salvation for living
When I was in college, I would go through phases where I was genuinely trying to be a good person. I would be in a rhythm of reading my Bible almost everyday. I would pray frequently, and invoke God’s name in many conversations so that others would have the benefit of knowing that I was “spiritual.”
I would not swear when I stubbed my toe, my lips would be devoid of profane talk, and I would not smoke cigarettes. I would not drink any kind of beer, and I would dress appropriately. I would go along like this for a few days or weeks, and really believe that I was doing great spiritually.
Then something in my head would click. I can’t explain it. For what seemed a dark moment, I would go to the store to buy a bottle of Dr. Pepper and something inside me would want a cigarette. So I would buy a pack, and smoke one.
I would then in disgust take the other 19 in the pack and throw them out the window of my car, and lament over my sinfulness. That night I would lie in bed, and wonder to myself if the tapping of the branches on my window was really the four horsemen trying to break into my room to take my sinful body from this world. I would go through this awful doubt about who I really was, and where I would go if I died that night.
A few days later, after the charcoal blessings were off my breath, I would regain composure, and try to be a godly person again. Then came another store and another bottle of Dr. Pepper …
I remember speaking to people over and over about this fear of not getting in the door of heaven some day. I even had a hard time laughing at jokes about “So-and-So died and went to the gate of heaven.” I would think worriedly, “I hope this guy makes the cut.”
During this time I was blessed to have a mentor in my life, and I recall a conversation with him about my miserable rhythm, which led to my insecurity regarding my getting to heaven. He looked at me and said, “What makes you think that being ‘saved’ is only about you getting into heaven?” I shifted uneasily in my seat, looked out the window, and said with a nervous laugh, “I … well then where am I going? I mean … are you … ?” My words trailed off, and at that point I was sure that I was going straight to hell.
He handed me a book, and simply said, “Read this.” I read for what seemed an eternity. I then came across one sentence that began my journey of understanding of how I think about salvation. The writer said, “How is it possible that one can rely on Christ for the next life without doing so for this one.”
It was at that point that I realized that as much as I wanted Jesus and all that he had to offer I had saddled myself with the burden of ensuring that I would get to experience all that he had to offer. I was the one who was going to live the kind of life that would ensure a ticket to the streets of gold.
The more I thought about it the more depressed I was. I had not really been living. While Bible reading and praying are not bad, when they are done for the sake of insurance they are not exactly life changing.
Salvation is about much more than just not going to hell. Salvation is about living life the full. We often use the word “saved” as a synonym for Christian. In some circles “saved” is defined as: Not having to go to hell when I die, but now I am going to heaven.
If this is all salvation was about, then why did Jesus tell His disciples as he went up to heaven, “Go everywhere and tell everyone to obey what I have taught you.” The plan of Jesus is so much more. Jesus was interested in all people not being separated from Him in the life to come, but he was also interested in people following Him in the here and now.
Being saved is being freed. Jesus has come and freed us to live in His ways. When Jesus told His disciples to go and make more disciples, part of me thinks they smiled at each other with anticipation of what they were going to do (after getting over the shock of seeing their Rabbi ascend up into heaven). The Holy Spirit would be with them shortly, and they had begun to grasp that all they had witnessed was what they needed to live like Jesus.
The salvation offered through Jesus is empowerment through the Holy Spirit to live like him now, to be like him now, to be the kind of man or woman that actually reminds people of Jesus now, to bring his justice, peace, love and hope to our world now. This is a powerful thought. When I tell someone that I am “saved” I am telling them, I have been given the grace to live like Jesus, and that I am acting on that. There is tremendous hope in that statement.
No more wondering if I am going to get there someday. Rather a humble confidence in our God knowing that we are living life more fully. Through salvation, we experience Jesus’ reason for coming. Nervousness about getting to heaven fades, and peacefulness about bringing heaven here through the life of the community of God begins to grow.
I would not swear when I stubbed my toe, my lips would be devoid of profane talk, and I would not smoke cigarettes. I would not drink any kind of beer, and I would dress appropriately. I would go along like this for a few days or weeks, and really believe that I was doing great spiritually.
Then something in my head would click. I can’t explain it. For what seemed a dark moment, I would go to the store to buy a bottle of Dr. Pepper and something inside me would want a cigarette. So I would buy a pack, and smoke one.
I would then in disgust take the other 19 in the pack and throw them out the window of my car, and lament over my sinfulness. That night I would lie in bed, and wonder to myself if the tapping of the branches on my window was really the four horsemen trying to break into my room to take my sinful body from this world. I would go through this awful doubt about who I really was, and where I would go if I died that night.
A few days later, after the charcoal blessings were off my breath, I would regain composure, and try to be a godly person again. Then came another store and another bottle of Dr. Pepper …
I remember speaking to people over and over about this fear of not getting in the door of heaven some day. I even had a hard time laughing at jokes about “So-and-So died and went to the gate of heaven.” I would think worriedly, “I hope this guy makes the cut.”
During this time I was blessed to have a mentor in my life, and I recall a conversation with him about my miserable rhythm, which led to my insecurity regarding my getting to heaven. He looked at me and said, “What makes you think that being ‘saved’ is only about you getting into heaven?” I shifted uneasily in my seat, looked out the window, and said with a nervous laugh, “I … well then where am I going? I mean … are you … ?” My words trailed off, and at that point I was sure that I was going straight to hell.
He handed me a book, and simply said, “Read this.” I read for what seemed an eternity. I then came across one sentence that began my journey of understanding of how I think about salvation. The writer said, “How is it possible that one can rely on Christ for the next life without doing so for this one.”
It was at that point that I realized that as much as I wanted Jesus and all that he had to offer I had saddled myself with the burden of ensuring that I would get to experience all that he had to offer. I was the one who was going to live the kind of life that would ensure a ticket to the streets of gold.
The more I thought about it the more depressed I was. I had not really been living. While Bible reading and praying are not bad, when they are done for the sake of insurance they are not exactly life changing.
Salvation is about much more than just not going to hell. Salvation is about living life the full. We often use the word “saved” as a synonym for Christian. In some circles “saved” is defined as: Not having to go to hell when I die, but now I am going to heaven.
If this is all salvation was about, then why did Jesus tell His disciples as he went up to heaven, “Go everywhere and tell everyone to obey what I have taught you.” The plan of Jesus is so much more. Jesus was interested in all people not being separated from Him in the life to come, but he was also interested in people following Him in the here and now.
Being saved is being freed. Jesus has come and freed us to live in His ways. When Jesus told His disciples to go and make more disciples, part of me thinks they smiled at each other with anticipation of what they were going to do (after getting over the shock of seeing their Rabbi ascend up into heaven). The Holy Spirit would be with them shortly, and they had begun to grasp that all they had witnessed was what they needed to live like Jesus.
