Christ: On Being and Doing

2 Corinthians 5:18-19 (NRSV)

¹⁸ All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; ¹⁹ that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself,^d not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. ^[1]

                As our creator, God desires an intimate relationship with us.  But where God would desire intimacy, we have become estranged.  The work of Christ within this context is simply reconciliation.  It is in this light that these two verses, quoted above, from 2 Corinthians have become for me a creedal statement of Christology.  Who is Jesus?  The One through whom God is reconciling the world to himself.  And what does it mean to be a disciple of Jesus?  It means that we have been entrusted with the message of reconciliation.

                Historically, the Church has had an infatuation with Jesus ‘being’ as opposed God was ‘doing’ through Jesus.  The Chalcedon Formula and the Athanasian Creed are prime examples of this.  At times we have maintained that in order to answer the question of what God was ‘doing’ in Jesus, we of necessity had to come to understand Jesus being.  The importance that we gave to doctrinal formulations regarding the Trinity was elevated to the extent that the Athanasian Creed concludes with the statement “One cannot be saved without believing this firmly and faithfully.”
                My conviction is that our obsession with the ontological question of who Jesus is has distracted us from the more important question of the work God is doing in Christ, namely reconciling the world to himself.  Further, I would contend that we’ve stated more in our Trinitarian Doctrines than our human reason allows, and certainly more than one can conclude on the basis of scripture.
                So Jesus is referred to as “the Son of God” in the scriptures.  How would the evangelists or any contemporary of Jesus have understood such a phrase?  In the Hebrew Bible the phrase “Son of God” or “sons of God” and other such references occur with a variety of meanings.  The NRSV translates “sons of God” in numerous places as “heavenly beings”.  It is also a reference to Israel or Ephraim or Jacob.  In Psalm 2, the reference “you are my Son; today I have begotten you” is a reference to the Davidic King, and by extension the phrase “Son of God” becomes a Messianic title.  Elsewhere, “sons of God” carries the connotation much more similar to ‘children of God’ in contemporary usage.
                My point is that the question of ontology regarding Jesus being designated “Son of God” developed far beyond what would have been understood by the first disciples.  I also find myself wondering if our focus on the question of Jesus’ being has resulted in a distraction from the work of reconciliation that God is doing through Jesus.  To put it differently, if in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, have we in seeking to define Christ’s being, and by so doing, defining who are truly Christian, created the very estrangements that Christ’s reconciling work was meant to overcome?  God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself—how then has it happened that our proclamation of Christ has often been so divisive, and has not reflected the message of reconciliation that was entrusted to us?
              Finally, if God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, does anything else matter?

---

d  Or God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself

[1]  The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989

Intimacy and Estrangement

¹⁶ “For God so loved the world . . .”^[1]

²¹ As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us,^f . . .”^[2]
 “See, the home^a of God is among mortals.
He will dwell^b with them as their God;^c
they will be his peoples,^d
and God himself will be with them;^e
he will wipe every tear from their eyes.”^[3]

I continue to find the concept of “intimacy” as the most compelling description of what God is up to in the world.  It is a desire to be intimately related to this world that motivated God’s creative activity in the first place.  “It is not good that the man should be alone. . .”  Perhaps this is a statement that God makes based on God’s own experience.  Being alone, God and nothing else, was probably not too fulfilling for God.  And so God began this venture in Being, and more specifically, in Being in Relationship.  “Yes”, God proclaimed, “this is good stuff, very good indeed!”

Yet we must also deal honestly with the reality of sin that pervades this otherwise good creation.  If the purpose of creation is intimacy with God and others, the nature of sin is to be estranged.  Estranged from God.  Estranged from others. Estranged from self. And Estranged from the world in which we live.

I’ve written before about the two polarities of Being, namely that of differentiation and association.  Every entity that exists simultaneously is differentiated from the Other, and is placed in relationship to the other.  To use Buber’s terminology, intimacy is achieved in the I-Thou relationship, when two individual “Thou’s” are in a balanced and harmonious relationship with each other.  This encounter of the Other as a person, a Thou and not an It, is the basis of intimacy.  In this manner, true intimacy will always be a matter of faith, not knowledge, of relatedness, not experience, for the mystery of the Other must remain.  To reduce the other to an It, the mere object of our experience, is the way of estrangement not intimacy.

Estrangement begins with the Self.  Estrangement can take two paths.  First, estrangement is the consequence of an inflated sense of the Self.  The human quest to be as god, to be the center of existence, to be the Lord of all, subservient to none, is the basic sin of this inflated sense of self.  Estrangement follows.

