My professor would often speak of the church within the church. His cryptic phrase used the word church to refer to two different realities - and, therein, is the key to understanding his thought.
He used the word church to refer to a spiritual community of Christ-followers. This use of the word communicated deep, spiritual relationships that were centered around a mutual commitment to living and growing as the followers of Jesus. Church in this sense of the word is about relationships (spiritual friendships), spiritual development, and living the ways of God that Jesus taught in everyday relationships, routines, and responsibilities. Acts 2:42, 43-47 describes this kind of spiritual community.
He also used the word church to refer to the institutional church. The institutional church is about organization and structure, roles and responsibilities, programs and activities and events, finances and funding, expectations and standards of conduct and belief. Because human relationships are often messy and chaotic, some kind of organization and structure are needed as the size of the group grows. We see this reality in Acts 6:1-7. A specific group of seven men were identified for a particular role and given specific responsibilities in order to address a specific need. Role and responsibility, organization and structure arose in response to a specific need.
Ideally, these two expressions of church would be compatible and interdependent. The institutional church would exist to foster the spiritual community committed to growing and living as the followers of Jesus. The institution - as in Acts 6 - addresses a specific need. The spiritual community, in turn, would keep the institutional church spiritually alive, vibrant, and healthy.
My professor's statement suggests a different reality. The institutional church is almost (almost?!) always dominant. The spiritual community sometimes exists within it - the spiritual community within the institutional church.
In my experience, the institutional church generally displaces the spiritual community. Instead of serving and fostering the spiritual community, the functioning and survival of the institutional church become the focus. The institution's functioning and survival dominate spending, determine priorities and focus, and dictate where energies are invested. Members become concerned when the institution is in decline (attendance and giving fall off) but seldom recognize the loss of spiritual vitality and health that always precedes institutional decline.
I have spent my adult life and my career serving the institutional church - managing the organization, making sure roles were filled and responsibilities were fulfilled, planning and implementing traditional events and activities, dealing with peoples' expectations and desires ... all the while being responsible for keeping the institution growing and well funded, working to keep the members happy.
My call and my passion are spiritual formation - spiritual growth and development that takes place in the context of deep, spiritual friendships. My gifts are used in living out that call and passion - (compare Isaiah 50:4 and Ephesians 4:7, 11-16.) I served the institutional church as a platform for living out my call and my passion, for using my gifts.
This past February, I made the decision to retire as an elder in The United Methodist Church. That means I am retiring from my leadership role in the institutional church. I am retiring from the itinerant ministry in The UMC. However, I cannot retire from a call. I cannot step aside from the passion God has placed within me. I cannot lay aside the gifts the Spirit has given me. God's call, the Spirit's gifts, the God-given passion are who I am. Let me be clear: I am not saying my identity is/was tied to a role in the institutional church. Far from it. I set that role aside with relief. What I am saying is I will continue to live out of who God has created and is creating me to be. I am eager to see what God has for me in this next stage of life.
More about the church within the church next week.
Monday, April 29, 2019
Sunday, April 21, 2019
The Gift (and Danger!) of Metaphor: A Meditation for Easter
Bringing our best thinking to Bible study (see last week's post - Bringing Our Best Thinking to Bible Study, 04/15/19) includes recognizing and honoring the use of metaphor in speaking of spiritual things.
In our effort to speak of spiritual things, we have only one language to use: our human language. We use human concepts and images to speak of God and the things of God. We use our understanding of the physical realm to speak of the spiritual realm. In other words (pardon the pun), we use the things we know (the physical) to talk about things we only partially know (the spiritual). Even at our best, we struggle for language to communicate the mystery that is inherent to spiritual things.
That's where metaphor comes in. Metaphor is like a signpost, pointing beyond itself to something greater. Metaphor belongs to the domain of poetry, not science. It is not exact. It is not precise. It always leaves room for mystery. Metaphor says "it's kind of like this, only more, only better." All biblical language, because it is human language, is metaphor.
