Archive

Posts Tagged ‘theology’

In Connecticut, God Is

December 18, 2012 Leave a comment

My father, a man who spent much of his life in Connecticut, asked me a question. It was the same question that thousands, if not millions have asked in the last few days. As his voiced trembled and halted, I knew the question before it rang in my ears.

“Where was God?”

In time of tragedy there is not a single question that can be asked that has such a simple answer, yet is so difficult to accept. Many throughout history have asked this question during their own versions of Newtown, Connecticut. Even the heroes of the Bible were forced to ask the same question. Moses, during a period of slavery and murder, when countless children were murdered simply because a society was threatened by their race, asked God that very question. For the first time in recorded history God gave the answer.

Where God are you?

“I AM.”

God was not absent during Israel’s troubles, nor was he absent in Connecticut last week. God was not pushed out of the building, helpless to intervene while one of his creations stalked the halls and mercilessly gunned-downed. God was not stopped because a tremendous evil had appeared from nowhere, an evil never before seen. God was not barred from the building because of legal decisions of the nation. God did not restrain himself from stopping the tragedy because he was mad at us as a town, nation, or planet. God wasn’t absent anymore than the sun or moon were. God was then as God is now and as he shall forever be. God is.

God was there when each child and adult breathed their last breath. God saw the glimmer of life leave their eyes. God saw the anger and pain in the shooter’s eyes each time he pulled the trigger. God saw it all, God felt it all. God experienced the tragedy deeper than myself or my father, more than the survivors and the victims. He stood next to the parents as they mourned their offspring, just as he has done billions of times before. God remembers crafting each of the children in his own hands, giving them the gifts and potential for greatness, knowing full well when their moment of passing would be. God felt the pain that set his child on a course for murder. God listened to the metallic click of each brass cartridge being loaded into the magazines that would soon be emptied in a torrent of fury.

God was there then as he is still now. Mourning with those who mourn, bringing peace to those who are ready, and wiping the tears from the faces of his children come home.

Neither this tragedy, nor any of the countless that came before, have ever driven God away. When his first children chose a course that would one day lead to dozens of kids being murdered in their New England classroom, he let them go. He knew they could do better, but he knew they would not. He chose to let them go anyway. He loved them, he loved them enough to let them live their lives.

For generations his children chose when their lives would end, as if they never even considered that what they had was a gift in the first place. Yet he let them live. Only once did God ever turn his face, only once did choose not to be there. Up on the cross when his own child, his own blood, was dying. Then and only then did he leave, knowing that to do so was the only way to let every child to come experience life everlasting.

God wasn’t gone from Connecticut. God is in Connecticut. God Is.

 

Advertisements

Truly Pro-Life

November 10, 2012 1 comment

There are few more controversial labels than “pro-life” and “pro-choice.” Although abstract in their nomenclature, these labels always refer to the same issue, abortion.

In the America we are obsessed with this issue, and why not? How can you not be enraged by the thought of a cute little baby being snuffed out at the beginning of its life? or an entire gender’s right to self-determination cast aside by the other sex? The issue is always framed this way, usually because one of those aspects will resonate with half the country more than the other. It creates a righteousness to each side, while at the same time demonizing the other. This dichotomy is politically useful, but over the past 40 years has proven to be practically useless.

The choice between these two positions is a false in and of itself, as we are told the only battleground this is to be fought on is the legalization of abortion, oversimplifying the issue to the degree of hopeless quagmire. The issue of abortion and women’s’ rights are part of a deeper issue, and unless that deeper issue is addressed, a resolution will never be achieved.

The real issue is this: do we really honor life?

Ask the poor, uneducated, single mother of three if she really has a choice when she finds herself pregnant. Ask her in her moment of decision if she feels that any really cares about her or her children’s’ life. The truth is, neither position is a position of truth.

Advocates on both sides of the divide project a poor understanding of people caught up in the middle. Those who seek to make abortion illegal have little problem watching a poor girl have a child, and that child grow up without parents because one is in jail and the other must work long hours to support him or her. That child grows up without the support of family or community, and only choice for an education is one that doesn’t even provide the basic skills needed to survive. When that “saved” child becomes an adult they are told that they are not qualified for anything but the most menial jobs that pay insufficiently to support themselves let alone family. Eventually the person does have choice, stay in a state of poverty, unable to support a family of their own, or turn to crime and possible rise out of their situation, usually destroying what little life they had.

