibly they ask again for a sign to prove that He was indeed who He claimed to be. The multiplication of the barley loaves and fish were apparently not enough. So much like us who demand more signs from God, dissatisfied with the many we have already seen, especially our conversion experience.
Jesus tells them that Moses gave them bread from heaven, but the Father will give them bread unto eternal life. The people ask him then to give them that bread. Jesus then tells them He was the Bread of life and those who come to Him will never thirst. Besides, only those the Father draws can come to Him." When the people grumble about themselves and express surprise that the one who they know as the son of Joseph and May could claim such things, Jesus tells them again that whoever comes to Him must be drawn by the Father; and that each person who listens to the Father will learn from Him and come to Jesus. He further upsets them by saying that in order to have eternal life they must feed on His flesh and blood, indicating His coming death on the cross.
This must have been offensive to Jewish ears and many left Him, even many of his erstwhile disciples. The twelve closest disciples do not leave and profess faith in Him, even as Jesus lets them know that one of the twelve is a devil (referring to Judas Iscariot).
The crowd who wanted to make him king went away despising Him. Is this the mark of a great leader, to turn away and offend people? Yet we see that Jesus keeps doing this in the subsequent chapters. Some believe in Him, some claim that he is demon-possessed. In chapter 5, He healed a disabled man who would not give Him glory but let the Jewish leaders know that it was all Jesus' fault that He healed on the Sabbath. In chapter 9 he heals a man born blind, who becomes an outspoken believer in Christ, and even stands up to Pharisaic interrogation, supporting Him.
In Chapter 8, verses 31 through 58, Jesus addresses those Jews who believed in Him, once again challenging their 'belief', questioning their deeply help assumptions about whose side they are on. They insist that their are Abraham's descendants, God's people and so on, which Jesus continually challenges, because they do not believe Him. He asks them to prove Him guilty of sin. They retort that He must be demon-possessed. But Jesus tells them that if that were the case He would glorify Himself. Yet He only brings glory to the Father and that their father Abraham rejoiced to see His day. The crowd is agitated. They cry out, "You are not yet 50 years old, and you have seen Abraham?" (v 57). Jesus then tells them, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this the crowd picks up stones to throw at Him but he slips away once again. Once again he turns his followers into his enemies.
In a prior passage, John 8, verses 12-27, Jesus has an interesting conversation with the Pharisees. He begins the conversation with the statement, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life." Clearly this must have rung so many bells in Jewish minds, recalling the Messianic prophecies, "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined" (Isaiah 9:2).
The Pharisees ask Him for verification. They need another witness to validate this statement. Jesus challenges them further. He lets them know that He brings them news of a world they have never seen. Indeed, He is coming from the Father and going back to the Father. If they have never seen the Father how could they even comprehend these things? He then tells them that they judge according to human standards, but he passes judgment on noone, and not because he is not worthy to judge. Indeed, he tells them, if he judged, his judgment would be true, because he stands with the Father who sent Him. Then he tells them that he had two witnesses: himself and his Father. Clearly Jesus has John the Baptist, the Messianic prophecies and His own words and works, including the sings and wonders, testifying on His behalf. Perhaps He is pointing to these when He tells them to listen to the Father as His witness.
A constant challenge to our notions of Him. A reminder that we do not know the Father as the Son does. A nudge to put our trust in Him, not as a provider of Bread alone, but he wants our life, our surrender so that we could be set free from slavery to sin. Jesus does intent to rule over us, but our notions of His rule are petty. How his words lift us up from our self-aggrandizement and pride. The King who would not be King doesn't need our acknowledgement. He is already King. He wants our allegiance and trust.
In chapter 6 he preaches to a crowd of people, 5000-strong, on the far shore of the sea of Galilee. They are hungry and he feeds them miraculously with just 5 barley loaves and 2 fish. They are filled and happy and want to make him king by force. They feel that this is the moment for a miracle-working, generous, provider-king who will throw off the Roman yoke and restore Israel to its rightful place as God's chosen nation. The bread he distributed was proof enough; they voted with their bellies. But Jesus slips away- he would not be their king, not in that sense.
For some reason, the disciples take their boat and leave to the near side of the sea, Capernaum on the North Western tip. Presumably this was because they did not want the crowd to think Jesus was going away too. The people noted that Jesus was not in the boat, but in the mountains. But as night fell, Jesus walked on the water and came to the boat, much to the disciples' amazement and fear. They proceeded to Capernaum. In the morning the people who wanted to make Jesus king were baffled to see no trace of Jesus. They traveled by the morning boats that came to town and went to Capernaum. Jesus was in the synagogue, teaching.