The salvation offered through Jesus is empowerment through the Holy Spirit to live like him now, to be like him now, to be the kind of man or woman that actually reminds people of Jesus now, to bring his justice, peace, love and hope to our world now. This is a powerful thought. When I tell someone that I am “saved” I am telling them, I have been given the grace to live like Jesus, and that I am acting on that. There is tremendous hope in that statement.
No more wondering if I am going to get there someday. Rather a humble confidence in our God knowing that we are living life more fully. Through salvation, we experience Jesus’ reason for coming. Nervousness about getting to heaven fades, and peacefulness about bringing heaven here through the life of the community of God begins to grow.
the scandal of blessing
A couple of weeks ago I was reading a book that someone gave to me. In it, the author wrote,
“Just as paganism is the great plague of India, Africa, and many other parts of the world, Christianity has been the blessing of the West, Europe, and the United States … [they] have been immeasurably, blessed because of the Christian influence on political, social, and economic philosophy and policy."
I honestly was quite put out by this author’s viewpoint on God’s choice of blessing. In the larger context he contended that God blesses people, nations, and economies that trust in him. Therefore, places like India and Africa are suffering because those nations, apparently, do not trust in him.
Is it possible that God has blessed people in spite of the way their country operates? If we are to say, “Christianity has been the blessing of the West, Europe, and the United States … [they] have been immeasurably, blessed because of the Christian influence …” what then do we do with the history of civilization?
The Roman Empire, is one of the largest, most powerful, and wealthiest Empires of all times. Yet, they were in no way Christian. The Golden Age of Rome was during the reign of Augustus. Augustus was the one who called himself, a Son of God. He believed that he was divine. The Romans were well known for worshipping pagan gods such as Cybele, Jupiter, and Dionysus. The worship of these gods required horrible initiation rites and orgiastic rituals. The Roman people also worshipped the Emperor (or Caesar), saying things like, “Caesar is Lord!” They worshipped Caesar, the “King of Kings” as he referred to himself.
Beyond that the Romans oppressed, murdered, and stole from countless people and countries to build their Empire. They even oppressed God’s chosen people – Israel – and all the while their wealth and power increased. This does not sound like a place that has been “blessed because of the Christian influence …” What about the Egyptian Empire? What about Babylon and Assyria? All powerful empires that were not in any sense followers of God.
Moreover, he points to places like India and Africa as struggling because of paganism being their “plague.” Has he forgotten so quickly that Western Empires oppressed the people in these places in the last two centuries? The British Empire, which claimed their king led by the “grace of God,” began by trading with India. Eventually, the people of India were overtaken by force and were exploited by the British (For more on this see The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain Nicholas B. Dirks). This is what led Ghandi to resist the British.
The plight of many people living in Africa is due, in part, to the oppression of the Portuguese, the French, the Americans, the Dutch (remember Apartheid?) and the British. Millions were kidnapped and forced into slavery, civilizations were toppled, people were murdered and abused, and resources were sucked dry.
People in these oppressed places were trodden upon, and left out to dry by the “West, Europe, and the United States …” - the countries that this author considered blessed because of their Christian commitment. Could it be that the wealth of some countries has more to do with doing whatever it takes to attain wealth, and less to do with having a “ … Christian influence?” Could it be that God simply allows for the “sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous?” (Jesus' words from Matthew 5.45).
Rain was what the ancient people needed for survival. If one had rain, crops would grow and there was food. If there was rain grass would grow and livestock could eat. If there was rain there was water to drink. If God sent rain, he was blessing everyone on whom it fell.
Maybe the blessing of God on individuals, churches, and even nations happens because He is a God of justice and righteousness. Maybe He blesses humanity in spite of who we are and the evil that we do. Maybe his blessing has little to do with how good any of us really are and how benevolent He is. Maybe the real scandal is not of the evil of Empires, but of the goodness of God's blessing on the evil and the good, and on the righteous and unrighteous.
“Just as paganism is the great plague of India, Africa, and many other parts of the world, Christianity has been the blessing of the West, Europe, and the United States … [they] have been immeasurably, blessed because of the Christian influence on political, social, and economic philosophy and policy."
I honestly was quite put out by this author’s viewpoint on God’s choice of blessing. In the larger context he contended that God blesses people, nations, and economies that trust in him. Therefore, places like India and Africa are suffering because those nations, apparently, do not trust in him.
Is it possible that God has blessed people in spite of the way their country operates? If we are to say, “Christianity has been the blessing of the West, Europe, and the United States … [they] have been immeasurably, blessed because of the Christian influence …” what then do we do with the history of civilization?
The Roman Empire, is one of the largest, most powerful, and wealthiest Empires of all times. Yet, they were in no way Christian. The Golden Age of Rome was during the reign of Augustus. Augustus was the one who called himself, a Son of God. He believed that he was divine. The Romans were well known for worshipping pagan gods such as Cybele, Jupiter, and Dionysus. The worship of these gods required horrible initiation rites and orgiastic rituals. The Roman people also worshipped the Emperor (or Caesar), saying things like, “Caesar is Lord!” They worshipped Caesar, the “King of Kings” as he referred to himself.
Beyond that the Romans oppressed, murdered, and stole from countless people and countries to build their Empire. They even oppressed God’s chosen people – Israel – and all the while their wealth and power increased. This does not sound like a place that has been “blessed because of the Christian influence …” What about the Egyptian Empire? What about Babylon and Assyria? All powerful empires that were not in any sense followers of God.
Moreover, he points to places like India and Africa as struggling because of paganism being their “plague.” Has he forgotten so quickly that Western Empires oppressed the people in these places in the last two centuries? The British Empire, which claimed their king led by the “grace of God,” began by trading with India. Eventually, the people of India were overtaken by force and were exploited by the British (For more on this see The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain Nicholas B. Dirks). This is what led Ghandi to resist the British.
The plight of many people living in Africa is due, in part, to the oppression of the Portuguese, the French, the Americans, the Dutch (remember Apartheid?) and the British. Millions were kidnapped and forced into slavery, civilizations were toppled, people were murdered and abused, and resources were sucked dry.
People in these oppressed places were trodden upon, and left out to dry by the “West, Europe, and the United States …” - the countries that this author considered blessed because of their Christian commitment. Could it be that the wealth of some countries has more to do with doing whatever it takes to attain wealth, and less to do with having a “ … Christian influence?” Could it be that God simply allows for the “sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous?” (Jesus' words from Matthew 5.45).
Rain was what the ancient people needed for survival. If one had rain, crops would grow and there was food. If there was rain grass would grow and livestock could eat. If there was rain there was water to drink. If God sent rain, he was blessing everyone on whom it fell.