How is that honoring life? How does that give anyone a real choice?

I am constantly bemused by the Christians who call themselves pro-life and can never understand why anyone would choose to kill a baby. How can you kill an adorable little baby whose parents will one day watch him take his first steps and record the even on their video camera? How can you kill that child before he smiles and gets on the bus for the first day of school, or piles out of the mini van for soccer practice? How can you not want to sit there on graduation day and watch your offspring take their college diploma? Why would you want to prevent yourself from sitting at thanksgiving dinner while your child cuts the turkey for the first time in his own house, while his wife watches with pride as she nurses your grandchild?

The sad truth for many of the children who never make it to birth is that they are not missing any of those things, because they would not have happened had they lived. Few of the women forced to make such a heart wrenching decision would say they had much of a choice.

You may argue that any life is better than no life, however to stand before a woman in such a context is cold, unloving, and definitely not “life-affirming.” A person who screams, “this is your problem, now you deal with it!” while providing no help or love to a woman in crisis has no right to say such things. Only when we bear one-another’s burdens can we rightful give our input.

I have a modest proposal, let’s eliminate abortion, but let’s do it in a truly pro-life way which provides women with real choices. A pro-life way honors life not just from conception to birth, but all the way to the hopefully long-off grave. As a follower of Jesus, I believe his command to me to “love my neighbors as myself” means I have to love not only the unborn child, but the mother as well.

Here is how you do it: Provide medical care and support for a pregnant mother to be, let her know she is loved and cared for. Provide a world where children born to mothers that cannot handle them will not rot away in the foster system, but every child be given a chance to succeed. Give children opportunities to thrive no matter where they are born. Create a culture that never views other human beings as a burden or an enemy, but as valuable children of God.

If we do these things, I predict that abortions for otherwise healthy babies will drop to nil even without legal prohibition. As a Christian, I believe that all these things should be done anyway, because that is the embodiment of loving others. If you want a world where we do not do these things for others, I’m afraid we will never rise above a contentious debate where both women and children are cast aside. I may be wrong, but until we try it we will never know.

You are not God

November 7, 2012 Leave a comment

You are not God.

That is the declaration that sin makes, yet somehow we seem to have lost that concept. Modern understandings of sin tend to fall on or near one of two extremes.

The first extreme is growing in popularity but is still the most easily dismissed. That is the view that there is no sin. This view is usually held by people who are more “progressive” or “liberal,” labels which they carry proudly. They tend to view sin as an archaic concept from an ancient time of absolutes. Adherents to this idea tend to argue that “good” and “bad” are relative. However the hypocrisy and ultimate defeat of this theory is that even the staunchest “live and let live” liberal has in their mind a list of sins, some of which are unforgivable. Examples may include oppression, pedophilia, rape, etc. I have still yet to find a person who truly holds to this view, even if they idealize it.

The more insidious misapplication of sin is when people think of sin as a heavenly list of dos and don’ts. This view is often held by self-identifying “conservatives.” These people believe that committing one of these forbidden acts earns a person a one way ticket to Hell. Conversely, there are things that one must do in order to avoid hell. People create lists which they believe are universally applicable in all places and every situation. Ironically, these lists vary from one person to the next, casting doubt on the legitimacy of any particular list. Often using the Bible as source material, they tend to handpick certain “sins” (to outsiders this will appear random in nature) and elevate them to special pinnacle of evil. The sins chosen for this tend to be plucked from the Bible without any regard for historical or cultural context, yet tend to conform more to the culture and context of the modern individual creating the list. Nuances such as “good and vs holy and common” or “biblical Israel vs all peoples,” tend to never even be considered. Examples in the United States include Christians’ opposition to Capitalism in the 19th century, and seeming reversal to opposition to any hint of Socialism in the 21st, the mid 20th century war on racial integration and mixed-race marriage. and most recently the obsession with what civil rights should be granted or withheld from homosexuals. In every aforementioned instance, biblical verses were found to support their position, and verses that opposed such views completely dismissed.

Both of these views have something in common. Both are used to declare that the self is God. Let me explain. In the first view, the self is allowed to view the entirety of the world and declare that there is nothing morally wrong (please remember I stated that I don’t believe anyone actually holds this view). In the second view, the self is allowed to declare what is and is not acceptable, and clothe that list in divine authority. In both these instances, humility has been removed and there is no room left for the divine.

