This is rambling and probably not organized very well, but it is honest:
As we approach the 4th of July holiday, the decision is once again before me as a preacher: how do I address this national holiday, if at all? This has led to several weeks of questioning, praying, and thinking. Here are some assorted thoughts/questions/options:
- I could decide not to address the holiday at all in my preaching. I'm pretty sure that I could not get away with ignoring the holiday altogether in my congregation. There is an impulse in me to not pay a bit of attention to this national, secular holiday. To simply preach the lectionary, choose some good, strong hymns of the church and let my people celebrate in ways and times of their choosing. That option has theological and ecclesiological merit.
- I could simply give in to the patriotic impulse and focus the whole service on America and the holiday. Actually, that's not really an option. And I really couldn't do that. We're not in church to praise and worship America. We're not in church to praise and worship God for America. It's not ultimately about America. We come to church not to serve country, but to serve and worship God. And I do believe that the choice, in this instance, is that stark.
- Of course, as is usually the case, I choose a middle way. I believe several things about my task as preacher:
○ My focus is God and what God is revealing to me/us in Scripture.
○ I must tell the truth, to the best of my ability and using my best understanding, as guided by the Holy Spirit in preparation and delivery.
○ While the desires of the congregation are not my primary concern in preaching, I believe that my preaching should be relevant to the lives of my parishoners and I should also be concerned with what my church is concerned with.
In this particular case, the holiday will be on everyone's mind when they come to church Sunday. I can either work against that by ignoring it, indulge that by simply echoing empty patriotic platitudes, or I can draw that through the prism of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
So my plan is to be truthful about being a Christian and being an American, as best I can with my limited understanding, through prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. As I begin to prepare for my sermon in earnest, I have been pondering the Scriptures that I have chosen for this Sunday.
Mark 12:13-17
13Then they sent to him some Pharisees and some Herodians to trap him in what he said. 14And they came and said to him, "Teacher, we know that you are sincere, and show deference to no one; for you do not regard people with partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not? 15Should we pay them, or should we not?" But knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, "Why are you putting me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me see it." 16And they brought one. Then he said to them, "Whose head is this, and whose title?" They answered, "The emperor's." 17Jesus said to them, "Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's , and to God the things that are God's." And they were utterly amazed at him.
Philippians 3:18-21
18For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. 19Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.
In the Mark passage, the Pharisees attempt to trap Jesus in a false dilemma: which is it, Jesus, Caesar or God? Jesus easily dismisses their attempt at entrapping him by stating that there are things that properly belong to Caesar (in this case, money marked with the image of the Emperor) and there are those things that properly belong to God. This leads to a question: can we demarcate things that do not belong to God? What is the theological justification of "private property", especially in light of Acts 2:44 ("All who believed were together and had all things in common.") As I understand it, we (Christians) like to live as if there are aspects of our lives that we can deem as "secular" or "public" - places where our commitment to Jesus Christ is not determinative or definitive. Are those areas where another role or aspect of our identity trump our identity as Christians? Paul, in the Philippians passage, would answer emphatically: No! If Jesus is Lord, really and truly Lord, then He is Lord over everything in my life and every aspect of my life must be understood in light of Jesus' lordship. Obviously, this means that if I take seriously the Lordship of Jesus (or, to put it another way, if I take seriously my status as a "citizen of heaven") then I cannot place my identity as an American in a place of prominence over and above my identity as a Christian, ever.
And here is where we must be truthful and clear. Many American Christians make little or no effort in thinking about possible places of conflict or contestation between being an American and a Christian. Most middle class American Christians have not given sufficient thought (in my humble opinion) to the differences and distances between the Kingdom of God and the nation/empire/idea of America. Consequently, there is a lot of rhetoric about the U.S. being a "godly nation" (or perhaps this only applies to certain Americans, if you live in a city or vote Democratic, in the minds and rhetoric of some, you don't fit the mold) or we talk about how America was founded as a "Christian nation" (not exactly historically accurate). Here's my disclaimer: I love this country, its history, its ideals, its messiness, and its complexity. I am fascinated by the American experiment and our bumbling towards some semblance of justice and liberty by fits and starts. We have failed many times and still do, but it has been spectacular (in the sense of this whole thing being a spectacle).
