Skip to content

Category Archives for Spiritual stuff

On attending church

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

“But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

“I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.” – Luke 18:9-14

On my way to church this morning, I was contemplating my sinfulness, and contemplating how I seem to do this regularly as I drive to church.  It’s not intentional, I just can’t seem to avoid it.  It is an interesting phenomenon – by the time I’m half-way there (my drive is usually about 20 minutes), I have become aware of a number of my weaknesses, shortfalls, issues and, yes, sins.  I’m sure I’m not aware of all of them, but that would probably be too much for me to handle.

I’m not talking about dealing with guilt feelings; this is not a necessarily emotional experience.  No matter what state of mind I am in when I leave the house, by the time I arrive at the church, I am totally in touch with the fact that I am indeed a sinner, and that I depend wholly on grace.

Prior to the last few months, I don’t recall ever having this frame of mind while going to church.  In the past, if I thought about it at all, I went to church as a “saint saved by grace” rather than a “sinner saved by grace.”  I would walk in knowing everything was cool, I would groove to the worship, sit through the sermon, talk to friends and go home often not remembering what the sermon was about. In other words, I would leave as unaware as I went in, perhaps not that much unlike the Pharisee in the parable.

The Church as Creation of the Gospel

Over the last year or two, I have come to believe that the church does not exist as merely a gathering of the saints – a “King’s kids” family reunion, as it were.  The Church is truly created by the Gospel:  It is first and foremost a gathering of sinners -  those who are “being saved” (1 Cor. 1:18).  We are attracted not by the music or the preaching or the aesthetics of the building but as sinners we are attracted by the Gospel; for without the centrality of the Cross the rest is without substance.

Without an awareness of my need for grace, the proclamation by the Priest that

“Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you all your sins
through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen you in all
goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you
in eternal life” (Book of Common Prayer)

or its equivalent would not have any meaning, and neither would the Eucharist (communion).

So, this was what I was thinking about as I drove to church this morning.  Whether my recent Sunday morning sin-awareness is a gift from God, an attack from Satan or perhaps due to the fact I am now knowledgeable about the liturgy, it serves the same purpose, to prepare me to worship.  Definitely counter-intuitive.

Today’s sermon

Perhaps not coincidentally, the sermon (based on 2 Samuel 11, the David & Bathsheba incident) was about sin and the Gospel; specifically, our need for a personal awareness of our sinfulness.  It was the first sermon I’ve taken notes on in years.  Here are some of the key quotes:

  • The Gospel is never about someone else; the Gospel is always about you (me). Yes, it’s about God, but what he meant was that a non-personal Gospel is no gospel at all.
  • David’s admission, “I have sinned before God” is full of hope, because it is full of God. Again, awareness of our sin brings hope for forgiveness. Without a personal awareness of our sin, the Gospel doesn’t become personal, either.  An intellectual awareness that “all have sinned” does us no good.
  • Sin doesn’t take much imagination. No one’s sin is all that interesting- there’s nothing new under the sun. However, forgiveness – God’s mercy – is new every morning. Whatever we think about our sin, it’s not all that exciting to God.  However, God is very creative in showing ways to forgive us and bring redemption. (Romans 5:20)

As I began this post, I was aware that a commentary on Luke 18 has the potential of putting me in the Pharisee’s role; conceivably even an awareness of sin can make oneself proud.  Hopefully I’ve avoided doing this.  I have just started meditating on this issue, so my thoughts are kind of random. However, this seems to fit in with Luther’s teaching on Law and Gospel, which very few non-Lutherans (or Lutherans, for that matter – seeing as I was raised Lutheran) understand, as well as his concept of  “simultaneously saint and sinner.”

All I know is, I’m very, very appreciative of the Gospel.

Written on 02 August 2009 by me under Church, Spiritual stuff, The Liturgy with 6 Comments
Tagged with , , , , ,

My Episcopal quandary

I find myself in the midst of a quandary.  I have, over the past several months, fallen in love with a church service.  Not a church, mind you, but the service.  As I’ve mentioned in the past, last December I started attending a local Episcopal church.  After being greatly disappointed with Lutheran (ELCA) services, I found the liturgy in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer to be quite good.

