Millennialism – three different understandings of what John is talking about in Revelation 20
1) Pre-Millennialism – this is an interpretation of Revelation 20:4-6 that posits that the Parousia (return of Jesus to earth) will occur before a literal thousand year reign of Christ. This is the position of those in the Darbyist tradition (I'll explain Darbyism a little later), which includes the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the battle of Armageddon and that all of these things will happen before the 1,000 year reign of Christ. Here's how this plays out in the world: there is no hope for humanity as it relates to moral improvement - the world is not going to get better (in fact, John Nelson Darby believed that the established Church was a failure and was complicit in the moral degradation of humanity); concern for the environment is pointless - if God is simply going to destroy the world in the "end times", there is no need for caring for the earth. That may be a slightly unfair caricature, but if you truly believe that the world is fundamentally evil and that God will soon destroy it, where is the motivation for the care of the earth? For the pre-mil Darbyist, the Christian's chief concerns are: (1) not being left behind when the Rapture comes; (2) preaching salvation to the lost before it's too late; (3) leaving this evil world behind; (4) discerning the "signs of the times" - meaning, understanding how current events might be interpreted through the lens of "Biblical prophecy". There are all kinds of problems with this as it relates to appropriate Biblical interpretation and how we understand the nature of apocalypse and prophecy.
2) Post-Millennialism – this is an interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6 that posits that the Parousia and the last judgment will occur after a thousand year reign of Christ through the Church. Post-mils believe in a gradual movement towards social holiness/perfection. There are many post-mils that teach that Christians must rise to the heights of political and social power to ensure progress towards the millennium. How this plays out in the real world: from a conservative point of view, post-millennianalism is most clearly expressed in what is called "Dominionism", which holds that the job of the Church is to establish theocratic systems of government that might precipitate the millennium; from a more 'liberal' point of view, we find an expression of post-mil thought in what has been termed the "Social Gospel" and the idea that the Church might bring about the Kingdom of God through social action. These are the most blatant examples - expressions of post-millennialism are not necessarily as stark as choosing between Dominionism and the Social Gospel. However, in both cases, political involvement by Christians for the purpose of making real the reign of Christ and the bringing about of His Kingdom on earth by his followers is assumed. It should be noted that this has been the predominant position of Christians for much of the history of the faith. It should also be noted that post-mils don't believe in the Darbyist system, which includes the Rapture, the Great Tribulation, the Antichrist, etc. A good summation by Stanley Grenz: "…postmillennialists view the millennium as a long era of universal peace and righteousness that comes as the result of the preaching of the gospel, the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals and the Christianization of the world."
3) Amillennialism – this is an interpretation of Rev. 20:4-6 that posits that there will be no literal 1,000 year reign of Christ. Like the post-mil position, a-mils believe that there will be no rapture, no tribulation, no Armageddon, but unlike post-mils, a-mils believe that there will be no 1,000 year reign of Christ. The millennium spoken of in Revelation 20 is symbolic of Christ's reign on earth (or his advancing Kingdom) in the Church. The position here is that Jesus is presently reigning at the right hand of God and is with the church as he said at his ascension. The return of Christ to earth will be sudden and unexpected. The return of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment will be (basically) a singular event. How this plays out in the real world: many in the a-mil camp (or in denominations that are predominantly a-mil) are not as aware of or knowledgeable about eschatology - this perhaps led many Christians in historically amillennial traditions to get caught up (as it were) in the Left Behind phenomenon a few years back. Many Christians in amillennial traditions don't hear much teaching about eschatology or those Scriptures that are eschatological in focus (the 2nd half of Daniel, the Olivet discourse in Matthew, Revelation, etc.).
Several things should be noted:
- These are merely thumbnail sketches of some very complex theological systems of thought. I have most likely not done justice to the depth of thought that has gone into these "systems". Quite frankly, I distrust any "system" that claims to have a full understanding or accounting of God's purposes for the world and for the future of the world. I also feel that endless debates or fixed certainty about what God will do or must do distracts from the church's call to be at work in the world on behalf of the poor, the suffering, and the lost.
- Many Christians are probably a mix of the above, in some ways. I think it's perfectly fine to be a Christian and not be able to know precisely how you interpret Revelation 20:4-6. I'm not swayed by passionate end-times obsessives who (a) demand that Christians know exactly what they believe about this topic, and (b) further demand that Christians agree with their positions.
For the record, I'm an amillennialist. I figure that God's in control and He knows what He's doing. Besides, Jesus tells me not to worry about tomorrow - today's got enough worries of its own.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Revelation part 1
Revelation is probably the most misunderstood and unfairly maligned book of the entire Bible. I've been surprised by the number of people who have said the following (or something like it): "I'm not sure about reading that book. It's really scary!" My experience of Revelation is completely different. When I was in high school, I was pretty obsessed with end-times theology and was completely convinced of the validity of premillenial dispensational rapture theology (we'll break that down over the next few weeks). I've come a LONG way since then, basically due to my understanding of (a) Methodism; (b) Scripture; and (c) theology as a discipline. Next week, I'll blog some about the system of end-times thought that has been dominant in the US (otherwise known as Darbyism) and why that is inappropriate on several levels. Today, I just want to give a little introduction. (By the way, our study of Revelation will be at Johnsontown UMC in Thomasville on Tuesday's at 7:00 - everybody's invited!)
First, some helpful Scriptures to establish a framework. Matthew 24:36 - “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”; and Matthew 6:34 - “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.” Jesus calls us to be present now, today. To work for God's Kingdom today, not to only look to the horizon for a way out. This theme will appear again.
As we move through this book, there are some important words that will recur. These terms also help to set up a framework of interpretation as we move ahead.
