The phrase, “In thy name we pray,” has always bothered me as making no sense.
I could see coming to the Father in Jesus’ name, with the understanding that he is our intercessor and only avenue for presenting our requests to God. But to use the phrase in that sense, coming to Jesus in the name of Jesus, doesn’t seem to add anything.
However, if we use “The Name” in the sense it is used throughout Scripture, that is for the knowledge and glory of God, as in “thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory”, then it really changes the focus of our prayer. This struck me considering “Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified” Jn.14:13. We invoke the name of Jesus in prayer, not so much as a power word to make our request happen, nor even primarily as our authorization for making requests, but as a reminder that we are praying first for his name and glory. So to say “in your name we pray” means “Let it be (‘amen’) that all this is for the honor of your name”.
The idea of telling the Lord of all creation what to do seems outrageous, grandiose, and actually quite dangerous if we think he is actually going to do something because we said so. But “hallowed be your name”… “thy kingdom come”… “thy will be done”… seem to be the right framework for letting our requests be made known to God. –philw
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Gilgamesh
Since I have so often heard about the Genesis accounts of creation and the flood just being re-tellings of the Babylonian creation myth and the epic of Gilgamesh, I thought I should try to read them. Admitted, I did not take the time to study in detail, but read them both quickly. The creation story apparently has been found in fragments as early as the 18th C BC, but the translation I read was from the earliest (mostly) intact version of it dating from the 13th C. By traditional dating, Moses compiled/edited his account in the 15th C BC. The Babylonian version (to my understanding) bears no more resemblance to the Genesis account beyond there being gods and a creation. It mostly focuses on the intrigues and conflicts between the gods, but the more recent version at least tries to tie it together to show how Marduk the patron god of Babylon was appointed to that role through it all.
The Gilgamesh epic poem is mostly more about intrigues and conflicts between the gods, Gilgamesh himself being demi-god, going on adventures with another demi-god wildman, and incurring the anger of one of the gods by killing the ruler of Lebanon and stealing his cedar to build a raft and float down a river. One of the gods kills Gilgamesh’s wildman friend, causing Gilgamesh to go into mourning and trying to make sense of it all. This leads him to another voyage to find another demi-god, Utanapishtim, to explain how he became like the gods. This led to an explanation of how the gods were in conflict, one wanting to wipe out the mortals, and the other letting Utanapishtim in on the plot so that he could turn his house into a boat and save his family, lifestock, and treasures. When the god sending the flood found out about it, he got mad but couldn’t do anything about it. Utanapishtim then told Gilgamesh about a plant he could find that would make him young again, and the story ends.
Assuming the flood of Noah to be an historical event, one would expect it to be widely reflected in historical lore. But the flavour and intent of the two accounts in comparison here are so different, that I cannot imagine one being copied or inspired by the other. The nature of God and the character of Noah as presented in Genesis couldn’t be more different than the characters presented in the Babylonian account. While the Babylonian accounts are worth reading just because they are talked about, they are certainly no threat to continuing to regard Genesis as unique and inspired.
The Gilgamesh epic poem is mostly more about intrigues and conflicts between the gods, Gilgamesh himself being demi-god, going on adventures with another demi-god wildman, and incurring the anger of one of the gods by killing the ruler of Lebanon and stealing his cedar to build a raft and float down a river. One of the gods kills Gilgamesh’s wildman friend, causing Gilgamesh to go into mourning and trying to make sense of it all. This leads him to another voyage to find another demi-god, Utanapishtim, to explain how he became like the gods. This led to an explanation of how the gods were in conflict, one wanting to wipe out the mortals, and the other letting Utanapishtim in on the plot so that he could turn his house into a boat and save his family, lifestock, and treasures. When the god sending the flood found out about it, he got mad but couldn’t do anything about it. Utanapishtim then told Gilgamesh about a plant he could find that would make him young again, and the story ends.