And, this church has awesome music, most of the time.  Besides traditional hymns, they will use current songs like “Shout to the Lord” or classics like “The Old Rugged Cross.” Even the sermons are good.  Being sacramentally-oriented anyway, I have become dependent upon the completeness of worship that the liturgy provides, especially celebrating the Lord’s Supper weekly.  During a fairly unsettled period in my life, church on Sunday morning is my one safe place, the eye in the middle of my often stormy life.

The problem is, the denomination has left the faith.  I can’t tell from a normal Sunday morning, but I know of the issues behind the scenes.

The LA Times reported today,

Leaders of the Episcopal Church, gathering in Anaheim for their first national convention in three years, reopened fractious debate this week over whether to authorize marriage rites for same-sex couples and to repeal a de facto ban on the consecration of gay bishops.

The issues have caused painful divisions in the 2.1-million-member denomination, which in recent years has seen dozens of parishes and four conservative dioceses, including one in Central California, break away. Last month, the dissidents formally launched a rival church.

Despite warnings about the consequences, liberal Episcopalians at the meeting are championing a flurry of resolutions to expand participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in church life, with votes expected in coming days. The conference, the church’s General Convention, runs through Friday.

This is actually nothing, compared to what is also going on.  The Anglican Church in North America, the newly-formed group referred to in the article, has published a booklet charging the Episcopal Church (TEC) with a number of heresies. While perhaps not specifically adopting heretical positions, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and other prominent leaders have made numerous heretical statements denying that Christ is the only way to salvation, denying the resurrection, denying Christ’s deity, and so on.  One priest is openly Muslim, and anther is a known Buddhist (I think they dd draw the line at Satanism, however).

TEC appears committed to being “all churches to all people,” becoming a nearly-universalist organization.  Furthermore, TEC has taken to filing lawsuits against many churches who have made the decision to leave TEC over these issues.  What is ironic is that it is TEC that has departed from the larger Anglican Communion.

So, that’s my quandary.  Now, I don’t know for sure where this church would stand in relation to these issues. The Priest in Charge (the Rectorship is currently open) appears to be fairly level-headed. He is, at least, a C.S. Lewis fan.  However, I know that there are many in the church that are Marcus Borg fans (I think Marcus has some interesting things to say, but he questions the factual nature of much in the Bible).

I do plan on calling the Priest in Charge and making an appointment to address these concerns. However, a part of me just wants to enjoy the liturgy, and ignore the rest.  That could work, at least until TEC decides to change the liturgy.

Written on 14 July 2009 by me under Church, Spiritual stuff, The Liturgy with 4 Comments
Tagged with , , ,

The down side of Christianity

Is it this place that makes me fall from you
Forget the words that once rang so true
Did we expect that life was ever fair, my god . . .
I sowed a field of rose and reaped a whipping rod
And everything I’ve held too tight inside
Could make a part of me die
And if my lips could only speak the name
The dam would break
- Glen Phillips, Dam Would Break

Doubt. Pain. Suffering. Loneliness. Failure. Despair. Disappointment.

This is not a list of demotivational posters, but rather “words that you should never say in church.” Or, at least that’s how it seems sometimes. Michael Spencer recently blogged:

The language of lament is not welcome in most contemporary Christianity. Evangelicals in particular must be held responsible for creating an atmosphere where a person in pain and loss cannot speak in the SAME LANGUAGE THE BIBLE USES (excuse the caps. Sorry.) without running the risk of controversy and heresy.
…
Ironically, Christians specialize in the language of glory and triumph, gullibly believing any report of miracles and healings must be true in order to prove that God is still doing what they’ve been told he should always do, but it is the experience and language of lament- disappointment and sorrow- that would tell honest unbelievers that we live in the same world as they do, yet still believe in God. Our proficiency in triumphalism backfires with the genuine souls who want to know if God is still there when he seems so absent.

