Categories
Scripture Spirit

Calendar and Lectionary: Transfiguration Sunday

Icon_of_transfiguration_(Spaso-Preobrazhensky_Monastery,_Yaroslavl)This Sunday in the Church Calendar we remember the transfiguration” of Jesus.  Our Lectionary reading in Mark 9:2-9 contains an account of this event.

In chapter 8 of Mark’s Gospel, we see Jesus feeding a crowd and healing a blind man.  There is a palpable sense of excitement that leads to Peter’s bold assertion that Jesus is, indeed, the Messiah. (Mark 8:27-29.)  But Jesus warns the disciples not to tell anyone about this truth, and then tells them plainly that he will be killed and will rise again! (Mark 8:31-32.)  Peter, in particular, is scandalized by this message. (Mark 8:32-33.)  Jesus tells Peter and the other disciples that the way of his Kingdom is the way of the cross:  “Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: ‘Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.'” (Mark 8:34.)

It’s not hard to imagine that the disciples were confused, even perhaps a bit angered, by these words.  They expected a Messiah who would lead them to victory, not one who would lead them to a cross. Yet Jesus mentioned not only the cross, but a resurrection. And in Mark’s Gospel Jesus immediately assures the disciples that “some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”  (Mark 9:1.)

Immediately following this claim Mark provides his account of the Transfiguration.  After a six day period, Jesus takes Peter, James and John to a “high mountain” where Jesus “was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.”  The account in Matthew’s Gospel is similar to Mark’s (see Matthew 17), but Luke’s Gospel says the Transfiguration occurred “about eight days” after Jesus told the disciples that some would see his Kingdom come within their lifetimes.  (See Luke 9.)

It is clear from these accounts that the Transfiguration is the fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that some of his disciples would see the Kingdom of God come in their lifetimes.  Indeed, the second epistle of Peter testifies to the enduring impact of this event:  “For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.  For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased’ — and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.”  (2 Peter 1:16-18.) The Transfiguration assures us that the present sufferings of the way of the cross are not permanent. It in a sense opens the veil between Earth and Heaven and allows us to glimpse the indescribable glory and peace that accompany and await Jesus, his Apostles, and by extension his Church — us — on a mission that requires death but culminates in resurrection.

This theological and missional significance of the Transfiguration may provide a hint concerning the enigmatic time period between Peter’s confession and the Transfiguration.  Remember that, in the first creation narrative in Genesis 1, God creates in six days and rests on the seventh.  Matthew and Mark are suggesting that the vision of the Transfiguration is a vision of rest. They present suffering of creation — the way of the cross — is somehow necessary before the time of rest.  As for Luke, is he simply providing a time frame that he doesn’t precisely recall — “about eight days?”  (This hesitancy is, in fact, a fair rendering of the Greek text.)  Or, is Luke’s Gospel reflecting a theme that developed somewhat later in the Christian Tradition: that the creation “week” really contains eight “days,” not seven, and that the “eighth day” is the day of resurrection and re-creation?  I see this last theme in all three accounts.  The Transfiguration shows us that all things will be “transfigured” — changed and transformed into what they were truly created to be, and revealed to be what they truly are.

Categories
Scripture Spirit Thought

Commentary on Psalm 107: Part 1: "Good"

This series is a theological / spiritual commentary on Psalm 107.  I don’t pretend to have great expertise in critical Biblical studies, which I find incredibly valuable, but this is an exercise in theological and spiritual exegesis.

Good.

Psalm 107 opens with a familiar refrain:

Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good;
his love endures forever.

This is the most basic statement of God’s character in scripture.  The LORD is “good.”  The word “good” in this text is the same word used for the creation in Genesis 1.  This tells us much about what it means to say that God is “good.”

Water and sky, land and trees, fish and birds, are “good.”  These things nurture and sustain us.  They are life.  Without them, we shrivel and die, we cease to be.   Our human being itself is “very good” (Gen. 1:27-31).  God is “good” as life itself is “good.”

The word “as” in this sentence suggests that this is an analogy.  When theologians speak about “analogy” we mean that because God is truly God, we can say nothing that fully measures or contains Him.  To say God is “good” as trees and water and birds are “good” is not to limit God to the “goodness” of those created things.  Rather, it is to say that if we imagine the highest “good” of any of those things, we must try to imagine it infinitely more so when we try to think of God.  If water gives quenches our thirst, sustains our bodies, and revives our spirits, how much more does God do the same?  If a lack of water causes us to shrivel and die, how much more does a lack of God do the same?