Jesus deftly turned their attention to their motivations for following him around. "You are looking for me, not because of the miraculous signs, but because you ate the loaves and had your fill." He then explains, "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (John 6:26, 27).
The people are a little confused. Jesus talks in metaphors. What could be the food that does not spoil? His words? What he says they must do? Repentance from their sins like John the Baptist preached? So they ask him what they need to do.
Jesus simply says" the work of God is this: to believe in the One he has sent." (verse 29).
The people realize that they are being called to do something more. They are being asked to put their faith in Him as God, the Messiah. Perhaps they already thought of Him as a promised messiah who would meet their earthly needs and would give them freedom from oppression. But he was now claiming allegiance as to God.
Incredibly they ask again for a sign to prove that He was indeed who He claimed to be. The multiplication of the barley loaves and fish were apparently not enough. So much like us who demand more signs from God, dissatisfied with the many we have already seen, especially our conversion experience.
Jesus tells them that Moses gave them bread from heaven, but the Father will give them bread unto eternal life. The people ask him then to give them that bread. Jesus then tells them He was the Bread of life and those who come to Him will never thirst. Besides, only those the Father draws can come to Him." When the people grumble about themselves and express surprise that the one who they know as the son of Joseph and May could claim such things, Jesus tells them again that whoever comes to Him must be drawn by the Father; and that each person who listens to the Father will learn from Him and come to Jesus. He further upsets them by saying that in order to have eternal life they must feed on His flesh and blood, indicating His coming death on the cross.
This must have been offensive to Jewish ears and many left Him, even many of his erstwhile disciples. The twelve closest disciples do not leave and profess faith in Him, even as Jesus lets them know that one of the twelve is a devil (referring to Judas Iscariot).
The crowd who wanted to make him king went away despising Him. Is this the mark of a great leader, to turn away and offend people? Yet we see that Jesus keeps doing this in the subsequent chapters. Some believe in Him, some claim that he is demon-possessed. In chapter 5, He healed a disabled man who would not give Him glory but let the Jewish leaders know that it was all Jesus' fault that He healed on the Sabbath. In chapter 9 he heals a man born blind, who becomes an outspoken believer in Christ, and even stands up to Pharisaic interrogation, supporting Him.
In Chapter 8, verses 31 through 58, Jesus addresses those Jews who believed in Him, once again challenging their 'belief', questioning their deeply help assumptions about whose side they are on. They insist that their are Abraham's descendants, God's people and so on, which Jesus continually challenges, because they do not believe Him. He asks them to prove Him guilty of sin. They retort that He must be demon-possessed. But Jesus tells them that if that were the case He would glorify Himself. Yet He only brings glory to the Father and that their father Abraham rejoiced to see His day. The crowd is agitated. They cry out, "You are not yet 50 years old, and you have seen Abraham?" (v 57). Jesus then tells them, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this the crowd picks up stones to throw at Him but he slips away once again. Once again he turns his followers into his enemies.
In a prior passage, John 8, verses 12-27, Jesus has an interesting conversation with the Pharisees. He begins the conversation with the statement, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life." Clearly this must have rung so many bells in Jewish minds, recalling the Messianic prophecies, "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light. Those who lived in the land of the shadow of death, on them the light has shined" (Isaiah 9:2).
The Pharisees ask Him for verification. They need another witness to validate this statement. Jesus challenges them further. He lets them know that He brings them news of a world they have never seen. Indeed, He is coming from the Father and going back to the Father. If they have never seen the Father how could they even comprehend these things? He then tells them that they judge according to human standards, but he passes judgment on noone, and not because he is not worthy to judge. Indeed, he tells them, if he judged, his judgment would be true, because he stands with the Father who sent Him. Then he tells them that he had two witnesses: himself and his Father. Clearly Jesus has John the Baptist, the Messianic prophecies and His own words and works, including the sings and wonders, testifying on His behalf. Perhaps He is pointing to these when He tells them to listen to the Father as His witness.
A constant challenge to our notions of Him. A reminder that we do not know the Father as the Son does. A nudge to put our trust in Him, not as a provider of Bread alone, but he wants our life, our surrender so that we could be set free from slavery to sin. Jesus does intent to rule over us, but our notions of His rule are petty. How his words lift us up from our self-aggrandizement and pride. The King who would not be King doesn't need our acknowledgement. He is already King. He wants our allegiance and trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
