We have been exploring James for a few weeks and something jumped out at me in my latest reading. I believe James is writing to Jewish Christians spread throughout the Roman empire. Some of them have land and status; some do not. James is writing to bridge the gap between them, writing to them about the possibilities of growth for the poor if things don't change, but also the necessity that they do.
One of the warnings James gives is in chapter 4. He begins the chapter with cautions about what actually starts all of the quarrelings among them: battles that rage within them. They covet; they desire. He then warns: Your friendship with the world is hatred toward God (v. 4). What they use to achieve status with the world despises God. Rather than achieving status with the world, they are to submit themselves to God. They are to wash their hands! They are are to purify their hearts! (v.8) Notice how James takes purity laws (wash your hands) and applies it in terms of how lives are lived in the context of the great promise of the prophets of a new covenant written on the hearts of people. James is appealing to the law and history of this group of people to establish a new context for their relations. He is mediating.
Then he finishes his warnings with advice: Do not slander one another. He is referring to them all, here, rich and poor alike. Poor, don't speak against the rich. Rich, don't speak against the poor. Why? Because when you speak you judge one another. And when you judge one another, you judge the law. And when you judge the law, you are setting yourself above it. Notice how James has now used the law--the great unifier of the Jewish people in dispersion--and shown how their disunity is a judgment on it.
James creates a new world for his hearers to live in, one that is shaped by their Scripture for them to live out the life of the church.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Reading James
James writes to Jewish Christians scattered through the Roman empire. They know the Old Testament. They have saturated their minds with it. But there are quarrels among them. They are reading; they are not understanding. Hence, James goes back to the law over and again--the royal law, the perfect law.
Today I am reading "Eat this Book" by Eugene Peterson, a book about spiritual reading. Spiritual reading is how one reads the Bible to be shaped and formed by it. A Christian has to get this book into them as thoroughly as if they were eating it. Peterson uses the example of running. When he was running, he would read and read and read about running. How to heal injuries. How to stretch. What to eat. If it was running, he would read it. However, when he got an injury, he stopped reading. As long as he wasn't running, he wasn't reading about it. This was because in his running, his reading was an affirmation, an encouragement, companionship, a deepening, a validation of his life. Likewise for Scripture, when our lives are being given for its story, we will read it for sustenance. We will read it because without it, we starve. The world doesn't feed those who live against its ideals and its stories. God does through his word.
Back to James. In this letter we have a glimpse at a community encouraged to eat the Old Testament again. Take it in. Be shaped by it. See its royalty and perfection. And in seeing this encouragement, we are given part of our own Scripture to take in and eat and consume. We are to be fed by it, but this only happens as we are participating in the world of James--a world where Jesus is Lord, where leaders are humble, where we are slow to speak and slow to become angry. I think this captures why the word planted in us can save us.
Today I am reading "Eat this Book" by Eugene Peterson, a book about spiritual reading. Spiritual reading is how one reads the Bible to be shaped and formed by it. A Christian has to get this book into them as thoroughly as if they were eating it. Peterson uses the example of running. When he was running, he would read and read and read about running. How to heal injuries. How to stretch. What to eat. If it was running, he would read it. However, when he got an injury, he stopped reading. As long as he wasn't running, he wasn't reading about it. This was because in his running, his reading was an affirmation, an encouragement, companionship, a deepening, a validation of his life. Likewise for Scripture, when our lives are being given for its story, we will read it for sustenance. We will read it because without it, we starve. The world doesn't feed those who live against its ideals and its stories. God does through his word.
Back to James. In this letter we have a glimpse at a community encouraged to eat the Old Testament again. Take it in. Be shaped by it. See its royalty and perfection. And in seeing this encouragement, we are given part of our own Scripture to take in and eat and consume. We are to be fed by it, but this only happens as we are participating in the world of James--a world where Jesus is Lord, where leaders are humble, where we are slow to speak and slow to become angry. I think this captures why the word planted in us can save us.
Friday, February 20, 2009
James and the Oscars
The Oscars always generate a lot of buzz. Morning news shows interview all the actors I've heard of but never seen or the ones I've never heard of and now am supposed to see but rarely the ones I've seen who aren't nominated for Oscars.
