Paul wrote that "we do not grieve as those who have no hope." By this, he means that we grieve as those who do have hope: we grieve - grieve is a necessary and inevitable part of the Christian life, as Jesus Himself tells us - but we grieve with hope.
The godless pagans and heathens grieve without hope. The Christians grieve with hope. Is there anyone who does not grieve at all? Only an idiot or a fool would believe that.
All the major people in the Bible grieved. We all grieve, sooner or later.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
The Theology of the Cross
What does it mean that God loves me? What form does His love take in my life? And in our collective life as a congregation? No human can ever totally understand the breadth and depth of God's love, but do I have at least a partially correct acquaintance with it? Try these questions:
Where do I look for the most certain sign of God's love? At my bank statement? At my child's report card? At my spouse? At my medical report? At the cross?
If I'm poor, sick, uneducated, or lonely, does that mean that God doesn't love me as much? Or that I've done something to prevent His love from blessing me?
What does God promise? What does God not promise?
The questions above point to two competing views of God; they are labeled "the theology of the Cross" and "the theology of glory" and learning the difference between the two can help us clarify our thinking about God.
The theology of glory say that God's ways can generally be understood by human reason; that God's favor is manifested in the circumstances of life, in particular, life's successes and victories, in health and happiness; and that God is pleased by sincere human effort.
The theology of the Cross says that God's ways are paradoxical and hidden to human reason - we cannot understand God - we can only worship the mystery; God's favor is manifested in Jesus, in particular, His suffering, death, and resurrection - Jesus is God's gift to us, and His love for us; God is pleased only by Jesus, and Jesus advocates for us.
If we buy into the theology of glory, then when suffering comes our way (as individuals or as a congregation), we will face a crisis of faith - because God has promised that we will suffer in this life. He never promised us a rose garden; He never promised us that "victorious living" meant that we would not endure pain of all types and magnitudes. He did, however, promise that He would be with us as we suffer, with His Spirit and His Love.
Where do I look for the most certain sign of God's love? At my bank statement? At my child's report card? At my spouse? At my medical report? At the cross?
If I'm poor, sick, uneducated, or lonely, does that mean that God doesn't love me as much? Or that I've done something to prevent His love from blessing me?
What does God promise? What does God not promise?
The questions above point to two competing views of God; they are labeled "the theology of the Cross" and "the theology of glory" and learning the difference between the two can help us clarify our thinking about God.
The theology of glory say that God's ways can generally be understood by human reason; that God's favor is manifested in the circumstances of life, in particular, life's successes and victories, in health and happiness; and that God is pleased by sincere human effort.
The theology of the Cross says that God's ways are paradoxical and hidden to human reason - we cannot understand God - we can only worship the mystery; God's favor is manifested in Jesus, in particular, His suffering, death, and resurrection - Jesus is God's gift to us, and His love for us; God is pleased only by Jesus, and Jesus advocates for us.
If we buy into the theology of glory, then when suffering comes our way (as individuals or as a congregation), we will face a crisis of faith - because God has promised that we will suffer in this life. He never promised us a rose garden; He never promised us that "victorious living" meant that we would not endure pain of all types and magnitudes. He did, however, promise that He would be with us as we suffer, with His Spirit and His Love.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Spiritual Authority
When there are organizational conflicts about congregational politics in a parish, the word "authority" will in most cases be used. Who has authority? Who is obliged to honor that authority? Both sides in a disagreement may find a way to claim authority.
So what is the nature of authority within a Christian community? The quick answer is: I don't know. But let me suggest a few starting points for an investigation of the concept of authority. As always, Scripture is the source and norm for such discussion.
In related passages (Romans 13:1-2 and Titus 3:1), Paul discusses worldly or secular authority. This is to be clearly distinguished from authority within the church. Paul makes this clear in his vocabulary choices: magistrates and principalities.
In the epistle to the Hebrews (13:7 and 13:17), we see ecclesiastical authority discussed. Here it is defined, and we do well to heed these definitions: "leaders, who spoke the word of God to you" and "they keep watch over you as men who must give an account." Here we see three parts of a definition of spiritual authority: first, they speak the word of God; second, they keep watch; third, they do so as men who must give an account.
If I ask, who has spiritual authority in this congregation, the answer is tripartite: those who are speaking the word of God, who are keeping watch, and who are doing so as men who must give an account.