As much as I love this country and its history, I do not have "faith in America", I have faith in God. This is a sinful nation filled with sinners. Like every other nation that exists or has ever existed. America is not specially blessed, it is not chosen, it is not the "new Israel", whatever that means. We err, at times grievously and at great cost to millions across our world. We over-consume and are too often careless about the costs of our consumption. We are petulant and hubristic. We will face the judgment, like every other nation. I'll close up this posting with a quote from Tony Campolo: "Don’t get me wrong, I love the United States of America. It’s the best Babylon on the face of the earth, but it’s still Babylon and it’s not the kingdom of God.”
Until next time, may God bless you and keep you.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
More on Sanctification...
My first post on sanctification was a "test drive", so to speak. My hope is to explore this topic in-depth for a while, starting with Scriptures that are important for understanding what Methodists mean when we say "sanctification". There are a few things that we need to get out of the way first:
1) One thing that I love about being a Christian in the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition (I'll use these terms interchangeably) is the Methodist focus on God's grace. A Wesleyan view holds that God's grace is revealed in the life of the believer in three forms of grace (or possibly four, if you listen to Richard Heitzenrater). We typically call this the "Wesleyan Way of Salvation", or the ordo salutis if you wanna get downright fancy about it. Just to be clear, this is not a 3-step program for salvation nor is the ordo salutis comparable to the "Romans Road" or "sinner's prayer" or anything like that. It's a way that Methodists have conceived of the operation of God's grace in the lives of people. And it's beautiful, at least to me. The three "forms" of grace are prevenient grace, justifying grace, and sanctifying grace. The possible fourth form is convicting grace (which might be seen as prevenient grace, but that's another subject for another time). The main point here is that the focus is on God's grace - an unearned gift given to us because God loves us.
2) I also know that if I'm serious about quoting Scripture and going "in-depth", I'll have to do more than simply say "this Greek word means that" or "the Bible says…" (and that's a whole post in and of itself right there). Pulling Scripture out of its context is not helpful nor should anyone simply assume that what I happen to say about this or that Scripture is beyond dispute. I happen to believe, at least when it comes to discussing Scripture or teaching about Scripture, it's helpful to "show your work". So, if I'm going to make a passage or verse a central part of a posting, I'll make an effort to provide context and to "show my work".
3) A further hope for me is to increase my knowledge of Wesleyan theology, back to John Wesley himself. I'm going to be reading through A Plain Account of Christian Perfection this summer and will appreciate any recommendations for further study from any of my Methodist colleagues reading this blog.
Ok, now to what I wanted to talk about today as it relates to my thinking about sanctification and the Scripture I spoke about last week. The verse I quoted (Matthew 5:48) occurs right in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, which is an extended discourse by Jesus in which Matthew connects Jesus' teaching with Moses (see Exodus 19-24). Jesus is reinterpreting the "old law" and is presenting a new law. The Sermon begins with the Beatitudes, which should let people know pretty quickly that Jesus is not interested in perpetuating the status quo: "Blessed are (insert people whom we don't think of as being blessed), for they shall (do stuff/receive stuff that doesn't exactly match up how they are 'blessed')" - for example, "blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth". I'm not sure if the Romans were necessarily worried about the meek overthrowing the Empire. Kind of begs the question, what does Jesus mean by "inherit the earth"? What does that look like? When might the meek actually inherit the earth? We could do this all the way through Matthew 5 and I'd never actually talk about sanctification...and this actually goes on all the way through chapter 7. I love Scripture.
Jesus then talks about the distinctiveness of those who would follow him - we are salt and light. These are pretty well-known verses that highlight the importance of how we actually live our lives in the presence of other people. Jesus continues by stating something extremely important in verse 17, stating that he has not come to get rid of the law, but to fulfill the law (which is a different word than the word that is translated "perfect" in verse 48). Verse 20 anticipates what Jesus will say in verse 48: "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus then proceeds to teach us what this righteousness looks like. It is not located only in our external behavior - what we think and what we hold in our hearts matters a great deal. This is not a difficult lesson to perceive - the inner condition of a person impacts and gives rise to behaviors. But it's amazing how often we forget it. Are we actually surprised that when we fill our minds with junk, think negatively on a constant basis, hold grudges, harbor anger in our hearts - that these things will be manifested in our words and actions?