Maybe the blessing of God on individuals, churches, and even nations happens because He is a God of justice and righteousness. Maybe He blesses humanity in spite of who we are and the evil that we do. Maybe his blessing has little to do with how good any of us really are and how benevolent He is. Maybe the real scandal is not of the evil of Empires, but of the goodness of God's blessing on the evil and the good, and on the righteous and unrighteous.
the symbol of weakness, power, and love
Recently, the cross has really become a focus for me in my spiritual journey. In some ways it has become such a common symbol in Christendom that we can learn to ignore it. For some it is as common as George Washington on the one-dollar bill. We are so used to seeing him that no longer look at him – we do not think of the cherry tree story, we do not think of his leading the revolution (or rebellion for our British friends) – he is simply a grim face on paper currency.
Admittedly, the cross in some ways had become this for me. It was a symbol that, as a pastor, I would see often, and it became just that a symbol. It stopped causing me to think about what it meant. Over the last couple of years in I have realized that this may be true for more people that just me.
This first struck me when I was asked by a woman who grew up in the Catholic Tradition, “Why do churches take crosses off their buildings and out of their auditoriums?” I had to tell her that for some churches they believe the cross is an offensive symbol for those who are not a part of a Christian faith community. As I was saying this, I heard my words, “the cross … offensive.”
What was I saying? How had the church allowed the symbol that represents the centrality of our faith to be chased out of our sacred spaces? If the cross had become offensive could it be that it was because of the way we used it (or should I say abused it?) and not because of what it actually is? If the cross was offensive surely it was because we turned the story upside down. Maybe we should bring the cross back to the center and retell the story. As we do we should begin with an apology for the way it has been used.
The cross has been used as a symbol emblazoned on shields, swords, and military outfits for those carrying our campaigns against people. Can we get any more upside down than this? Now some say this is ancient history. This is true. However, today some still try to assert power in unfair ways under the banner of the cross (this is a whole other blog for another day). It is this power over that is offensive, and is the opposite of the cross.
The cross was the primary instrument of the Roman Empire for the maintaining of peace. It was originally used as a symbol of power over. It was a symbol of enforcing the law of Rome. It was punishment, torture, humiliation, and death. For the mighty Romans, the cross was a symbol of ultimate power. It was used to scare the citizens of the Empire into behaving properly and it was used to murder those considered seditious. The cross was a symbol of power.
It was this symbol of power that Jesus went to in a perfect demonstration of weakness to bring peace to the world. In being crucified, Jesus said to the powers “Do your worst.” He used the symbol of power to display weakness. Jesus did not paint a cross on a shield, or on his armor, or on his sword. He put all that down and picked up a cross. When we try to use the cross as a symbol of power we look more like Rome than Jesus.
The cross of Jesus is a paradox. He was nailed to the Roman symbol of power, making it a symbol of weakness, and through this he showed the greatest strength. Maybe it is because what led Jesus to the cross was love. And love is more powerful than anything else. John tells is that “God is love.” This is the essence of God. Could anything else have led Jesus there?
Often, today there are voices around the cross that want to bring in the guilt. People will say, “Jesus had to go to the cross because we had sinned, and he needed to be the sacrifice for humanity to assuage the wrath of God the Father.” I have heard others say, ”Your sin put Jesus there!” I have seen the exercises in which people write their sin on a 3x5 card and nail it to a large cross in the room (by the way, who can fit all their crap on a 3x5 card – my sin would be a novel).
This language brings the guilt. There is some truth to these statements. However, it almost insinuates that humanity put God in a bad spot. We sinned, and he had no other option but to die in our place. God really could have done anything he wanted with humanity. He chose love.
The cross is about God. It is not about us. The cross is about love. It is not about guilt. The cross is a paradox. In that paradox there is hope, peace, and love.
What if the voice around the cross was the voice of God saying, “My love compelled me to come to you.” What if we heard, “In my love I said, ‘I will not let humanity live like this!’” What if we heard God saying, “The cross is my symbol of my love for humanity.”
This understanding is bringing me a new understanding of the Bible. When we read the words of Paul “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We are liberated from guilt, and we find ourselves in the midst of a love story. “… while we were still sinners, God loved us.”
Admittedly, the cross in some ways had become this for me. It was a symbol that, as a pastor, I would see often, and it became just that a symbol. It stopped causing me to think about what it meant. Over the last couple of years in I have realized that this may be true for more people that just me.
This first struck me when I was asked by a woman who grew up in the Catholic Tradition, “Why do churches take crosses off their buildings and out of their auditoriums?” I had to tell her that for some churches they believe the cross is an offensive symbol for those who are not a part of a Christian faith community. As I was saying this, I heard my words, “the cross … offensive.”
What was I saying? How had the church allowed the symbol that represents the centrality of our faith to be chased out of our sacred spaces? If the cross had become offensive could it be that it was because of the way we used it (or should I say abused it?) and not because of what it actually is? If the cross was offensive surely it was because we turned the story upside down. Maybe we should bring the cross back to the center and retell the story. As we do we should begin with an apology for the way it has been used.
The cross has been used as a symbol emblazoned on shields, swords, and military outfits for those carrying our campaigns against people. Can we get any more upside down than this? Now some say this is ancient history. This is true. However, today some still try to assert power in unfair ways under the banner of the cross (this is a whole other blog for another day). It is this power over that is offensive, and is the opposite of the cross.
The cross was the primary instrument of the Roman Empire for the maintaining of peace. It was originally used as a symbol of power over. It was a symbol of enforcing the law of Rome. It was punishment, torture, humiliation, and death. For the mighty Romans, the cross was a symbol of ultimate power. It was used to scare the citizens of the Empire into behaving properly and it was used to murder those considered seditious. The cross was a symbol of power.
It was this symbol of power that Jesus went to in a perfect demonstration of weakness to bring peace to the world. In being crucified, Jesus said to the powers “Do your worst.” He used the symbol of power to display weakness. Jesus did not paint a cross on a shield, or on his armor, or on his sword. He put all that down and picked up a cross. When we try to use the cross as a symbol of power we look more like Rome than Jesus.
The cross of Jesus is a paradox. He was nailed to the Roman symbol of power, making it a symbol of weakness, and through this he showed the greatest strength. Maybe it is because what led Jesus to the cross was love. And love is more powerful than anything else. John tells is that “God is love.” This is the essence of God. Could anything else have led Jesus there?
Often, today there are voices around the cross that want to bring in the guilt. People will say, “Jesus had to go to the cross because we had sinned, and he needed to be the sacrifice for humanity to assuage the wrath of God the Father.” I have heard others say, ”Your sin put Jesus there!” I have seen the exercises in which people write their sin on a 3x5 card and nail it to a large cross in the room (by the way, who can fit all their crap on a 3x5 card – my sin would be a novel).
This language brings the guilt. There is some truth to these statements. However, it almost insinuates that humanity put God in a bad spot. We sinned, and he had no other option but to die in our place. God really could have done anything he wanted with humanity. He chose love.