For example, the Hebrew people used the concept of covenant to speak of their relationship with God. Covenant was a part of their human experience. It defined how two parties would live in relationship with one another. The Hebrew people used the concept of covenant (the human) to speak of their relationship with God (the spiritual). Their covenant with God defined how God would relate to them and they to God. (BTW, they misunderstood the concept and missed God's greater truth, but that's a topic for a different blog.)
In the same way, the Apostle Paul used common, everyday words from his culture to communicate the spiritual realities of what God had done in Christ. Our great biblical words - justification, redemption, righteousness, adoption - were not, originally, religious terms. They were human concepts chosen to communicate spiritual reality. No one term was adequate to communicate the full spiritual reality, so Paul piled up the images - the metaphors.
Metaphor is a gift. When we recognize and honor metaphor, it helps us gain an understanding of spiritual things. But our understanding is partial, at best. There is always more to the spiritual reality than what we understand. So metaphor opens the door to understanding while, at the same time, inviting us beyond that understanding to explore "the more." What we understand through metaphor becomes the first step to understanding deeper spiritual realities.
But there is a downside to metaphor - a danger. The danger lies in reading the metaphor literally. When we read a metaphor literally, we substitute the human concept for the greater, spiritual reality to which it points ... and generally miss the greater reality! Rather than being a tool to help us understand the greater reality, the metaphor becomes a fact to believe. This kind of literal understanding is generally accompanied by being rigid in our thinking. (Which came first, the literal reading or the rigid thinking?) We believe these facts in a quest for certainty. We want to be right. (More on that desire in another blog.)
Reading the Bible literally (which is how most of us initially read it) has a number of devastating side effects.
In the last 200 years, a literal understanding of the metaphor of atonement has become the common way of understanding Jesus' death. This understanding asserts that, on the cross, Jesus died for our sins. That is, he took our place. He experienced the death we deserved. Because he died for us, we can be forgiven. We only need to believe.
This literal understanding of atonement reduces Jesus' death to a belief-based transaction with God. It is a deal God makes with us in exchange for our belief. If we believe in Jesus, inviting him in our hearts/lives, accepting him as our Savior, God will forgive us. The promise of "going to heaven when we die" is generally tagged on, to sweeten the deal. This understanding of Jesus' death was probably what was preached in most pulpits this Easter Sunday. It is a man-centered version of Christianity.
Atonement is a strong, biblical metaphor that comes from the sacrificial system of the Tabernacle. Like all metaphors, it communicates a truth. Atonement is about God's forgiveness. God forgives our sin. Our sin no longer separates us from God. Because we are forgiven, we are free to live in relationship with God without fear or guilt. We can approach God with confidence. (This truth is the heart of the book of Hebrews.)
The literal understanding of this metaphor gets the theme correct: forgiveness. But it falls short of "the more." It follows human thinking, projecting that thinking onto God: "Jesus had to die to get God to forgive us." It keeps us stuck in our old ways of thinking and living because the greater reality is missed. It keeps us focused on "what's in it for us," not on God.
The "more" that the atonement metaphor proclaims is about God. God forgives us because of who God is, not because of what we do. Forgiveness is God's gift, given freely, lavishly. It is the way God deals with our humanness, our weaknesses, our failures, our sin. The metaphor of atonement points us beyond forgiveness to change how we think about God and, thereby, how we relate to God.
Atonement is not about "getting off the hook" or "not getting what we deserve." It is so much more. It invites us to ground our lives in something beyond our normal human experience. It calls us to deal with our humanness the way God deals with it - with forgiveness. Forgiveness sets us free. It sets us free from guilt and shame, from pretense and denial. It sets us free to be honest and authentic, to learn and grow and change.
I like the way Richard Rohr expresses "the more" of the atonement metaphor: Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us. Jesus died to change our minds about God.
In our effort to speak of spiritual things, we have only one language to use: our human language. We use human concepts and images to speak of God and the things of God. We use our understanding of the physical realm to speak of the spiritual realm. In other words (pardon the pun), we use the things we know (the physical) to talk about things we only partially know (the spiritual). Even at our best, we struggle for language to communicate the mystery that is inherent to spiritual things.
