Jesus, Don't You Walk So Fast!

Two images are bouncing around in my mind, bumping into each other and stirring up dust. One is the 1935 book title, In His Steps, by Charles Sheldon. It journals a pastor leading his congregation in a one-year pilgrimage to become more like Jesus by asking at each event and circumstance, “What would Jesus Do?”

The other image is the Wayne Newton song from a number of years ago: “Daddy, Don’t You Walk So Fast.”

My Lenten journey this year is an effort to walk “In His Steps”, specifically in regard to how Jesus read Scripture; but the pace is fast, set by Derek Floods’ book, Disarming Scripture (Metanoia Books, 2014).

Flood confronts the difficult and mostly avoided question of how we reconcile the apparent biblical contradiction of a God who sometimes seems loving and nurturing, and at other times orders total genocide, dashing babies’ heads against rocks and disemboweling pregnant women (Hosea 13:16, et. al.).

The book urges the reader to “take a long and sobering look at the extent to which human violence is not merely described in the Bible, but actively promoted as God’s will. This is not simply a matter of a few troublesome passages. Violence and bloodshed committed in God’s name is a major theme of the Old Testament” (Kindle edition, Location 127)

Swiss theologian, Raymund Schwager, writes, “Approximately one thousand passages speak of Yahweh’s blazing anger, of his punishment by death and destruction, and how like a consuming fire he passes judgment, takes revenge, and threatens annihilation … No other topic is as often mentioned (in the Old Testament) as God’s bloody works.”[1]

Flood suggests that the questions we ask are even more pointed because of Christianity’s long history of violence, which he proceeds to document, noting the Crusades, slavery, Native Americans, the 800,000 Tutsis killed in the Rwandan genocide and other examples, all justified by the use of Scripture and committed in God’s name. “This is our legacy as Christians and we need to face it head-on, rather than trying to ignore or excuse it” (Kindle edition Location219).

So, what responses have been offered in view of God-ordered violence? Atheism generally has responded with anger and aggressive language. “New Atheist,” Richard Dawkins, writes: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[2]  [Other than that, I wonder what he thinks of God.]

Conservative Christians, on the other hand, generally attempt to justify the violence, basically letting the horrible, even ungodly, morality issues be trumped by the importance of defending Scriptural integrity as they understand it.

In the conquest of Canaan as recorded in Hebrew Scriptures, the Israelites are ordered to kill “everything that breathes” (Deut 20:16). The slaughter is to be complete, including not only humans but, also herds and pets; and when one Israelite attempts to keep a goat or a cow for himself, God orders him put to death.

One commentary justifies the genocide at Jericho as necessary “so that Israel would not be ‘infected by the degenerate religion of the Canaanites,’ declaring that ‘pure faith and worship’ could only be maintained ‘by the complete elimination of the Canaanites themselves’.”[3]

A mega-church pastor compares the Canaanites to a cancer that must be eliminated for the health of God’s people. He calls the genocide "surgery". Another commentary suggests that these stories would be “more palatable” if we think in abstract terms (effectively dehumanizing the victims of genocide).

What seems to be lost in the conversation is the disturbing similarity between these arguments and those used by Hitler to justify the Holocaust!

Why would (presumably) good, loving people go to such lengths to justify genocide in God’s name? Their perspective is based on the sincerely held assumption that faithfulness to Scripture means accepting everything it says at face value. (I hope Flood will flesh out this point in later chapters. If he doesn't, I may make the attempt.)

But there’s a third (and equally ineffective) approach that Flood calls “Cherry-Picking”, and lays it at the feet of progressive or liberal Christians. Essentially, this is the practice of using blinders when we approach the Bible. We’ll just pick out the sweet, nurturing, likable texts, those that call for ministries of compassion and justice, and those that make us feel good, and ignore those more troubling parts.

The primary fault with this third approach is that it’s dishonest (my word, not Flood’s). The secondary fault is that, like the other two approaches, it does nothing to resolve the related biblical disparity between the violent images of God versus the nurturing images.

Flood’s proposal is to face the troubling passages honestly, openly, and as Jesus did.