The Christian Bible does not speak of sin this way. Jesus repeatedly told his followers and detractors that human effort is never sufficient and often the most religiously “law-abiding” people are the ones furthest from God. See how Jesus condemns the publicly righteous man who “thanks” God he is so able to be sinless, in favor of the humble sinner who recognizes his need for a savior. One man judges himself as only God can, and judges himself great. He has deluded himself into believing that he is divine, that he is perfect. The other man is humbled by sin, does not condemn others because he knows he has earned plenty of condemnation himself.

After Jesus, the Apostle Paul speaks of the universality of sin, placing us all in the same “celestial boat.” James, the brother of Jesus, reminds the church that if they break one part of God’s Law, they have broken it all, because the same God who gave one law, gave us the other. Yet today the glutton condemns the adulterer, and the greedy condemns the thief. In their minds their sin is of lesser severity. The trouble is only God can make that judgement, and they of course are not God.

Jesus said the whole Law of God is built upon the command to love God with your whole being, and love everyone else as much as yourself. All sin is a failure to do this.  To use the concept of sin to degrade others is to sin against the very law you are invoking.

Sin has one purpose, and that is to loudly declare that we are not God. We are far from perfect. We often fight against perfection that we encounter. Sin is powerful in that it affects every person on earth. You cannot rank sinners. Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler are not worse than you, they just had more opportunity and motivation.

To walk around as if you are better than anyone is to declare to God that your sins don’t count as much as the next guy’s. To make that declaration you must be only one of two things: God or an imposter. You are not God.

You are not God.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: , ,

An Election for an Elect Nation

November 1, 2012 7 comments

And Satan took Jesus up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours.”
The Gospel of St. Luke

As the United States draws ever closer to electing its leader for the next four years, Christians everywhere are making their opinions known. The majority of those who call themselves “Bible Believers” stand firm with Mitt Romney, the first major party candidate that explicitly states that he is of a religion that is not Christianity. The former Governor of Massachusetts is a man who believes the social services and collective welfare of the nation are not the responsibility of the peoples’ government, and that those who have become the wealthiest on earth should pay even less tax than they did when they accumulated their vast wealth, even if it comes at the expense of those who work hard yet have little to show for it.

Those who call themselves Progressive Christians, or even “Red-letter Christians” tend to stand with the incumbent, Barack Obama. The incumbent is a man whose first term was noted by ongoing wars, summary executions, and a failure to address the economic inequities that he constantly links to his opponent. His foreign policy has allowed and even applauded events which have replaced one oppressive regime with another, justifying it by prioritizing abstract notions of democracy over the real welfare of the people affected.

Most Christians across the entire political spectrum readily admit that they will vote for their respective candidate in an effort to choose the lesser of two evils. Using such a philosophy is a tacit admission that they will indeed choose an evil. As in every one that has preceded it, this election viewed as more pivotal than all others.

The truth is that it doesn’t matter who is elected in November. Next year, when January turns into February, and the President sits comfortably in the White House, nothing will have changed. America’s economy will still be completely dependent upon enabling humans to kill other humans. We will still occupy other nations despite the majority opinion in those nations. We will still hold an arsenal capable of destroying the entirety of humanity many times over. We will still be the largest supplier of deadly arms across the globe, many of which we will destroy ourselves in future conflict. We will do these things and call ourselves a nation of peace.

We will still incarcerate more of our citizens by proportion than any other nation on earth. We will still murder each other by willful homicide and neglect at a rate shocking compared to other industrial nations. We will still have an infant mortality rate surpassing all other nations with our wealth, yet at the same time spend more money on healthcare than most. We will still allow people to die in the streets because they cannot afford healthcare. We will still snuff out millions of potential lives because of the burden (real and imagined) they will place on our lives. We will do these things and call ourselves a nation of life.

We will still incarcerate at one time or another one third of an entire race. We will still incarcerate the desperate throngs yearning to be free, who come to this nation like every race before them, with nothing more than the clothes on their back. We will still enslave the majority of our citizens in debt by convincing them to want things they do not need, and inflating the price of those things they do. We will do all these things and call ourselves a nation of liberty.

We will still suffer from depression, anxiety, and a host of other lifelong mental ailments. Our children will still kill themselves in ever increasing numbers. We will still spend billions of dollars on drugs, legal and illegal, that will keep us addicted for the rest of our lives. We will still walk away from our families when we no longer are fulfilled. We will still dehumanize one another in a desperate attempt to feel valuable. We will do all of these things and call ourselves a nation of happiness.

