Last week, I talked about whether God needs to be appeased. The big thing I want to emphasize in this sort of discussion is how embedded ideas of retributive justice are in our society. There is just a fundamental assumption that this is how things work, and of course God works the same way.
A poignant example of this, to me, was when I had jury duty recently. As I was walking into the courthouse, there was a guy with a bullhorn yelling about how people were going to Hell. Another was handing out tracts to everyone entering the courthouse. (Side note: While I hate this sort of representation of Christianity, I'm proud to live in a country where this can occur outside of a government courthouse. Further, what does it say about the claim that Christians are persecuted in the US?)
Having done my undergrad in Berkeley, I'm good at just walking past people trying to hand stuff to me. Trying to keep my temper in check for giving Christians such a bad name, I just said a polite, "No thank you" to the guy with the tract and keep walking. He then aggressively said, "Did you see the sign?!" referring to a cross saying something like, "Do you know God?" I responded, "I'm a Christian," to which he seemed to celebrate with a "Yeah!" So I turned around and said, "But you're doing it the wrong way!" I couldn't help myself. I'm unwilling to let others think I support such behavior.
Moving back from the side rant, what this indicated to me was the tendency many of us have to make assumptions about how things work and what others believe. These individuals were clearly promoting a highly retributive justice God right in front of an institution specializing in retributive justice (let's be honest, the US justice system is fundamentally about retributive justice--it frankly would be difficult to build a different system at this level). In many ways, this was a wise move--it powerfully reinforces the central principles of what they're trying to argue. If you believe in the governmental justice methodology, then it's easy to apply that spiritually.
But what if that application is wrong? What if retributive justice is really a human practicality (or tragedy)? What are we missing if we assume this approach to justice is from God?
Showing posts with label Judgment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judgment. Show all posts
Monday, January 19, 2015
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Guest Post: Ashamed of Christian Intolerance
This is a guest post from my wife, who so eloquently commented on the World Vision debacle.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I never post opinions about hot-button issues, but I’m so upset and ashamed with the way that some of my fellow Christians have been representing my faith lately that it’s really bugging me. My heart is hurting. Prepare to witness a rare Laci rant.
Really?!? Thousands of Christians suddenly pulling funds that go to a STARVING CHILD because they don’t want gay Christians in a committed relationship working to help feed that child?!?? I’m embarrassed that World Vision was essentially bullied into reversing their (brave) policy. And that’s exactly what it was, bullying...threats of pulling funding unless they explicitly and publicly called out homosexuality as a sin, and said you can't work there if you disagree. Why did it have to go there? This is not about whether being gay is right or wrong. People missed the point completely. You can think it’s a sin and be a Christian, and you can think it’s not our place to judge and STILL be a Christian. That’s a whole separate issue that I’m not discussing here, it’s not relevant. They were not saying it was right or wrong, they were saying “let’s not be so divisive. There’s been a lot of hurt caused by this debate...we want to be an example in working together despite our differences and not discriminating.” Sexuality is not central to our faith, as much as many seem to think it is the be all end all. Very little of the Bible is devoted to that issue; far more is devoted to admonishing us to love others. Again and again. To forgive others. To love God. But that message gets lost in the stream of debates. So many are focusing on it, freaking out as if your view on it determines if you’re going to heaven or not, or that if gay marriage is allowed, it means heterosexual marriage is being torn apart or diminished. That’s just silly. My personal relationship with Jesus, as well as my relationship with my husband, is not threatened by anyone else’s relationship with whoever they love. And I believe that God cares far more about how I treat my fellow human beings than what I think about gay people. Why is this the main issue Christians today think they need to fight for?!? Why not focus on the things that really matter?
World Vision stated it so well in their first statement about it when they said “"Changing the employee conduct policy to allow someone in a same-sex marriage who is a professed believer in Jesus Christ to work for us makes our policy more consistent with our practice on other divisive issues," he said. "It also allows us to treat all of our employees the same way: abstinence outside of marriage, and fidelity within marriage." Bravo! Many denominations and respected Christian leaders are divided on that issue, so they decided it was best to not formally take a side and instead try and unite Christians to work together despite their differences. There are many other issues that are not anywhere close to being the difference between salvation or not. (Imagine their job interviews if it continues like this...”Were you baptized by dunking or sprinkling? Does your church use a rock guitar in their worship service? Yes? Oh, sorry, guess you can’t work here, our policy says you’re not a real Christian, so you’re not fit to distribute food to the hungry.”) World Vision also has stated they will not take a formal stance on things like divorce/remarriage, evolution or female pastors, as it should be...there’s disagreement on those, and Christians on both sides of the issue that both have convincing arguments. They know that they are a company that represents Christianity as a whole, not one particular view of Christianity, and that ultimately, those issues should be discussed at a church level. It’s not like they are God handing down a declaration of what is counted as Christianity. We all like to think that only our denomination is the right one with all the answers, but it's simply not true.