Eschatology – from the Gk. eschaton (means “the end”); the study of the end times
Parousia (Gk.) – the return of Jesus Christ to the earth; what we typically call the “Second Coming”
Apocalypse – does not mean destruction or cataclysm; an apocalypse is a revealing, kind of like pulling back the curtain to see what’s really going on in the world; think of the scene at the end of The Wizard of Oz when Toto pulls the curtain back revealing the little man posing as the Wizard - that's an apocalypse (some helpful advice: avoid any 'documentary' on the History Channel with the word "apocalypse" in it)
Millenialism – an interpretation of Revelation based on Revelation 20:1-6, there are three variants, which are related to the Parousia: pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, and amillennialism - we'll explore these in more depth next week
Jewish Apocalypse – a specific genre of writing that developed in the 2-3 centuries before Christ (the second half of the book of Daniel is a good example)
Revelation is in the genre of Jewish apocalypse and is characterized by the following: (1) a visionary journey or experience by the author in which mysterious or hidden things are dramatically revealed; (2) scenes of judgment extending to all of creation; (3) a clear separation between good and evil, there really is no ambiguity in who's good and who's bad; (4) symbolism that borders on outlandish, especially in regards to human institutions of power (more on this later); and (5) the ultimate triumph of God and His people after great struggle and adversity (at least on the part of people, God never really struggles to triumph - He speaks and it is done).
The best place to see an example of Jewish apocalyptic writing in our Bible is Daniel 7 - it would be helpful for what follows if you would read it. Here's a link: http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Daniel+7. There, Daniel sees a vision of 4 beasts, each beast more terrible and powerful than its predecessor. It is important to note that Daniel's dreams are interpreted (in 7:16 and following). This would indicate that Daniel's visions are not strictly literal. They describe symbolically the empires of the earth:
1. A lion with eagles’ wings = The Babylonian Empire
- Winged lions show up in a lot of Babylonian art
- The plucking of the wings and reduction of the beast to a human indicates the defeat of the Babylonians and the fact that, after all, they’re just people
2. A bear with tusks = The Median Empire
- “Raised up on one side” – ready to attack
- Three tusks represent a ravenous appetite for treasure
3. A leopard with four heads and wings = The Persian Empire
- The wings may be referring to the speed of Persia’s conquests under Cyrus
- The four heads can either refer to Persia’s dominance in all directions (North, East, South, West), or to the four Persian kings mention in Ezra 1:1 and 4:6-7
4. A scary beast with ten horns and iron teeth = The Seleucid (Greek) Empire under Alexander the Great
- The ten horns represent the ten kings of the Seleucids culminating in Antiochus IV Epiphanes (his name means “Antiochus the fourth, the god manifest”; this guy was pretty crazy, so his enemies called him “Epimanes” which means “the mad one”, as a play on his name). I love this guy's name by the way, it's right up there with Tiglath Pileser.
- The first Seleucid kings had coins decorated with horns, which are symbols of divine power – (these will come up again in a big way in Revelation)
Revelation as uses beasts to describe the empires of human construction. This is a typical element in Jewish apocalypse. With symbolism being so prevalent in Revelation, the question comes - how shall we go about interpreting these symbols? Unlike Daniel, John does not have an interpreter to go to figure how the meanings behind some of the fantastic images and visions that are shown to him. Personally, I kind of like relying on the Holy Spirit, prayer, and patience to help in understanding, but that's just me…but here's some hopefully helpful thoughts about interpreting the symbolism.
1. Understanding the historic and literary context of the book. Revelation, like all of Scripture, is a product of its time and place as well as being a timeless work inspired by God. The book of Revelation has a historical setting and is rooted in the experience of Christians under the heel of the Roman Empire. Knowing the history is immensely helpful as we seek to understand. A major part of this study will be increasing our understanding of the Roman Empire and the persecutions that Christians were facing.
2. Understanding the reasons behind John's use of symbolism
a. Again, John is writing in the tradition of Jewish apocalypse
b. Revelation, in one sense, is a scathing critique of the Roman empire (and can serve to be a scathing critique of any earthly power, including America)
c. At its core, Revelation is about God's triumph over sin and evil; one surprising aspect of the book is how prominent scenes of worship are
3. It is helpful to understand the nature of apocalypse and prophecy; "prophecy" does not refer to telling the future, but to telling the future. The way prophecy "tells the future" is that the prophet says: "if you continue to do rotten awful Thing A, then rotten, awful Thing B will happen to you." For example, if a king mistreats poor people, then eventually his kingdom will fall. Or, if the people of God continue worship false idols, God's judgment will fall upon them. The prophet's job is to tell powerful people that their behavior and beliefs are rotten and that God will punish them if they persist. Prophets were not popular people. Revelation is a book of prophecy in the sense that it reveals to us the depravity of a broken humanity and the reality of God's judgment. Revelation is not a chronological ordering of events yet to come. More about that next week.
That's enough for now…I'll post more next week! The grace and peace of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be with you!
First, some helpful Scriptures to establish a framework. Matthew 24:36 - “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”; and Matthew 6:34 - “So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today.” Jesus calls us to be present now, today. To work for God's Kingdom today, not to only look to the horizon for a way out. This theme will appear again.
As we move through this book, there are some important words that will recur. These terms also help to set up a framework of interpretation as we move ahead.
Eschatology – from the Gk. eschaton (means “the end”); the study of the end times
Parousia (Gk.) – the return of Jesus Christ to the earth; what we typically call the “Second Coming”
Apocalypse – does not mean destruction or cataclysm; an apocalypse is a revealing, kind of like pulling back the curtain to see what’s really going on in the world; think of the scene at the end of The Wizard of Oz when Toto pulls the curtain back revealing the little man posing as the Wizard - that's an apocalypse (some helpful advice: avoid any 'documentary' on the History Channel with the word "apocalypse" in it)
Millenialism – an interpretation of Revelation based on Revelation 20:1-6, there are three variants, which are related to the Parousia: pre-millennialism, post-millennialism, and amillennialism - we'll explore these in more depth next week
Jewish Apocalypse – a specific genre of writing that developed in the 2-3 centuries before Christ (the second half of the book of Daniel is a good example)
Revelation is in the genre of Jewish apocalypse and is characterized by the following: (1) a visionary journey or experience by the author in which mysterious or hidden things are dramatically revealed; (2) scenes of judgment extending to all of creation; (3) a clear separation between good and evil, there really is no ambiguity in who's good and who's bad; (4) symbolism that borders on outlandish, especially in regards to human institutions of power (more on this later); and (5) the ultimate triumph of God and His people after great struggle and adversity (at least on the part of people, God never really struggles to triumph - He speaks and it is done).