In verses 21-48, Jesus uses the formula "You have heard that it was said/it was also said…but I say to you…" 6 times, dealing with (1) murder and anger; (2) adultery and lust; (3) divorce; (4) swearing oaths; (5) retributive violence; (6) a believer's response to the "enemy". This is heavy, deep stuff and one could almost spend a lifetime exploring the meaning of Jesus' teaching in these verses alone. Jesus gets to the heart of human relationships and the connection between what is in our hearts/minds and our actions. If you want to be convicted quickly, read over this chapter and think about how we live in our world presently. Something Jesus teaches here is going to catch everyone coming up short somewhere at some time. And then Jesus hits us with verse 48: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." And if you've been reading closely the previous 47 verses, your jaw may very well be on the floor. I can't imagine the impact this teaching had on those who heard it for the first time.
Here we can see the importance of the word τέλειος and how the differing possibilities of meanings might open up for us a deeper understanding of what Jesus is teaching us. I mentioned that the word might mean complete or fulfilled or matured. The NRSV translates it as "perfect" (as does the NIV and KJV). John Wesley connects this verse with Matthew 22:37 (otherwise known as "The Greatest Commandment"): "'You shall love the Lord you God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second one is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." We remember what Jesus said in 5:17 about fulfilling the law. What the fulfilled law looks like is not perfect behavior, but perfect love. This is the point that Jesus is making with His teaching, with His life, and on the cross.
For Wesley, if we were loving God with our whole heart and loving our neighbors as ourselves, we would not feel it necessary to attach holiness to "perfect performance". "Perfection" for us today means flawless execution or perfect performance - perfection is attached to the outward appearance of a thing, at least as far as I understand the current concept of perfection. The appropriate word, in the Wesleyan tradition, would not be "fulfilled" or "perfect" or "mature" (good as those words may be), but holy. And here's where I love Wesleyan theology - it's not something we attain, we are given this holiness as grace as we grow in faith and in love. It's not us improving our behavior or making sure we get everything right, it's God working in and through us for the sake of His glory and for the sake of God's reconciling work through Christ for all the world. God makes us holy, we don't achieve it. It is grace, all the way down.
1) One thing that I love about being a Christian in the Methodist/Wesleyan tradition (I'll use these terms interchangeably) is the Methodist focus on God's grace. A Wesleyan view holds that God's grace is revealed in the life of the believer in three forms of grace (or possibly four, if you listen to Richard Heitzenrater). We typically call this the "Wesleyan Way of Salvation", or the ordo salutis if you wanna get downright fancy about it. Just to be clear, this is not a 3-step program for salvation nor is the ordo salutis comparable to the "Romans Road" or "sinner's prayer" or anything like that. It's a way that Methodists have conceived of the operation of God's grace in the lives of people. And it's beautiful, at least to me. The three "forms" of grace are prevenient grace, justifying grace, and sanctifying grace. The possible fourth form is convicting grace (which might be seen as prevenient grace, but that's another subject for another time). The main point here is that the focus is on God's grace - an unearned gift given to us because God loves us.
2) I also know that if I'm serious about quoting Scripture and going "in-depth", I'll have to do more than simply say "this Greek word means that" or "the Bible says…" (and that's a whole post in and of itself right there). Pulling Scripture out of its context is not helpful nor should anyone simply assume that what I happen to say about this or that Scripture is beyond dispute. I happen to believe, at least when it comes to discussing Scripture or teaching about Scripture, it's helpful to "show your work". So, if I'm going to make a passage or verse a central part of a posting, I'll make an effort to provide context and to "show my work".
3) A further hope for me is to increase my knowledge of Wesleyan theology, back to John Wesley himself. I'm going to be reading through A Plain Account of Christian Perfection this summer and will appreciate any recommendations for further study from any of my Methodist colleagues reading this blog.
Ok, now to what I wanted to talk about today as it relates to my thinking about sanctification and the Scripture I spoke about last week. The verse I quoted (Matthew 5:48) occurs right in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, which is an extended discourse by Jesus in which Matthew connects Jesus' teaching with Moses (see Exodus 19-24). Jesus is reinterpreting the "old law" and is presenting a new law. The Sermon begins with the Beatitudes, which should let people know pretty quickly that Jesus is not interested in perpetuating the status quo: "Blessed are (insert people whom we don't think of as being blessed), for they shall (do stuff/receive stuff that doesn't exactly match up how they are 'blessed')" - for example, "blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth". I'm not sure if the Romans were necessarily worried about the meek overthrowing the Empire. Kind of begs the question, what does Jesus mean by "inherit the earth"? What does that look like? When might the meek actually inherit the earth? We could do this all the way through Matthew 5 and I'd never actually talk about sanctification...and this actually goes on all the way through chapter 7. I love Scripture.