But instead of inspiring unity World Vision was shown that fear of homosexuality outweighs a lot of Christian’s desires to help the poor and hungry. They just couldn’t support an organization that might work alongside those that Jesus himself would probably welcome. I feel like homosexuals are the lepers of today...people who Christians are afraid to touch, afraid to show compassion to for fear of getting “infected.” Sometimes I’m outraged at how so many Christians put “calling out sin” above “love your neighbor.” It’s just Not. As. Important. Telling someone they’re a sinner rarely endears them to Christianity. We all know that already. But I saw a lot of formerly skeptical atheists give a nod to World Vision’s initial decision and how they were impressed at their openness. I bet they’re doubly turned away now, hearing the new decision. How many of those who might have embraced Jesus are now forever hardened against the church because of how they are seeing Christians behave in this situation? We claim to be loving and then we go and abandon an already struggling child because our ideas were challenged. It saddened me greatly hearing World Vision recant something that just yesterday I viewed as a step in the right direction of loving and recognizing our fellow human beings the way we are supposed to as Christians.
I have to restate, this is not a debate about whether being gay is a sin or not. I’m not going there, let’s not debate that. It is the fact that Christians were so fast to immediately drop over 2,000 children that they sponsored just because World Vision said they would not take a hard stance. Church leaders even told their members to pull their funds. That is wrong on every level. We should be ashamed that the world is seeing Christians in that light. If you disagree with the policy that much, fine, at least finish out the year and don’t renew again, go support another charitable organization. But don’t abruptly stop supporting someone who relies on you, in a spoiled fit to prove that you hold the power.
I think I’m going to go sponsor a child now. If you agree with me that Christianity is more than political stances and religious rules, please consider doing the same.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Faith, Gender Identity, and Suicide @DavidOlson11
Back in November, one of our local freeway interchanges was shut down after a man suicided by jumping off the overpass. I recently discovered that man was a transgendered woman, Kaylee Johnson, who also struggled with her faith because of gender identity issues. David Olson's article about Johnson stated:
Regardless of one's beliefs on LGBT issues, I hope all can agree that suicide is tragic and not a desirable outcome. Everyone, especially those of us from faith communities, need to act in ways that prevent such destruction, not contribute to it. People of the Christian faith need to remember that Jesus loved, supported, valued, and spent almost all of his time with the people who were misunderstood, rejected, and devalued. That sort of action positively changed lives, unlike the condemning and criticizing and judging of the Pharisees.
We have the opportunity to literally save people's lives by how we treat them. And even for those who value the next life more than the current one--we can't save someone if they're dead. So please, remember our faith-based priorities when encountering those who are different from and those we don't understand. It could be the difference between life and death. Literally.
Johnson had a hard time reconciling her faith in God with her gender identity, after leaving the Mormon faith she grew up with and relied on for support, because she didn’t feel accepted by the church.
She was stung by rejection from people she loved and whose acceptance she desperately wanted, especially some members of her family, Chambers said.I didn't know Johnson, so I can't speak to what influenced this final attempt. But as Olson's article states, many transgendered people struggle with faith and consider or attempt suicide. A lot of focus has been on the impact of religion on homosexuality and suicide, as I've written about before. While this awareness is wonderful, anyone familiar with LGBT issues know the T usually gets the least attention. And those falling in the T category are often even more misunderstood than non-heterosexual orientation. Greater misunderstanding=greater persecution.
Regardless of one's beliefs on LGBT issues, I hope all can agree that suicide is tragic and not a desirable outcome. Everyone, especially those of us from faith communities, need to act in ways that prevent such destruction, not contribute to it. People of the Christian faith need to remember that Jesus loved, supported, valued, and spent almost all of his time with the people who were misunderstood, rejected, and devalued. That sort of action positively changed lives, unlike the condemning and criticizing and judging of the Pharisees.