The best place to see an example of Jewish apocalyptic writing in our Bible is Daniel 7 - it would be helpful for what follows if you would read it. Here's a link: http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Daniel+7. There, Daniel sees a vision of 4 beasts, each beast more terrible and powerful than its predecessor. It is important to note that Daniel's dreams are interpreted (in 7:16 and following). This would indicate that Daniel's visions are not strictly literal. They describe symbolically the empires of the earth:
1. A lion with eagles’ wings = The Babylonian Empire
- Winged lions show up in a lot of Babylonian art
- The plucking of the wings and reduction of the beast to a human indicates the defeat of the Babylonians and the fact that, after all, they’re just people
2. A bear with tusks = The Median Empire
- “Raised up on one side” – ready to attack
- Three tusks represent a ravenous appetite for treasure
3. A leopard with four heads and wings = The Persian Empire
- The wings may be referring to the speed of Persia’s conquests under Cyrus
- The four heads can either refer to Persia’s dominance in all directions (North, East, South, West), or to the four Persian kings mention in Ezra 1:1 and 4:6-7
4. A scary beast with ten horns and iron teeth = The Seleucid (Greek) Empire under Alexander the Great
- The ten horns represent the ten kings of the Seleucids culminating in Antiochus IV Epiphanes (his name means “Antiochus the fourth, the god manifest”; this guy was pretty crazy, so his enemies called him “Epimanes” which means “the mad one”, as a play on his name). I love this guy's name by the way, it's right up there with Tiglath Pileser.
- The first Seleucid kings had coins decorated with horns, which are symbols of divine power – (these will come up again in a big way in Revelation)
Revelation as uses beasts to describe the empires of human construction. This is a typical element in Jewish apocalypse. With symbolism being so prevalent in Revelation, the question comes - how shall we go about interpreting these symbols? Unlike Daniel, John does not have an interpreter to go to figure how the meanings behind some of the fantastic images and visions that are shown to him. Personally, I kind of like relying on the Holy Spirit, prayer, and patience to help in understanding, but that's just me…but here's some hopefully helpful thoughts about interpreting the symbolism.
1. Understanding the historic and literary context of the book. Revelation, like all of Scripture, is a product of its time and place as well as being a timeless work inspired by God. The book of Revelation has a historical setting and is rooted in the experience of Christians under the heel of the Roman Empire. Knowing the history is immensely helpful as we seek to understand. A major part of this study will be increasing our understanding of the Roman Empire and the persecutions that Christians were facing.
2. Understanding the reasons behind John's use of symbolism
a. Again, John is writing in the tradition of Jewish apocalypse
b. Revelation, in one sense, is a scathing critique of the Roman empire (and can serve to be a scathing critique of any earthly power, including America)
c. At its core, Revelation is about God's triumph over sin and evil; one surprising aspect of the book is how prominent scenes of worship are
3. It is helpful to understand the nature of apocalypse and prophecy; "prophecy" does not refer to telling the future, but to telling the future. The way prophecy "tells the future" is that the prophet says: "if you continue to do rotten awful Thing A, then rotten, awful Thing B will happen to you." For example, if a king mistreats poor people, then eventually his kingdom will fall. Or, if the people of God continue worship false idols, God's judgment will fall upon them. The prophet's job is to tell powerful people that their behavior and beliefs are rotten and that God will punish them if they persist. Prophets were not popular people. Revelation is a book of prophecy in the sense that it reveals to us the depravity of a broken humanity and the reality of God's judgment. Revelation is not a chronological ordering of events yet to come. More about that next week.
That's enough for now…I'll post more next week! The grace and peace of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be with you!
Blogging Revelation
Starting tomorrow night, I'm leading a Bible study series at my church on Revelation. This will be the fourth time that I've taught this book and I like the knowledge that accrues from simply teaching a book of the Bible, especially one like this.
I've been battling back and forth in my head about whether or not I should blog about what I'm learning/teaching during this go-round with the book. There are some reasons why I'm hesitating:
1) Revelation and end-times theology in general are both controversial subjects and a lot of Christians are definitely not open to disagreement or differing interpretations when it comes to this stuff.
2) Mainline Protestants have not paid that much attention to this book in the past. Many moderate Christians would just as soon this book not be in the Bible. So there are a not a great deal of resources out there regarding this book (unless I'm totally missing something). That's probably just an excuse anyways.
That's about it for my reasons. Kind of lame. So I'm gonna blog our journey through Revelation, starting with today's blog, which is a summary of what we'll be covering tomorrow evening. In order for these not to be incredibly long entries, I'm gonna hit the high points, or break it up with 2 entries over the course of a week.
I've been battling back and forth in my head about whether or not I should blog about what I'm learning/teaching during this go-round with the book. There are some reasons why I'm hesitating:
1) Revelation and end-times theology in general are both controversial subjects and a lot of Christians are definitely not open to disagreement or differing interpretations when it comes to this stuff.
2) Mainline Protestants have not paid that much attention to this book in the past. Many moderate Christians would just as soon this book not be in the Bible. So there are a not a great deal of resources out there regarding this book (unless I'm totally missing something). That's probably just an excuse anyways.