On Tuesday, our small group was talking about living out Christian lives in front of coworkers and how we can often be held to a higher standard. We asked, suppose James was sitting right here with us, what would he say about it? Count it pure joy. See the opportunity. Live genuinely--and be careful what genuine is! Be slow to speak. We then stepped back a bit. What about the situation to which James writes? He writes to a group of people with factions in their communities because of money. But he writes with instructions in how to live in the midst of it and that it should be resolved. Perhaps James realized that the opportunity for witness from a group of people who had come through such faction and fighting was greater than that of a community that never had any troubles at all. Likewise when we fall short of the standard of Christ, there is often a greater witness in our response to it--our apologies, our humility, our attempts at reparation--than had troubles never happened at all.
Back to the Oscars. Why all the buzz? I think it's because a good story is something humans appreciate. And yet we always need new stories. What were the five nominees for best movie last year? I certainly can't remember. We always need new stories to be energized and entertained and engaged. Wonderful thing, then, how our lives are always little episodic stories that, with God's help, can be weaved into one large one, thereby remaining fresh while coherent. What's the witness of our stories--especially in the midst of trial?
On Tuesday, our small group was talking about living out Christian lives in front of coworkers and how we can often be held to a higher standard. We asked, suppose James was sitting right here with us, what would he say about it? Count it pure joy. See the opportunity. Live genuinely--and be careful what genuine is! Be slow to speak. We then stepped back a bit. What about the situation to which James writes? He writes to a group of people with factions in their communities because of money. But he writes with instructions in how to live in the midst of it and that it should be resolved. Perhaps James realized that the opportunity for witness from a group of people who had come through such faction and fighting was greater than that of a community that never had any troubles at all. Likewise when we fall short of the standard of Christ, there is often a greater witness in our response to it--our apologies, our humility, our attempts at reparation--than had troubles never happened at all.
Back to the Oscars. Why all the buzz? I think it's because a good story is something humans appreciate. And yet we always need new stories. What were the five nominees for best movie last year? I certainly can't remember. We always need new stories to be energized and entertained and engaged. Wonderful thing, then, how our lives are always little episodic stories that, with God's help, can be weaved into one large one, thereby remaining fresh while coherent. What's the witness of our stories--especially in the midst of trial?
Monday, February 16, 2009
Reasons For God?
So we have looked at a few critiques Keller has for reasons against God, but as my friend Billy pointed out on Facebook, none of these are reasons for God. So, what reasons does Keller offer for belief in God? It must first be noted that Keller doesn't consider these ideas, quite old ones, "proofs" for God. One cannot prove God's existence. One can only offer reasons for believing in God's existence. In this case, Keller says that belief in God makes sense of a few facts of life.
1. Belief in God makes sense of the universe and its fine-tuning for life. The probability figures for life on this planet arising by chance are astronomically low. Billions and billions to one. Just the right combination of nitrogen and oxygen; just the right axis tilt; just the right distance to the sun; just the right atmospheric conditions... All such scientific findings are best explained by the presence of a creator. All of the big atheists take on this argument by saying that there could have been billions and billions of failed universes before this one came about. That's true. The odds are low, but, by definition, that does not mean impossible. So, Keller offers a story (originally Alvin Plantinga's). Suppose you are playing poker and your opponent, who is dealing, keeps turning aces for himself over and over again. Twenty straight times. You accuse him of cheating. He says, "The chances of me turning up aces are billions to one. But for every game of poker there is that chance that it will happen. Given all the universes that could exist where this doesn't happen, there's a chance it will happen in this universe." You can either accept his story or punch him in the nose. The absurdity of the story makes Keller's point: This finely tuned universe is no proof of God, but nobody lives other parts of their lives against such odds.
2. Belief in God makes sense of morality. We have senses of right and wrong that make no sense without an appeal to something beyond culture. One can believe certain practices are wrong and work against them, but unless there is a standard to which such practices are not conforming, then there is no reason to work for what one considers right. Of course, many people live with morals regardless of their strict adherence to religious teaching, but this only strengthens the argument that belief in a creator God whose image is borne in these people makes sense of this situation. Does it prove God's existence? No, but it does make it seem more understanable. Put to another level, what sense does love make in an enlightened culture that knows all processes that have brought humans to this level of development are simply a combination of chance and survival mechanisms? One now sits above these mechanisms and so all emotion is only chance and survival. Can one offer a story that makes sense of love in terms of chance and survival mechanisms? Sure. Does this story capture the essence of love (both friendship and/or romantic) to being human as well as God? That's the question.