Assuming the flood of Noah to be an historical event, one would expect it to be widely reflected in historical lore. But the flavour and intent of the two accounts in comparison here are so different, that I cannot imagine one being copied or inspired by the other. The nature of God and the character of Noah as presented in Genesis couldn’t be more different than the characters presented in the Babylonian account. While the Babylonian accounts are worth reading just because they are talked about, they are certainly no threat to continuing to regard Genesis as unique and inspired.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
On Making Rules
It is a common complaint about religion in general that "they" are trying to tell "us" what we must and must not do. The reasoning goes that each of us as adults should be able to make up our own mind about what is right for us without having some clergyman using his interpretation of a 2,000 year old book to moralize about our actions. And so the post-Christian West has largely thrown off the shackles of religious restraint. But there are a few problems with this moral liberation.
One is that, despite religion having relatively little influence on the daily life of anyone who does not prefer to be involved with it, there remains the sense that it does. There is a persistent annoyance for example toward the hidden moral agenda of the religious right. There is often a short fuse in someone who suspects a religious person of moralizing at him. Expletives invoking a divine name still are thought to add some weight to a weak statement. Although the overt bonds of religion have been loosened, those who would be entirely free still chafe at them.
Another contradiction in liberation from religion is the vigor with which, at least post-Christian Canada has leapt headlong into more rules and moralizing than the church ever offered up. "Canada's Addiction to Rule-Making", an editorial by Joseph Brean in the August 7, 2010 National Post describes the phenomenon of creating a new law in response to every tragedy that makes news headlines. Having been taught in school for generations already that humans are only intelligent animals, and that our existence in the universe has no more significance than the rocks or trees or squirrels, we are now told that every unanticipated death must have a greater meaning, and that it can in some way be ameliorated by passing new laws restricting whatever behaviors might have been involved. This is in addition to the dizzying maze of unwritten rules about what may be said or done in particular circumstances. Religious restriction on sexual activity, that is limiting sex to a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman, has been a focal aggravation to those who crave liberation. But the often mutually contradictory rules that have replaced that one simple principle can keep teams of lawyers and politicians debating indefinitely. While the rules against speaking of sacred things in a disrespectful way have been discarded, we now must follow the rule of Politically Correct speech, or be in danger of committing a "hate crime", all to be defined again by teams of lawyers and politicians. We have rules about what we wear, what enters our mouths, what tools and toys we use, how we pass our work time and leisure time, with whom we may associate to what degree under what conditions, and what topics of conversation are to be praised or repudiated. Then there are the perpetual shrill demands of marketers to buy their products permeating all public broadcasting, print, and public thoroughfares. And as though in refrain, there is some state-sanctioned agency advising us which of those products we must or must not be using, this month. Remarkably, the same population who wanted freedom from religious dictums seems content or even eager to accept the far heavier and more complex yoke which the post-Christian moralizers offer in its place.
A third dilemma in this antipathy to religious rules is what actually does happen even within the halls of organized right wing fundamentalist Christian Evangelicalism, supposing that must be the worst case scenario. Having attended thousands of organized religious services within this and other Christian traditions, it occurred to me that very little time is spent telling us what we must and must not do in the sense that the critics are concerned. Now there is a heavy emphasis, as I was reminded just this morning, to serve and fear God rather than serving self and fearing man. The religion that has replaced this is indeed to serve self and fear man, which is not in the least liberating. The core of the Christian Gospel is that we are not, and cannot be good enough to come into the presence of a holy God, and that God himself, in the form of a mortal man, took all the evil deeds of mankind on himself. In response, we are invited to put our trust in him alone rather than in what we as individuals, or even as democracies, can muster up. Now that central issue is seldom mentioned by the critics, but I do suspect it is the one that causes the most offense.
Those countries with a free and open society today have generally received it as part of a Christian heritage. The concept of "freedom" so dear to western activists, is better addressed and developed in Christian thought than in any atheistic speculations. And the freedom that Jesus Christ offers is in a class apart from the whimsical tyranny of who can shout the loudest into the vacuum that is the alternative. -philw
One is that, despite religion having relatively little influence on the daily life of anyone who does not prefer to be involved with it, there remains the sense that it does. There is a persistent annoyance for example toward the hidden moral agenda of the religious right. There is often a short fuse in someone who suspects a religious person of moralizing at him. Expletives invoking a divine name still are thought to add some weight to a weak statement. Although the overt bonds of religion have been loosened, those who would be entirely free still chafe at them.
