A New Year a New View?
I am home not feeling well today. Maybe it is not good to work on deep thoughts in this state. Difficult posts like this one may not be wise. After this post, I may be branded as a heretic. Much of my thoughts have come to the surface as I have been doing some reading of several authors these days.
I have grown up an evangelical. I believe in the need for a transforming relationship with Jesus for all of us. I want that for all people. I want them to be disciples of Jesus. I see our evangelical teaching of salvation (what it has become) as very selfish. I will try to explain, but it may not be very eloquent.
We see Jesus as saviour. I have had some conversations with Christian brothers and sisters who have left one church or another because of the doctrinal view on salvation. I had a very briedf but poignant conversation with one brother who said that he left one church because of their view. He thought they did not believe in salvation through grace. I asked him what his definition of "salvation" was. He gave me a very rehearsed and rote version of a doctrinal statement. It became the very much the "Four Spiritual Laws." It was very legalistic. It was a legal transaction. It had very little to do with faith or grace. It was more intellectual ascent framed in a faith argument.
I believe that many of us would agree with his definition. It involved God's wrath being meted on us if we did not agree to the contract. I believe that God is unbelievably disappointed with the human condition. I believe He looks heartbroken at what we have made ourselves. His perfection has been spoiled by our selfishness and greed.
Here is where I am now working through my salvation definition. I think we have the wrong metaphor going in the historical context of Jesus. We remind ourselves that He was in a place in time where a pagan empire which was a dominating culture. Jesus in His reading of the prophet Isaiah, says He has come to be the liberator from an imperialistic lifestyle. In other words, could it have been that He was saying that He was not here to liberate us to a legalistic relationship, but to turn upside down a culture of sin and punishment?
I have been thinking about this for years. If we just look at personal salvation, we reduce grace to what I can get out of it. It is about my freedom, my prosperity and my security. Maybe the definition of salvation is better thought about in terms healing a sick creation not a legal contract. Maybe Jesus in the cross was injecting a much needed cure of grace for legalism. Maybe He was not only about healing the human condition but all of the creation. It is interesting to me that much of His teaching was also about the land and nature and its condition as well.
I have seen some of my best Christian brothers be less than healthy in their treatment of the earth. They have bought into the domination theory. Man is meant to dominate the earth. We consume more than we need. We are overweight and proud. We are stingy in our giving to the poor. But hey, "We're going to heaven." We are part of the special few who have the "right relationship. If people want our life, they should give into Jesus?"
Maybe the transformation that Jesus was speaking about in His life and teaching was more than a personal relationship, where we are safe, secure, prosperous, and staying out of hell. Could it be that Jesus came to save all creation? That means the earth too? Instead of our popular apocalyptic view of heaven and hell, Jesus came as liberator not of domination, but of suffering and grace? Could it be that we have domesticated Jesus to fit our needs, instead of us following His way? Maybe salvation is completely different than what we have thought it to be. Does that make it any less necessary? No. It probably makes it more necessary than ever. What it means is that possibly, we need a new view in this new year? Maybe we have the salvation definition wrong. It is not about me. It is not about the idea of personal salvation. It is about the world. It is about the whole of creation.
Maybe some of you will need to read this post a few times. I might need to as well. I am not sure I have really explained what I mean adequately. I just think that we have not fully gone where Jesus wants us to go. This will have huge impact on the way we live as Christians and the message we proclaim. Transformation in thinking, living and in all of creation is what we need.
So I know I have thrown a great deal out there. It may be confusing. Maybe as we go into the new year maybe it is time for a new view. I would like to start a discussion on this different view. We may be doing some very un-Christ-like things, thinking we were "right." This is an emerging view. I am not sure if I am right.
What do you think?
I have grown up an evangelical. I believe in the need for a transforming relationship with Jesus for all of us. I want that for all people. I want them to be disciples of Jesus. I see our evangelical teaching of salvation (what it has become) as very selfish. I will try to explain, but it may not be very eloquent.
We see Jesus as saviour. I have had some conversations with Christian brothers and sisters who have left one church or another because of the doctrinal view on salvation. I had a very briedf but poignant conversation with one brother who said that he left one church because of their view. He thought they did not believe in salvation through grace. I asked him what his definition of "salvation" was. He gave me a very rehearsed and rote version of a doctrinal statement. It became the very much the "Four Spiritual Laws." It was very legalistic. It was a legal transaction. It had very little to do with faith or grace. It was more intellectual ascent framed in a faith argument.
