Editing our lives

Donald Miller is one of the best Christian writers around today. His books and articles are always full of insight, and his writing style belongs to the 'easy listening' station.

When I began reading his book A Million Miles in a Thousand Years I thought perhaps he had actually written a boring book. The theme of life being like a story--a story that we can rewrite as we are right in the middle of it--was not a new idea. But his story-telling skill hooked me and before I got halfway through I knew that this book was about me (and you).

We actually can decide to write in new and exciting scenes in our own life stories. It takes courage and focus. It's sort of like reinventing yourself. But not as shallow as that sounds. God gives us the freedom to make choices and energize ourselves. Like Frank Schaeffer, Donald Miller is a disturbingly honest writer.

Miller tells us to lower our expectations of ourselves and others. He says that when we stop expecting other people to be perfect or live like we want them to, we will be much happier. Same for God. He writes, "When you stop expecting God to end all your troubles, you'd be surprised how much you like spending time with God."

And how about this for honesty: "Growing up in church, we were taught that Jesus was the answer to all our problems...To be sure, I like Jesus, and I still follow him, but the idea that Jesus will make everything better is a lie. It's basically biblical theology translated into the language of infomercials."

In a real sense, our lives are in our hands. Not that the Spirit isn't there too--with us, in us, through us. But God calls us to take responsibility. Just as an alcoholic has to take responsibility for his actions and his problems before he can begin to be healed of his disease, all of us have to begin the healing of our addiction to a fantasy life of pure happiness with the acceptance of our responsibility. Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, and Jesus gives the keys to our lives to us.

Sometimes the Spirit sticks his foot out and trips us up in order to get us to look up. When we refuse to change our ways, the Spirit will knock us off our horses so that we will pay attention. But the next step is ours. When we have the courage to begin to rewrite the story of our lives, we are also participating in writing the Story of Human History. When we improve ourselves we also improve the world. Somehow, mysteriously, the Spirit is part of the whole process. But that doesn't let us off the hook. It is still our responsibility to follow Jesus--to listen to the Voice--to become who we are meant to be.

Donald Miller says that the gospel gives hope. And I agree. There is Good News--Glad Tidings--Exciting Possibilities--New Days.

Still knocking...

In the  April 2, 2010 issue of the Times Literary Supplement Lucy Beckett reviews a new small biography of Augustine by Henry Chadwick. After Chadwick died in 2008 a new sermon of Augustine was found. Peter Brown, who wrote the preface to Chadwick's book, quotes this newly discovered sermon in which Augustine says:

We who preach and write books...write while we make progress. We learn something new every day. We dictate at the same time as we explore. We speak as we are still knocking for understanding.

Brown points out that one of the attractive things about Augustine as a writer and thinker was that he changed his mind. Therefore, we find inconsistencies in his writings. We find contradictory positions taken on theological questions. In fact, late in his life he wrote a whole book taking back some things he had written and correcting his own mistaken conclusions.

When I open my file cabinet and go through some of the sermons I wrote decades ago (or even a few years ago), I am appalled at some of the things I preached. Those poor congregations that have to sit through young, green preachers' sermons! Maybe it should be a rule that no minister can preach until she/he is 50 years old.

My mind has changed more often that a new baby's diaper. I've learned to never say 'finally.' I tend to say: 'That's how I understand it from my point of view at this time in my life.' That's more honest. I don't agree with many things I said years ago. I don't know if I'm smarter or not, but my mind has changed. I remember writing a newspaper article in which I supported the so-called pro-life position. I am still for life, but I take a pro-choice position now. I once called myself a pacifist. I now think the pacifist position is a form of perfectionism.

So, I like the fact that Augustine contradicted himself. As he said, "We speak as we are still knocking for understanding." And didn't Jesus say, "Keep on knocking, and it shall be opened to you"? (Matt. 6) So, I keep on knocking. Change is good. Don't knock it!

Hopeful uncertainty

Not everyone would enjoy reading Frank Schaeffer's newest book, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion or Atheism, but I did. His previous book, Crazy for God, told the story of his spiritual journey as the son of Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of the Religious Right; and how he hobnobbed with Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and all the other Big Names of the Religious Right; and how he experienced a 'conversion' to a more open-minded kind of faith.

He writes with transparent honesty about his (now) fragile faith tinged with agnosticism. He says, "I do still avow some form of Christianity in spite of my doubts." He calls his present state of spirituality "hopeful uncertainty." This book debunks both rationalistic atheism and Christian fundamentalism. Schaeffer suggests that living with the contradictory messiness of life is the most honest way to live. He affirms paradox as a fact of life:

If we embrace paradox as the actual way of life and embrace the paradox of apophatic theology as the essence of faith in God, then hope in God comes into focus.

