Grace

I read in the bible of a being that, with “truth and grace”, came into our world. What exactly does it mean that Jesus came in “truth and grace”? What exactly is grace? The sphere of Christendom I have grown up in has defined grace as “unmerited favor” or another odd, but no less abstract definition. But Jesus came in “truth and grace” or, rather, “truth and grace came through Jesus.” Either way, somehow I think I’ve missed the point. Grace is not some abstract concept. It might explain why the other more liturgical denominations speak of “means of grace.” 

Means of grace: word and sacrament: visible, tangible. 

Jesus brought grace into this world via Incarnation. Incarnation: real, visible, malleable, tangible, felt, and not off in the world of concepts alone. A conceptual understanding of grace demands nothing of us, has no long lasting effect. Grace is not for one time, one conversion. 

Rather, it is for all time, always reforming, always converting, and always being felt. And if it is not tangible and real it seems meaningless and lacking. 

Grace is...real and maybe it’s too real for our own comfort and maybe that’s why we put grace in the world of ideas because if it’s a reality found in the physical world, then it demands something of us. In fact, it is all around us. 

Quote

“In the Christian context, we do not mean by a "mystery" merely that which is baffling and mysterious, an enigma or insoluble problem. A mystery is, on the contrary, something that is revealed for our understanding, but which we never understand exhaustively because it leads into the depth or the darkness of God. The eyes are closed—but they are also opened.”

Kallistos Ware 

On Exchange

Previously I began to address the radical nature of law vs. gospel within the scriptural context. But, did not set out any nuance (mainly because I am not fond of nuance-ing everything). This post is an attempt at that.

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?

Not only did death come via the Law but perfection could not be attained through it. The Law was created to pass away. 

For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.

The priesthood is no longer with Aaron and his heirs but is now with Melchizedek and his heir. And with this heir there comes a change in the Law. But saying the Law has changed seems okay. It's kosher within Christian circles to say the nature of the Law changed but isn't set aside. Yet, the bible leaves us no room for the comfortable. 

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless...

The Law was created to pass because it is weak and useless. The goal was perfection and the Law was useless in achieving this goal. Ergo, it has to pass. 

...and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

This hope is one of an indestructible life. Again, the tension of death vs. life. Death in and by the Law and life in and by Christ. 

Through whom we live and move and have our being. 

God Suffers

God the Father suffered loss.

God the Son suffered physical and emotional pain.

God the Spirit actively suffers.

There is plenty within scripture to suggest that God suffers. When we see the lowest of the low, the least in every way within society, there is Jesus, suffering along with them. When the Church suffers in some way God suffers. In the garden of Gethsemane we see a suffering God.

Only a God who suffers with us actively is a God who can truly save us.

On the Abuse of Truth

I feel bad for truth. It's been so abused of late. And more, I feel anger at Churches. There's this mentality that biblical faithfulness should trump all. "I want to be faithful to the bible," and the statement which underlies that one is this, "so I'll trumpet the biblical text from the rooftops exactly how it's stated therein." No, no, no. Can I say it any more clearly?

We, as Christians, tend to treat the lifestyles or actions we call sin as if they are some abstract idea/entity/thing/whatever that has taken hold of some group of people. This is where the problem lies. We, too often, tend to address the sins of people (when we also fail to have a clear, and effective definition of sin) without realizing they're still (shocker) human. They have feelings, emotions, reactions, thoughts, desires. They feel pain. The reason why people become so outraged at Christian ideals and call us bigots is because we forget their humanness in the desire to be faithful to a book.

Last I checked Christ calls us to be gracious in our speech. He wants us to speak with truth and grace. When we fail to speak truth with grace, in some ways, we fail to speak truth at all. It becomes a clanging noise. Just empty words which we shout in the name of biblical faithfulness and, therefore, words without meaning.

