Striving for the Good in the Face of Uncertainy: The Paradox of Faith and Politics in Kierkegaard and Niebuhr

[My argument in this paper is that Kierkegaard and Niebuhr together, with their notions of faith and justice as paradoxical, provide a political theology that is neither despairing nor presumptuous in its vision for how to strive for the good. This is what I presented at the American Academy of Religion Annual Conference in San Diego this past week. For that reason, it is written more for a talk and is not in final format, so some of the references are not properly cited yet.]

The paradox of politics for Rousseau was the question of, “Which comes first, good people or good laws?”  In other words, how can a democracy be legitimate when the legitimacy comes from the democracy itself which is to be founded? There is always the problem of delimiting the people and deciding who speaks for them. It is never a fixed entity, and certain groups are always excluded. According to Bonnie Honig in her book Emergency Politics: Paradox, Law and Democracy, “…even established regimes are hardly rendered immune by their longevity to the paradoxical difficulty that Rousseau names… the paradox of politics is replayed rather than overcome in time” (EP, 14).

Furthermore, democracy cannot be reduced to merely the rule of law or the extension of rights to new constituencies. Instead, because of the power of the role of the people in mundane political procedure, there is the potential for the disturbance of existing institutions and practices. And this requires an acknowledgement of a place in democracy for the suspension of existing laws and norms – and of routine time – only this place is no longer that of the sovereign, as Honig argues in contrast to Carl Schmitt, but that of the subjectivity of individual political actors and their orientations toward the good, as well as their openness toward the possibility of a revelation and a conversion, or what Honig drawing on Rosenzweig calls a “miracle” (more about this notion of a miracle in a moment). Honig further explains:

Belief in a linear time sequence is invariably attended by belief that sequence is either regressive or progressive. [both of which Kierkegaard and Niebuhr reject] Linear time, its normativity, causality — are thrown off balance by the paradox of politics in which what is presupposed as coming before (virtue, the people, the law) invariably comes after (if at all), and what comes after invariably replays the paradox of politics that time was supposed to surmount (15).

One thinks as well here of the both “already” and “not-yet” presence and availability of the Kingdom of God, in the way that Jesus talks about it. And it is precisely this notion of paradox that Kierkegaard and Niebuhr each in their own way employ in their understandings of faith and politics, respectively.

First, in Kierkegaard’s view, without risk, there is no faith. And so it is in society with the emergence of opportunity for change – for passing on the vocation of citizenship, for the formation of virtuous people, and for the inclusion of new, formerly excluded groups. An Individual, personal leap and risk must be taken with resoluteness. But this risk and leap is always only possible as a response, not as an initiative. It’s a response to what Simon Critchley, analyzing Paul through a Kierkegaardian lens, calls an “infinite demand.”

This demand remains incomprehensible, for Kierkegaard, for whom faith is always a passionate inwardness rather than external, or primarily doctrinal security, which he criticizes both in Hegel’s philosophy and the nominal Christianity of his culture. If we politicize this, Kierkegaard serves to guard against the polarization of the citizenry into either despair or presumption – resignation or ideological entrenchment. As Critchley remarks, a faith (or faithlessness for him) “with passionate inwardness best sustains the rigor of faith because it does not require security, guarantees or rewards” (Faith of the Faithless, 252). For Critchley, believers, as well as non-believers, are no longer allowed the naivety of a pre-Kierkegaardian faith. For Kierkegaard, faith starts neither with our political effectiveness, nor even our ideas. Faith is a leap, and a realized life in response by subjects to an infinite demand — one that ultimately is a demand of love, as will be seen below.

In Kierkegaard’s day, the Danes of Christendom would prefer to proceed by merely “knowing” the truth as a security, not resolutely striving toward it with exceeding interestedness. For Kierkegaard, Socrates in contrast actually does put faith in the good and even sacrifices his life for it — and Kierkegaard admired Socrates for this — but Climacus only saw this as what he called “Religiousness A”, as the highest example of the ethical stage of existence – not because Socrates’ subjectivity lacked passionate inwardness, but because the object of his faith itself was not paradoxical. Everything that Socrates needed to learn, he thought, came from within, and from recollection, rather than from outside or beyond. As Niebuhr would later say, Socrates lacked a messianic consciousness. For him, a Christ was not expected (Nature and Destiny).

So, as Kierkegaard has it, it is not only the nature of faith that is paradoxical, but also its object, and what that object promises. Socrates’ ethic failed to preserve this tension, and he also could not account for Kierkegaard and Niebuhr’s conception of human sin. For Socrates, ignorance is the source of conflict, harm, hate, and so on, rather than sin.

So what Socrates doesn’t appreciate is this: what stands in the way of the potential for this gathering and mobilizing on the part of the people, then, is the paradoxical combination of human finitude and human freedom. And here I’m focusing on Niebuhr’s understanding of sin, which builds on Kierkegaard’s in part. As both finite and free, Niebuhr would say, human beings have natural limitations but infinite expectations and pretensions, which leads them to become self-conscious about their insecurity and hence creates anxiety. Anxiety inclines the people to seek their own certainty and security, which is always insufficient, and to do so to the detriment of extending new rights to new constituents –even with democracy. So the big question becomes, what does it take for people to become prepared for and postured to affect change, in spite of this anxiety?

Rosenzweig is instructive here. His view of a miracle, which I alluded to a moment ago, is not that it compels or commands attention, but that it is a subtle signal soliciting a response. Those who want to receive the signal, to witness it, have to be open to its possibility. This openness requires habituation to certain patterns of receptivity, and the cultivation of an orientedness to the good, to the divine (Honig, The Miracle of Metaphor).

Kierkegaard’s view is similar. Again, just as faith is paradoxical rather than reducible to the rational, so too is the remedy for sin paradoxical. It is unexpected and from outside or beyond, rather than a mere lesson to be learned. So, following Kierkegaard, for there to be any change, individuals must undergo conversions (that is, they must receive and respond to a transformative revelation — they must be open to the miraculous in Rosenzweig’s sense). But what is the nature of this conversion, for the people, at the social level? For this, one is better served by turning to Niebuhr.

Whereas for Kierkegaard the paradox of faith finds its object in the doctrine of the incarnation – that the infinite of the divine dwells in humanity – in Niebuhr’s work, while there is still a christological paradox, it is social and ethical as much as theological. Niebuhr argues in the third chapter of Nature and Destiny that:

“the significant contrast between the divine and the human in Christ is not, as Greek thought assumed, the contrast between the “impassible and the passible.” [Here we see Niebuhr’s ambivalence toward metaphysics.] It is [rather] a contrast between the perfect coincidence of power and of goodness in the divine.”

For Niebuhr, it is impossible to symbolize the divine goodness in history in any other way than by complete powerlessness or rather by a consistent refusal to use power in the rivalries of history. Niebuhr goes on:

“The final majesty, the ultimate freedom, the perfect disinterestedness of the divine love can have a counterpart in history only in a life which ends tragically, because it refuses to participate in the claims and counterclaims of historical existence. It portrays a love which seeketh not its own” (emphasis added).

What Niebuhr does through this christology is to situate finite and free human beings in society in accordance with the dialectical relationship between God’s justice and love.

Niebuhr may have a less suspicious outlook on philosophical theology than Kierkegaard, but he is just as realistic or even as pessimistic as Kierkegaard is in his outlook on the limits placed on political progress as a result of humanity’s sinful condition. In this way, they both hold fast to faith in the face of objective uncertainty — Kierkegaard in terms of human subjectivity, and Niebuhr in terms of politics, and what human beings are to strive for.

So the paradox, politically speaking, for Niebuhr, is that Christians must strive to realize proximate justice within history, even though we will still inevitably sin in the process — while at  the same time also resisting the temptation to push forward with the expectation of fully achieving a justly representative society. This is because Niebuhr understands that the meaning of life and history while revealed in history is not fully fulfilled through history. Like Kierkegaard, he sees the meaning of life and history as having a transcendent source. (This is also what I think most distinguishes Kierkegaard and Niebuhr from several important contemporary political philosophers today, such as Badiou or Agamben, for example.  While this is far too terse of a synopsis, I would venture to say that Niebuhr would consider Badiou’s “event” as dehistoricized, somewhat like Greek though, and Agamben’s “messianic time” as lacking the universal reach of the Christ event.)

So again, Niebuhr strikes a balance bound to neither an ideology of false utopias nor despair about change. (In Nature and Destiny, he characterizes these two ends with the paradigms of “Renaissance” and “Reformation,” respectively, both of which are reactionary and half-true in what they emphasize about human progress — i.e., Renaissance humanism, and Reformation depravity).

Now of course the criticisms of this position are familiar, because it can be seen as a kind of false third way between either choosing to actually struggle for real progress or just resorting to political quietism. But Niebuhr insists that Christianity has unique recourse to a penultimate social ethic because theologically it holds together the paradox and uncertainty of faith and politics, and therefore, Niebuhr might say, the possibility of faith and politics. Niebuhr states:

“The Christian belief that meaning of both life and history is disclosed and fulfilled in Christ and his Cross, is in a sense a combination of Greek and Hebrew interpretations of life. It conforms to the Greek interpretation of life because in it there is an understanding of the fact that the meaning of life transcends history; but in Greek thought history tends to be excluded from the realm of meaning, and life is fulfilled by escaping from the historical process. In Christianity the meaning of life and history is fulfilled, though not wholly, within the historical process. New Testament faith conforms to the Hebrew interpretation of life [then] because in this view life is fulfilled in history, though in Christianity the implicit difference between “life” and “history” is made explicit…” (Nature and Destiny, 1996 (36))

– namely, because, again, paradoxically, Christ fulfills history not by just living but in fact by dying, only this death is not final. After all, that is the hope that Christians have in the midst of the uncertainties of history.