3. God gives explanation to the meaning of life. Victor Frankl's chronicles of his time in a Nazi war camp revealed three groups of people in the camps. The first were those who succombed to the enemy and cohorted with them. The second were simply those who gave up and died. The third were those who lived for something beyond themselves. Those in the first two groups were out-survived and out-numbered by those in the third. Frankl's work captures an element of real-life and how we live our lives. What's the meaning? What's the purpose? That there are those who live with meaning and purpose in life--and they are the majority--can best be made sense of with the existence of God. Does this prove God? No. God just makes sense in light of meaning and purpose. (Interestingly, Phyllis Tickle makes the point in "The Great Emergence" that when work became less necessary and people found themselves with much more free time on their hands that purpose decreased. The gap that filled in the void for many of these people? Church. And that wasn't always a good thing!)
So, what do you think of Keller's reasons for believing in God? Which is the most important for you? Which is the strongest/weakest? Why?
1. Belief in God makes sense of the universe and its fine-tuning for life. The probability figures for life on this planet arising by chance are astronomically low. Billions and billions to one. Just the right combination of nitrogen and oxygen; just the right axis tilt; just the right distance to the sun; just the right atmospheric conditions... All such scientific findings are best explained by the presence of a creator. All of the big atheists take on this argument by saying that there could have been billions and billions of failed universes before this one came about. That's true. The odds are low, but, by definition, that does not mean impossible. So, Keller offers a story (originally Alvin Plantinga's). Suppose you are playing poker and your opponent, who is dealing, keeps turning aces for himself over and over again. Twenty straight times. You accuse him of cheating. He says, "The chances of me turning up aces are billions to one. But for every game of poker there is that chance that it will happen. Given all the universes that could exist where this doesn't happen, there's a chance it will happen in this universe." You can either accept his story or punch him in the nose. The absurdity of the story makes Keller's point: This finely tuned universe is no proof of God, but nobody lives other parts of their lives against such odds.
2. Belief in God makes sense of morality. We have senses of right and wrong that make no sense without an appeal to something beyond culture. One can believe certain practices are wrong and work against them, but unless there is a standard to which such practices are not conforming, then there is no reason to work for what one considers right. Of course, many people live with morals regardless of their strict adherence to religious teaching, but this only strengthens the argument that belief in a creator God whose image is borne in these people makes sense of this situation. Does it prove God's existence? No, but it does make it seem more understanable. Put to another level, what sense does love make in an enlightened culture that knows all processes that have brought humans to this level of development are simply a combination of chance and survival mechanisms? One now sits above these mechanisms and so all emotion is only chance and survival. Can one offer a story that makes sense of love in terms of chance and survival mechanisms? Sure. Does this story capture the essence of love (both friendship and/or romantic) to being human as well as God? That's the question.
3. God gives explanation to the meaning of life. Victor Frankl's chronicles of his time in a Nazi war camp revealed three groups of people in the camps. The first were those who succombed to the enemy and cohorted with them. The second were simply those who gave up and died. The third were those who lived for something beyond themselves. Those in the first two groups were out-survived and out-numbered by those in the third. Frankl's work captures an element of real-life and how we live our lives. What's the meaning? What's the purpose? That there are those who live with meaning and purpose in life--and they are the majority--can best be made sense of with the existence of God. Does this prove God? No. God just makes sense in light of meaning and purpose. (Interestingly, Phyllis Tickle makes the point in "The Great Emergence" that when work became less necessary and people found themselves with much more free time on their hands that purpose decreased. The gap that filled in the void for many of these people? Church. And that wasn't always a good thing!)
So, what do you think of Keller's reasons for believing in God? Which is the most important for you? Which is the strongest/weakest? Why?
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Reasons against God?
