J Piper & N T Wright- Traditions and or The Covenant?

 

…The long history of the traditions is of utmost importance. Our theological teachings were never just ‘handed down’ but fought with and struggled over for long decades and centuries, often with division, dissention, disillusionment even death. The theology that we hold as dear, were thought through over a period of almost 700 years. This period can be divided into two, firstly the patristic period, from AD 100 - AD 451  this would include;

• Council Of Nicaea (June 325)
• Council of Constantinople (381)
• Council of Ephesus (431)
• Council of Chalcedon (451)

 The patristic period was one of the most creative periods in the history of Christian thought. From this period came the three great streams Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox and every other mainstream protestant Christian body. The second period would include;

• Second Council of Constantinople (553)
• Third Council of Constantinople (680)
• Second Council of Nicaea (787)

 Theologians of immense importance such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Augustine of Hippo, to mention but a few, contributed significantly to this long process of formulation. My point is that the traditions are important as a ‘whole’. Piper fails; it would seem, to see beyond the tradition of the reformation alone. Luther and Calvin would never have considered their work to be absolute, but would encourage us to see the whole scope of the traditions, not only past, but equally the present and the future. They would also argue that above and beyond this you must have as your final frame of reference ‘sola scripture’. The salvific work of Christ must be seen in its broader context, this context goes beyond the tradition of the reformation, as important as this is, to the origins of God’s salvation history in Genesis. Paul stresses that the origins of the salvation history must be seen at all times within the context of the Abrahamic covenant. To understand this, the covenant, is to see the grand scale and scope of God’s salvific plan not only for Israel but also for the world. Paul speaks of an inherited ‘righteousness’ that comes from the covenant, Piper speaks of ‘imputed’ righteousness that comes from Christ alone, this is true, but incomplete, just as the steering wheel of the car is vital yet incomplete. Paul says that we are children of the covenant we are inheritors of God’s Abrahamic covenant. “Now if we are children, then we are heirs, heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ “(Rom: 8:17). This covenant is at all times to be seen within the broader context of the world, the cosmos. To Abraham the covenant could not be understood in purely ‘personal terms’ Piper has withdrawn and ‘reduced’ the story of salvation to that of ‘my personal relationship’ and my ‘getting to heaven’ the covenant was never intended to be seen within a formulaic prescription for personal salvation. As important as this is, it is still not within the scope of the Abrahamic covenant. The covenant was never understood as who was ‘in’ or ‘out’ it was seen as God’s grand plan for the restoration of all things, this is indeed the meaning of Abraham’s inheritance. We are made ‘righteous’ not because of an imputed moral goodness, but we are made ‘right’ because we are, and this is pivotal, inheritors of the covenant.

 To be continued…

 

J Piper’s response to N T Wright

 

…From my early reading of Piper and my second reading of Wright two things are at least apparent. The nature and the long history of God’s covenant plan through Abraham for Israel and ultimately the world, are not taken into consideration and or deemed as of little import, or for that matter, of little consequence within the salvific work of Christ. Wright places this important discussion, that of justification, exclusively within the context of the reading of Genesis 15 and Gods covenant dealings with Abraham. It’s not that Piper dismisses this, but more that he fails to even recognise its importance.

The covenant, says Wright, is of fundamental importance in that it is God’s plan for the restoration of all things, to fail to see this, is to limit the salvific work of Christ and to then place it within a context that may at best be not only non- Pauline but for that matter carry little or no weight within scripture. Wright using the weight of his prodigious understanding of scripture to show that for Paul the whole story of salvation has its origins in the Abrahamic covenant. The nature of this covenant is that it is above and beyond the scope of personal salvation alone. It is God’s ultimate rescue plan for the whole world of which Israel were ‘chosen’ or better stated ‘commisoned’. To be ‘chosen’ within this context carries with it the significant and serious responsibility that of God’s missional heart for the ‘whole’ world. Piper has somehow, whether by default or intent still remains to be seen, reduced the whole scope of salvation to that of the purely ‘personal’ and to nothing more than how one ‘gets saved’.