However the converse is also true.  Namely, that a deflated sense of Self, “I am a worm, and not human”, losing a healthy sense of self and being subsumed into the Other, also brings with it estrangement.  Neither a pride filled arrogance, nor a shame based self-deprecation allow for intimacy with the Other.

Likewise, when relating to the Other, estrangement occurs when the scale tips in either direction.  Whether the Other in question is God, or neighbor, or the natural world in which we live, either an inflated or deflated sense of the Other destroys intimacy.  The God who is so Wholly Other as to cause terror, is not the God that Jesus intimately revealed to us as “Abba”.  But a God whose very existence is a matter of indifference to us, hardly can be a partner in an intimate relationship.  We likewise experience estrangement when the Other is another human being, but one who we see as either so above us, or below us, as to disallow the mutuality of intimacy.  And this planet on which we live can be perceived as an overwhelming place in which we are powerless and vulnerable in the face of the natural forces—Or it can be seen as a mere object for our exploitation.

In other words, the intimacy that God envisioned for this world is one of a harmonious balance.  It begins with the recognition that we are children of God.  We are limited, children not God, but with great potential, Children of God, created in God’s image.  We are creatures, not the Creator, but creatures of God, indeed.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S. Jn 3:16

^f Other ancient authorities read be one in us

^[2] The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S. Jn 17:20-21

^a Gk tabernacle

^b Gk tabernacle

^c Other ancient authorities lack as their God

^d Other ancient authorities read people

^e Other ancient authorities add and be their God

^[3] The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S. Re 21:3-4

Tov! Tov! Tov! Tov Meod!

Indeed, it is very good!  How can we read the Song of Creation in Genesis 1 without being moved by God’s unrestrained joy at the goodness of the creation?  And with God's shouts echoing throughout the cosmos “Tov! Tov! Tov!  Tov Meod!” [It is Good, Good, Good, Exceedingly Good!], how can we with integrity continue to focus so much on the fallenness of the creation?

First, a word about God as Creator.  God the Father, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, did not retire 5,772 years ago.  Quite to the contrary, God’s creative work is an ever present reality.  God is not just the First Cause who in antiquity, at the beginning of time, set things in motion and then retired to a beach somewhere in the South Pacific.  The Psalmist is quite correct in declaring that “It was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.”  And also “I am fearfully and wonderfully made.  Wonderful are your works; that I know very well.”  [Psalm 139: 13-14, NRSV)

The more I learn about the creation of a human being within its mother’s womb, the more I marvel at the goodness of God’s creation.  Imagine, from one fertilized ovum, the explosions of cells dividing and redividing.  At maturity, trillions of cells make up the human body.  We begin with stem cells, as yet generic in nature, and then the process of differentiation and association unfolds.  Brain cells, bone cells, skin cells, muscle cells, cells that form the circulatory system, the digestive system, the nervous system, each emerging in their distinctive form.  Not only do these cells differentiate but they associate, aligning themselves in this incredible matrix of relationships that is life.  And then, in that right moment, through the birth canal the baby travels to awaken to the light of life, and to breathe the first breath of life.

Tov! Tov! Tov! Tov Meod!  This is the shout of joy shared by parents at that moment.  It is the shout of joy of the Creator that continually echoes throughout the universe.

The doctrine of original sin has numerous weaknesses.  First, it tends to restrict God’s splendid and “good” creative work to the beginning of time, and then asserts that because of the Fall, all subsequent occasions for the birth of new life are corrupted, possessing an “innate disease” and are condemned  “to God’s eternal wrath”^[1].  To reject this, the Augsburg Confession says is “insulting [to] the suffering and merit of Christ.”

However, if rejecting the doctrine of original sin is insulting to the suffering and merit of Christ, affirming the doctrine of original sin is equally or even more insulting to the work and word of the Creator who declares that it is good, very good!

To put it differently, as the father of four children, I can view their life in two ways.  First, that their birth is merely the result of the biological processes that have been running in an independent manner since the beginning of time.  Or, I can view each one of them as a creature of God, holy and precious.  If their birth is merely the result of a long line of cause and effects dating back to eternity, it is easy to postulate that something ‘went wrong’.  However, to hold the newborn infant in your arms and to see in them the marvelous work of the creator, is to recognize the inherent goodness of life and the image of God in them.