We will still not feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or heal the sick. We will still boast with a prideful arrogance unmatched on the planet. We will still abuse the orphans, the widows, and the aliens. We will still believe that greed will drive us forward. We will still murder, steal, lie, commit adultery, covet, and invoke the name of God to advance our own desires. We will still worship things created and turn our back on the Creator. We will do all of these things and call ourselves a Christian nation.

When the polls close and the votes are counted, America will once again have elected the status quo. We will admit that things have gone wrong but we will be too afraid to fix them, lest we lose our comfort. We will still accept “what is” and never strive for “what could be.”

We will gleefully follow the road that Babylon, Rome, the modern European empires and every other “great” people has gone down. We will march toward our own destruction having convinced ourselves that we are the exception to the rule, that we are special, that we are blessed. We will march with intent and purpose toward that end, holding fast to the false knowledge that God would never be so pretentious as to abandon us. We will declare ourselves to be the true divine nation, and invoke the promise that God’s people will endure forever. We will carry deaf ears to those in far off places who sing hymns and praises. We will turn a blind eye to those poor nations who practice grace and mercy. We will never entertain the notion that God may be bigger than us, and we are but a tiny people to him. No, we will not consider that. We must not believe for even a second that we may be wrong. We must do our civic duty and once again choose the lesser evil to guide us.

Grace Judges Us

October 25, 2012 2 comments

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
(Matthew 25:31-46)

While Jesus speaks volumes about God’s grace, we cannot ignore the fact that he will also judge. It seems paradoxical for a message of grace to also include a future warning of judgement, but it all makes perfect sense if we truly understand what grace is.

First we must understand that grace is God’s intervention in our world. Our world is defined by sin, suffering, and death. God promises that through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, these three painful realities will be banished from reality. This is God’s grace. Christians often focus on the aspect of grace that means they will go to heaven, but we sometimes forget the fact grace alleviates all suffering. Put simply: God will remove the bad.

Second, we must understand our call. When asked what is most important for people to do, Jesus responded that the sum of God’s teaching is to love Him and love your fellow humans. Jesus often spoke of what such love meant, and how to differentiate it from normal human religion. He told stories to the masses to illustrate what such love looked like, and he always reminded people that the greatest example of such love was what God is doing on the earth through him. Above all else, people are called to live as if they believe evil will be wiped away from earth, and to model (even in our feebleness) the reality of grace that God is bringing. Put simply: We must act like God’s grace.

Finally, we must consider our present reality. By and large we humans do not practice such grace. Although we produce enough food to feed the world, a billion do not have enough to eat. Despite our ability to live in peace, millions die from war every decade. Despite the vast wealth of the world, over 2/3 of the world’s population live in poverty. Although it easy to point out the macro forms in which grace is not present within humanity, we cannot dismiss the individual responsibility we all share. Very few of us actually have the opportunity to oppress millions, like the great monsters of history we often invoke to ease our own conscious. We do have the opportunity to ignore injustice and even profit from it when our leaders call for it. We also have the opportunity to act in the same selfishness when we encounter or even cause the suffering of others. We are all guilty of gracelessness. Put simply: We often reject God’s grace.

This is not a world of grace. The sad truth of it is, many of us like it that way.

For God’s grace to be real on this earth, justice must be served on behalf of all those who suffer. Orthodox Christian theology believes that because Jesus died without sin, he was able to take on our collective sin and pay the price to satisfy justice. In other words, Jesus’ willful undeserved suffering paid the price owed for every bad thing that has occurred, is occurring, will occur in the future, as well as that which would have occurred had we had the chance to carry it out. This is the gospel and this is the working of God’s grace.

That last proposition though is subject of some controversy. Many people simply don’t believe it. Many people object to the necessity of righting the wrong or the insinuation of their own guilt. Even when Jesus spoke to people in his own time, people who saw Jesus in the flesh, many rejected it. Still many more reject it today.

The good news is that, as the apostle Paul put it, “where sin abounds, grace abounds.”

Grace most definitely judges, and it has already condemned. Jesus offered himself to stand in our place and all he asked in return is that we accept his grace. To accept grace is to live grace. It is to accept a reality where needs are met and suffering is banished. When Jesus told his followers that he would return and separate the peoples of the earth, he was telling them that those who accept grace show it radiating from within and those who will not accept his grace show it by the lack of grace in their own lives.

