Isaiah 58 is a fascinating piece of scripture. Fascinating for so many reasons, but the one I want to focus on today is the relationship between our care for the poor and oppressed and God's hearing of our prayers.
Isaiah 58 begins with a nation fasting, dressing itself in sackcloth, declaring sacred days, and then wondering why God doesn't seem to listen to their prayers. "We've declared a sacred day, we've denied ourselves, why O' God haven't you listened to us?" And God's answer is both confronting and informative. The first thing he does is point out the hypocrisy of the nation's fast: "Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers." (3) Religiosity doesn't please God one bit. He has more important things to pursue.
The second thing he does is tell them what sort of people he wants them to be, and then and only then will he listen to their prayers. "Is this not the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free." (6) and if they do: "Then shall you call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and he will say: 'here I am'." (9)
There is a nexus between mercy and prayer; between a compassionate heart and prayer. God knows the proud from afar, but is near to the humble. We must not, we cannot forget that genuine relationship with God beats with a heart of prayer, and this is not possible, this cannot be, unless our hearts echo his and fill with compassion for those who desperately need it.
Until we release the bonds of the oppressed, we will call, but he will not answer.
So while you're thinking it might be a good idea to show some mercy, here are two links that I think are precious in the mercy they extend: The Grey Man and Compassion Australia
Blessings to you, and may God hear your prayers,
d
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Christ is not a lifestyle choice
I'm getting tired of 'gospel' presentations that present Christianity as either a lifestyle option or a better life insurance policy.
As long as the gospel is presented as some permutation on the idea that there are bad/good things ahead that you don't/do want, here's how you can avoid/embrace them, the focus is entirely upon the recipient and what they want for themselves. Once again, our presentation gives in to the perpetual pressure to allow people to place themselves at the centre and order their world to suit their own tastes. The Christian message is then a lifestyle choice, and if you can find a better offer, like coming back as a grasshopper, you're at liberty to take it. As I read it, that's not the gospel, just some deformation/attenuation of it.
Such passages as Psalm 2, Romans 1.1-4, Mark 1.1, 1 Corinthians 15.1-7, Colossians 1.21-23... lead me to the conclusion that our salvation is the result of this gospel, or an aspect of the gospel, but not the heart of the gospel itself. The Gospel is that Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, (which is why the sermons in Acts focus on the resurrection not the atonement).
And the beauty of this reality is that it's not something subject to our consumer whim. Jesus is King, he was declared to be so by his resurrection from the dead, and now the only question left you, is how will you respond to him. It doesn't matter whether you think he doesn't exist, or that you'd rather believe in a cyclic universe, Jesus is Lord and one day you will have to reckon with that, whether that suits your taste or not.
And this is a divisive gospel, just as it was in Jesus' day. No one can argue with your choice not to take out eternal life insurance, but if there is a king and you remain in rebellion against him, then you are a rebel and deserve everything you might get. There is something wicked at the heart of the act of refusing Christ if he is indeed King. The choice becomes morally loaded, rather than morally neutral.
So long as we ignore the emphasis on Jesus as Lord at the heart of the gospel, we say gentle things and people are not offended, but neither is the gospel truly proclaimed. Jesus is Lord, now therefore O kings be wise; be warned, o rulers of the earth... kiss the son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way.
As long as the gospel is presented as some permutation on the idea that there are bad/good things ahead that you don't/do want, here's how you can avoid/embrace them, the focus is entirely upon the recipient and what they want for themselves. Once again, our presentation gives in to the perpetual pressure to allow people to place themselves at the centre and order their world to suit their own tastes. The Christian message is then a lifestyle choice, and if you can find a better offer, like coming back as a grasshopper, you're at liberty to take it. As I read it, that's not the gospel, just some deformation/attenuation of it.
Such passages as Psalm 2, Romans 1.1-4, Mark 1.1, 1 Corinthians 15.1-7, Colossians 1.21-23... lead me to the conclusion that our salvation is the result of this gospel, or an aspect of the gospel, but not the heart of the gospel itself. The Gospel is that Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, (which is why the sermons in Acts focus on the resurrection not the atonement).
And the beauty of this reality is that it's not something subject to our consumer whim. Jesus is King, he was declared to be so by his resurrection from the dead, and now the only question left you, is how will you respond to him. It doesn't matter whether you think he doesn't exist, or that you'd rather believe in a cyclic universe, Jesus is Lord and one day you will have to reckon with that, whether that suits your taste or not.