We have the opportunity to literally save people's lives by how we treat them. And even for those who value the next life more than the current one--we can't save someone if they're dead. So please, remember our faith-based priorities when encountering those who are different from and those we don't understand. It could be the difference between life and death. Literally.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Love or God? @markgalli @christianaudio
The first part of my review of Mark Galli's God Wins, primarily based on Randy Alcorn's preface is here. This post reviews and engages the rest of the book, solely based on Galli's words.
Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.
Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.
The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.
Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.
Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.
Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...
At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.
One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.
Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.
However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.
This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.
Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.
Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (p. 77).
Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.
What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?
Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Galli cites Jeremiah that the human heart is evil and deceitful. However, this is not the full picture. It ignores the New Covenant promises that Paul describes and that John Eldredge has spent many books emphasizing: Christ gives us a new, good heart. This missing element is overlooked by many of the neo-Calvinists today, which creates a punitive justice-focused system of salvation and theology and that I believe is far too narrow in focus.
Galli's first chapter clarifies different types of questions: Questions about God and questions about oneself. Galli illustrates this with examples from Mary when she asks how God will make her pregnant (not doubting that God will be able to do it) and Zechariah questioning how he can be sure that God really will give him a son (doubting the agency of God). Galli argues that Mary's type of question is good, while Zechariah's is sinful.
The contrast is compelling, but I'm not sure it's accurate. Galli seems to forget the clear case of Thomas after Jesus' resurrection, demanding to see physical evidence to believe that the resurrection has actually occurred. This sounds more like a Zechariah question to me. Yet Thomas was not at all condemned, rather met with deep love and the evidence he needed. God, of course, does not always provide the evidence we want, but asking is not necessarily sinful.
Galli argues that Bell only presents God as agent. He describes the downfalls of this extremely well, explaining that God as agent means God doing things for us. I completely agree with Galli that God as agent misses the Gospel, with God as lover as a more accurate and deeper understanding of God. This is one of my criticisms of most of the neo-Calvinist movement--I only see them presenting God as agent and leave out the whole relationship thing. At the same time, to be fair, this may be my reading of them, just as that is Galli's reading of Love Wins. I actually read that lover element in Bell's work far more than an emphasis of God as agent. If Bell limited God to this agent role, I would be in complete agreement with this criticism.
Additionally, Galli and other critics of Love Wins have argued that Bell does not present a full picture of the Gospel. I agree; he didn't. But I don't think he meant to. He was focusing on a particular element, just like most books do. In academia, an entire book can be focused on an incredibly narrow topic in order to go in-depth. In the popular press, people aren't used to this, but I think that's a better analogy for Bell's work. Bell was simply asking questions about the theology of Heaven and Hell, which is only a small element of the Gospel.
Further, Galli has joined the chorus of many others who have criticized Bell for asking questions and not resolving them. I don't see the problem there. Bell explicitly states he wrote Love Wins in order to get people to think, not necessarily to draw a line in the sand. Readers of my blog know that I value that type of perspective, so I obviously appreciate that type of writing more than taking a clear stance. Yet that makes it harder to categorize someone...
At one point, Galli criticizes Love Wins as presenting Christ's Incarnation as more important than the crucifixion and resurrection. I'm not sure that's an accurate depiction of the book anyway, however, even if it were, that may not be incorrect. Protestantism has historically emphasized the resurrection, hence the empty cross that is frequently displayed in churches. Roman Catholicism has focused on the crucifixion, resulting in the crucified Christ on display. However, a lot of the Orthodox Church has prioritized the Incarnation. So there is, in fact, a significant history of focusing on the Incarnation.
One of the central lines and arguments in Love Wins is the question, "Does God get what God wants?" while referencing Scripture that God wants all people to be reconciled to him. Yet the book also discusses how God loves us so much that he gives us what we want, so if we want Hell, we can have it.
Honestly, the way Bell phrased this no-win question was not entirely fair, but it's a beautiful literary style and excellent for an argument. However, Galli takes it a bit concretely, emphasizing how people's wants are not stable nor can be very healthy for us. Using the analogy of a child's wants, a loving parent does not simply give into those desires. In fact, love gives someone what they need, not what they want. True enough.
However, I didn't read Love Wins in the same way. I would have a hard time believing Bell meant this type of superficial wanting. Rather, it is a deeper acceptance or not of the reality of God's love. The best example of this I can think of is from Les Miserables (spoiler alert, if you don't know the story). Javert, the officer of the law, has been tracking Jean Valjean for decades, with the belief that once a thief, always a thief. When Valjean spares Javert's life later, Javert is unable to accept that reality. He cannot live in a world of grace and transformation, so he commits suicide. He would rather die than live. That's the wanting that God will not force on us. There are people who will not be able to handle who would be accepted in Heaven, so they choose Hell.
This relates to another one of Galli's central criticisms of Love Wins: It gives too much weight to people's free will. Galli argues that people running their own lives is not freedom, but rather slavery to sin, and there is definite truth to that. He also basically argues for a bondage of the will perspective, explaining how the Holy Spirit is what gives us faith to believe in God. Again, I think Galli read Bell's book too literally. The bondage of the will and freedom of the will debate has existed for centuries and continues to do so, now particularly in the realm of neuropsychology. I'm not going to get into that debate for now, but again, the point is that there is a long, strong history supporting a freedom of the will and even some combination of bondage and freedom.
Galli also criticizes Love Wins as presenting God as impersonal and not present in Heaven. I would simply chalk this up to differences in reading because I read Love Wins as an intensely personal, relational Father who is the epitome of Heaven. Bell may have used different language than many evangelicals do in describing the personal nature of God. However, I found the language incredibly meaningful and personal.
Like many critics of Love Wins, Galli labels it as supporting universalism. The problem with most of these comments is that they use a particular definition of universalism. The way I have always heard universalism defined is that all religions are essentially equal, along the ideas that all paths lead to God. That's most definitely not what is presented in Love Wins. In fact, on page 78, Bell states, "What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody." Earlier, he explains that Jesus is the only way to God. However, does not mean that people of other faiths cannot be saved through Jesus: "What he doesn't say is how, or when, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn't even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him" (p. 77).
Some people cannot comprehend how a person Jesus could save someone from another religion and not be a universalist. But this perspective would state that Christianity does have greater value and insight into life and God than other faiths. It is a Christianity worth believing, as Doug Pagitt has said. True universalism would say Christianity is not better than any other faith. That is simply not present in Love Wins.
What I think was the best contribution this work provided to Christian literature on the argument for eternal damnation was that finite events have long-term consequences. A car accident that was not my fault can result in an amputation or many other issues. The decision to get drunk once can lead to all sorts of behaviors with very lasting consequences. This is how many things work, although we try to think all consequences don't last. Galli's argument is that this is the situation with Heaven and Hell and our decision to follow God in the present life. Rather than God necessarily punishing us, those eternal states are simply the natural consequences. The question Bell raises that many people have asked still remains, though: Would a loving God set up these as the natural consequences?
Ultimately, God Wins is stimulating, but I found Love Wins to actually demonstrate a fuller and deeper view of the Gospel and God than God Wins, albeit Galli's reason for writing this book was the lack of fullness and depth in Love Wins from his perspective. If one is very interested in the Heaven-Hell debate, this is a good resource for additional ideas.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Loving & Judging
Most of the church communities to which I have belonged have had a strong grounding in the holiness movement. Essentially, it's a focus on "right living," sometimes interpreted as avoiding sin. This movement definitely plays a powerful role in my life still, but I've struggled with it and how people approach holiness.
There is this nebulous disagreement I have with some approaches to holiness that have been difficult for me to really define because theologically, I can't fully disagree. Yet something feels off. It was this same sense of some sort of difference from some Christians that Richard Foster's Stream of Living Water helped define. In this book, Foster describes six streams, or traditions of Christian living and belief. They're not opposed to one another, and in fact, all are important and should co-exist. Yet most of us emphasize one over the others, causing theologically subtle, yet practically significant differences.
What I recently realized (this Sunday to be specific) is that it seems like some of the differences occur with how some of us perceive and relate to God, thus affecting how we approach holiness. John Eldredge discusses the varying and ascending metaphors to describe our relationship with God. He argues (well and biblically, in my opinion) that the ultimate relationship God desires is that of lovers. Close intimacy. Even before that, we are friends and children.
