Bill’s Musings

From time to time I go back to those basic questions of the Christian faith. I need to step back because it seems as humans we are constantly complicating things. With respect to being a Christian, we add on expectations and duties we deem necessary if one is to be considered a “real Christian.”

Consider this statement, “if you are right with God you will read your Bible every day.” Is that a true statement? How about, “if you are living for Christ you will be in a right relationship with everyone else around you.” Is that a true statement? I know some people who would say yes, but I say no.

The problem is that both of these imply the necessity of the action, reading your Bible or being in right relationship, in order to be “right with God” or “living for Christ.” There is an implicit priority of doing the “right thing” to be acceptable to God. As well intended as these kind of statements are, they are wrong.

The statements are wrong for two reasons. First they presume, if only by a thread, that our works justify us before God. The implicit priority is right behavior and then acceptability. “You are good when you do ________ .” Second, and closely related, they negate grace. The statements in effect suggest, modify behavior and then “be right with God.”

That is not to say that what we do does not matter. For that matter, there is even something of a priority of act. Consider Matthew 10:38,

And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

… and Matthew 16:24,

Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.

Exactly what it means to ‘take up your cross’ is no trivial question. The question of how do we ‘follow Jesus’ is also no trivial question. A life time is too short to fully grasp either one, yet as Paul wrote in Philippians 2:12-13,

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 

That God works in us is nothing other than grace, grace that makes it possible to take up our cross and follow Christ. What that means is something we work out daily in our lives. That is the Christian life.

One of the ways we figure this out daily is by spending time reading the Bible and meditating upon it. Reading the Bible, a relatively modern benefit of the printing press and literacy, is an important way of growing in knowledge and being shaped by God, but we are not “right with God” because we spend time in the Bible. We are right with God because God made it possible through Jesus Christ to be right with God the Father.

Likewise, doing our best to live in right relationship with other people is not living for Christ. On the contrary, it is because we are in Christ, with our warts, thorns and relational thistles, that we have any hope of living at peace with one another. Yes, as we become more Christ like, we will become easier to love. Perhaps more importantly, we will find it easier to love those who are the hardest to love.

When Jesus took up His cross, He demonstrated His love for those who were hard to love. Jesus did not need to do what He did, but His love for sinners was worth more than death on a cross.

When we take up our cross and follow Him, at least in part, it means that we love others, warts, thorns, thistles and all. Loving like that is impossible for us apart from the grace of Jesus Christ and the formative work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

So to return to our two opening statements, let me suggest another way of wording them. “By the grace of God we can spend time daily reading the Bible.” “By the grace of God we can walk by the Holy Spirit, growing in Christ-like love for one another.”

More importantly, “By the Grace and Mercy of God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, we can take up our cross and follow Jesus.” That is the heart of the Christian life. That changes how we live.

I have wondered from time to time what life would have been like before Adam and Eve had knowledge of good and evil.

Genesis 3:5  For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The idea of “good” vs. “evil” requires a dualism, the belief in two opposing principles. It seems at times that one does not have to look far to see vestiges of this assumed dualism in nature. We live in a world of opposites…or do we?

Consider the colors red and green. They are opposites on the color wheel, red being on of the three primary colors and green being a mix of the yellow and blue, the other primaries. The artist, however does not think of red and green as opposites, rather they are considered complements. Place complementary colors next to each other and they stand out. They complement each other. They are unique since the perfect complement of red will have no red in it. Interestingly, if you mix perfect complements, the vibrant colors are reduced to gray, even black.

Male and female complement each other because they are different, but one is not lesser. They are not opposites, rather complementary varieties of the same thing. Colors of humanity if you will.  We could speak of the weather in a similar way. Rain and sun complement each other, sustaining life. All of one or all of the other is devastating. Even as a tulip bulb needs the cold before it will grow in the spring, but it needs warmth to grow. Summer and winter complement each other, sustaining life through the seasons. This is the harmony of creation.

Speaking of creation, the book of Genesis tell us, “And God saw that it is good.”  Creation is good.

If creation is good, what is evil? Allow me to suggest an artistic metaphor. When that which is complementary is mixed together, it looses vibrancy. A new thing has not been created. The rich harmony has merely been reduced to a colorless mess.

The presumption of evil is the judgement that what God has created in perfect harmony is not good. Evil is to presume to judge God. Who are we to judge our creator? Who are we to presume to know what is good and what is evil…as if such a thing intrinsically exists. We can only truly know good, for that is all that God created, but it is only in creation as God intended that we can know it.

The problem, however is that we have messed with the color harmony of creation. It is only by scraping off the palette and loading on fresh paint that the vibrancy of creation can be restored. This is the reconciling work of Jesus Christ. This is redemption. This is the new creation.

In the absence of my own content–which will return soon!–allow me to recommend a book review by Dr. David Guretzki on “The Shack”.

Warning, theological content ahead…

http://dguretzki.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/the-shack-a-review/

I have been thinking about words lately. Specifically the words that make up our typical Christian parlance. Words like “worship”, “saved” or phrases like “personal relationship” (isn’t “personal relationship” something of an oxymoron?). We use these words freely in Christian settings, but do we really know what they mean?

I have this growing unease that we have become far more familiar with these terms than we have with the Biblical concepts behind them.

For instance, does our common use of the word “worship” reflect the Biblical concepts of worship? Does singing music that stirs a pleasant reverent emotional state equal Biblical worship? Jesus spoke of worshipping “in spirit and in truth.” Is there a connection between pleasant feelings and worshipping in spirit and in truth? The picture gets even fuzzier when we consider OT worship. (I am foregoing an excursus into the original languages here even though if adds fuel to my unease, but  this post is on “words” not the specifics of the theological implications of the “words.”) The bottom line is this, can the majority of Christians offer a definition of worship that would stand up to the test of being Biblical?

(I concede here that even the term “Biblical” is problematic.)

How about “saved”. Saved from what? Saved for what? It seems that saved has become a coded way of saying things like justified, reconciled and redeemed. That is fine if we understand what is behind the short fomr term “saved,” but again, how well is it understood?

The latest one to trouble me is the phrase “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.” I have been a Christian long enough to know what this means…at least what it means to me.  Is it strictly speaking Biblical, or is it a derivative concept?  The Pharisees had a relationship with Jesus, albeit rather acrimonious.  So what does “relationship” mean?

Those of you who know me reasonably well will understand that I am not simply stirring the pot or questioning the basics of the Christian faith. I am also not implying a lack of intellect on the part of Christians, far from it. If anything, it is academia that is responsible for pumping out a steady stream of words and phrases that mean something to someone. All I am doing here is stepping back and asking foundational questions.

When words or phrases become overly familiar, we risk teaching the terms rather than the foundational concepts that stand behind the terms. What is worse is that we risk unintentionally creating a Christianity that is divorced from what Jesus taught and the Apostles provided a witness to.

The real and present danger is that of idolatry. If our common knowledge and faith is divorced from its foundations, we have a religion of our own making. Words do matter. What they mean matters even more. If postmodernity has taught us anything, it is that we ought not to presume the meaning of words, especially those with eternal consequences. 

The topic of the theology of beauty came up in a recent conversation. I never did explain my theological understanding of beauty and I am not going to here, at least not today. I realized that there was another question I needed to grapple with first.

Since God created creation and said “it is good,” do I not place myself as judge over God if I judge what is good and what is not? Who am I to presume to judge God?

Consider the narrative of the temptation in the garden Genesis.

But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:4-5, esv). 

God said not to eat of a particular tree, yet we read in the next verse, 

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate (Gen. 3:6, esv).

Did Eve judge what was good? Did Eve place herself in the position of judging God? God said no, but she judged the fruit to be good to eat.

If God is creator of all, then is He not the creator and definer of what is good and beautiful? Can we as created humans judge the beauty of the creative work of God? Is this not the same problem as in the garden?

So how do we recognize beauty? What is beauty? I’ll come back to this in a second post (maybe more). For now I will suggest that beauty can be understood, at least in part, in harmony with God’s intent for creation. More specifically, in submitting to God’s judgment of what is good.

A small group of us have spent many early Friday mornings over the past two years attempting to wade through Karl Barth’s doctrine of election. We have routinely brought questions to the table that Barth was clearly trying to avoid answering and rightly so. Recently, it has led me to reconsider God’s providential work in creation, in other words, the old “what is God’s will” kind of questions.

What I am about to suggest is not necessarily consistent with Barth (I don’t know Barth well enough to judge this definitively). That said, I do not think it is inconsistent. It is the concept of immediate providence. I do not know if this term is original. It probably is not, so who ever wants to take credit for it, go right ahead.

How many places in Scripture do we read about how we are to pray, petitioning God? If we presume some sort of fatalistic predetermination, such prayers are either “predetermined” or a fraud. After all, if we are told to ask, but it will not make any difference, what does that say about God? On the other hand, if we presume that God is off in the distance, unconcerned with us, asking is just as meaningless. Even prayers of thanksgiving are mere divine vanity in either scenario. On the other hand (apparently I have a lot of hands), if God is working immediately, here and now in relationship with creation and humans in creation, prayer takes on rich significance.

If God is in immediate relationship with creation and humans in creation, prayers of thanksgiving, lament, and petition are communion with God. Our requests are neither a charade nor a waste of time. The Scriptures are full of examples of this. The Exodus narrative is certainly loaded with the immediacy of God’s providential work, as are the Gospels. Certainly, the presence of the Holy Spirit shouts this basic truth.

Some of you maybe thinking, “but doesn’t God have a plan”? What about the Scriptures that speak to God’s knowledge of the “days of our lives” (not the soap opera), prophesy or Paul’s predestination language?

Here I appeal to a time honored principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture. However we are to understand these things, we must do so in a way that is consistent with the greater narrative and teaching of Scripture. From these Scriptures we must surely understand God’s redemptive work as intentional and unstoppable. God does not deal with creation in some sort of whimsical way even if those He created do. Neither does God manipulate creation in a fatalistically deterministic way. If He did, the appearance of God’s response to both Israel as a nation and various individuals would be little more than an illusion.

So what does this mean? I suggest that God is working out His unstoppable redemptive plan through His immediate providential work in, and in relationship with, creation and humans. We have the opportunity to participate with God through the leading of His Holy Spirit. We can also be stubborn and attempt to thwart His redemptive plans (makes as much sense as drilling holes in life boats), but to presume we can alter the meta-narrative of redemption is folly indeed. We can, however, by the grace of God, participate in God’s work with our limited human capacity, because of God’s immediate providence.

I recently read a blog post by Eric Ortlund titled The Problem of Good. It poses a curious and important question. I recommend checking it out.

A number of years ago a friend of mine, Richard, a professional orchestral musician said that if you want to play professionally you have to play a lot of notes first. In a world subjected to the tyranny of “now”, from fast food to fast track projects, we resist the idea that excellence takes time and dedication.

With a very few exceptions, a musician must play a lot of notes, a painter a lot of brush strokes, a photographer a lot of shutter clicks, the writer a lot of words, the theologian a lot of thoughts if excellence is to be achieved. Many of these notes, strokes, clicks, words and thoughts will be less than impressive. Excellence comes at a price; we must be willing to be less than impressive first. The road to excellence is littered with wrong notes, discarded canvases, discarded photos, crumbled paper and thoughts that we can only shake our heads at.

The pursuit of  excellence demands having the freedom to walk the road that leads there. In my theological pursuits, as helpful and important as my professors at seminary are in pushing me to new heights, some of the most profound discussions have been with my friend Dell. As postmodernity would allow, when pressed I describe myself as a Reform informed Charismatic Anabaptist—I don’t really like labels. I was recently asked to explain this. My answer, I’ll tell you when I know, but I am a fan of Karl Barth…that can explain a lot. Dell, is pursuing service as an Anglican Priest, and has his own mix of influences.

When we get together, it is like a jazz jam session. A lot of theological notes are played. We have the freedom to toss out new ideas and rehash old ones. There is no judgment when we disagree, the disagreements are the fun part—it makes us think—we like to think. Some times we go to a coffee shop, our wives sitting at one table while we rehash the great theological debates of the centuries at another table.

The theological music we play may not be suitable for a pulpit and if written, some of it might not impress my theology professor Dr. Guretzki (but I’m sure he would be right in the middle of the debate given a chance). We just play notes, trying new thoughts, enjoying the journey. Sometimes something profound comes out of it (at least to my thinking). I recall once coming home with a paper napkin scribbled with notes related to a paper I had to write. Most of the time, we just leave with our brains tired and our souls a little richer. I can’t wait until the next time. So what about those Cappadocians Dell?

I painted this little scene one evening in a near by park. To state something entirely obvious. This is a painting, it is not the park. At best it is a representation of how I saw the park for a short time while the sun was dipping toward the horizon. Press your nose against the screen has hard as you like, you will not smell the grass. You will not feel the warmth of the day as it gives way to the cool evening breeze off the lake. You will not feel the pesky mosquitoes who think you are supper. You might imagine these things, but you cannot reach out and feel them. As an artist, I hope that I captured something of the experience I had that evening. In the end, it is only an attempt to capture a moment in creation that defies capturing.

So what does this have to do with theology? Everything. Our best scholarly attempts to understand God are in the end, an interpretation of what is revealed to us and how we experience that revelation. Even as the painting is not the park, so our theology is not God. That said, like a good artist, the theologian is driven to capture the uncapturable. Unlike the artist who may do a less than flattering job, the theologian will one day stand before the One who he has dared to presume to study. A canvas may get tossed into the fire with a shrug, a theologian…fortunately God’s grace and mercy are greater than my ignorance.

So can we really claim orthodoxy in theology? Can we ever claim to be right?

The answer is the same as the artist who mixes his paint, dips in the brush and places a stroke thoughtfully, but confidently on the canvas. Years of study, including the works of the great masters, color theory and observation has prepared him for that moment when the paint leaves the brush and illuminates the canvas. When the painting is hung on the wall and people pass by, when they say, ”yes, that is a tree, and that is grass, yes it is a park,” then and only then, submitted to the deliberation of time can we say, “yes, it is right.”

So to the theologian, humbly, but confidently making assertions born out of years of study, including the great theologians through out the history of the Church, grappling with contemporary thinking, sets word to paper. When the book is pulled from the library shelf and people read its words, when they say, “yes, that is the God who creates, that is the God who reconciles, this is the God I know,” then and only then, submitted to the deliberation of time can we dare to say, “yes, that is right.”  

 I must give credit to Dr. David Guretzki of Briercrest Seminary who taught us a simple yet profound truth, our doctrine of the Trinity is not the Trinity, it is merely a doctrine based on how God has revealed Himself. We must not confuse the two.