Finally, Niebuhr states that:

“The final majesty of God is contained not so much in [God’s] power within the structures [– this is the false certainty we crave –] as in the power of [God’s] freedom over the structures, that is, over the logos aspects of reality. This freedom is the power of mercy beyond judgment. By this freedom God involves [God’s self] in the guilt and suffering of free [human beings] who have, in their freedom, come in conflict with the structural character of reality” (71)

– because human beings doubt that the structural character of reality really is good!

So for Christians, the agape of God, which was paradoxical for Kierkegaard because it came in the form of the finite, and paradoxical for Niebuhr because it did not exploit, is the basis of God relationship with humanity and history. And therefore it is from faith in this both seemingly tenuous and risky relationship between humanity, God and history, constituted by the paradox of agape, that I understand Kierkegaard and Niebuhr to be illuminating the horizon upon which historical-political, subjects can strive for the good — because of the consequent freedom that comes from this agape, from the anxieties and rivalries of history, and the hope that that final meaning and fulfillment is not totally tied to historical outcome.

In sum, and by way of response to this very cursory look at two major figures, the political is inherently paradoxical, and so must be our engagement with it. But people ignore, suppress, or overtly deny the paradox, clinging instead to false certainties and neat political ideologies, contenting themselves instead with voicing opinions or voting. Those most adversely affected by this are not surprisingly the poor and the oppressed. Kierkegaard didn’t speak to this very much, which in part one can attribute to his context. Niebuhr, however, was sensitive to economic injustices, but he was still addressing these issues from a place of privilege and power. Because of this, I do not think he was truly sensitive to the weight of oppression that certain groups were experiencing. Moreover, there is a difference between intervention and solidarity.  Many times it seems that people have used Niebuhr’s thought to justify the former without doing the hard work of the latter. So, if we can evaluate Niebuhr’s thought with the interests of the powerless in mind, some of his blind spots may come into focus for us. No doubt two of the most glaring are the matters of race and gender. And Niebuhr’s complicity with U.S. nationalism at times may also become evident.

In this respect, Kierkegaard’s call to actually heed the infinite demand of love is a stronger injunction to imitate Christ.  Niebuhr by comparison is satisfied, it would seem, to merely use Christ as the benchmark.  My sense is that the more faithful appropriation here, even politically, is Kierkegaard’s, but the challenge becomes how to do that in light of Niebuhr’s apt prediction that such attempts to embody Christ’s ethic will eventually lead to martyrdom.

And finally, by way one more closing critical observation, it does not appear that Niebuhr really develops his political theology with a high view of the church’s role in society in mind – despite his pastoral experience in an urban and economically depressed congregation in Detroit early on in his life. And it seems to me that, especially as the United States continues to fragment – religiously, culturally, politically, etc. – a robust understanding of the role of the church in the public sphere with respect to this paradoxical politic is essential, and wanting in both Kierkegaard and Niebuhr. The question remains looming in my view, for example, as to how the organizing identity of local congregations will posture itself and its church members for political agency and activism, in comparison to the conventional ways this has been done in recent history in both conservative and liberal contexts.

Niebuhr says, for example, that heedless love has to replenish mutual love — otherwise it will degenerate into something less. In order for this to happen, however, it seems to me that Christians must primarily derive their identity from a community in which heedless love is the norm, or the at least the archetype. This cannot be the case if the primary identity of Christians comes from citizenship of the state. Without a well-developed ecclesial structure and identity that informs the Christian politic, any complicity with violence on the part of Christians for the purpose of approximating justice will risk being rationalized instead of sorely felt, mourned and repented of.

These limitations notwithstanding, there remains tremendous promise from both of these thinkers with respect to not just Christian faith and practice, but sober hope for society, individual social responsibility and collective political engagement.

Resisting Evil

This was a short talk I gave last Sunday morning at a retreat.

“The glory of God is human beings fully alive.” – Irenaeus

“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.”

- John 10:10

Talking about resisting evil might sound a little bit strange in our modern world.  We tend to reserve the word evil for really atrocious stuff, like the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide, ISIS, and so on.  We do this partly because we want to separate and distance ourselves from the most obvious and extreme forms of evil so that we’re not responsible, and so though our conscience feels clean – so that we don’t have to acknowledge the evil in our own hearts.

Early on in Church history, one Christian theologian named Augustine defined evil as simply the absence of God, or absence of good.  In other words, evil is the absence of the abundant life that Jesus promises. That may sound like a pretty tame definition at first, but it rightly emphasizes that good and evil are not equal but opposite forces. Evil only has the power that we give to it.  It’s like a parasite.  It doesn’t stand by itself.  It has to attach to something.

One of the most common metaphors for good and evil is light and darkness. I find that this is an even more helpful way to illustrate evil, because again, light and darkness don’t work the same way. If you turn on a light in the corner of a room, it can light up almost the whole area. Darkness works differently.  I can’t turn on darkness.  But I can cast a shadow by turning my back on the light.

See, God’s light shines everywhere, but God gives us the room and the freedom to resist the light by turning inward on ourselves and living in that shadow.  Individuals do this, and groups can also do this. And this darkness that we create is the breeding ground for evil. It’s the absence of the Holy Spirit, and the presence of what we might call a demonic spirit.

Just using the Holocaust illustration again – thinking about how this is probably the most radical example of evil we’ve seen in the last 100 years: A group has to circle the wagons, close in on itself, which prevents any outside light, God’s light, from coming in, and then it starts to see itself as the one, true, good, righteous group, and to see all other groups and people, or especially one other group of people – in this case, the Jews – as the enemy, as evil, and as the problem.  By locating evil outside of themselves, they, and we, become blind to the evil within.

Beginning in the Gospels, this same evil force gets personified in the figure of Satan, and Jesus himself is tempted by Satan after the Holy Spirit leads Jesus into the desert to fast for 40 days. And of course Jesus also resists evil by casting out what are called demons or “unclean spirits” in the Gospels. I will come back to Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness in a moment.

Returning the analogy of light and darkness, Jesus says, I am the light of the world! And then Jesus tells us in John 10:10 that he has come that we might have life to the full, and life abundantly. So this kind of life, full of light and abundance, full of what one author I like calls “aliveness,” is supposed to be central to the Christian faith, and to our experience of following Jesus. Honestly though, a lot of times, it’s not. Many times we don’t experience abundant life, and it may leave us frustrated and confused.  Because here’s the deal: nobody accidentally finds abundant life. You’re not just going to stumble into it, or follow your natural inclinations and fully experience it. It takes great intentionality and diligence. More than that, we often think that abundant life means the presence of comfort and the absence of suffering. Just by looking at Jesus own life though, it should be clear to us that abundant life may come with great hardship – joy and peace and contentment, but still hardship.

Another reason we miss out on abundant life, is because we fail to realize and appreciate that this life is a battle, and a war against evil. The difficulty though is understanding how this evil operates. The best illustration of how evil works that I know of is found in the story I mentioned a moment ago in Matthew 4 in which Jesus is tempted by Satan.

A few chapters later in Matthew Jesus says that the path that leads to destruction is wide and many people are on it.  This isn’t about hell or afterlife.  He’s talking about abundant life, and un-abundant life.  Then Jesus says that the path leads to abundant life is narrow and few find it!  Again, not because only a small number of people are forgiven or saved, but because only a small percentage of people actually decide to live into this truth.

Getting back to Jesus’ temptation now: You could say Jesus is tempted by the three P’s: (the worship of, or the idolatry of) Pleasure, People, and Power.  Or, borrowing from what Thomas Keating says, which I referenced in the previous post, Jesus, like all of us, was confronted with the enticement of:

  1. Comfort, survival and security (includes pleasure)
  2. esteem and admiration from others
  3. Power and control

None of these things is essentially bad, but the temptations Jesus faces are about their abuse – making these things god. I think this helps to demystify, or demythologize evil somewhat.  It doesn’t make it any less serious, but it does make it less weird and spooky.

Evil doesn’t approach on its own.  It always has a mask on, and the mask will generally fall into one of of these three categories.  And once we know how evil tends to show itself and confront us, we’re much more likely to be able to resist it.

Contemplative Prayer and Lectio Divina: A Short Introduction

“We do not build the kingdom of God on earth by our own efforts (however assisted by grace); the most we can do through genuine prayer, is to make as much room as possible, in ourselves and in the world, for the kingdom of God, so that its energies can go to work. All that we can show our contemporaries of the reality of God springs from contemplation.” – Hans Urs von Balthasar, Prayer

I. Communicative, or “Thinking” prayer (Consciousness-centered Prayer) consists of

Prayers that make use of our conscious mind, such as adoration, thanksgiving, confession, petition. These kinds of prayers are intended to increase awareness of dependence on God and trust in God for everything. They also enable us to become agents who desire what God desire at the level of our thinking, doing, feeling and sensing (i.e., at the level of consciousness).

II. Non-Communicative, or Non-thinking Prayer (Unconsciousness-centered Prayer)

Evangelical Protestants have traditionally emphasized verbal prayer, preaching and singing as a means of encouraging a life-changing encounter with Christ. In the process, we have downplayed many of the practices that deal with the unconscious dimensions of the human personality. Slow, quiet, simple prayers, whether through meditation, contemplation, or simply listening to God, serve to open the unconscious self to God’s healing grace.

Awakening to our Authentic Self:

Why “open the unconscious self”? Because this is how we can grow free to live out of the authentic self as opposed to the small self.