For Lutherans, I believe that the corrective for an over emphasis on original sin lies in the “simul” that is so central to our theological framework.  Just as we affirm the “simul justus et peccator”, simultaneously saint and sinner, so also I believe that we need to hold in tension the goodness of creation with its need for redemption.  Simultaneously Good, yet incomplete.

To use my fatherhood experience as an example, at the birth of Katie, Dieter, Jens, and Brita there was both an awareness of the fundamental goodness of this new life, held in my arms, and yet also an anticipation of all that was yet to come as their lives unfolded.  Without denying the goodness of what God had created, I was also aware of the capacity for both good and evil as their lives unfolded.  So it is with God, who can look at all that has been created and declare unequivocally “It is very good” and yet also anticipate the challenges that will lie ahead for this new creature.  But, the capacity for evil does not negate the inherent goodness of God’s creation.  “Tov! Tov! Tov! Tov Meod!” still rings loud and clear throughout the universe.

---

^[1]Kolb, Robert ; Wengert, Timothy J. ; Arand, Charles P.: The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000, S. 38

Sin is not an STD

For some, the title to this article might sound to be a radical departure from Christian theology.  For others it might seem a statement so obvious it’s hardly worth stating.  What continually amazes me is how much has been invested in this line of thinking over the centuries.  Jesus had to be born of a virgin so as not be infected with the fallen condition of humanity.  And that further, Mary, Mother of our Lord, must have been conceived “immaculately”, so as not to infect Christ within her womb.  Of all the Christian Doctrines, I believe that the doctrine of original sin is one that we struggle the most to communicate in the context of a contemporary world view.  That little baby just doesn’t appear to be representative of “total depravity” and deserving of nothing but eternal damnation.

“You want some food for thought concerning original Sin?  We cannot perceive the world except through our own eyes, meaning that our world view will always be self-centered, and our actions so disposed.”  This is a paraphrase of a comment that Dr. Roy Harrisville made in one of my seminary classes.  It deserves some thoughtful consideration.

About twenty years ago, Lutheran Community Services conducted a parenting class in my congregation.  I will always remember the observation they shared.  “The work of adolescence is differentiation.  Many parents see this as ‘rebellion’, but in truth, every adolescent must differentiate themselves from their parents in order to prepare to enter into adulthood.”

Martin Buber writes in “I and Thou”, (pg 112):

“Egos appear by setting themselves apart from other egos.
Persons appear by entering into relation to other persons.
One is the spiritual form of natural differentiation, the other that of natural association.
          The purpose of setting oneself apart is to experience and use, and the purpose of that is ‘living’—which means dying one human life long.
          The purpose of relation is the relation itself—touching the You.  For as soon as we touch a You, we are touched by a breath of eternal life.

This is the cycle of not only human relationships, but of the entirety of creation.  Differentiation and Association.  Each entity, whether it be the celestial bodies, or developing fetus within a mother’s womb, the galaxies and solar systems, the emerging cells within each living thing, are continually and simultaneously in this process of differentiation and association.

It is for the sake of Love that God created the world.  And God’s ultimate purpose is loving intimacy with all of creation, and with each individual person.  But intimacy with an Other, requires both differentiation and association.  In other words, we had to first be able to say “No!”, in an adolescent like rebellion in order that we could then say “Yes!” to the invitation to loving intimacy with God.  God had unity prior to the creation of the world.  All that was, was God.  But in creating the Other, God sacrificed unity for the sake of intimacy.  Differentiation of our wills from God’s may well be seen as an act of defiance, and often it is exactly that.  But in that God’s ultimate purpose is an intimate loving relationship with each of us and all of creation, it is also a necessary precondition for our being able to associate with God, in love.

On Icons and Idols

“The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him (Moses) there, and proclaimed the name, “The Lord”.  (Ex 34:5, NRSV)

There is something about the reverent awe with which Judaism treated the name of God that I find lacking in our world today.  A name so holy that God, and God only, can pronounce it.  There is a mystery surrounding God’s identity and being that remains wholly Other to us.  God is beyond the realm of our experience.  Our language is incapable of capturing God’s being.  We have no words or thoughts with the capacity to accurately speak about God.  What we are capable of is speaking to God.  God has gifted us with the ability to lift our voices in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. 