The law court metaphor of the judge finding the plaintiff ‘not guilty’ and than taking this metaphor beyond its natural scope in suggesting that the plaintiff is now somehow ‘made right’ through this same verdict is not only beyond the scope of the metaphor but also serves to remind us that the origins of this metaphor are founded with classic Greek-roman culture, to further emphasis this point Piper’s preoccupation with “God’s glory” having absolute pre-eminence finds its origins once again in classic Greek thinking. This should come as no surprise when we remember the that this metaphor was drawn from Calvin’s legal training and his great attraction to the language and understanding within a legal-court room context. Wright argues that Pipers theological history are left stranded within the framework of the reformation.  Wright argues that Piper would need to go back to Augustine the Church fathers and retrace the history of God’s covenantal story in Genesis. From this place the story of God’s redemptive plan for the world finds its beginnings, this is the thin edge of the wedge of God’s love, to fail to see this may in some way blind one to the whole gamut and plan culminating in Christ’s redemptive act.

The ‘Golden Calf’ called….Jesus!

 

…This concern seems to have merit, that the person of Jesus to have been largely co-modified, commercialized and idolized. He is no longer a ‘person’ but a product and ‘promotion’ one that must always ‘rise and rise’ above the drab level of dis-interest. This same Jesus, must always be bigger, brighter, bolder and better than a ‘reality’ that is largely unknown and unfamliar.This same Jesus must, in every facet of his life be romanticized, over spiritualized, he has been taken to the rarified air of rock stars, legends and myths, this is the Jesus that can only live and breath and have his being in a sort of hyper-reality. Women fall down in hushed tones weeping and shaken, men are left as defenders and protectors of a reality that is flawed, faulty, unreal, unattainable, unreachable and uninhabitable.Like all products, once the purchase is made, life goes on, untouched, unchanged, the only thing that remains, as with all products is;  to ‘wear it’ or ‘use it’ or ‘carry it’ and or ‘show it’. At all times there is a separation and detachment from this same image, and to counter act this, a codependency must follow.

What does this mean? It means that this is now MY Jesus and MY image and MY idol, touch this and you TOUCH me. becuase a ‘real connection’ is not possible, this same cycle must be repeated again and again. This same Jesus, through no fault of his own, continues to rise to the same unreality as that of a rock star or movie star, this very same image has little bearing on the truth, it is the image that is worshiped. For these same Christians, they have taken an image of Jesus, much like the Hebrew rebels and created a ‘golden calf’ and have fallen down to worship it, tragically, believing at the same time that this very same image was created by Jesus himself, the image has little bearing on reality. Truth is, the reality may in many cases, be too hard to reconcile with the image. Christians in the west are sometime worshipers of the ‘golden calf’ called Jesus. Eastern Christianity had a much more grounded much greater predisposition for reality than those from the West. We find a more honest Jesus on the path of ‘descent’ not on the road of ‘ascent’. The Jesus of the gospels is best found in the still places in the wilderness not in a consumer driven Westernized quest for ‘another’ expereince.

‘Sin’ The Language of the Law!

 

This post does not take into consideration the different levels of disobedience;

• Corporate
• Structural
• Systematic

…Nor the graduated levels.

 

My comments on the issue of sin are more a personal observation, as apposed to that of theological exegete. It’s my view, (and I’m willing to admit that this may be my view alone) that the word ‘sin’ carries with it an ‘unspoken’ negative expectation, that is somewhat difficult to articulate, but needless to say, this same expectation, is not only unique but also unhelpful and unnecessary.

Because this expectation is based, supposedly, on a common mutual understanding it has at the same time created significant confusion in terms of the origin of its real meaning. What is not understood, is either avoided or discarded, or, as is often the case, converted into a wrong context, creating in the process a theological understanding that is nothing more than meaningless useless baggage. Sin had a renascence in the latter half of the 19^th century; it was used famously by fundamentalist preachers such as Jonathan Edwards and then later by Finney, Spurgeon, Billy Sunday, and Moody etc. It was used almost exclusively within a negative context, sin was used as the primary catalyst to elicit decisions, it was used as the final ace, for ‘good number of converts’ a good example would be Edwards famous “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”.