That's about it for my reasons. Kind of lame. So I'm gonna blog our journey through Revelation, starting with today's blog, which is a summary of what we'll be covering tomorrow evening. In order for these not to be incredibly long entries, I'm gonna hit the high points, or break it up with 2 entries over the course of a week.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Thoughts About Stuff
There's a lot going on right now, in terms of sermon-writing, preparing Bible studies, meetings, along with the added stress of my 2-year-old son's upcoming surgery. So, my blogging has been sparse. I've had some good theological conversations over the last week or so, and perhaps just sitting down to write an entry will get the brain going. Here goes…
For those reading this who have known me for a while and have spent even a little time talking to me about theology, or the Church, you'll know that I tend to be very critical of what we call "American culture." I am increasingly unapologetically critical as I grow older and gain valuable experience. I used to say things like, "I really love my country, but…" or "I'm not saying that America's all bad, but…" as if I must avoid hurting America's feelings or something. Well, I figured something out: I love Jesus. It doesn't much matter how I feel about my country on any given day. Some days, I feel pretty dang upset. Other days, I feel pretty proud. While I was reading John Adams a few weeks ago, I was proud. When I watch the news, I feel angry and depressed. I shouldn't have to say "I really love my country and I'm so thankful to be living here" when I critique American culture from the standpoint of being a follower of Christ. My love of country has little to do with the truth of God Almighty. Now that that's cleared up…
In the book "Conversations with Barth on Preaching" (it feels like I've been reading this book for 20 years, though it is excellent), Bishop Will Willimon states on pg. 112: "We (Christians) are, in our speech, speaking against the presumed world of the majority". The Church is designed to be counter-cultural. Here is the danger of the current political rhetoric that we are seeing today. Equating America (or to use the language of today: "the Real America") with the Kingdom of God is extremely dangerous and is definitely idolatrous. One of my friends said it best: "God has not chosen a nation to perform the work of reconciliation in the world. God has chosen the Church." America is not an agent of God's will. That's the Church's job. And it's downright un-American to make a distinction between those citizens and those regions that you say are the "Real America" or "un-American". But I digress. Willimon is saying here that the Church is not tasked with simply being a shill for dominant cultural mores and expectations. We have a higher calling than being a mouthpiece and foot soldiers for the Republican party. We have a greater purpose than trying to convince people to vote for Democrats. We speak the truth of God, or at least strive to do so, not the sound bites of the moment. Our job as Christians is not to prop up American culture or American values, but to live and proclaim the truth of God.
Willimon continues: "Therefore, in our assertions, we will not find many interpretive allies in the weapons of the world. The world is accustomed to getting its messages from psychology, the vaunted ego, or clear-eyed reason. Our message requires a miracle to make it comprehensible." Wow. That's powerful stuff. And convicting. The Christian message presents a challenge to the way things are in the world, because Christians define themselves by a different set of criteria. We are not neurotics or depressed people or disordered people. We might suffer from those things and many of us truly do. But our identity is rooted in the Creator God, made possible by the grace of God given to us in Jesus Christ, revealed and fulfilled in us over time by the persistent work of the Holy Spirit. We are not our temporary dysfunctions. Nor are we designed to be individuals. Ah, the much-celebrated American individual. Rugged. Hard working. Never needs a hand out. With boot straps used to pull him or her self up. Probably wearing a cowboy hat. Can't you just smell the Stetson cologne? The American myth. Truth is, we do need a hand out. It's called "I'm a sinner. God help me." It's grace. And we are not designed to be individuals, we were made for each other, to love each other (a reality on made possible by the Holy Spirit). And clear-eyed reason? Paul, take this one away: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the wise?...For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength." God's weakness was not an abstraction for Paul - it is the cross of Jesus. That's the strength of God revealed. And, to the world, it does not make sense. Which is why Willimon says that it takes a miracle for the Christian message to be comprehensible. Each conversion to the Christian faith is a miracle.
And one last Willimon quote: "Every Sunday we are issuing a declaration of war against some of the most cherished idols of our culture." Yes.
And one more from John Howard Yoder: "If moral discernment is not cultural critical, it has lost its connection with the gospel of grace and has fallen into the ratification of things as they are and choices as I want them."
For those reading this who have known me for a while and have spent even a little time talking to me about theology, or the Church, you'll know that I tend to be very critical of what we call "American culture." I am increasingly unapologetically critical as I grow older and gain valuable experience. I used to say things like, "I really love my country, but…" or "I'm not saying that America's all bad, but…" as if I must avoid hurting America's feelings or something. Well, I figured something out: I love Jesus. It doesn't much matter how I feel about my country on any given day. Some days, I feel pretty dang upset. Other days, I feel pretty proud. While I was reading John Adams a few weeks ago, I was proud. When I watch the news, I feel angry and depressed. I shouldn't have to say "I really love my country and I'm so thankful to be living here" when I critique American culture from the standpoint of being a follower of Christ. My love of country has little to do with the truth of God Almighty. Now that that's cleared up…
In the book "Conversations with Barth on Preaching" (it feels like I've been reading this book for 20 years, though it is excellent), Bishop Will Willimon states on pg. 112: "We (Christians) are, in our speech, speaking against the presumed world of the majority". The Church is designed to be counter-cultural. Here is the danger of the current political rhetoric that we are seeing today. Equating America (or to use the language of today: "the Real America") with the Kingdom of God is extremely dangerous and is definitely idolatrous. One of my friends said it best: "God has not chosen a nation to perform the work of reconciliation in the world. God has chosen the Church." America is not an agent of God's will. That's the Church's job. And it's downright un-American to make a distinction between those citizens and those regions that you say are the "Real America" or "un-American". But I digress. Willimon is saying here that the Church is not tasked with simply being a shill for dominant cultural mores and expectations. We have a higher calling than being a mouthpiece and foot soldiers for the Republican party. We have a greater purpose than trying to convince people to vote for Democrats. We speak the truth of God, or at least strive to do so, not the sound bites of the moment. Our job as Christians is not to prop up American culture or American values, but to live and proclaim the truth of God.
Willimon continues: "Therefore, in our assertions, we will not find many interpretive allies in the weapons of the world. The world is accustomed to getting its messages from psychology, the vaunted ego, or clear-eyed reason. Our message requires a miracle to make it comprehensible." Wow. That's powerful stuff. And convicting. The Christian message presents a challenge to the way things are in the world, because Christians define themselves by a different set of criteria. We are not neurotics or depressed people or disordered people. We might suffer from those things and many of us truly do. But our identity is rooted in the Creator God, made possible by the grace of God given to us in Jesus Christ, revealed and fulfilled in us over time by the persistent work of the Holy Spirit. We are not our temporary dysfunctions. Nor are we designed to be individuals. Ah, the much-celebrated American individual. Rugged. Hard working. Never needs a hand out. With boot straps used to pull him or her self up. Probably wearing a cowboy hat. Can't you just smell the Stetson cologne? The American myth. Truth is, we do need a hand out. It's called "I'm a sinner. God help me." It's grace. And we are not designed to be individuals, we were made for each other, to love each other (a reality on made possible by the Holy Spirit). And clear-eyed reason? Paul, take this one away: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the wise?...For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength." God's weakness was not an abstraction for Paul - it is the cross of Jesus. That's the strength of God revealed. And, to the world, it does not make sense. Which is why Willimon says that it takes a miracle for the Christian message to be comprehensible. Each conversion to the Christian faith is a miracle.