That's where metaphor comes in. Metaphor is like a signpost, pointing beyond itself to something greater. Metaphor belongs to the domain of poetry, not science. It is not exact. It is not precise. It always leaves room for mystery. Metaphor says "it's kind of like this, only more, only better." All biblical language, because it is human language, is metaphor.
For example, the Hebrew people used the concept of covenant to speak of their relationship with God. Covenant was a part of their human experience. It defined how two parties would live in relationship with one another. The Hebrew people used the concept of covenant (the human) to speak of their relationship with God (the spiritual). Their covenant with God defined how God would relate to them and they to God. (BTW, they misunderstood the concept and missed God's greater truth, but that's a topic for a different blog.)
In the same way, the Apostle Paul used common, everyday words from his culture to communicate the spiritual realities of what God had done in Christ. Our great biblical words - justification, redemption, righteousness, adoption - were not, originally, religious terms. They were human concepts chosen to communicate spiritual reality. No one term was adequate to communicate the full spiritual reality, so Paul piled up the images - the metaphors.
Metaphor is a gift. When we recognize and honor metaphor, it helps us gain an understanding of spiritual things. But our understanding is partial, at best. There is always more to the spiritual reality than what we understand. So metaphor opens the door to understanding while, at the same time, inviting us beyond that understanding to explore "the more." What we understand through metaphor becomes the first step to understanding deeper spiritual realities.
But there is a downside to metaphor - a danger. The danger lies in reading the metaphor literally. When we read a metaphor literally, we substitute the human concept for the greater, spiritual reality to which it points ... and generally miss the greater reality! Rather than being a tool to help us understand the greater reality, the metaphor becomes a fact to believe. This kind of literal understanding is generally accompanied by being rigid in our thinking. (Which came first, the literal reading or the rigid thinking?) We believe these facts in a quest for certainty. We want to be right. (More on that desire in another blog.)
Reading the Bible literally (which is how most of us initially read it) has a number of devastating side effects.
- We focus on facts to believe - what is "biblical."
- We lose the sense of mystery - "the more" that is inherent to the spiritual realm.
- Our quest for certainty puts God in a box. Our understanding of God becomes limited and small.
- We generally create God in our image. We dress our human ways in religious garb.
- Our faith shifts from "faith in God" to faith in what we believe or to what the Bible says.
- We often and unknowingly become unteachable. Clinging to what we believe, we resist anything that does not fit with what we already believe. Our belief becomes the standard for judging "what is true."
In the last 200 years, a literal understanding of the metaphor of atonement has become the common way of understanding Jesus' death. This understanding asserts that, on the cross, Jesus died for our sins. That is, he took our place. He experienced the death we deserved. Because he died for us, we can be forgiven. We only need to believe.
This literal understanding of atonement reduces Jesus' death to a belief-based transaction with God. It is a deal God makes with us in exchange for our belief. If we believe in Jesus, inviting him in our hearts/lives, accepting him as our Savior, God will forgive us. The promise of "going to heaven when we die" is generally tagged on, to sweeten the deal. This understanding of Jesus' death was probably what was preached in most pulpits this Easter Sunday. It is a man-centered version of Christianity.
Atonement is a strong, biblical metaphor that comes from the sacrificial system of the Tabernacle. Like all metaphors, it communicates a truth. Atonement is about God's forgiveness. God forgives our sin. Our sin no longer separates us from God. Because we are forgiven, we are free to live in relationship with God without fear or guilt. We can approach God with confidence. (This truth is the heart of the book of Hebrews.)
The literal understanding of this metaphor gets the theme correct: forgiveness. But it falls short of "the more." It follows human thinking, projecting that thinking onto God: "Jesus had to die to get God to forgive us." It keeps us stuck in our old ways of thinking and living because the greater reality is missed. It keeps us focused on "what's in it for us," not on God.
The "more" that the atonement metaphor proclaims is about God. God forgives us because of who God is, not because of what we do. Forgiveness is God's gift, given freely, lavishly. It is the way God deals with our humanness, our weaknesses, our failures, our sin. The metaphor of atonement points us beyond forgiveness to change how we think about God and, thereby, how we relate to God.