The judgement of grace is therefore a judgement of acceptance. There is no persuasion other than what has already been seen and what many have an earnest hope for. Regardless of man-made religious distinctions we have all witnessed grace, even if it was never defined in those terms, and we all have an opportunity to accept or reject it. But there is coming a day when there will only be grace, those who wish their own gain through the suffering of others will not accept such a place, and God will respect their decision.

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: , ,

The Woman in the Yellow Dress

October 20, 2012 2 comments

When I was in my freshman year at UC Santa Cruz, I was heavily involved with the dominant campus ministry, our chapter of Inter-varsity Christian Fellowship. I went on the annual urban ministry trip over spring break, that year it was in some of the worst parts of San Francisco. While I was there I saw my share of criminals, drug addicts, prostitutes, and homeless people. The one person that stands out in my mind the most though, was the woman in the yellow dress.

We spent the week sleeping on the floor of a Mission District church, and in the middle of the week we were afforded the luxury of a shower. As the church itself had no facilities we sojourned down the street to the local YMCA. The building was on one of the most statistically crime-ridden blocks of the city and to be honest, was a bit scary itself. As we entered the building and our group leader paid our admission to use their shower, I kept wondering if this was the YMCA that inspired the song. Being shy, I kept my query to myself.

The males and females of the group were separated and led to different floors, each with its respective gender’s shower room. The men followed the signs that eventually led us to a large locker room area. In the back of the room we could hear the distinct echo of a shower. To my chagrin, the shower area was not what I hoped, a row or two of individual showers with privacy doors, like I had used when on a mission trip to Mexico some years prior. The shower area was one large tiled in room with shower heads protruding from the walls at standard intervals. It was like what you might see in a prison movie, or in a school much older than any of those I attended. I had never been naked with other men before, and my anxiety began to rise.

I disrobed with the half dozen other men in group; I say men in a legal sense, the eldest was 22 and the rest of us were 18. We placed our clothes in lockers near the shower and coyly entered the room. Already there were about a dozen other men, all totally nude and several eagerly looking us over. One such man stood in the corner and stared at me the entire time, He was tall with neat brown hair and a handlebar mustache. He kind of looked like the biker from the Village People, so I therefore assume this was the YMCA they sang about. I cleaned myself as quickly as I could and nearly ran back to my waiting towel. As I dried myself off, I felt scared and vulnerable. I tried my hardest to expedite the process as much as possible.

While still in a state of total undress my worst fear was realized, another fully nude man walked directly up to me and reached out toward me. I was startled and paralyzed with fear but before I could react his extended arm moved past me to the locker directly next to the one I had chosen minutes earlier. The man, a slighter framed middle-aged man with a receding hairline and a tamed mustache that reminded me of the one my dad sported, stuck out his free hand and offered it to me.

“Hi, neighbor,” he said as if we had run into each other in a shared front lawn as we both returned from work.

“Hi,” I timidly responded.

He was very chatty and friendly, and he made small talk as we both toweled ourselves off. He asked me why I was in San Fransisco, and upon learning my purpose began to ask me all kinds of questions about the ministry I was there with. Again, perfectly normal conversation between two naked strangers.

Being in such proximity, I will admit that caught a glimpse of his “private area.” The first passing glance alerted me to something out of the ordinary and I tried as nonchalantly as possible to look a second time for further investigation. My first glimpse was not mistaken, there was a clear oddity about this man. He did have a penis. What he had was a gaping hole where it should have been, directly above very normal testicles. My mind began trying to figure out what I had just seen while I did my best to simultaneously keep up with the small talk. I naively came to the conclusion that he was just born with one so small, that in the cool air it had receded inside of him. Granted, this wasn’t a great theory, but it was the best I could formulate on such short notice.

Trying not to think about, I focused on drying and clothing myself as quickly as possible while entertaining his conversation. He matched my pace and as began to put on my underwear, so did he. But wait, that’s not underwear he had pulled from his locker. It looks like, yep, it is pantyhose.  He gently pulled them up his legs and continued dressing. Next, he pulled a yellow sun dress from the locker and slipped it over himself like he had done it his whole life.