  • The small self is what some might refer to as a social construct. By and large it is created externally and has a great deal to do with what others expect of you, what’s fashionable, and what is valued in the community.
  • So this “self” tends to be fashioned and controlled by (when we’re unaware of it) the world. And by “the world” we mean, expectations of others, demands of the culture, inner conflicts, insecurities, and deep wounds, habits… Sin and sins — all that is in the physical realm (the world of sense). As a rule, when the authentic self is unknown… the small self will be controlled (Burt Burleson).

Thomas Keating says that we will find the needs of the small self (or “false” self) in one of three areas:

  1. Needs for security and survival. (some would add pleasure here)
  2. Needs for esteem and affection.
  3. Needs for power and control.

Not coincidentally, these are the same three areas in which Jesus is tempted by Satan in the gospels before beginning his public ministry. Once we have identified with our small self “thinking,” and are blind to the way these three desires entice us, we will have no choice but to be swept up into the mainstream current of these felt needs.

Contemplative Prayer equips us to Resist this Current:

  • In quiet, contemplative, or non-communicative prayer, we are forced to stop trying to control things. We stop asking God to do stuff. This stillness and silence, in which we wait before God, is pregnant with presence (Betty Talbert). Prayers with words or images reduce our awareness of God to what our conscious (read thinking) minds can conceive, which is infinitely less than God is.
  • Contemplative prayer is a gateway to the non-ego-driven life. The ego reigns supreme in most of our everyday endeavors that are constantly focused on analyzing, doing, or emoting something. With practice, contemplative prayer slowly brings us into union and participation with the Divine Life — that is, it sanctifies us. Communicative or thinking prayer is simply not as effective at accomplishing this.
  • Contemplative, non-thinking prayer also frees us from the tyranny of being controlled by time, and allows us instead to simply be. In practicing what is a completely non-performative form of prayer, we’re trying neither to come up with nor read the right words. This creates a safer place for honesty and growth.

In many ways, Contemplative prayer comes after we know God as a Parent who knows everything about us, and yet still chooses to be our permanent Caretaker. Protestants have stressed that, though we are undeserving sinners, we are nonetheless loved unconditionally by God through Christ. The parallel promise of Contemplative prayer is the discovery that, though we are not control, but we are nonetheless safe in God through Christ.

Contemplative prayer is not, however, 1) a relaxation exercise (though over time, it should lead to peace, rest and reduced anxiety), 2) a charismatic gift, or 3) a para-psychological experience.

A Few Types of Contemplative Prayer practices are:

  • The Jesus Prayer, which comes from Scripture and the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.”
  • Lectio Divina, which began in the Western monastic tradition, and is a four-part process that starts with 1) reading Scripture and 2) meditating upon it with the mind. Then, 3) one responds with feelings and will to the Word one has heard. Finally, 4) one moves through the Word to rest in the presence of God. In this way, it is both apophatic and cataphatic. It also tends to appeal especially to Myers-Briggs types with SF, ST, and SJ personalities.
  • Centering prayer is a modern form of the fourteenth Century practiced outlined in the “Cloud of Unknowing” in which the Christian tries to reach out to God in silent love. It consists primarily in meditation on one focal word or phrase for extended time (5-20 min).

Lectio Divina: Preparation for Prayer

  1. Spend a few minutes in silence, clearing your mind and heart. Concentrate on releasing concerns of the day. (Sometimes it is good to make a list of concerns and problems during this period and promise yourself that you will deal with them later in the day).
  2. Spend a few moments being aware of your body. Ask yourself where you are uncomfortable. Be certain that you are allowing your chair to bear your full weight. Ask your body to relax as you concentrate on your breathing. Breathe in and out slowly ten times.

Examples of Verses that Encourage Silence and Centering Prayer before God:

“Be still and know that I am God!” Psalm 46:10a

“In the path of your judgments, Oh Lord, we wait for you; your name and your renown are the soul’s desire. My soul years for you in the night, my spirit within me earnestly seeks you.” Isaiah 26:8-9a

“One thing I asked of the Lord, that I will seek after: to live in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in his temple.” Psalm 27:4

Jesus answered him, “Those who live me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.” John 14:23

“I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.” Philippians 3:10-11

“Listen to me in silence, O coastlands; let the peoples renew their strength.” Isaiah 41:1a

“For it is the God who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge o the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” 2 Corinthians 4:6

The Future of Church #11 (with Cynthia Bourgeault)

Bill Walker:

This is a post I read a while back from blogger and Anglican priest Christopher Page that I’ve been meaning to share and reblog for some time. Herein Page interviews Cynthia Bourgeault, whose book Centering Prayer and Inner Awakening I enjoyed reading while in seminary. I think this notion of the “Law of Three” holds true in so many facets of life.

Originally posted on In A Spacious Place:

This past spring The Contemplative Society website (http://www.contemplative.org/) posted 12 summary statements about the future of church I gleaned from a Lenten Series I attended, accompanied by a response from Cynthia Bourgeault. With Cynthia’s encouragement, I am reposting the original paragraph, followed by her response, and my response to Cynthia. We hope this may generate some conversation. Cynthia will check in and respond to comments if she feels inspired.

View original 1,111 more words

Generosity, Stewardship, and Living in God’s Economy

This sermon was preached on Sunday, Oct. 19th at Saint Peter’s Church.  The audio can be found here.

We’re going through this series right now that started last week on the Generosity of God, and our response to it, and we’ll be continuing in it for the next month or two. If you missed this past Sunday, then please try to find time to listen to the audio of TJ’s sermon on the website, because each message is going to build on the previous one somewhat. We know where this is ultimately pointing – to a generous God, and a merciful God, who we know through Jesus and who through Jesus demonstrates radical generosity, as TJ talked about last Sunday. And the appropriate response to God’s generosity was illustrated by the tax collector, who humbled himself before God, in contrast to the Pharisee, who exalted himself. But today, we’re going to begin at the beginning, with Creation itself, what we learn about God’s generosity in & through Creation, and what that tells us about our role as stewards of Creation, and what that means we’re supposed to live for.

Psalm 8:3-4 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established; what are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you care for them?

So first, that God is Creator: we live in a universe — not just a world — 99 percent of which is nothing but empty space, stretching across billions of light-years and including billions of galaxies and stars. The universe was around for a long time without the earth, and the earth was around for a long time without human beings, and human beings have been around for a long time without us. Our smallness, compared to the universe’s bigness, is humbling. And God made the whole thing!  We see that God is the reason for existence, and we’re not at the center of the universe — not even close. And humility is the appropriate response! Just as it was for the tax collector.

Secondly though, and just as important, we learn in this Psalm that human beings have a very special place in created order. Here’s Psalm 8 again, picking up in v. 5:

You have made them[d] a little lower than the angels[e]
and crowned them[f] with glory and honor.
6 You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under their feet,

So despite our smallness, our apparent insignificance, human beings are set apart and given a unique role. God gives us dominion over the earth and we’re to be stewards of it. It’s been entrusted to us. We’re to be a stewards, meaning we’re to be managers or overseers — caretakers — which means our responsibility is to do exactly what the owner wants us to do with the things that are not ours but Owner’s. The things that are God’s. So as it turns out, in spite of some obvious limitations, we nonetheless possess a certain degree of great power and freedom — and — responsibility, as stewards. Because Human beings have the capacity to do things that no other creatures can’t do.

Here’s what happens though. And you all know the story. We take this privileged place that God has put us in and given us, for granted, and we abuse it. We go from having stewardship to entitlement, from dominion, to domination and even exploitation.

Look at the quote in your bulletin from Tim Keller:

If you have money, power, and status today, it is due to the century and place in which you were born, to your talents and capacities and health, none of which you earned. In short, all your resources are in the end the gift of God.

We had no say, and no control over what century we were born in, what country, or what family. Just taking an example that’s close to home for some of us at St Peter’s: What if you were born in Honduras, in Flor del Campo, where our team is going next month, where our missionary partner and fellow church member, Suzy McCall lives? Suzy’s actually here with us this morning, so come give her a hug after the service. We obviously have a lot of successful business men and women in our community. Think about just starting a business in Honduras, if you’re a citizen there instead of here. If you’re trying doing business in Flor del Campo — you may be paying taxes to drug cartels, they might kill you and your family. I know that kind of intense and not very fun to think about it, but we need think about it. It should humble us. It should make us grateful. And remind us even more of our role as stewards.

But that’s not our nature, and that’s not what a lot of our culture says. We want to celebrate the independent, self-made individual, as if we have enough power, and enough control, to deserve all the credit when success comes our way. Or, maybe we know better than to be too direct with our boasting about success and achievements, so instead we master the art of the humble brag. I think if you took away the humble brag, Facebook stock would completely crash.

Or, how about even our health — something else we like to boast in, or something else we think we control. You can exercise, you can be super fit, eat all organic food — and still get cancer. I just watched this great movie the other night, “The Fault in our Stars,” about two teenagers dying of cancer. We just do not have as much control as we think we do. Theologian Stanley Hauerwas has said this: “Nobody’s getting out of life alive.” And then he asks, “So what are we living for?”

