Called to Communion has a post on the bank account analogy of grace. That we owe more than we can pay and Jesus pays the debt for us. I never liked that analogy as a reformed person. It makes the discrepancy between what we owe and what we pay merely a matter of quantity. It isn't. We need something that is different in nature to close the gap.
The analogy I like is that of going to the moon. If we need to get to the moon we might try and get there by climbing trees. Maybe we could go to the top of a mountain. If I climbed a higher tree than you would I be closer to the moon. Yes and no. I would be physically, trivially closer. But I am not really closer because I am simply better at a technique that is has no chance at working. Trying to get to heaven by doing good works is like trying to get to the moon by climbing taller and taller trees. It seems like you are getting closer but there is a huge gap you have no way to bridge.It is not just a matter of distance but the type of trip required is not possible using that method.
So Jesus comes along and gives us a rocket ship. Now as a Catholic I would point out that even with a rocket ship there is a need to cooperate with the training and stay on the ship and follow the rules and such. When I was reformed I would just say you had to do nothing. Both are really true. The rocket ship provider does do all the work but you must trust him with your life and allow him to invade your personal space in a big way.
Now the analogy kind of fails because we don't belong on the moon. We belong on earth more than the moon. But we really belong in heaven. So the training we undergo is not against our nature. Like zero gravity training. We are learning to love but we are born to be lovers. But it does capture the notion that what Jesus offers us is much more than a blank cheque. It is something of a nature we could not have imagined.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Loving Yourself, Forgiving Yourself
There is a tendency today to talk about loving yourself and forgiving yourself. Even some Christians like to say that these are the most important parts of turning your life around. Some go so far as to say that the Christian teaching that God loves us and God forgives us are valuable precisely because it leads us to love ourselves and forgive ourselves. This is a new idea. If you look through scripture and tradition you don't see any emphasis on loving yourself or forgiving yourself. There is one verse that talks about loving your neighbor as yourself that is sometimes twisted into a command to love yourself but it basically isn't there.
It does not make a lot of sense either. Can you forgive yourself when you sin? If I punch you in the nose and then tell you that I have forgiven myself, does that make sense? Don't I need forgiveness from the one I have offended? Now as a Christian I can say the one who I have truly offended is God. You are a child of God. David says in Psalm 51:4, "Against you, you only, have I sinned". He is talking about the incident where he slept with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah killed. But all the sins he committed against people were really sins against God first and foremost. They need to be loved and respected because they belong to God. So God has the right to forgive me if I punch you in the nose. My relationship with you still needs to be managed. You may or may not forgive me. God's forgiveness matters more. Still I cannot forgive myself.
What about loving myself? I can do that. But I can do that for the wrong reasons. I can love myself because I am rich or because I am smart or because I am funny. It's better than hating myself but it is still problematic. If I get my self worth tied up with my money or my intellect or my sense of humor then that becomes my god. I won't respect those who don't measure up according to what I believe is the source of human dignity.
Loving yourself implies that you have the authority to declare yourself good. But you don't. So people look for reasons why they are good. The most common is to do it by comparing yourself to other people. I am good because I am better than most guys by this measure. But you have to knock others down to lift yourself up. But if God declares you to be good then you don't need to know anybody down. If fact you can't because God declares them to be good as well.
One more thing, the source of your self worth will always be the one thing you will never part with. You will do anything to avoid losing it. If that thing is God that is very good. If that thing is money or reputation or good looks it can be very bad. So having this right is no small matter. Love yourself but base that love on God's love for you. Any other foundation can crumble.
It does not make a lot of sense either. Can you forgive yourself when you sin? If I punch you in the nose and then tell you that I have forgiven myself, does that make sense? Don't I need forgiveness from the one I have offended? Now as a Christian I can say the one who I have truly offended is God. You are a child of God. David says in Psalm 51:4, "Against you, you only, have I sinned". He is talking about the incident where he slept with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah killed. But all the sins he committed against people were really sins against God first and foremost. They need to be loved and respected because they belong to God. So God has the right to forgive me if I punch you in the nose. My relationship with you still needs to be managed. You may or may not forgive me. God's forgiveness matters more. Still I cannot forgive myself.
What about loving myself? I can do that. But I can do that for the wrong reasons. I can love myself because I am rich or because I am smart or because I am funny. It's better than hating myself but it is still problematic. If I get my self worth tied up with my money or my intellect or my sense of humor then that becomes my god. I won't respect those who don't measure up according to what I believe is the source of human dignity.