What sort of view would any of these same converts take with them throughout their life and how could they see sin in any other light, except to use repentance as a way of keeping this same angry God at bay. It could never be a relational response based on the intimacy of understanding that is part of any real relationship, but one that would come to depend and rest exclusively on a thorough understanding of the divine law, where God was seen as the one who would concede again and again to the letter of the law, creating in the process the impression that God would forgive because of some sort of legal transaction that took place in the cross.

A legal frame of reference is not based and never can be on relational nuances, but more on the strict understanding of the good and bad implications of laws that are kept or not kept. It’s my contention that some 200yrs later our view of sin (although not described in such a fashion) forgiveness, the legal code of conduct has not changed, and this is due primarily to a lack of understanding of sin within its original context. Its my view that sin within this context is more than likely to immunize those very same people from a relationship with this very same God. This theological understanding may not be articulated in the same fashion as in this post, but runs at a deep almost subterranean level, where one acts and then reacts, without at the same time knowing why. In a healthy relationship one responds, and this response is cognitive. To not feel physical pain, would reduce ones life, to a thorough dependence at all times on a rightful mechanistic response.

 

 John is correct; it is Augustinian in its origins not Greek or Jewish. This is the very point, within which my post was made, sin can only carry any weight within a frame of reference that is relational, not abstract and removed. If we fail to take this into consideration, if we fail to include this as a foundational premise from which all else takes reason, we fail before we begin. There is a fluidity and spontaneity within all relationships, and this becomes the yardstick from which decisions are determined, we draw upon the intuitive elements of this relationship rather than a mechanistic response, now having said that I’m not dismissing the later, but it would and should be the final frame of reference not the first.

 

Some Christians subscribe, (by default) to a relational connection with God that is not that dissimilar to those with asbergers syndrome. Facets of our western theology have created, and by their very nature, also sustained a propensity towards mechanistic responses with similar outcomes expected by God, he become the transactional God, this is due primarily to the lack of any true relational context. Augustine needed to identify, and further, also create a separation of understanding; this could only be done within the context of a legal transaction. If we look at sin within this framework, it is reduced to a series of ‘checks and balances’ where sin is treated in the same fashion as that of a lawyer treating a legal transaction. Sin then becomes the process of establishing law, either broken or kept, no longer is this a relational exercise, where fluidity, spontaneity and intuition are essential, but a simple process of reminding God that he has a legal obligation to forgive.

This process is the antithesis of forgiveness within a relational understanding. Little wonder that the Jewish translation for ‘sin’ is that of missing the mark. Within the old framework sin was understood as ‘separating us’ from God, where God removed himself until the sheet was clean and he could then return and take of from where he left, so to speak. If one holds to this view it creates a view of an interventionist God, who must ‘retreat and return’. The Jews saw sin as a ‘misalignment’ and the process of making good or right, meant that one ‘realigned’ oneself once again with reality.

 

When ever one felt out of ‘alignment’ it then became necessary to ‘re-fix’ ones attention then ‘focus’ and finally ’ follow through’ this is not the language of a legal transaction, where a pseudo response is encouraged, but one that comes out of a relational response. It would also do good to point out that this is not a process where I become the most important missing link, one that is depended exclusively on MY action and MY response and MY repentance. This divide can only be breached by the power and strength of my repentance, this is a one-dimensional response, not cooperation or a mutual reciprocity that is birthed out of an ongoing conversation between two intimate parties. Finally, the focus is on walking in mutual alignment with the other, not majoring on a process that divides and then must always be breached. How do we walk in alignment with the other, we do it by first focusing on the other. St Paul says; “Fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of out faith”. We miss the mark, when we fail to ‘fix’ our attention on the goal; this is not sin, but a missing of the mark. This view (at least in my opinion) is helpful in terms of a practical relational response. Sin has always been described as some sort of evil, which also brought with it a destructive contaminant element that left one feeling that he or she was now in quarantine.