In this movie, The Fault in Our Stars, the main character, Hazel Grace is her name, she’s upset, because her parents have had to make their whole existence all about taking care of her, and she’s afraid that when she dies, they’re not going to have anything else to live for. And so there’s moment when she tells them that this is her biggest fear. She’s come to terms with the fact that she’s going to die. She’s been terminal for a long time. She’s not afraid of death. When she tells her parents this, her mom says, honey, losing you will hurt more than anything we’ve ever experienced, and it will be the hardest thing we ever go through. But we’re gonna keep going. We’re going to live with our pain. You of all people have taught us that we can do that. And then, her mom says, I’ve been social work classes, and I want to start an organization that helps parents whose children are dying. I didn’t want to tell you this though, her mom says, because I was afraid that you’d think we’d given up on you, or that we had decided to move on without you. Hazel Grace bursts into tears, because she’s so happy. See Hazel had lived with pain and suffering long enough, even at age seventeen, that she figured out the only way to overcome that pain, was to fear it, avoid it, or numb it, but to live for something more than herself, and actually grow in her concern for the lives of others. And then, her parents learn the same lesson, about stewarding their lives, and living for something more than themselves. “Nobody’s getting out of life alive. So as Christians, as stewards of Creation, what is God calling us to live for?”

Let’s look at David’s prayer from 1 Chronicles 29, and see if it might answer this question. Keep in mind that David has just taken up an offering for the Temple that God has said Solomon will build, and David’s giving out of his own treasure before asking other leaders to do the same:

11 Yours, LORD, is the greatness and the power
and the glory and the majesty and the splendor,
for everything in heaven and earth is yours.
Yours, LORD, is the kingdom;

This may sound familiar, because some of this is the basis for Lord’s prayer! Jesus knew the Jewish Scriptures of course, and he draws on this prayer! as a Son of David. So it shows up again: “Yours is the Kingdom, Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” According to David, and according to Jesus, this something that we’re supposed to be living for is God’s Kingdom. A more contemporary word in place of Kingdom could also just be God’s economy. Living as stewards, living generously, means that we live in God’s economy.

Jesus gives some instructions about life in this kingdom, life in this economy, beginning in Matthew 6:31. Jesus says,”do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom (God’s economy) and God’s righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Don’t worry about tomorrow.”

So here we see how close a relationship there is for Jesus, as there was for David, between generosity, and life in the Kingdom of God – life in God’s economy. What joins these two things together, is trust. Trust in God. He says don’t worry, don’t be anxious. You don’t really control any of that stuff anyway, so stop chasing after it. Stop living for the world’s economy. It’s not reliable. You’d think we would have learned that by now. A life without anxiety, with open hands, without clinging to our wealth, our status, our security — that’s what enables a generous life, and that’s what enables life in the Kingdom of God, life in God’s economy.

But let’s pause and try to put life in our own economy into perspective for a minute, at the global level. The 12 percent of the world’s population that lives in North America and Western Europe accounts for 60 percent of private consumption spending, while the one-third living in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa accounts for only 3.2 percent. It’s been estimated now that it would take something like three more planets to sustain us, over our lifetimes, if everyone on the planet consumed at the rate we do over the course of their lifetimes. And that’s of course assuming that the population of the world stays the same, which it clearly is not.

Maybe you’ve heard the saying, “there’s enough in the world for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” That pretty much describes our situation. Obviously, this is not good economics. This is not good stewardship. Let’s look at the rest of First Chronicles 29:

12 Wealth and honor come from you;
you are the ruler of all things.
In your hands are strength and power
to exalt and give strength to all.
13 Now, our God, we give you thanks,
and praise your glorious name.

This prayer, is a model for stewardship and generosity. It contains the the clue to the cure for the human disease I’ve just been trying to describe — this independent thinking that gives credit to ourselves, like we’re the ones most responsible for our own success or prosperity. It’s a disease of individualism. It’s a disease of consumerism. But this prayer is the counter-story. It’s tells the truth that we ignore, and it exposes the entitlement and domination in our thinking, and calls us back to stewardship. David is simply proclaiming that, because God is Creator, because of God’s generosity, everything we are, everything we have, everything we benefit from, and even everything we give away, is God’s.

This is what Jesus was teaching. It’s what Paul was saying, especially in Philippians, which we just finished studying earlier this month. And here’s what it boils down to: despite what we naturally think, we are actually more fulfilled, more content, more grateful and therefore more generous, when life is not their own — when we’re willing to give up ownership. And, conversely we are more miserable, more frustrated, more fearful, more discontent, when life is all about us, and we’re unwilling to give up ownership.

So, here are three final things about stewardship and generosity in God’s Kingdom, in God’s economy. First, when we imitate God’s generosity, Jesus’ generosity, it makes God’s grace visible to the rest world. When people see the people of God living with an open-handed understanding of all they have and all they are. The church is doing its job, when we see ourselves not as the owner of anything but as stewards all that God has given us.

Secondly, God is not threatening to punish you if you’re not generous. The absence of generosity in your life is its own punishment. Greed and sin are their own punishment! This is what Jesus is trying to tell us. It feels like you’re more in control at first, like you’re answering to yourself, and getting what you want — like you’re free. But you’re not. You become a slave to it, and it will rob you of peace and joy in your life. So this kind of Generosity is always an invitation.

And here’s the last thing: you can’t do it by yourself. You can’t do it by yourself. Some of us want to be more generous, but we feel constrained by our jobs, our commitments, and our schedules with family, social obligations, or whatever. Eventually, we discover that the patterns of our culture, a culture of entitlement, of domination, of individualism, of consumerism — it’s simply too much to resist by yourself. And the only way for us to resist these things is to have a community around us that’s helping us resist these things. In other words, just like the early Christians did, who we read about in the book of Acts which we studied this past summer, we have to move toward interdependence and a shared life together. This is what life in God’s kingdom and God’s economy looks like. You want a picture of it? Go back to Acts 2 and 4.

The well-known author and professor Huston Smith said this:

“I don’t have any fear of death. I do, however, have an inordinate fear of becoming dependent on other people. To me, that’s the severest test, not death.”

This is what we have to learn though. We have to face this fear. We have to grow into interdependence. We have to help each other ask, “what crowds our lives and keeps us from flourishing?” In the Connect Group that I’m a part of, we’re reading a book by a guy named Mark Scandrette about taking steps toward simplicity and generous living, and he describes generous living as:

“choosing to leverage our time, money, talents and possessions toward what matters most… toward [God’s economy].”

Generosity is going to look a little bit different for everyone, but one of the best environments that we as a church can offer you where this can happen is through Connect Groups. We started several new groups just in the last month, and already I think we’re beginning to see some fruit, even in these very early stages. Several leaders of the groups gathered yesterday for a training session and a time of sharing and learning together, and I think we were all encouraged by it.

One of my main responsibilities as a pastor on staff is to champion these Groups in our community. And I wasn’t asked to do this because I’m an expert, or because I have all the experience, but because I believe in them, and because I’m committed to seeing these Groups become avenues for God’s work of transforming our lives, taking our church deeper, and even transforming the culture around us.

So if you haven’t been to a Connect Group gathering yet, go check one out. You can visit as many as you want. We have 8 groups meeting on four different nights of the week, at least once a month, in a number of different neighborhoods. You can find the contact information of the leaders on the website, and there’s also a brochure with more information on the wall outside in the greeting area of the sanctuary.

As we move to communion, in light of the call on our lives to be stewards and to live with generosity in response to God’s generosity, I want us to close with a responsive acknowledgement and prayer together — A prayer for generosity and stewardship (adapted from Free: How to Spend Your Time and Money on What Matters Most:

I am dependent on and cared for by an abundant Creator.
I choose to be grateful and trusting.
I believe I have enough and that what I need will always be provided.
I choose to be content and generous.
I know that my choices matter for myself, for others and for future generations.
Help me to live consciously and creatively, celebrating signs of your new creation that is present and coming.
God, who made me to seek your kingdom and your righteousness,
Guide me to use my time, talents and resources to pursue your Kingdom.
Teach me to be free,
to live without worry, fear or greed in the freedom of your abundance.
Give me my daily bread, as I share with those in need.
Thank you for the gift of forgiveness through your Son Jesus Christ. Amen.

More from E. Frank Tupper’s “A Scandalous Providence”

Previously I shared this collection of quotes from Tupper as well.  The quotes below were part of my reading in preparation for the sermon I preached on Sept. 28th, the text and audio from which can be found two posts before this one.  In particular, I’m always encouraged when a preacher or theologian takes the time to underscore either 1) the hope that comes from God’s solidarity with suffering through Jesus or 2) the mystery of the incarnation itself. In this case, Tupper talks about both.  Most evangelical preaching either ignores these doctrines or takes them for granted, respectively.  This is simply unacceptable, but especially so at a time when Christianity is making less and less sense, and offering less and less good news, to more and more people in North American society. Here is Tupper:

The vision of the salvation of God grasped Jesus with unprecedented boldness and stunning clarity rooted in his sense of the Holy in the midst of the tragic suffering of his people: On the one side, he encountered the incredible, immeasurable history of the suffering of humanity through illness and natural disaster, violence and injustice, military occupation and brutal subjugation, dehumanizing exploitation and excruciating oppression. On the other side, Jesus had from his dawning consciousness a distinctive personal relationship to God, the Abba presence he had lived and breathed all his life, the Holy One in the history of Israel who stands against evil and promises to overcome all the murderous forces of evil (p. 78).

The revelation of God in Jesus Christ does not undercut but intensifies the mystery of God. The incarnation constitutes a mystery beyond “human understanding,” because the Infinite, the numinous, can choose to become a finite human person: That the Infinite can become a finite, frail, human creature radically transcends but comprehends the human category of “person,” definitive of the human being. Thus the mystery of the kenosis of God in creation and Incarnation demonstrates that the Holy is at least “personal” — a crucial analogy neither comprehensive nor exhaustive (from a footnote on p. 79 about Rudolf Otto’s Idea of the Holy).

Death through violence is the companion of oppression (p. 125).