In other words, we have to admit the limits of our knowledge of things eternal. God cannot be defined or understood with our little minds.

Schaeffer doesn't want to throw away the baby with the bath water, but he does want to get rid of as much of the dirty water as possible. Toward the end of his book he says,

At its best, faith in God is about thanksgiving, shared suffering, loss, pain, generosity, and love. The best religious people and the best secular people learn to ignore their chose (or inherited) religions' nastier teachings in order to preserve the spirit of their faith.

As I said, not everyone would enjoy this book. But for those of us who struggle to make sense out of life and have been disappointed by much of traditional religion and the incarcerated thinking of many religious leaders, this kind of honest grappling with faith is a refreshing gift.

I like his Hopeful Uncertainty.

A successful revival

I received Presbyterians Today magazine today, and I enjoyed this little piece:


The Methodist, Disciples of Christ, Lutheran and Presbyterian congregations in a small town co-sponsored a week-long revival event. At the end of the week the pastors of the respective congregations gathered over coffee to compare results. 


"We did OK," said the Methodist pastor. "We gained two new members."


The Disciples of Christ pastor smiled. "We did better. We have three new members."


"Not to brag, but we received five new members," said the Lutheran pastor.


They turned to the Presbyterian pastor, waiting for her report. "Well, we didn't gain any members," she said. "but we did get rid of ten of our biggest trouble makers."

Acts 17.28

I've recently been updating my theological viewpoint. Acts 17.28 has become my headquarters for theological work.


It says: In God we live and move and have our being.


Paul Tillich referred to God as the Ground of Being. Vaclav Havel seems to refer to God as Being-Itself (a Heideggerian term. St. Paul seems to be saying that our 'being' lives inside the Being of God (or God as Being itself). 


So, God is not a being. Rather, God is Being itself. There is no being outside of Being itself. Therefore, no one nor no thing is outside of God if it has being.


In God we live and move and have our being.


In Being we have our being.


We live and exist IN GOD. God is not 'out there' somewhere. We are in God. There is no distance from us to God. Like fish in the sea, we live in God.


Much theological trouble has been created by thinking of God as 'a being' out there, separate from us. If God were a being, then God would be 'a thing' -- an object. But God is 'no thing' (nothing). To objectify God is to take away God's pervasive presence. 


If all beings are in Being--which means all people are in God--then, no one is outside of God and God's grace. God encompasses all things and all people. 


I find it very helpful to think about the fact that we live and have our being inside of God. God is the ocean of love. God is the atmosphere of meaning. God is the milieu of life.


Evangel (Good News): You are in God.

2 Synchros

 

I love synchronicities. I once experienced a synchronicity that startled me so much I interpreted it as a revelation from God. But that's another story.

I had two minor synchros this past week. I was in the library browsing a couple of new books. One was on philosophy, the other about science. I read a passage in each book that quoted Ludwig Wittgenstein's axiom: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

The common theme was that human knowledge has limits, and we must acknowledge and respect those limits. Neither philosophy nor science can speak with certainty about transcendent matters. There are mysteries beyond human understanding.

Therefore, uncertainty is part of the human experience. It is a spiritual experience to say, "I don't know." Too much certainty about too many things is sacrilegious.

Don't try to say more than can be said. We could use more silence among clergy. (Maybe I've already said too much.)

 

**

The second synchronicity occurred when I read about 'craving' in two publications. The magazine Moment had an article discussing the 10^th commandment, "You shall not covet…" [March/April 2010 issue, p. 22] Various rabbis gave their commentaries. Rabbi Gershon Winkler says that the tenth commandment does not forbid envy, it forbids craving. Winkler says that 'craving' is the only innovative idea in the Sinai revelation: "Sins of the mind, the sin not of envying what someone else has but of craving it. Craving sits on the edge of actually going for it."

In Paul Knitter's new book, Without Buddha I Could not be a Christian, he writes about the basic outlook of Buddhist philosophy: (1) Suffering comes up in everyone's life; (2) This suffering is caused by craving; (3) We can stop suffering by stopping craving; (4) To stop craving, follow the Eightfold Path—which consists of living a moral life by avoiding harm to others, and following a spiritual practice based on meditation.

Jews, Buddhists (& Christians) see the danger in our cravings. Another word for it is 'desire.' The classic Christian term is 'concupiscence.' There is a drive within human nature that leads to suffering (which is a kind of natural Judgment).

The answer to our cravings is to learn to 'let go.' Which is also related to Wittgenstein's insight: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

 

Packing

We are in the midst of packing so we can move to Birmingham. Putting things in boxes—books, and more books…pictures, clothes, plates, glasses, paper clips, etc. It reminds me of how we try to put truth in a box. We attempt to stuff God in our boxes: Our doctrines and theological concepts—our polities and procedures—our rituals and creeds. Theologians talk about 'unpacking' theological concepts; i.e., explaining the meaning and implications of religious ideas.

The trouble is: G-d will not stay in our boxes. She bursts out and breaks our fragile, taped up minds.

 

Two views on salvation

There are two ways to understand how the New Testament proclaims salvation. One is conditional, and the other is unconditional.

1. The Conditional understanding of salvation says this: God sent Jesus to us to die for our sins and offer us salvation. If we respond in the right way--repent, believe, trust, etc--we will receive salvation. If we do not respond in the right way, we will be lost. 

[The essential requirement of the Conditional view of salvation is in the little word "if." If you believe, repent, etc., you will be saved. God has done his part, now you must do your part.]

2. The Unconditional view says: God sent Jesus to die for our sins. His death was effective; i.e., our sins have been taken away. Therefore, there is nothing we have to do for our salvation; Christ has done it all. We are saved. We are forgiven. Believe it!

[The essential part of this message is: It is finished! There is no "if." God has done his part. There is nothing we can add to it. Our salvation is in God's hands, not ours. And that is Good News! In response to this Good News, we repent (change our minds/hearts) and believe/trust God. Our lives show our gratitude and trust by the way we live.]

The first approach is not really good news (gospel) because the onus is on us. We have to complete the transaction by believing enough or repenting enough or living the right way. That creates a lot of anxiety in us, and we are never sure that we have achieved enough or the right kind of faith. This is not good news.

But the second approach really is good news (gospel). Our salvation is an accomplished fact. It doesn't depend upon us. There is no anxiety about it. This good news sets us free and releases us to actually enjoy our salvation and respond to God with trust and faith. The repentance comes after hearing the good news instead of being a requirement. 

Personally, I accept the unconditional love of God and trust in what Christ has done, not in what I might or might not do. This is the good news I believe in. There is no "if" in the good news. 

In light of this second approach there is still the opportunity for evangelism. But now the evangelical task is not one of saying to people, "IF you believe and repent, you will be saved (and make sure you believe correctly and repent enough)." Rather, our evangelical message is: "I've got Good News. God loves you unconditionally. Christ died for you. You are saved and forgiven! I invite you to believe this good news and live in the freedom of Christ."

For some reason many church people can't accept this second approach (Unconditional). They don't like the fact that it takes away the 'threat' that the first approach retains. Yet, there is plenty of Scriptural support for the second approach. Many Scripture passages declare the unconditional love of God. Of course the consequence of not believing the good news of unconditional salvation is a tragic consequence. It's a hell of a life if you don't accept the unconditional love of God.

3 words

I love to come across words I don't know because I look them up and learn something.
In my recent reading I've come across three new words.

In the book Understanding Thomas Jefferson by E. M. Halliday I found Jefferson using the word 'hebetude.' It means 'dullness of mind, or mental lethargy.' The context: In 1819, at age 76, Jefferson writes a letter to William Short, reminding him that the pursuit of happiness is not compatible with laziness. The happiness he speaks of in this letter is related to the philosopher Epicurus whom Jefferson tried to follow. To Short he writes:

"Your love of repose will lead, in its progress, to a suspension of healthy exercise, a relaxation of mind, an indifference to everything around you, and finally to a debility of body, and hebetude of mind."

Lord, keep us from hebetude of mind.

***

The second word comes from the book To the Castle and Back, the memoirs of Haclav Havel, translated from the Czech by Paul Wilson. Here's the sentence:

"I would say, though, that whenever things begin to get really serious, others might succumb to panic or despair, but I find myself possessed of a strange sangfroid and élan that allows me to make quick decisions and come up with solutions."


The word 'sangfroid' was a new one for me. First of all, it's French and not pronounced like it looks. The pronunciation is: sawn-fraw. It means 'composure under trying conditions.'

Lord, give us sangfroid.

***

The third word is also from Havel's memoir. It's not actually a new word for me, but I don't ever remember seeing it in print before. The context: Havel, former President of Czechoslovakia, is staying in Washington while working on his memoir. He writes:

"The time difference, the change of climate, the wine, the pill, and the relief that the long flight is over combine to create a certain kind of discombobulation."


Sure, we've all heard the word, but have you seen it in print? Discombobulation. To be discombobulated is to be confused or to lack clarity about what is going on or where you are. Sort of the opposite of sangfroid. But I wondered if the word discombobulation inferred an opposite term, 'combobulated.' After all, if you become discombobulated, doesn't that imply that before your discombobulation you were combobulated? Makes sense to me. But there is no such word as combobulated. If there was, it would mean having composure, being clear about things.

Lord, make our lives combobulated.

Amen.