I recently took a lot of time to respond to an email from someone who had asked: What is the Bible really saying when it talks about "not offending people" and "not causing them to stumble?" I think that this would be a great place to store my response, if only so I don't ever have to create it again:
I think the passage that you're referring to comes from Romans 14. There's also another related passage in 1 Corinthians 8. These passages are probably two of the most misused passages n the New Testament (and this misuse is often referred to as "prooftexting"--incorrectly using a passage of Scripture to prove one's own point of view). In order for us to properly understand it and apply it, we have to understand the context and the flow of Paul's argument. Let's start in Romans.
The context is this: Paul is writing to the Roman church, which is made up of both Jewish and Greek people, with people from both groups on various ends of the faith spectrum--some new, and some mature. Kinda like any local church. So, beginning in verse 1, he states his message: STOP PASSING JUDGMENT ON DISPUTABLE MATTERS. Not "it's your job make a correct judgment in disputable matters" or "judge disputable matters by this set of personal convictions" or "here's how I personally stand on some of the ambiguities in dressing, eating, and drinking... use these as your guidelines." Everything ties back to Paul's command to us: stop considering it your Christian duty to transform disputable matters into "right and wrong" behaviors. Ironically, a lot of times, Christians use this passage in exactly the way that Paul was condemning (vv. 1-4).
What is Paul's reasoning for this command? 1) There is such a thing as personal convictions on disputable matters (vv. 5-6); 2) those convictions need to remain personal--a person should not attempt to make their personal convictions universal (v. 5b; v. 22a; indeed, these convictions inform our consciences--more on that later!); 3) each person is responsible to the Lord, and to Him only, concerning his or her own set of personal convictions on disputable matters (v. 6); and finally 4) we're all saved by Jesus anyways, so regardless of our personal convictions about disputable matters, when it comes down to it, we're all dead without Jesus and alive with him (vv. 9-12). In other words, you aren't "more saved" or in "better standing" because of your own particular set of personal convictions. The strictest of the Christian teetotalers is very much in the same objective standing with Jesus as the most liberal of the Christian social drinkers: each of them is saved only by the grace of Jesus.
Okay, great. But what exactly is Paul talking about when he refers to "stumbling" (v. 20) and even "falling" (v. 21)? Well, in the immediate context (vv. 19-21), Paul is referring to convictions about eating and drinking. Paul talks about a similar theme in 1 Cor. 8, centering completely around food being sacrificed to idols. In both places, he refers to the faith of those who have a set of personal convictions about abstaining from such foods as "weak" (Rom. 14:1-2; 1 Cor. 8:7-12). So, before we can get to the root of what Paul means by stumbling in falling, we must establish: how does Paul extrapolate from a person's set of "abstaining" personal convictions to a judgment about their faith being weak?
Well, if we go back to point #2 in the 'reasoning' paragraph above, we can see the connection between our personal convictions and our consciences. Our personal convictions do not remain static as we mature; they develop as our faith develops (as demonstrated in 1 Cor. 8:4-7). As I grow in my faith, I more clearly see what the actual boundaries of the Christian faith are--for example: the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, salvation by grace through faith, loving your neighbor as yourself, etc. In the same way, I more clearly see what are actually preferences within those boundaries. This distinction in turn helps me to better understand different perspectives, different interpretations, and different expressions which are all acceptable because they fall within the actual boundaries of Christianity... even when I come up against a particular expression of another mature Christian that does not match up with my own.
So, because my personal convictions develop along with my faith, so also does my conscience; I no longer experience conviction about a certain behavior like I once did, because my boundaries concerning what is "Christian" and what is not have been more broadly (yet more accurately) delineated. This is clearly demonstrated in I Cor. 8:4 and then later in 8:7--people who had matured in their faith had come to a knowledge about the real nature of food sacrificed to idols... but people who were not yet mature (who were still brand new!) had not yet come to that knowledge. And this is OK!! In fact, it has to be this way, because that is how people work--they go from infancy to maturity. As we mature in our knowledge, we mature in our convictions, which in turn matures our consciences. In this way, there is a subjectivity to what is sinful--what is sinful for one person to do may not be sinful for another, depending on their maturity level. In these matters, the objective standard is a subjective conscience. If the Spirit is convicting you personally of something, you must personally respond to that conviction, and not base your response on whether or not someone else is being convicted in the same way.