While I do appreciate Kingdom theology, and believe that God is alive and well and that miracles still happen, the reality is that life is a struggle.  I mean, just look at Jesus – even he struggled. Read that Garden scene again.  David Hayward, one of my favorite cartoonists and bloggers, has addressed this issue of “happy Christianity” many times. One of my new favorites is here.

That’s not to say that everything Joel Osteen says is garbage; in fact, I find what he has to say about thinking positively and believing what God says very important, especially in dealing with the issue of suffering, doubt, and so on. You see, many of our problems are simply our own fault. Christians can be just as stupid as anyone else, and changing your attitude and approach to life can avoid many needless trials and tribulations. That, however, doesn’t mean that there aren’t real struggles to deal with.  People get sick, people die, bad things happen to good people (and good things happen to bad people). Life isn’t fair.  To paraphrase the old song, God never promised us a rose garden.  There’s a time to laugh, and a time to lament.

Paul says that creation is groaning in anticipation of redemption. So why should we be any different?

Written on 17 May 2008 by me under Random Thoughts, Spiritual stuff with No Comments

God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life

I find that I sometimes have issues with what Michael Spencer has to say over at internetmonk.com, but I do appreciate his willingness to think outside of his particular box. He comes from a Southern Baptist background, I believe, although he considers himself “post-evangelical.” As with all of us, it’s very difficult to completely shake off the grid we were raised in, so I think we would see the same thing still from very different viewpoints. But then, sometimes I find him very much right on.  In his post from yesterday, he makes some very good points concerning how many evangelicals approach evangelism, contrasted with how Jesus approached it:

I think it’s telling that the two most prolific evangelism programs in evangelicalism both approach their audience with questions that Jesus never used.

“Do you know that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life?”

“If you were to die tonight, and God were to asked you, why should I let you into my heaven, what would be your answer?”

He points out that Jesus merely proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven, which had very different connotations than our dangling Heaven on a stick (my terminology). Spencer continues:

Evangelicalism is a religion of decisions and transactions. Jesus proclaims the arrival of the reign of God. There are decisions to be made, but reducing the Gospel to a decision to accept “God’s plan for my life” or giving the right answer to the question of how to go to heaven seems to have moved well past what Jesus was doing in his earthly ministry.

He’s been reading NT Wright’s Surprised by Hope, which I think probably prompted the post, although the thinking is obviously his own. I don’t think what he says is necessarily new, but it bears repeating.

My own take

My own background, as my faithful readers know, is Lutheran. After being “evangelized” away from the Lutheran church in my early 20s, I have lived among the evangelicals for about 30 years, however I never really became one of them. I’ve adopted the term “Lutheran expatriate” for lack of any better description.

When I first found myself in college (actually, I didn’t really find myself until a few years later), I hung with various campus groups, including InterVarsity and Campus Crusade. I was terribly turned off by the CC bunch, who were bound and determined to get me to say their little prayer; no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t convince them that I was “saved.” I stopped going there after a couple of weeks, and did my best to avoid them after that. So, from that time on, the line “Did you know that God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life?” became somewhat of a joke for me.

While I appreciate the point Michael Spencer is making, I now have to say that I think the question is valid; not only that, but years later it became one of my basic messages. I think that it is absolutely true that God loves you and does indeed have a wonderful plan for your life. The problem is not in the question, it’s in the application.

God’s plan is not just to get you into Heaven (or saved from hell). Have you ever noticed that while Jesus definitely emphasized the spiritual kingdom rather than Earthly interpretations (as the Jews did), his plan was to get people into Life, not into Heaven. “The Kingdom of Heaven is within reach.” That didn’t mean that they’d all be dead soon, it meant that you could reach out and touch it; it was here, it was now, it was happening.

With Jesus’ death and resurrection, he didn’t just buy us tickets to Heaven; he began the re-creation of the world. Everything changed. The reality of the resurrection (for everyone) was one thing that became reality. The second was the “pouring out” of the Holy Spirit “upon all flesh.” It’s a brave new world. We don’t even realize it, but we can’t comprehend a world without the Holy Spirit (and I believe that applies to non-Christians as well). God’s plan is for us to step into the ongoing re-creation of everything, where “with God, all things are possible.”