And one last Willimon quote: "Every Sunday we are issuing a declaration of war against some of the most cherished idols of our culture." Yes.
And one more from John Howard Yoder: "If moral discernment is not cultural critical, it has lost its connection with the gospel of grace and has fallen into the ratification of things as they are and choices as I want them."
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
More Thoughts on the Church
Last week, I posted some thoughts about the church and what is required for the church to actually be the "called out ones" indicated by the church's "original" name: the ekklesia. Well, the actual earliest name of Christians was "followers of the Way", but you get the point. Here are four things that are required for the people called the ekklesia to be about the work of transforming the world and making disciples for Jesus (and the list below is not at all intended to be exhaustive).
1. A complete trust and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
2. A relinquishment of ego.
3. An outward focus.
4. A shared vision.
Of course, there is much that could be written on any one of those four particular aspects and I may write more about them at a later date. As I've been thinking about the nature of the church over the past week, I'm slowly beginning to construct a cohesive ecclesiology in my head (at least it feels that way to me). I'm blogging about this stuff because I want to see if what's in my head can be put on paper and perhaps put into practice. So, for this entry, I'm going to list some statements of fact concerning the church (at least I believe them to be true). These are convictions that I have arrived at through a lifetime in the church and 10+ years doing "church work" at various locations. Here we go:
1) The church does not exist to meet the needs or wants of its current constituents. This is very important (and related to the relinquishment of ego). There are an unbelievably high number of church-going Christians whose primary criteria (and in some cases sole criteria) for assessing their church's effectiveness is how their own personal needs/wants are being met. This is a particularly pernicious consequence of reducing the church to simply one more service institution among many others. The job of the clergy/staff/leadership is to meet the needs of the consumers, according to this mindset. The job of the consumers is to be served. And, following the dictates of the marketplace, the "customer is always right." Should the church meet needs? Absolutely. One particular blessing of the church is its unique ability to make deep connections between people, and between people and God. Those connections are invaluable as we serve one another in the midst of the needs that we all have. However, if the church is operating primarily with this mindset, the community ceases to be the church, in my opinion. You can go to Philippians 2:5-7, or Matthew 20:28, or Mark 8:34-35, or Acts 2:43-47, among others, to see Scriptures that might form the beginnings of an appropriate attitude that Christians might have in relation to church. Not to mention I Corinthians 12-14.
2) The church is essential for Christian faith and practice. More times that I can count, I have heard the following sentiment expressed (usually in college after acquaintances found out that I was going into the ministry): "I'm a Christian, but I don't think I need to go to church. I can worship God in my own way." While people in the church in America may not necessarily express things that way, their level of involvement in the church indicates that we have plenty of self-professed Christians who have little to no use for church. Last week, I was looking at some statistics concerning the population within a 5 mile radius of my church. There were two statistics that spoke directly to this. 39% of people in Thomasville identified themselves as "conservative evangelical Christian". However, only 17% considered it "important to attend religious services". Less than half of those who consider themselves "conservative evangelical Christians" think that it's important to be involved in church. I am convicted that you cannot grow as a Christian, you cannot live the Christian life as God intends it unless you are involved in some way with the ekklesia. Being involved in the church does not guarantee that you will be a disciple (some people who have sat faithfully in a pew for years know nothing of Jesus), however I am convicted that being a disciple requires that you be involved with the church on a regular basis. I could (and probably will) go into a lot more detail, maybe I'll devote another post to this one.
3) In order for a particular church to survive (not to mention thrive), the church must embrace change. Many of my colleagues in ministry and my brothers and sisters in mainline Protestant churches are worried, even fearful, about the future of the church in America. There is good reason to be worried, though Jesus told us (a) not to worry, and (b) not to fear, so I'm trying to take him at his word. The church is struggling in many areas. In many churches, we don’t see the faith being passed down from one generation to the next because the younger generation is simply not there. We also see an older generation that, by and large, is not terribly interested in initiating change in the church to address this problem. That is a very broad generalization and any of us can produce anecdotal evidence to the contrary. In fact, a few of my greatest advocates for change in my church are older adults. But the exceptions are just that, exceptions to the rule. There are many more people (in my experience in several different churches) that don't care enough to do the work required by radical change, that are too tired to do the work, or that actively resist the entire idea of change, even in small ways. The prevailing logic here is that "it worked for my parents/grandparents/when I was growing up, therefore it should work now." I cringe when I hear someone say, "when I was younger" or "We used to…". I don't believe in a "golden age of the church." I believe that, at least in this part of the world, going to church was, for most people, primarily a social expectation. I also believe that 50+ years ago, the church was pretty much the only game in town in terms of widespread community involvement for all generations. These two things have changed dramatically. What disheartens me is the response I see by the older generation in response to this change. Many shrug their shoulders as if to say, "what can we do?" They relieve themselves of any responsibility. Many are defensive and angry, blaming the church or the culture for what they perceive as the declining health of the church. For them, the blame lies outside of themselves for the situation. After all, they haven't changed, it's the world or the church that has changed.
4) Jesus is Lord. Earlier, I used the word "radical". I think this word gets thrown around a lot and the meaning of it is not really known. The word comes from the Latin "radix" which means "root". When I say "radical change", I don't necessarily mean massive, overwhelming, completely unanticipated change. I think that change for change's sake can be damaging and is mostly ineffective. However, "radical" change, in the appropriate sense of the word, is a change at the root of things. It means a transformation of understanding about primary motivations and mission. In other words, the mainline Protestant church in America must rediscover (or arguably simply discover) the depth of Christianity's earliest creedal statement: Jesus is Lord. Our goals, however lofty they are, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our positions, no matter how scripturally rooted we understand them to be or how in keeping with "traditional Methodism" they are, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our missions and outreach efforts, as noble as they can be, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And here's the thing, the church is the only community that I'm aware of that has been blessed and equipped to discern together what it means to be under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The church is God's chosen means for working out His will in the world for the sake of the world's reconciliation to Him. The Lordship of Jesus Christ, the active role of Jesus as Lord in our lives, is the root of our faith, our church, our very lives as Christians. And if we take seriously what Jesus says to us in Scripture and how we encounter Jesus in prayer, worship, and fellowship we will be changed, our selves and our churches will be transformed. Jesus is an agent of transformation. And, related to number one above, Jesus' goal for your life is not happiness, but holiness. Jesus died, not so you could have nice things, but so that you could have eternal life in God. Jesus rose from the dead, not so you could do things half way, half-heartedly, but so that you could live life to the fullest, trusting in God's grace in every aspect of your life. God has given to us His presence in the Holy Spirit, not so we could whine and complain, but so that we could live the Good News, share Jesus with broken people, work for the Kingdom. Thanks be to God!