With those last two paragraphs in mind, we can now more accurately see what Paul meant when he was talking about "stumbling" and "falling." These are very serious words indeed; I think the NIV translates the force of the word (it's translate it as "fall" in Rom. 14:21) better than the NASB (which translates it as "stumble" or "to make a misstep"); Paul uses the same word in Romans 9:32 to describe Israel's critical failure to recognize the importance of Christ's saving work in God's plan to save them. As mature believers, by asserting our knowledge and the "free-er", less-strict set of convictions that come about as a result of it, we can actually cause new believers who still have a "weak" or infant faith to fall away! It could be devestating for a new believer who has just been saved out of alcoholism to see a group of his fellow church-goers get a little tipsy at a home gathering. Likewise, it could be fatal for a new believer who has just been redeemed from a depraved, depressed "Emo" style of life to head out to a "Killers" concert with a group of his newfound Christian friends. While it may not be wrong for mature believers to get a little tipsy at home or to go to a Killers concert (and actually, I kinda like "Emo" music), it certainly becomes wrong for them to do so when it concerns the faith of a brother or sister who has yet to mature. Thus, we must heed Paul's warnings in these scenarios (Rom. 14:13-15; 1 Cor. 8:9-13).
And yet, all of this must be done with Paul's first command in mind: mature Christians should not waste their time by deciding whose personal convictions on disputable matters are "right," and whose are "wrong." Those matters must remain disputable, and mature Christians must learn to interact with each other lovingly despite the dispute. Such arguments about disputable matters have no place in a maturing life in Christ. Morever, we should not transform Paul's warning about causing weak, infant believers to stumble into living by the most conservative set of convictions in an effort to avoid offending anyone. In fact, we should stand against those mature Christians who wish to stretch Paul's warning to include their own set of abstentions (see especially Paul's command in Rom. 14:16)!
Rather than focus on what can only be subjectively true for some of us, we should focus on what is objectively true for all of us: we are all dead without Jesus, and alive in him (Rom. 14:9-12; 1 Cor. 8:6).
Monday, May 21, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
God to His Church?
I've been reflecting on this experiential and subjective truth for a little while: for me, it usually takes about 3 years or so before I feel like I have a good handle on where I'm at and what I'm doing and how I fit into it all. It also takes about 3 years or so for people to feel the same way about me: like they have a pretty good handle on who I am, what I am equipped to do, and how I fit. It generally takes about 3 years for a healthy amount of credibility to be built, such that I can operate freely and appropriately.
So after just under a year at my present location, I am hesitant to come to any sort of firm conclusions about this place. Nevertheless, the "data" that I've collected so far pushes me toward 4 initial and interrelated impressions of my current church:
1. We forsake the "now" for the "later." Be it in the name of "planning for growth," or in the name of "being a good steward of where God wants to 'take' us," we are always looking ahead... often times at the expense of what is happening right now. Maybe more accurately, we do not gather data from the "now" and use it to help determine where God is "taking" us.
2. We fail to critique our own culture. Pragmatism and "relevance" are often our main standards; other standards we use to critique what we are doing and who we are submit to those two. Do people seem to be coming? Do they "like" it? Did we like the look and feel? Does it look like what we'd see on TV, or at a big church, or in a magazine? To be sure, these are all fair and necessary considerations... but they should not be primary. They should be secondary. But when they are primary, the result is dissonance. We have given our people as many looks and feels to a weekend worship experience as there are weekends in a year, namely because our standards are anything but static and grounded in long-proven and life-giving goals. When you critique first by pragmatism and relevance, your goals--and not just your expressions of them--will be everchanging.
3. We forsake going on our own journey, and choose instead to imitate where others have gone. This is another fine line, but a line it is indeed. I'm glad that it is possible and that we are encouraged to look at what other churches are doing; we are indeed one church, and it is both edifying and helpful to see what God is doing in other local expressions of his unity. Nevertheless, each local expression is unique, and requires a unique and authentic connection with God and his unique desires for that church's unique setting and people. Again, it's a matter of order--the connection to God and what He has for this local setting should be primary, and all ideas from other churches--no matter how successful they might be in their own respective locations--should be secondary. It might very well be the case that what is considered personal in a city of 5 million is considered impersonal in a community of 150,000. This is just one example of how important it is for local pastors to have a healthy connection to what God's unique heart is for their particular setting, and for those pastors to protect and use it as the standard by which they evaluate and incorporate new ideas.