“Well, now I’m just damn confused”, I thought silently to myself. Just I was finishing pulling down my t shirt until it met the top of my jeans, he pulled out a blond wig. It was short, with pronounced bangs like the ones people would wear when dressing up as Hillary Clinton (when she was First Lady) for Halloween. He turned to the mirror and carefully straitened it, as if to make sure he was a presentable lady, albeit one with a bushy brown mustache. I stood there waiting for my friends to finish dressing so we could leave when he told me that he was a woman, and he had been all his life. He said that he had lived as man since his birth and even got married and raised a son, but he knew in his innermost core that he was a woman. Abandoned by his wife, he found solace in his local church just outside of this then home of San Jose. One night, after a night of heavy drinking, he told me, he summoned up the drunken courage to grab a pair of bolt cutters and cut off his penis.

I’m going to let that set in for a moment.

He told me that he then drove himself to the hospital so that doctors could stop the bleeding, but not before discarding of his penis (he did not say how) so that there was no chance of reattachment. After he recovered he went shopping and bought a new wardrobe fit for a queen. When he returned to his church a few weeks later, he told me that people starred at disbelief over his new appearance, which I assumed bared a resemblance to the person who stood before me. He said that he had prepared himself for the looks, and assured himself that they were still his friends, but they would need time to adjust to his big change. Unfortunately, his optimism was never realized, as a few days later he was visited in his home by the pastor and a few people he had called friends. Without seeking explanation, they informed him that he was an abomination and was no longer welcome at the church. After they left, he convinced himself that they couldn’t possibly speak for the whole church, and he would return the next Sunday. When he arrived the next during the next service, every head turned toward him, most of the people with scowls, some seething with visible anger. The pastor shouted at him from the stage his earlier declaration and several other voices rose up from the congregation telling him to leave.

He told me that his only response to the crowd was that he was a sinner before and a sinner now, and after all, weren’t we all? A voice rang out from the crowd, “You’re a pervert, get out!” He left and never went back.

The man in the yellow dress told me that he wished more than anything that he could go back to his church. But he knew that it would never be.

Not knowing what to say, I simply told him I was sorry for his pain. He looked down and I looked to see that my friends were preparing to leave, a walked away and never saw him again.

I thought about that encounter for the rest of my trip. While it’s doubtless that other people from my group saw the exchange, none ever asked me about and I did not volunteer a word but it was etched into my mind nonetheless. I don’t know what was going through his mind when he cut off an appendage. I don’t know what his thoughts were growing up and raising a family in the “normal” fashion. I did know that he was sincere in his self-understanding. In his mind he was a woman and always had been, he was just born with a penis for some unknown reason.

If I woke up tomorrow and to my surprise found a vagina where my penis had once been, I would still be a man. No matter what you tell me, you would not dissuade me from that fact. I was born a man and will always be one.  I will always be attracted solely to women, as I have been my whole life. My self-identity doesn’t come from any physical attributes, but rather an indefinable knowledge that resides in the very depths of my soul. I would hope that my friends and family would understand.

I never saw her again, but she occasionally occupies my mind. I know that she knows she is a woman, and you could not convince her otherwise. Her physical being relented to her inner being one drunken night, and her life has been filled by pain ever since. No sane person would ever put themselves through so much pain unless they knew the stakes were that high. I am sad that a church of sinners could not accept  a sinner in her greatest time of need. I am sad that they did not seek to understand but only judged. Her answer to the greatest question, “Who am I?” was not what they wanted, so she was cast away. In their minds, her humanity was apparently tied to her gender, and the abandoning of one meant the forfeiture of the other. I am not as wise as them. I cannot believe that I could know someone as much as I know myself, and even that is a knowledge I have yet to master. I am strong enough however to say, I don’t understand, but that’s okay.

This then is my prayer: that I meet her again one day, and that she is happy and joyful and loved by people as much as she is loved by God.

Faith and Works

September 23, 2012 1 comment

During my seminary education I struggled deeply with the relationship between faith and works. My previous background as a minster to young people in a megachurch setting and my dedication to learning in a vehemently Reformed graduate school have both emphasized that great tenant of the Protestant faith, that we are saved by faith alone. I have questioned the legitimacy of this belief.

I am not saying that I take issue with justification by faith alone, although I believe we are justified by grace, not faith. But this is not the problem I am dealing with. I do affirm that we are only justified by God’s grace through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. To argue contrary falls in the realm I am comfortable with calling heresy. However, justification is not salvation, it is the beginning. Salvation does not occur solely in some heavenly book, apart from our earthly life, for Jesus spoke of salvation as being born again (John 3), a totally transforming experience. Salvation is holistic in its effect. Protestants have traditionally called this part of salvation sanctification, but I don’t believe it is useful to separate justification and sanctification, as theology has done in the minds of many Christians throughout the ages but especially lately. Justification simply doesn’t happen apart from sanctification. Justification may occur instantaneously at some point, and sanctification is an ongoing process, but they are both present in the “saved.”