1. A complete trust and reliance upon the Holy Spirit.
2. A relinquishment of ego.
3. An outward focus.
4. A shared vision.
Of course, there is much that could be written on any one of those four particular aspects and I may write more about them at a later date. As I've been thinking about the nature of the church over the past week, I'm slowly beginning to construct a cohesive ecclesiology in my head (at least it feels that way to me). I'm blogging about this stuff because I want to see if what's in my head can be put on paper and perhaps put into practice. So, for this entry, I'm going to list some statements of fact concerning the church (at least I believe them to be true). These are convictions that I have arrived at through a lifetime in the church and 10+ years doing "church work" at various locations. Here we go:
1) The church does not exist to meet the needs or wants of its current constituents. This is very important (and related to the relinquishment of ego). There are an unbelievably high number of church-going Christians whose primary criteria (and in some cases sole criteria) for assessing their church's effectiveness is how their own personal needs/wants are being met. This is a particularly pernicious consequence of reducing the church to simply one more service institution among many others. The job of the clergy/staff/leadership is to meet the needs of the consumers, according to this mindset. The job of the consumers is to be served. And, following the dictates of the marketplace, the "customer is always right." Should the church meet needs? Absolutely. One particular blessing of the church is its unique ability to make deep connections between people, and between people and God. Those connections are invaluable as we serve one another in the midst of the needs that we all have. However, if the church is operating primarily with this mindset, the community ceases to be the church, in my opinion. You can go to Philippians 2:5-7, or Matthew 20:28, or Mark 8:34-35, or Acts 2:43-47, among others, to see Scriptures that might form the beginnings of an appropriate attitude that Christians might have in relation to church. Not to mention I Corinthians 12-14.
2) The church is essential for Christian faith and practice. More times that I can count, I have heard the following sentiment expressed (usually in college after acquaintances found out that I was going into the ministry): "I'm a Christian, but I don't think I need to go to church. I can worship God in my own way." While people in the church in America may not necessarily express things that way, their level of involvement in the church indicates that we have plenty of self-professed Christians who have little to no use for church. Last week, I was looking at some statistics concerning the population within a 5 mile radius of my church. There were two statistics that spoke directly to this. 39% of people in Thomasville identified themselves as "conservative evangelical Christian". However, only 17% considered it "important to attend religious services". Less than half of those who consider themselves "conservative evangelical Christians" think that it's important to be involved in church. I am convicted that you cannot grow as a Christian, you cannot live the Christian life as God intends it unless you are involved in some way with the ekklesia. Being involved in the church does not guarantee that you will be a disciple (some people who have sat faithfully in a pew for years know nothing of Jesus), however I am convicted that being a disciple requires that you be involved with the church on a regular basis. I could (and probably will) go into a lot more detail, maybe I'll devote another post to this one.
3) In order for a particular church to survive (not to mention thrive), the church must embrace change. Many of my colleagues in ministry and my brothers and sisters in mainline Protestant churches are worried, even fearful, about the future of the church in America. There is good reason to be worried, though Jesus told us (a) not to worry, and (b) not to fear, so I'm trying to take him at his word. The church is struggling in many areas. In many churches, we don’t see the faith being passed down from one generation to the next because the younger generation is simply not there. We also see an older generation that, by and large, is not terribly interested in initiating change in the church to address this problem. That is a very broad generalization and any of us can produce anecdotal evidence to the contrary. In fact, a few of my greatest advocates for change in my church are older adults. But the exceptions are just that, exceptions to the rule. There are many more people (in my experience in several different churches) that don't care enough to do the work required by radical change, that are too tired to do the work, or that actively resist the entire idea of change, even in small ways. The prevailing logic here is that "it worked for my parents/grandparents/when I was growing up, therefore it should work now." I cringe when I hear someone say, "when I was younger" or "We used to…". I don't believe in a "golden age of the church." I believe that, at least in this part of the world, going to church was, for most people, primarily a social expectation. I also believe that 50+ years ago, the church was pretty much the only game in town in terms of widespread community involvement for all generations. These two things have changed dramatically. What disheartens me is the response I see by the older generation in response to this change. Many shrug their shoulders as if to say, "what can we do?" They relieve themselves of any responsibility. Many are defensive and angry, blaming the church or the culture for what they perceive as the declining health of the church. For them, the blame lies outside of themselves for the situation. After all, they haven't changed, it's the world or the church that has changed.
4) Jesus is Lord. Earlier, I used the word "radical". I think this word gets thrown around a lot and the meaning of it is not really known. The word comes from the Latin "radix" which means "root". When I say "radical change", I don't necessarily mean massive, overwhelming, completely unanticipated change. I think that change for change's sake can be damaging and is mostly ineffective. However, "radical" change, in the appropriate sense of the word, is a change at the root of things. It means a transformation of understanding about primary motivations and mission. In other words, the mainline Protestant church in America must rediscover (or arguably simply discover) the depth of Christianity's earliest creedal statement: Jesus is Lord. Our goals, however lofty they are, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our positions, no matter how scripturally rooted we understand them to be or how in keeping with "traditional Methodism" they are, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our missions and outreach efforts, as noble as they can be, must fall under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. And here's the thing, the church is the only community that I'm aware of that has been blessed and equipped to discern together what it means to be under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The church is God's chosen means for working out His will in the world for the sake of the world's reconciliation to Him. The Lordship of Jesus Christ, the active role of Jesus as Lord in our lives, is the root of our faith, our church, our very lives as Christians. And if we take seriously what Jesus says to us in Scripture and how we encounter Jesus in prayer, worship, and fellowship we will be changed, our selves and our churches will be transformed. Jesus is an agent of transformation. And, related to number one above, Jesus' goal for your life is not happiness, but holiness. Jesus died, not so you could have nice things, but so that you could have eternal life in God. Jesus rose from the dead, not so you could do things half way, half-heartedly, but so that you could live life to the fullest, trusting in God's grace in every aspect of your life. God has given to us His presence in the Holy Spirit, not so we could whine and complain, but so that we could live the Good News, share Jesus with broken people, work for the Kingdom. Thanks be to God!