Of course, we cannot truly understand the “infinite,” so to say that God sustains us infinitely more than water is already to admit that the excess of God’s “goodness” over that of creation is itself something our human minds cannot contain.  “The LORD is good” therefore is no modest claim.  Is it a claim we can truly learn to trust?

Photo Source: Terry Ratcliff / Flickr (Creative Commons)

Categories
Cosmos Spirit Thought

What Difference Does God Make?

My friend Ryan Bell, as part of his “Year Without God” project, recently wrote about the question “What Difference Does God Make?”  His answer was that God makes no difference to his daily life.

There may have been some confusion in how Ryan framed the question.  If there is a God, then God makes all the difference in the universe, because there would be no universe without God.  This is simply a function of the definitions of what theologians mean by the terms “God” and “universe” (or, more accurately, “creation”).  If there is no God, then of course “God” makes no difference at all, and indeed the question of what “difference God makes” is nonsensical, a non-question.  In other words, the question “what difference does God make” begs the question whether there is a God.

I think what Ryan meant is “what difference does believing in God make?”  Even this is a question fraught with definitional problems.  For example, what does “difference” mean?  Given that most human beings through most of history have had some sort of belief in God or the gods, and given that even evolutionary sociobiologists seek to explain such belief  with the language of adaptation, it seems beyond dispute that belief in God / the gods makes a substantial “difference.”  Certainly folks like Richard Dawkins like to argue that belief in God makes a pernicious difference by increasing divisions and violence among humans.

Here I think Ryan meant what positive difference does believing in God make?  This seems evident in his focus on “hope.”  At least some people report that their belief in God gives them “hope.”  Ryan feels he can experience hope without belief in God.  In fact, Ryan feels that at least some of the sorts of beliefs about God he received from his church experience were less hope-filled than how he feels “without” God.

I can’t blame him for that conclusion.  The vision of the “Left Behind” theology so popular in American church culture is hopeless and nihilistic.  The spirituality of pop materialism is far more attractive:  we are on this Earth for a blip in evolutionary time, but we have the capacity to feel and experience life at least for a moment, and so we can find that moment let go of worries about the future.  Don’t think so much; feel, and let go.  That is the message of almost every contemporary pop song, romantic comedy, family-oriented animated film, home furnishing commercial, and so-on.   It is a compelling message, because entails substantial truth, even though it is incomplete (see, e.g., the Book of Ecclesiastes).

IMG SRC = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moche_decapitator.jpg
The Decapitator

But this raises another set of questions:  Who said belief in God is supposed to make an emotionally positive difference to the believer?  Why should a value judgment like positive matter to us?  And what, exactly, do we mean by “belief” in God?  There have been cultures in which belief in the gods produced fear rather than hope.  I can’t imagine that the Moche people, for example, thought of the Decapitator primarily in terms of the category of “hope.”

At this point I think Ryan’s Christian background is already in play.  Christians take “belief” in God to mean “trust.”  Christians want to “trust” God because we believe He is perfectly good and loves us absolutely, demonstrated in the fact that He created us, gave us life, and gave Himself for us on the cross.  We expect that this kind of “belief” will, at least over the long haul, at least in the hard fissures of life, and at least at the end, make all the difference to how we feel and how we live.

Even given these Christian presuppositions, why don’t most non-Christians feel hopeless most of the time?  I think there are at least two  Christian theological notions at play:  the doctrines of creation and grace.

Christians believe every human being is created in God’s image.  We differ among ourselves to varying degrees about the extent to which sin affects our ability to function properly as God’s image-bearers without a specific connection to Christ, but we generally agree that simply being human is a precious gift that entails some basic blessings. Christians further agree that all human beings who enjoy the basic goods of life are given at least some measure of grace.  In fact, this common humanity and common grace is a cornerstone of Jesus’ ethical teaching:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’  But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,  that you may be children of your Father in heaven.  He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.  (Matt. 5:43-45.)

