A Bit on Submission: Quickly, before departing for a wedding August 4, 2007

Ah, ’submission’–the catch word around which so many debates turn.  Some insist it’s in the Bible and so you must submit!  While others are content to say, Paul is outdated and so we don’t really have to worry about the fine details of his terminology.  However we want to explain the presence of the word in the Biblical text (and it always requires explanation), we must say something about how it got there and what it means.  Attending weddings always makes me think about the something I might have to say about the word.  I know there’s a lot more to this whole discussion beyond this one term, but it seems that a lot hangs on how one interacts with this term.

Here’s a quick go:  Submission in the marriage context as set forth in Ephesians 5 is set in the context of a relationship that Paul finally calls the mystery of Christ and the Church.  So marriage reflects Christ’s relationship to the Church, and the Church’s call to be in relationship with Christ.  This relationship is established through sacrifice; not a general sacrifice, but a very targeted, particular sacrifice that saw the plight of God’s people and sought to produce reconciliation, restoration, wholeness, and participation as its goal–it was to make God’s people what they were created to be.  Likewise, Paul describes the marriage relationship as a context for sacrifice, particularly charging husbands to sacrifice for their wives (though wives are certainly also to sacrifice for their husbands).  This sacrifice, though, must not be however the husband deems appropriate to sacrifice, but must be sacrifice that is tailored to his wife; what will bring her into her unique identity and calling before God the Father.  This sacrifice is also to produce wholeness, participation, and reconciliation between husband and wife.  Just as Christ’s sacrifice for his people resulted in intimate communion with Father, Son, and Spirit, so the husband’s sacrifice is to produce intimate communion in the marriage.  In other words, sacrifice is to yield the type of harmony between husband and wife that exists between Father, Son, and Spirit.

As a result, submission is not simply a resolution to conflicts that may arise every now and again.  Rather, submission is the product of harmony, not discord.  When the Church submits to Christ, we are not deciding to do a series of inane tasks that make his life more convenient.  We are participating in the very plan of redemption that he became incarnate to accomplish.  Part of his redemptive plan for the world is to mobilize his people for effective action.  We perceive redemption, and live out of agreement with his intentions for his world.  Having been made alive in him, we are brought to wholeness through the life he sustains in us through his Spirit.  Jesus wants our whole selves before him, in honesty and submission.  Likewise, husbands may not choose which aspect of their wives they would prefer and which parts of themselves their wives are to kill in order to ‘properly submit.’  Rather, submission is when the wife seeks to wholly become herself and to use everything at her disposal to benefit her husband.  Likewise, were it not for Christ’s Spirit enlivening his church, healing and restoring his church, then we would not even be able to pursue obedience.  It is the wife’s full flourishing–heart, soul, and strength–that makes submission possible at all.   Otherwise, the relationship is cheapened, the love is cheapened, and the husband’s sacrifice is cheapened.

[Perhaps the next post will be on what I am referring to when I say 'heart, soul, and strength']

Knowing God for Who He Is, Pt. 2 July 13, 2007

Augustine in his Confessions prays, “Grant me, Lord, to know and understand which of these is most important, to call on you or to praise you.  Or again, to know you or to call on you.  For who can call on you without knowing you?  For he who does not know you may call on you as other than you are….Let me seek you Lord by calling on you, and call on you believing in you as you have been proclaimed to us.  My faith calls on you Lord, the faith you have given me.”

I’m starting to get the drift that great theologians are very conscientious about this, and that makes a lot of sense.  I particularly am challenged by the way that Augustine and Calvin both tie the truth about God to our personal lives before him.  In many American churches, it seems that we look for a version of God that makes us feel good about him and about ourselves.  Yet true relating to God means relating to the true God and no other; the command, ‘You shall have no other gods before me’ applies to fabrications concerning God that we may tout as true of the true God.  There’s a lot more risk involved in pursuing God in spirit and truth, in seeking God for who he and not what we in all our naivete, unwisdom, and immaturity (not to mention sin!) would have him be.

A little redundant, but that’s good for at least me right now…

Knowing God for Who He Is July 11, 2007

In the first book of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes,  “The pious mind does not devise for itself any kind of God, but looks alone to the one true God; nor does it feign for him any character it pleases, but is contented to have him in the character in which he manifests himself always guarding, with the utmost diligences against transgressing his will, and wandering, with daring presumptions the right path.  He by whom God is thus known perceiving how he governs all things, confides in him as his guardian and protector, and casts himself entirely upon his faithfulness.”