The cross is about God. It is not about us. The cross is about love. It is not about guilt. The cross is a paradox. In that paradox there is hope, peace, and love.
What if the voice around the cross was the voice of God saying, “My love compelled me to come to you.” What if we heard, “In my love I said, ‘I will not let humanity live like this!’” What if we heard God saying, “The cross is my symbol of my love for humanity.”
This understanding is bringing me a new understanding of the Bible. When we read the words of Paul “… while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” We are liberated from guilt, and we find ourselves in the midst of a love story. “… while we were still sinners, God loved us.”
not a hallmark christmas, part 2
So God showed up in a manger. The larger question was why? Why were his kids longing for salvation so desperately? Walk down any city street in America and you do not typically meet someone who is living in a posture of longing for salvation. Most are on their cell phone to fill the space between appointments, plugged into their iPod so they can stay away from their own thoughts, or chatting it up with a friend. Longing for salvation – not like the three people whose prayers shape the beginning of Luke’s narrative.
These people were desperate for something, anything to save them. They needed rescue from oppression. If you were to walk down their streets you would have seen it – everywhere. There were Roman Soldiers stationed in Judea, armed head to toe with weapons of warfare to keep the “peace.” There were hungry people, the one who were promised by God the land that He swore on an oath to their father Abraham. They had lost their land.
There was enslavement. They were captives in their land. Brutal aggression toward anyone deemed to be against Rome. The rich were getting richer through their own greed at the expense of the poor. People longed for salvation.
They cried out to God.
This was not the first time this had happened. God’s people were born out of slavery. The writer of Exodus tells us that the Kings of Egypt enslaved the people of God. They worked them ruthlessly to build their Empire. In this, the people of God cried out. They cried and God heard them. God always hears the cry, and when he hears it he always acts.
So he did. He delivered his people, Israel, from the hand of their oppressor. He brought them out of Egypt on the wings of eagles. He tells them as a people to remember this over and over again throughout Torah (the first five books of the Bible). He says, “Remember the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” This constant reminder told the people, “Remember what kind of God I am. I hear the cried of the oppressed.”
Israel goes from being slaves to being a nation. They eventually go to the land that God had promised to their ancestors. It is a good land. It is fruitful and abundant. It is a land that produces wealth. This land however, belongs to God. It is his, and he is allowing Israel to use it to honor him. He tells them that they should never forget when they are wealthy, that he has given them the ability to produce the wealth.
But they did. Years later a king named Solomon became the wealthiest man in the world. Part of his empire was forcing people into slavery to build Imperial Buildings and Religious Temples. The people who were slaves cried out. God heard them and rescued them. They became a nation and were given a land. Over time this nation who possessed a land that was not theirs became an empire oppressing people - who cried out because the formerly oppressed had now become an oppressor.
God acts decisively. He responds to the cry of the oppressed and allows his own people, the new oppressors, to be conquered. They are exiled and become slaves again. It is one large circular story. From slaves to slaves in a few hundred years. This is the way the Hebrew Scriptures end. God’s people are once again oppressed.
And what do oppressed people do? They cry out. Who hears the cry of the oppressed? God always does and he always acts. For over four hundred years God’s people Israel were crying out. They were longing for salvation. They were waiting for God to show up. Some historians even say that in the time around Jesus’ birth this longing for deliverance and salvation had reached an all time high. The people had a new oppressor – Rome. The wealthiest, mightiest, and most brutal of all empires. The people of God cried out. They needed God to show up.
In this time a little baby was born. When babies are born they cry. From the moment Jesus came into this world he identified with the very people he came to rescue. He cried. His cry was an echo of the cry of God’s people who were oppressed. Yet in his cry there was hope. In his cry there was peace for all people. For on that day a savior had been born.
In that cry there was a pronouncement from the angels that things were going to change. Magi from the East showed up and asked about a new King. The government was truly “upon his shoulders” from the moment he first drew a breath and cried. God heard the cry of his people, because he always does, and he showed up to rescue them again, because he always has.
At Denver Community Church, we spent time this Advent Season exploring these prayers. If you would like to listen to this teaching you can click on this link: DCC Teaching or subscribe to our podcast by clicking here: DCC Podcast.
These people were desperate for something, anything to save them. They needed rescue from oppression. If you were to walk down their streets you would have seen it – everywhere. There were Roman Soldiers stationed in Judea, armed head to toe with weapons of warfare to keep the “peace.” There were hungry people, the one who were promised by God the land that He swore on an oath to their father Abraham. They had lost their land.
There was enslavement. They were captives in their land. Brutal aggression toward anyone deemed to be against Rome. The rich were getting richer through their own greed at the expense of the poor. People longed for salvation.
They cried out to God.
This was not the first time this had happened. God’s people were born out of slavery. The writer of Exodus tells us that the Kings of Egypt enslaved the people of God. They worked them ruthlessly to build their Empire. In this, the people of God cried out. They cried and God heard them. God always hears the cry, and when he hears it he always acts.
So he did. He delivered his people, Israel, from the hand of their oppressor. He brought them out of Egypt on the wings of eagles. He tells them as a people to remember this over and over again throughout Torah (the first five books of the Bible). He says, “Remember the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” This constant reminder told the people, “Remember what kind of God I am. I hear the cried of the oppressed.”
Israel goes from being slaves to being a nation. They eventually go to the land that God had promised to their ancestors. It is a good land. It is fruitful and abundant. It is a land that produces wealth. This land however, belongs to God. It is his, and he is allowing Israel to use it to honor him. He tells them that they should never forget when they are wealthy, that he has given them the ability to produce the wealth.
But they did. Years later a king named Solomon became the wealthiest man in the world. Part of his empire was forcing people into slavery to build Imperial Buildings and Religious Temples. The people who were slaves cried out. God heard them and rescued them. They became a nation and were given a land. Over time this nation who possessed a land that was not theirs became an empire oppressing people - who cried out because the formerly oppressed had now become an oppressor.
God acts decisively. He responds to the cry of the oppressed and allows his own people, the new oppressors, to be conquered. They are exiled and become slaves again. It is one large circular story. From slaves to slaves in a few hundred years. This is the way the Hebrew Scriptures end. God’s people are once again oppressed.
And what do oppressed people do? They cry out. Who hears the cry of the oppressed? God always does and he always acts. For over four hundred years God’s people Israel were crying out. They were longing for salvation. They were waiting for God to show up. Some historians even say that in the time around Jesus’ birth this longing for deliverance and salvation had reached an all time high. The people had a new oppressor – Rome. The wealthiest, mightiest, and most brutal of all empires. The people of God cried out. They needed God to show up.