Jesus then talks about the distinctiveness of those who would follow him - we are salt and light. These are pretty well-known verses that highlight the importance of how we actually live our lives in the presence of other people. Jesus continues by stating something extremely important in verse 17, stating that he has not come to get rid of the law, but to fulfill the law (which is a different word than the word that is translated "perfect" in verse 48). Verse 20 anticipates what Jesus will say in verse 48: "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus then proceeds to teach us what this righteousness looks like. It is not located only in our external behavior - what we think and what we hold in our hearts matters a great deal. This is not a difficult lesson to perceive - the inner condition of a person impacts and gives rise to behaviors. But it's amazing how often we forget it. Are we actually surprised that when we fill our minds with junk, think negatively on a constant basis, hold grudges, harbor anger in our hearts - that these things will be manifested in our words and actions?
In verses 21-48, Jesus uses the formula "You have heard that it was said/it was also said…but I say to you…" 6 times, dealing with (1) murder and anger; (2) adultery and lust; (3) divorce; (4) swearing oaths; (5) retributive violence; (6) a believer's response to the "enemy". This is heavy, deep stuff and one could almost spend a lifetime exploring the meaning of Jesus' teaching in these verses alone. Jesus gets to the heart of human relationships and the connection between what is in our hearts/minds and our actions. If you want to be convicted quickly, read over this chapter and think about how we live in our world presently. Something Jesus teaches here is going to catch everyone coming up short somewhere at some time. And then Jesus hits us with verse 48: "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." And if you've been reading closely the previous 47 verses, your jaw may very well be on the floor. I can't imagine the impact this teaching had on those who heard it for the first time.
Here we can see the importance of the word τέλειος and how the differing possibilities of meanings might open up for us a deeper understanding of what Jesus is teaching us. I mentioned that the word might mean complete or fulfilled or matured. The NRSV translates it as "perfect" (as does the NIV and KJV). John Wesley connects this verse with Matthew 22:37 (otherwise known as "The Greatest Commandment"): "'You shall love the Lord you God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second one is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." We remember what Jesus said in 5:17 about fulfilling the law. What the fulfilled law looks like is not perfect behavior, but perfect love. This is the point that Jesus is making with His teaching, with His life, and on the cross.
For Wesley, if we were loving God with our whole heart and loving our neighbors as ourselves, we would not feel it necessary to attach holiness to "perfect performance". "Perfection" for us today means flawless execution or perfect performance - perfection is attached to the outward appearance of a thing, at least as far as I understand the current concept of perfection. The appropriate word, in the Wesleyan tradition, would not be "fulfilled" or "perfect" or "mature" (good as those words may be), but holy. And here's where I love Wesleyan theology - it's not something we attain, we are given this holiness as grace as we grow in faith and in love. It's not us improving our behavior or making sure we get everything right, it's God working in and through us for the sake of His glory and for the sake of God's reconciling work through Christ for all the world. God makes us holy, we don't achieve it. It is grace, all the way down.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Some Thoughts on Sanctification
Many of the theological questions that I think about on a regular basis are the same questions that I had as a teenager and a new Christian. Some of these I will be grappling with on this blog (pneumatology, Biblical authority, soteriology, and sanctification), while some of those questions don't interest me as much now as they did then. I'm beginning to wonder if these "questions" are actually God leading me over a long period of time to a deeper understanding of grace, growth, and discipleship.
One Sunday morning during my teenage years, I was with my Sunday school teacher in what my church called "The Furnace Room" - every Sunday, two people would volunteer to be in the church basement praying throughout the worship service. I had volunteered for that Sunday along with Cindy. We prayed for a while and then we began talking about where we were seeing God working in our lives. I mentioned to Cindy that things were going well, but I could do better. I said that, in fact, "if I just tried harder, I know I could be perfect." Cindy laughed, which was the appropriate response to the arrogance and ignorance of a teenager. I've often thought about that conversation and it has led me to struggle with the meaning of sanctification - the role of the Spirit and the role of the believer therein.
Of course, we will quickly think of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:48 - "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." At one point, I assumed that Jesus was setting an impossibly high standard so as to ensure that Christians would have no choice but to rely on God's grace. I don't buy that - I'm convinced that if he would have meant that, Jesus would have said that. It would have been easy for him to say: "You can't be perfect, no matter how hard you try. Rely on God's mercy instead." But he didn't say that, he said: "Be perfect." How? In what sense?