Atonement is not about "getting off the hook" or "not getting what we deserve." It is so much more. It invites us to ground our lives in something beyond our normal human experience. It calls us to deal with our humanness the way God deals with it - with forgiveness. Forgiveness sets us free. It sets us free from guilt and shame, from pretense and denial. It sets us free to be honest and authentic, to learn and grow and change.
I like the way Richard Rohr expresses "the more" of the atonement metaphor: Jesus didn't die to change God's mind about us. Jesus died to change our minds about God.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Bringing Our Best Thinking to Study the Bible
The spiritual realm is where life in its fullness is discovered and experienced. Apart from the spiritual realm, our lives are woefully empty and bankrupt.
Our understanding of the spiritual realm and our experience of it are inseparably tied to how we read and use the Bible. How we read and use the Bible determines the condition of our soul - what we are like deep inside. It determines both our spiritual depth and our spiritual maturity. The Spirit uses the teachings of scripture - particularly the teachings of Jesus - to fashion our hearts and minds in the likeness of Jesus. Given these realities, reason suggests our study of the Bible deserves our best thinking.
It seems to me, in spite of all the many hours Christians invest in the study of the Bible, that we seldom bring our best thinking to that study. We revert instead to simplistic thinking.
Simplistic thinking is black-and-white, either-or thinking. It reduces the complexity that is inherent to the spiritual realm into facts to believe and rules to follow. Simplistic thinking seeks certainty - knowing and believing and doing what is "right."
In our quest for certainty, we turn to some "expert" to teach us - a book to study or a video to watch or a teacher to lead us. We let the expert tell us what the Bible says and what to believe. Seldom do we allow the Spirit to guide our own thinking much less look for someone to teach us how to read the Bible so that it makes sense. It is easier to let someone do our thinking for us. Such is simplistic thinking.
Simplistic thinking often leads us to what we already believe. Rather than scripture shaping our thinking, we use scripture to reinforce and validate what we already think. Simplistic thinking leaves us unchanged and in control.
The spiritual realm is far too complex for simplistic thinking. The spiritual realm is a realm of mystery. There is always more to the spiritual realm than we can understand or explain. Our understanding of this realm and, thereby, our understanding of God is, at best, partial. There is always more to God than we can comprehend. The Apostle Paul spoke of our limited understanding in 1 Corinthians 13: We know only in part ... but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part; then I will know fully (verses 9-10, 12.)
Our best thinking embraces the mystery of the spiritual realm. It constantly seeks "the more" that the Spirit has for us. We hold our beliefs lightly as we look to the Spirit to guide us into a deeper understanding of mystery. Our best thinking keeps us open and teachable, willing to entertain new concepts and different perspectives. It allows for grey areas that do not divide neatly into black-and-white categories. It embraces the tension of both/and thinking, refusing the temptation to seek certainty through either/or thinking.
Our best thinking involves faith. Our faith is in God and in who Jesus revealed God to be. Our "certainty" is tied to God's merciful and gracious character (Exodus 34:6-7), to God's nature of self-giving, servant love (1 John 4:8-10). Whatever "the more" is, it will align with God's character as revealed to Moses and in Jesus. As we seek a deeper understanding and experience of the mysteries of the spiritual realm, the Spirit guides our steps. God's love, mercy, grace, acceptance, and forgiveness are signposts that mark the path in the unexplored dimensions of the spiritual realm.
Our best thinking makes us active participants on the spiritual journey rather than passive recipients. It makes us God's partners in what God is doing in us, transforming us into the likeness of Jesus. It makes us God's partners in what God is doing through us to transform the world.
Surely, such a grand enterprise calls for our best thinking, don't you think?
Monday, April 8, 2019
But I Say to You ...
How we use the Bible is a key factor in our spiritual lives. Our approach to scripture determines the outcome. So, once again, I come at this critical issue from another direction; this time, from the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. His teachings in Matthew 5 guide us in how to read and use the Bible.