By this definition, anyone who does not speak with word of God (i.e., who does not teach or preach from the Scripture), or who does not keep watch (i.e., as a shepherd protectively nurtures and oversees a flock), or who does not do so with a sense of accountability (i.e., the stewardship of one who realizes that God, the owner of the flock, asks that protective nurture and oversight from His shepherds), is therefore not a spiritual authority, and should therefore not be regarded or recognized as a spiritual authority.
Peter adds to this definition in his first letter, stating that shepherds "serve" (5:2) in way which is "not lording" but rather "being examples."
By Peter's words we then understand that anyone who "lords" (i.e., who exerts positional authority, making demands based merely on his job title, rather than God's written word) is not a spiritual authority. Such "hirelings" work only for money, and run away when suffering appears (John 10:11-14); yet suffering is the school of God to train His saints in righteousness and grow in them the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22).
These definitions, written clearly in the New Testament, underlie Peter's word (Acts 5:29) that we must obey "God rather than men" - because God has given us definitions of whom we respect as spiritual authorities: God decides who is a spiritual authority. No man can declare himself a spiritual authority. Any self-appointed authority is therefore not an authority.
In chapter 23 of Matthew, Jesus speaks sternly about such self-appointed authorities.
Finally, in Paul's first letter to Timothy (5:19-20), we read that if two or three witnesses can be brought against an elder - reminding us of Deuteronomy 17:6, which writes that we can do nothing based on the testimony of single witness - somebody who claims spiritual authority should be "publicly rebuked."
To re-state my introduction, I write that I do not fully understand what spiritual authority is, or who has it. But these passages of Scripture are the foundation for any doctrine about spiritual authority.
So what is the nature of authority within a Christian community? The quick answer is: I don't know. But let me suggest a few starting points for an investigation of the concept of authority. As always, Scripture is the source and norm for such discussion.
In related passages (Romans 13:1-2 and Titus 3:1), Paul discusses worldly or secular authority. This is to be clearly distinguished from authority within the church. Paul makes this clear in his vocabulary choices: magistrates and principalities.
In the epistle to the Hebrews (13:7 and 13:17), we see ecclesiastical authority discussed. Here it is defined, and we do well to heed these definitions: "leaders, who spoke the word of God to you" and "they keep watch over you as men who must give an account." Here we see three parts of a definition of spiritual authority: first, they speak the word of God; second, they keep watch; third, they do so as men who must give an account.
If I ask, who has spiritual authority in this congregation, the answer is tripartite: those who are speaking the word of God, who are keeping watch, and who are doing so as men who must give an account.
By this definition, anyone who does not speak with word of God (i.e., who does not teach or preach from the Scripture), or who does not keep watch (i.e., as a shepherd protectively nurtures and oversees a flock), or who does not do so with a sense of accountability (i.e., the stewardship of one who realizes that God, the owner of the flock, asks that protective nurture and oversight from His shepherds), is therefore not a spiritual authority, and should therefore not be regarded or recognized as a spiritual authority.
Peter adds to this definition in his first letter, stating that shepherds "serve" (5:2) in way which is "not lording" but rather "being examples."
By Peter's words we then understand that anyone who "lords" (i.e., who exerts positional authority, making demands based merely on his job title, rather than God's written word) is not a spiritual authority. Such "hirelings" work only for money, and run away when suffering appears (John 10:11-14); yet suffering is the school of God to train His saints in righteousness and grow in them the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22).
These definitions, written clearly in the New Testament, underlie Peter's word (Acts 5:29) that we must obey "God rather than men" - because God has given us definitions of whom we respect as spiritual authorities: God decides who is a spiritual authority. No man can declare himself a spiritual authority. Any self-appointed authority is therefore not an authority.
In chapter 23 of Matthew, Jesus speaks sternly about such self-appointed authorities.
Finally, in Paul's first letter to Timothy (5:19-20), we read that if two or three witnesses can be brought against an elder - reminding us of Deuteronomy 17:6, which writes that we can do nothing based on the testimony of single witness - somebody who claims spiritual authority should be "publicly rebuked."
To re-state my introduction, I write that I do not fully understand what spiritual authority is, or who has it. But these passages of Scripture are the foundation for any doctrine about spiritual authority.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)