 

My final point is this, how does one know, when one has sinned? This will have to wait for another time. (Sorry! this post does not have any scriptural references this is not my strong point)

Finally…..your comments are most welcome and also saught, This may constitute heresy, but bear in mind that heretic means; ‘one who finds his own way’ and this we all must do.

Fix, Focus & Follow-through

 

Out Greek view of sin, is most unhelpful and even unhealthy, it creates and sustains this great and terrible divide between God, and us, with the solution always resting squarely on my shoulders alone. The Jews had a very different view indeed. The Greeks saw the whole of life as ‘separated and divided’ and sin as separating us from God; in truth no such divide has ever existed. For the Jews sin simple meant ‘missing the mark’ they likened it to target practice, with the arrow ‘falling short’ or ‘missing the mark’.

 

There is no sin in missing; it simple requires more ‘good ‘practice, as apposed to no practice or the wrong practice. This means practicing the ‘right things’ as apposed to the ‘wrong’ .The great ‘sin’ (if you will) is not that we ‘miss the mark’ but more, that we have no target in the first place. To shoot and to miss is human; we practice until we hit the target. We find in this God a loving compassionate lifelong companion who says; ‘lets do target practice together’ he not only draws along side us, but he draws the bow with us, and says ‘lets try that’.

 

God is never seeking perfection, merely practice, it matters not to God whether this is your 331^st failure, we hear the same compassionate words each time; ‘lets do target practice together’. Paul says; “Fixing your eyes upon Jesus” we FIX our FOCUS then FOLLOW THROUGH. Its not that God will not separate himself, its more that he cannot separate himself from his creation, to do this would mean separating himself, from himself, this he simple cannot do…. So, rest in this.

The Secularization of Church

 

…The components responsible for creating this (sub) culture, are very much secular in nature; its based on entrapuneral elements that are secular in nature; the importance of a business ‘plan’, the obsession with goals, the need for ‘producers’ (or closers) who can meet and achieve sales like targets, professionalism (Looking professional and acting professional at all times!) Striving for perfectionism and excellence, (this is especially true with platform performers), the abhorrence of any ‘visable’weakness, creating the perception of having it all together, the need to reduce everything to simple bite size truths, the obsession with programs, the focus and adoration of ‘individuals’ who can bring this stuff all together, and the god like worship of those who can, the emergence of a new breed of ‘pseudo superstar’ and the need to keep on creating them.

It is essentially a ‘performance based model’. It creates an environment where people ‘aspire’ to be ‘superstars’ and super (hyper) spiritual, then nurturing people who can take up these roles. This is called ministry, but  it is depended almost exclusively on ‘personality’. These chacteristics depend on the strength of the individual, this could be described as a sort of ‘practical atheism’ all of the above could be described as an obsession with ‘measurable outcomes’.

Go to some of the large pastor’s conference and the question on most pastors minds (subtly is always recommended here) is; ‘how big is yours’. For some Pastors Mega Church is a type of ‘phallic symbol’. A flow chart that points up, growth, the obsession with statistics (that can be used for a desired end!), increase, the emphasis on more giving, large flowing budgets, the latest range of company cars, supporting enough boutique ministries to create a good impression, plush offices, the latest latté’ machine, slick business suits that reek of success, (Pentecostals love suits!) comfy expensive lounges, personal secretaries, plush salaries, with lots of fringe benefits to go, this soul saving & growing business, makes for a very good living. Big boardroom meetings where the product is not ‘stocks and bonds’ but the profitable business of growing the Church and getting the common man to make this all happen (try to make an appointment with one of these pastors they are always in meetings).

When the focus is primarily on ‘outcomes’ prayer will become a token gesture, why? it doesn’t really require any internal interrogation and, we don’t need God to do what we can ourselves. Sure we will spout the token gesture prayers ‘lord we can’t do anything without you’ (well, we managed to build this Church mostly by ourselves, so that’s not true!) these sort of prayers are all about God blessing our efforts our programs and endorsing our mindset and schedule, it turns into a big ‘bless us’ club.