Another contradiction in liberation from religion is the vigor with which, at least post-Christian Canada has leapt headlong into more rules and moralizing than the church ever offered up. "Canada's Addiction to Rule-Making", an editorial by Joseph Brean in the August 7, 2010 National Post describes the phenomenon of creating a new law in response to every tragedy that makes news headlines. Having been taught in school for generations already that humans are only intelligent animals, and that our existence in the universe has no more significance than the rocks or trees or squirrels, we are now told that every unanticipated death must have a greater meaning, and that it can in some way be ameliorated by passing new laws restricting whatever behaviors might have been involved. This is in addition to the dizzying maze of unwritten rules about what may be said or done in particular circumstances. Religious restriction on sexual activity, that is limiting sex to a lifelong marriage between a man and a woman, has been a focal aggravation to those who crave liberation. But the often mutually contradictory rules that have replaced that one simple principle can keep teams of lawyers and politicians debating indefinitely. While the rules against speaking of sacred things in a disrespectful way have been discarded, we now must follow the rule of Politically Correct speech, or be in danger of committing a "hate crime", all to be defined again by teams of lawyers and politicians. We have rules about what we wear, what enters our mouths, what tools and toys we use, how we pass our work time and leisure time, with whom we may associate to what degree under what conditions, and what topics of conversation are to be praised or repudiated. Then there are the perpetual shrill demands of marketers to buy their products permeating all public broadcasting, print, and public thoroughfares. And as though in refrain, there is some state-sanctioned agency advising us which of those products we must or must not be using, this month. Remarkably, the same population who wanted freedom from religious dictums seems content or even eager to accept the far heavier and more complex yoke which the post-Christian moralizers offer in its place.
A third dilemma in this antipathy to religious rules is what actually does happen even within the halls of organized right wing fundamentalist Christian Evangelicalism, supposing that must be the worst case scenario. Having attended thousands of organized religious services within this and other Christian traditions, it occurred to me that very little time is spent telling us what we must and must not do in the sense that the critics are concerned. Now there is a heavy emphasis, as I was reminded just this morning, to serve and fear God rather than serving self and fearing man. The religion that has replaced this is indeed to serve self and fear man, which is not in the least liberating. The core of the Christian Gospel is that we are not, and cannot be good enough to come into the presence of a holy God, and that God himself, in the form of a mortal man, took all the evil deeds of mankind on himself. In response, we are invited to put our trust in him alone rather than in what we as individuals, or even as democracies, can muster up. Now that central issue is seldom mentioned by the critics, but I do suspect it is the one that causes the most offense.
Those countries with a free and open society today have generally received it as part of a Christian heritage. The concept of "freedom" so dear to western activists, is better addressed and developed in Christian thought than in any atheistic speculations. And the freedom that Jesus Christ offers is in a class apart from the whimsical tyranny of who can shout the loudest into the vacuum that is the alternative. -philw
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Imagine
Hearing John Lennon's "Imagine" on the TV last night challenged me again to consider why it is so appealing to think of a world where everyone just got along instead of turning to "religion" for an external motivation. One could go various directions with this, but it reminded me again of the difficult balance between loving truth and loving being right.
Christian faith has to rest on a foundation of what is true. That's why history is so important to us, with Scripture constantly linking its metaphysical teaching to real places, persons and dates. That fact alone distinguishes the Judeo-Christian tradition from all others. So, assuming that premise, a simple answer to imagining John Lennon's idyllic world is that it is not true. Of course most people do not accept that assumption, and in fact find it the most obnoxious aspect of Christianity.
There seems to be a couple of easy distractions from our pursuit of truth. First is the idea that truth should work. If the J-C life is true, then it should work out the best in practice. Christians should be happier, healthier, and more successful than others. And, despite glaring exceptions, that is generally true. But that also becomes an enticement to become more concerned with what makes life go better for me, i.e. pragmatism, or "prosperity gospel" than what is actually true. We are more concerned with the benefits of the Christian lifestyle than the truth, or the Living God it is based on. And in that way, the successful Christian congregation is no different than any other sect or tribe, seeking to enhance its own position to the neglect or even at the expense of others.