Loving yourself implies that you have the authority to declare yourself good. But you don't. So people look for reasons why they are good. The most common is to do it by comparing yourself to other people. I am good because I am better than most guys by this measure. But you have to knock others down to lift yourself up. But if God declares you to be good then you don't need to know anybody down. If fact you can't because God declares them to be good as well.
One more thing, the source of your self worth will always be the one thing you will never part with. You will do anything to avoid losing it. If that thing is God that is very good. If that thing is money or reputation or good looks it can be very bad. So having this right is no small matter. Love yourself but base that love on God's love for you. Any other foundation can crumble.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Priests and Pastors
GetReligion has a piece on burnout or protestant pastors. I remember reading a study that showed Catholic priests report high satisfaction and low levels of stress-related problems. Sadly, I don't remember where I read this. But it occurs to me that there is an important truth here. Catholics are often criticized for being too hard on their priests. Only considering them for the priesthood if they first choose the celibate life. Having them make a vow of obedience to their bishop. Paying them next to nothing for the many hours that they work.But when you look at the results it is the protestant pastors that show greater signs of stress. Why is that?
One reason is that Catholic priests have a much stronger sense of being sent (Rom 10:15). My dad has said that when he was ordained as a reformed pastor in 1963 he had a stronger sense of being sent than my siblings who were ordained more recently. Pastors have more freedom, less structure, and therefore more pressure. Pastors are now expected to figure out what church is supposed to be like in modern times. My father was simply expected to run his church the same way reformed churches had always been run. That is no longer considered good enough.
Priest have some of that but not nearly as much. Bishops provide a lot of guidance. Theology is defined by Rome. Liturgy is much more structured. But it is more than that. You are not your own. You are representing the Church. You don't compete in the spiritual marketplace. You don't try and win people from the church down the street by being more compelling. You bring Jesus to people through His word and His sacraments.
Then there is the matter of protestant pastors having to be pope. When somebody asks a question about evolution or homosexuality they have much more freedom about how they talk about such issues. But with freedom comes pressure. You better get it right. Remember what Jesus says about people who lead children astray (Mk 9:42). Priests can let the pope be pope. He can define doctrine and they just have to teach it.
There is also the grace of a valid sacrament. Priests are really ordained. They are ontologically changed. Protestants use the word but are confused about what it means. They don't call it a sacrament. There is still a real question about what is the basis for their position of leadership. They have families. Sometimes their families have problems. They are not set apart from the congregation the way a priest is.
A pastor's job is so huge. Just him and his bible. He has to do it all. Liturgy, doctrine, administration. It all has to be pleasing to God. He also has to raise enough money and fill the seats on Sunday morning. Yes, they are supposed to let God be in control and just co-operate with His grace. But a Catholic priest has much more of a sense that that is what is expected on him. As protestant traditions break down their churches become even more pastor-centered. The power in a Catholic church is shared between the priest, the bishop, and the pope. The average non-denominational pastor has more power than all three. Not only is he not bound by obedience to a higher churchman but he is not even bound to a tradition in the same way.
One reason is that Catholic priests have a much stronger sense of being sent (Rom 10:15). My dad has said that when he was ordained as a reformed pastor in 1963 he had a stronger sense of being sent than my siblings who were ordained more recently. Pastors have more freedom, less structure, and therefore more pressure. Pastors are now expected to figure out what church is supposed to be like in modern times. My father was simply expected to run his church the same way reformed churches had always been run. That is no longer considered good enough.
Priest have some of that but not nearly as much. Bishops provide a lot of guidance. Theology is defined by Rome. Liturgy is much more structured. But it is more than that. You are not your own. You are representing the Church. You don't compete in the spiritual marketplace. You don't try and win people from the church down the street by being more compelling. You bring Jesus to people through His word and His sacraments.
Then there is the matter of protestant pastors having to be pope. When somebody asks a question about evolution or homosexuality they have much more freedom about how they talk about such issues. But with freedom comes pressure. You better get it right. Remember what Jesus says about people who lead children astray (Mk 9:42). Priests can let the pope be pope. He can define doctrine and they just have to teach it.
There is also the grace of a valid sacrament. Priests are really ordained. They are ontologically changed. Protestants use the word but are confused about what it means. They don't call it a sacrament. There is still a real question about what is the basis for their position of leadership. They have families. Sometimes their families have problems. They are not set apart from the congregation the way a priest is.