Tim Keller's new book, The Reason for God, is the basis for a lecture he recently gave, which sketched three reasons for God and three faith-filled reasons against God. All of his reasons and critiques are pastorally repackaged versions of older lines of thinking. Today we'll look at the reasons against God. By faith-filled reasons against God, I mean that Keller shows how three classical arguments against God have leaps of faith in them. Here they are:
1. "I can't believe in God because of evil and suffering and no all-powerful, all-good God would allow evil and suffering." Keller says that what this really boils down to is not that there is no reason God would allow evil and suffering, but that the person making the argument does not know what good reason God would have. Keller then offers an illustration. Suppose that I asked you to look in a pup tent and tell me if there are any Saint Bernards in it. You could look quickly and realize whether or not there are Saint Bernards. However, suppose I asked you to look and see if there were any mosquitos. That would be more difficult. Perhaps with the complexity of evil and suffering in our world, reasons for it are more akin to mosquitos, discernible only to a being of infinite intelligence. Saying definitively that no reason exists is a leap.
2. "I can't believe in God because no religion can capture everything about God." The classic picture is of five blind people stumbling upon an elephant and each experiencing a different side of it--the trunk, the body, the tail, the ears, the leg... Each has a different picture of the elephant and each is right, although each is significantly limited. Likewise different religions have different vantage points for God, though none has the full view. To say, however, that no religion captures the truth about God necessarily puts one in the position of being above all the other religions. If one knows that no religion captures the truth about God then one has superceded other religions, which is the very position this person wishes to critique. That's a leap.
3. "I can't believe in God because the Bible says x, and we know that x simply isn't true." Keller offers the example of vengeance being God's and Jesus' words to forgive. While most North Americans will say, "Hooray!", they will scoff at the Bible's teaching against sex outside marriage. On the other hand, some older cultures will readily applaud the Bible's teaching on sexual fidelity, but won't be willing to accept its teaching on forgiveness. How can both cultures be right? Keller says that to deny belief in God because the Bible teaches x shows not only great faith in one's culture, as shown above, but also great faith in one's moment of time. Consider that much of what skeptics and social liberals believe differs from their grandparents. Why should we not expect that our grandchildren won't have the same experience of doubting much of what we think? If we believe that our grandchildren will have the same beliefs, then we believe that our moment has achieved truth and enlightenment. That's a leap.
Instead, Keller suggests that if the Bible's teaching really is from God and that no culture or time has perfectly instituted and activated all of its teaching, then at some point every culture will be offended and disagree with the Bible.
Next week we'll look at ways believing in God helps make sense of some of the most important elements of life, though these elements do not prove God. Until then,
what do you think of these reasons and Keller's critiques?
1. "I can't believe in God because of evil and suffering and no all-powerful, all-good God would allow evil and suffering." Keller says that what this really boils down to is not that there is no reason God would allow evil and suffering, but that the person making the argument does not know what good reason God would have. Keller then offers an illustration. Suppose that I asked you to look in a pup tent and tell me if there are any Saint Bernards in it. You could look quickly and realize whether or not there are Saint Bernards. However, suppose I asked you to look and see if there were any mosquitos. That would be more difficult. Perhaps with the complexity of evil and suffering in our world, reasons for it are more akin to mosquitos, discernible only to a being of infinite intelligence. Saying definitively that no reason exists is a leap.
2. "I can't believe in God because no religion can capture everything about God." The classic picture is of five blind people stumbling upon an elephant and each experiencing a different side of it--the trunk, the body, the tail, the ears, the leg... Each has a different picture of the elephant and each is right, although each is significantly limited. Likewise different religions have different vantage points for God, though none has the full view. To say, however, that no religion captures the truth about God necessarily puts one in the position of being above all the other religions. If one knows that no religion captures the truth about God then one has superceded other religions, which is the very position this person wishes to critique. That's a leap.
3. "I can't believe in God because the Bible says x, and we know that x simply isn't true." Keller offers the example of vengeance being God's and Jesus' words to forgive. While most North Americans will say, "Hooray!", they will scoff at the Bible's teaching against sex outside marriage. On the other hand, some older cultures will readily applaud the Bible's teaching on sexual fidelity, but won't be willing to accept its teaching on forgiveness. How can both cultures be right? Keller says that to deny belief in God because the Bible teaches x shows not only great faith in one's culture, as shown above, but also great faith in one's moment of time. Consider that much of what skeptics and social liberals believe differs from their grandparents. Why should we not expect that our grandchildren won't have the same experience of doubting much of what we think? If we believe that our grandchildren will have the same beliefs, then we believe that our moment has achieved truth and enlightenment. That's a leap.