It is no surprise that, on any given day, both people who trust in God and people who do not trust in God (and people who struggle to trust in God) wake up, eat breakfast, get dressed, go to work, engage in relationships, and participate in the general goods of life.  This is part of the theology of creation as well as the theology of grace.  The more penetrating question, then, might be whether we can recognize grace and respond in some way to it.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Spirit

The Gift of Church

I didn’t feel like going to church this past Sunday.  It was hard getting the family out the door.  I was tired.  I wasn’t in the mood for mauve carpets, praise music and a long sermon after the splendor of the Eucharist at St. Thomas Church last week.    But a beautiful thing happened.

There’s a young man who comes to our church with his family and who has a significant disability.  It’s the kind of disability that twists the body, distorts the countenance, and makes ordinary communication impossible.   This young man seems to like me.  Maybe it’s because I do some work with disabled people and this sort of thing doesn’t phase me.  Maybe it’s because I can communicate with him a little better because of my son’s disability.  Maybe he knows I need a friend.

After the service, he was sitting by himself and I went over to say hi.  Through a bit of improvised sign language, he told me he had a toothache and was going to the dentist.  He seemed delighted that I understood, and as is his way, gave me a big bear hug.  Then he signed “I love you,” and I signed “I love you too.”

THERE was the Church:  a delight in understanding another person, a delight in being understood, a generous outpouring of heartfelt fellowship, and a sign of love that closes every distance.

Categories
Spirit

A Year Without God

Former Seventh Day Adventist Pastor Ryan Bell has been begun a “Year Without God” project in which he is trying to live as an atheist for a year.  It’s caused a bit of a media stir.

Ryan is a really good guy.  I met him a couple of years ago at the Duke Divinity Reconciliation Summer Institute.  We hit it off and hung out in the hotel lobby in the evenings having beers.  I understand, a bit, the trauma Ryan must feel at being tossed out by his home church as his views became more progressive.  I understand, a bit, the difficulty of breaking out of fundamentalism without losing faith.  But I’ve never had any desire to be “without God.”  What I’ve always wanted, more than anything, is to know I’m “with” God.

It’s not that I have purer desires or stronger faith than other people who “leave” God.  I think it’s more a matter of perspective.  If I say I’m done with God, I’m already acknowledging that God exists, I’m already claiming to know precisely what God is like, and I’m already presuming my prerogative to terminate any previous correspondence I’ve had with God.  If the whole exercise is supposed to represent a new intellectual honesty, it would fail from the start.  In my effort to live “without God,” I’d be stuck with Him at every turn.    It would in fact become an exercise in denial.

I think all I can do is acknowledge the truth of my desire.

I desire God. I desire to know God, and to be known and loved by God, and to know I’m known and loved by God.  The cognitive dissonance I feel between what I sense God is like and what I find in some theologies and practices is the stirring of knowledge, not the drag of doubt.

I desire to be like God.  I desire to know what only God knows.  I desire to change what only God can change.  I desire to escape history and contingency the way only God stands outside history and contingency.  The cognitive dissonance I feel at my human limitations is the stirring of the will to control the knowledge of good and evil, not the wind of faith.

Categories
Scripture Spirit

The Lord's Prayer

These are some reflections on Willimon and Hauerwas’ book Lord Teach Us.

It was a delight for me to read the Introduction and first two chapters of “Lord, Teach Us.” The faith presented in this book is refreshingly different from the faith I received when I was younger.

It’s somehow embedded in my spiritual consciousness that the “Christian life” is primarily an exercise in avoiding dangers. My posture, unconsciously, has been one of defensiveness and fear. “We” need to be on constant vigil against moral laxity, heresy, “liberalism,” “secular humanism,” and other threats. If there were something like the “Homeland Security Threat Meter” for spiritual things, in that setting it would constantly have been on “Red.” It’s no accident that the Christian school attached to my former church has a crusading “Defender” as its mascot. The “Defenders” man the battlements and ever scan the horizon for attacking enemies.

Hauerwas and Willimon present instead a faith that recognizes its own weaknesses. As they note at the start of the Introduction, “[b]ecause of the nature of the Christian faith, all of us, no matter how long we have been around Jesus, are always learning anew how to ask the right questions. No one of us ever becomes so faithful, so bold in our discipleship, that we become experts in being Christian.” They are able to make such a statement because they conceive of the faith “not primarily as a set of doctrines, a volunteer organization, or a list of appropriate behaviors.” It is rather “a journey of a people.” To be Christian, they say, “is to have been drafted to be part of an adventure, a journey called God’s kingdom. Being part of this adventure frees us from the terrors that would enslave our lives if were not part of the journey.”