The second distraction from loving truth grows out of the first. Being part of a group that seems to us to have all the correct doctrine, with prosperous lives to back it up, can lead us to the arrogance of assuming we are right. This is quite different from the humility of loving truth. We enjoy the happiness of a disciplined Christian lifestyle in a mutually loving, supportive Christian community, along with the health and economic benefits it brings. And in that protected context, we can further fine-tune our truth claims, alienating us not only from a skeptical non-Christian world, but even from other professing followers of Jesus who are doing the same thing we are doing.
And there is the difficult balance. If our belief is true, then it should work out well, and we will be right in believing it. But, as Satan's challenge over Job, we will be close to finding more pleasure and pride in our success and ideology than in worshipping our Creator and Saviour. The church needs always to be on guard against this, to watch for signs of pragmatism or arrogance displacing our central focus on the Living God. Our "Amen" needs to be an affirmation of God's goodness rather than our own having it right. -philw
Christian faith has to rest on a foundation of what is true. That's why history is so important to us, with Scripture constantly linking its metaphysical teaching to real places, persons and dates. That fact alone distinguishes the Judeo-Christian tradition from all others. So, assuming that premise, a simple answer to imagining John Lennon's idyllic world is that it is not true. Of course most people do not accept that assumption, and in fact find it the most obnoxious aspect of Christianity.
There seems to be a couple of easy distractions from our pursuit of truth. First is the idea that truth should work. If the J-C life is true, then it should work out the best in practice. Christians should be happier, healthier, and more successful than others. And, despite glaring exceptions, that is generally true. But that also becomes an enticement to become more concerned with what makes life go better for me, i.e. pragmatism, or "prosperity gospel" than what is actually true. We are more concerned with the benefits of the Christian lifestyle than the truth, or the Living God it is based on. And in that way, the successful Christian congregation is no different than any other sect or tribe, seeking to enhance its own position to the neglect or even at the expense of others.
The second distraction from loving truth grows out of the first. Being part of a group that seems to us to have all the correct doctrine, with prosperous lives to back it up, can lead us to the arrogance of assuming we are right. This is quite different from the humility of loving truth. We enjoy the happiness of a disciplined Christian lifestyle in a mutually loving, supportive Christian community, along with the health and economic benefits it brings. And in that protected context, we can further fine-tune our truth claims, alienating us not only from a skeptical non-Christian world, but even from other professing followers of Jesus who are doing the same thing we are doing.
And there is the difficult balance. If our belief is true, then it should work out well, and we will be right in believing it. But, as Satan's challenge over Job, we will be close to finding more pleasure and pride in our success and ideology than in worshipping our Creator and Saviour. The church needs always to be on guard against this, to watch for signs of pragmatism or arrogance displacing our central focus on the Living God. Our "Amen" needs to be an affirmation of God's goodness rather than our own having it right. -philw
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Pride and Complaining
"Thankfulness only blossoms from a deep root of humility." J.C. Ryle 1816-1900
This quote from an Anglican bishop over a century ago was shared in a recent Sunday sermon. It prompted me to consider my own attitudes, and elusive pursuit of a life characterized by humility. The thought occurred to me that if gratitude is a measure of humility, then it might follow that complaining is a measure of pride.
Not long before this, I had become so frustrated with my own readiness to complain, that I put up a reminder sign in front of my desk in the office, "Do Everything Without Complaining" (quoting from Philippians 2:14). I wasn't thinking of it in terms of pride and humility, but was surprised to soon find myself having an attitude of complaining about the sign I had put up for myself.
So why might complaining be a measure of pride? It is identifying something or someone that obstructs my agenda for what I want to be or do, and blaming it for my shortcoming. At worst, it is denigrating someone else, for my own aggrandizement. At best, it is whining about petty annoyances that are the common lot of humanity. In any case, it is asserting that the real I is better both than the circumstances and people that surround me, and even better than how I seem to be doing at the moment, hampered by those circumstances or people.
Since sharing this simple observation with a few people, it has all too frequently already reminded me about how pervasive my pride is, and how comfortable I had become with it. But the observation that "complaining is a measure of pride" is likely true. "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." (2Cor.10:17) -philw
Friday, April 2, 2010
Earth Hour
On March 27th, everyone in the world, ideally, was asked to shut off non-essential power for an hour. The idea was to remind us to be careful how we use limited resources, not just for the hour of course, but all year round. The province of Ontario reported a 10% decrease in electricity use during that hour. The city of Calgary reported a 0.5% decrease, which was an improvement over its 2% increase reported last year.