Lesslie Newbigin Lectures, Part VI: “The Last Things”

The Bible is story. It’s the story of all things from the beginning to the end — of the creation of all things, of the fall, of God’s redeeming work, and of that consummation which God has promised: Eschatology.

I. Our Big Stories: there is nothing more shaping of our way of understanding than the story that we tell of ourselves.

A. The Story of Progress: It is the biblical story which has shaped Europe and made it a distinct society from Asia. But the story for these past two hundred years has not been the Bible. It has been the Story of Progress. The doctrine of progress has shaped our thinking for these last two centuries, and it’s very hard to shake our minds of it and realize that

  1. it’s a recent story
  2. it’s not the story told in other parts of the world
  3. it’s not the story that the Bible tells

It is this story which causes us to think automatically that what is earlier is crude, more primitive, less developed, and that what is later that is refined, developed, better. Old is necessarily inferior…

  • It has conditioned us to thinking of our story in the terms of a continuous upward movement. C.S. Lewis called this chronological snobbery.

B. The Story of “the Good Old Days”: And yet of course there is another story that also sticks in the back of our minds: the story of how “things were so much better in the old days.”

  • This is also a very ancient story — the idea of a golden age in the past, and human history descends from that time to the present.
    o This story depends an awful lot on the relative importance placed on old people and young people. In most traditional societies, old people are supposed to be wise, and their point of view is respected.

–> But with the rise of the doctrine of progress, there was a deliberate attempt to take the education of the young out of the hands of parents and the church, and give it to the state. This would inculcate the next generation a different idea of the world. This whole idea in which education is something over which the government should have responsibility is fairly new.

C. the Cyclical Story: Still there is a more ancient story, however. It combines both the idea of progress and the idea of a golden age in the past. This is the way of looking at history as a cycle, which is a natural way of seeing ourselves because of what we see nature — plants, animals, etc.

  • There is a cycle of growth, maturity, death, decay, and rebirth. We have the feeling that we are moving, but in fact we are going nowhere. We are part of the wheel of nature. The most rigorous development of this comes from Indian thought, which has been so fundamental, that none of the great religious movements in that part of the world — Buddhism, Sikhism, etc. — have questioned the idea of reincarnation.
  • And of course the different schools of thought in Hinduism are different proposals for ways of escaping this terrible, endless, meaningless cycle of birth and rebirth — escaping from this appalling prospect of suffering perpetually.
  • This kind of thought is gaining popularity in the Western World nowadays. The Bible no longer controls us, it is said, so we shall return to Asia.

***The narrative of Progress though that is still prominent in our culture has one fatal flaw. However much we may think of history in terms of a glorious future for the human race, there is no denying that we will not be there.

  • This has inevitably resulted in the separation of our vision of the future of society from our vision of our personal future. That is the root of the privatization of religion which we often complain about.
    o Because if the real meaning of history is to be realized far off in the future, then I have to ask the question about the goal of my personal history.

–> And that becomes then a separate thing: the idea of a personal survival after death.

So we have this dividing. There are two eschatologies: a public one, and a private one. And there seems no way of bringing them together, because we all drop out of the story of the world before it is completed.

II. The Biblical Response to these Divided Stories: The unique thing about the eschatology of the Bible and its vision of the end, is that it draws together both the public and the private.

  1. It is both the holy city into which the kings of the earth bring their glory — and it is therefore the consummation of the whole history of civilization (i.e., literally, “the making of a city”)
  2. — and it is the consummation of every personal life. It’s the place where the tears will be wiped from every eye and we shall be with God and see him face to face.
  • How is it that the Bible is able to bring together what our telling of the story keeps apart?
    o It is only because the Bible tells the story of how sin and death — which separates individuals from the human story before it reaches its end – have been conquered, and thus eschatology of both the public and the private.
  • In Revelation, we see that the end does not come as a result of a smooth, upward progress. It comes only after judgment and catastrophe. In other words, the resurrection only comes after the cross.

A. The Personal

o Looking at it as a whole, the Old Testament’s great central theme is that the Lord reigns — the Lord who delivered us out of slavery in Egypt — and in the end all nations will acknowledge him. But for the most part, overwhelmingly, the OT sees the end as something that is in this world (e.g., every valley exalted, every mountain brought low, the lion and the lamb will lie down together, and so on).

*** There are hints of something beyond death, not strongly developed, but present. What seems to have made the decisive difference was the experience of the Maccabean Wars and the Jewish struggle to overcome the tyranny of the pagan rule of the Greek emperors.

  • Hundreds and thousands of loyal Jews were slain because they refused to break the Sabbath by fighting on the Sabbath day. And it became impossible to believe that all these who faithfully died would be excluded from the consummation for which they fought and died. And therefore it is in this inter-testamental period that the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead came to occupy a key place in Jewish thinking.
    o But it was not all of the Jews who accepted this. The Sadducees did not, for example, because they had built a very good relationship with the ruling powers, and the doctrine of the resurrection gave inspiration for revolt and willingness to die for a cause. It was a revolutionary and subversive doctrine. It implied that things as they were are not the last word. (On this issue, Jesus sided decisively with the Pharisees and taught the resurrection of the body.)

B. The Political

  • But if we come to the time of Jesus himself, we know that for centuries the Holy Land has been desecrated by the armies of the pagans, the temple destroyed, the law flouted, the rule of God denied, and God’s people subjugated in a humiliating slavery. The question was always, “how long before God intervenes to fulfill his promises?”
    o And we know of course from the Gospels that Jesus knew himself to be in his own person the presence of the rule of God and the kingdom of God. The central message that he brought was that the rule of God is at hand: the critical moment has come — the moment of judgment and redemption.

***It was clear at the beginning that Jesus sought to summon Israel as a whole to recognize the presence of this hour of judgment, recognize the signs of the times, and to fulfill the vocation to which God had called Israel — to be the suffering servant who manifested the glory of the Kingdom of God.

  • And when Israel rejected his call, Jesus in a multitude of parables and teachings warned that the absolute of destruction of Israel was pending.  And with that would come the crisis for the world.

But it is clear of course that Jesus knew that in the end it was he himself, and he alone, who could fulfill the calling of Israel. Therefore he began to teach his disciples that he must suffer, die and rise again. And that is what he did.

–> It did not turn out exactly in the way that devout Jews had thought. The resurrection of Jesus was not the end of history, even though the disciples thought it ought to be. Jesus tells them they have to wait. The final judgment is “in the Father’s hands.” There is an interim time for preparation, repentance, and sharing the gospel with the whole world. For how long? Only the Father knows. They had to learn that Jesus’ death was not the defeat of God’s kingdom, but in fact its victory.

III. What is the Nature of this Victorious Story?

A. The Kingdom is both immediate and not yet. It is already here, but there are other parables stressing patience and unknowing. There is the image of the watchman in Jesus’ stories for this reason. It’s a combination of alertness and waiting.

  • Many modern New Testament scholars have looked only at the teachings of Jesus suggesting that the coming of God’s Kingdom would be immediate, and therefore have concluded that, since 2000 years have passed, Jesus was simply mistaken. But this is only the result of reading half of the evidence. It is extraordinary that almost unanimously, contemporary scholars talk as if it is impossible to understand why it is that, if the early church already knew Jesus was mistaken, they in fact went on distributing the records of his sayings.

B. So what is the understanding of “The End” that the Gospel gives us? It’s most beautifully summed up at the beginning of First Peter 1:3-9. Here is what has been accomplished:

  • not simply the desire for something to happen in the future, which may or may not happen, but which we want to happen; not hope in that weak sense in which we so often use it.
  • But hope in the absolute confident sense — eagerly waiting for something which is assured — even though we do not know the day and the time of its coming. Hope is a anchor of the soul, unshakeable in its firm solidity.

–> The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the pledge that death and sin are conquered, and therefore we know that the end is the victory of God in Jesus Christ.

IV. A New Narrative Model: Again, the model with which we must understand the future is not our contemporary model has indicated for the last two centuries or so — the picture of a future which we hope will be a continuing progress. And not peering into the unknown of the future while trusting in a technological accomplishments.

  • What we look forward to in the future as Christians rather is advent — someone coming to meet us. The horizon of our anticipation is

not some historical utopia achieved when we progress enough,
nor is it merely my own person survival!

o Instead, to repeat, it is the coming of Jesus as the bearer of God’s final victory and judgment. That’s what we look forward to, and that’s the horizon.

  • This word horizon — what is it that we envisage when we look to the future? It is not our actions are to be understood as creating or building the Kingdom of God. It’s not that our actions directly fulfill God’s purposes for history. We know that our actions are ambivalent, confused, and that even our good intentions often lead to results quite different from what we intended.

No, it means that our actions are to be understood as active prayers for the Kingdom. We pray, “Your Kingdom come,” and we act out this prayer. We offer our actions and ourselves to God to do what God will in God’s providential will.

  • None of the geometrical models are satisfactory: neither cyclical nor linear. As already stated, if it’s a linear pattern, then we have no part in the final victory of God’s purpose. It can only be described in personal terms.

This is because there is no direct path from here to the kingdom of God. It goes down into the depths of desolation as Jesus did. And out of those depths does God raise up the new creation. The resurrection points to this.

From the humiliation and depths of the grave, the resurrection is the pledge, that out of the ruins, so much that we achieve in history God will raise that which is according to his Word. New heavens and new earth, for the former things have passed away. There’s no straight line.

  • And because there is only one perfect sacrifice, it follows that those actions which will be accepted, honored, raised up by God will be those which we undertake in/with/for the sake of/as members of the body of Christ — “acted prayers” through Jesus Christ our Lord. That is the model by which we are to understand the relation of our actions now to those of God at the end of all things.