Matthew's gospel was written to a Jewish audience. The gospel presents Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, as one greater than Moses. Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount call the Jewish audience beyond their focus on obedience to the Law of Moses. We would do well to learn from what Jesus taught lest we repeat the failure of the author's audience: a behavior-oriented spirituality.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus indicated that he did not come to abolish (do away with) the Law, but rather to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He came to bring the Law to its intended end. That objective is spiritual maturity: "be perfect (mature) as your heavenly father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Such maturity is expressed in the ability to love even one's enemies (Matthew 5:44).
This goal of spiritual growth that leads to Godlike maturity shapes how we read and use the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible lead us to love as God loves - unconditionally, without excluding anyone (see Matthew 5:44-47)?
The fulfillment of the Law goes beyond a focus on behavior - what to do, not do. Six different times Jesus quoted the Law, "You have heard that it was said" (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38), then said "but I say to you" (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39). Each time, Jesus moved beyond the Law's focus on behavior to the underlying spiritual principle. Jesus pointed to the spiritual principle as the guide to how one lived. He understood that one could keep the Law (avoid the prohibited behavior), yet violate the spiritual principle. His teachings focused on the deeper truth.
Spiritual truth leads us to spiritual maturity; the Law's focus on behavior becomes an obstacle to spiritual maturity. The Law's focus on behavior was on what not to do. It never leads us beyond the negative focus of what to avoid doing. Living by spiritual truth moves us to the positive dimension of what to do, ultimately, to love as God loves. The Law's focus on behavior leads us to judge and segregate ourselves into us-them divisions. In other words, the Law does not lead us to love who God loves. Spiritual truth leads us to embrace all.
Jesus' distinction between a focus on behavior (the Law) and spiritual truth shapes how we read the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible lead us to spiritual truth or to rules that focus on right-and- wrong behavior? Does our reading of the Bible lead us to the transformation of heart and mind (internal focus) or to what not to do (external focus on behavior)?
We probably cannot grasp how monumental Jesus' statement in the Sermon on the Mount was: "but I say to you." Jesus placed his teachings over the teachings of Moses and 1000 years of historical interpretation of the Law.
Jesus boldness shapes how we read the Bible. Jesus' life, teachings, and ministry (reflecting the character of God and the ways of God) become the guide to how we understand the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible reflect what Jesus taught and how Jesus lived?
How we read and use the Bible is vitally important! We would do well to give it our best thinking ... but that's my next blog.
Matthew's gospel was written to a Jewish audience. The gospel presents Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah, as one greater than Moses. Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount call the Jewish audience beyond their focus on obedience to the Law of Moses. We would do well to learn from what Jesus taught lest we repeat the failure of the author's audience: a behavior-oriented spirituality.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus indicated that he did not come to abolish (do away with) the Law, but rather to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). He came to bring the Law to its intended end. That objective is spiritual maturity: "be perfect (mature) as your heavenly father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). Such maturity is expressed in the ability to love even one's enemies (Matthew 5:44).
This goal of spiritual growth that leads to Godlike maturity shapes how we read and use the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible lead us to love as God loves - unconditionally, without excluding anyone (see Matthew 5:44-47)?
The fulfillment of the Law goes beyond a focus on behavior - what to do, not do. Six different times Jesus quoted the Law, "You have heard that it was said" (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38), then said "but I say to you" (Matthew 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39). Each time, Jesus moved beyond the Law's focus on behavior to the underlying spiritual principle. Jesus pointed to the spiritual principle as the guide to how one lived. He understood that one could keep the Law (avoid the prohibited behavior), yet violate the spiritual principle. His teachings focused on the deeper truth.
Spiritual truth leads us to spiritual maturity; the Law's focus on behavior becomes an obstacle to spiritual maturity. The Law's focus on behavior was on what not to do. It never leads us beyond the negative focus of what to avoid doing. Living by spiritual truth moves us to the positive dimension of what to do, ultimately, to love as God loves. The Law's focus on behavior leads us to judge and segregate ourselves into us-them divisions. In other words, the Law does not lead us to love who God loves. Spiritual truth leads us to embrace all.