Martin Buber speaks of this in “I and Thou”, a book that has shaped my life since my first reading of it many decades ago.  “The world as experience belongs to the basic word I-It.  The basic word I-You establishes the world of relation.”  (Buber p.56)

“Men have addressed their eternal You by many names.  When they sang of what they had thus named, they still meant You:  the first myths were hymns of praise.  Then the names entered into the It-language; men felt impelled more and more to think of and to talk about their eternal You as an It.  But all names of God remain hallowed—because they have been used not only to speak of God but also to speak to him.”  (Buber p. 123)

When we seek to speak about God our words, and the thoughts and symbols they convey, will function in one of two ways.  They may rightly function as icons, images that by their very nature are unreal, but which point beyond themselves to the reality of the Divine Mystery that is God.  Icons, for this reason, are traditionally painted in two dimensions, so as to avoid the appearance of reality.  They are windows through which one looks to the reality beyond that will always be clothed in mystery.

Our words and the thoughts and symbols they convey may also become idolatrous.  Here am I going to be very cautious.  Consider the Creeds of our Church, the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed.  The Book of Concord, the Confessions of the Lutheran Church, speak of these creeds as the “Three Chief Symbols”.  The Orthodox Church refers to the Nicene Creed as the Icon/Symbol of our faith.  Used correctly as icons, these creeds and the doctrine of the Trinity they seek to definitively state, point beyond the words and the concepts that originate with us, to the mystery of God’s actual being that lies outside of our ability to experience, comprehend and grasp.

The Creeds become Idols when we worship the god that we have created with our own thoughts, concepts, and formulations.  This god, created by us, is an It, to use Buber’s terminology.  It is an idol.  This is the “Golden Calf” of the Christian Church.  The Israelites fabricated the calf at the foot of Mount Sinai.  It was a god they could see, while the Living God was hidden in mystery on the top of the mountain.  Likewise, the Christian Church, having encountered this Living God in the person of Jesus and in the Spirit present in the community, created an Idol.   We cannot define the essence and being of the eternal “You”, the Living God, with our finite words and concepts.  We can only point beyond to the mystery of God’s being that we encounter in relationship.  And yet, we have sought to define God’s very Being.

That the concept of the Trinity has become an idol for us is evident whenever we would differentiate between the god we worship, and the God that has chosen to enter into relationship with all creation, and specifically many peoples.  “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac (might we add, the God of Ishmael), and the God of Jacob.”  The Jews do not worship a Triune God, nor do the Moslems.  Yet both worship together with us the God “of Abraham”.  When our doctrinal statements trump God’s own self disclosure, then they have become idols.

As a Christian, my point here is not to deny the doctrine of the Trinity as defined in the Creeds and in Christian theology over the centuries.  What I do believe is that we have stated more than we are capable of, and in so doing, have created an idol.  I believe that when we moved from speaking to God, and speaking of the God who has encountered us in relationship, to speaking about God and seeking to define the very essence of God’s own being, then the object of our efforts ceased to be God at all.  God is always beyond our words and definitions.

However, when the symbols, when the scriptures themselves, point beyond themselves to the hidden God, the God clothed in mystery and divine glory, then once again it is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, and Jacob we encounter.

It is not doctrinal clarity about the essence of God’s being that is needed.  That is beyond us.  We cannot capture God in this way.  What is needed in our world is a greater sense of reverent awe as we encounter the God so clothed in mystery.  And, as humans, would that we be filled with such humility that we might stand before this God, as Moses did, silently, recognizing that God, and God only, can pronounce “the Name”, and so disclose himself to us.

Confessions of a Confessional Lutheran

“I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, educated strictly according to our ancestral law, being zealous for God, just as all of you are today^[1]”   [Acts 22:3, NRSV]

I could paraphrase this:  “I am a Confessional Lutheran, born in a pastor’s household, brought up in the Lutheran Churches, studied at the feet of Nestingen, educated strictly according to the Book of Concord, being committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, just as all of you are.”  I could add to this that as Nestingen’s teaching assistant I tested my classmates on their memorization of the Small Catechism and the Augsburg Confession.  And for twenty three years now I have been preaching and teaching each on a regular basis.

Now for my confession:  As the years have gone by I have found that the traditional language of Law and Gospel, so firmly rooted in our tradition, mandated by our constitutions, and the very framework of the Confessions that define Lutheranism – no longer are persuasive to me.  My fundamental problem is that though we hold firm to Paul and Luther’s understandings that we are justified by faith, apart from works prescribed by the law, we have nevertheless retained a fundamentally legalistic world view.  Rather than come to a new understanding of the Gospel that has nothing to do with “the Law”, “the Law” remains fundamentally determinative for our relationship with God.  The Gospel has been added, yes.  It is seen as the cure demanded by the Law.  But the Law remains.