–> Even in situations which seem hopeless, we act in such a way that accords with what God has ultimately promised. We take actions of love, not because we think they’re going to be immediately effective, but because they correspond to that about which we have been assured. These therefore are the only truly realistic actions. They are acted prayers for God’s kingdom, corresponding to ultimate reality.

VI. More specifically still though, what do we see when we look forward?

1. First, not just an indefinite future, but the coming of Jesus in glory to judge the living and the dead. We cannot eliminate this word judgment from our thinking.

  • If there is no final judgment, then Newbigin argues that the words right and wrong have no meaning. If in the end, right and wrong add up to the same thing, then they are meaningless words.
  • But judgment just means that light has come into the world, and it’s judgment because we have preferred darkness.

The essential point about light is allows things to be seen as they are! This is what the end will be like. In the end, there will be no confusion between truth and lie, right and wrong, etc.

  • In all of Jesus’ parables about judgment, the emphasis is on surprise. Those who thought they were ok found themselves on the outside, and those who were on the outside found themselves inside. The first are last and the last are first.

–> Therefore, we are warned not to judgment before the time. Judgment belongs to God.

2. Second, as our creed says, “I believe in the communion of the saints, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.” The New Testament doesn’t say much about what must always be a tantalizing mystery to us: What happens to the believers who die in the faith before the end has come? Where are they? All the emphasis is on the final victory, the resurrection of the dead, and the kingdom come.

  • Communion of the Saints — There are hints here and there, such as in Hebrews 11-12: a great cloud of witnesses surround us, with us, looking to Jesus and waiting for the day of his glory. We should remember this and regularly thank God for those who have gone before us. Protestants are often too silent about this in reaction to Roman Catholicism.
  • The resurrection of the body — that’s the end to which the scriptures teach us to look, and not the pagan idea of the immortality of the soul! The resurrection of the body is part of the whole vision of the new heavens and new earth — a new creation in which all that God purposed for the world and human family is redeemed and consummated in God’s kingdom.
  • The life everlasting — that communion in the life of the Trinity in which Jesus fully participates and prays for on the night before his passion (“that they may be one as I and the Father are one”)

–> We are permitted to enter in the joy of the Triune God and to live forever in the joy of that love. That is something that passes our understanding, and yet it continually beckons us as the true goal of our being.

3. But third and finally, over and over again the New Testament, in the meantime between this time and the second coming, there is given to us the foretaste of that joy — namely, the presence of the Holy Spirit, who is the first fruit and pledge of the kingdom. In the external world of history, we have the fact of the resurrection, and in ourselves the life of the Holy Spirit.

Moved by God Incarnate: A Sermon on Philippians 2:5-11

This sermon was preached yesterday, September 28, 2014, at St. Peter’s Church, Mt. Pleasant, SC.  The audio of it can be accessed here.

The Alpha course started this past week, and Whitney and I are going through it, which I’m excited about because, as I shared with you all early last month, I tend to approach matters of faith from a fairly intellectual place. So I enjoy the kinds of conversations that we get to have in Alpha, and the questions that are asked, like “why is the Christian message any more authoritative and true in comparison to other messages that are out there?” Because there are a lot of alternatives, when it comes to what people think about the world and how they should live. There are a lot of other stories being told — some religious, some not — “what makes the Christian one any more compelling?” That question is on my mind a lot, even as a person of faith, and I’m going to get to talk to others about that every week for the next couple of months, so I’m looking forward to that.

Especially in the modern period of our Western history and culture though, we have tended to approach these kinds of questions largely from standpoint of trying to arrive at the right information. It reminds me of this time when I convinced a friend of mine who was pretty agnostic in his faith to go to coffee with me so I could basically tell him that I thought he really needed to read this book I had on Christian apologetics — that had basically answered all of my questions. I figured that if I could just convince him to read the book, he’d be persuaded just like me that Jesus really was God incarnate, and that the central Christian truth claims were all true.  That is not what happened.

This is partly because, I think, many of these questions about the trustworthiness of the Christian faith cannot be fully approached from the standpoint of thinking. And even with some of the deep reasonableness of the Christian faith that I think we should rightly draw on, some of the questions I just mentioned are very hard to answer simply on the basis of evidence or argument. Remember what the Bible says about faith in Hebrews 11:1, just as one example: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” And again, that doesn’t mean it’s blind faith. But it’s faith nonetheless.

However, even if we could prove that Jesus was who we as Christians say he is, what would that do? If we could convince all the non-Christians in the world that our faith’s claims were the truest, would the sin and the violence and the hate and conflict in the world just all go away?

The book of James says, in chapter two, v. 19: “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” This really throws into light for our ability as human beings to believe one thing supposedly with our mind, but live out something completely different with our desires and our actions. Nobody really doubts anymore whether smoking is bad for you, but people still smoke. We all know that healthy eating and exercise is pretty much a necessity for most people to be able to live a long life. Nobody’s really denying this. And yet, many of us don’t eat well or exercise.

Because here’s the deal: thinking something is true does not necessarily lead to change in your life. In fact, sometimes it even hinders change. Because our selfish and immature minds that we all have from birth — even when given good information — tend to just want to take security from the idea. This is why Paul says elsewhere in Romans 12, that our minds must be transformed. What is it about this story and this good news that Paul is announcing that can transform our minds?

So as we consider this passage Paul is writing to the Philippians, I propose we look not only at its contents — that is, not only at the information it gives us — but the form in which that information is presented, and see what that might tell us about the nature of Paul’s faith in Christ, and therefore also the way that we’re supposed to have faith too. So let’s look at it.

Notice the way the structure and shape of the passage changes in vs. 5-11, and looks more like a poem than a letter, with stanzas instead of just lines:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.

There’s this celebratory and dramatic tone that suddenly begins here as Paul starts talking about who Jesus is, and what he did. Why the artistic and exalted prose? It’s like this part of the letter almost leaps off of the page and takes on a life of its own. In just a few stanzas, it tells the story of God’s relationship with the world that God created.

Maybe Paul writes this way because this proclamation, which is different from a definition or a theological treatise, about who Christ is simply cannot be captured in ordinary language. It has to be proclamation, confession, and testimony. There’s something more that gets said when the form of the statement is creative, is beautiful, has rhythmic structure, and musical movement: starts high, moves down low, and then goes back up again. Paul does this to evoke something in us. He does this to propel us into worship with him, and into a posture of being mesmerized by the story.

Because ultimately, the doctrine of the incarnation, which is largely what this passage is referring to — the claim Christians make that in Christ, both divinity and humanity are dwelling together and have been united in God — this doctrine, this announcement of good news is mysterious. Paul doesn’t try to explain the mystery of the incarnation, that Jesus was somehow fully divine and fully human. He doesn’t try to define it. He has to sing it!

There was a Danish physicist named Niels Bohr, who was a friend of Einstein, who puzzled over how something like an electron could simultaneously occupy several different states, assuming multiple positions or momentums or energy levels, and still be one thing. How could, for instance, an electron, be both a particle and a wave, and function both like both a particle and wave, two clearly different things — like humanity and divinity, like God the Father and God the Son. Bohr answered: “We must be clear that, when it comes to atoms, language can be used only in poetry.” Later on he remarked that if you study quantum physics and are not moved to amazement and wonder, then you aren’t studying quantum physics.  So maybe, as Christians — in much the same way — we should say that if you study theology, and you aren’t moved to amazement and wonder by the doctrine of the Incarnation, then you’re probably not studying theology.

But not because the Incarnation is irrational. That an electron can function as both a particle and a wave is not irrational. It’s just incredible. The incarnation is incredible too. But the incredible thing about the incarnation is not just that it happened, but how and why. In other words, it prompts us to ask, what kind of human being does God become, what kind of live does that human being lead, and what does this tell us about who God is, and what God wants for us?

There’s a famous parable told by the 19th century Christian philosopher Soren Kierkegaard called “The King and the Maiden.” And in it, thinking about this very idea of the doctrine of the incarnation, Kierkegaard talks about how this King has fallen in love with a humble maiden. Her beauty has captured his heart, and he longs to be with her. But because of his status as king, and because of her status as a peasant, and as a commoner, the king is deeply conflicted about how she could ever possibly love him as an equal in a genuine relationship. In some of his concluding remarks after telling this story, Kierkegaard says the following:

The unity of love [between God and humanity] will have to be brought about in some other way. If not by way of elevation, of ascent, then by a descent of the lowest kind. God must become the equal of the lowliest. But the lowliest is one who serves others. God therefore must appear in the form of a servant. But this servant’s form is not merely something he puts on, like the beggar’s cloak, which, because it is only a cloak, flutters loosely and betrays the king. No, it is his true form. For this is the unfathomable nature of boundless love, that it desires to be equal with the beloved; not in jest, but in truth. And this is the omnipotence of resolving love, deciding to be equal with the beloved…

See, God’s not just giving us new instructions. Of course some new teachings do come from Jesus, but other religions claim to have instructions from God too, or at least they claim to have some kind of special insight into ultimate reality. But the God of Hebrew and Christian Bible gives us God’s own very self in the form of a human being — not just a written word and not just a sacred text. And what kind of human? Here’s the really surprising part. A humble, common, ordinary, even lowly person — not a self-exalting one — not a royal, powerful, or highly educated person.

Ok, let’s go back to the question from a moment ago: what is about this story and this good news that can transform our minds, and get us to stop thinking at just a informational level? What is the force of this story that move from the level of understanding and tap into a much deeper, and visceral place where change can begin to take root in lives?