And this is a divisive gospel, just as it was in Jesus' day. No one can argue with your choice not to take out eternal life insurance, but if there is a king and you remain in rebellion against him, then you are a rebel and deserve everything you might get. There is something wicked at the heart of the act of refusing Christ if he is indeed King. The choice becomes morally loaded, rather than morally neutral.
So long as we ignore the emphasis on Jesus as Lord at the heart of the gospel, we say gentle things and people are not offended, but neither is the gospel truly proclaimed. Jesus is Lord, now therefore O kings be wise; be warned, o rulers of the earth... kiss the son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Sabbath is a gift, not an obligation
Do you want to echo the New Creation? Make sure you don't forget to include a Sabbath in that. Sabbath is not something that God introduced because of the fall. It wasn't as if communications technology was invading every recess of our otherwise overcommitted lives and preventing us from ever spending silent time alone with God, and so God introduced Sabbath. It wasn't because we were so caught up with what God's law still requires of us and what is no longer required of us, that when we realised that Jesus didn't restate the Sabbath command we quickly put in in the 'don't have to do that' box and got on with other things. It wasn't because we're so proud that we think God's kingdom and the world will fall apart without us so we can never just turn our phones off and go AWOL for a day... While all of those things are true, that's not why God instituted Sabbath.
God instituted Sabbath prior to the fall, he built it into the very fabric of creation, and he built it there even with his own omnipotence, which I'm sure means he never grows tired. Which really means that there's no reason either in creation or in us that provides the impetus for Sabbath, and therefore there's nothing that can be fulfilled or perfected such that Sabbath ceases to be both precious and necessary.
I have no doubt there will be a rhythm of work and rest in the New Creation. I have no doubt it'll look very much like Sabbath. If we are to anticipate the New Creation in our lives here, we will include Sabbath. And we do this not because it's sin not to, but because it's who we are and what the New Creation is.
In our over busy lives, Sabbath is a gift. Do you need an excuse to tell your social set you can't attend another function: Sabbath. Do you need a reason to convince your Session that you shouldn't be contact-able 24 hours a day 7 days a week: Sabbath. Do you need permission to stop and spend time with your wife and kids: Sabbath. Space to be a better parent: Sabbath. Space to look after your high blood pressure: Sabbath. Sabbath is the gift of God for the rest of his people and his world.
Don't scoff at it and try to minimise it, thank God for his precious gift of Sabbath.
God instituted Sabbath prior to the fall, he built it into the very fabric of creation, and he built it there even with his own omnipotence, which I'm sure means he never grows tired. Which really means that there's no reason either in creation or in us that provides the impetus for Sabbath, and therefore there's nothing that can be fulfilled or perfected such that Sabbath ceases to be both precious and necessary.
I have no doubt there will be a rhythm of work and rest in the New Creation. I have no doubt it'll look very much like Sabbath. If we are to anticipate the New Creation in our lives here, we will include Sabbath. And we do this not because it's sin not to, but because it's who we are and what the New Creation is.
In our over busy lives, Sabbath is a gift. Do you need an excuse to tell your social set you can't attend another function: Sabbath. Do you need a reason to convince your Session that you shouldn't be contact-able 24 hours a day 7 days a week: Sabbath. Do you need permission to stop and spend time with your wife and kids: Sabbath. Space to be a better parent: Sabbath. Space to look after your high blood pressure: Sabbath. Sabbath is the gift of God for the rest of his people and his world.
Don't scoff at it and try to minimise it, thank God for his precious gift of Sabbath.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The Case for Christian Environmentalism
A lot of Christian people love the wild places of the world, which is why it is somehow out of character that historically we haven't defended them. Historically it seems to me, the cred for environmental action has gone to people with more hair than strictly necessary, and a love of clothing with dangly bits. Why is that? Why haven't Christians taken a stand on environmental exploitation the way they have stood against the exploitation of morality and people. (as if environmental action is somehow not an issue of morality).
It seems to me that there are two major reasons Christians haven't stood up, and consequently two misunderstandings to overcome so that they will.
1. Christians have historically devalued the physical creation. There has been a tendency in Christian theology to describe our lives here as 'just passing through' despite the fairly clear evidence in the bible that we were created for a garden and the final destiny of humanity is a New Heavens and a: wait for it: New Earth. At both ends of eternity's linear timeline there is a physical creation within which humanity finds a home. Additionally, while it may be suggested that the fact that it's a New Earth means that this old one doesn't matter, that's not the biblical image. The biblical image is one of a seed leading to a new plant. This creation is the seed of the New Creation, and as such there is a continuity between the two and something of the content of this creation will continue to the New. The details of this continuity are not clear, but I suggest it would be unwise to assume a minimum, particularly considering man's pre-fall created purpose and place, to which we now turn.