Live the resurrection! God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

Written on 09 April 2008 by me under Spiritual stuff, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

The Resurrection problem

And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. … If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. - Paul, 1st Corinthians 15

Easter (at least the Western Easter) is this coming Sunday. Knowing that, I’ve been thinking about the resurrection of Jesus for a few days. Of course, I also happen to be reading NT Wright’s new book about resurrections and what happens after we die. Good timing, I guess.

The Resurrection, is of course where the whole defeat of Satan, evil and death happens. If Jesus had stayed dead, then Christianity never would have happened, the Disciples would have gone back to their day jobs, and some of us would be Jewish, and the rest would be heathens. That’s what Paul is really saying; if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, then we’re all fools, wasting our time believing in a future that ain’t there.

As NT Wright talks about in Surprised by Hope, until Jesus actually did it, no one expected the Messiah to resurrect before the one and only future resurrection of the dead. The theories about the disciples faking the resurrection are therefore ridiculous; they simply would never have dreamed that this was to happen.

The resurrection of Jesus changed everything. As Wright wrote a few years ago:

Christianity began as resurrection movement. As I have already remarked, there is no evidence for a form of early Christianity in which the resurrection was not a central belief, as it were, bolted on to Christianity at the edge. It was the central driving force, informing the whole movement. In particular, we can see woven into the earliest Christian theology we possess—that of Paul, of course—the belief that the resurrection had in principle occurred and that the followers of Jesus had to reorder their lives, their narratives, their symbols, and their praxis accordingly (see, classically, Rom. 6:3-11).

There are still many people who disbelieve the whole resurrection thing, as if it is beyond credulity. However, the historical case for the resurrection is quite good; in fact, noted atheist-turned-deist Anthony Flew has stated that he finds the evidence for the resurrection “compelling.” So much so, in fact, that he has asked NT Wright if he can join him for one of the stops on his “The Resurrection – Fantasy or Fact?” tour. Flew stated,

“I am very much impressed with Bishop Wright’s approach, which is absolutely fresh. He presents the case for Christianity as something new for the first time. This is enormously important, especially in the United Kingdom, where the Christian religion has virtually disappeared. It is absolutely wonderful, absolutely radical, and very powerful.”

Is it wrong to expect proof of the resurrection? I don’t think so; remember Thomas needing to see for himself. We tend to think of Thomas as having little faith, but recall that Jesus had already appeared to the others; they had their proof. Jesus never chastised Thomas, but obliged him as well.

We, of course, have not had that kind of advantage, but neither are we left with no proof; the historical testimony is “compelling,” even 2,000 years later.

The Resurrection of Jesus is not a problem, it is possibility. The possibility of the Resurrection is not that it is possible to have happened; it is what is now possible because it happened. The hope that we have as Christians is right here. And, it doesn’t matter if Easter used to be a pagan holiday, or if the correct anniversary should be some other day. It’s not the day that’s important, it’s the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, defeating death and opening up a whole new way to live.

Easter – the Resurrection – is something that we should celebrate and live every day.

Because He lives, I can face tomorrow.
Because He lives, All fear is gone.
Because I know He holds the future,
And life is worth the living just because He lives.
- Bill & Gloria Gaither

Written on 17 March 2008 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Spiritual stuff with 5 Comments

Webber: The Divine Embrace 1

The other evening I sat down to finish The Bourne Legacy (which I’ll be blogging on soon), but first started to page through the books I had just received from Amazon. I turned to Chapter 2 of Robert Webber’s The Divine Embrace, and was immediately hooked. Even though the hour was late – normally too late for serious reading – I just couldn’t put the book down. Jason Bourne will just have to hang on for another day or two…

Chapter 2 of Webber is entitled A Historical Perspective I (AD 30 – 1500), where he outlines the history of Christian thought concerning the topic of spirituality, which he defines as “a lived theology.” His concept of spirituality is essentially the concept that I have been working under for the past few years, that the type of God that we believe in (or, who we believe that God is) determines how we will live our lives. Conversely, I also believe that the way we live our lives reveals what we believe about God (our theology). Webber strongly makes the point that theology and spirituality cannot – or should not – be separated from each other. They key, rather, to understanding spirituality is in a “lived theology … found in God’s vision of creation, incarnation and re-creation.”