More Thoughts on Doubt

In light of a previous post on the subject it seems appropriate to attempt to clarify or expound further upon the issue raised therein. Where is the line that Rilke seems to be drawing between a doubt that is a worker in your life and the implied giving in to doubt that becomes skepticism?

Doubt is the natural outpouring of the soul when confronted with the pain of reality, not even the pain necessarily but simply reality itself. It's simply wonder at what you do not know, or cannot know. More clearly, doubt is the experience of the soul. 

The line between doubt and skepticism is one of questions. With one the questions find their origin in a wonder that has been disciplined; in the other the questions are asked incessantly without ever disciplining and tailoring them to your needs, to becoming useful. Discipline and questioning, this, it seems, is the line.

One Way Out

The burden of unknowing and doubt lays heavy on any human heart which has attempted to live in the world. A burden which for the most part is furthered by the Church rather than embraced.

Mind you, this burden is not a problem to be solved, but embraced. Too often the Church has used St. Thomas as a means of saying: do not doubt! But this is as far from truth as one can get.

Doubt and unknowing: there can only be one way out (if, in fact, we can ever truly escape) and that is to go through them. Just as with the wrath of God, so with doubt.

Run towards the doubts and uncertainties, sprint even. For at the center there lies the cross, the greatest example of uncertainty. Doubt is part of existence, faith. Faith without doubt is boring, and a creation entirely planned is equally dull.

But:

“And your doubt can become a good quality if you train it. It must become knowing, it must become criticism. Ask it, whenever it wants to spoil something for you, why something is ugly, demand proofs from it, test it, and you will find it perhaps bewildered and embarrased, perhaps also protesting. But don't give in, insist on arguments, and act in this way, attentive and persistent, every single time, and the day will come when, instead of being a destroyer, it will become one of your best workers--perhaps the most intelligent of all the ones that are building your life.” Rilke 

Anecdote(s)

1.

For a church culture that wishes biblical faithfulness over cultural norms our view of women is based upon culture and its stereotypes. 

2. 

Christianity is said to be based in the bible but is, in fact, most fully embodied by our lives.

3. 

Law and gospel, two tensions intertwined. 

On Heresy

  Heresy is a good thing. I know the church proper should be opposed to heresy but I honestly cannot find good reason to stand against it as it is. By this I mean, simply, that heresy, is over rated. It is a word thrown around in the church today, especially by Protestants who want to sound like they have some grasp and/or appreciation for church tradition, and is so often used (and abused, frankly) that it is essentially meaningless. So, how is a word that is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless, a good thing?

  Heresy is simply any doctrine/dogma/idea contrary to orthodox Christianity. Leaving aside the issue of what orthodox Christianity is, it would seem rather wrong of me to suggest that heresy is a good thing in light of this basic definition. But I will suggest such a proposition. And my basis for this claim is simply that seeking Truth (whatever that may entail or be) requires one to step on toes. Truth is to be sought and in doing so one may find that they are enjoining themselves with a heretical notion. And the notion that this is a bad thing, to enjoin oneself with heresy, must be done away with. Inherent in the search for Truth is the risk of heresy. Heresy serves two purposes in the church: 1) to cause reevaluation of dearly held beliefs so as to test whether those things are True and 2) to spur the Church proper into action (I am grateful to Dr. Michael Bauman for this clarifying point). As such heresy is a good thing. It serves a long run purpose. However, does this mean one should arbitrarily become a heretic? No. But one must accept that inherent to Truth seeking is the risk of heresy and that holding a heretical notion (if, indeed it is heretical) can be a good thing for your beliefs and the vitality of the Church. 

Jesus Is Not For America

That's right.

Nor is America for Jesus. In fact, much of America is antithetical to Jesus. Or, more frankly, Jesus stands opposed to much of America (at least as it is).

Jesus stands and says love your enemies; America goes to war regularly and has since Vietnam (basically, we've been in a war for thirty plus years straight).

Jesus says turn the other cheek; America seeks its own interests and spits at anyone who gets in the way.