2. The second reason Christians have largely failed in their creational responsibility is that they seem to have forgotten why they were created in the first place. Before the fall humanity were not created to do evangelism, or convert souls, or make disciples or any such thing. Prior to the entry of sin into the world humanity had a purpose, and that purpose was to tend and keep the garden, and extend that garden to the world by filling it and subduing it. Humanity's fundamental creational purpose was to be gardeners, which might explain why we find gardening so relaxing even now: something of an echo of our pre-fall purpose. The point I want to make however is that that created responsibility has never been withdrawn. Adam was still a gardener after the fall, though it was now a harder task. Mary was profoundly on target when she mistook Jesus for the gardener, and as we are conformed to the image of Christ he is the image of perfect humanity: Adam made perfect, gardening gloves included.
Once we understand that this creation matters, and that we were created to tend and keep it, rather than exploit or ignore it, it begins to look like Christians have a God given responsibility to labour for the balanced productive use of creation, its protection and its abundance.
I long to see Christians in every area of society, but today particularly I long to see Christians in places where they can defend and uphold the creation. Places they can labour to see it restored, in anticipation of the day when God himself will free it from its bondage to decay and bring it into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
It seems to me that there are two major reasons Christians haven't stood up, and consequently two misunderstandings to overcome so that they will.
1. Christians have historically devalued the physical creation. There has been a tendency in Christian theology to describe our lives here as 'just passing through' despite the fairly clear evidence in the bible that we were created for a garden and the final destiny of humanity is a New Heavens and a: wait for it: New Earth. At both ends of eternity's linear timeline there is a physical creation within which humanity finds a home. Additionally, while it may be suggested that the fact that it's a New Earth means that this old one doesn't matter, that's not the biblical image. The biblical image is one of a seed leading to a new plant. This creation is the seed of the New Creation, and as such there is a continuity between the two and something of the content of this creation will continue to the New. The details of this continuity are not clear, but I suggest it would be unwise to assume a minimum, particularly considering man's pre-fall created purpose and place, to which we now turn.
2. The second reason Christians have largely failed in their creational responsibility is that they seem to have forgotten why they were created in the first place. Before the fall humanity were not created to do evangelism, or convert souls, or make disciples or any such thing. Prior to the entry of sin into the world humanity had a purpose, and that purpose was to tend and keep the garden, and extend that garden to the world by filling it and subduing it. Humanity's fundamental creational purpose was to be gardeners, which might explain why we find gardening so relaxing even now: something of an echo of our pre-fall purpose. The point I want to make however is that that created responsibility has never been withdrawn. Adam was still a gardener after the fall, though it was now a harder task. Mary was profoundly on target when she mistook Jesus for the gardener, and as we are conformed to the image of Christ he is the image of perfect humanity: Adam made perfect, gardening gloves included.
Once we understand that this creation matters, and that we were created to tend and keep it, rather than exploit or ignore it, it begins to look like Christians have a God given responsibility to labour for the balanced productive use of creation, its protection and its abundance.
I long to see Christians in every area of society, but today particularly I long to see Christians in places where they can defend and uphold the creation. Places they can labour to see it restored, in anticipation of the day when God himself will free it from its bondage to decay and bring it into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Why be good
The debate continues to rage in the Australian church, and no doubt the wider church, about why Christians do good works. It's the age old conundrum: if we're saved by grace alone then it doesn't matter what we do... but there seem to be passages in the bible that insist that Christians will do it, what are we to do with those?
The most common response I get from evangelicals is that Christians do good works because we're thankful. It's the idea that because Jesus died for us we deny ourselves and do all sorts of things out of gratitude. While for a while that answer satisfied me, I'm now getting gradually more and more uncomfortable with it.
The way this response of gratitude is framed, it feels to me as if we do things because we feel indebted to Jesus, like we owe him something. Now there are healthier and less healthy ways to fulfil a debt of gratitude. It's perfectly possible, and in my experience it's actually more common, that such debts are paid with grudging obedience. An obvious possibility of this position is that often we're still doing things we don't really want to do. And it's here that I have my problem.
Virtually all the images of the genuine Christian life I find in the bible have the ring, the colour, the sound of joy about them. People are coming and laying down their lives for each other and the world and they are doing it with a smile. How is that possible? It's certainly not possible if the only reason we're doing it is a debt of gratitude. We actually have to want to do the things we do, no, more than that, rejoice at the chance to do them, in at least one case it's a matter of 'rejoicing for the chance to suffer for the sake of the name...' This doesn't sound anything like paying off a debt to me.