Monday, August 16, 2010
Some disconnected (and possibly incoherent) thoughts about church
The longer that I serve in ministry, the more concerned I become about the lack of understanding among Christians about the nature of the church. It appears to me that there has been a decades-long failure to grapple in a meaningful way with the purpose behind the existence of the church. We (Christians) are for the most part content to not be completely aware of what the nature and mission of the church actually is - in a broad sense (the "Church" on an institutional level, such as the United Methodist Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, for example) or in a local, much smaller sense (what is the purpose of my particular church?). There are, of course, no simple answers to the questions "what is the nature of the church?" or "what is the mission of the church?" This is why these questions must be grappled with in a meaningful way.
The technical term for this kind of discussion is ecclesiology, which comes from the Greek word ekklesia. I love this word and I think about it often in the midst of my ministry. The word literally means "the called out ones". The ekklesia is a group called out (of what?) for a specific purpose. In its early uses before referring to the church, the ekklesia had a political connotation (the nature and function of the ekklesia changed over time). Ideally, the word still has a political connotation for the church, but not in the sense that a James Dobson or Pat Robertson might want it to mean (or Glenn Beck for that matter). The ekklesia, in terms of the Christian faith, is the primary agent by which God is at work in the world for the sake of reconciliation.
Those people who comprise the ekklesia have been called by God for just this purpose: the transformation of the world and the making of disciples (both of which, I would argue, fall under the heading "reconciliation"). This is a more active and challenging definition of "church" than, I daresay, most of our churches are willing to accept. Here's what it requires:
1) A complete trust and reliance upon the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus wasn't joking when he told his disciples that they would face situations where they would have to depend on the presence and power of the Spirit. It is no different for us. The flip side of this is the church fails in its mission when it relies solely on the abilities and energies of people.
2) A relinquishment of ego - kenosis. This is central to the church living up to its calling. In Philippians 2:5-7, Paul says the following:
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,who, though he was in the form of God,did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,being born in human likeness."
That phrase "emptied himself" can be summed up for our purposes here by the word kenosis, pouring yourself out. This concept of self-emptying factors heavily in my understanding of the church (the same idea is expressed by Jesus in Mark 8:34 - "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.") Church, in an important sense, is learning how to corporately lay aside selfish agendas for the sake of God's agenda, discerned through what Wesley called "holy conferencing", prayerful discernment, and careful/prayerful study of God's Word. This is almost excruciatingly difficult work for people who have been trained to be consumers and see church as existing to meet their narrow needs. They must be transformed by God's Spirit. People must be taught how to relinquish their ego and the church has, of all places in our culture, the resources to make this happen.
3) An outward focus. It has been my experience that many churches are quite content with who they currently have in their churches. This comfort with the current situation transforms a church from an ekklesia to a civic group. What many Christians fail to realize is that successful outreach breeds successful "inreach". The church is designed to be constantly going "out", to be constantly seeking people who are in need of God's grace (in other words, everybody).
4) A shared vision. It's nigh on impossible to have a successful church that has competing visions concerning what the church is "about". Of course, there will be some who are called to missions, some to care for the sick, some to worship planning, etc. I'm not talking about the diffusion of gifts among the Body. I'm talking about agreement on what we're here for. Missions is a particular manifestation of that, as is intentional discipleship, or care for the sick and dying, on and on. A major problem is that people often confuse particular manifestations of a vision for the vision itself. If the vision is "to make disciples and transform the world", this would be accomplished by various means using the multitude of gifts within a congregation.
I'm running out of steam…perhaps more later this week…the peace of Christ be with you.
The technical term for this kind of discussion is ecclesiology, which comes from the Greek word ekklesia. I love this word and I think about it often in the midst of my ministry. The word literally means "the called out ones". The ekklesia is a group called out (of what?) for a specific purpose. In its early uses before referring to the church, the ekklesia had a political connotation (the nature and function of the ekklesia changed over time). Ideally, the word still has a political connotation for the church, but not in the sense that a James Dobson or Pat Robertson might want it to mean (or Glenn Beck for that matter). The ekklesia, in terms of the Christian faith, is the primary agent by which God is at work in the world for the sake of reconciliation.
Those people who comprise the ekklesia have been called by God for just this purpose: the transformation of the world and the making of disciples (both of which, I would argue, fall under the heading "reconciliation"). This is a more active and challenging definition of "church" than, I daresay, most of our churches are willing to accept. Here's what it requires:
1) A complete trust and reliance upon the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus wasn't joking when he told his disciples that they would face situations where they would have to depend on the presence and power of the Spirit. It is no different for us. The flip side of this is the church fails in its mission when it relies solely on the abilities and energies of people.
2) A relinquishment of ego - kenosis. This is central to the church living up to its calling. In Philippians 2:5-7, Paul says the following:
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus,who, though he was in the form of God,did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,being born in human likeness."
That phrase "emptied himself" can be summed up for our purposes here by the word kenosis, pouring yourself out. This concept of self-emptying factors heavily in my understanding of the church (the same idea is expressed by Jesus in Mark 8:34 - "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.") Church, in an important sense, is learning how to corporately lay aside selfish agendas for the sake of God's agenda, discerned through what Wesley called "holy conferencing", prayerful discernment, and careful/prayerful study of God's Word. This is almost excruciatingly difficult work for people who have been trained to be consumers and see church as existing to meet their narrow needs. They must be transformed by God's Spirit. People must be taught how to relinquish their ego and the church has, of all places in our culture, the resources to make this happen.
3) An outward focus. It has been my experience that many churches are quite content with who they currently have in their churches. This comfort with the current situation transforms a church from an ekklesia to a civic group. What many Christians fail to realize is that successful outreach breeds successful "inreach". The church is designed to be constantly going "out", to be constantly seeking people who are in need of God's grace (in other words, everybody).
4) A shared vision. It's nigh on impossible to have a successful church that has competing visions concerning what the church is "about". Of course, there will be some who are called to missions, some to care for the sick, some to worship planning, etc. I'm not talking about the diffusion of gifts among the Body. I'm talking about agreement on what we're here for. Missions is a particular manifestation of that, as is intentional discipleship, or care for the sick and dying, on and on. A major problem is that people often confuse particular manifestations of a vision for the vision itself. If the vision is "to make disciples and transform the world", this would be accomplished by various means using the multitude of gifts within a congregation.
I'm running out of steam…perhaps more later this week…the peace of Christ be with you.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A Few Thoughts About Christian Freedom
The following is from a homily given by Rowan Williams at the Holy Spirit in the World Conference at St. Mellitus College in England back in May (found the link through the terrific Faith and Theology blog). Here's the link to the audio page: http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/holy-spirit-in-the-world-today-conference-talks/
"True freedom is freedom for a full humanity…"
"Full humanity is Christ-shaped…"
"And so freedom is kenotic. Freedom for self-emptying…"
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself…" - Philippians 2:5-7a
"Full humanity is not a humanity that which is blithely or blandly in control, but a humanity that is overwhelmed by the energy of giving, with all the recklessness and risk that entails."
It is counter-intuitive, this Christian discipleship thing. It is truly, as Paul says, strength in weakness. I'm finding that being a Christian means, in one respect, that you are free to be wrong. You are free to need forgiveness - from God and from other people. You are freed from the improper demands of a human holiness and are given, instead, a holiness that comes from God, a righteousness not of our own or of our own making, but that is freely conferred/given/transferred/imputed to us as a gift of God's grace. What a liberating Word of grace! And I understand fully the importance of the word that is used when talking about this righteousness that is given to people by God. The main point here is the gifted nature of our existence as Christians (and simply as people, for that matter).
I think about my faith and my life in Christ in this way and I feel the passion and excitement that has come and gone in my time as a disciple. Like Eugene Peterson said, it is a long obedience in the same direction. Some days, the flame flickers and burns low. Some days (very rare, but it does happen), the flame seems to be extinguished. Most days, the flame of my faith burns at a steady, good rate. There are those days when the fire is fed and the flame rises and I feel inspired. This sermon, actually about 5 minutes of the middle part, put fuel in the fire.
Would that all people could feel the refreshment of the Spirit, the freedom in Christ to give, to be kind, to be generous, to be forgiving. Would that people could be liberated from insisting upon their own way, freed from having to always be right, always be in control. Freed from insistence upon their own way. Freed from the selfish desire that everyone see the world and experience God the way they do.
Jesus frees us to be wrong, to be forgiven. Jesus also frees us to not always have to be right. Jesus frees us from pride, from the anger that threatens us when someone disagrees with us. Jesus frees us from harmful anger. We Americans are, by and large, an angry people. And many Christians have anger as their primary motivation. And it is not healthy or sustainable. There are indeed many things to be angry about - injustice, oppression, inequality, greed, moral degradation - the list could go on. But, as a Christian, am I not defined nor ultimately motivated by my anger. I am motivated by the Spirit of God which is always already at work for reconciliation and peace in our world. Jesus is freeing me from an angry absorption in the outrage de jour. Jesus is freeing me to forgive and to be forgiven. To love and to be loved. Free me, Lord, from a mean spirit. Fill me with Your Spirit. Amen.
"True freedom is freedom for a full humanity…"
"Full humanity is Christ-shaped…"
"And so freedom is kenotic. Freedom for self-emptying…"
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself…" - Philippians 2:5-7a
"Full humanity is not a humanity that which is blithely or blandly in control, but a humanity that is overwhelmed by the energy of giving, with all the recklessness and risk that entails."
It is counter-intuitive, this Christian discipleship thing. It is truly, as Paul says, strength in weakness. I'm finding that being a Christian means, in one respect, that you are free to be wrong. You are free to need forgiveness - from God and from other people. You are freed from the improper demands of a human holiness and are given, instead, a holiness that comes from God, a righteousness not of our own or of our own making, but that is freely conferred/given/transferred/imputed to us as a gift of God's grace. What a liberating Word of grace! And I understand fully the importance of the word that is used when talking about this righteousness that is given to people by God. The main point here is the gifted nature of our existence as Christians (and simply as people, for that matter).
I think about my faith and my life in Christ in this way and I feel the passion and excitement that has come and gone in my time as a disciple. Like Eugene Peterson said, it is a long obedience in the same direction. Some days, the flame flickers and burns low. Some days (very rare, but it does happen), the flame seems to be extinguished. Most days, the flame of my faith burns at a steady, good rate. There are those days when the fire is fed and the flame rises and I feel inspired. This sermon, actually about 5 minutes of the middle part, put fuel in the fire.
Would that all people could feel the refreshment of the Spirit, the freedom in Christ to give, to be kind, to be generous, to be forgiving. Would that people could be liberated from insisting upon their own way, freed from having to always be right, always be in control. Freed from insistence upon their own way. Freed from the selfish desire that everyone see the world and experience God the way they do.
Jesus frees us to be wrong, to be forgiven. Jesus also frees us to not always have to be right. Jesus frees us from pride, from the anger that threatens us when someone disagrees with us. Jesus frees us from harmful anger. We Americans are, by and large, an angry people. And many Christians have anger as their primary motivation. And it is not healthy or sustainable. There are indeed many things to be angry about - injustice, oppression, inequality, greed, moral degradation - the list could go on. But, as a Christian, am I not defined nor ultimately motivated by my anger. I am motivated by the Spirit of God which is always already at work for reconciliation and peace in our world. Jesus is freeing me from an angry absorption in the outrage de jour. Jesus is freeing me to forgive and to be forgiven. To love and to be loved. Free me, Lord, from a mean spirit. Fill me with Your Spirit. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)