The Paradox of Good Works

For the Christian, good works (the fruits of the Spirit) are critically important... but at the same time, the works in themselves are NOT what God commends or rewards.

So to be clear, salvation comes through faith in Jesus. But then what happens after that? How does a Christian live his or her life?

It's all too common that even Christian authors will fall into two opposing errors. On the one side: God rewards good behavior, so you should focus on that. Maybe it's prayer or giving or charity or kindness or forgiveness. On the other side: our behavior CAN'T be good because of our sinfulness, it's all about our trust and faith in Jesus. So what matters is how much faith and trust we have in him.

The problem with both of these positions is just how selfish they are. Is it really all about me? AND, moreover, they miss what the bible -- especially the letters of the New Testament -- commends and expects for Christ-followers. Isn't it kind of surprising that Christ's summary of the Old Testament law says NOTHING about "personal holiness" or individual righteousness? But rather, "loving God entirely," and more to the point I'm making, "loving your neighbor as yourself."

Loving -- seeking the good of others -- is outside of ourself, it's the basis of community. And it's a COMMUNITY that God wants. Not just any community, like work or sports or even family, but the community of believers, HIS community. Jesus gives one "new" commandment, which is really just a clarification of his previous summary of the law: "Love one another, as I have loved you. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."

So if you are "kind" and "forgiving", so what? Is God impressed? I mean, it's better than violence and resentment, but even nonchristians can exhibit that. What are the UNIQUE good works given to Christians? It's to show that kindness and forgiveness to their fellowship of believers, the worshipping congregation they are a part of, above their other communities of work, school, and even family.

And why? Because God wants us to love what HE loves, and he loves and cherishes the church. He loves it enough to call it the "body of Christ", uniting it with the love he has for his own Son. And he will certainly commend those who loves what he loves.

Now, to be clear, we are commended to extend our kindness and forgiveness to all people, but what's the justification given for this? It's to bring credit to God as a Christ-follower, to the body of Christ, acting as a representative of his church. Once again, "kindness" isn't some abstract good behavior that God counts on a scale, but it's a means to an end, a means to bring glory to God and his church on earth.

Curse

An apple, an ankle

They fester and rankle

A balm is prepared

The shoulders are bared

The field of the potter

the lamb for the slaughter

A heart in two pieces 

Darkness increases

The crack of a whip

A stumble, a slip

The flesh and the thorn

A hope yet unborn

...

...

...

...

The spirit releases

To flaming increases

A great conflagration

The birth of a nation 

Ascent to the throne

He gathers his own

And draws out the rot

Beyond sight or thought

And treats the disease

And heals by degrees

The grave is amended

A glory intended.

Contemplations on Reformation Day

On this Reformation Day, how should we think about the divisions in the church today, especially between Protestants and Roman Catholics? This is obviously the perspective of a Protestant, but this is my response: When we look back into the pages of church history, or look across the world today, what does this "fracturing" or "division" actually mean? If it means that Protestants and Roman Catholics fight and war against each other, no argument, that is a HORRIBLE thing. But if they don't, what is "missing" in the body of Christ?

Put another way, if the ecclesiastic hierarchy of my Presbyterian church does not have unity with the ecclesiastic hierarchy of another denomination -- or the RCC for that matter -- what's the result? Once again, if it means that Christians in the same city have hostility against each other, that is terrible; but in practical terms, it would be unreasonable to expect EVERY Christian in a decent-sized city to have close relations with each other. 

Look at the letters in the NT, and the account of Acts. One local congregation is not put over or against any other congregation. Indeed it is rare for cross-congregational relations to be mentioned, EXCEPT when it comes to simple acts of charity and gifts, of showing this kind of selfless "love" for one another. 

Or consider the incompatible practices between Jewish and Gentile believers in the book of Acts, that needed to be moderated by the Jerusalem church. What was the result? Even if you think it was binding to other churches, the result was a compromise, a removing of offenses so that both sides could fellowship (especially eat and drink) with one another. Jewish Christians were not forbidden from circumcision, for example, just forbidden from requiring it of Gentile believers. Gentiles were told to refrain from eating certain things, so that they could eat together with their Jewish brethren. 

And indeed the Roman Catholic Church should look to the behavior of those early Jewish Christians. Did they cling to the practices and religious forms that, at the beginning, defined what "the church" was? When those early Jewish churches saw the expansion of the church into Gentile lands, into unimaginable peoples and places, worshiped in new ways and with new practices, did they -- who were once at the center -- fight to maintain their ecclesiastical preeminence or to keep the same practices? Or should the RCC say, like Peter in Acts, "Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as He also gave to us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has also granted to the Gentiles the repentance that leads to life.”"

And likewise the Protestant world should not despise the Roman Catholic church. Even if you think that they have "fallen away" in some manner, certain these words from Romans are still true for them: 

"But if some of the branches [Roman Catholics] were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot [Protestants], were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree."

Whom is the Bible addressed to?

A few days ago I posited the question, "What exactly is a Christian?" and made the point that it's not well defined in scripture. Let me expand on that a bit, by speaking of something else: the "audience" of scripture.

Who is the Bible addressed to? Well, to start with, let's focus on the New Testament. Those individual letters were mostly addressed to whom? Well to churches... but that kind of begs the point, were they addressed to the church as a group? Or to individual hearers? Or... what? When Paul exhorts people, what are his major concerns? Individual sins? Social work? Or... what?