A pastor's job is so huge. Just him and his bible. He has to do it all. Liturgy, doctrine, administration. It all has to be pleasing to God. He also has to raise enough money and fill the seats on Sunday morning. Yes, they are supposed to let God be in control and just co-operate with His grace. But a Catholic priest has much more of a sense that that is what is expected on him. As protestant traditions break down their churches become even more pastor-centered. The power in a Catholic church is shared between the priest, the bishop, and the pope. The average non-denominational pastor has more power than all three. Not only is he not bound by obedience to a higher churchman but he is not even bound to a tradition in the same way.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
On Mosques
Obama seems to be adopting the same line as Bush in saying we don't have a problem with Islam. What they mean is we don't have a problem with all Muslims. There are many that can and will make fine citizens of western democracies. The trouble is there are Muslim groups that will not. They simply don't believe in respecting the right of every human to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But what must be recognized is that is an idea that flows from a fundamental flaw in Islam. Mohammad claimed that God told him to do things that were objectively immoral. Those things then became moral because God said so. So God's will can be completely arbitrary. God could tell you to commit a terrorist act and you would be obliged to do it.
Now most Muslims are better than that. They would refuse to believe God is telling them to engage in terrorism. They are right to refuse. God would never ask that of them. But their religion says He could. They just ignore that and assume God will only ask them to do good things. But they are not the consistent Muslims. The consistent ones do take seriously every teacher that suggests God wants them to kill Jews or spread terror in the west. There is nothing in their theology that allows them to rule out the possibility that God is asking them to do that. So it must be seriously considered.
It is very difficult to tell the difference between these groups by looking at their creeds. They all confess the same doctrine. Some take the offensive bits more seriously but they all claim to take it all very seriously. Nobody admits being a hypocrite. Actaully they are not hypocrites but eupocrites because they are actually behaving better than their creeds.The point is you can't just say Muslim groups that believe X are a problem because they all say they believe X.
It is a bit like liberal protestants. The root cause of liberalism is Sola Scriptura but not all protestants who claim Sola Scriptura actually allow liberal interpretations of scripture. Many are eupocrites. They say certain doctrines require the ascent of all faithful Christians. They think like Catholics and just don't know it.These more moderate Muslims are like that. They think like Catholics and buy into the dignity of all human persons and the goodness of God. They don't realize that is Catholic and not Muslim.
The point is modern society, both the right and the left, seems incapable of making the distinctions needed to figure out who and what they are fighting. That is a very bad thing when you are at war and can't seem to figure out who the enemy is. A society that thinks religion does not matter in conflict with a religious movement within but not identical to a major religion. So even a question as simple as the building of a mosque near ground zero can't be debated. Nobody can talk about whether this mosque will celebrate 911 or mourn it.
Now most Muslims are better than that. They would refuse to believe God is telling them to engage in terrorism. They are right to refuse. God would never ask that of them. But their religion says He could. They just ignore that and assume God will only ask them to do good things. But they are not the consistent Muslims. The consistent ones do take seriously every teacher that suggests God wants them to kill Jews or spread terror in the west. There is nothing in their theology that allows them to rule out the possibility that God is asking them to do that. So it must be seriously considered.
It is very difficult to tell the difference between these groups by looking at their creeds. They all confess the same doctrine. Some take the offensive bits more seriously but they all claim to take it all very seriously. Nobody admits being a hypocrite. Actaully they are not hypocrites but eupocrites because they are actually behaving better than their creeds.The point is you can't just say Muslim groups that believe X are a problem because they all say they believe X.
It is a bit like liberal protestants. The root cause of liberalism is Sola Scriptura but not all protestants who claim Sola Scriptura actually allow liberal interpretations of scripture. Many are eupocrites. They say certain doctrines require the ascent of all faithful Christians. They think like Catholics and just don't know it.These more moderate Muslims are like that. They think like Catholics and buy into the dignity of all human persons and the goodness of God. They don't realize that is Catholic and not Muslim.
The point is modern society, both the right and the left, seems incapable of making the distinctions needed to figure out who and what they are fighting. That is a very bad thing when you are at war and can't seem to figure out who the enemy is. A society that thinks religion does not matter in conflict with a religious movement within but not identical to a major religion. So even a question as simple as the building of a mosque near ground zero can't be debated. Nobody can talk about whether this mosque will celebrate 911 or mourn it.
Science and Religion
There are two ways of knowing. There is observation and revelation. Science works by observation. We do experiments and we test theories. Once a theory can be verified by observation we are forced to accept it as true. We don't mind being forced. We want to understand our world. Knowledge is better than ignorance. Ignorance gives us the freedom to believe whatever we want but we don't actually want to believe things that are false. We are lovers of truth.