4. We fail to be present in the moment. Everything is about "the next step." Even in relationships. Most often there is little room for mess or weakness, which means there is little room for vulnerability and authenticity, which means there is little room for real relationship. We are do-ers, and we are driven to succeed, and doggone it, we can't let our weaknesses as people get in the way. Trouble is, we usually lose connection with how God is present in weakness, even working to bring it about, in the hopes of saving our souls as we grow in our awareness of our dependence on him. And so, in the name of soul-saving, we lose our own.
And that's what I think, at this time, God is saying to his church here.
So after just under a year at my present location, I am hesitant to come to any sort of firm conclusions about this place. Nevertheless, the "data" that I've collected so far pushes me toward 4 initial and interrelated impressions of my current church:
1. We forsake the "now" for the "later." Be it in the name of "planning for growth," or in the name of "being a good steward of where God wants to 'take' us," we are always looking ahead... often times at the expense of what is happening right now. Maybe more accurately, we do not gather data from the "now" and use it to help determine where God is "taking" us.
2. We fail to critique our own culture. Pragmatism and "relevance" are often our main standards; other standards we use to critique what we are doing and who we are submit to those two. Do people seem to be coming? Do they "like" it? Did we like the look and feel? Does it look like what we'd see on TV, or at a big church, or in a magazine? To be sure, these are all fair and necessary considerations... but they should not be primary. They should be secondary. But when they are primary, the result is dissonance. We have given our people as many looks and feels to a weekend worship experience as there are weekends in a year, namely because our standards are anything but static and grounded in long-proven and life-giving goals. When you critique first by pragmatism and relevance, your goals--and not just your expressions of them--will be everchanging.
3. We forsake going on our own journey, and choose instead to imitate where others have gone. This is another fine line, but a line it is indeed. I'm glad that it is possible and that we are encouraged to look at what other churches are doing; we are indeed one church, and it is both edifying and helpful to see what God is doing in other local expressions of his unity. Nevertheless, each local expression is unique, and requires a unique and authentic connection with God and his unique desires for that church's unique setting and people. Again, it's a matter of order--the connection to God and what He has for this local setting should be primary, and all ideas from other churches--no matter how successful they might be in their own respective locations--should be secondary. It might very well be the case that what is considered personal in a city of 5 million is considered impersonal in a community of 150,000. This is just one example of how important it is for local pastors to have a healthy connection to what God's unique heart is for their particular setting, and for those pastors to protect and use it as the standard by which they evaluate and incorporate new ideas.
4. We fail to be present in the moment. Everything is about "the next step." Even in relationships. Most often there is little room for mess or weakness, which means there is little room for vulnerability and authenticity, which means there is little room for real relationship. We are do-ers, and we are driven to succeed, and doggone it, we can't let our weaknesses as people get in the way. Trouble is, we usually lose connection with how God is present in weakness, even working to bring it about, in the hopes of saving our souls as we grow in our awareness of our dependence on him. And so, in the name of soul-saving, we lose our own.
And that's what I think, at this time, God is saying to his church here.
Not By Me, But By You
I still wonder: will there ever be a day when I operate fully as a life that proceeds from Yours?
I still wonder: is that our goal? Do we have imprinted onto our hearts and minds what that life looks like?
And I still wonder: am I willing to let Him use me here in the meantime?
Not by me, Lord, but only by You will we begin to fully live life out of Your Life. Break me of my prideful attitude, of my resistant spirit, and my hardened heart toward those who don't seem to "get it." For in hardening my heart, I have lost the very thing You desire to give all of us.
And continue to break me.
I still wonder: is that our goal? Do we have imprinted onto our hearts and minds what that life looks like?
And I still wonder: am I willing to let Him use me here in the meantime?
Not by me, Lord, but only by You will we begin to fully live life out of Your Life. Break me of my prideful attitude, of my resistant spirit, and my hardened heart toward those who don't seem to "get it." For in hardening my heart, I have lost the very thing You desire to give all of us.