We have a “cure” for the condemnation that the Law exacts, and so we will continue to “wound with the Law” that we may “cure with the Gospel”.  What if that wasn’t what God ever intended?  What if the reason God sent Jesus was not to first beat us up, convicting us of our sins, so that then he could forgive us?  What if it was simply about a loving God reaching out to those that God loves, seeking nothing more, but also nothing less, than an intimate relationship with us all? 

If St. Augustine could begin his “Confessions” with the line “You have made us for yourself, and our heart is restless until it rests in you”, the thought of Intimacy with God is clearly not some new and novel thinking.  Loving intimacy is not a concept that can be defined legally.  If we read scripture from the standpoint of a theology of intimacy what we find is that this theme is clearly present throughout the biblical witness.  But if we develop our understanding of God’s relationship with the world as being defined by a quest for intimacy, we will end up with a much different world view than when we begin from the starting point of law and obedience.

Previously, I have written about my concerns that we no longer share a world view that centers on a cosmic battle between the forces of Good and Evil.  I also have shared that I do not believe that it is all about “playing by the rules”.  The polarity that I am suggesting truly reflects the world in which we live, is a polarity of “intimacy” versus “estrangement”.  It is purely for love that God has created us.  And the only thing God desires of us, is that we love even as God has first loved us.  This is not radical language.   It is at the very heart of the biblical witness.  But love and intimacy can never be defined by the Law.  Hence, I find myself compelled to reexamine our traditional teachings that presuppose the Law as the fundamental framework of our relationship to God.

---

^[1] The Holy Bible : New Revised Standard Version. Nashville : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989, S. Ac 22:3

On Repentance and Responsibility

 As I write, the Congress of the United States is debating the debt ceiling and the variety of proposals on the table to respond to what is a growing matter of concern.  While thoughts about this might seem misplaced in this article, there are two themes that are central matters of our faith and which I believe come to bear on the current situation facing our country.  They are “repentance” and “responsibility”.

Why are we burdened with such a tremendous national debt?  Many will point their fingers at Washington and the politicians serving there and heap all sorts of blame on them.  But, to be truthful, we must look first at ourselves.  Who is it that desires all of those services that our government provides?  And who is it that continually desires to see our taxes lowered even while continuing to receive these services?  The answer is you and me.  We are the ones who continually want to pay lower taxes while being unwilling to see any of the government funding for our favorite projects and programs decreased.  Politicians, finally, follow our lead.  We are responsible for this fiscal crisis that our government faces.  Until we as a people realize that, and repent of our ‘sins’, namely wanting something for nothing and passing the cost on to future generations, we will continue to reap what we sow.

Instead, I would suggest that we need to learn to live with a spirit of gratitude, and yes, responsibility.  Jake worked his whole life running a bull dozer building roads for the logging industry.  “Pastor,” he said, “I cannot understand people who complain about paying taxes.  I’ve had years when I haven’t had to pay any taxes, and years that I’ve paid tens of thousands of dollars in taxes.  You know, those years when I had to pay a lot of taxes were much better years.”  Jake was also thankful for Social Security upon retirement, for Medicare, for roads, for parks (especially boat launches, he was a fisherman), for the schools, and for a free and secure country in which to live.

We have been blessed by God to live in such a great country.  But that same God also said “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  Our country achieved greatness not because of a few brilliant leaders, or because of ‘getting something for nothing’, but because our citizens took responsibility for the challenges that faced us and sacrificed to overcome them.  It’s time once again for us to rise up to the challenge, to admit our failures, and to take responsibility for our future.

[Bonner County Daily Bee – July 22, 2011]

"Play by the Rules!"

My oldest son is an avid golfer.  From the time he first picked up a club in grade school he had a natural swing, and loved the game.  When we moved to Idaho, Dieter would spend as much time as possible out at Hidden Lakes golf course.  He was on the high school golf team, the golf pros at the club knew him, and were more than willing to pair him up with other players whenever he asked.  On one such day he was playing with another gentleman, apparently a quite serious golfer.  On one of the early holes, it being just a practice round for him, Dieter ‘took a gimme’.  When his back handed tap in missed, the other player was adamant that there were no “gimmes”, it didn’t count until he actually sank the putt, so finish out.  “Play by the rules!”