Webber shows how the development of the creeds were more than just theological statements (in the modern sense), they were affirmations of the Biblical spirituality that was under attack by various heresies. The Apostles Creed is the most basic and fundamental of the creeds, countered gnosticism, which taught a spirituality based on freeing the spirit from the bondage of the fallen, physical realm. The Apostle’s Creed very strongly affirms the incarnation, and was seen by the early Church as a guideline for the Christian life, not just belief.

It is interesting, reading through Webber, how certain elements of the heresies of the early church are still around, challenging a true Biblical spirituality. In fact, much (and perhaps post) of evangelicalism functions under some form of one or more of these early heresies, and absolutely functions under non-Biblical post-medieval philosophies. Over the past year I’ve grown increasingly disillusioned with Evangelical theology and practice, as has been evident on this blog. As I’ve dug a bit more into the theological and philosophical history of the church, the Evangelical church seems to have less and less to offer. And, the post-modern, “emerging” church is in no better shape.

Webber, however, is doing something other than confirming what I’ve already been thinking, he’s pointed out some errors in my own thinking, that I thought I had already repaired. This is exciting… As I’ve just posted on skepticism and having our beliefs challenged, I am truly excited when I discover possible errors in my own thinking, and perhaps have an opportunity to correct those errors.

I’ll start posting a series on this book, outlining his main points and giving my own thoughts. As always, feel free to comment along the way.

Written on 13 January 2008 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion, Reviews, Spiritual stuff, Webber with 4 Comments

The Beatitudes according to Marc Cohn

Meditation for Today:

Now I’m just another traveller
On another winding road
I’m trying to walk some kind of line
I’m trying to pull some kind of load
Now sometimes I move real easy
Sometimes I can’t catch my breath
Sometimes I see my father’s footsteps
And man it scares me half to death
But one day

One day
There’s love for the lonely
One day
We walk in the sun
One day
Rest for the weary
Rest for the weary ones

- Marc Cohn, Rest For The Weary
(c) Museum Steps Music, ASCAP

Written on 12 October 2007 by me under Random Thoughts, Spiritual stuff with No Comments

What’s your problem?

Ever since I first learned of it in the early 80′s, I’ve been fascinated by what is known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. In 1943, Abraham Maslow published his paper, A Theory of Human Motivation, in which he proposed that as humans resolved certain basic, universal needs, they went on to try to satisfy other, higher-level needs. In other words, some needs, such as position or the need to express oneself artistically, were not important until the more basic needs of food and shelter were addressed.

While there are studies that would show Maslow’s hierarchy to be incorrect (and perhaps not be a hierarchy at all), Maslow’s pyramid-shaped chart (like the “food group” chart) is encountered, it seems, in every field of study from the obvious psychology to education to marketing. It is certainly an interesting approach to look at how humans behave. I also wonder if Maslow’s theory shouldn’t be at least considered by churches in evaluating their philosophy of ministry and overall theology.

Before I develop this further, let’s take a look at Maslow’s hierarchy itself. The chart (I didn’t want to rip off anyone’s copyrighted chart… but it can be found here) starts with level one, the most basic, broad level, as physiological needs: food, water, sleep, and so on. This makes sense; if you don’t have access to enough food to survive the next week, why worry about that promotion? Level two is Safety, which is pretty self-explanatory; it does include safety of your stuff as well as personal safety.

Once these needs are met (or mostly met), we can move on to Love and Belonging, which includes family, friends, and community. Level Four is Esteem; while not having any value without any community to be esteemed by, once your belonging needs are met, esteem becomes (or can become) important. Finally, at the top of the pyramid we have Level Five, Self-Actualization. Here we have various forms of self-expression, including creative expression and having fun.