Faith works by revelation. Sure there is some observation especially when it comes to examining miracles but religious theories cannot be tested by observation the same way. So we are not forced to believe. But we are still lovers of truth. So when Jesus comes along and claims to have answers we want to believe. Ignorance is freedom but we want to know the answers to life's big questions. Or do we?
Science is merely a matter of truth or ignorance. Religion has more. There is good and evil. We are lovers of good as much as we are lovers or truth. In matters of morals we sometimes prefer ignorance over truth. We know that if good and evil are made clear to us we won't be able to do evil without severe guilt. So we want to remain ignorant. God tells us that what is good will also make us happy. But we don't trust Him.
People say they embrace scientific truth because it is based on observation and reject religious truth because it is based on revelation. But is that the real reason. Often people will reject religious truth because it identifies them as a sinner. How can we know that? Look for cases where scientific truth identifies people as sinners. The science of abortion is one case. How comfortable are people with pictures of a healthy fetus and pictures of an aborted fetus? Scientific truth that identifies people as sinners is not well accepted.
What about when science requires revelation? It is not practical to do every experiment. We all need to trust what people tell us. We don't have a problem with that. Even when the experts get things wrong people don't distrust the next expert they see. In fact, many embrace herbal remedies with no research behind them because of some Chinese or Indian medical folklore. How is that different from accepting a religious tradition? Herbal medicine does not suggest anyone is a sinner.
So it is not the source of religious truth that is offensive but the destination. It aims at our hearts. It shows us how selfish we are. There is good news. We can be transformed by God's grace. But first there is bad news.
Faith works by revelation. Sure there is some observation especially when it comes to examining miracles but religious theories cannot be tested by observation the same way. So we are not forced to believe. But we are still lovers of truth. So when Jesus comes along and claims to have answers we want to believe. Ignorance is freedom but we want to know the answers to life's big questions. Or do we?
Science is merely a matter of truth or ignorance. Religion has more. There is good and evil. We are lovers of good as much as we are lovers or truth. In matters of morals we sometimes prefer ignorance over truth. We know that if good and evil are made clear to us we won't be able to do evil without severe guilt. So we want to remain ignorant. God tells us that what is good will also make us happy. But we don't trust Him.
People say they embrace scientific truth because it is based on observation and reject religious truth because it is based on revelation. But is that the real reason. Often people will reject religious truth because it identifies them as a sinner. How can we know that? Look for cases where scientific truth identifies people as sinners. The science of abortion is one case. How comfortable are people with pictures of a healthy fetus and pictures of an aborted fetus? Scientific truth that identifies people as sinners is not well accepted.
What about when science requires revelation? It is not practical to do every experiment. We all need to trust what people tell us. We don't have a problem with that. Even when the experts get things wrong people don't distrust the next expert they see. In fact, many embrace herbal remedies with no research behind them because of some Chinese or Indian medical folklore. How is that different from accepting a religious tradition? Herbal medicine does not suggest anyone is a sinner.
So it is not the source of religious truth that is offensive but the destination. It aims at our hearts. It shows us how selfish we are. There is good news. We can be transformed by God's grace. But first there is bad news.
Monday, August 16, 2010
The Assumption and the Jews
One of the arguments for some special status for Mary is the parallel with Israel. Jesus was born a Jew. But that wasn't just a small part of the salvation plan. God walked with the Jews for many generations as His chosen people. He prepared that nation to be the God bearers. One can see a huge difference between the Israel in Judges and the Israel in Maccabees. They had learned to stand up for their faith and even die for it if need be. God had poured out His grace on them for many centuries and they had reached a point where they stood out among the nations as faithful servants of the Lord.
But just as God needed a sacred vessel to serve as Jesus' ethnic and cultural home it also makes sense that God would want Jesus' immediate family to be sacred in some way. That the God bearer nation would fit with a God bearer person. We see God did exactly that. He was born to a virgin. To a woman full of grace. That is to be understood as more than just sexual purity but being free from all sin both original and actual.
In that context the assumption makes sense to. If Mary is without sin she can enter heaven directly. Why have her endure the indignity of having her body and soul separated? Jesus proved that humans can enter heaven but Jesus is God. What about the rest of us? Mary's presence there tells us Jesus can not only go but He can bring His family with Him. Then the only question is whether or not we belong to that family.