Jesus says he is the Light; America, via the mouth of George Bush, claims to be the light and hope of nations.

Don't get me wrong, America has some wonderful parts and facets. But as that shocking and odd band we all love states, "We've baptized the Empire into the Church and hailed it sanctification." The American Church has become pathetic. We've gone to bed with the State. Am I saying don't be patriotic? No, but consider your nationalism and hold it in check.

Quotes

"Generally speaking, women aren't very promiscuous. Males, by contrast, are extraordinarily slutty. And if that's the case, then why are women rather than men called sluts?

A psychological study in this regard. A group of researchers had attractive assistants approach men and women of the opposite sex on a college campus. After a few minutes of chit chat the assistant would sexually proposition the student. The question was, what percent of women would agree to have sex with an attractive man after a few minutes of conversation? And what percent of men would agree to have sex with an attractive woman after a few minutes of conversation?

Seventy-five percent of the males agreed to have sex. The women?

Zero percent.

Generally speaking, women are choosy and discriminating when it comes to sex. Men not so much. 

In short, from an empirical standpoint men are the whores.

And if that's the case, why are women always cast as whores, even in the bible, as the sexually insatiable ones?

It is a product of Freudian projection. Throughout history, religiously conservative males have had to confront one of the greatest sources of their moral failure: the male libido. The male libido--the fact that men are sluts--is a sore spot of any male community wanting to pursue purity and holiness. And what has happened, by and large, is that rather than admit that males struggle mightily in the sexual realm, males have externalized the blame and projected their libido onto women. Rather than blaming themselves for sexual sin males have, throughout history, blamed women for being temptresses. The Whore was created to be the scapegoat to preserve male self-righteousness. Rather than turning inward, in personal and collective repentance, men could blame women, blame the whores, for their sexual and moral failures. It's not our fault, the men say, it's the whore's fault.

Examples of this sort of projection are too numerous to list. Christian campuses and youth group talks are full of this sort of stuff.

But let me bring this back to whores and brides in Revelation. Given the problematic nature of this metaphor, how are we to approach these images in the bible? 

I'll tell you what I do. For me, I don't read the Whore as a woman. I read it as the Freudian projection it is. The Whore is the male libido projected onto women.

More simply, when I see the Whore in Revelation I don't see a woman.

I see a man."

Richard Beck 

God Bless America and Other Grumpy Anecdotes

#1

The Fourth of July, more than anything else, is simply a holiday for the religion of America. Americanism is its own religion and the Fourth of July is its Christmas.

#2

Just having faith is a wonderful sentiment but, honestly, means nothing.

#3

All this is my self-aware attempt to seem intelligent.

#4

The Church is not to go to bed with the State and have the love child we see embodied in America today.

#5

As far as I'm concerned the reaction people have to gay marriage is reflective of their true heart; they can say they love gays but when they take bible passages to dehumanize them, their words mean nothing.

#6

Jesus as the center, not religion.

#7

"I discovered later, and I’m still discovering right up to this moment, that it is only by
living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. One must completely abandon any
attempt to make something of oneself, whether it be a saint, or a converted sinner, or a
churchman (a so-called priestly type!) a righteous man or an unrighteous one, a sick man or a
healthy one. By this-worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life’s duties, problems, successes
and failures, experiences and perplexities." Dietrich Bonhoeffer

#8

Belief in a God is, in some sense, a crutch.

Gay and Beautiful and a Little Thing Called Love

I really do love the Supreme Court sometimes. Sometimes they make decisions which make sense; also, they're really good at instigating conversation. And with the overturning of parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) it's started a revitalization of the marriage debate. It has also managed to bring out the Christians in full force. "Oh no! America is going to hell! Go back to God!" are the cries of our wonderful Christians. But guess what? It's doing nothing. Nothing whatsoever. 

  

      I understand. But seriously? Running to Leviticus 19? If you're a Christian and you use Leviticus as your go to reason for why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry your hermeneutic is rather pathetic. Picking a verse, at random, from the Old Testament Law will not do. Be consistent. If you take this verse, which is not only moral but explicitly civil in nature (who else is going to enforce the death penalty for gays?), you need to take more. Oh, but you say: "There are different types of Laws in the Old Testament." Of course there are. But not in the sense you mean (moral, civil, and those relating to the sacrificial system). There is no clear indication that the Bible, in the OT or NT, ever delineates such a distinction. So unless you're a theonomist, which most Christians are not, don't run to the OT Law. But what about Romans 1? and 1 Corinthians 6? Both of these have a context and neither of these tell us what the government can or cannot do. 

   

     But the  fundamental problem is how we as Christians respond. As Rachel Held Evans so aptly states, "But it reminded me of one important, reality-based fact: Most people begin to recognize their sexual orientation when they are just kids, when they are young and vulnerable like this little girl. So when we, in the Church, discuss homosexuality as though it were an issue faced by “other people” who are “out there,” when we resort to stereotypes and language about hell and judgment and damnation, we may be doing serious damage to the most precious and vulnerable among us. Even our casual conversations with one another can be picked up by little ears and internalized in destructive ways." And her point stands validly. Go to almost any gay person and ask them when they realized they were gay you will get an answer that varies from young child to teen years. Either way one takes it words have consequences. Am I saying that if you have a conviction that being gay or gay action is wrong that's fine and wonderful. Consider, though, how you go about sharing this belief. Will you damn gays and call them abominations simply to be faithful to the Biblical witness? Or will you love them and say it a manner that admits you're just as much a worthless sinner as they? Because, frankly, all it sounds like from my side of the pew is a bunch of pissed off white Christians who think America is going to hell. They seem to be more concerned with America than with people and loving them. That pesky ol' second greatest commandment, right? 

    

     So, seriously. Get off your high horse. Get into the streets. Pray. Love. Interact. The Incarnation of Jesus demands that we as Christians live as part of this world, that the bodies we have are clean, that the Creation is healing and groaning to be fully restored, and that we must live separately. And stop focusing on that last point without the others. Because when you do, when you "hope all things" in people they have opportunity and you can grow and learn. 

Quotes

The first quote from a series of random posts with quotes I will have.

"The Church has no alternative to war. The Church is the alternative to war." - Stanley Hauerwas

Church Without Bars

The title makes no sense, I know. But that's okay. The dilemma for me is really quite simple: I know what I want in a church (or think I do) and I have yet to find it. Basically, it comes down to a desire for tradition, but a willingness to accept unknowing. And, as it currently stands, my ability to journey in and out of various other denominations and churches is inherently limited. Mainly because I can't drive yet (it's rather humorous in a sadistic way) and because my parents won't let me (or, would rather not go with me on my journey to every weird church in town).
  Spiritually I need rigor, I see that in myself. Yet, I am too critical for my own good. Whichever one prefers. I also desire progress. I'm not picky how one gets close to God, just that one does. I don't want rigid I want livelihood. And since, like Chesterton, I find progress to only be tenable once one has a dogma I need a church that has dogma and isn't wishy washy. But any church that says there is a) a right method to worship God and it must only be done that way and that b) one must have all the correct beliefs on trivialities, is a church which I find to be intolerable. Are there some things which are the right belief and some things which are not? Absolutely. Are there things which one, as a Christian, must believe? Sure. But, to be quite frank, the fundamental beliefs for all Christians can be summed up in the Nicene Creed and the words of Jesus (paraphrased), "Love God; Love people." Simple as that.
   So what do I need in a church? Openness to the fact that theology is a journey. That all of us are on that journey in pursuit of truth. Is there one way to achieve this truth? Other than by looking to Jesus and looking to the bible, no. All of this to say, simply, that I don't really know what I want in a church just that it needs to have certain traits.