Remember again about how all this talk about humility and selflessness, Christ taking the form of servant — remember how this would have sounded to the Philippians:

For the people living in Philippi, they only know about the Greek and Roman gods, and about Caesar, who is also called a son of God, Lord and Savior. In contrast to Caesar, the New Testament writers give these titles to Jesus, which was a radical and politically dangerous thing to do. But it was also very strange!

The Greek and Roman gods — kind of like Caesar — they basically just do all the things pagans do, but better: they conquer, crush, dominate, win, feast, make love, manipulate and deceive. They get angry, they punish, they fight, they threaten. So how surprising and profound was it for them to hear that, unlike Caesar and the Empire, unlike the Greek and Roman gods, the God of Israel, and the God of Jesus Christ — the Creator of the Universe! — is a God that is generous, Paul says, and is a God that shows compassion and humility.  Not a God that grasps for power and divine status — even though he had the right to!

And then Paul proclaims that Christ became obedient to death, even death on a cross! So if that wasn’t surprising enough, that God is humble and compassionate, now God even suffers and endures humiliation. This is part of what’s so scandalous to the scribes and Pharisees in the gospels.

But we shouldn’t let ourselves off the hook either!  Because we don’t want to humble or have to suffer either. We want our God to come back now and win, and force everyone to do what we think they should do! But that mind, that very attitude, of grasping for power and honor and esteem for ourselves, is what led Jesus to bear the cross in the first place.

See, in Jesus, it is revealed to us, for the first time in history, that God doesn’t put people on crosses like Ceasar does. No, in Christ, God bears crosses. See, the gospel is a story about God taking the risk and the sacrifice of showing up in the flesh. It’s a risk and story that we’re all called to. And without risk, there is no faith.

This risk is one that we all shy away from of course. Because this takes real fearlessness. I heard someone say recently that safety is the greatest idolatry in our culture. I think this is probably true. Paul has bought into a different kind of safety, one doesn’t offer material security at all. What is it about the gospel that gives us the freedom to not put trust in these things? In other words, what is it about this story, and about this gospel, that has the power to transform our mind? I think it’s this: In this this story Paul is telling, in this poem he’s writing, this song he’s singing, we learn that, in Christ, we serve a God who has experienced and gone to the depths of human violence, betrayal, agony and defeat — so that nothing would escape his redemptive reach.

See, our faith won’t fully sink down from our heads and into our hearts if we’ve never received unconditional from someone else. And that’s exactly the kind of love that God demonstrates and extends to us in Christ. No other faith claims something quite like that.  So we believe that this story is not only true: but that it’s beautiful and good and unique and compelling! It’s just something we think. It’s a story that has to be lived, and tasted, and felt!

It’s a story that gives great comfort on the one hand, but a great calling on the other. It’s comforting because, in the resurrection it assures is that, again, whatever is shameful, humility, painful, despairing or oppressive in any situation does not have the last word. But it’s also a calling to live without fear! With the grace and mercy of God is on your side, what is there to be afraid of? Risk something big for something good. Be bold, be courageous! Live with humility, selflessness and be empowered by Christ who loves you unconditionally.

This is one of the reasons we do communion — one of the reasons we return to it, again and again, is that we need to be reminded. If you’re like me, you need to be reminded very often, that these things we’re going through do not have the last word. The grace of God has the last Word, and that’s where we draw our strength.

But before we move to communion, I just want to ask: Where are you on this spectrum between Caesar is Lord and Jesus is Lord? Who is the real Lord of your life? Is it Fear, or it faith? Is it competition and performance, or is it unconditional love and acceptance?  Most of us are probably somewhere in the middle, so maybe the better question is, in which direction are you moving?

Maybe you came in here today fully believing that the story was true, but you’ve been going for a while forgetting that it’s also good, and beautiful, and compelling, and something to trusted in and shared with other! Or maybe you’re new to this whole Christian faith thing or unsure about your commitment to the Church. Maybe you don’t know if it’s true, but you think it’s good and beautiful or intriguing. My encouragement to you then would be to let yourself be moved by this story. Take the risk, the leap of faith, of experimenting with what it would be like to live as if this story were true. Get to know some people in this church. Step into community with us, and see where it leads you. Try living with Jesus as Lord for a while and see what happens.

I want to give us a minute of silence just to respond to this question.  This is a hard question. There’s so much to fear, it seems like. The weight of the world and the stuff going on in our lives can be so devastating. But that’s why Jesus came, and that’s why he says that in him there is peace. In this world we will have trouble. But Christ have faced the world at its worst and at our worst, and you have overcome the world.

May God give us faith then to trust in not only the truth of the story of the incarnation, as an idea, but in its goodness and beauty and mystery — that it would move us, transform our minds, and that we would trust in it as reality, and allow it to become the story of our own lives as well.

Lesslie Newbigin Lectures, Part V: ” The Fall” (Sin and Salvation)

Creation was very good! But this was not the last word… there follows the story that we call “The Fall.”

I. Sin in our Culture:

  • The human race was made in God’s image, and is therefore good, but has fallen and in rebellion. This is a point on which we are very strongly criticized in our culture. To call a person a sinner is like the greatest sin you can commit! It undermines their humanity. People need to be encouraged and told that they have great dignity, deep worth… [true, but not the whole story!]
  • Certainly from the time of the Renaissance onwards, European culture has tried to take an optimistic view of human nature. We have rights! To life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for example. The middle ages had not expected happiness on earth — only the first taste of it. They expected it to come at the end. From the Renaissance onwards, however, human nature is good. Yes there are bad people, but that is the exception.
  • We have a very strong tendency to identify sin with particular groups. Nazi Germany, for instance [or these days, the LGBTQI community, Muslims, drug addicts] — there has been the suggestion that we dealt with that, and it should never happen again! But of course it has happened again, and is happening.

II. The Bible on Sin:

  • The Bible of course speaks about humanity as sinful, but what grounds do we have other than the third chapter of Genesis? We should also be able to identify this doctrine of sin at the heart of our Scriptures, namely, through the account of the incarnation, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To put it very crudely, we know that we are sinners because of what happened on Good Friday. That is the ultimate ground.
  • The cross means that we are all in the same situation regardless of our differences, because what happened on Good Friday is that when God personally met us as a human race, face to face, it was for practical purposes the unanimous decision of that representative company that he must be destroyed.

o The crucifixion was not the work of a few bad people. It was brought about by those who were and are accounted as the “best” people! The righteous, the priests, the scribes, the governing officials, and of course the crowd in the streets [also the disciples abandoning him!]. So unless we take the view that we are in a very special case, essentially what happened there was that the human race came face to face with its Creator, and its response was to seek to destroy him. That utterly central and crucial moment in universal history is the ground on which we are compelled to say that all of us, the “good” and “bad” together, are sinners.

  • Now of course if that were the last word, then there can be no future for the human race. The only authentic response to what happened would be what Judas did when he went out and hanged himself! What future is there for the human race?

III. The Cross as God’s Response to Sin:

  • But of course it is not the last word, because the crucifixion of Jesus, while it was on the one hand the work of sinful men and women, it was on the other hand the work of Christ, who went deliberately to that meeting point in order to give himself for the life of the world — so that at that point where we are judged and condemned without distinction, the cross cannot be used as a banner for one part of humanity against another. It is the place where we are all unmasked as the enemies of God.
  • But it is also the place where we are offered the unlimited kindness and love of God, so that while that in a sense the first reaction to the cross is a sentence of death upon all of us, it is also a gift of life. For, as Paul says, I am crucified with Christ so that it is not I but Christ that lives in me! This life is no longer ours, but rather is one in which we live by faith in the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us.
  • That is why we preach the doctrine of original sin. We can only know that we are sinners because we have been forgiven — because it is sin itself that blinds us to sin! It is only the forgiven who can truly repent. So we do not speak of sin because we are in a position to pass judgment on anybody else, but because we are all in the same situation.

IV. Fall and Redemption for Fully Expounded:

  • Romans 5-6 — our solidarity in sin. In Adam, we all sin, and in Christ, we are all made alive. This statement though, as has been grievously misunderstood, partly as a result of some words by Augustine. When “death passed from to all people,” the sin of Adam did not automatically make us all guilty. The true text means that it is because we have all sinned that we are in solidarity. Sin is not transmitted through the act of sexual intercourse, as Augustine came near to saying. This corrupted Western thinking about both sin and sex.
  • Apart from those individual choices about which we are conscious and for which we are responsibility, we are also part of a network in which, from the very beginning, we become victims of sin, collectively (wars, poverty, environmental degradation, etc.). We are all together in this web of sinful relationships. It was there before we are born, and we are incorporated into it in the way that we are brought up into this situation.

o Original sin in this sense is much more intelligible. And in addition to this, any parent who has had to cope with a small child having tantrums because it doesn’t get what he or she wants understands very well what is meant by original sin.

–> The answer to this is “a righteousness from God by faith.” In other words, it is the gift of a relationship to replace the one that we had broken.