But what about the Jews? If God remembered Mary's special role and treated her right at the end of her earthly life then how will He remember the Jews and the special role they played? Sure there is a sense in which the church is the new Israel. But the Jewish people are still there. It is interesting how the recent enemies of the Jews have been the Nazi's and the Muslims. In both cases that developed into an enmity towards Christianity and the western world.
I guess there are a ton of theories. I find trying to use the bible to predict the future to be a pretty fruitless endeavor. But seeing events in terms of spiritual realities is quite interesting. When God calls the Jews His chosen people He does not forget that.
But just as God needed a sacred vessel to serve as Jesus' ethnic and cultural home it also makes sense that God would want Jesus' immediate family to be sacred in some way. That the God bearer nation would fit with a God bearer person. We see God did exactly that. He was born to a virgin. To a woman full of grace. That is to be understood as more than just sexual purity but being free from all sin both original and actual.
In that context the assumption makes sense to. If Mary is without sin she can enter heaven directly. Why have her endure the indignity of having her body and soul separated? Jesus proved that humans can enter heaven but Jesus is God. What about the rest of us? Mary's presence there tells us Jesus can not only go but He can bring His family with Him. Then the only question is whether or not we belong to that family.
But what about the Jews? If God remembered Mary's special role and treated her right at the end of her earthly life then how will He remember the Jews and the special role they played? Sure there is a sense in which the church is the new Israel. But the Jewish people are still there. It is interesting how the recent enemies of the Jews have been the Nazi's and the Muslims. In both cases that developed into an enmity towards Christianity and the western world.
I guess there are a ton of theories. I find trying to use the bible to predict the future to be a pretty fruitless endeavor. But seeing events in terms of spiritual realities is quite interesting. When God calls the Jews His chosen people He does not forget that.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Funeral Questions
I have heard it said that at every funeral there are two questions we ask ourselves. One question is why? Why did this death happen? Why didn't God prevent it. Why all this pain and suffering.
The second question is, "Is it true?". When we look death in the face we ask ourselves is this great story of salvation really true? Is it just something we tell ourselves to fell better?
It occurs to me these questions answer each other. We ask why because we know that death is not meant to be. There is something deep in our souls that tells us the world is broken. Certain things are just wrong. Death is at the top of the list. The interesting thing is that if evolution was the only answer to where we come from this question makes no sense. Not that evolution is not an answer but as Christians we say there is a deeper answer to where come from. When you deny the deeper answer then there is just no reason to find death unacceptable. Evolution embraces death as a way to remove inferior traits from a species or even inferior species from an ecosystem. What is offensive about that? The fact that we feel death is not meant to be is itself a rejection of atheism and the culture of death that goes with it. We are lovers of life precisely because our creator is a lover of life.
So what about the why question? Well, if death and pain was not normal then there would be nothing remarkable about the fact that we cannot accept them as natural. That somehow we feel the world is broken. That somehow someday it will be fixed. That feeling of brokenness cannot be pleasant. It needs to be a deep, powerful pain that goes beyond the loss of social stimulation directly connected with loosing a person we know. If we didn't get soul-sick we might never know we have souls. So there is a partial answer to the why question in the sense than asking why causes us to embrace God. The full answer cannot come until the brokenness of this world is redeemed. But the question tells us more than an answer ever could.
The second question is, "Is it true?". When we look death in the face we ask ourselves is this great story of salvation really true? Is it just something we tell ourselves to fell better?
It occurs to me these questions answer each other. We ask why because we know that death is not meant to be. There is something deep in our souls that tells us the world is broken. Certain things are just wrong. Death is at the top of the list. The interesting thing is that if evolution was the only answer to where we come from this question makes no sense. Not that evolution is not an answer but as Christians we say there is a deeper answer to where come from. When you deny the deeper answer then there is just no reason to find death unacceptable. Evolution embraces death as a way to remove inferior traits from a species or even inferior species from an ecosystem. What is offensive about that? The fact that we feel death is not meant to be is itself a rejection of atheism and the culture of death that goes with it. We are lovers of life precisely because our creator is a lover of life.
So what about the why question? Well, if death and pain was not normal then there would be nothing remarkable about the fact that we cannot accept them as natural. That somehow we feel the world is broken. That somehow someday it will be fixed. That feeling of brokenness cannot be pleasant. It needs to be a deep, powerful pain that goes beyond the loss of social stimulation directly connected with loosing a person we know. If we didn't get soul-sick we might never know we have souls. So there is a partial answer to the why question in the sense than asking why causes us to embrace God. The full answer cannot come until the brokenness of this world is redeemed. But the question tells us more than an answer ever could.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)