Dieter was pissed off by the gentleman’s rather uncompromising, anal attitude toward the rules, especially as it was only a casual practice round for him.  “Ok, if we’re going to play serious, then we’ll play serious!”  The next hole was a par three and Dieter proceeded to hit a hole in one.  On the eighteenth hole, his third shot was from about 125 to 135 yards out, and again, he knocked it in for an eagle.  After Dieter had left, the golf pro reported that this gentleman had walked into the clubhouse stunned, and asked “Who in the hell was that guy you paired me up with?”  For the next few times I played with Dieter, the clubhouse would announce our tee time with “Next up on the tee, Tiger Woods and his dad.”

The moral of this story is that if you are going to be anal about the rules, you may just end up getting your butt kicked.

I am amazed that within the Lutheran Church, after 5 centuries of continually preaching that we are “justified by grace apart from works prescribed by the law” (Romans 3:28), that many if not most of our people still are preoccupied with ‘playing by the rules’.  The USGA (United States Golf Association) web site states:  “Learn and play by the rules for maximum enjoyment of the game. We’re here to help.”  For many Christians, a slight variation of this could serve as the mission statement of the Church:  “Learn and play by the rules for maximum enjoyment of life. We’re here to help.”

Certainly, within the scriptural and doctrinal history of the Church there is ample reason for the preoccupation with rules.  A recurrent theme throughout the scripture is “obey and live, disobey and die”.  Sin and righteousness are often the defining categories of our spirituality and doctrines, and obedience or disobedience are our only choices in life.  The “Law and Gospel” is how Lutherans understand God’s Word.

Is this the operative world view for most Christians?  That God created the game of life, established the rules of living, and now stands as the judge and jury, ready to condemn or reward each according to the way they played the game?  For many people the answer is a straight forward “Yes.”  Even when we add to this picture a means of forgiveness and redemption, with the special rules governing how we may be forgiven or redeemed, it still remains the same game of playing by the rules.  However, if we are honest, the “rules” we live by are strange.

Imagine, for example, that the rules of golf were binding on all players, with one exception.  If you are a member of the USGA, any penalties imposed by the rules will be forgiven, and everyone may turn in his/her scorecard recording not their actual score, but the best score possible.  “What was your score today, Honey?”  “18”  “How can that be?”  “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.”

Although many would maintain that the Bible is a ‘book of rules’, God’s Word according to which we must live in obedience—no one actually is willing to obey everything in the Bible.  The most people are willing to do is selectively obey those portions of scripture that they find acceptable.  This is a conversation I have had on numerous occasions with those who profess a literal belief in the scripture’s inerrancy.  My favorite passage in scripture to ask them about is Deuteronomy 22:28-29:  “If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives.” (NRSV)  Not once has anyone ever suggested that such a Biblical mandate should be obeyed.  We may like the principle of the Bible as a book of Laws, but we don’t care much for the application.

An even more difficult aspect of viewing the world through the lens of obedience and disobedience, of seeing the scripture as a book of rules, is that “if you are going to be anal about the rules, you may just end up getting your butt kicked”, to recall the moral of the above story.  More specifically, as our tradition states emphatically, if we’re going to start counting offenses everyone stands condemned.

When our proclamation is based on this legalistic understanding of life, we also come face to face with our own hypocrisy.  Many outside of the Church see this as one of their major objections.  We proclaim a message of obedience to the will of God, and yet none of us obey.  Another problem for evangelism and proclamation is that the credibility of our witness in the world is not good.  How many people outside of the Church turn to the Church for moral guidance and insight into how we shall live?  Very few, I’d guess.

The difference between the USGA and the Church is this:  The USGA’s authority regarding the game of golf continues to be normative for the sport.  The Church’s authority has become highly suspect regarding the game of life.  What is clear to me is that in today’s context the question “What should we do?” is not very often the dominant question on people’s spiritual quests.  Even within the religious community I am struck by how seldom people seek the guidance of the Church on this question.

In a post on my blog Eugene A. Koene said “I would suggest that a question, if not THE question, for people today is, "What does it really mean to be human?".  I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.  And what I am suggesting is that “playing by the rules”, is not, finally, what it means to be human.  Which is why when the Church becomes preoccupied with the Law, it rarely speaks to the yearnings of the human heart.

The Drama of Life

Life is a drama.  It is an unfolding story of conflict and resolution.  Our defining world view is determined in large part by how we interpret the drama of life and the opposing forces at play in the world.  Our world view will shape how we interpret global events, politics, and the drama underlying our religious convictions.

One of my memories growing up in the sixties was of the bomb shelter sign over the door of my school and the constant reminder of the defining conflict of our world at that time.  We were raised amid the drama of the Cold War, where freedom, capitalism, and all that was good in life were pitted against communism, oppression, and all the evil that lurked behind the Iron Curtain.  The Christian nation of the United States stood in firm opposition to the godless atheists of the Soviet Union.  This drama defined us.  When Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as the Evil Empire his words reflected not only a political viewpoint, but a religious world view.  In this world view, the drama of life is the ongoing conflict between the forces of good and evil.

Such a view is not new, it is only that with each generation we redefine those forces of good and evil to reflect our contemporary perspective.  The Book of Revelation clearly understands this drama as being played out between the community of the faithful and the powers and principalities of this world, namely, the Roman Empire.  It is a drama between the Church and the State, with the latter finally being destroyed by the Lamb.  Likewise, Martin Luther reflected this world view as he wrote the great hymn “A Mighty Fortress”.  Today, the battle has been redefined in our world view as a conflict between Christianity and Muslim terrorists, if not Islam as a whole (depending on who you are talking to and how honest they are being).  Regardless how this conflict is defined by a given generation and culture, this world view will produce a deep yearning within the human heart for the “champion (who) comes to fight, whom God himself elected”.  Who will destroy the powers of Evil in the world?  Jesus is the answer.

One of the problems with this world view and our mission to be evangelists is that few of the unchurched see the world as a cosmic battleground between the forces of Good and Evil.  And more pertinent still, is that many would understand religious fanaticism of any shape or variety as having caused more evil than just about anything else.  For some outside of the Church, religion will never be able to save the world from evil, precisely because religion itself has caused so much evil.  For those holding this world view the real conflict is between religious fanaticism and a reasonable, secular, and just world view.

Another historical understanding about the drama of life centers around “insiders and outsiders”.  How that has been defined in any age varies:  Jew and Gentile, Greco-Roman and Barbarian, Christian and Pagan, civilized and savage, etc.  When this becomes our dominant world view a variety of responses emerge.  The first is that of being ‘set apart’.  The Jewish experience of setting themselves apart from the world around them is a classic example.  The Jewish faith was not about conquest or conversion.  It was about maintaining internal integrity over and against the world.  Others such as the Greco-Roman/Barbarian were more about conquest and integration.  Christianity focused on conversion of the pagan.  And of course, the operating assumption of civilization is that it should be spread.

Often these lines become blurred.  I remember in my childhood watching slide presentations of missionaries who had been serving in places like Africa.  What was most striking is how the natives were dressed in traditional African clothes, and then those who had converted to Christianity were wearing western clothing.  Evangelizing and civilization, or more specifically, the spread of Western Civilization, were often indistinguishable.

By definition, any world view built around the notion of insider and outsider is egocentric.  My theme is this blog is to explore the questions that define our faith journey, and to specifically look at the questions that are part of our larger contemporary culture, and specifically on the hearts and minds of the unchurched.  If our operative world view is that of insiders and outsiders, those on the inside will almost always devalue the experience of those outside.  Either we separate ourselves, or engage in some form of conquest and conversion, bringing the outsider in.  But rather than seeing the experience of the outsider, and the yearnings within their heart and existence as having value, this view seeks primarily to create a new world view that conforms to the view of those on the inside.  If the world no longer asks the questions of faith that we are prepared to answer, that’s their problem.  We need to teach them the truth so they know the appropriate questions to ask.

It also should be acknowledged that when we view the world through the lens of insider and outsider, the role of ‘gatekeeper’ becomes very pronounced.  If the integration of the ‘outsider’ into the inner circle is the goal, most often this is a selective process.  It is the nature of insiders to be protective about who they allow to become part of the group.

Finally, a major theme in the drama of life is played out in the arena of the “haves” and “have nots”.  This is a social, political, economic, and religious dynamic that has no doubt been part of the human experience since the beginning of time.  This struggle between the haves and have nots has fueled the flames of everything from the prophetic zeal of Old Testament prophets to the Marxist critique of capitalism.  The disparity between the rich and the poor has always and will always be a driving force in the conflicts on the world stage.  It fuels the partisanship present in our politics.  And if we are honest, it is one of the most powerful driving forces in all of our lives.  Those who have strive to keep, those who have not strive to obtain.  In this drama Jesus as Savior may be seen as the key to the good and abundant life, or the prophetic voice calling for justice, equality, and God’s compassion for the poor.  Some will take comfort in the prosperity of the elect.  Others will hear the voices of the prophets, “Woe to you who are at ease in Zion!”