As the Pascal quote posted last month indicates, it’s important that we maintain our own real identities in the face of many opportunities to fabricate an image for ourselves.  Unfortunately, we often prefer the imaginary version of ourselves to the real version of ourselves, and sacrifice aspects of our own reality to construct a convincing facade in others’ minds.  As it turns out, we have the tendency to do this with God as well.  He reveals himself to us as he really is, showing us his character and personality so that we can enter into relationship with the real God as our real selves.  Part of the pursuit of holiness, as Calvin says here, is admitting the reality of God’s character and seeking to align our character with his.  In other words, by knowing who he really is, we know who we really are.  It’s this accurate view of reality, this right relating that makes our confidence in God sweet.  We don’t confide or rely on God as an act of blind faith, but we know him for who he is–and he is someone on whom we can rely for guardianship and protection.  Relating to God rightly does not look like self-deprecation, self-abnegation, or self-destruction; rather, relating to God rightly means casting our entire selves (which means bringing our whole self along) onto his faithfulness.  This is the reward that the truth about God yields.

Difficult Words June 19, 2007

A fascinating and challenging perspective on same-sex relationships articulated by a Christian woman who is a lesbian. Check this out.

Getting the Double Standard Right June 19, 2007

An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all–he is the greatest.”

-beat-

“Master,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we tried to stop him, because he is not one of us.”

“Do not stop him,” Jesus said, “for whoever is not against you is for you.” (Luke 9:46-50)

At some undisclosed later time…

Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon left, the man who had been mute spoke, and the crowd was amazed. But some of them said, “By Beelzebub, the prince of demons, he is driving out demons.” Others tested him by asking for a sign from heaven. Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “A kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall….He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.” (Luke 11:14-17,23)

Before Jesus’ followers organized the church, there was division and distinction. Jesus addressed this in his own ministry as the apostles rivaled among themselves, vying for privilege, recognition, and authority. At other times, his followers were discontent and demanded proof of Jesus’ claims regarding himself and the nature of his intentions. In each situation Jesus teaches his followers (and Luke teaches his readers) how to exercise wisdom and judgment in seeking to participate in his ministry. When we are in doubt regarding the authenticity of someone else’s service and devotion to Jesus, the criterion we are to use is “whoever is not against us is for us.” We don’t guess at the motivations of another’s heart, but take others at face value and allow them to speak for themselves. We aren’t to make (fallacious) logical deductions concerning the attitude of someone’s heart, saying If he believes such-and-such, then he must not believe that Scripture is authoritative or she must not believe that Jesus died for her sins or he must not believe that God is sovereign or [insert your tradition's accusation of choice here] — all the while, the brother or sister is readily affirming each of these beliefs while we tell him he’s not qualified to have fellowship with us (whoever ‘us’ may be). Rather, as Paul observes in his first letter to the Corinthians, “who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him” (2:11)? If someone is doing work in Jesus’ name, then we overstep our bounds to undermine him or her based on guilt by (sometimes false) association–whether that be association with the wrong denomination, the wrong ministry model, a teaching or teacher that makes us uncomfortable.

It also seems instructive that this exchange between John and Jesus comes in the midst of a discussion about who is greatest, most privileged, most right, most honored, most respectable. In light of the uncomfortability of being told to imitate a child, John displaces the focus of the discussion from himself and the other disciples to a rogue crue exorcising demons in Jesus’ name. Perhaps the previous discussion wouldn’t elicit an affirmation of favor, but surely this will cause Jesus to recognize how privileged he is to have followers like us — seriously, in comparison to those guys we’re saints. They might be doing something good and worthwhile, but we actually walk and talk with Jesus daily. Suffice to say, Jesus’ response must’ve been a disappointment; John had not curried the desired favor by his inquiry. Instead, Jesus further displaced the focus of the discussion from his disciples to this random band of demon-fighters, saying that on account of their participation in ministry–no matter how inadequate, uninformed, rudimentary, inferior, misdirected that participation may be–they ought to be included in the disciples’ conception of ‘us,’ rather than excluded. How undignified.

In contrast, at a later time when Jesus himself is doing the exorcising, a dispute arises among members of the crowd regarding the authenticity of his ministry. He is associated with Beelzebub; his jersey is suddenly the wrong color. In his response to this ridiculous accusation, Jesus states a criterion for examining one’s own heart in relation to him. It’s not, “If you’re not against me, you’re for me.” Rather, he says “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.” The criterion we apply to ourselves is more rigorous and more difficult than the criterion we’re given for others. And we don’t have the freedom to invert the criteria; our freedom is to live according to this challenge, seeing the stuff of our hearts for what it is and repenting accordingly. Do we work alongside whoever is willing to work with us? Do we grasp for privilege and respect at the expense of others? Do we inaccurately represent the quality of our own work in order to demean the work that others are doing?

Double standards have gotten a bad reputation because they most often favor the self over the other, assigning superiority where there should be humility and privilege where there should be poverty. As Christians, though, it’s our responsibility to get the double standard right. We seek to serve, rather than seek to be served; when others use dishonest scales, we use honest ones; when accused falsely, we speak truthfully and patiently; we are slow to get angry; we listen before we speak; we strive to be at peace with all people, as far as it depends on us; we do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility we consider others better than ourselves; we don’t look out only for our own interests, but also for the interests of others.  Let’s start making all of those statements more true than they are false.

Sabbath Thoughts July 24, 2006

Abraham Joshua Heschel in his book The Sabbath says,

“Judaism is a religion of time aimed at the sanctification of time. Unlike the space-blinded man to whom time is unvaried, iterative, homogenous, to whom all hours are alike, qualitiless, empty shells, the Bible senses the diversified character of time. There are no two hours alike. Every hour is unique and only one given at the moment, exclusive and endlessly precious. Judaism teaches us to be attached to holiness in time, to be attached to sacred events, to learn how to consecrate sanctuaries that emerge from the magnificent stream of a year. Sabbaths are our great cathedrals; and our holy of holies is a shrine that neither the Romans nor the Germans were able to burn; a shrine that even apostasy cannot easily obliterate: the Day of Atonement. According to the ancient Rabbis, it is not the observance of the Day of Atonement but the Day itself, the ‘essence of the Day,’ which, with man’s repentance, atones for sins of man.”

Having inherited the Christian understanding of time from Judaism, it’s worth considering how we are called to live in time. In thinking about the Sabbath and a God-honoring observance of the Sabbath, I’ve been noticing how I view time as a commodity–something to be spent carefully rather than received as a gift. We don’t give our time to God, but God has given our time to us. Stanely Hauerwas argues that “We learn to be in time as God’s creatures. In worship we take time, or more accurately, in worship God gives us time.” In fact, he gives us time that has been sanctified through the resurrection. The day is holy. “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work….For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exodus 20:8-11).” Our understanding of Sabbath provides us with both a work ethic and a rest ethic. God accomplished a myriad of wonderful things that required much effort, thought, personal application, and care in the first six days of the week. Then he rested–and his rest sanctified the day, made it holy. If entering into eternal life is knowing the Father and the Son whom he sent (John 17:3), then we live by entering into his pattern of work and rest.

This pattern isn’t one of activity followed by passivity, though. This is strongly demonstrated in the resurrection rest that we are promised–the resurrection wasn’t a rest that Jesus effected for himself so he could live forever in a glorified human body. It’s a rest he accomplished on our behalf so that we could taste that glorified humanity that we’re destined for as we come into worship on Sundays where the full restoration of our fellowship with God is weekly anticipated and preliminarily tasted. He desired that this fellowship would be our reality. Our rest is no more passive than his rest; our rest must also be characterized by bringing restoration and redemption to ourselves, our families, our friends, and to the community we are a part of. “Christians believe that Sabbath has been forever changed through the Resurrection. Jesus was raised on the eighth day, becoming for us a new creation, giving us back time in a way we would not have had without God’s raising Jesus from the dead. Just as God entrusted to Israel the Sabbath so that the world might know God’s intentions for Creation, so Christian worship on the day of the Resurrection, thereby signaling that God’s promise to Israel has gone to all the world. All are created to share the rest, the salvation, that comes from worship of the true God. In our Sunday worship Christians serve the world by showing the world that God has not left us alone and that we have good work to do (Hauerwas).”

Truth in Worship July 10, 2006

I’ve had a number of conversations and discussions that have revolved around truth lately–mostly the truths of our personal lives. The question has often come up, Isn’t this just all pious introspection, aren’t you just having a pity party? While the answer might sometimes be a hearty ‘Yes’, I think it only goes that far when the thinking and reflection and introspection are devoid of any sense of God’s presence, either in the subjects of introspection or in the act of introspection itself. Otherwise, such reflection is essential to our growth as worshippers. The truth of who we are and where we’ve come from must be explored alongside the truth of who God is and where he’s bringing creation. In a way, this is just a reiteration of Calvin in Bk1Ch1 of his Institutes–knowing God requires knowing self, and knowing self requires knowing God. In order to come into God’s presence as ourselves with all we have to offer and all we need to receive, we must know who we are. We must know that we are united to Christ, adopted as his children in his covenant, declared righteous, and freed from our slavery to sin into newness of life. But this is true of all Christians; we all participate in the reality of God’s kindgom as co-heirs with Christ. Realizing the truth of who God has made us in his Son, how does the existential truth of our own lives impact how we come to God as his children, as slaves to righteousness, as the redeemed humanity? If we are to offer ourselves to God, we must know what is most dear to us. Worshipping in truth seems to require that we know where we’ve come from and how that impacts our expectations of who God is and how he will meet us in worship. But we cannot ask these questions apart from the Spirit of Christ who will lead us into all truth, even the truths of our own personal lives.