I suspect the heart of the problem lies in the attempt to encourage good works without reference to genuine, transforming, regeneration.
Is it not the case that when someone knows God they receive the Holy Spirit? Is it not further the case that a significant part of the work of the Holy Spirit in people is to make them new? He gives new hearts, he renews our minds, he disposes of the old and brings the new such that wherever the Christian is: there is new Creation (2Cor5.17).
On the issue of good sacrificial obedient works, what he gives is a new desire to see and do New Creation things.
Why do Christians do good works? I think the New Testament answer, is that we do them because we have a new nature and long to see them done.
Before we were renewed in our minds we welcomed people and were hospitable because we were thankful to Jesus and knew it was the right thing to do, there's little genuine joy there. As our hearts are renewed we begin to treasure people, we love them more, we delight to see them happy, we long to see them restored. Gradually the good works cease to be motivated by debt, and become what we genuinely wish for.
Before we were renewed in our hearts we forgave each other because we lived in fear of the reciprocal arrangement in the Lord's prayer and because someone had told us that until we forgive others we are held captive to our own unforgiveness. While both reasons are true, they are not the genuine motivations of the Christian life. As our hearts change, we begin to long for whole and healthy relationships, we cease to care so much for our own standing and appearance, we start to value restored relationships more than our own wounded pride, and so asking for forgiveness and extending it becomes a joy because we are seeking something we delight in: relationship.
Why do we do good works? It's not because we think they will get us anything particularly, either in the realm of salvation, or in the parallel realm of lifestyle. We do them because our renewed natures long for them, long to see them, be part of them and see the world healed by them.
This is the only way that good works will be a joy, and the only way that we can ever rejoice for the chance to suffer.
May God restore and make new his people, so we can stop arguing about why we do good works and simply get on with joy and do them.
The most common response I get from evangelicals is that Christians do good works because we're thankful. It's the idea that because Jesus died for us we deny ourselves and do all sorts of things out of gratitude. While for a while that answer satisfied me, I'm now getting gradually more and more uncomfortable with it.
The way this response of gratitude is framed, it feels to me as if we do things because we feel indebted to Jesus, like we owe him something. Now there are healthier and less healthy ways to fulfil a debt of gratitude. It's perfectly possible, and in my experience it's actually more common, that such debts are paid with grudging obedience. An obvious possibility of this position is that often we're still doing things we don't really want to do. And it's here that I have my problem.
Virtually all the images of the genuine Christian life I find in the bible have the ring, the colour, the sound of joy about them. People are coming and laying down their lives for each other and the world and they are doing it with a smile. How is that possible? It's certainly not possible if the only reason we're doing it is a debt of gratitude. We actually have to want to do the things we do, no, more than that, rejoice at the chance to do them, in at least one case it's a matter of 'rejoicing for the chance to suffer for the sake of the name...' This doesn't sound anything like paying off a debt to me.
I suspect the heart of the problem lies in the attempt to encourage good works without reference to genuine, transforming, regeneration.
Is it not the case that when someone knows God they receive the Holy Spirit? Is it not further the case that a significant part of the work of the Holy Spirit in people is to make them new? He gives new hearts, he renews our minds, he disposes of the old and brings the new such that wherever the Christian is: there is new Creation (2Cor5.17).
On the issue of good sacrificial obedient works, what he gives is a new desire to see and do New Creation things.
Why do Christians do good works? I think the New Testament answer, is that we do them because we have a new nature and long to see them done.
Before we were renewed in our minds we welcomed people and were hospitable because we were thankful to Jesus and knew it was the right thing to do, there's little genuine joy there. As our hearts are renewed we begin to treasure people, we love them more, we delight to see them happy, we long to see them restored. Gradually the good works cease to be motivated by debt, and become what we genuinely wish for.
Before we were renewed in our hearts we forgave each other because we lived in fear of the reciprocal arrangement in the Lord's prayer and because someone had told us that until we forgive others we are held captive to our own unforgiveness. While both reasons are true, they are not the genuine motivations of the Christian life. As our hearts change, we begin to long for whole and healthy relationships, we cease to care so much for our own standing and appearance, we start to value restored relationships more than our own wounded pride, and so asking for forgiveness and extending it becomes a joy because we are seeking something we delight in: relationship.
Why do we do good works? It's not because we think they will get us anything particularly, either in the realm of salvation, or in the parallel realm of lifestyle. We do them because our renewed natures long for them, long to see them, be part of them and see the world healed by them.
This is the only way that good works will be a joy, and the only way that we can ever rejoice for the chance to suffer.
May God restore and make new his people, so we can stop arguing about why we do good works and simply get on with joy and do them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)