Room for Comment

This is more a musing than a serious post, but I am interested in your comments all the more.  As we are developing ourselves and deepening our expectation of what it means to be a Christian, I have found some shifts in the way I view fundamental issues.  I mentioned in this week’s conVerge group that I’m starting to see the world through the distinction of sinner/repentant one, instead of seeing the world as saved/unsaved.  What I mean is that when I imagine my audience when I write these posts, or when I speak to people in discipleship mode, I am finding myself wondering less and less if they’ve “prayed a prayer” and more and more about if their life shows the fruit of Christ or if their attitudes bespeak submission to God.  This has been very helpful because it becomes, dare I say it, easier to judge my audience.  I know that I hate having to hedge around sensitive issues, or mince my words to say something just right to meet some standard of religious-political correctness.  I hate having to tell people: “I know that you’re saved (or at least prayed a prayer), but you still need repentance and you need to submit to God’s will for you life.”  Now I can simply say: “Sinner, repent!”  Which one sounds closer to Scripture?  The problem for some will be that we start by calling people sinners, “christian”/churched and non-churched alike.  Instead of euphemistically addressing them as prospective Christians, we need to address them as sinners.  If their sin isn’t revealed by the Law, then they cannot understand their need and thus cannot receive redemption.  But more precisely, people need to hear that they’re sinning because this is the message of the Spirit who gives Life.  The Holy Spirit convicts us in our sin; we must speak the truth. [I edited my post here.  I had ended this paragraph by staying that if we preach cheap grace, then we make it hard for one to accept the more difficult gospel of Christ.  I don’t think, however, that we can thwart God through bad theology.  Jesus WILL have his elect, and we cannot stop him.  However, we can enjoy the fruits of obedience and live in truth.]

The added benefit of this is that it colors my vision of spiritual reality so that God’s sovereignty is always visible.  When I think in terms of repentance instead of salvation, then I am aware of my need to constantly challenge myself with the impossible requirement of imitating Christ.  It’s not “I’m saved so let’s eat, drink, and be merry”, but it’s “I must repent because Christ’s love compels me.”  When we think of newcomers to conVerge, let’s call them “conVergins”, what is their need?  I am convicted and convinced that my need was seeing my sin as sin, and I think it is the same for them.  I titled this post “Works and Grace”, because the ability to see sin is a work of faith, which is from the Lord.  In faith we see God and hear the law proclaimed against us.  If not for faith, then the whole Gospel would be foolishness to us.  What I see in the lives of many LU students is that the Gospel is foolishness to them.  What does this mean?  Well, it means that their not sav…  STOP!

It means that they aren’t repentant.  I don’t really need to worry about their position, for that is in God’s hands.  I suppose it is possible that a person be saved but not yet have works as the fruit of that faith.  Not yet, but inevitable in time.  So in their immaturity, surely some LU students living as if there were no God are saved, but some just as surely are not.  The purpose of this post is to say:  For my work in the Kingdom, it doesn’t matter either way.  I shall call the unrepentant weak brother to the Cross of Christ just as I call the unrepentant unregenerate man to the Cross.  This is a relief and lessens some the the tension for me, especially when I think about speaking to large numbers of LU students.  What do you guys think?

in·do·lence
n. Habitual laziness; sloth.

1603, “insensitivity to pain,” from Fr. indolence (16c.), from L. indolentia “freedom from pain, insensibility,” noun of action from indolentem (nom. indolens) “insensitive to pain,” used by Jerome to render Gk. apelgekos in Ephesians; from L. in- “not” + dolentem (nom. dolens) “grieving,” prp. of dolere “suffer pain.” Sense of “laziness” (1710) is from notion of “avoiding trouble” (cf. taking pains).

noun inactivity resulting from a dislike of work

I find it interesting that the meaning of ‘indolence’ is derived from an inability to feel or be grieved by pain or suffering. This is precisely the root of the problem with the church today. We are seared to the suffering of the unsaved; we are numb to the suffering in our own souls, almost ignorant that the blessed life is something different. What results from this numbness? Sloth, laziness, inactivity. I am reminded of C.S. Lewis’ thought that pain is God’s megaphone to us; it is God’s way of shouting to us his instructions. Pain is, after all, nature’s emergency alert system. When I touch a hot pan, pain tells me to move my hand. Similarly, the pain or suffering that I should experience when I think on an unsaved friend, or witness the plight of the poor and hungry around the world, this should move me to action. This is not a note on social action, but rather a note about ignorance. It is one thing to say that we aren’t doing enough with what we know is going on. It is another thing to say that we aren’t even seeing the whole picture. We know that there are hungry, there are poor, there are maimed, there are slaves. But one thing that I’m not sure we know is that we, you and I, are implicated in the suffering going on around the world. We are the one’s responsible for our own consumption, of our own waste, of our own lives.

The shocking thing is that we don’t feel guilty anymore for being the ‘haves’; we don’t grieve at all for the ‘have-nots’. Perhaps it would help if I got more specific. I have absolutely no idea who is being exploited so that I can buy super-sized frozen chicken breasts in a bag. I don’t know for many reasons, some of which I can help, and some I cannot. This knowledge is necessary so that I am not indolent, so that I am sensitive to exactly what I am responsible for. For more than a century, Christians in America have been ‘victimized’ into this indolence because of the industrial market. People I don’t know are contracting out work from some place, I don’t know where, with certain methods, I know not what, to render me a cheap and luxurious good in and out of season. This is unnatural. This is costly, and the problem is, I don’t know exactly how costly. I am reminded of an anecdote from one of my first philosophy classes with Dr. Martin: A rich man charged a group of scholars with surveying all the wisdom and literature of the known world and summarize what they found in a single sentence. After months of hard work, they reported back a single, short sentence, “THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES.” Thus, when I buy a bag of frozen chicken from Wal-Mart, who is paying for my ‘free’ lunch? When I buy a pair of Nike’s, who is paying? I know one thing, although Nike’s are uber-expensive, the worker on the other end of that chain of trade isn’t getting his due.

I’ve been thinking about this problem, and I have concluded that by and large, Wendell Berry is correct when he says that the problem is reduced and made easier to solve by localizing your economy. This will be the subject of other posts, but in short, when what we buy is produced locally, of the local land, we are more able to see exactly what is taken when we buy something. You can’t create something out of nothing, unless you’re God, and so it is necessary to see and know. This can only be done by buying local.

Also, on the flip side of this issue is a Godly idea of WORK. What is work? It is something that is a part of the curse on mankind, right? We now have pain in our work. Working the land will be hard, done by the sweat of the brow. What I want to know is what does work look like in the Kingdom of God? Does it look like being a businessman? Does it look like being a part of the industrial complex? I submit that for me it does not. Work is an art, a virtue. It is now hard, but all things are good lessons for those who seek God. Instead of striving to get around work, we should realize that part of being happy, part of being obedient, part of being a man, a subduer of the earth, is work.

Here’s Wendell Berry on work:

And the real name of our connection to this everywhere different and differently named earth is “work.” We are connected by work even to the places where we don’t work, for all place are connected; it is clear by now that we cannot exempt one place from our ruin of another. The name of our proper connection to the earth is “good work,” for good work involves much giving of honor. It honors the source of its materials; it honors the place where it is done; it honors the art by which it is done; it honors the thing that it makes and the user of the made thing. Good work is always modestly scaled, for it cannot ignore either the nature of individual places or the differences between places, and it always involves a sort of religious humility, for not everything is known. Good work can be defined only in particularity, for it must be defined a little differently for every one of the places and every one of the workers on the earth.
The name of our present society’s connection to the earth is “bad work”–work that is only generally and crudely defined, that enacts a dependence that is ill understood, that enacts no affection and gives no honor. Every one of us is to some extent guilty of this bad work. This guilt does not mean that we must indulge in a lot of breast-beating and confession; it means only that there is much good work to be done by every one of us and that we must begin to do it. All of us are responsible for bad work, not so much because we do it ourselves (though we all do it) as because we have it done for us by other people.

cf. Wendell Berry, Sex, Economy, Freedom & Community, “Conservation is Good Work”, 35-36.

Well, what then shall we say is good work? Are we doing any good work at conVerge? What should our principles of work be, or what principles should work revolve around? What say you?

There’s been a lot on my mind lately (actually, there’s been a lot on my mind since I started going to conVerge, speaking of blame…), and there’s something I’d like some feedback on. I’m wondering if anybody else feels like when we try to call ourselves and others to Christianity in earnest (missional, whatever), we’re blaming other people for our own problems. I recently talked to my Dad about some church issues, he attends a megachurch in Amarillo, Tx, and I’m afraid that my attitude on the situation may need some correction. First, I actually think that there are very few churches trying to teach Christianity in earnest; so few, in fact, that I feel pretty safe in assuming that I can call every Christian I know to repentance, to missional living. I mean, one of the things that guided me to conVerge was the conviction that I didn’t know anybody that I admired in their Christian walk. There are certainly people who do certain things right, but I don’t know anybody personally (so Piper doesn’t count for me) who is filling the gap that we’re trying to fill at conVerge. Two conclusions are possible: either I am not really looking or am looking for the wrong thing, or I’m right that there aren’t many actually living like they believe the Gospel.

Now you probably see why I called this post the Blame Game. When I make such general statements in my head, I imply many things. First, and this might have offended some of you, the fact that I said I don’t know anyone really “living” the Gospel, I imply that you, being somebody I know, aren’t living it. When I say that I want conVerge, or something like conVerge, to become a movement because there aren’t many/any churches who are encouraging missional living, I imply that your church is derelict in some way. This is the problem I’m seeing in my speech: I am basically indicting every Christian or church I know of for being in sin/disobedience. Now, we can go relative here and I can apologize for demonizing you or your church. You’re right, you are a better Christian than most people, and your church is proclaiming the Gospel with more purity than most. But does this really contradict or inoculate the offense of my previous statement.

My takeaway from this is not that we shouldn’t make such statements or think such thoughts. No, for these thoughts are useful and necessary for two reasons: one, they occur when we’re honest about ourselves, and honest about others, and two, they provide us with the sense of urgency that is needed when one really tries to live what he believes. It is only when we say that the way every Christian we know is living is wrong that we can hope to live differently than every Christian that we know. I mean, maybe you know some pretty good people, but at least you can agree that when you start acting on what you believe, you are a part of a pretty small group in relation to the church at large. If we don’t condemn nominal Christianity (Christianity in name only) honestly, brutally, in our conversations and thoughts, how can we hope to be any different.

Now, brutality, when in relation to persons, individuals, who are living nominal Christianity, must be mixed with encouragement, prayer, and a certain distance. Encouragement, because the realization of what Jesus really demands of us, and the accompanying realization of how far off we are from the mark, is certainly a thing of despair. Here is where community becomes so vital, for we are ambassadors of Christ in his ministry of reconciliation. Prayer and distance, because we cannot make or architect someone else’s sanctification or spiritual renewal anymore than we could for ourselves. God is alone the teacher, the guide of our spirituality, and we need to give him opportunity in these situation by heeding his voice in prayer and distancing ourselves from the responsibility of results. It is hard for me to pin down exactly what I mean by distance, but I mean at least to say that we must be speaking the truth in love, brutal love. This will open the door for the offense of the Gospel, which will make some, indeed many, turn away and curse us. If we are closely tied, or intimate, with the person so that we identify our effort with success, then we put ourselves in jeopardy. We must let God have the glory, for it is only He who can handle it. Indeed, it is only God who can handle the true despair of watching a son slowly kill himself in rebellion. We must give God the good and the bad that results from obedience; this is what I mean by distance.

Brutality is a different thing when it comes to organizations, churches for all intents and purposes. I have had some conversations with Matt, and made a comment online on Roger’s facebook note, in which I say that the church should not be treated like a person. People are intrinsically valuable, and as such cannot loose their value. A group of people, while able to achieve more perhaps, is not anymore valuable than the sum of the parts. What I’m really saying here is that we cannot let our sentimentality keep us from radically changing the church or church culture. Basically, I think that either churches can repent, or they can die. What really matters are the Christians, the people who go to that building to worship. If a church dies because all of its members start to go to conVerge instead, then what has been lost? Nothing in my opinion. But what about those people who depended on that church, who weren’t strong enough to spiritually survive their church’s repentance/destruction? Well, first, they are in God’s hands just like we are. We cannot have a discussion in false piety over whether or not we’re going to be obedient. The mere hesitation to obedience is a dishonor to God and is, I think, one of the main things we need to repent of as a Church. Also, we need to stop thinking of the church, and start thinking about the Church. Notice which one’s capitalized. The Church is the universal body of believers, the Bride of Christ. This should be protected, but often the Church needs to be protected from churches. Thus, when a church dies, what happens. People who were just attending will probably stop going to church for a while, perhaps forever. Those where were committed to Christ will find other communities, usually ones that are more aligned with the Gospel. It is interesting that “sheep-swapping” is a key element that is presupposed in the concept of conVerge. We expect people to hear about what we’re doing, leave their churches, and follow Christ to conVerge. But are there any casualties of this war? No, for those who merely attend dead/dying churches aren’t coming any closer to membership in the Church. If you compare this marginally to the gain of committed Christians that will be made by being radically, brutally obedient, there is no question as to which course of action is more God honoring and beneficial to the Church at large.

I want to make a note about hypocrisy here as well, since in the mean time, we, the people of conVerge, will be caught in the tension between the radical and brutal nature of our proclamation (not “our”, but God’s) and the sinful humanity that characterizes our actual lives. This tension, this hypocrisy cannot, must not, cause us to hesitate to proclaim the Gospel and to call people to repentance, reconciliation, and salvation, even as we are repenting, reconciling, and working out our own salvation. It is this proclamation that is the realization that we are not Christians by merit, but by grace. This grace is what bridges the gap between who we are and who we should be. I have faith that God is building me up to the full observance of Christ’s teaching, and in this faith I will not hesitate to be obedient, even to an offense, while I am yet a wretched sinner. To do so is not haughty or arrogant, but it is to truly love the other more than myself. For if I were to limit the Gospel to what I am right now, to my own abilities, I might save myself, my reputation, from hypocrisy, but at the cost of that person possibly hearing the Gospel in power and in truth.