And continue to break me.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Putting the World at Risk
"The Christian is a witness to a new reality that is entirely counter to culture. The Christian faith is a proclamation that God's kingdom has arrived in Jesus, a proclamation that puts the world at risk. What Jesus himself proclaimed and we bear witness to is the truth that the sin-soaked, self-centered world is doomed.
Pastors are in charge of keeping the distinction between the world's lies and the gospel's truth clear. No one else occupies this exact niche that looks so inoffensive but is in fact so dangerous to the status quo. We are committed to keeping the proclamation alive and to looking after souls in a soul-denying, soul-trivializing age."
--Eugene Peterson, Unnecessary Pastor
There are three propositions in this short exerpt that jump off of the page and into my world here. First: the Christian is a witness to a new reality that is entirely counter to culture. Second: pastors are in charge of keeping this message distinct from the world in the way that it is by nature distinct from the world. And third: in so doing, we are caring for souls in a world that seeks to deny and trivialize it.
If we don't understand the first proposition, we can not possibly keep our charge to the second and third. Too few of us can apprehend and articulate exactly how the Christian message is entirely counter to our culture. We immediately jump to how the Christian message can fit into our culture, mostly in the name of relevancy. However, the fact of the matter is this: the gospel is relevant, apart from our packaging, by its very nature. We need Jesus. We needed him to die. We need him for his life. This is objectively true, and it is objectively true for all of us and apart from any of us. We don't "make" it true for us; it simply and already "is" true for us.
Yes, but how do we make it true for those who don't yet believe that?
By living it out. By living lives that demonstrate that we recognize this reality. By being people who are present to this reality at all times, whether at work, at play, in conversation, in devotion, in service, in planning... whatever. By living as people who are ever aware that they simply need Jesus, and then watching as the Spirit brings forth His fruit out of that realization, moving us to cooperate with his leading and guiding in our every day, earthy lives.
All of which flies in the face of what the above question presupposes: that it's our job to somehow "make God true" for others, perhaps in the name of "relevancy." However, God is already true for everyone; he is already present and already initiating. He actively desires for everyone to come to a personal knowledge of his saving intentions. For someone to not believe and accept that truth does not make it "not true" for them; it simply means that they are denying objective reality. Denying the truth does not make the truth "the truth no longer." It simply means that the person is in a state of denial.
Again, it's not our job to get someone to quit their denying by using all of the cultural bells and whistles with which they are all too familiar. Our job is simply to be reflections of the reality of a life that is infused by Christ's life and Spirit. It's amazing what the Spirit can do with a life that is simply a good reflection; a life that is very much a Jesus-image.
Perhaps that is one way in which the gospel is so counter to our culture--it proclaims a reality that is apart from our creating, apart from our effort, apart from our striving. It proclaims a kingdom we could never establish, much less build. This message alone is so fear- and anxiety-producing to us as self-made, driven, independent, capitalist, democratic people that even those of us who claim allegiance to or membership in this kingdom fail to comprehend its true nature and full message. And so we fail to comprehend: how can I gather my identity from something I didn't do? What place can I have in something that doesn't depend on me?
Implicit in almost all models that champion relevancy or business strategy is this temptation: it all comes down to me. We fail or succeed because of me, because of my ability to execute, because of my finger on the pulse, because of my anticipation, because of my plan, because of our facility, because of... etc. This is the world's message, and the church has believed and accepted it. And yet, we stand as people who need and will forever need Jesus--who have supposedly believed and accepted him and his message.
The schizophrenia of this state of being--of being people who have accepted and believed two mutually exclusive messages--is alarming. You don't know what to expect from day to day--will we be people who walk, talk, act, work, breathe, relate, pray, preach, sing, strategize, plan, review, and evaluate as people who know first and foremost that they simply need Jesus? Or, will we walk, talk, act, work, breath, relate, pray, preach, sing, strategize, plan, review, and evaluate as people who need to succeed at Jesus' mission for him? Or even still, will we be people who think that the two--simply needing Jesus, and needing to succeed by the world's means--are compatible, and not at all mutually exclusive?
The means of the world deny and trivialize the soul. Performance reviews apart from relationship trivialize the soul. Technology above authenticity denies the soul. Process above people denies the soul. And an unwillingness to wrestle with how these tensions play out in practice--whether it is in the name of busyness, personality, or priorities--trivializes the soul.
There are plenty of "ministry means" that are actually wolves in sheep's clothing.
Pastors are in charge of keeping the distinction between the world's lies and the gospel's truth clear. No one else occupies this exact niche that looks so inoffensive but is in fact so dangerous to the status quo. We are committed to keeping the proclamation alive and to looking after souls in a soul-denying, soul-trivializing age."
--Eugene Peterson, Unnecessary Pastor
There are three propositions in this short exerpt that jump off of the page and into my world here. First: the Christian is a witness to a new reality that is entirely counter to culture. Second: pastors are in charge of keeping this message distinct from the world in the way that it is by nature distinct from the world. And third: in so doing, we are caring for souls in a world that seeks to deny and trivialize it.
If we don't understand the first proposition, we can not possibly keep our charge to the second and third. Too few of us can apprehend and articulate exactly how the Christian message is entirely counter to our culture. We immediately jump to how the Christian message can fit into our culture, mostly in the name of relevancy. However, the fact of the matter is this: the gospel is relevant, apart from our packaging, by its very nature. We need Jesus. We needed him to die. We need him for his life. This is objectively true, and it is objectively true for all of us and apart from any of us. We don't "make" it true for us; it simply and already "is" true for us.
Yes, but how do we make it true for those who don't yet believe that?
By living it out. By living lives that demonstrate that we recognize this reality. By being people who are present to this reality at all times, whether at work, at play, in conversation, in devotion, in service, in planning... whatever. By living as people who are ever aware that they simply need Jesus, and then watching as the Spirit brings forth His fruit out of that realization, moving us to cooperate with his leading and guiding in our every day, earthy lives.
All of which flies in the face of what the above question presupposes: that it's our job to somehow "make God true" for others, perhaps in the name of "relevancy." However, God is already true for everyone; he is already present and already initiating. He actively desires for everyone to come to a personal knowledge of his saving intentions. For someone to not believe and accept that truth does not make it "not true" for them; it simply means that they are denying objective reality. Denying the truth does not make the truth "the truth no longer." It simply means that the person is in a state of denial.
Again, it's not our job to get someone to quit their denying by using all of the cultural bells and whistles with which they are all too familiar. Our job is simply to be reflections of the reality of a life that is infused by Christ's life and Spirit. It's amazing what the Spirit can do with a life that is simply a good reflection; a life that is very much a Jesus-image.
Perhaps that is one way in which the gospel is so counter to our culture--it proclaims a reality that is apart from our creating, apart from our effort, apart from our striving. It proclaims a kingdom we could never establish, much less build. This message alone is so fear- and anxiety-producing to us as self-made, driven, independent, capitalist, democratic people that even those of us who claim allegiance to or membership in this kingdom fail to comprehend its true nature and full message. And so we fail to comprehend: how can I gather my identity from something I didn't do? What place can I have in something that doesn't depend on me?
Implicit in almost all models that champion relevancy or business strategy is this temptation: it all comes down to me. We fail or succeed because of me, because of my ability to execute, because of my finger on the pulse, because of my anticipation, because of my plan, because of our facility, because of... etc. This is the world's message, and the church has believed and accepted it. And yet, we stand as people who need and will forever need Jesus--who have supposedly believed and accepted him and his message.
The schizophrenia of this state of being--of being people who have accepted and believed two mutually exclusive messages--is alarming. You don't know what to expect from day to day--will we be people who walk, talk, act, work, breathe, relate, pray, preach, sing, strategize, plan, review, and evaluate as people who know first and foremost that they simply need Jesus? Or, will we walk, talk, act, work, breath, relate, pray, preach, sing, strategize, plan, review, and evaluate as people who need to succeed at Jesus' mission for him? Or even still, will we be people who think that the two--simply needing Jesus, and needing to succeed by the world's means--are compatible, and not at all mutually exclusive?
The means of the world deny and trivialize the soul. Performance reviews apart from relationship trivialize the soul. Technology above authenticity denies the soul. Process above people denies the soul. And an unwillingness to wrestle with how these tensions play out in practice--whether it is in the name of busyness, personality, or priorities--trivializes the soul.
There are plenty of "ministry means" that are actually wolves in sheep's clothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