I believe that many of us would agree with his definition. It involved God's wrath being meted on us if we did not agree to the contract. I believe that God is unbelievably disappointed with the human condition. I believe He looks heartbroken at what we have made ourselves. His perfection has been spoiled by our selfishness and greed.
Here is where I am now working through my salvation definition. I think we have the wrong metaphor going in the historical context of Jesus. We remind ourselves that He was in a place in time where a pagan empire which was a dominating culture. Jesus in His reading of the prophet Isaiah, says He has come to be the liberator from an imperialistic lifestyle. In other words, could it have been that He was saying that He was not here to liberate us to a legalistic relationship, but to turn upside down a culture of sin and punishment?
I have been thinking about this for years. If we just look at personal salvation, we reduce grace to what I can get out of it. It is about my freedom, my prosperity and my security. Maybe the definition of salvation is better thought about in terms healing a sick creation not a legal contract. Maybe Jesus in the cross was injecting a much needed cure of grace for legalism. Maybe He was not only about healing the human condition but all of the creation. It is interesting to me that much of His teaching was also about the land and nature and its condition as well.
I have seen some of my best Christian brothers be less than healthy in their treatment of the earth. They have bought into the domination theory. Man is meant to dominate the earth. We consume more than we need. We are overweight and proud. We are stingy in our giving to the poor. But hey, "We're going to heaven." We are part of the special few who have the "right relationship. If people want our life, they should give into Jesus?"
Maybe the transformation that Jesus was speaking about in His life and teaching was more than a personal relationship, where we are safe, secure, prosperous, and staying out of hell. Could it be that Jesus came to save all creation? That means the earth too? Instead of our popular apocalyptic view of heaven and hell, Jesus came as liberator not of domination, but of suffering and grace? Could it be that we have domesticated Jesus to fit our needs, instead of us following His way? Maybe salvation is completely different than what we have thought it to be. Does that make it any less necessary? No. It probably makes it more necessary than ever. What it means is that possibly, we need a new view in this new year? Maybe we have the salvation definition wrong. It is not about me. It is not about the idea of personal salvation. It is about the world. It is about the whole of creation.
Maybe some of you will need to read this post a few times. I might need to as well. I am not sure I have really explained what I mean adequately. I just think that we have not fully gone where Jesus wants us to go. This will have huge impact on the way we live as Christians and the message we proclaim. Transformation in thinking, living and in all of creation is what we need.
So I know I have thrown a great deal out there. It may be confusing. Maybe as we go into the new year maybe it is time for a new view. I would like to start a discussion on this different view. We may be doing some very un-Christ-like things, thinking we were "right." This is an emerging view. I am not sure if I am right.
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 10:19 AM
11 Comments:
you may think this post might be confusing, but I think it is your best yet. happy new view larry.
Happy New Year
Sorry to hear that you feel poorly. Chicken soup, when made by someone who cares - even if it comes out of a can, carries magical healing properties.
I consider that the gospel according to Luke speaks the exact subject you express. Salvation from suffering, seeking for the very lost, alleviating pain and crushing poverty.
Salvation from the gospel according to Luke was not wealth or security, but instead foundness, restoration, dramatic correction, conviction, "might is not right", alleviated pain, reconciled brokenness and compassionate community.
You are not confusing in your post tonight (but you are slightly more verbose than usual. You just had alot to say, that's all.)
Rest and feel better soon. Embrace and enjoy your new year.
Jeff,
Thanks for the compliment. I am going to elaborate on this new view. It will be interesting to find out if people share my views on heaven and hell.
Jess,
Verbose?????? Me?????
Happy New Year to both of you.
Larry,
you've asked: Could it be that we have domesticated Jesus to fit our needs, instead of us following His way? Dorothy Sayers would answer you this way: "the church has tamed Him, very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified Him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies." Probably not the same context that you're talking about, but a great quote nonetheless.
For me, it's not a matter of discarding the defininition of salvation that has been so essential to the evangelical movement as much as expanding it, allowing it to be both/and. If there is no individual transformation and relationship, then it is unlikely that there will be any sense of spiritual community or redemption in a larger context.
I like the way the Evangelical Environmental Network puts it: "Because in Christ God has healed our alienation from God and extended to us the first fruits of the reconciliation of all things, we commit ourselves to working in the power of the Holy Spirit to share the Good News of Christ in word and deed, to work for the reconciliation of all people in Christ, and to extend Christ's healing to suffering creation."