Instead, Keller suggests that if the Bible's teaching really is from God and that no culture or time has perfectly instituted and activated all of its teaching, then at some point every culture will be offended and disagree with the Bible.
Next week we'll look at ways believing in God helps make sense of some of the most important elements of life, though these elements do not prove God. Until then,
what do you think of these reasons and Keller's critiques?
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
A Jamesian Reflection on the Old Testament Law
Is the Old Testament law valuable? Can following the law be an important part of the faith of a Jewish Christian? Let me offer some reflections on these thoughts from James.
First, I believe that James writes to Jewish Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire in the diaspora. Some are wealthy, some poor; all are Christians. James's purpose in writing to them is to encourage them to get along and help one another out by appealing both to their Jewish faith and the life of the Lord Jesus, thereby saving them (5:20).
In the midst of this, he points that contrary to sin which brings death, God has given us life through the word of truth (1:18) which can save us (1:21). We should not just listen to this word, but do what it says (1:22) because when we listen but do not do, we make the word useless, like when we use a mirror but forget what we look like. This means that without following the word, it is useless to do what it can do; without us following us, it is useless to saving us. James then equates this "word" with the perfect law (1:25), saying the one who follows it will be blessed in what she does. This perfect law is the law that gives freedom.
James then encourages his hearers to speak and act as those who will be judged by this law (2:12). This is the perfect law whose royal form is loving one's neighbour as we love ourselves (2:8-9). Without loving your neighbour, it matters not a hoot whether one obeys the rest of the law; they have broken the whole thing (2:11).
Let me pull this together. I think James is fine with his hearers following their religious practices and the law. However, without inward transformation, these religious practices are useless. (This is what he means by controlling the tongue, which Jesus says speaks the overflow of our hearts.) Inward transformation, however, which is and is enabled by the word planted within us, is the perfect law, the complete law, the purposed law. The purpose of the law is to love one's neighbour as we love ourselves and we should act with this law in mind. This is the law that gives freedom to do just what it asks--not showing favourtism and loving our neighbours. This is our salvation because this is the life of our Lord Jesus--who is glorified.
[I think it will later takes Paul and theologians working out their thoughts on the Holy Spirit who makes this transformation possible because, as Paul and other prophets before him (like Jeremiah) tell us, the law is powerless to bring about this transformation.]
So, the perfect law is good, worth following and obeying and thereby becoming like Jesus in its and his royalty--loving indiscriminately. Anything less is useless.
First, I believe that James writes to Jewish Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire in the diaspora. Some are wealthy, some poor; all are Christians. James's purpose in writing to them is to encourage them to get along and help one another out by appealing both to their Jewish faith and the life of the Lord Jesus, thereby saving them (5:20).
In the midst of this, he points that contrary to sin which brings death, God has given us life through the word of truth (1:18) which can save us (1:21). We should not just listen to this word, but do what it says (1:22) because when we listen but do not do, we make the word useless, like when we use a mirror but forget what we look like. This means that without following the word, it is useless to do what it can do; without us following us, it is useless to saving us. James then equates this "word" with the perfect law (1:25), saying the one who follows it will be blessed in what she does. This perfect law is the law that gives freedom.
James then encourages his hearers to speak and act as those who will be judged by this law (2:12). This is the perfect law whose royal form is loving one's neighbour as we love ourselves (2:8-9). Without loving your neighbour, it matters not a hoot whether one obeys the rest of the law; they have broken the whole thing (2:11).
Let me pull this together. I think James is fine with his hearers following their religious practices and the law. However, without inward transformation, these religious practices are useless. (This is what he means by controlling the tongue, which Jesus says speaks the overflow of our hearts.) Inward transformation, however, which is and is enabled by the word planted within us, is the perfect law, the complete law, the purposed law. The purpose of the law is to love one's neighbour as we love ourselves and we should act with this law in mind. This is the law that gives freedom to do just what it asks--not showing favourtism and loving our neighbours. This is our salvation because this is the life of our Lord Jesus--who is glorified.
[I think it will later takes Paul and theologians working out their thoughts on the Holy Spirit who makes this transformation possible because, as Paul and other prophets before him (like Jeremiah) tell us, the law is powerless to bring about this transformation.]
So, the perfect law is good, worth following and obeying and thereby becoming like Jesus in its and his royalty--loving indiscriminately. Anything less is useless.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Keeping Oneself from Being Polluted by the World
James tells us that part of what God accepts as pure and faultless religion is keeping oneself from being polluted by the world (1:27). Christians have often done this by attempting to recreate the world they live in ex nihilo. By this I mean that they have not tried being redemptive figures in their existing culture in order to remake it, but by creating a separate culture. As a result we have Christian wrestling, Christian mints, Christian games, Christian music. This is not a counter-culture, meant to be a critique of the existent culture; this is a separate culture, meant to enjoy all the pleasures of the existent culture with none of the pollution.
But James' words cannot be heeded in this way because the source of sin is not culture. James warns us that we are tempted by our own evil desires, that these desires give birth to sin, and that sin, when it is finished, gives birth to death (1:14-15). The source of sin is not culture; it is us. So, if keeping oneself from pollution is not done by separation, how is it done?
Consider the socio-spiritual rules of disease and illness that Jesus bucked. Being touched by a leper, bleeder, dead body, etc. brought uncleanness according to the law. But when touched by lepers, Jesus did not become unclean; they became clean. When touched by a bleeding woman, Jesus was not defiled; she was healed. When touched a dead girl, Jesus was not polluted; she was restored to life! By the power of God's Spirit in Jesus, sin's contagion was stopped and righteousness spread. Jesus was kept from pollution not in his separation from others, but in his relationship to the Father. Righteousness spread. Jesus kept from being polluted by the world by justifying / rightifying it (making it right).
Likewise for James. Believers are kept from being polluted by the world by entering into the actions of their glorious Lord Jesus (2:1): Not showing favouritism. Just as Jesus showed no favouritism by including the poor, the sick, the betrayer, etc., so do his followers keep from being polluted by showing love to the poor (2:2-7). They are encouraged to speak and act as Jesus--as though the law gave freedom (2:12-13). And in this life of obedience--of rightifying the world, to be rightified (2:24), to find their righteousness and friendship with God (2:23). And yet this is not a salvation by merit because it is only through the word of truth, planted in us (1:21) that God has given us birth (1:18).
But James' words cannot be heeded in this way because the source of sin is not culture. James warns us that we are tempted by our own evil desires, that these desires give birth to sin, and that sin, when it is finished, gives birth to death (1:14-15). The source of sin is not culture; it is us. So, if keeping oneself from pollution is not done by separation, how is it done?
Consider the socio-spiritual rules of disease and illness that Jesus bucked. Being touched by a leper, bleeder, dead body, etc. brought uncleanness according to the law. But when touched by lepers, Jesus did not become unclean; they became clean. When touched by a bleeding woman, Jesus was not defiled; she was healed. When touched a dead girl, Jesus was not polluted; she was restored to life! By the power of God's Spirit in Jesus, sin's contagion was stopped and righteousness spread. Jesus was kept from pollution not in his separation from others, but in his relationship to the Father. Righteousness spread. Jesus kept from being polluted by the world by justifying / rightifying it (making it right).
Likewise for James. Believers are kept from being polluted by the world by entering into the actions of their glorious Lord Jesus (2:1): Not showing favouritism. Just as Jesus showed no favouritism by including the poor, the sick, the betrayer, etc., so do his followers keep from being polluted by showing love to the poor (2:2-7). They are encouraged to speak and act as Jesus--as though the law gave freedom (2:12-13). And in this life of obedience--of rightifying the world, to be rightified (2:24), to find their righteousness and friendship with God (2:23). And yet this is not a salvation by merit because it is only through the word of truth, planted in us (1:21) that God has given us birth (1:18).
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Thoughts on human sexuality
*Caution: The following is a fairly dense theological approach to sexuality. As such, it is best read slowly and carefully, without making inferences. It is also best to approach questions and concerns as questions and concerns: seek clarification; invite opportunity for conversation.*
A letter to The Daily Star in Oneonta, NY brings up the issue of homosexuality and being Christian. If I could write a letter to this seemingly earnest lady, I would write something like this.
Dear Cindy,
First, let me say that human sexuality is a significant part of being human. Scripture's first declaration of human sexuality is that humans were created male and female--an intimate connection and bond. Moreover, humans--male and female--are created in the image of God. Something about the male-female creation that is humanity reflects God. This means that there are healthy ways for males to be attracted to males and for females to be attracted to females. Of course, there are unhealthy attractions, as well, in all categories of attraction: male to female, male to male, female to female, female to male. This is a broken world and this sexual brokenness is exploited and glorified by media and culture. This makes it an even more important issue for church today.
Second, I want to clarify another Evangelical thought. Being gay is not a sin. Same sex attraction is not a sin. (In this way I am acting with the definition of sin as a willful transgression of a known law, which was held to by a theologian named John Wesley.) Homosexual acts, including lust and intentional fantasies, are a sin. There is an important difference to be made there. But why are homosexual acts a sin when they don't hurt anybody? Why should people not be able to act on their feelings? It's because creation is for God's glory, meant to reflect him. In the male-female make up of humanity, there is the context for pro-creation. This is meant to reflect God, as well, in whom the Spirit is eternally generated in the love the Father and the Son both have for each other. In homosexual behavior, there is no context for procreation. In the end, it is the desire of humans to remake themselves in the image of something other than the Triune God.
It is important to note that heterosexual activity is not always reflective of God's image, either, and in those cases it's the same sin of people wanting to remake themselves in the image of someone other than the Triune God. Consider sex outside marriage. Marriage is the closest thing to an eternal bond into which humans can enter. It reflects the eternal love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father. Just as that eternal relationship eternally generates the Spirit, so does marriage provide the context for generation of another person. Sex outside this context of procreation, outside marriage, does not reflect God. This does not mean that sex is inappropriate when no chance of pregnancy is the case because, as mentioned above, human sexuality is an important aspect of being human and so is necessary to the strengthening of the bond of human marriage. (Lots more could be said here, but will have to wait for another time.)
With this in mind, I believe the church's call to preach against the sin of homosexual and heterosexual behavior must always be good news. This good news is multifaceted. First, there is the good news that God has entered this broken world, the Word of God made flesh--Jesus. Jesus was a full blooded human being with sexual desires. (He remains a human being now, of course, but I won't go into my opinions on the role sexuality plays in our new heaven and earth.) Jesus knows what it's like to be sexually attracted to someone. And yet he went unmarried--unsatisfied sexually. Jesus knows the restraint the law places on people outside the context of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Second, there is good news that Jesus is the image of God and we are being remade in his image. This means that we receive the fruit of his Spirit, part of which is self-control. This means that though sexual attraction outside marriage will occur--for both male and female, hetero- and homosexual--that we can live as Jesus lived. Third, there is good news that Jesus has created a community that is commanded and created to love perfectly, to walk through this sexual brokenness with all who come to them. That the church has failed is a given; it will never perfectly succeed. All you can hope to find are some who will better exhibit the life of Jesus.
Does Father by his Spirit transform some people who are gay so that they have heterosexual attractions? Yes. Does Father through his Son call some heterosexuals to live lives of singleness? Yes. Does Father leave some people who love him deeply unchanged and with same sex attraction? Yes. Does he expect them to live as his Son in his singleness? Yes. This, of course, is a most difficult calling, as is any calling of God, but those for whom marriage is not an option, for whatever reason, must learn to accept and take this calling as a gift of God (1 Cor 7:7) and live in the grace he supplies to be obedient.
A letter to The Daily Star in Oneonta, NY brings up the issue of homosexuality and being Christian. If I could write a letter to this seemingly earnest lady, I would write something like this.
Dear Cindy,
First, let me say that human sexuality is a significant part of being human. Scripture's first declaration of human sexuality is that humans were created male and female--an intimate connection and bond. Moreover, humans--male and female--are created in the image of God. Something about the male-female creation that is humanity reflects God. This means that there are healthy ways for males to be attracted to males and for females to be attracted to females. Of course, there are unhealthy attractions, as well, in all categories of attraction: male to female, male to male, female to female, female to male. This is a broken world and this sexual brokenness is exploited and glorified by media and culture. This makes it an even more important issue for church today.
Second, I want to clarify another Evangelical thought. Being gay is not a sin. Same sex attraction is not a sin. (In this way I am acting with the definition of sin as a willful transgression of a known law, which was held to by a theologian named John Wesley.) Homosexual acts, including lust and intentional fantasies, are a sin. There is an important difference to be made there. But why are homosexual acts a sin when they don't hurt anybody? Why should people not be able to act on their feelings? It's because creation is for God's glory, meant to reflect him. In the male-female make up of humanity, there is the context for pro-creation. This is meant to reflect God, as well, in whom the Spirit is eternally generated in the love the Father and the Son both have for each other. In homosexual behavior, there is no context for procreation. In the end, it is the desire of humans to remake themselves in the image of something other than the Triune God.
It is important to note that heterosexual activity is not always reflective of God's image, either, and in those cases it's the same sin of people wanting to remake themselves in the image of someone other than the Triune God. Consider sex outside marriage. Marriage is the closest thing to an eternal bond into which humans can enter. It reflects the eternal love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father. Just as that eternal relationship eternally generates the Spirit, so does marriage provide the context for generation of another person. Sex outside this context of procreation, outside marriage, does not reflect God. This does not mean that sex is inappropriate when no chance of pregnancy is the case because, as mentioned above, human sexuality is an important aspect of being human and so is necessary to the strengthening of the bond of human marriage. (Lots more could be said here, but will have to wait for another time.)
With this in mind, I believe the church's call to preach against the sin of homosexual and heterosexual behavior must always be good news. This good news is multifaceted. First, there is the good news that God has entered this broken world, the Word of God made flesh--Jesus. Jesus was a full blooded human being with sexual desires. (He remains a human being now, of course, but I won't go into my opinions on the role sexuality plays in our new heaven and earth.) Jesus knows what it's like to be sexually attracted to someone. And yet he went unmarried--unsatisfied sexually. Jesus knows the restraint the law places on people outside the context of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. Second, there is good news that Jesus is the image of God and we are being remade in his image. This means that we receive the fruit of his Spirit, part of which is self-control. This means that though sexual attraction outside marriage will occur--for both male and female, hetero- and homosexual--that we can live as Jesus lived. Third, there is good news that Jesus has created a community that is commanded and created to love perfectly, to walk through this sexual brokenness with all who come to them. That the church has failed is a given; it will never perfectly succeed. All you can hope to find are some who will better exhibit the life of Jesus.
Does Father by his Spirit transform some people who are gay so that they have heterosexual attractions? Yes. Does Father through his Son call some heterosexuals to live lives of singleness? Yes. Does Father leave some people who love him deeply unchanged and with same sex attraction? Yes. Does he expect them to live as his Son in his singleness? Yes. This, of course, is a most difficult calling, as is any calling of God, but those for whom marriage is not an option, for whatever reason, must learn to accept and take this calling as a gift of God (1 Cor 7:7) and live in the grace he supplies to be obedient.
How should you read the Bible? A "Jamesian" Reflection
James 1 has some alarming words, "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." How should you read these words? As a command? Then I fail--much too often. As a challenge? That feels better. As a promise? Hmmm... What if it's a promise that perfection (being "complete") is the outcome of trial. If I read this as a promise, then my joy flows from the promised result. I don't need to work up more joy in the face of trial, feeling a failure when I don't.
This leads me to ask, then, "How should I read the Bible?" If it is read mainly as commands--and there are commands in Scripture--then how I respond is focused on me. My response. My attitude. My ability. There is a place for this. However, this also turns Scripture reading into one of those commands, so that if I'm not reading Scripture I'm already behind. I am already failing.
What if instead of reading the Bible as command we read it mainly as gospel--good news. James' words are really good news if something good can come from our trials. Not just something good, our perfection in the trying of our faith! What if we approach Scripture with the same mindset of it being good news. Might that change our devotion to its study and reading?
This leads me to ask, then, "How should I read the Bible?" If it is read mainly as commands--and there are commands in Scripture--then how I respond is focused on me. My response. My attitude. My ability. There is a place for this. However, this also turns Scripture reading into one of those commands, so that if I'm not reading Scripture I'm already behind. I am already failing.
What if instead of reading the Bible as command we read it mainly as gospel--good news. James' words are really good news if something good can come from our trials. Not just something good, our perfection in the trying of our faith! What if we approach Scripture with the same mindset of it being good news. Might that change our devotion to its study and reading?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