Let's take as an example 1 Corinthians. The first concern is about "divisions among you". The "you" here is clearly plural, he is speaking to a group, and concerned about the group not acting as a group. So then we look at Galatians, and we see him talking about "the gospel preached to you". Again, his concern is the group choosing a preacher who leads the whole group astray.

For a contrast, we look at Ephesians, where election is highlighted right away, and certainly only individuals are elected and saved. We see him praising "your faith... and your love," which is addressed to a group, but those are aggregate qualities of individuals. But then even here, what is the *point* of this election, what's the result? As soon as Paul says, "So then..." what does he say? That they are "fellow citizens with the saints... members of the household of God... a holy temple... a dwelling place for God." Their group-ness and fundamental unity is the result. And following on that, as soon as he says, "I urge you..." it is for "bearing with one another... maintaining unity... one body and one Spirit... over all and in all and through all." These individually-elected believers are identified by their inclusion in this "group"; but this is not an abstract group, some vague connection to ALL believers, but epitomized by their harmonious existence as they physically worship and fellowship with each other in their local congregation.

There's unity between different churches, to be sure, but even this language recognizes the existence of a "congregational body-ness" that underlies it. We don't usually phrase it, "there is unity between churchgoers of different cities/congregations." No, but rather, the visible unity of the local congregation is the MODEL of the greater unity that we can only see by faith. We know if there are divisions or hostilities between the people we see every week, but by faith and by the Holy Spirit, we trust that our separate churches are in fact unified into a single great Holy City, that Revelations describes as descending out of heaven for us all to see on the Last Day.

So when we read the New Testament, we should absolutely see it addressed to "us", spoken to those who worship together in the same place. We should ask ourselves about the unity we have (or don't have) with the people in the next pew over. We should understand "love" in the context of the indifference or even hostility we bear against fellow worshippers. May the Holy Spirit make us one!

On the claimed exclusivity of the Catholic Church

I certainly know what it's like to question -- and even lament -- the habits and norms of American evangelical Protestantism. I even understand that deep jarring feeling when looking closely at church history, like where's the connection to where I am?

But having immersed myself in "Catholic stuff", in particular attending UD and participating in the Rome semester, and having many of my closest friends from there, I'll say that the Catholic church gives but also takes away. 

So while the Catholic church gives "tradition" -- in the full sense of the word -- that same tradition also puts a large barrier between you and scripture. There's simply not the same freedom to come to scripture with that expectation of discovery, that evaporation of the many years between then and now. The text must bear the weight of a millennia of tradition and official exposition. 

God, in his providence, did not leave the Catholic Church to set up a new temple in Protestantism. But likewise He also does not reside with the Catholic Church exclusively, waiting for the Protestant denominations to return to Him. He is no respecter of nation, nor of denomination, nor of self-declared catholicity. "Wherever two or more are gathered" is the starting point, the hierarchy of one visible church in the present day is NOT the eternal bride of Christ, stretching through time and space, knit together by the blood of Christ.

May we all pray for reconciliation between all of God's people, even on this earth, as we have confidence that we will all be united at the wedding feast of the Lamb.

Fear of the Lord

 A friend posted a question about the "fear of the Lord", and it really got me thinking about it.

So I think that being a parent has helped me to understand that my kids -- especially when younger -- have a certain kind of "fear" about me as the one who usually disciplines them. Like, if a kid says something rude to Naomi, or hits a sibling in anger, they know that Daddy is going to come home and discipline them. When they are really little they might even run and hide, trying to escape punishment. In an interesting parallel, the Lord warns Israel in the OT that they should be afraid of the judgement of God, that will fall on them if they persist in worshipping idols, for example.

But then I'm reminded that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," but is perhaps not the _end_ of wisdom. It's not inappropriate for someone who isn't a Christian to be aware of the judgment of God, and fears it, and so repents and trusts in Christ. But then John says, "Perfect love casts out fear, for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love." I think John is talking about the normal initial fear of the Lord, just based on fear of punishment, which turns into a richer relationship, turns into reciprocal love, as we know and understand our heavenly Father better, and understand his love for us through Christ. And if his use of "perfect" can be understood as "complete", there's a natural progression from "fear" in the "beginning" to "love" when our understanding of him is "complete".

We can still talk about how "fear" is like awe or overwhelming wonder, but I think it takes away from the ordinary meaning of the word, takes away from a normal progression from "fear of his righteous punishment and judgement" to "loving and enthusiastic obedience to his commands, in thankfulness". 

Love and Holy Disciplines

I read something recently, that reminded me of several books I have read about "spiritual disciplines". They were fine up to a point, but overall I think they can often miss the point: what's the *goal* of these spiritual disciplines? The language in these books is often exclusively focused on what an individual does privately, on an individual's relationship with God. But where's the community? 

These days I think it's more important to focus on the more "practical" and communal disciplines, like attending church, extending hospitality, and reading/studying scripture with others (rather than private study or just being instructed by one person). In particular, reading through the Old Testament with my kids has been a really remarkable, exciting, and encouraging endeavor for everyone involved. A simpler translation like the NIRV helps this work. 

And as for the next level of "disciplines", there's an entire congregation of people to know, love, encourage, and fellowship with. But also to forgive, reconcile, comfort in sickness or loss, or even just visit. 1 Corinthians 13 is an example of what love looks like in community, being patient and kind with one another, keeping no record of wrongs, bearing together, believing together, hoping together, enduring together. 

Those are the disciplines that really shine when things get tough. When people have burdens, those relationships allow us to "bear one another's burdens". Where we can say, "blest be the ties that bind..."