In this time a little baby was born. When babies are born they cry. From the moment Jesus came into this world he identified with the very people he came to rescue. He cried. His cry was an echo of the cry of God’s people who were oppressed. Yet in his cry there was hope. In his cry there was peace for all people. For on that day a savior had been born.
In that cry there was a pronouncement from the angels that things were going to change. Magi from the East showed up and asked about a new King. The government was truly “upon his shoulders” from the moment he first drew a breath and cried. God heard the cry of his people, because he always does, and he showed up to rescue them again, because he always has.
At Denver Community Church, we spent time this Advent Season exploring these prayers. If you would like to listen to this teaching you can click on this link: DCC Teaching or subscribe to our podcast by clicking here: DCC Podcast.
not a hallmark christmas, part 1
During this Advent season, I have spent a lot of time reading the Traditional Prayers of Christmas from the Gospel of Luke – these are the Song of the Virgin Mary (The Magnificat), the Song of Zechariah (The Benedictus), and the Song of Simeon (The Nunc Dimittis).These prayers are a response to what God is up to in the world. Mary sings in response to the news of her pregnancy. Zechariah sings in response to the birth of his son, who became known as John the Baptist. Simeon sings in response to seeing Joseph and Mary bring a 40 day old Jesus to the Temple.
These songs are in response to pregnancy and birth. These are about infants, the most innocent form of humanity. In light of this, what began to hit me was what was sung in these prayers. The prayers are prophetic and speak of subversive movements that changed the course of history.
In the Magnificat, Mary says of God, “… God has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.”
In the Benedictus, Zechariah sings in response to the birth of his son, “…He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David as he said through his holy prophets of long ago, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.”
In the Nunc Dimttis Simeon says, “…my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel." He then turns to Jesus’ mother and says, “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel.”
This is interesting language. I began to think that we may have sanitized the Christmas Story way too much. Think about the nativity scene that you might have in your house. Mary, a young Middle Eastern woman, has just given birth to a child in a barn. Yet our nativity sets show a white (almost pink) Mary in a blue silken bath robe sitting up with a large smile on her face at a sparkling clean baby Jesus. Where is the blood, the agony of labor pain, and how did Jesus get so clean and why is he so calm?
These might sound like gross questions, but let’s be honest if we want a perfect scene regarding the birth, is it possible we may also want a perfect scene when it comes to the world into which Jesus was born? According to Matthew his birth caused a King to slaughter all kids under the age of two in Bethlehem and its surrounding towns. This is typically not a part of the story, for some reason we want a star, a cute baby, and a compliant white skinned Mary.
However, from the “manger scene”, to the slaughter of children, to the political prayers prayed by the characters involved in the story the first Christmas was anything but a perfect, prime-time, made-for-television movie. Jesus was born into a violent world. He came to a group of people who lived under the oppression of the Roman Empire. He was born into a world in which God’s people were desperate for justice and liberation.
There in that manger, where Jesus was “asleep on the hay” the hopes of generations was realized. There in that barn, God had once again heard the cry of his people amidst the brutal oppression of an evil empire. In that moment a child was born – bringing hope to the oppressed. This event caused a young virgin to praise God, an old priest to see God’s salvation, and a devout man in the Temple to prophesy about him as the fulfillment of God’s program.
At Denver Community Church, we spent time this Advent Season exploring these prayers. If you would like to listen to this teaching you can click on this link: DCC Teaching or subscribe to our podcast by clicking here: DCC Podcast
These songs are in response to pregnancy and birth. These are about infants, the most innocent form of humanity. In light of this, what began to hit me was what was sung in these prayers. The prayers are prophetic and speak of subversive movements that changed the course of history.
In the Magnificat, Mary says of God, “… God has performed mighty deeds with his arm; he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts. He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.”
In the Benedictus, Zechariah sings in response to the birth of his son, “…He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David as he said through his holy prophets of long ago, salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.”
In the Nunc Dimttis Simeon says, “…my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all nations: a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of your people Israel." He then turns to Jesus’ mother and says, “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel.”
This is interesting language. I began to think that we may have sanitized the Christmas Story way too much. Think about the nativity scene that you might have in your house. Mary, a young Middle Eastern woman, has just given birth to a child in a barn. Yet our nativity sets show a white (almost pink) Mary in a blue silken bath robe sitting up with a large smile on her face at a sparkling clean baby Jesus. Where is the blood, the agony of labor pain, and how did Jesus get so clean and why is he so calm?
These might sound like gross questions, but let’s be honest if we want a perfect scene regarding the birth, is it possible we may also want a perfect scene when it comes to the world into which Jesus was born? According to Matthew his birth caused a King to slaughter all kids under the age of two in Bethlehem and its surrounding towns. This is typically not a part of the story, for some reason we want a star, a cute baby, and a compliant white skinned Mary.
However, from the “manger scene”, to the slaughter of children, to the political prayers prayed by the characters involved in the story the first Christmas was anything but a perfect, prime-time, made-for-television movie. Jesus was born into a violent world. He came to a group of people who lived under the oppression of the Roman Empire. He was born into a world in which God’s people were desperate for justice and liberation.
There in that manger, where Jesus was “asleep on the hay” the hopes of generations was realized. There in that barn, God had once again heard the cry of his people amidst the brutal oppression of an evil empire. In that moment a child was born – bringing hope to the oppressed. This event caused a young virgin to praise God, an old priest to see God’s salvation, and a devout man in the Temple to prophesy about him as the fulfillment of God’s program.
At Denver Community Church, we spent time this Advent Season exploring these prayers. If you would like to listen to this teaching you can click on this link: DCC Teaching or subscribe to our podcast by clicking here: DCC Podcast
all the right answers
Today I spent some time drinking a beer with a friend of mine who at one point in our conversation called himself an Agnostic Theist. I found this to be an interesting term. He explained that he is at a point in his spiritual journey where he is searching for certainty at some level – even though he knows that there is very little in life that is certain.
I began to hear in his tone, and see on his face his feeling of disappointment in himself for being at a place where he is “questioning his faith” – this is what some call doubt. For many, doubt is not good. It represents a lack of faith. However, I do not believe this is the case. Indifference may be the opposite of faith. I think that faith and doubt are closely connected. As Frederick Buechner said, “Doubt is the ants in the pants of faith. It keeps it alive and moving.”
At one point in an expression of his doubt he said, “I don’t know what to think of the Bible. Every time I ask someone all they want to talk about is Special Revelation, Inspiration, how it was put together. I think it may all be crap. Maybe it was just writings from a bunch of people.”
We spent a good part of our time talking about the Bible. In the course of conversation 2 Timothy 3.16 came up. Paul says to Timothy in this verse, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” Many quote this verse in an effort to quell any conversation that raises questions about Scripture. This is done with the best of intentions, but we have to remember that this verse ends with a comma not a period.