It’s hard to find fault with conserving limited resources. But the rhetoric about it does not seem to be reflected in action by those who claim to support it. When consumers a couple years ago actually made a serious effort to only buy things they needed, those same voices promoting Earth Hour panicked, demanding that the state borrow more money to entice people to buy just to keep the economy going. Our economy is dependent on consumers throwing away stuff that is still serviceable, buying stuff which we don’t need and won’t even make us any happier, eating and drinking far more than is healthy for us, and busily traveling to and fro in a flurry of activity. Suzuki solemnly endorses switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, but fails to comment on resources required to make them, that they will be left on longer, that they do not provide the same light, do not work well in cold temperatures, and that we would accomplish more by simply turning off lights, and heat, and cooling, and vehicles that are not serving any purpose. Witnessing a daily morning parade of idling vehicles leading up to a Tim Horton’s drive through a few years ago left an indelible shock in my memory.
It wasn’t that many years ago that most businesses closed at least one day a week. Somehow we managed to obtain our groceries, and consumer goods, spend a bit more time with friends and family, take time to acknowledge the One who created all this good stuff, and still build one of the most prosperous civilizations in the history of the world. We gave the earth a rest one day a week, as well as every night. Well, now we need to shop or work or go out for entertainment 24/7. Not quite sure how this will make us all better off, but at least there is a token hour out of the 8766 per year.
This is like going to church once a year to feel good about being a little bit religious. But it is more than that. Listening to comments on the radio about what people did during earth hour, there were ideas like just being with some friends, or having a glass of wine by candlelight. And I thought, this is a religious ceremony, a time to do our homage to Mother Earth. It does have a much more palatable flavor than the grim content of the Christian holy week. As Easter was adapted from paganism to Christianity, perhaps it has almost come full circle. –philw
It’s hard to find fault with conserving limited resources. But the rhetoric about it does not seem to be reflected in action by those who claim to support it. When consumers a couple years ago actually made a serious effort to only buy things they needed, those same voices promoting Earth Hour panicked, demanding that the state borrow more money to entice people to buy just to keep the economy going. Our economy is dependent on consumers throwing away stuff that is still serviceable, buying stuff which we don’t need and won’t even make us any happier, eating and drinking far more than is healthy for us, and busily traveling to and fro in a flurry of activity. Suzuki solemnly endorses switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, but fails to comment on resources required to make them, that they will be left on longer, that they do not provide the same light, do not work well in cold temperatures, and that we would accomplish more by simply turning off lights, and heat, and cooling, and vehicles that are not serving any purpose. Witnessing a daily morning parade of idling vehicles leading up to a Tim Horton’s drive through a few years ago left an indelible shock in my memory.
It wasn’t that many years ago that most businesses closed at least one day a week. Somehow we managed to obtain our groceries, and consumer goods, spend a bit more time with friends and family, take time to acknowledge the One who created all this good stuff, and still build one of the most prosperous civilizations in the history of the world. We gave the earth a rest one day a week, as well as every night. Well, now we need to shop or work or go out for entertainment 24/7. Not quite sure how this will make us all better off, but at least there is a token hour out of the 8766 per year.
This is like going to church once a year to feel good about being a little bit religious. But it is more than that. Listening to comments on the radio about what people did during earth hour, there were ideas like just being with some friends, or having a glass of wine by candlelight. And I thought, this is a religious ceremony, a time to do our homage to Mother Earth. It does have a much more palatable flavor than the grim content of the Christian holy week. As Easter was adapted from paganism to Christianity, perhaps it has almost come full circle. –philw
Friday, January 22, 2010
Second Mile Re-Visited
Someone commented that it is hard to know how many “second miles” to go when serving people whose expectations seem insatiable.
One response here is that the “second mile” is done from a sense of freedom rather than obligation. Volunteering in the first place, for community, or church, or cross-cultural missions service, is already in the “second mile” category. No one is demanding that we do it. We see something that needs doing, and we freely step up and do it. That does not mean we should place ourselves under bondage to do whatever anyone tells us to do.