Jesus' distinction between a focus on behavior (the Law) and spiritual truth shapes how we read the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible lead us to spiritual truth or to rules that focus on right-and- wrong behavior? Does our reading of the Bible lead us to the transformation of heart and mind (internal focus) or to what not to do (external focus on behavior)?
We probably cannot grasp how monumental Jesus' statement in the Sermon on the Mount was: "but I say to you." Jesus placed his teachings over the teachings of Moses and 1000 years of historical interpretation of the Law.
Jesus boldness shapes how we read the Bible. Jesus' life, teachings, and ministry (reflecting the character of God and the ways of God) become the guide to how we understand the Bible. Does our reading of the Bible reflect what Jesus taught and how Jesus lived?
How we read and use the Bible is vitally important! We would do well to give it our best thinking ... but that's my next blog.
Monday, April 1, 2019
Asking A Better Question
We who call ourselves Christians turn to the Bible for guidance. It is important to us if something is "biblical," that is, taught in the Bible.
In last week's post (Is It "Biblical"?, 3/25/19), I questioned this kind of thinking. I suggested that we were asking the wrong question when we asked "Is it biblical?"
We who call ourselves Christians often treat the Bible as though it is God's final, most complete self-revelation. We turn to it and quote it as though what the Bible says is the final word on what is true. We place our faith in its total reliability.
In reality, the Bible is not God's most complete self-revelation. The Bible bears witness to - is the record of - God's most complete self-revelation. Jesus and Jesus alone was, is, and always will be the most complete revelation of God's nature and God's ways. Consider the testimony of the New Testament writers:
So we turn to the Bible ... to know what Jesus revealed to us about God! Whatever "truth" we identify must be in harmony with God's nature and character, in harmony with God's ways, an expression of God's grace. In other words, "biblical" truth will always be in harmony with who Jesus revealed God to be.
Some things in the Bible are an expression of our human nature, not God's nature ... of our ways, not God's ways. (I developed this thought in last week's post.) Our thinking, our understanding, our position might actually be "biblical," i.e., found in the Bible, but not in harmony with God's nature and character or an expression of God's ways of grace. Because it is "biblical," we think we are "right" when, in reality, we are out of step with God.
So, the better question to ask: is my understanding, my thinking, my position in harmony with the nature and character of God? is it an expression of God's ways of grace? is it in harmony with the life and teachings of Jesus? Is it Christlike?
In last week's post (Is It "Biblical"?, 3/25/19), I questioned this kind of thinking. I suggested that we were asking the wrong question when we asked "Is it biblical?"
We who call ourselves Christians often treat the Bible as though it is God's final, most complete self-revelation. We turn to it and quote it as though what the Bible says is the final word on what is true. We place our faith in its total reliability.
In reality, the Bible is not God's most complete self-revelation. The Bible bears witness to - is the record of - God's most complete self-revelation. Jesus and Jesus alone was, is, and always will be the most complete revelation of God's nature and God's ways. Consider the testimony of the New Testament writers:
- He (Jesus, the Son) is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being (Hebrews 1:3, NRSV).
- The Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of a father's only son, full of grace and truth. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son ... who has made him known (John 1:14, 18).
- Jesus speaking to his disciples: whoever has seen me has seen the Father (John 14:9).
- He (Jesus, the Son) is the visible image of the invisible God. In him, all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell (Colossians 1:15, 19).
So we turn to the Bible ... to know what Jesus revealed to us about God! Whatever "truth" we identify must be in harmony with God's nature and character, in harmony with God's ways, an expression of God's grace. In other words, "biblical" truth will always be in harmony with who Jesus revealed God to be.
Some things in the Bible are an expression of our human nature, not God's nature ... of our ways, not God's ways. (I developed this thought in last week's post.) Our thinking, our understanding, our position might actually be "biblical," i.e., found in the Bible, but not in harmony with God's nature and character or an expression of God's ways of grace. Because it is "biblical," we think we are "right" when, in reality, we are out of step with God.
So, the better question to ask: is my understanding, my thinking, my position in harmony with the nature and character of God? is it an expression of God's ways of grace? is it in harmony with the life and teachings of Jesus? Is it Christlike?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)