Yet what often happens is many times we view God as judge. Is God a judge? Yes. But I don't think that's his primary role. Just as lovers hold one another accountable, God holds us accountable, but that feeling of accountability is different than that of a distant judge.
When we view God as judge, I believe we approach holiness as a way to avoid judgment. As I heard someone say this weekend with reference to the sexual immorality of the US, "If God doesn't judge America soon, he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah." There are theologically errors in that connection, but regardless, there is this sense of God as Ultimate Judge and not much more. We must live sinless lives in order to avoid God's destructive punishment.
Yet as many people argue and explain, God's primary mission as clearly laid out in the Bible is love. Jonathan Brink wrote a nice reflection on this recently. RELEVANT Magazine also posted an article about love.
In my experience, when we have a close, intimate relationship with God, we want to be holy. It's a way of moving closer to God and becoming like Christ. It's not out of fear, but out of desire. What may look like the same actions are in fact totally different.
Holiness out of love is what I want, not holiness out of fear.
There is this nebulous disagreement I have with some approaches to holiness that have been difficult for me to really define because theologically, I can't fully disagree. Yet something feels off. It was this same sense of some sort of difference from some Christians that Richard Foster's Stream of Living Water helped define. In this book, Foster describes six streams, or traditions of Christian living and belief. They're not opposed to one another, and in fact, all are important and should co-exist. Yet most of us emphasize one over the others, causing theologically subtle, yet practically significant differences.
What I recently realized (this Sunday to be specific) is that it seems like some of the differences occur with how some of us perceive and relate to God, thus affecting how we approach holiness. John Eldredge discusses the varying and ascending metaphors to describe our relationship with God. He argues (well and biblically, in my opinion) that the ultimate relationship God desires is that of lovers. Close intimacy. Even before that, we are friends and children.
Yet what often happens is many times we view God as judge. Is God a judge? Yes. But I don't think that's his primary role. Just as lovers hold one another accountable, God holds us accountable, but that feeling of accountability is different than that of a distant judge.
When we view God as judge, I believe we approach holiness as a way to avoid judgment. As I heard someone say this weekend with reference to the sexual immorality of the US, "If God doesn't judge America soon, he owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah." There are theologically errors in that connection, but regardless, there is this sense of God as Ultimate Judge and not much more. We must live sinless lives in order to avoid God's destructive punishment.
Yet as many people argue and explain, God's primary mission as clearly laid out in the Bible is love. Jonathan Brink wrote a nice reflection on this recently. RELEVANT Magazine also posted an article about love.
In my experience, when we have a close, intimate relationship with God, we want to be holy. It's a way of moving closer to God and becoming like Christ. It's not out of fear, but out of desire. What may look like the same actions are in fact totally different.
Holiness out of love is what I want, not holiness out of fear.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Sending to Hell
As probably all of us have heard, many people consign others to Hell. Sometimes on a regular basis. You've heard it: So-and-so is definitely in Hell.
I've heard it in news articles, on street corners, in casual conversation, on blogs, from the pulpit, and probably in many other situations.
I wonder if this is really useful, effective, or God honoring...
I think there's something to be said for having humility of not assuming we completely understand an individual's relationship with God. Sure, there are times when we can be pretty sure someone may not be a "Christian," but what is the benefit of advertising that?
In small settings, a discussion may be acceptable, but I personally have an issue when it's in a large, public setting, particularly from the pulpit. Not only have I disagreed with many of the judgments of preachers, the comments can be misunderstood, and the speaker may not have time to clarify what they mean by it or why they think a person is in Hell.
Again, though, what does it matter? Why are we judging others who are already dead? Is this really useful? What do you think?
I've heard it in news articles, on street corners, in casual conversation, on blogs, from the pulpit, and probably in many other situations.
I wonder if this is really useful, effective, or God honoring...
I think there's something to be said for having humility of not assuming we completely understand an individual's relationship with God. Sure, there are times when we can be pretty sure someone may not be a "Christian," but what is the benefit of advertising that?
In small settings, a discussion may be acceptable, but I personally have an issue when it's in a large, public setting, particularly from the pulpit. Not only have I disagreed with many of the judgments of preachers, the comments can be misunderstood, and the speaker may not have time to clarify what they mean by it or why they think a person is in Hell.
Again, though, what does it matter? Why are we judging others who are already dead? Is this really useful? What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)