The Lord Jesus, who taught us about the second mile, also provided examples of setting boundaries. They wanted to make him a king, to do some more miracles, to go to Jerusalem at their bidding, to grant them to sit next to him in power, to answer trick questions, to be available when and where they wanted him, to come down from the cross. He seemed to have no trouble in declining. He demonstrates the ultimate submission to the will of his Father, with the ultimate sense of freedom. -philw
One response here is that the “second mile” is done from a sense of freedom rather than obligation. Volunteering in the first place, for community, or church, or cross-cultural missions service, is already in the “second mile” category. No one is demanding that we do it. We see something that needs doing, and we freely step up and do it. That does not mean we should place ourselves under bondage to do whatever anyone tells us to do.
The Lord Jesus, who taught us about the second mile, also provided examples of setting boundaries. They wanted to make him a king, to do some more miracles, to go to Jerusalem at their bidding, to grant them to sit next to him in power, to answer trick questions, to be available when and where they wanted him, to come down from the cross. He seemed to have no trouble in declining. He demonstrates the ultimate submission to the will of his Father, with the ultimate sense of freedom. -philw
Saturday, January 16, 2010
A Heart For God
Three general components of a Christian life would be a heart devoted to God (Father, Son, Spirit), a knowledge and personal acceptance of truth, and a life of obedience to Christ’s teachings. John’s first epistle could be summed up in these three principles, carefully tying them together. We can’t love God if we don’t know him or about him. And we can’t say we love God if we don’t love people and obey what Jesus has said.
Christian traditions have tended to emphasize one of these three above the others, yet doing so presents serious problems. A passion for our idea of God without knowledge is a dangerous thing. The Apostle Paul lamented that his own Jewish nation was characterized by a zeal for God that was not based on knowledge. We might get the same feeling about those pre-occupied with deeper spiritual experiences. A heavy emphasis on how we feel and our personal rapture readily opens the door for superstition and vain imagination, if not outright self-deceit. Various splinter sects do stress careful restrictive teaching, and often demonstrate zeal as well, but too often resting on the assertions of a single very persuasive founder. The passion is not really directed toward God, but toward one’s own sect – Christian tribalism.
Christian Fundamentalism has stressed the importance of right teaching to prevent such excess and diversion. The assumption is that if we can get our knowledge of the truth accurate and complete, then a life for God must follow. This has been carried out through preaching, and Bible studies, and books, and retreats, and seminaries. And it has produced valuable systematic theology. But a perception that one has arrived at such knowledge is an irresistible temptation for pride, for further fine tuning of our knowledge, and for excluding and demeaning those who do not share that same knowledge – in other words, a “log” in my own eye. It is crucial that I regard a truth grasped as something to which I am subject, rather than as a weapon with which I beat others down.
So other Christian denominations, while acknowledging that a heart for God and right teaching are of course essential, have recognized that the only real test of true faith is when the rubber hits the road. It’s all in the doing. The result might look more like a community service club, or conversely define ever more details about exactly what a Christian should or should not be doing. It’s not hard to see how quickly we can get off track there. Miss the mark and be crushed with shame. Get it right once and be puffed up with pride. Before we know it, we have a scale of good and bad deeds that measure how close to God one is. And then of course it is a good time to review the Apostle Paul’s warnings against legalism.
So then what? I would suggest that a revelation of the Person of God, and the desirable human response of a heart for God is the prevailing theme of both the Old and New Testaments, as well as the work of God throughout the history of the Church. I think of Bible characters who did not do so well for exhaustive doctrine or stellar conduct, but whom Scripture holds up as examples because of their hope and trust and delight in the Living God. Perhaps we shy away from such a pursuit because it is so difficult to measure, or a short step to emotionalism, or just dangerous and unpredictable. While we can devise tests for doctrine and for conduct, a love-for-God test is going to be elusive. And, as John’s epistle warns, it is easy enough to imagine that one loves God without caring about truth, obeying God, or loving others.