Romans 8 speaks to the groaning of creation - that's a powerful passage in this discussion.
As the Salvation Army, it would seem as though the primary focus has been on the personal salvation experience, but there have been those efforts through our history that have recognized that there are larger concerns, although generally they have focused on systemic changes rather than environmental ones. It is a tension, one that we have to sort out both personally and corporately.
I'll look forward to hearing more from you on this - it does seem like you're combining some different ideas in this post, and I'm not quite sure where you're going with it.
Don't worry about the heretic label - I had a leader once warn me about going too far afield in my reading and thinking, suggesting that if I persisted, I might get thrown out of the Army, but I figured that if I got thrown out for that, it would be a sorry commentary on the organization. We've got to wrestle with these ideas or we will shrivel up and die.
Larry,
Great post . . .
“Could it be that Jesus came to save all creation? That means the earth too?” Absolutely!
Tikkun olam! . . a Hebrew idea that means to "repair the world" or "fix the broken.”
You can read more on the idea here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam and here: http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=2528
Jesus set his expectation for discipleship when he said, “It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master (Matt 10:25).” In other words, we need to let the teaching and life of Jesus to be our guide, our standard and our goal.
When we consider what Jesus lived and taught we learn that only love can produce such a life. When love rules our heart “salvation” becomes less about heaven or hell or grace or truth or what we do or don’t do and more about what we do for others and the world – Tikkun olam.
Jesus said, “if you love me, you follow my teaching.” “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you (Matt 5:42).” “Sell your possessions and give to the poor (Luke 12:33).”
Only a person who loves can live such a life. Even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45)” – the ultimate example of love.
And so, in all my years of arguing and debating and learning and growing . . . I have come to understand that “salvation” is about love – the highest mark of the human heart.
Blessings,
Bret
Larry,
your 'questions for the journey' are very thought provoking.
I don't want to read you wrong, but I don't think it's selfish to think of Jesus as your personal Savior. I think the problem is if that's where you leave it. If, like you say, we "reduce grace to what we can get out of it," there's a serious problem.
However, I think for many of us the real problem is that our experience of the love of God isn't personal ENOUGH.
Yes, creation groans for redemption. I am a part of that creation, and I need to see how much I need Jesus. Otherwise, if I don't see my need for Him (and increasingly so), ho convincing can I truly be in living out a faith that speaks of that dependence?
I love the Matt Redman song, "Let everything that has breath." There's a line that says, "If we/they could see how much you're worth, your power, your love, your endless might, then surely we/they would never cease to praise." If we agree that to be saved is, in part, to be rightly related to God, then the more rightly related we are to Him, the better our praise will be, the better the worship of the whole world. (?)
Loved the post. Greetings from down under.
Grace,
Phil
Here's a 'New View for the New Year'...
How about the Army leadership begin to consider appointing its top executives back to the corps? Think of it...Commissioners John & Jane Doe, Corps Officers? Colonels So and So, Corps Commanding Officers of a corps in any division USA? Lt. Colonels (place name here) are the Officers in charge of this corps?
Why keep all that experience and knowledge up on high? Place it back in the Corps and watch the Army experience growth.
What do you think?
dear most brilliant thinker:
the name that comes to mind is comm. & Mrs alex hughes, former tc in England, nominated for general but asked for a corps. Two of the most godly people I've ever met. It's too bad that more don't see the advantages of having a mixture of very experienced, good officers, at all levels of leadership. God needs dedicated planners and implementers in order to implement His plan.
Dear most brilliant thinker: The name that comes to mind is Comm. Alex Hughes , TC of England before retirement, who asked for a corps. He had been nominated for general... but chose to ask for a corps. Two of the most Godly and humble servants I've ever met. What a pity that more don't see or maybe pursue the great advantage to the ministry of serving on a more one-to-one, hands-on place at the battlefront. What we do need are fully dedicated planners and implementers to carry out God's plan more fully! Blessings on you and your ministry!
Dear most brilliant thinker: The name that comes to mind is Comm. Alex Hughes , TC of England before retirement, who asked for a corps. He had been nominated for general... but chose to ask for a corps. Two of the most Godly and humble servants I've ever met. What a pity that more don't see or maybe pursue the great advantage to the ministry of serving on a more one-to-one, hands-on place at the battlefront. What we do need are fully dedicated planners and implementers to carry out God's plan more fully! Blessings on you and your ministry!
Post a Comment
<< Home