Paul continues in verse 17 by saying, “so that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Paul’s larger point is that the Bible is suitable for empowering God’s people to live in the ways of Jesus. So I asked my friend, “Do you think that we should ask the question, ‘Is the Bible valid from the standpoint that it is a book worth reading and following?’”
I asked this because so often we want to simply prove that the Bible came from God. We want to show that the Bible is direct or special revelation. Inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative are all adjectives that we use about the Bible – which the Bible never uses or communicates about itself – in an attempt to trust in the Bible.
However, maybe we should consider more than simply propositional statements about the Bible, and ask “What would a person look like who lived out the Bible?” This would be a tall order. Maybe we should ask, “What would a person look like who lived out Matthew 5-7?” What would our world be like if we obeyed these chapters?
People would be concerned about justice, hunger, poverty, the poor, the oppressed, and would be known for pursing peace. Anger would not be allowed to fester, but would be dealt with in short order. We would truly love our enemies – and we would not just say it. We would turn the other cheek to them, walk the extra mile, and give them everything if they needed it. We would not divorce or commit adultery or murder or call names. We would be generous. We would fast and pray in the most sincere ways. We would not be caught up in anxiety, nor would we be judgmental of others. And this is just three chapters.
These do not speak toward healthy familial relationships, welcoming the immigrant, living as a community, or living with an ethic of equality or liberation. When we begin to ask questions about what a life that embodied the truth that we say is in the Bible would look like it seems we arrive at a beautiful place.
It is no longer slick arguments. It is not large words that seem to all begin with the letter “i” that describe the Bible. It is not one simple verse about the Bible that is in the Bible that tells us how to view the Bible. It is not a catechism or confession. It is not one right answer or one correct interpretation. The words of the Bible, through the empowerment of God, once again become living and breathing as God’s people live them out.
As we finished our beer I told my friend that the Bible is about a God who is always going to where his people are. That maybe he should reframe where he is in life by seeing himself as one who follows Jesus, and at this point in his journey simply has a lot of questions. Maybe he like Thomas will be invited to touch the wounds of Jesus. It was almost as if Jesus invited Thomas to encounter his suffering – to continue the journey with him. Maybe this is his invitation to all of us – skeptic, agnostic, theist – to touch his wounds and journey with him.
I began to hear in his tone, and see on his face his feeling of disappointment in himself for being at a place where he is “questioning his faith” – this is what some call doubt. For many, doubt is not good. It represents a lack of faith. However, I do not believe this is the case. Indifference may be the opposite of faith. I think that faith and doubt are closely connected. As Frederick Buechner said, “Doubt is the ants in the pants of faith. It keeps it alive and moving.”
At one point in an expression of his doubt he said, “I don’t know what to think of the Bible. Every time I ask someone all they want to talk about is Special Revelation, Inspiration, how it was put together. I think it may all be crap. Maybe it was just writings from a bunch of people.”
We spent a good part of our time talking about the Bible. In the course of conversation 2 Timothy 3.16 came up. Paul says to Timothy in this verse, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” Many quote this verse in an effort to quell any conversation that raises questions about Scripture. This is done with the best of intentions, but we have to remember that this verse ends with a comma not a period.
Paul continues in verse 17 by saying, “so that all God's people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Paul’s larger point is that the Bible is suitable for empowering God’s people to live in the ways of Jesus. So I asked my friend, “Do you think that we should ask the question, ‘Is the Bible valid from the standpoint that it is a book worth reading and following?’”
I asked this because so often we want to simply prove that the Bible came from God. We want to show that the Bible is direct or special revelation. Inspired, inerrant, infallible, authoritative are all adjectives that we use about the Bible – which the Bible never uses or communicates about itself – in an attempt to trust in the Bible.
However, maybe we should consider more than simply propositional statements about the Bible, and ask “What would a person look like who lived out the Bible?” This would be a tall order. Maybe we should ask, “What would a person look like who lived out Matthew 5-7?” What would our world be like if we obeyed these chapters?
People would be concerned about justice, hunger, poverty, the poor, the oppressed, and would be known for pursing peace. Anger would not be allowed to fester, but would be dealt with in short order. We would truly love our enemies – and we would not just say it. We would turn the other cheek to them, walk the extra mile, and give them everything if they needed it. We would not divorce or commit adultery or murder or call names. We would be generous. We would fast and pray in the most sincere ways. We would not be caught up in anxiety, nor would we be judgmental of others. And this is just three chapters.
These do not speak toward healthy familial relationships, welcoming the immigrant, living as a community, or living with an ethic of equality or liberation. When we begin to ask questions about what a life that embodied the truth that we say is in the Bible would look like it seems we arrive at a beautiful place.
It is no longer slick arguments. It is not large words that seem to all begin with the letter “i” that describe the Bible. It is not one simple verse about the Bible that is in the Bible that tells us how to view the Bible. It is not a catechism or confession. It is not one right answer or one correct interpretation. The words of the Bible, through the empowerment of God, once again become living and breathing as God’s people live them out.
As we finished our beer I told my friend that the Bible is about a God who is always going to where his people are. That maybe he should reframe where he is in life by seeing himself as one who follows Jesus, and at this point in his journey simply has a lot of questions. Maybe he like Thomas will be invited to touch the wounds of Jesus. It was almost as if Jesus invited Thomas to encounter his suffering – to continue the journey with him. Maybe this is his invitation to all of us – skeptic, agnostic, theist – to touch his wounds and journey with him.
god and country
Supposedly speaking about religion or politics do not make for polite dinner conversation. Perhaps because it causes some to become defensive, which causes others to become uneasy, which causes the defensive folks to attack with more tenacity, which causes those who are uneasy to feel threatened, and, as Vonnegut says, “so it goes.”
The only thing worse than religion or politics is religion and politics. Tangle these two things together and you may just be in for it. Or you may have the foundations of an empire. It is interesting to note that since the inception civilizations, countries, kingdoms and empires, there has been the entanglement of religion and politics.
In ancient Egypt there was a boy king named King Tut. He lived an ruled for roughly a decade in the 2nd Century in the North African Empire. His full name was Tutankhamun. This was more than the name his mother used when he was in trouble, it was a name with deep religious significance. The name, literally translated, meant “The living image of Amun,” or “He is who is like [the god] Amun.” Amun was a one of the chief gods in Egyptian Mythology.
For the Egyptians, the king of their Empire was not just a person, he was the image of god. If you wanted to see who god was, go see the king. This was an important idea. For the people of Egypt when the king issued and edict, it was not just a concept of a man, it was the word of god. In Egypt religion and politics collided.
The Romans chose to do the same thing. Octavian, who later was named Augustus, told the world his Great Uncle, and the Caesar who ruled before him, Julius was a god. This then made Augustus a son of god. From this point on, Caesars had the title, DIVI FILIUS, or son of god. One Caesar, Domitian, demanded that all people address him in written and spoken word as “Lord and God.” The myth was told that the god Jupiter indwelt the Caesars. They were not just Romans they were gods.
Why is this? Why do empires feel it necessary to connect the two in the most overt ways? One could argue that it is not because of one’s religious convictions. Roland H. Worth, in his book The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse & Roman Culture, said that announcing Caesar as a god “functioned as a religiously garbed expression of political loyalty to Rome.”
For the ancient people, to cloak politics in religion was a powerful tool to win the hearts of their people. Those in power knew that religion involved the heart and soul of a person in ways that politics cannot. Rather than try to engage them with simple political ideology, they chose to use religious propaganda to win the loyalty of their people.
Religion also united the people. Citizens from all over the empires would gather together for large festivals honoring the god-kings. People from every class, race, language, background, region would unite under the banner of the gods. Whatever your political allegiance, you could put that aside in order to honor the god-king.
Religion was powerful. Political leaders gained the power and loyalty they needed to strengthen their empires, build their military, and amass wealth on the back of religion. This idea that existed in the ancient world, is still alive and well today. It is rare in the West to believe our political leaders to be gods. If anything, we would have an easier time convincing people that they are the devil. However, consider the deep connection that religion and politics still have.
In the last U.S. Presidential election, some pundits said that the losing candidate may have faired better if he used more “religious language” persuading more people of faith to vote for him. Consider the winning candidate. He not only used religious language, he quoted Bible verses, but substituted the USA in place of the name of Jesus. While he never claimed to be a god, he insinuated that the United States can serve as the person of Jesus. This is powerful rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric used to gain the loyalty of citizens.
In politics today we see many who invoke the name of Jesus or speak of the Kingdom of Heaven in order to gain loyalty, further their own political means, and/or excuse their horrendous actions. While they do not point to themselves as gods, they point to American idealism as “Christian” or claim they have the guidance of “the Almighty God.”
Suddenly politics and religion are in a familiar place. Intertwined in a way they never should be. It is dangerous to mix politics and religion. However, we move into a more dangerous place when we mesh the Kingdom of Heaven with any Empire of this world. Empires are not necessarily evil, but they must never be mistaken for the Kingdom of God.
As Greg Boyd says in his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, the Kingdom of Heaven is not an improvement of the kingdoms of this world. Indeed, they are not the same, and never will be. Jesus says they are not from the same place. If we want to be truly religious, our devotion will be first and exclusively to the Kingdom of God. Our true religion will then reveal itself in our concern for orphans and widows.
The concepts of religion and politics are so connected in our world that one finds it almost impossible to speak about politics without religion. It feels empty, and lonely. Maybe it is time to have the conversation about how each can have their rightful place, just do not do it over dinner.
The only thing worse than religion or politics is religion and politics. Tangle these two things together and you may just be in for it. Or you may have the foundations of an empire. It is interesting to note that since the inception civilizations, countries, kingdoms and empires, there has been the entanglement of religion and politics.
In ancient Egypt there was a boy king named King Tut. He lived an ruled for roughly a decade in the 2nd Century in the North African Empire. His full name was Tutankhamun. This was more than the name his mother used when he was in trouble, it was a name with deep religious significance. The name, literally translated, meant “The living image of Amun,” or “He is who is like [the god] Amun.” Amun was a one of the chief gods in Egyptian Mythology.
For the Egyptians, the king of their Empire was not just a person, he was the image of god. If you wanted to see who god was, go see the king. This was an important idea. For the people of Egypt when the king issued and edict, it was not just a concept of a man, it was the word of god. In Egypt religion and politics collided.
The Romans chose to do the same thing. Octavian, who later was named Augustus, told the world his Great Uncle, and the Caesar who ruled before him, Julius was a god. This then made Augustus a son of god. From this point on, Caesars had the title, DIVI FILIUS, or son of god. One Caesar, Domitian, demanded that all people address him in written and spoken word as “Lord and God.” The myth was told that the god Jupiter indwelt the Caesars. They were not just Romans they were gods.
Why is this? Why do empires feel it necessary to connect the two in the most overt ways? One could argue that it is not because of one’s religious convictions. Roland H. Worth, in his book The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse & Roman Culture, said that announcing Caesar as a god “functioned as a religiously garbed expression of political loyalty to Rome.”
For the ancient people, to cloak politics in religion was a powerful tool to win the hearts of their people. Those in power knew that religion involved the heart and soul of a person in ways that politics cannot. Rather than try to engage them with simple political ideology, they chose to use religious propaganda to win the loyalty of their people.
Religion also united the people. Citizens from all over the empires would gather together for large festivals honoring the god-kings. People from every class, race, language, background, region would unite under the banner of the gods. Whatever your political allegiance, you could put that aside in order to honor the god-king.
Religion was powerful. Political leaders gained the power and loyalty they needed to strengthen their empires, build their military, and amass wealth on the back of religion. This idea that existed in the ancient world, is still alive and well today. It is rare in the West to believe our political leaders to be gods. If anything, we would have an easier time convincing people that they are the devil. However, consider the deep connection that religion and politics still have.
In the last U.S. Presidential election, some pundits said that the losing candidate may have faired better if he used more “religious language” persuading more people of faith to vote for him. Consider the winning candidate. He not only used religious language, he quoted Bible verses, but substituted the USA in place of the name of Jesus. While he never claimed to be a god, he insinuated that the United States can serve as the person of Jesus. This is powerful rhetoric. It is religious rhetoric used to gain the loyalty of citizens.
In politics today we see many who invoke the name of Jesus or speak of the Kingdom of Heaven in order to gain loyalty, further their own political means, and/or excuse their horrendous actions. While they do not point to themselves as gods, they point to American idealism as “Christian” or claim they have the guidance of “the Almighty God.”
Suddenly politics and religion are in a familiar place. Intertwined in a way they never should be. It is dangerous to mix politics and religion. However, we move into a more dangerous place when we mesh the Kingdom of Heaven with any Empire of this world. Empires are not necessarily evil, but they must never be mistaken for the Kingdom of God.
As Greg Boyd says in his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, the Kingdom of Heaven is not an improvement of the kingdoms of this world. Indeed, they are not the same, and never will be. Jesus says they are not from the same place. If we want to be truly religious, our devotion will be first and exclusively to the Kingdom of God. Our true religion will then reveal itself in our concern for orphans and widows.
The concepts of religion and politics are so connected in our world that one finds it almost impossible to speak about politics without religion. It feels empty, and lonely. Maybe it is time to have the conversation about how each can have their rightful place, just do not do it over dinner.
i want to know what love is
Have you ever had those lunches that turn awkward before the food comes? This happened to me once. I was at lunch with a fellow who was upset about something. The server brought us water to drink, and he began to speak about what was bothering him. It turns out that his beef was with love. Really, he was upset with the idea of love.
He began to illustrate what he meant by telling a story about another individual. He spilled way too much information about this other guy’s dark secrets and then provided the clincher. He said, in a very animated way, “And you know what, this guys says, ‘I am sorry’ and everyone acts like everything is okay!’”
He then spoke about how people in the church today do not want to deal with sin anymore, all they want to talk about is love. He concluded in frustration by saying, “So we just love people and that is it!”
I sat puzzled for a time listening to him. I asked him what vehicle God used in response to sin. He said "The blood of Jesus." I asked him what motivated Jesus to spill his blood at all for people like the guy who said he was sorry. He said, "Grace." I asked him what motivates grace. He said the character of the person giving it.
At this point the lunch got awkward. I then told him that I was pretty connected to the guy who said that he was sorry. I also told him that I was one of those people who understood him to be sincere in his apology, and therefore was one of those acting like everything is okay. Then, I concluded that grace comes not from the character of any person. Grace, I contended is rooted deep within the very essence of God. “That essence is love.”
I can understand the idea, at some level, that people who are bad no longer receive what they deserve. For those with a high sense of fairness this can be frustrating. But isn’t that love? Love is the most unfair thing in the world. There is nothing that makes sense about it.
Maybe this is why God is so hard to understand. Because God is love.
The Christian faith states that God exists in Three Persons – Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. We call this mystery the Trinity. People spend countless amounts of hours trying to explain the Trinity. They talk about water, ice, and steam. Or they speak of an egg with its shell, whites, and yolk. While all of these word pictures are clever, they are all incomplete. This is why the Trinity is called a mystery.
One piece of the mystery of the Trinity, that is truly more difficult to comprehend than one being three or three being one, is the eternal community that exists within the person of God. As humans we cannot even begin to wrap our heads around this.
This community exists in perfect love. Miroslav Volf, my favorite theologian (and no this is not code for Bono), says that God exists in “mutual, divine, self-giving love.” In other words, God can exist completely and eternally in community because the Son holds nothing back from the Spirit or the Father. He gives all that he is to them, with no fear of feeling empty, because the Father and Spirit are giving all that they are to him. This is true love. Total and complete giving all the time to the other with no other motive than giving and love.
At the lunch table, our food arrived and this other fellow wanted to point out the way that Jesus boldly spoke against sin in his day. He was right. Jesus in fact did. However, most often Jesus called out those representing the religious establishment. He said things like, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean!” He was also seen weeping over Jerusalem, longing to have gathered them like a mother hen gather her chicks.
Beyond that his ultimate response to evil was the cross.* Which is the ultimate act of love. The act of death on the cross was also the most unfair treatment of the evil in our world. This whole thing is really bothersome, mostly the Scriptures instruct us to act like Jesus. As the Church we are to be the embodiment of this kind of love. We are able to be this, because God who exists in community, who is love, invites all men and women into community with him.
Which would mean that love should characterize all that we do, even when it comes to dealing with sin – both systemic and personal. This does not mean that we ignore the crap in people’s life. The people who love me the most are the ones who are constantly encouraging me to live better. They are the one’s who speak not when the plank is their own eye, and when they do speak, do so gently, and seeing clearly can remove the massive amounts of wood from my eye.
*One note, I do not believe that the only reason for Jesus' death, burial, and ressurection was simply the sin of the individual, so that all people can have a personal and private relationship with him. This thought seems to cheapen the expense of the cross.
He began to illustrate what he meant by telling a story about another individual. He spilled way too much information about this other guy’s dark secrets and then provided the clincher. He said, in a very animated way, “And you know what, this guys says, ‘I am sorry’ and everyone acts like everything is okay!’”
He then spoke about how people in the church today do not want to deal with sin anymore, all they want to talk about is love. He concluded in frustration by saying, “So we just love people and that is it!”
I sat puzzled for a time listening to him. I asked him what vehicle God used in response to sin. He said "The blood of Jesus." I asked him what motivated Jesus to spill his blood at all for people like the guy who said he was sorry. He said, "Grace." I asked him what motivates grace. He said the character of the person giving it.
At this point the lunch got awkward. I then told him that I was pretty connected to the guy who said that he was sorry. I also told him that I was one of those people who understood him to be sincere in his apology, and therefore was one of those acting like everything is okay. Then, I concluded that grace comes not from the character of any person. Grace, I contended is rooted deep within the very essence of God. “That essence is love.”
I can understand the idea, at some level, that people who are bad no longer receive what they deserve. For those with a high sense of fairness this can be frustrating. But isn’t that love? Love is the most unfair thing in the world. There is nothing that makes sense about it.
Maybe this is why God is so hard to understand. Because God is love.
The Christian faith states that God exists in Three Persons – Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. We call this mystery the Trinity. People spend countless amounts of hours trying to explain the Trinity. They talk about water, ice, and steam. Or they speak of an egg with its shell, whites, and yolk. While all of these word pictures are clever, they are all incomplete. This is why the Trinity is called a mystery.
One piece of the mystery of the Trinity, that is truly more difficult to comprehend than one being three or three being one, is the eternal community that exists within the person of God. As humans we cannot even begin to wrap our heads around this.
This community exists in perfect love. Miroslav Volf, my favorite theologian (and no this is not code for Bono), says that God exists in “mutual, divine, self-giving love.” In other words, God can exist completely and eternally in community because the Son holds nothing back from the Spirit or the Father. He gives all that he is to them, with no fear of feeling empty, because the Father and Spirit are giving all that they are to him. This is true love. Total and complete giving all the time to the other with no other motive than giving and love.
At the lunch table, our food arrived and this other fellow wanted to point out the way that Jesus boldly spoke against sin in his day. He was right. Jesus in fact did. However, most often Jesus called out those representing the religious establishment. He said things like, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean!” He was also seen weeping over Jerusalem, longing to have gathered them like a mother hen gather her chicks.
Beyond that his ultimate response to evil was the cross.* Which is the ultimate act of love. The act of death on the cross was also the most unfair treatment of the evil in our world. This whole thing is really bothersome, mostly the Scriptures instruct us to act like Jesus. As the Church we are to be the embodiment of this kind of love. We are able to be this, because God who exists in community, who is love, invites all men and women into community with him.
Which would mean that love should characterize all that we do, even when it comes to dealing with sin – both systemic and personal. This does not mean that we ignore the crap in people’s life. The people who love me the most are the ones who are constantly encouraging me to live better. They are the one’s who speak not when the plank is their own eye, and when they do speak, do so gently, and seeing clearly can remove the massive amounts of wood from my eye.
*One note, I do not believe that the only reason for Jesus' death, burial, and ressurection was simply the sin of the individual, so that all people can have a personal and private relationship with him. This thought seems to cheapen the expense of the cross.