I believe that this division of terms has led to bad theology and even worse behavior in the church. In my classes I encountered seminarians who are astoundingly prideful, who verbally abuse both faculty and female students, who cheat on a regular basis, and display all sorts of greed and avarice that would make the most depraved men blush. Put bluntly, some of the worst people I spend time with are leaders (or future leaders) of the church. All of the people I have witnessed, even the vilest (and yes there are a few I would call vile) are convinced not only of their own salvation but of their ability to lead other Christians. They tend to be extremely defensive of the doctrine of salvation through faith, and mention of works elicits condemnations of “papist heresy.”

It would be easy to end the post here. I could just be pointing a finger and yelling “hypocrites!” But that is not my intention. I earnestly believe that one of the reasons these young (mostly) men act and think the way they do is because they are simply a product of modern evangelical teaching. This theology is a reductionist view of Reformed teaching that states “its not about what you do, its about what He did.” And while that is a nice sentiment, it is just not what Jesus said. Jesus spent most of his time teaching his followers what to do, not how to formulate theology. When it came to being “saved” Jesus seemed far more concerned with actions than beliefs. I don’t know that Jesus would actually separate beliefs from actions like that. He seemed to teach throughout his ministry that actions show true beliefs. I think this is an important point for one practical reason, I don’t know what you (or anyone else) really believe. The best I can do is look at your actions and try to discern your beliefs based on those actions. Is that fair? Jesus seemed to think so.

Jesus told his followers to judge teachers by their “fruit” (works).

You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
(Matthew 7:16-20)

But does this negate the belief that we are saved by our statement of faith? Jesus says in the next verses…

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
(Matthew 7:21-23)

This teaching about the coming judgment shows that Christ is more concerned with our acts (as true confessions of faith) than our words (which can state anything). Put another way, I can call myself a tiger, the fact that I am typing an essay right now, and was born to two human parents, etc., etc., places serious doubt on my claim. In the same way calling Jesus “Lord” doesn’t make is so any more than I can define my species with mere words. So who is saved if not the ones who declare that they are based on their statement of faith? The above text states that it is those who do the will of God (works). Is Jesus teaching justification by works? No, that language would be completely foreign to him. He is looking at the big picture of salvation, not the pieces that form it. If sanctification and justification are bound to one another, this makes perfect sense.

Jesus’ half-brother James puts it plainly…

So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe–and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”–and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
(James 2:17-24)

James hits on several key points here:

  1. Statement of belief in God is insufficient, even Satan knows who God is.
  2. The example of Abraham (Paul’s favorite reference to faith) acted (works) as a result of his faith.
  3. Faith without works is dead, useless, etc.

I don’t think that any of my peers at the seminary would overtly argue against this, but their actions do. Evangelical Christians (more than other types of Christians) seem to be so wary of mixing justification and sanctification that they would hesitantly agree that a “saved” person could act in any way he or she pleased, since salvation was independent of works. I have even heard it boasted that a sinner as great of Hitler may have been saved, because our God is so great. Foolishness! How could the saved man bear such copious amounts of such bad fruit and know God? While it is true that before conversion there is no sin so great it cannot be wiped away (just look at Paul, murderer of Christians) after being saved we are made new, and cannot go on in our previous ways. Paul would agree (Ephesians 2), as would John (1 John), and the rest. I don’t even need to mention Jesus, who made this one of the cornerstones of his teaching.

To what degree does the sin leave our lives? This I do not know. My reading of Scripture tells me that I should be sinning a lot less than I do. The same sentiment haunted John Wesley for decades as he tried to reconcile plain biblical understanding with his practical experience.

To sum up, I believe that the dichotomy between faith and works is unjustified. Faith and works always travel together, and in the practical life of the believer and teacher, we should always remember this. We cannot go along sinning without concern, convinced that it doesn’t really matter because we are saved by faith alone. Faith never comes alone. I believe we should try to live like the woman caught in adultery, who after encountering Jesus told, “You are forgiven, go and sin no more.”

%d bloggers like this: