Seeing Christ in Others

One of the best books I've ever read is Victor Frankl's, Man's Search For Meaning. As a Jewish survivor of the holocaust, this man would have gotten a pass from the world for spending the rest of his days embittered and angry. But he saw things differently.

In the book, Frankl notes that other people can take just about everything away from us. They can take our freedom, our money, our dignity, even our life. The one thing they cannot take (which is the one thing we're often must willing to give them) is our ability to choose how we will respond to a situation.

No one can "make" us mad, distraught, happy, excited, bored, afraid, etc. Each of those emotions are generated from within and while our knee jerk reactions may be beyond our conscious control - though they are heavily influenced by the conscious choices we've made in previous situations - we are always able to choose to respond in a healthy or unhealthy fashion.

But this is difficult. So very difficult...for all of us I think. It is not easy to be truly self-differentiated (meaning we do not derive our identity from others or our relationship to them). It is hard to not allow our circumstances to dictate our emotions. Those who struggle with road rage know just how hard it can be to retrain your emotional responses to certain stimuli.

Though I often roll my eyes at her for it (dramatically and in front of her...less rude that way) my wife is right to correct me for saying "I HAVE to do" such and such, instead of "I GET to do" those things. Its minor, but it is part of training myself NOT to go negative, when a positive response is right in front of me.

When we worked together in south Louisiana, my friends Tod Vogt, Marcus Mathis and I decided to enact a “cynicism free zone” whenever we met together. It is easy (and often funny, let’s be honest) to provide a running commentary on the folly and flaws of others, to second guess their motives and to generally make ourselves out to be innocent martyrs. But typically, we aren’t any more innocent than they are evil.

Yes. There are people who have given themselves over to evil. There are other people who operate almost exclusively from selfish agendas. Then there are many, many people whose motives are mixed...and most of them live in our mirrors.

I used to really struggle (I still do, but I'm slowly improving) with what one wise friend called "anger fantasies." I've talked to enough people to know I'm not alone in this: you play out a conversation in your head before it happens, anticipating all the hurtful things someone could say - and then you plan your response. By the end of it, you're furious at this person as though the conversation actually happened!

Similarly, you begin imagining what somebody meant when they made a certain comment and then you extrapolate that into a whole conspiracy theory of malevolent behind-the-scenes stuff.

More often than not, the conversation never goes that way (unless you stick to your anger script and take it there) and the other person meant something totally different in their comment. But still, like the proverbial dog in scripture, we habitually return to this disgusting practice. No other non-Jesus person has the ability to change that on which we choose to focus our mental energy - you're the only one actually in your head.

One of the strongest convictions I gained from my studies in psychology is that just about everything is nature AND nurture. We may have a genetic predisposition to be glass-half-empty kind of person...but if we don't feed it, that perspective will wither and die. If we choose to focus on cynicism and negativity, then even if we were born with a cheery disposition, chances are we'll have more in common with Oscar than Elmo.

Recently, thanks to a free kindle download, I discovered another book: UNconditional? The Call of Jesus to Radical Forgiveness by Brian Zhand. This book also begins with a page from the holocaust. There is a story of Jewish man who was called in to sit at the deathbed of a Nazi soldier in search of forgiveness from a Jewish person...ANY Jewish person. The question that this man later asked was, is it necessary or even possible to offer such forgiveness? Interestingly enough, I was reading this book when the news came out that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by US special forces.

In both of these situations the conclusion that seemed inescapable is that 1) without the example of God's love and forgiveness modeled in the life of Christ it is difficult to imagine offering forgiveness to those who have truly wronged us (or humanity) and 2) because of the example of God's love through Jesus, it is essential that we offer such forgiveness.

If this is possible and necessary in scenarios of such vast significance, it stands to reason that it must also permeate our daily relationships as well. In order to life in this way we must not only seek to live as Christ lived, but also to see others as Christ sees them...and even to see Christ in them.

By the power of the Holy Spirit, let us not only seek to be Christ to others, but to see Christ in them. I'm convinced that success in the latter will lead to success in the former. It is increasingly common these days (and I am so glad for this) to hear people talking about seeing Christ in a person asking for money on a street corner. It is perhaps less common to say that we saw Christ in a person we know personally and with whom we disagree, or who we feel has wronged us. Its even less common to hear someone say they saw Christ in someone they deem an “enemy."

How would our daily life change if we set out to see Christ in every person? That doesn’t mean we condone every action or turn a blind eye to injustice and sin. It does mean that we recognize that our true enemy isn’t flesh and blood but the powers and principalities of darkness. It requires us to focus our mental energies on things which are beneficial and not destructive; we must avoid the temptation to turn every comment into a slight or every action into an attack.

Of all of Paul's letters, my favorite is definitely Philippians. So I let Paul have the final words of encouragement in this post:

Philippians 4:4-9 "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you."

A Christian Response to the Death of Osama Bin Laden

I can't help but see a divine appointment in the timing for today's prayer. Our petition to God for wisdom for his Church was prepared in advance of the events of last night. The US military's killing of Osama Bin Laden may come as some comfort to those who have cried out for justice since they lost loved ones on September 11, 2001, and in the wars that have followed. However, this sort of justice is not something that brings joy to the hearts of those who, with God, long for the restoration and reconciliation of humanity and all creation. Loved ones who were killed are not yet returned to us, but still await the resurrection and the final defeat of our true enemies, sin and death. 

In the meantime, more death and violence may be inevitable, but violence will never bring peace, only more violence. Let us weep with and pray for the families and loved ones of all those who have died on both sides during the past decade of war; for all those everywhere who mourn the effects of war and brutality. In fact, let us pray for healing of the pain shared by all creation due to centuries upon centuries of violence.

For Bin Laden, and countless others who live by violence, this sort of end comes as a consequence of their choices and actions. It is not for me to say whether or not this was God's vengeance being enacted; such things are too lofty for me. In either case, the proper response of the disciples of Jesus is not to rejoice in the suffering of our enemies. As I was going to bed at 7 this morning, I prayed that God's wisdom would indeed be poured out on the Church today. May we truly be a people who display wisdom which leads to reconciliation. 

I am reminded of the response of the Amish community in Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania after the horrific murder and wounding of several young girls in a small schoolhouse a few years ago. The people of that community, only hours after their children were murdered by a terribly troubled man, surrounded his wife expressing comfort for her loss and their forgiveness for her husband's actions. 

In his book, Unconditional, Brian Zhand states that the radical response of forgiveness in these cases steals the last word away from evil. Rather than death, violence, vengeance, retribution, the final word becomes healing, forgiveness, mercy, compassion, new life. Even the media, which loves scandal and initially reported on the "Nickel Mines Massacre," began referring to the events surrounding that shooting as the "Nickel Mines Miracle." In whatever way possible, let our response to the killing of this human being express our hope for a final word beyond retribution or even justice.

Grace and Peace,
Bret

Chatty Cathy's Thousand Word Reply

My friend Anthony left a comment on my previous post asking a couple questions. When my response reached post length I decided to just put it up here! So with that said here's the comment and my reply.

Anthony says:

Ok, I’m a latecomer to this conversation, but thought I’d chime in anyway. I have no time to go finding a bunch of texts to buttress a position, so I will assume that we all share a common general knowledge of the same story. Anyway, I have two questions regarding Bret’s position, which may be completely right, I just have some questions.

1) Is God’s wrath passive — leaving us to the consequences of sin, but without active intervention on his part? “Passive wrath” sounds like an oxymoron.

2) Was the death of Christ necessary? Jesus prayed that the cup be taken from him if there was any other way. Did the Father say, “I could do it another way–but this one shows the depth of our love better than the others”? Or was there really no other way that we could be saved?

My reply:

Anthony,

Thanks for the comment/questions.

First, I wouldn't use the word passive. I for sure think that it goes too far to say that across the board God's response to sin is passive - though I think there is plenty of evidence to show that one response of God's wrath is choosing not to intervene.

We know that for those who consistently choose to live rebelliously God will give them over to their sinful desires...the result of believing a lie is living into that lie. Is that passive? I don’t know that passive is the best descriptor, but neither does it fit the view of vengeful God doling out punishment.

Also, as I pointed out in the previous post, Galatians 6:7-8 says "Do not be deceived, God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life." I've heard it said here that God pours out his wrath on those who sow to please the sinful nature. However, it makes at least as much sense (and I honestly I believe it is more true to the text) to say that God allows us to reap the natural consequences of what we've worked to achieve.

In that way it does seem that the Wrath has a passive component - the wrath is the withholding of rescue that has been rejected.

I do not believe that God's only response to sin is passive/not responding and I don't know whether “passive wrath” is an oxymoron or not. However, at the risk of going more philosophical than anyone wants: if God is omnipotent, to choose NOT to act isn't really passive, it is a significant action.

In either case I believe that God's wrath, be it active or passive or some paradox of the two or something else entirely, is meant to be redemptive. And that leads to your other question.

Was the death of Christ necessary? I'm not sure if that's the right question for this conversation. I would say that Christ's death was necessary - just perhaps not for the reasons we've traditionally held. Taking your hypothetical God to Jesus statement "This one shows the depth of our love better than the others"

I’m not sure but I think you probably meant that as a tongue-in-cheek obviously wrong answer, but perhaps that “argument” would be more compelling for God than it is for us. The deepest display of love may in effect be “the only way” precisely because God IS the deepest display of love.

The question we’re really wrestling with here (or at least that I'm wrestling with) is whether the death of Christ was the only way for God’s irrevocable demand for justice to be satisfied. Or beyond that, is the satisfaction of God's righteous wrath and need for justice the crux of our salvation?

Perhaps we've too narrowly defined what it means to "be saved." Is our salvation merely the satisfaction of God's righteous anger? Who are the players in this drama? Is God the protagonist and humanity the antagonists? Or vice versa?

Are not sin, death and satan the true enemies? Is it possible that we, marred as we are by sin, have perhaps been held captive by the enemy or even foolishly (and often unknowingly) aligned ourselves with the enemy?

There is no other name in heaven or earth through which salvation is available than that of Jesus - this I fully affirm. To whatever degree that sins must be atoned for it is only through the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus that atonement is made possible. Whatever rescue is available, God has fulfilled it through Christ.

But I still contend that we devalue the true wonder, power and profound love/kindness (chesed) of God by placing such emphasis on penal substitution and God's inability to forgive any offense without the taking of a life.

Many brilliant folks through the years have put forth views of God’s justice and holiness which demand that he have satisfaction. My dissent is not to the position but the degree to which that position is held. I agree that God is righteous, holy and just. I’m not so sure I agree that God’s demand for justice outweighs all else. Why then should Jesus have taught us to turn the other cheek? Why then would Paul have said, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?” (1 Cor. 6).

In a previous conversation the response to this was that God’s demand for justice is unavoidable but he shows his grace by sending Jesus as a scapegoat. Okay. That still leaves me with questions of why we then are commanded to forgive. “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” Do we forgive those who trespass against us by demanding the death of an innocent?

I find little support for saying we are to forgive only once justice has been enacted. And I believe it is a cheap forgiveness indeed to say, “you can forgive them and move on because God’s going to punish them in the end.” There doesn’t seem to be any real forgiveness taking place there. And doesn’t that only work if they aren’t “saved”? Otherwise they avoid punishment - which then leads me to cry out for justice...which I apparently won’t get.

However, if the message is that through ultimate sacrifice we learn to have peace even when justice is denied...

When God incarnate makes the choice to NOT continue the cycle of vengeance and retribution (what if Israel and Palestine could get that concept??) When he willingly lays down his life rather than demanding the justice he deserved. When God made that choice he stepped into the middle of an unending cycle of sin and death and sent the whole thing spiraling in a new direction. Then justice was indeed served when Jesus rose from the dead, vindicated and glorified.

Perhaps our mistake is confusing the issue of satisfying God's wrathful requirement for justice with the issue of our salvation in Christ as though the two were synonymous. We've treated them as such but, again, just perhaps they aren't.

Perhaps there have been many things throughout history which have appeased God's wrath - sacrifice, repentance, a broken and contrite heart and faithfulness to name a few. But perhaps our salvation is about more than that. Perhaps our salvation, found only in the power of Christ, is the restoration of God's Kingdom; the defeat of the enemies of sin, death and satan; the healing of wounds; the end of death; our transformation into fully human creatures, once again bearing fully the image of God without blemish or scar. And perhaps wrapped up in that is indeed the appeasement of God's wrath...but its wrapped up in it, it isn't IT. Only the power of God could accomplish all that - there is no human effort or sacrifice possible beyond the fully human and fully divine sacrifice of Jesus himself.

Yes, I think that the death of Christ was necessary and I think it was much more valuable than just a penal substitution.

Anthony, I don't know if answered your questions or just used them to launch into another tirade.

If nothing else, I think its clear that I don't buy into the Calvinist/Reformed determinism theology. I've received a couple questions asking, since I'm obviously not very Augustinian/Calvinist in my persuasion do I consider myself Pelagian or Arminian or something else. Most of the 3 people who read this blog regularly either don't know or don't care what that means, but I will post a reply to that question in the near future.

Telling Better Stories

Some of those who have responded to my previous post on the wrath of God (primarily in person or by phone) seem to have understood me to say that God is not concerned with sin or that there is no response of wrath.

I understand how they could come to that since my first post on this subject was intended primarily to pull our focus away from the satisfaction of God's wrath as the primary purpose of the cross. I made a case against this perspective not because I don’t believe it has a part in this story, but because for so many of us it has been the ONLY part of the story that seemed to matter.

I do believe that sin and injustice matter to God. I believe that violence and oppression certainly bring about the wrath of God; my friend Luke pointed out the story of Sodom and Gomorra...another good example would be the plagues on Egypt. I have said before, and still believe, that mercy taken to an extreme is injustice to those offended.

I believe that our obstinate desire to continue in sin when faced with the Truth of God, is something which does bring guilt and potentially wrath.

I’d like to talk more about what that means. When we read about the wrath of God being poured out or threatened to be poured out there are two basic categories: 1) evil and violent cultures/people groups and 2) God’s chosen people who continue generation after generation to refuse to worship God alone; who fail to be the people they’re called to be.

Notice that if the evil communities - such as Sodom and Gomora or Egypt - would have repented, then God would have withheld his wrath. Look at Ninevah - Jonah preaches the worst sermon in history and boom, the whole city repents and then, double boom God relents. No sacrifice needed to appease his wrath other than the sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart.

Regarding the wrath poured out on God’s people - a story which is repeated throughout Israel’s history - let’s not forget how often they were given the chance to repent and turn back to God. The message of Jeremiah was that God’s wrath would come in the form of exile and control by a foreign power unless the people turned back to God. God’s wrath was NOT inescapable, it only came about after repeated refusals by His people to listen.

I’m not arguing that Jesus’ crucifixion didn’t serve as the final sacrifice for sin - I think that is absolutely part of what happened. However, I believe that it is false to assert that God is bound by his justice to require a sacrifice and therefore that must have been the primary reason for the cross. If God is bound to satisfy justice, then God is subservient to justice...we should worship justice because it is more powerful than God. But God is love. Love certainly involves seeking justice for others, but love also forgives offenses against itself.

I believe that there are some serious holes in the position that God is bound by his justice and so the pouring out of his wrath on someone (be it on us or Jesus) is central to his nature. While God is certainly just, God is not subject to anything - if so then, again, we should worship that. It is not okay to say that God IS justice and thus he is bound by himself. First of all, while Scripture says that God is just (an adjective) it does not say that God IS Justice (noun) - we’re told that God is Love...not Justice.

One response I’ve heard to this is that love must be just. Love certainly contains a component of justice yet it is also filled with mercy, long-suffering, forgiveness and grace.

Substitutionary atonement fails to acknowledge God’s longstanding history of offering forgiveness to those who have offended him without requiring the taking of life. Hosea 6 reminds us that God “desires mercy, not sacrifice.” In that passage God, through through the prophet, is urging his people to turn back and acknowledge him - they had ALREADY broken their covenant with God and thus justice demanded that they be put out. The entire point of Hosea’s life and ministry was that God is not bound by this expectation of justice. God is willing to set all that aside if his people will remember and return.

Isn’t that precisely what we are called to as well? Paul confronts the church in Corinth for their insistence on getting justice when they’ve been wronged: “The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? (1 Corinthians 6:7)”

Demanding justice for yourself does not seem to carry the same weight as demanding justice for the weak and the oppressed (assuming you aren’t the weak and oppressed). God is the One who speaks up for justice on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves and yet where God is concerned he extends mercy and forgiveness.

When God is finally forced to pour out his wrath, he tells the people he will not remain angry forever - God’s wrath is redemptive rather than merely retributive (thanks Nate); God’s wrath is a means rather than an end.

How does Jesus describe God in relation to our “lostness”? Well, most of us are familiar with the three parables of lost things. The lost coin, lost sheep and prodigal son are important parables where Jesus stresses heavily the nature of God - hence three similar stories in quick succession. In these stories we find not a vengeful God of righteous wrath, but a compassionate caretaker, shepherd and father. The shepherd does not require the sheep to be sacrificed and the father does not require the son to become a slave - apparently being lost was punishment enough.

HOWEVER (Galatians 6:7) "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.” God does take sin very seriously because sin is a component of the larger brokenness that plagues all of creation - a creation that is beloved by God and which God is even now working to restore and heal. Sin, brokenness and evil are true enemies of life, if that is what we sow then that is what we will reap.

What if that is what the wrath of God really is? Eventually God allows us to remain in the lostness we brought on ourselves. It isn’t that God brings about some vicious torture because his sense of honor has been accosted. He invites us to return but if we continue to refuse; if we continue to willingly sow evil, then how can we not reap destruction?

This shift in understanding does is not devalue the damage of sin or the need for a Savior. However, it does demand that we recognize how we’ve made sin the point for too long. Sin is only the point if our genesis (beginning) was in Genesis 3. But the fall of humanity is not the foundation of this story, the point is the power of a good creator God speaking all things into existence and being very pleased with his good creation (Genesis 1). The point is that this God desires to be in close communion with that which he has made and he will cross any chasm to rescue us from death.

Sin is a character in this story, but it is not the main character. The wrath of God is a potential subplot, but not the climax or the resolution. The wrath of God is no more central to this story than not failing a class is the central reason to study in school or gaining nutrients for physical survival is the primary reason to share a meal with friends.

God is a just God; he demands justice for those who are oppressed and he will not allow those who continue to defy him to remain unpunished. But God IS love. God is the One who is at work in healing broken lives and restoring damaged relationships. This is the central message of the cross - a new power and a new kingdom are available. No longer will the oppressive regimes of this world define power. The Kingdom of God is at hand, it is for everyone and it has a whole new definition of life.

The barriers have been torn down; the enemy has been vanquished and the invitation to enter into life has been given. This is not primarily about a loan shark collecting a debt, this is about a father running to meet his child on the road. Falling on his knees, kissing and embracing his beloved, putting rings on fingers and coats on shoulders and throwing a feast to celebrate the restoration of the father’s broken heart.

That is a much better story.