“Jesus is the Answer!”  What is the question? 

“Who will destroy the powers of Evil?”

“Who will gather all people from the four corners of the earth into the Kingdom?”

“Who will offer to us the abundant life in which all things are held in common, and each receives from the Lord’s hand according to one’s need?”

The questions we ask, and the questions that all people ask, are deeply shaped by our world view.  How does the drama of life play out on the global stage?  
 

What is the dominant social/political view of the drama of life in our country today?  Is it still the primary conflict between Good and Evil that shaped our national psyche during the Cold War, only now the Soviet Union has been displaced by terrorists and the Muslim world?  Is it all about insiders and outsiders (think about the border fence to the south)?  Or is it about protecting our status as the wealthiest and most prosperous nation?  And how does that world view shape our proclamation?

Most importantly, if our world view shapes the questions we ask and the message we proclaim, how can God’s world view transform who we are?

QUESTions: A Journey in Faith

During my years at Pacific Lutheran University, there was a church located just off I-5 at the 38th Street exit.  Towering above the church was a large sign, illuminated at night with vintage neon, and declaring JESUS IS THE ANSWER!  Some of my college classmates and I used to entertain ourselves in speculating just what the question was.  A little creativity, some cynicism, mixed with a dose of impious humor resulted in quite a few possible questions.

On a more serious note, as I contemplate the challenge before the Church in the 21st Century, I am more and more convinced that prior to our being able to declare that "Jesus is the Answer" we have to begin by listening to the world in which we live and discern just what the questions are that lurk deep within the human heart.  The proclamation of the Gospel cannot be dependent upon our first convincing the world that their questions, the questions of this generation, are NOT the appropriate questions to be asked.  No, people should be asking yesterday's questions.  Why????  Because we have had ample time to formulate answers, confessional statements, and doctrines gallor centering around the questions of a bygone era.  We are not so sure that we have the answers to today's questions, so please, world, don't ask them!

One example of this that got me thinking was stimulated by an observation that my former Brother-in-Law Mark made.  Mark is a Japanese American who grew up in Hawaii, and whose familial background included both a smattering of Christian and Budhist inclinations.  Mark related how he had been sent to Sunday School as part of his upbringing, and had seriously considered adopting Christianity as his faith.  However, there was one thing he could not get over.  "Before they would let me become a Christian, they insisted that I needed to be a sinner.  That didn't make sense."  And so Mark declined the offer.  That for me is a prime example of how we continue to insist that the questions of a bygone era are the only relevant questions for today.  "Jesus is the Answer!"  The question is "Who will save us from our sinful nature and the consequence of our sins?"  Oh, wait.  That is not the first question that comes to mind for the typical person on the street today.  That is a question that we have to learn to ask.  That is a question we are taught.  And so if you are a fully indoctrinated Christian, maybe that question makes sense.  But if you aren't, it is not likely the question that will motivate your quest for faith and meaning in this life.

I recently preached a sermon in which I shared that I did not believe that every human being deserved eternal damnation and torturous punishment, nor did I believe that God created the vast majority of humanity simply to condemn all but a select few to hell.  These are theological convictions rooted in the Middle Ages and which have shaped our religious consciousness ever since.  But again, for those outside of the Church the questions that are raging within their souls do not, in my experience, center around the wrath of God, hell, and escaping from the punishment that we truly deserve.  And to suggest that an innocent man could die in the place of the guilty, and so fullfill all of the demands of perfect and divine justice, simply no longer rings true.  We are seeking to answer questions that are not being asked.  That is a definition of irrelevance.  And yet I never cease to be amazed at how we cling to these old answers, and insist that the old questions are the 'real' questions.  We have studied.  We've learned the questions and the answers.  We are not prepared to venture into the whole arena of contemporary relevance because our well rehearsed answers to preprogrammed questions just don't work in the real world.

Perhaps the reason why the Church has ceased to be relevant for the majority of people in the Western World has to do with the fact that those outside of the Church have understood long before those of us inside the Church, that the questions have changed.  And the answers we've been giving are not speaking to the heart of the matter.

What are the questions that drive the worldwide dialogue today?  What is the drama at the center of a contemporary world view?  What are the polarities that drive the dynamic struggles of today?  These are the questions that I will be exploring on this blog.  Welcome to the Journey.