Here's where we can do some exegetical engagement. The word "perfect" is a translation of the Greek word τέλειοι (tay-lei-oi, basically). This word, while translated as "perfect" doesn't really mean "perfect" in the way that we use the word. And, no, this isn't just a copout to wriggle out from under the command. When we use the word "perfect", we mean flawless, without blemish or mistake, spotless. If we are taking Jesus to mean what we mean when we use the word "perfect", then how do we square this with Paul's statements in Romans? (especially Romans 3:23 - "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and most of Romans 7) Also, how do we reconcile Jesus' command with our experience of this life? If Jesus meant "perfect" as we mean "perfect", then my statement to my Sunday school teacher would have been accurate, if arrogant.
"Perfection" in the sense of "flawless, spotless, without mistake or error" is beyond our reach. Good thing that τέλειοι has a different possible interpretation. As is the case with most words translated from another language, there are several options available. The root word (τέλος) can mean "perfect", but also whole, mature, complete. In fact, τέλος has connotations of meeting a goal, fulfilling a purpose, maturing. This fits in quite nicely with the Wesleyan idea of sanctification. Kind of like "Be fulfilling your purpose, as Your heavenly Father is fulfilling His purpose."
I will pursue this line of thinking with more thought and care next week, when I can devote some more time and energy to it.
One Sunday morning during my teenage years, I was with my Sunday school teacher in what my church called "The Furnace Room" - every Sunday, two people would volunteer to be in the church basement praying throughout the worship service. I had volunteered for that Sunday along with Cindy. We prayed for a while and then we began talking about where we were seeing God working in our lives. I mentioned to Cindy that things were going well, but I could do better. I said that, in fact, "if I just tried harder, I know I could be perfect." Cindy laughed, which was the appropriate response to the arrogance and ignorance of a teenager. I've often thought about that conversation and it has led me to struggle with the meaning of sanctification - the role of the Spirit and the role of the believer therein.
Of course, we will quickly think of Jesus' words in Matthew 5:48 - "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." At one point, I assumed that Jesus was setting an impossibly high standard so as to ensure that Christians would have no choice but to rely on God's grace. I don't buy that - I'm convinced that if he would have meant that, Jesus would have said that. It would have been easy for him to say: "You can't be perfect, no matter how hard you try. Rely on God's mercy instead." But he didn't say that, he said: "Be perfect." How? In what sense?
Here's where we can do some exegetical engagement. The word "perfect" is a translation of the Greek word τέλειοι (tay-lei-oi, basically). This word, while translated as "perfect" doesn't really mean "perfect" in the way that we use the word. And, no, this isn't just a copout to wriggle out from under the command. When we use the word "perfect", we mean flawless, without blemish or mistake, spotless. If we are taking Jesus to mean what we mean when we use the word "perfect", then how do we square this with Paul's statements in Romans? (especially Romans 3:23 - "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and most of Romans 7) Also, how do we reconcile Jesus' command with our experience of this life? If Jesus meant "perfect" as we mean "perfect", then my statement to my Sunday school teacher would have been accurate, if arrogant.
"Perfection" in the sense of "flawless, spotless, without mistake or error" is beyond our reach. Good thing that τέλειοι has a different possible interpretation. As is the case with most words translated from another language, there are several options available. The root word (τέλος) can mean "perfect", but also whole, mature, complete. In fact, τέλος has connotations of meeting a goal, fulfilling a purpose, maturing. This fits in quite nicely with the Wesleyan idea of sanctification. Kind of like "Be fulfilling your purpose, as Your heavenly Father is fulfilling His purpose."
I will pursue this line of thinking with more thought and care next week, when I can devote some more time and energy to it.
Where I See This Going...
I have tried several times in the past to maintain a blog. I have failed in this effort each time. So, I'm trying again, this time with more direction and intentionality. First, however, some preliminaries:
- This is a blog in service to ministry. I find that when I'm theologically engaged (teaching, reading, and writing), I'm a better pastor and preacher.
- This blog will (hopefully) be a discipline for me. I need to be more intentional about how I structure my time in terms of study and theological reflection.
- This blog will focus on theological or exegetical questions that I have. Some I've grappled with since the beginning of my journey of faith. Some have arisen only as I've entered the world of vocational ministry. I also hope to do some exegetical work to possibly bring up new questions.
- I hope that if you're reading this blog that you will leave a comment. I would to love to engage in conversation and hear other points of view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)