Worthy Sacrifice July 8, 2006

Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast (Gen 4:2b-5).

The difference is Cain knowing he has enough before he comes to God with his offering and Abel coming to God with his offering knowing he will have enough.  Thinking about the distinction between Cain and Abel, I’m struck by how a worthy sacrifice is a trusting sacrifice. Cain would’ve had the same amount of fruit and grain leftover if he had brought the first to show up rather than just ’some’ from his overall harvest. Ten apples and a pound of grain is ten apples and a pound of grain. But the amount isn’t what concerns God. It’s the statement we make about him in our sacrifice that matters to him. The statement of Cain’s sacrifice was ‘You’ll get what you want, and I’ll make sure I have what I need.’ That’s often the statement my sacrifices make. But the statement of Abel’s sacrifice was ‘I want to give you what I need.’ He valued God’s pleasure over his own security. There was no guarantee that he’d get any more fat calves that season with which to feed himself and his family, but still he gave God the first calves in all their fattiness and substance. This pleased God. But God’s open disfavor of Cain’s sacrifice made Cain angry. After all, wasn’t Cain giving what he was told to give? He had given up the same amount as Abel had, and yet God was upset? But God didn’t leave Cain to stew in his anger.

Confronting Cain, God said, Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it (Gen. 4:6-7). Though he tried to ignore it, Cain knew what he had done wrong. A sacrifice isn’t a sacrifice if it’s coming from a place of material security. He was called to give the firstfruits and he had given the last. But even when confronted graciously by God, he opened the door to sin. Not even dignifying God with a response, he goes to his brother Abel with a plan. The Lord had told Cain that his sin must be mastered, but instead Cain let himself be mastered by his sin. What started as a selfish gift turned into a conniving, murderous, pre-meditated slaughter. The land that heretofore had provided Cain with his fruit and grain now drank up his brother’s blood. Cain’s unworthy sacrifice was now manifesting itself in his selfish attitude towards Abel, as though killing his brother would justify him. Then God wouldn’t have anyone to compare him to any more. Abel couldn’t outdo him any more if he were dead.

The desire to kill all opposition to our sinfulness is in us. We want out of God’s demands, out of our responsibilities. Normally this would mean getting out of our lives, but instead we target those who happen to bring the truth about us to the surface–we try to take life from others when we feel it lacking in ourselves. But redemption moves us from life-sucking to life-giving. Jesus is the anti-Cain, the new Adam, the true Messiah. He doesn’t claim the life of another, spilling the blood of his guilty brothers. Rather, the earth drinks of the blood of an innocent yet willing victim. It takes a life that extreme to undo the contortion and distortion of our sin, to turn our Cainlikeness into Christlikeness. With the gift of his Spirit, we don’t spill the blood of our brothers but offer our own as a testimony to our love and faithfulness before God. By the power of Christ, we offer the sacrifice that Cain never could–our very selves.

Communal Worship July 4, 2006

Colin Gunton’s theology has stood out to me because it has proven time and again to be thoroughly Trinitarian, thoroughly God-centered. As Gunton interacts with what it means to be human, he always holds in tension the unfathomable reality that creatures are able to commune with their Creator; that we are images of God and therefore capable of knowing him. Douglas Knight, a theologian and former student of Gunton, here reflects on how this impacts our worship of God:

“Gunton taught that we creatures are able to know God because the Holy Spirit enables us to confess Jesus, who confesses God the Father. Often quoting Irenaeus to say that the Son and the Spirit are the two hands of the Father, Gunton showed that the doctrine of the Trinity provides us with a doctrine of mediation – God himself is not only the (christological) content but the (pneumatological) medium and bearer of that content. He argued that God is now at work making possible not only our worship and knowledge of him, but also our recognition of one another. God is the means by which I may see you for who you are, and let you become what God intends you to be – a unique and particular person.” quoted from www.douglasknight.org

As Knight points out here, the same way we come to know and love God we come to recognize who our brothers and sisters are. The Spirit who carries us in our worship of God also carries us in our relationships with one another, enabling us to recognize the dignity and nobility that we are created with. With the Spirit bearing the truth of Christ’s confession concerning the Father, we are simultaneously drawn into God’s own love for himself as well as for his people. Consequently, learning to know and love one another occurs alongside learning to worship God. I don’t think there could be a stronger argument for communal, or corporate, worship.