When have I recognized my inherent dignity?

 

There is nothing you can do to lose the Holy Spirit; the most you can do, as Ephesians cleverly says, is to “grieve” the existing Presence that is “sealed” within you (4:30). You can, therefore, be ignorant of your birthright. You can neglect the gift, and thus not enjoy its wonderful fruits.

That seems to be the case with many people, and is what we mean by “sinners.” The word signifies not moral inferiors so much as people who do not know who they are and whose they are, people who have no connection to their inherent dignity and importance. They have to struggle for it by all kinds of futile performances. What a waste.

Thus, do not hate “sinners” or look down on them. Feel sorry for what they are missing out on!

From The Naked Now: Learning to See as the Mystics See (p.21)

Christ Within!!

 

The true love of self  is not found anywhere ‘out there’ such as; self-help books, seminars, personal development programs or positive thinking, true acceptance begins, when you see Christ within. To see Christ here, is to love the Christ within, not the Christ somewhere without. Christ does not live in a separate compartment in your life, he is not separate and detached, he is so entwined within, that the Christ looks back at you through the very fabric and the essence of your being. We don’t see the hand in the glove; we only see the hand through the shape and the texture of the glove “Christ in you the hope of glory”.

A Collage!

 

It goes without saying that my faith has been forged through authentic doubt. Pseudo faith causes one to arrive at its destination (certainty) by bypassing all the necessary steps in between. Authentic doubt will always ask the question ‘how did I arrive at this place? Only real steps can ever be retraced.

When we ‘invite’ God into out midst, its not that he has removed himself, and now he must enter once again like someone coming back into a room, What we are really doing is asking God to help us to be aware yet again of where he already is and always has been…. in us and with us!

Is God a ‘risk taker’? and how can anyone be a risk taker who knows the outcome. Could it be that God chooses to not know the outcome, and if this is true, this throws a whole new light on your life and mine?

 There is a subtle suggestion in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah that God didn’t know how many righteous people were in the city. If God knows the end of all things, can he also choose to not know? Maybe God also takes risks! The creation of Humans would tend to support this. God’s reaction to the fall does seem to contain an element of genuine surprise and shock! If this is all true, it fills me with a new sense of ….AWE!

When considering change. we have to have an oblique approach… We have to sneak past the watchful dragons of consciousness ( C S Lewis).

Billy Graham often used to say; “God has a wonderful plan for you life” what does this mean to those who don’t live in the West? One of the most oft repeated (and misquoted) verses in the NT would be Romans 8: 28 “all things work together”…what does this really mean? And is death to the ego the real hidden meaning?

… ‘Mercy within mercy within mercy’

 

Hyper-Calvinism says; “if only for one person Jesus would still have died” yet on the other hand dismisses the whole of the human race who were not fortunate to be ‘chosen’ or to be part of the ‘elect’. We back up such a view with the idea that God’s plans can never be understood and nor should they. It’s a little like the man walking along the beach wondering which starfish to ‘throw back’ and then drawing straws to decide. There are elements in this that are not that dissimilar to the Nazis view of the master race. To have such a view is to see people as simple fire fodder.

“…To say that Christ has locked all the doors, has given one answer, settled everything and then departed…leaving all of life enclosed in the frightful consistency of a system outside of which is damnation, inside of which there is the intolerable flippancy of the saved” (Thomas Merton)

This is not love in any language, but more a description of a God with strong psychopathic tendencies…pray you get him on a good day! Any theology that places me at the very center of the universe will create arrogance, self-righteousness, pride, contempt and a pampered ego of the worst kind. Lets pray that this sort of theology remains under lock and key and remains our ‘worst’ best kept secret’ lets pray that the non-elect NEVER, EVER find this out. If this sort of Calvinistic view is true, there are some of us (the elect) who might wish we were never born. We have so narrowly defined the depth of God’s love that to plunge within is to risk life and limb…The bottom is always in view. Merton aptly describes God’s love thus; “mercy within mercy within mercy”