But despite that, we will always have a sense of our own heart’s attitude toward God, and while this might be the most slippery to define and measure, it might be the best light in which to view knowledge and practice. When I hear a “great sermon”, is it great in terms of increasing my appreciation for the wonderfulness of the Living God, or is it great because it had some good ideas, or profound exegesis, or moving challenge, or memorable illustrations? Acknowledged, it will be impossible to pass a firm judgment on it, but I can still tune in to which direction my own appreciation of the Lord took as a result of it. Similarly with pursuing a godly practice or avoiding an evil one. Does this make me feel more deserving of God’s favour and feel a step above others, or do I delight in the fact that the Spirit of God is changing me into the likeness of Christ? Or when I mess up badly, can I simply love the Lord all the more as I realize my need for him and his grace toward me are even greater than I had previously known?
It would be so good to have all of our church - and personal - experience, including corporate worship, Bible teaching, and acts of service, permeated with a heart of love for God as its beginning and end. And as we do so, we might see it comes not from some effort on our part, but because “he first loved us”. -philw
Christian traditions have tended to emphasize one of these three above the others, yet doing so presents serious problems. A passion for our idea of God without knowledge is a dangerous thing. The Apostle Paul lamented that his own Jewish nation was characterized by a zeal for God that was not based on knowledge. We might get the same feeling about those pre-occupied with deeper spiritual experiences. A heavy emphasis on how we feel and our personal rapture readily opens the door for superstition and vain imagination, if not outright self-deceit. Various splinter sects do stress careful restrictive teaching, and often demonstrate zeal as well, but too often resting on the assertions of a single very persuasive founder. The passion is not really directed toward God, but toward one’s own sect – Christian tribalism.
Christian Fundamentalism has stressed the importance of right teaching to prevent such excess and diversion. The assumption is that if we can get our knowledge of the truth accurate and complete, then a life for God must follow. This has been carried out through preaching, and Bible studies, and books, and retreats, and seminaries. And it has produced valuable systematic theology. But a perception that one has arrived at such knowledge is an irresistible temptation for pride, for further fine tuning of our knowledge, and for excluding and demeaning those who do not share that same knowledge – in other words, a “log” in my own eye. It is crucial that I regard a truth grasped as something to which I am subject, rather than as a weapon with which I beat others down.
So other Christian denominations, while acknowledging that a heart for God and right teaching are of course essential, have recognized that the only real test of true faith is when the rubber hits the road. It’s all in the doing. The result might look more like a community service club, or conversely define ever more details about exactly what a Christian should or should not be doing. It’s not hard to see how quickly we can get off track there. Miss the mark and be crushed with shame. Get it right once and be puffed up with pride. Before we know it, we have a scale of good and bad deeds that measure how close to God one is. And then of course it is a good time to review the Apostle Paul’s warnings against legalism.
So then what? I would suggest that a revelation of the Person of God, and the desirable human response of a heart for God is the prevailing theme of both the Old and New Testaments, as well as the work of God throughout the history of the Church. I think of Bible characters who did not do so well for exhaustive doctrine or stellar conduct, but whom Scripture holds up as examples because of their hope and trust and delight in the Living God. Perhaps we shy away from such a pursuit because it is so difficult to measure, or a short step to emotionalism, or just dangerous and unpredictable. While we can devise tests for doctrine and for conduct, a love-for-God test is going to be elusive. And, as John’s epistle warns, it is easy enough to imagine that one loves God without caring about truth, obeying God, or loving others.
But despite that, we will always have a sense of our own heart’s attitude toward God, and while this might be the most slippery to define and measure, it might be the best light in which to view knowledge and practice. When I hear a “great sermon”, is it great in terms of increasing my appreciation for the wonderfulness of the Living God, or is it great because it had some good ideas, or profound exegesis, or moving challenge, or memorable illustrations? Acknowledged, it will be impossible to pass a firm judgment on it, but I can still tune in to which direction my own appreciation of the Lord took as a result of it. Similarly with pursuing a godly practice or avoiding an evil one. Does this make me feel more deserving of God’s favour and feel a step above others, or do I delight in the fact that the Spirit of God is changing me into the likeness of Christ? Or when I mess up badly, can I simply love the Lord all the more as I realize my need for him and his grace toward me are even greater than I had previously known?
It would be so good to have all of our church - and personal - experience, including corporate worship, Bible teaching, and acts of service, permeated with a heart of love for God as its beginning and end. And as we do so, we might see it comes not from some effort on our part, but because “he first loved us”. -philw
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)