It’s hard to express how much loss I feel resulting from the many years I spent unconsciously or consciously thinking of my Christian faith as something that brings slavery to terror. My Christian commitment was in some important ways born of fear – the fear of Hell. As a young teenager, fire and brimstone preaching motivated me to think, do and say the right things. We lived under the cloud of the Great Tribulation, the scourge of Antichrist followed by eternal flames, from which only proper faith in Christ could rescue us. The vast majority of the human race was on a fast train to Hell, and only a small remnant of us who got things just right would escape.

Thankfully, there were other influences on my faith besides those fire and brimstone prophecy preachers. There were youth leaders, college professors, family members and friends who really did catch the “adventure” of Christian faith. And there was a kernel of truth in the pulpit thumping – Jesus himself, after all, was the source of the imagery of sheep and goats, good soil and rocky soil, Abraham’s bosom and Gehenna.

Yet, even now, it’s hard for me to fully assimilate the truth that the Christian faith is fundamentally “a prayer that [we] must learn to pray” rather than “a set of beliefs.” I’m baffled sometimes when I meet former Roman Catholics who have gotten “saved” and joined evangelical churches. Their testimonies uniformly concern freedom and security: they traded what they perceived as a rigid system of doctrines, good works, guilt and penances, for the blessed assurance of simple faith in God’s grace. I suppose they just haven’t realized that in many of our evangelical churches, particularly for those of us who have grown up in the church, the system of doctrines, works, guilt and penances is just as rigid as it is in any version of cultural Catholicism – and perhaps it’s more insidious because it’s under the surface. Scratch the skin of many conservative evangelicals and you’ll find the same iron blood as that which flows through the most traditional of Catholics.

So, when I read Haurewas and Willimon’s meditation on God as “Our Father,” it banishes some of those old demons and encourages the whisperings of better angels:

“It is comforting to know that even though you don’t always feel like a Christian, though you do not always act like a Christian, much less believe like a Christian, your relationship as a friend of God is not based on what you have felt, done, or believed. Rather, you are a friend with God because of God’s choice of you in Jesus through the church.”

Indeed! Yet – “through the church” . . . . This is our fundamental weakness as “independent” evangelical churches. How do my Catholic friends who embrace and live their Catholic identities know they are accepted by God? Why don’t they suffer from the same guilt and fears as those ex-Catholics I know who left that faith for evangelicalism (or, more likely, for no faith at all)?

I think it’s because they’ve learned to receive the blessing of the Church. They’ve learned to recognize that their friendship with God is far bigger than their own personal strengths and weaknesses. Sure, they realize the need for a vibrantly personal faith, but it’s a faith that’s far more than “personal,” and that therefore is far stronger than their personal weaknesses. And here, they can more readily grasp the significance of Hauerwas and Willimon’s thoughts on the fact that “Our Father” is “in Heaven”:

“You may not be good with words. Don’t worry. George Herbert, St. Francis, and Teresa of Avila pray with you. You may not have your head straight on Christian doctrine. Go ahead and pray with confidence. Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and Georgia Harkness pray with you. You may find it difficult to make time to pray. Pray as often as you can. Your prayer joins those already in progress by Dietrcih Bonhoeffer and Dorothy Day.”

We may demur for any number of reasons to the authority of Popes and Cardinals or Metropolitans. Maybe those reasons are good ones rooted in the Reformation, or maybe at this point they’re still born of the fear of change, or maybe there’s some of both at work. Regardless, it’s vital that our “personal relationship with Christ” be far more than “personal.”

Categories
Church Epistemology Law and Policy Missiology Political Theology Spirit

Atheists, Christians, the Pope, and Doing Good

The headline of a recent Huffington Post article caught my eye:  Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics.”  Another HuffPo article notes that “Atheists Like What They See in Pope Francis’ New Openness.”  What’s going on here?  Good things, I think.

We need to dig a bit into the homily delivered by the Pope for the Feast of Santa Rita – Patron Saint of impossible things – to understand the theological undercurrents of these remarks.

The cornerstone of the Pope’s homily is a concept of natural law:

The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart:  do good and do not do evil.  All of us.  ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic!  He cannot do good.’  Yes, he can.  He must.  Not can:  must!  Because he has this commandment within him.

This is not a new teaching.  Some notion of natural law has been part of Christian theology from the first century New Testament writings until today (see, for example, Romans 1:20, the locus classicus for Christian natural law thinking).  Atheists, of course, will reject the concept of a natural law implanted in universal human nature by God.  They will offer other reasons for the good that they do.  But Christian theology has always held that all human beings in their created humanness bear the image of God and have a “natural” sense of what is good.

Christian theologians, however, have often disagreed about how or whether or to what extent sinful human beings can follow the natural law.  The key question here is the effect of sin on human nature and the accessibility of God’s grace to sinful humans (again, a locus classicus is Romans 1).  We can illustrate this through two historically important Christian thinkers:  Pelagius and Martin Luther.  Pelagius held that even after sin, a human being could theoretically follow his or her created nature and obtain perfection through the natural law alone.  One of Pelagius’ concerns was to preserve human freedom to follow or not follow God.  Luther, in contrast, wrote a tract titled “On the Bondage of the Will” in which he argued that sin has erased human freedom.  A sinful human person always does evil.

Both Pelagius and Luther were more complex as thinkers than this sketch suggests.  Just as some sense of natural law has always been a part of Christian thought, so has Christian thought always recognized the weight and tragedy and depth of human sin and the utter dependence of human beings on God’s grace.  Both Pelagius and Luther – as well as St. Paul and Athanasius and Augustine and Aquinas and Calvin and Barth and many other great Christian thinkers throughout history – have wrestled with this tension.  As is always the case, distortions (“heresies,” in the historically freighted lingo) crop up when one node of a tensioned web of thought is amplified so that the web snaps. 

In this case, the nodes are human freedom and human bondage to sin.  Or, stated in more common theological terms, the nodes are “nature” and “grace.”   The tensioned web of robust Christian thought (“orthodoxy”) holds that all human beings are both (1) created morally free and accountable and (2) thoroughly sinful and utterly in need of God’s grace.

At the equilibrium point of this tension we find another passage in Pope Francis’ homily that caught the attention of the HuffPo headline writers:

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ:  all of us, not just Catholics.  Everyone!  ‘Father, the atheists?’  Even the atheists.  Everyone!  And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class!  We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all!  And we all have a duty to do good.

For a journalist unacquainted with Christian theology, as well as for many Protestant evangelicals, a statement like this sounds like bland universalism.  Many of us from evangelical backgrounds are trained to think of “redemption” as something utterly separate from our created selves that only becomes part of our experience when we forcibly take hold of it.  That is, we completely sever “nature” and “grace.”

A more careful account is that sin’s corruption of human “nature” in fact makes us into something “un-natural.”  We are not now as we are created to be.  This is one of the essential points of the Biblical story of Adam and Eve and Eden.  The literary genre of that story surely is not “literal history” (whatever that would mean), but it tells a basic truth.  We cannot, because of sin, be or become what we truly are, without God’s help.  But the help – the grace – God gives us does not erase or replace “nature.”  “Nature” is already grace-shaped.  “Nature anticipates grace,” as Aquinas said, and grace perfects nature.  Redemption, then, is not alien to who we are in our created humanity.  What is “alien,” in fact, is the separation and death and emptiness of sin.

We – evangelicals and Americans more broadly – also are accustomed to think of “redemption” to mean “who goes to heaven.”  It’s as though redemption were a magic potion on a store shelf.  We might be directed to the correct aisle and grab the bottle of potion and force the potion down our throats, or we might not.  Even if the bottle is in theory universally accessible to every shopper – indeed even if there is a voice on the PA system announcing “attention shoppers, Redemption Potion is in the bottles in aisle four” — not many find it or grab it or swallow the bitter draught.  Some in very severe Reformed traditions might even say the bottle is hidden behind other things and is only made accessible to a chosen few.  Maybe a clerk whispers in the ears of those who are chosen – “psst, check out aisle four….”  In any event, it’s all about this magic potion, which instantly transforms those who drink it from “unredeemed” to “redeemed.”

I think the Pope had a different notion of “redemption” in mind in this quote.  I think he had in mind the redemption of all creation, including human nature as something universal in which all particular human beings share.  In this sense, all human beings are already redeemed by the blood of Christ.  The defects of universal human nature were assumed by Christ and are healed in Christ.  All particular human beings are capable of doing good, since all particular humans participate in universal human nature, which Christ has healed.  And to the extent any particular human is doing good, he or she is already in some fashion participating in the new humanity, the new Adam, brought about by the faithfulness of Christ. 

This concept is of course contrary to hard-line Reformed theologies that suggest the “good” done by non-Christians is only a sort of “civil good” and not genuine good.  But it is, I believe, thoroughly consistent with scripture and the broad Christian tradition, and it is a truth recognized by most Protestants today outside some narrow circles.  At the very least, God’s prevenient grace allows every human being to know and do the good to some extent.   Those of us within the Church, in fact, ought to be the first to acknowledge how far we regularly fall short in doing good, even with the benefits of regular Christian worship and sacramental life.

Does this mean that every particular human being is “going to heaven?”  No.  The freedom available to us because of Christ’s victory over sin and death remains contingent on our participation by faith.  We are free to reject the freedom of Christ and to accept instead the bondage of sin.  And in Catholic theology, along with the broad tradition of Christian thought, it is clear that this centrally involves the freedom to respond or not respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ as it is made known to us.  But, broadly speaking, Catholic theology is much more reticent to claim knowledge of precisely how God reveals Himself to others and precisely how others are or are not responding to God’s grace.  It may be that every atheist is beginning to respond and will finally respond “yes” to Christ, or it may not.  It may be that every professing Christian has expressed and will express a fundamental “yes” to Christ, or it may not.  Scripture suggests that only God finally knows the wheat from the tares, the sheep from the goats.

Does this then mean that anyone can “earn” heaven by “doing good?”  Again, no – and I don’t think the Pope would say so.  We are “justified” by faith, not by works.  Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, this is a basic and beautiful truth of the Gospel.  But the scriptural content of “justification” involves being made “just” – not only in name or by judicial declaration, but in fact.  We are made just only as a free gift of God’s grace made available to us by the faithfulness of Christ in his death and resurrection.  To accept that gift means, by the power of the Holy Spirit, gradually being made into a person more like Christ.  It means “abiding” in Christ, like a branch on a vine (John 15).  It means participating in the loving life of the Triune God.

The Pope’s conclusion is also important because it reflects this holistic notion of justification and redemption:

And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good:  we will meet one another there.

Notice that “redemption” in this picture is about making culture and meeting one another – starting here and now!  It is not only about getting to heaven someday.  And notice that this redemptive construction of culture does not, and cannot, happen all at once.  I love the notion of creating culture “gently, little by little.”  How often I fail that ideal!  In a world where grave violence persists, it is not always possible to go “gently” (I am thinking at the moment of efforts to combat human trafficking and child pornography).  Nor does going “gently” mean avoiding clear articulation of differences or eschewing evangelism.  But in this process of recognizing the genuine “good” done by the other, maybe this gift of gentleness – which, after all, is among the particular fruits of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:23) – can be realized.

Categories
Biblical Studies Spirit

Job, Tragedy, Natural Disasters, Lament

Tragedy in America brings a predictable set of cultural responses, a sort of cathartic theater.  News channels offer breathless on-scene reports, with helicopter shots of the devastation and interviews with survivors and family members of victims.  Celebrities send shout-outs of support on Facebook and Twitter.  Government and law enforcement officials make measured public statements about the recovery and restoration of order.  Hotlines allow those distant from the devastation to call or text in donations to the Red Cross.  And a group of usual suspects from the chattering class of preachers remark on the tragedy’s connection to God’s providence and justice, and hint at or identify some sin in the community.  They may even vividly describe the tornado, flood, hurricane, bomb, bullets, or other agent of destruction as God’s own hand tearing apart a seemingly peaceable landscape corrupted by sin.

These preachers are like the Greek chorus that never enters the drama directly but proceeds through the strophe across the stage chanting its knowing exposition at the main characters.  From the perspective of the suffering victim, there is only one response to these preachers:

I have heard many such things;
Sorry comforters are you all.
Is there no limit to windy words?
Or what plagues you that you answer?
I too could speak like you,
If I were in your place.
I could compose words against you
And shake my head at you. 

This was Job’s response to his friends, who wrongly assumed his suffering traced to some hidden sin.  (Job 16:2-4 (NASB)).  Job’s friends thought they were defending God by blaming Job.  In fact, their claims would make God’s defense of Job before the satan into a lie (See Job 1:8).[1]  The satan at least accepted that Job acted righteously in good times, even if the satan’s function was to peel away the security of prosperity and test Job’s character in adversity, perhaps with a cynical eye towards Job’s inner nature.  Job’s friends should have known better.  The satan at least faithfully performed his role as an inquisitor.  Job’s friends failed in their role as comforters.  One of the main threads of wisdom in the book of Job is that self-righteousness is never a faithful response to another person’s suffering.

There is another theological lesson in the book of Job about providence, causation, and suffering.  God sets things in motion by first mentioning Job’s righteousness to the satan (Job 1:8; 2:3), and God gives the satan permission to afflict Job and sets limits to that affliction (Job 1:12; 2:6).   By mentioning Job’s righteousness to the satan, it seems that God knew the satan would take the bait. 

But the satan is pictured as a genuine agency, not merely as an impersonal puppet.  The text states that the satan is the immediate agent of Job’s suffering.  Job’s family and possessions are put into the power of the satan.  (Job 1:12).  It is the satan who “smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.”  (Job 2:7).  It seems clear that God is the king within the heavenly court, but the satan freely roamed the earth, and periodically, along with the other “sons of God” (“heavenly beings”) appeared at court to report on his work (Job 1:6-7; 2:1-2). 

The sense here is that of the Assyrian, Babylonian or Semitic court politics with which the redactors of the canonical text of Job must have been familiar.  If, as some scholars believe, the scenes in the heavenly court originated with a folktale or play, we could easily imagine the performative nature of these tropes, staged like an ancient King Lear or a Semitic Prometheus Bound.  The book of Job does not offer a neat and tidy picture of a God who, solely by His own implacable will, directly orders everything to some particular, identifiable, dualistic outcome of judgment or blessing.  It dramatizes, at the very least, a God who gives initiative to agents within creation and allows some things to happen for reasons that ordinary commoners outside the heavenly court could never hope to comprehend – indeed, for reasons that don’t seem like “reasons” at all.

It is impossible to discern all of God’s specific “reasons” for something like the Oklahoma tornadoes, and it is foolish to personify those tornadoes as God Himself acting directly in the world for some simple and evident reason.  Weather patterns have a causal integrity of their own.  That causal integrity is statistically stochastic and a contingent feature of the sort of universe and planet we inhabit.  In their own causal integrity the weather patterns do not compromise God’s sovereignty as creator, nor does God’s sovereignty as creator diminish the causal integrity of forces, elements and agents within creation.  Within the group of people immediately affected by the tornadoes, there are thousands of detailed life narratives, set within webs of thousands upon thousands of related life narratives of friends, relatives, ancestors, and so-on, implicating myriad upon myriad of choices by interacting human agents set within uncountable multitudes upon uncountable multitudes of events in “natural” history.  No ordinary human being can presume to suss out the depth of God’s counsel over all of these variables.

Yet we can hope for something glimpsed only darkly even in the face of tragedy.  At times, in the poetic portions of the book, Job seems to see this as well.  Human beings, in Job’s theology, die and are no more.  There is no redemption in their suffering, and the best they can hope for is the abyss of death, which ends everything. (See Job 14:1-6, 13; 17:13-16).  Job says that trees are therefore in a better position than humans,

For this is hope for a tree,
When it is cut down, that it will sprout
again,
And its shoots will not fail.
Though its roots grow old in the ground
And its stump dies in the dry soil,
at the scent of water it will flourish
And put forth sprigs like a plant.
But man dies and lies prostrate.
Man expires, and where is he?
As water evaporates from the sea,
And a river becomes parched and dried up,
So man lies down and does not rise.
Until the heavens are no longer,
He will not awake nor be aroused out of his sleep.   (Job 14:7-12.)

Job has no theology of resurrection, but here he seems to grasp at the idea of new life coming from death in a way that wants to transform the “hope” of the tree into a human hope.  The text of Job will not finally offer this as a firm hope.  As Christian readers of the text, we may take it to hint at what is made more explicit in the death and resurrection of Jesus:  that all of creation will one day be renewed and will find its final end in God (see, e.g., 1 Cor. 15:28).  Even for us as Christian readers, we glimpse this only “through a glass darkly” (1 Cor. 13:12).  It is a hopeful glimpse, even if still tensioned by the reality of sin and death. 

Even in the storm, these three, faith, hope, and love, remain (1 Cor. 13:13).  And the greatest of these is love (id.).  The response of love to another person’s suffering and loss is lament.  Faith and hope only come slowly, after lament.  Job’s friends were true “friends” when they sat with him in mourning on the trash heap (Job 2:11-13).  The lessons of lament should have tempered their subsequent advice.



[1] The satan, most scholars agree, is not the figure of “Satan” as presented in the New Testament.  The satan – more literally, the “Accuser” – likely is intended as a faithful member of the heavenly court, whose role is to act as a prosecutor who tests the integrity of God’s creation.  It may also be that the satan is intended as a regular interloper into court life, or even that the satan is a sort of Divine alter ego that expresses God’s own unspoken doubts about creation.  In any event, it is a genre mistake to read these narratives as if they are providing “factual” information about spiritual warfare.

Categories
Biblical Studies Spirit Spirituality

Paul: Love … All Things

I’ve been reflecting lately on the Apostle Paul’s “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13, particular on verse 7.  Love, Paul says, “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (NASB).  What is the force of the term “all things” in this powerful statement?  In Paul’s original Greek, the phrasing is beautifully poetic:  πάντα στέγει, πάντα πιστεύει, πάντα ἐλπίζει, πάντα ὑπομένει (panta stegei, panta pisteauei, panta elpizei, panta hypomenei).  Notice the alliteration in the repetitive use of “panta” (all things) and the rhyme of the active verb endings (ei).  I can imagine Paul dictating this phrase to his amaneunsis, getting more excited as he repeats each panta.  Try reciting it out loud:  agapē panta stegei, panta pisteauei, panta elpizei, panta hypomenei.  Let it sink deep into your soul:  there is nothing to which love fails to respond with patience, faith, hope, and endurance.  Nothing.  All things — panta, panta, panta — love regards with patience, faith, hope, and endurance.  Panta, panta, panta agapē .

Categories
Scripture Spirit

Paul's Remarkable Comments to the Galatians: on Reputation

In his long introduction to the letter to the Galatians, in chapters 1 and 2, the Apostle Paul recites his credentials as an Apostle and explains why he is writing the letter.  In short, there was a division in the Church between Jewish Christians and the growing group of Gentile Christians, over whether the Gentile Christians were required to adhere to all aspects of the Jewish Law, including the requirement of circumcision.  As Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul argued that the Gentile Christians should not be subject to the requirements of the Jewish Law (Torah).  In fact, throughout the Pauline corpus of the New Testament, Paul’s treatment of the Torah is far more subtle than a simple dichotomy of Torah against Grace — it is a narrative of completion and fulfillment and not one of opposition and supercession — but that is a bigger topic for another day.  In any event, Paul traveled to Jerusalem to have it out with the leaders there, including Peter, who were siding with the Jewish Christians.

There are so many remarkable comments and asides in Paul’s introduction that it’s hard to single one out.  Today, this one struck me:  “But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) — well, those who were of reputation contributed nothing to me.”  (Gal. 2:6 (NASB)).  Paul is speaking here of the leaders in Jerusalem.

I am easily impressed by pedigree and reputation.  If Professor So-and-So or Reverend Whoseiwhats agrees with me, I feel more confident; if Professor Such-and-Such or Reverend Whichisthat disagrees with me, I worry.

There is a degree to which this is appropriate.  If I really know and respect someone’s work, it is wise for me to take his or her opinion seriously.  Even more so, if I am under someone’s authority in a work or ecclesial setting, I may be required to take another person’s opinion seriously.

But Paul is not speaking here about well-earned or institutionally necessary deference.  He is speaking about reputation-as-reputation:  mere status, not substance.  Here, Paul is unsparing:  it makes no difference to him at all.  Paul is confident to brush aside mere reputation because he knows that finally all people stand equally before God on substance.  We each are naked before the creator and judge of the universe.  Now that is both a humbling and a liberating thought.