Now, with these categories in mind, take a look at yourself, your church, and your church’s ministries. Where do they fall in the pyramid? Personally, I’d have to say that most of our lives are spent in the penthouse, Level Five, as are the lives of the churches I’ve been involved in. Most of us don’t worry about having enough to eat. Jesus’ advice, “Do not be anxious…” has little meaning to us if we’re thinking about tomorrow’s lunch menu. Most of us know where we’ll be sleeping, which is not only climate-controlled, but relatively secure as well. We may become anxious about our retirement, but we’re not that concerned about tomorrow. We’re also not necessarily that lonely. If anything, many of us would give nearly anything for some simple peace and quiet, which is why we put away money so we can spend a week or two at “the cabin” away from everyone else.

Basically, America is a Level Five country. There are homeless, of course, but usually it’s their own fault (right?). The poor are often overweight, and many who live below poverty levels do so with a large screen TV in their living rooms. At least, this is our Level Five perception. Our churches do have programs for the needy (which I am not criticizing), and there are some individuals who put me to shame for their willingness to put their body where their mouth is (in America, money comes too cheap). However, when you look at American and American Christianity, we’re at Level Five.

Just take a walk into any Christian bookstore, and look at the largest sections. Missions, right? Discipleship? Mercy ministries? I am willing to bet that these are all fairly small, compact sections. The larger sections are for Christian Fiction (I keep thinking that should be an oxymoron…) and what is often called the “Christian Living” sections. Christian Living is a nice term for “how to live a more fulfilling life as a Level Five Christian.” We have books on money management, love & romance, and all kinds of “how to be happy” books. Happiness, by the way, seems largely to be a Level Five commodity. I’ve often said that those starving people in [insert 3rd world country here] probably aren’t thinking about how they weren’t affirmed by their fathers.

In Luke Chapter 8 Jesus tells the story of a man planting seeds. Some seed fell on good soil, some on bad. About the seed that fell among the thorns, he explained, “The seed that fell among thorns stands for those who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by life’s worries, riches and pleasures, and they do not mature.” I find it interesting that one of the “advantages” of a Level Five Christianity is that we have the ability to choose our own thorns. And, it appears that much of the American Church is enabling this behavior. Are we pulling thorns, or planting them?

Jesus could have very well said, “It is harder for someone on the Self-Actualization level to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.” But, today we should be thankful, as we have 12-step groups, counselors and inner healing teams to help us deal with it.

Maslow’s Hierarchy may be incorrect, and I’m sure that reality is much more blended than the parfait-looking structure Maslow envisioned. However, I still think it’s an interesting tool to analyze our lives, and our ministry focus. Which brings me back to my post title: What’s your problem?

Written on 09 October 2007 by me under Spiritual stuff, Theological Musings with 2 Comments

Offensive Grace

I have been very surprised that what is turning out to be a common “hot button” with atheists with regard to Christianity is the concept of grace. Actually, more than surprised – I am just shocked. I never would have thought that anyone (besides those legalistic types we refer to as Pharisees) would be so angered by the thought that someone else thinks they’re getting forgiven for free. One example comes from The Great Blasphemy Challenge Debate, where one of the atheists – I think it was Brian – went off on the subject. If you find it online somewhere, it’s worth watching, just to hear the emotion when the subject is discussed.

Grace is obviously offensive. Should I be shocked? As I mentioned, I’ve known legalists – those who insist that there’s some kind of point system, or that you get saved for free, but to stay saved you’ve got to work for it – who are outright grace-haters. I understand this – it’s all explained in the famous story we call the Prodigal Son: the older son gets ticked that the prodigal gets welcomed back with open arms. However, to those who don’t believe there’s a point system in the first place, why should they care? If there’s no God to do any law-giving or forgiving in the first place, and then no absolute moral code to break, therefore there are no sins to be forgiven from. What, then, does it matter that Christians claim to be forgiven for sins that don’t exist? Interesting, isn’t it?

Of course, there also seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the Gospel; there’s apparently some belief among atheists that Christians believe that because they are forgiven, they are now free to sin. On one hand, of course, the atheists may understand this better than many Christians. Paul works through this in Romans chapter 5, where his argument for grace comes to the point where sin increases, grace increases all the more. There is no sin (except that gnarly old unforgivable one) too big for God not to forgive. However, if we turn the page to Romans 6, we get to where Paul asks the obvious question, “should we then sin more to get more grace? God forbid!” For you see, the Christian teaching is that sin is tantamount to slavery – it is the opposite of freedom (which, of course, we get along with grace). So, “free to sin” is an oxymoron. Now, we do have some oxymorons out there who can’t seem to figure this out, but they are actually quite rare.

Paul teaches this clearly, as does John in 1 John 2:3-6:

We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

It is clear Christian teaching that yes, we are forgiven, once and for all (no indulgences or penance required). It is also clear Christian teaching that we are to “be perfect, as the Heavenly Father is perfect.” That, of course, is really what grace is all about – the power to actually live up to the forgiveness we’ve received.

So, perhaps a better presentation of the Gospel would make it less offensive… or, perhaps not. As Paul also says in 1 Cor. 18 & 19,

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;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

The Gospel does have that offensive aspect to it, especially the way Paul puts it:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

He goes on, before he gets to the grace part, to point out how we all have sinned, yada yada. Now maybe we’re getting somewhere… to get to grace, we have to get through the part where we actually need grace – and that means accepting who we are as sinners, and accepting who God is as not just the lawgiver, but as forgiver as well. It’s like accepting an Altoid from someone – it means admitting you’ve got barn breath.

So, grace is offensive… but given the option, I’d rather have it. Altoid, anyone?

Written on 05 June 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Spiritual stuff with 5 Comments

The Absurdity of Easter

Today is Easter, at least the date we celebrate it in our tradition. For Christians, although many don’t really get it, Easter is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15:14-19:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. … And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

There you have it in a nutshell; all of the claims of Christianity, the good moral teaching, etc., etc., are all fluff, if in fact Jesus was not raised from the dead on the day we now call Easter. The origins of the name and so on are another story that is quite irrelevant; the issue is whether the event happened, not how it came to be named or calendared.

All of the radical, “fundamentalist” atheists who are trying to disprove Christianity only have to focus on this one thing, according to Paul’s own testimony, which we accept as part of the Word of God. That’s it; this is the line in the sand.

Why would anyone stake an entire religion on this one, absurd claim? It really is, of course, absurd from a “common sense” standpoint. Seriously – the thought that God Himself became incarnate, died and then rose again is absurd. Camus has nothing on God when it comes to absurdist theater. Here, I guess, I’m sounding rather Kierkegaardian, but I think he had a glimpse of something: when compared to man’s ability to reason, God can be quite absurd. Now, I know many theologians who will take issue with that, and I think alot of it has to do with semantics. But, here it is from God’s own word, as spoken through Paul:

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;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. – 1 Cor. 1:18-25

Now, this does not mean that the Christian faith is irrational; far from it. The historical basis for the resurrection is quite strong, as strong as many things that we accept. In fact, we accept many historical accounts that do not stand up near as well as this story. Yet, to rest an entire belief system on something so seemingly unbelievable – we have to ask ourselves, “why?”

And of course, this is “it” for the Christian: this is essentially all we have to do, to believe in this event, in order to “be saved,” go to heaven, be “right with God” or whatever other terminology you wish to use. Certainly a religion could do better; perhaps add in a few rules or things to achieve – and many religions indeed have. So again, why this simple resurrection story?

The very simple answer – which understandably frustrates people – is that this absurd tale is simply true. The “faith” part of the equation, as I mentioned earlier, is not that we have to make a faith-leap to believe the story. What takes real faith is to believe that this death and resurrection is simply enough for us to be forgiven.

In the words of the ancient liturgy, “Christ is risen! Christ is risen, indeed!”

Written on 08 April 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, Spiritual stuff with 2 Comments