A. Theological Anthropology: What does it mean to be human?

  • Our thinking has been very much shaped by the Greek conception of substance — the idea that behind everything we know, there is a kind of underlying substance, which is the real thing, and that everything is to be understood as its essential substance. But the truth in the Bible is that what we are is constituted by our relationships. We are human beings by virtue of the fact that we are related to others and to God. Human nature does not exist except in a pattern of relationships.
  • In physics, for centuries, people have sought to identify the atom as the essential unit of matter — the ultimate substance that underlies everything. But of course we know now that the atom is actually a network of dynamic relationship between particles of electrical charges. Moreover, on the other end of the cosmic scale, it is proper to the Christian faith that when we use the word God, we are not speaking of some kind of divine substance. We are referring to a pattern of relationships of total and complete communion between three persons (Trinity).
  • From this point of view, we can see that the fall is essentially the attempt by human beings — whose only relationship is one of dependence upon God — to establish for themselves a reality independent from God, which allows them to make up their own minds about what is good and evil, and not simply to stand in a relationship of love and obedience to the Creator.

o This is why the answer to the appalling fact of sin is the establishment of a new relationship — the righteousness of God by faith, and not our own righteousness. It is a righteousness constituted by the fact the God has accepted me in Jesus Christ, and in faith, we believe and accept. That relationship between Holy God and sinful us which constitutes the only righteousness that there can be. How is this brought about though?

B. Old Testament Background: The Old Testament is full of terrible stories of the wickedness of human beings — from Cane and Abel through all that leads to the flood story and the tower of Babel, which was another instance of human beings trying to establish their own authority. The response of God is the passion of God, which is a theme of the whole Old Testament, for sinful humanity:

  • God invites a people to learn to live a new life simply by faith, called to leave home, rescued out of slavery, brought into a good and pleasant land. But that family defiled that land and rebelled again and again against its loving Creator. God responds in agony, sometimes threatening and apparently following through with terrible punishments — and then again repenting and wooing them back as his bride. We see this from the unconditional love but also anguish of God as expressed in Hosea and the Servant Song in Isaiah — the Servant who should be Israel fulfilling its true calling of bearing the sin of the world in its own heart.

C. The Culmination of the Story of Israel: And finally of course we come to our Lord himself, in whom all these signalings of the passion of God and prophecies are made flesh and blood in the life a human being. We see Jesus Christ calling Israel to fulfill that role to which it was called, to be God’s servant people for all the nations. And when that calling is denied, Jesus goes alone to the cross bearing the passion of God for a sinful world.

  • And so, the one who is Lord of all is humiliated, cursed, cast out, executed with the execution of a criminal and a blasphemer, and cries out in desolation, “My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?” going down to the greatest and darkest depths, so that nothing would escape his redemptive reach.
  • God raised him from the dead, to new life, and exalted him to heaven as Lord and sent forth the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost to fill the church with the knowledge that this is the Lord, this crucified man, rejected by the world. And so the church goes out to proclaim the mystery of salvation.
    –> The point that Newbigin is especially trying to bring out by narrating the gospel story is that, this fact of God’s victory, is a fact of history before we come to our attempts to explain it. By the coming of the Holy Spirit, the church was given the assurance to preach this to the world, that the righteousness of God has been given to us, so that we, the unholy, may live in the love and fellowship of the Holy God.

D. Three Traditional Theories of Atonement, and Newbigin’s Signal Toward a Fourth: Newbigin is confident that when we talk about the atonement, we are speaking of something that we can never fully explain in human language, because we are dealing ultimately with that which is the contradiction of all reason, namely, sin. And if we could incorporate sin into a coherent rational structure of thought, it would no longer be sin. Our attempts to comprehend the atonement will always fall short of the truth of it. They can only point us toward this truth. And if one takes some of the great metaphors of reconciliation that are used in the Scriptures:

  1. That of ransom, which draws on the experience of the redeeming of a slave from its master by the generosity of another, and was a metaphor of enormous emotional weight for a society in which slavery was so common. But of course if you push this metaphor to its conclusion, you have to ask, to whom was the ransom paid? So some early theologians said to God, and some said to the devil. Neither of them can be accepted, however, because to say that it was a ransom paid to God implies that God had to be placated in order to forgive us, and this sets an antagonism between the Son and the Father, which is wholly contrary to the Christian faith.
  2. There is, secondly, the metaphor of substitution, in which another has died in our place, and that again has an element of deep truth in it. And yet it cannot finally explain what happened because it is so very clear that in the teaching of Jesus himself — although he goes before us, he alone can meet the ultimate enemy in that final battle – yet it is not in order that we may be excused from that encounter, but precisely in order that we may be enabled to follow him, to take up the cross and go the way that he has gone.
  3. And again, there is the metaphor of sacrifice, which is so fully developed in the letter to the Hebrews, and so clearly fulfills the Old Testament regulations with regard to sacrifice, so that we see Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice to the father. But yet again, we must be careful not to state that in such a way as to make it seem that there is a relation of antagonism between the Son and the Father as though, once again, the Father needs to be placated [i.e., a punishment/penalty satisfied].

• It’s one of the little features of the Old Testament use of the word expiation or atonement that that Hebrew verb, which is so constantly used in relation to God is never used in the form which puts God as the object. It is used when Jacob wants to placate Esau who is coming to meet him with an armed band, and Jacob sends gifts ahead of him. There the word is used, he is trying to placate his brother. But that word is never used with God as its object. It is always that God has provided a sacrifice to make atonement concerning your sin or whatever it may be. It is used always in that subtle, indirect form, so that there is no question as it were placating the Father. On the contrary, the atoning work of Christ is also the work of the Father.

  • And yet all these different metaphors help us, at least to come a little nearer, to the center of this mystery. Newbigin thinks that one of the most helpful of them is the one in which the Old Testament Hebrew word for mercy seat, the place where the sinner could be received by the Holy God is used, translated in Romans 3 as the place of propitiation. Surely here we come near to the heart of what was done there.
  • It has created a place where we who are sinners, still sinners, can nevertheless, be in fellowship with God who is Holy. Because in this act in which the son of God in loving obedience to the Father has taken his place right where we are in our lost state and therefore made possible a communion in the Holy Spirit in which we share the very life of God himself — sinners as we are.
  • This word koinonia/fellowship/communion, is actually a word that means common sharing in a property. It’s a shared participating in the actual life of the Spirit. And that place is the church, where we gather in the name of Jesus, we hear his words, and in the sacrament he ordained we partake — his dying and his victorious resurrection ad victory over death. And there is the place where we know justification and sanctification.

E. Justification and Sanctification:

  • Justification, that is to say, being recognized by God not because we are in ourselves just or righteous, but because in this act in Jesus Christ, he has accepted us as just, as righteous. It is a righteousness on the one hand that is the sheer gift of God and on the other hand that is accepted in faith. It is never in our possession but rather something we receive moment by moment by faith in what God has done for me in Jesus Christ.
  • And here also is where we know sanctification. But here sanctification does not mean a process by which we gradually become holy in ourselves, as though we could have a holiness which was not simply God’s gift, but was our characteristic. That would be a contradiction at the very heart of the gospel.

–> It is interesting that when Paul puts the words justification and sanctification together, it is sanctification that comes first: “You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified.” Both the words sanctification and justification refer to a relationship with God, not to something that we possess in our ourselves. And the holiness, which is the proper mark of the a disciple of Jesus, is not and can never be something that we possess in ourselves, so that we can say that holiness is so to speak a designation of myself. That perfect holiness is simply the relationship of faithful dependence upon the sanctifying grace of God.

F. Reclaiming the “Good News” of the Doctrine of Original Sin:

  • And all this adds up to a very joyful preaching of the doctrine of original sin. G.K. Chesterton talked about the “good news of original sin.” If the whole lot of us are nothing more than a bunch of escaped convicts — and that is what we are, basically — then there is room for an enormous amount of joy in the church. We don’t have to go around pretending like we are righteous people.  And that is good news.
  • We are forgiven sinners. We have been embraced, accepted and loved by the holy God. That is something which can only lead us to singing and dancing. We are delivered from the unbearable burden of trying to be ourselves, and in ourselves, righteous. We have only one thing to do — to give ourselves moment by moment as a thank-offering, to the one who has loved us and laid down his life for us. That’s what the Christian life is.

Christian Wiman Quotes: “O Thou Mastering Light”

I share the following quotes that struck me as I was reading Christian Wiman’s book, My Bright Abyss: Meditation of a Modern Believer. They come from the chapter entitled “O Thou Mastering Light”:

mybrightabyss“Life is always a question of intensity, and intensity is always a matter of focus. Contemporary despair is to feel the multiplicity of existence with no possibility for expression or release of one’s particular being” (p. 48).

“You can certainly enjoy life . . . you can have a hell of a time. But I would argue that [if] life remains merely something to be enjoyed, [then] not only its true nature but also something within your true nature remains inert, unavailable, [and] mute” (p. 59).

“Spiritual innocence is not naivete. Quite the opposite. Spiritual incense is a state of mind – or, if you prefer, a state of heart – in which the life of God, and a life in God, are not simply viable but the sine qua non of all knowledge and experience, not simply durable but everlasting” (p. 64).

“The void of God and the love of God come together in the mystery of the cross” (p. 68).

“The frustration we feel when trying to explain or justify God, whether to ourselves or to others, is a symptom of knowledge untethered from innocence, of words in which no silence lives, of belief occurring wholly on a human plane. Innocence returns us to the first call of God, to any moment in our lives when we were rendered mute with awe, fear, wonder. Absent this, there is no sense in arguing for God in order to convince others, for we ourselves are not convinced” (p. 71).

“The minute you begin to speak with certitude about God, he is gone. We praise people for having strong faith, [but] strength is only one part of that physical metaphor: one also needs [the strength that is required for] flexibility” (p. 71).

“Perhaps the relation of theology to belief is roughly the same as that between the mastery of craft and the making of original art: one must at the same time utterly possess and utterly forget one’s knowledge in order to go beyond it” (p. 72).

“This is how you ascertain the truth of spiritual experience: it propels you back toward the world and other people, and not simply more deeply within yourself” (p. 75).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers

%d bloggers like this: