What Would I Have Done?

A personal reflection based on my morning reading . .  .

Would I have risked my life, and the lives of my loved ones, to interrupt the beating and crucifixion that Jesus endured? Or would I have stood in the crowd and screamed, “crucify, crucify.”

Would I have had the courage, and the conviction, to have risked everything to join that small group of conspirators who sought to save the world from the fanaticism of Adolf Hitler? Or would I have exchanged my wardrobe for brown shirts and pants and joined in with the masses who chanted, “sieg heil!”

Would I have had the courage to have walked with Martin Luther King, Jr., down the streets of some southern city and into the squalid cell of an inner-city jail, or would I have wielded the baton that was used to beat so many of his followers?

You see, it is so easy, and so crystalline clear, to sit back after two millennia, or 80 years, or even 50 years, and so smugly and self-righteously condemn the sins of my forebears. But, in all honesty, what would I have done different?

Jesus was condemned by conservative, law and order, patriotic Jews. Hitler was adored by conservative, law and order, patriotic Germans. King and his followers were beaten, jailed, and in King’s case, assassinated by conservative, law and order, patriotic Americans.

The scary thing is, I consider myself to be a conservative, law and order, patriotic American.

Condemning others through the lens of a telescope is frighteningly easy.

Condemning the man staring back at me in the mirror is frighteningly difficult.

The thing is, God is not going to judge me based on my response to events that took place before I was born.

God is going to judge me based on my response to injustice and unrighteousness that is taking place right in front of my nose.

I pray God sees something worth saving . . .

 

Book Review – Faith Formation in a Secular Age – Andrew Root (pt. 4)

[A little background here – after I posted my first review of Andrew Root’s book, Baker Academic “tweeted” a link to it. I was mortified. It’s one thing to opine about someone’s work if you are, like, 99.999% sure the author will never read your critique. With the surprise advertisement, I was suddenly faced with the fact that Dr. Root might read my review. He did. And he responded. In some of the most gracious words imaginable, no less. I emailed back and forth with him a couple of times, and I am deeply touched by his willingness to discuss his book, and what he saw as legitimate critiques that I made. His correspondence made my week.]

Okay, its been a while in coming, but I think I am finally ready to share my last (maybe, hopefully) review of Andrew Root’s book, Faith Formation in a Secular Age. As I have hopefully already made clear, this book has deeply cut into what I consider to be “faith development,” and I eagerly await the next two volumes in this series. If you have not read my earlier posts, the bottom line is I highly recommend this book – even with the caveat that there is some technical language used, so parts of the book may be daunting.

Now I want to share my main “quibble” with the book. I have a real hesitancy in doing this for one huge reason. My quibble is not so much with something Root said, but with what he did not say. My hesitancy is that I have a real issue with people criticizing what does not exist in a work. I have two master’s degrees and a doctorate, and the one thing that always irritated me the most in getting a graded paper back was when the professor said something like, “…but you did not address ‘x'” (what ever ‘x’ might have  been.) The one time I really deserved this critique was in my Master of Divinity comprehensive exams. I totally forgot to answer half a question. I thought I was going to get “pass plus” and I think I got a pass-minus. Oops.

In regard to Dr. Root’s book, the essence of what he identifies as “faith” centers in the Pauline expression, “in Christ.” My ears perked up. He went on to discuss Saul of Tarsus’ conversion in Acts 9, and the transformation that took place in Saul’s life. I grew more interested. Root emphatically defended his contention that faith in the New Testament occurs when a person symbolically dies, has someone come and minister the death of Christ to them, and then comes to a new life consisting in service and ministry to others. I was totally captivated. And, with bated breath, I kept turning pages waiting for the ultimate hammer to fall – the hammer that would locate this death, burial, and resurrection to a new life in the physical moment of baptism.

It never fell.

And, as I mentioned above, it is not appropriate to overly critique the omission of a topic in someone’s else’s work – so in terms of reviewing Faith Formation in a Secular Age, I will leave you with this simple observation. The omission in no way minimizes the value of this book – I recommend it highly. But – if the book had been mine to write, this is the section I would add regarding baptism.

Ever since the days of Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, the heirs of the Restoration Movement (especially the Churches of Christ) have been accused of overly emphasizing the physical and spiritual act of baptism. Too many times, I fear, this accusation has been all too accurate. Maybe “overly emphasizing” is overly critical, but we have taken one aspect of conversion and, hopefully not to generalize too much, have turned it into the only aspect of conversion. Just as an example, when someone comes to one of our congregations and seeks membership, the primary question asked of them is not, “do you have the gifts of the Spirit active in your life?” but, “have you been baptized?” (And often included in that question, “. . . by the right person in the right church. . . “)

The end result of this emphasis is that now two hundred years (give or take a few) from the writings of Stone and Campbell, I honestly believe that many members of the Churches of Christ have a totally sacramental view of baptism. Conversion and transformation have been replaced with a magical view of baptism that is utterly absent from the New Testament. What I hear from all too many members of the Church is a curious mixture of evangelicalism (you must be ‘born again’) and Roman Catholicism (it’s just ‘one and done, baptized you’re in, unwashed you’re out’). Talk about your unholy marriages.

Don’t believe me? Just look at the practice of baptism in so many churches. We say that we do not believe in infant baptism, that we are “credo-baptists,” that we only baptize believing adults, or, at the very least, those who have reached the “age of accountability.” [WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE THAT PHRASE IS USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?] And, yet, I see and hear of younger and younger children being baptized – as young as 8 or 9, in some cases probably younger.

We do not allow adolescents to drive until they reach an age twice what we gloriously accept as a “believing adult.” We do not allow anyone to join the military until a couple of years past that. We do not allow anyone to purchase or legally consume alcohol until a couple of years past that. Yet, we trumpet the decision of a child barely into elementary school as a great transformation of life and character. And, we come up with some of the most specious arguments to defend that practice. “But, they believe in Christ.” Um, yeah, so do the demons, according to James 2:19, and it does them no good. “But, what happens if we tell them ‘no’ and they leave the church?” Well, why do we tell our children they can’t have a driver’s license until a  certain age, that they cannot marry until a certain age, that they cannot join the military or drink a beer until a certain age? Why does our judicial system protect minors who are not capable of making adult decisions and being responsible for those decisions until they reach a certain age? And, just to respond to an absurd argument with one equally absurd, what happens if we DO baptize them and then they leave the church – as is happening by the hundreds if not thousands? What then? Do we become crypto-Calvinists and whisper, “Once saved, always saved” as our young adults stream out the back door?

[If you have never sat and answered the anguished questions of one who was baptized as an infant/child, and had them question their faith, their beliefs, their actions, then I suggest that you do sometime. You will not be so quick to dismiss their hopelessness. If they ask for baptism again they feel like they are rejecting the approval of their loved ones years ago. But to continue on living in the doubts and fears of realizing they simply “got wet” in order to please parents or to succumb to peer pressure is spiritually paralyzing.]

You see, as a group of biblical reformers – whose sincere and genuine desire was to restore baptism to a foundational place in the conversion process – we have come full circle to simply practicing baptism as a quaint “right of passage” that doubles as an entry into the membership of a congregation and provides legitimacy to partaking of the Lord’s Supper.

Which brings me right back to Dr. Root’s book. If he is correct in his definition of faith (and I think that if not fully correct, his view points us in a bright and helpful direction), then we must, repeat must, restore the biblical view of baptism to that picture of faith. And, I emphasize this, not just as a brief, momentary photo opportunity, but as a life-long, unending commitment to following in the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus.

After examining Saul of Tarsus’ conversion in Acts 9, the passage that was most lacking in Dr. Root’s book is Romans 6:1-14. But, hear me on this – it has also been lacking in my preaching and in my life as well. I too have fallen into the “one-and-done, baptized you’re in, unwashed you’re out” mentality. I too have been caught up in the baptism of infant/children. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I think it is time, past time actually, that the heirs of the Restoration Movement do some actual restoring again. I think we need to restore baptism to its rightful place, not just in the event of a new birth, but in Root’s words, to a lifelong commitment to the death of Jesus – as lived out in service and ministry to others.

In other words, we need to restore the biblical view of faith back into our vocabulary and our practice.

Book Review – Faith Formation in a Secular Age (Andrew Root)

Andrew Root, Faith Formation in a Secular Age, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 211 pages.

I was first introduced to Andrew Root through his book on Dietrich Bonhoeffer as youth worker. I had seen several references to this book after reading his work on Bonhoeffer, and so I thought I would give it a read (after all, if someone writes on Bonhoeffer, they can’t be all bad, right?). I can honestly say that from a philosophical/theological perspective, it has been a long, long, time since I have had my foundations as shaken as they have been by this book – if ever. But I mean this in a good way – it was a constructive shaking, and in a strange sort of way, it was also re-affirming for some ideas and conclusions that have been latent, but that I have not had the mental acuity to put into concrete expression.

This post will not be all that I have to say about Root’s book – it is just too deep for one little review. What I intend to do here is to just give a brief overview, add some reflective comments, and suggest that I will be looking at a number of Root’s conclusions in greater depth in later posts.

In summary, Root asks one question, “How can we form faith in a secular age,” but in so doing he actually raises a far more basic question – “What is faith?” You might think that is a silly question, because everyone knows what faith is. But for Root (and I think he is spot-on correct here), what we have come to accept as “faith” is really nothing more than assent to a doctrine or set of doctrines. This understanding has had all kinds of negative effects on the church, and is the primary reason why the church is so frantic to discover why so many people are leaving “faith” and to discover what to do to reverse the exodus.

Faith Formation in a Secular Age is divided into two main sections: Part One (chapters 1-6) is basically a philosophical explanation of how the culture and the church have arrived at the place where we stand – the “secular age.” Part Two then addresses how faith can be formed in that secular age, and more fundamentally, addresses the content of what we call “faith.”

I will say with no hesitation that this is NOT an easy book  to read unless you are conversant with (1) philosophical terminology and (2) academic theological terminology. While I would never discourage anyone from purchasing a book, I have to be honest and say that unless you are willing to exercise some synapses and look up some technical vocabulary, this book might be above the head of many readers. I’m pretty sure Root lost me in all the verbiage, and that is unfortunate – this book needs to be read at the non-specialist level, and it just comes across as more of a university level (or maybe even graduate level) philosophical/theological work.

With that caveat in place, the real genius of this book is that Root traces the development of our “secular” world and puts his finger squarely on a problem that has bedeviled the church for decades – the rise of our infatuation with “youth” and “youthfulness.” He openly confesses that he is following the writing of a philosopher whose work Root believes is the “first philosophical book written in the twenty-first century that will be read in the twenty-second” (p. x). Part one is, hopefully not to be too dramatic, a devastating examination of our infatuation with youth, the youth culture, and how that fascination has utterly changed the teaching and behavior of the church. I would suggest that part one is the most easily understandable section of the book, and is worth the price of the book by itself.

In part two, Root then tackles the main question he raises (what is faith), and suggests there is a way for the church to form that faith in this secular age. It is in chapter 7, however, that the real heavy lifting of the book begins (at least for me – others may have different opinions). In chapter 7, Root identifies three different levels, or modes, of secularity. The rest of the book is difficult if not impossible to understand if you miss, or misunderstand, these three modes of secularity. I cannot begin to explain them here (I will discuss chapter 7 and its importance in a later post) but suffice it to say that the “secular” age in which we live today is one that eliminates the possibility of any experience with a transcendent being – God, as a personal being, is simply eliminated from the picture. Faith, in Root’s understanding, is the experience of this transcendent being in our lives, and therefore to form faith in this secular age we must open ourselves up to the indwelling presence of this transcendent God. The key for Root is the apostle Paul’s phrase “in Christ.” Root’s development of the importance of this expression, and the relationship of this concept to faith formation, is deep, and his terminology frequently gets in the way, but I will suggest that Root is on to something here – and his conclusions make far, far more sense to me than the other “solutions” to the faith problem that I have seen.

As with any book that is this heavily philosophical, and theological, I do have some serious concerns. For me, the biggest problem lies in the final two chapters of the book where Root attempts to align his conclusions with the (primarily) Lutheran concept of “faith only.” My issues with this attempt are two: (1) Paul never says “faith only” – it is a purely Lutheran creation, and (2) Root seems to go out of his way to “reconstruct” common Lutheran understanding, and, not being a Lutheran scholar, I am just not convinced he is entirely successful.

I will have much more to say about this particular issue, but the most glaring failure of this book is Root’s (intentional?) refusal to acknowledge one of Paul’s most profound emphases – that of the necessity of baptism for his understanding of faith. I kept waiting for Root to discuss this point and it just never comes. I think Root is basically correct in his understanding of faith in Paul’s thought, but by neglecting the event of baptism he short-circuits his entire argument. In short, Root is just entirely too Lutheran to admit that baptism is critical for the formation of faith – even as he as gone to such great lengths to prove that faith for Paul is being “in Christ.” The omission just boggled my mind.

It is not often that I find a sentence at the end of a book that serves as one of the greatest in the book, and as an advertisement for the purchase of the book. However, I will close the “review” section of this post with just one such quote from Root – and one that I hope will spur you to consider buying, reading, and even studying this book:

The church will never be able to convert an atheist through argumentation but can only invite that person to experience faith by experiencing the action of ministry. (p. 210-211).

If you are a minister, elder, youth leader, or other church leader, you owe it to yourself to buy this book and invest in some time to read it. As I said above, it will not be the easiest book you read this year – but it may be the most significant! You will not agree with everything Root says – I never agree with everything an author says. But, and I say this cautiously, you will learn more about the culture in which you live and will be challenged to review some of your previously held beliefs, more by this book than perhaps any you might read this coming year.

P.S. – This is volume one in a three volume “trilogy” – and the second volume is in the pipeline for delivery some time this year, I believe. I look forward to reading it as well.

The Fractured State of America

Some rueful thoughts after several weeks of silence.

This is probably just an anecdotal observation, but to these eyes it seems that the “United” States of America are more fractured now than at any point in our history except immediately before, during, and after the War between the States. (Just an aside, but I was going to type “Civil” War, which is perhaps the most moronic of oxymorons. How can you have a “civil” war??) I do not foresee any states seceding from the union, but philosophically the landscape does appear to have a massive gulf that separates the “progressives” from the “conservatives.” Not only is that gulf wide and deep, but the voices which identify with each side appear to be more shrill and vitriolic with each passing day. Neither side can claim very much of a moral high ground – too much of their ground is being thrown at the other side in the form of mud.

I think of Mordecai’s message to young queen Esther, “Who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” We cannot choose the epoch in which we were born, but we can certainly choose whether we are going to allow that epoch to rule our life, or whether we make every effort possible to influence the world around us.

One thing I feel very passionately about – disciples of the crucified Christ cannot afford to lower themselves to wallow in the muck and mire of the current political morass. Yes, we are to hold our convictions. Yes, we are to be “in the world.” But we cannot afford to be “of the world,” and we most certainly cannot afford to allow that world to be “in” us. Sometimes I wonder if God is not allowing this political firestorm to fester simply to test the hearts of those who claim to be his followers. The acid test would be for us to declare – by words or actions – whether we are more Democrat, Republican, Independent, or Libertarian or whether we are willing to be lifted up on the cross of Christ because we refuse to follow the ways of the world.

The apostles of Christ addressed virtually every issue that is causing so much hatred in the “cultural wars” of today – sexual perversion, marriage and divorce issues, just plain old progressivism vs. conservatism – you name it. But, and mark this, every discussion was framed by the question of obedience to Christ or the lord of the world. Obedience was commanded, not to some political party or philosophical orientation, but to the life and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus himself said it – you cannot serve God and the world at the same time. At some point you have to make your “pledge of allegiance” clear and loud.

As a preacher and amateur philosopher, I am tempted to passionately address each and every issue currently on the “critical” discussion list. Occasionally, I give in to that siren call. But increasingly I am coming to the conclusion that what is needed is not my opinion (which, despite my most fervent desire, does not matter much anyway), but my obedience to the call of Christ, “. . . he who would be my disciple must take up his cross, and follow me.” In the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whenever Christ calls us, his call leads us to death. Maybe not physical death (although, for Bonhoeffer, it did), but a death to this world, to worldly passions, to participation in a system that is spiritually corrupt, and corrupting, at its very core.

Maybe it’s just me, but I see the right moving further to the right, and the left moving further to the left. What I want to see, and what I think I should be able to see, is the disciple of Christ moving more to the foot of the cross. It is simply impossible to hate your enemy when you look into the eyes of the one who died for you – and for them too!

Yes, dear Christian, Jesus’s blood was shed for your sinful enemy every bit as much as for your (un)righteous self.

Let us remember that as we begin to climb Mt. Moral Superiority.

Let us ascend by climbing lower, and serving those with whom we disagree.

Why Lipscomb Had It Right

In my last post I talked about how Barton W. Stone’s apocalyptic worldview was transmitted to David Lipscomb (1831-1917), and how Lipscomb articulated that worldview not only in word (his book Civil Government) but also in his daily life. His views were to be utterly discredited during the heated debates over premillennialism, and today his teaching would be considered odd at the very least, most likely unscriptural, and probably even treasonous and heretical. I think Lipscomb had it right.

To summarize his views would be too much for the time I have allotted, so I will just jump to the conclusion – there has never been a civil government that has been blessed by and chosen by God. None. Never. Nada. I can see the arched eyebrows and hear the snickering – you think you have me with the selection of Saul. But re-read that story. God told Samuel that he was indeed capitulating to the whims of the Israelites, but he also made it very clear that the request for a king was a rejection of the reign of God. Saul was an abject failure. David, the “man after God’s own heart” lead a government that eventually involved adultery, murder, rape, fratricide, and would eventually disintegrate under the weight of misgovernment, violence, and outright idolatry.

Yes, God used the Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians for his purposes. Yes he chose Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. But in every situation he punished those leaders for the abuses of the instructions and the limitations he gave them. He destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple at least twice. I repeat – there has never been a civil  government that God has blessed or chosen for more than a very limited period of time, and history (if not Scripture itself) records that God eventually punished that regime/nation. God is not in the business of establishing civil governments.

The reason, I believe, is clear. It is not within the power of man to govern himself – this is Scripture. Even in the kingship of David, the word that is most often used of David’s rule (and often of that of his successors) is not melech, (king) but nagid, (prince). God demands that he remains king. The human ruler is just a figure-head. The government resides with God. When man demands the kingship, disaster follows.

Taking the longest length of an Israelite king (approximately 50 years) and the shortest (just a few months), the United States has been in existence for anywhere from 5 – 15 Israelite kings – not a lot of time. And look at what has happened: the “separation of powers” among executive, legislative, and judicial powers is all but non-existent. Especially over the past several presidents the power of the presidency has been significantly increased. Likewise we see the judicial branch not even coming close to just measuring if laws are constitutional, but the Supreme Court is actually writing legislation. The legislative branch is just a bunch of empty suits and dresses – they have no more power today than a high school debate team. That basically leaves the entire government of the United States in the hands of 10 people – one President and 9 Supreme Court justices. When the President and the majority of the SCOTUS all share the same political affiliation (as happened under President Obama) there is no recourse, there is no justice, there is no rule of law in the land. Harsh words you say? Well, it happened. President Obama and his Attorney General decided that a law that had been in place for a number of years was unconstitutional – a power they did not have – and the Supreme Court, emboldened by his directive, promptly ruled in favor of his administration’s decision. Our “representative democracy” is  quickly crumbling into a marginal oligarchy.

David Lipscomb saw this. He lived through the Civil War. He saw the reality of the dictum, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He, perhaps more than anyone in his time, realized that Christians are just exiles and aliens in a foreign land, and while we are to obey the laws of that land, we cannot foul our hands by participating in a bloody and godless civil government.

It has been argued that Christians have to participate in civil government or Satan will win. I have one question (well, actually, two): where in Scripture does it say that Christians have to participate, have to vote, have to hold political power? And, two, what part of losing your life for the kingdom of God do you not understand?

The essence of politics (of civil government) is power. Individuals run for office in order to gain power, and once in office, their goal is to maintain that power and to try by all means necessary to increase that power. In a closely related issue, the grease that makes a democracy run (if the powers are relatively equally divided) is compromise. That means person A has to give up something he or she wants in order to get person B to vote with his or her proposal. The problem is that you cannot give up Christian morals. You cannot give up Kingdom ethics. You cannot trade a vote on abortion for a vote on war subsidies. Dance with the devil and see how far you get.

On the other hand, the essence of Kingdom ethics is self-surrender and submission. Those who lose their lives will find them. We have to die to Christ in order to be raised with him. We have put off the old self in order to be clothed with Christ. Do not be like the Gentiles, Jesus said, who love power and love to lord it over their subjects. Instead, become servants. Chose the lowest place. Put down your crown and pick up a towel. What part of this is difficult to understand? Where is the concept of grasping power found in the cross – check out Philippians 2 if you need to.

I get that these words are radical. But you want to read an interesting story? Read Jeremiah 35. Jeremiah was told to invite a group of people over for some wine. The folks were known as the Rechabites. He did – he invited them over and set a lot of bowls of wine and cups and said, “party hearty!” They would not touch the wine, because their ancestor gave them two instructions – never live in a walled city and never drink wine. They had obeyed their ancestor for generations – always living in tents and never drinking wine. God used them as a powerful parable against the Israelites who had rejected his teachings repeatedly and in grotesque fashion.

I just wonder if someday God is not going to use the Amish and the Mennonites to judge, and condemn, sinful America. We ridicule those folks with their backward ways, their rejection of everything modern, and of their simple faith. Ah, yes, their simple faith. They believe God told them to eschew extravagance and to live simple, faithful lives. And, for the most part, they have – for generations. To our lasting shame, I might add.

I can live in the United States and pay my taxes and obey the laws of the land and be completely detached from the filth of the government. I do not have to vote – in fact I actually  believe it to be more faithful to my God not to vote. I can respect my leaders, and even pray for them, without becoming complicit in their ungodly and unchristian decisions. In fact, I believe that my God calls me to do exactly that. I am to pray for the inbreaking of the Kingdom of God and all that means, not the continued dominance of one political party or the other.

It all boils down to where is my allegiance – to the Christ of calvary or the American flag?

Listen, I know I am not going to convince everyone – I probably will not even convince some of my closest friends. They, among all who read this blog, know I am a nut, and kind of untethered in certain respects. But I have come to a devout conclusion: if anything nice can be said over my dead, stinking body, I want it to be that I was consistent in my beliefs. If I say, if I preach, if I write, that “man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from God” then I had better act like I believe those words. I just do not see any passage of Scripture that tells me I have to be active in a civil government. I see many that tell me I should not. I see many principles that teach me I should stay away from governmental powers. I see many truths that lead me to believe that compromise with politics is death for spirituality.

I want to know Christ, and the power of his rising, share in his suffering, conform to his death – when I pour out my life, to be filled with his Spirit, joy follows suffering and life follows death.

That, my friends, is why Lipscomb had it right.

A Meditation on the Fourth of July: How To Set Yourself Free

A thought about setting oneself free on this day of remembering a day of national freedom . . .

You do not have to dig deep to discover the most significant problem in a majority of congregations today. It goes something like this:

Major premise – “I am always right”
Minor premise – “My interpretation of a passage of Scripture is _____”
Conclusion – “My interpretation of this passage must be right.”

Obviously, the problem with this syllogism is that the major premise is demonstrably false. No person is always right – about just about anything. The minor premise is equally problematic. Since when does anyone’s opinion about the interpretation of a passage have anything to do with its truthfulness? A hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, or a million people can all hold the same opinion about a passage of Scripture and it still be an invalid interpretation. So, if both the major and minor premise are wrong or problematic, then the conclusion cannot be true. The interpretation may be correct, it may be incorrect, or it may be partially incorrect and partially correct.

Just don’t tell some people that they are wrong. Oh, they may say that they might be wrong about something. But just try to pin them down to what they might be wrong about. Pretty soon you discover that what they call a risk of error is well nigh an impossibility.

Entire congregations can be held hostage by one or two belligerent individuals who refuse to consider, even for a moment, that they might be mistaken. Entire lives can be ruined by the fallacious belief that a person is always correct, and therefore anything he or she believes must be correct.

How can a congregation, or a person, declare their independence? With the simple phrase, “I was wrong, and I admit it.”

Confession – what a thought! Just try it. Repeat the following until you come to honestly believe the truth behind them –

  • “It is okay if I am wrong.” With very few exceptions (loaded guns, drinking poison, and thinking a rattlesnake is a stick) errors of belief are rarely fatal.
  • “I am not perfect, and I do not have to be.” Only one life has been perfect, and you are NOT him.
  • “A person can be absolutely convinced, and still be wrong – and still be loved and appreciated.” The eleven apostles come to mind.
  • “I cannot be, and do not have to be, 100% correct on 100% of the questions 100% of the time. I can be wrong and still be forgiven.” Ditto.

There – that was easy, wasn’t it? Feel the weight of perfection fall off of your shoulders? Do you feel the rejuvenation to actually have the freedom to re-think, and to re-study, questions that honest people have disagreed about for centuries?

The need, and especially the demand, to be immaculately perfect about every question of the Bible and the Christian life is a cancer that kills the spirit without remorse.

Declare your independence from this wretched disease. Admit your imperfection. Concede your frailty. Proclaim that you no longer need to be perfect.

Ascend through the humility of accepting your humanity.

Give Me the “Christian Combo,” but Hold the Cross

“I have been crucified with Christ . . . ” (Galatians 2:20a, ESV)

I cannot tell you how many times I have read that passage, heard that passage, even sung that passage. But something just dawned on me the other day that put this verse in an entirely new context. To make a potentially long post much shorter, let me cut to the bullet points –

  • The apostle Paul here clearly identified himself as a crucified Christian.
  • The apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, and used that citizenship to avoid certain mistreatments. (Ref. Acts 22:22-29)
  • Rome did not crucify its citizens. Foreigners could be crucified, but not Roman citizens.
  • The apostle Paul was a Roman citizen.
  • The apostle Paul clearly identified himself as a crucified Christian.

To put it another way, the one form of capital punishment that the apostle Paul did not have to fear was the one that he willingly chose to identify himself. It was not just Jesus that suffered the ignominy of crucifixion, but it was the apostle as well.

Embed from Getty Images

 

How different it is in our highly cultured and sanitized Christianity today. Everybody wants to be a Christian, but nobody wants the cross. Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. We all want to sing about how many stars will be in our crown. Jesus’s crown did not have stars; it had thorns.

It is hard to critique something that you are a part of, and yet that is exactly what I feel like I am doing. I do not really want that cross any more than anyone else. I am utterly a child of my time. I want the “Christian Combo” but please hold the side order of the cross.

The apostle Paul would later write to another group of people, “But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:20, ESV) That helps to put Galatians 2:20 into focus for me. As a citizen of Rome, Paul did not have to fear crucifixion. To be a citizen of the Kingdom of God he had to welcome it.

Therein lies the heart of the matter. What matters is, where is our heart?