But therein lies another conundrum. On the one hand, Jesus says, “I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it” (Matt 5:17). But then he proceeds blatantly to contradict and overturn multiple passages of Scripture.

I love a good mystery; but, “Jesus, you walk so fast!”

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Raymund Schwager, Must there Be Scapegoats?: Violence and Redemption in the Bible (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), page 55 (italics his). Quoted in Derek Flood, Disarming Scripture, (Kindle edition, location163.)

[2] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2006), page 51. Quoted in Derek Flood, Disarming Scripture, (Kindle edition, location236.)

[3] Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 1984) page 342. Quoted in Derek Flood, Disarming Scripture, (Kindle edition, location245.)

More on Balance

A theme (some might say an obsession, given the content of my blogs!) of my faith is balance. My first student sermon in seminary compared John 3:1-18 with Matthew 25:31-46.

The former is the encounter between Jesus and Nicodemus, and includes the phrase, “You must be born again.” It also includes the best-known verse in scripture—John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” 

The latter is Jesus’ Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, with the familiar injunctions to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisons, etc. The conclusion: “As you did it(or didn’t) to the least of my brothers, you did it (or didn’t) to me.”

One is about spiritual and eternal matters, while the other is about what has been called “The Social Gospel” or issues of social justice. The point of my sermon was that the same Bible contains both emphases. To date, I have not discovered a biblical prioritizing of the two emphases. So far as I can see, we are enjoined to a balance of ministries to people’s spiritual and eternal needs as well as to their physical and immediate needs.

When asked which was the most important commandment, Jesus responded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ³⁸This is the great and first commandment. ³⁹And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ⁴⁰On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40 NRSV).” 

The second is “like it.” “On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” I don’t find any way in that text to rationalize one to the exclusion—or even to the moderating—of the other, and I’ve preached that theme several times each year since then (1969); but I think I have a new way of articulating it.

I think the greatest weakness in the community of Christian discipleship is the problem of reductionism. Even in Jesus' day there was a tendency for people of faith to reduce discipleship to a simple formula ("Which is the greatest commandment?")

“All ya’ gotta’ do is…” and then recite the list. I sometimes have called it “formulaic” Christianity or Christianity by theorem—the lowest common denominator.

I observe two specific reductions.

The first is what Jim Wallis calls an atonement-only gospel: the only purpose for Christian discipleship is to lead people to salvation—to avoid hell and attain heaven. In my estimation it is impossible to deny the New Testament premium on that kind of life and witness, which is generally called “evangelism”.

The second reduction is an ethical absolutism: the primary measure of faith is our behavior toward others. Again, there is no denying that Jesus taught an ethical paradigm few humans have attained. Too few have tried; indeed, many rationalize away the injunctions to minister to the poor (or to tend in other ways to matters of the common good) by labeling them “secular humanist” or “socialist” or “communist”.

Few teachings strive for a balance between the two reductions.

In my last blog I described a debate between Jim Wallis and his close friend, Southern Baptist seminary president, Albert Mohler. The topic was, “Is social justice an essential part of the gospel and the mission of the church?”[1] 

Wallis argued yes, justice is integral to the gospel. Dr. Mohler said no, arguing that social justice was important but that “the gospel” was the atonement brought about in Christ that saves us from our sins and secures our souls for heaven. 

I admit up front that I have no hard data to support my observation and, moreover, that I am biased toward my own reductionist tendencies. Given those qualifications, however, it seems relatively clear to me that:

1.      Those who, with Dr. Mohler, say that social justice issues are important but secondary to evangelism tend to rationalize and thus to neglect and even to oppose efforts to minister to the poor. To be fair, in my limited observation almost all who oppose ministries of social justice are really opposing government involvement in those efforts. On the other hand, the truth of the matter is that if the government doesn’t do it, who will? There certainly are not enough resources in the churches, most of which are declining and struggling to survive; and no other entity has stepped up to the plate!

2.     Those who emphasize social justice ministries tend not only to neglect evangelistic ministries but even appear condescending or even contemptuous toward those who do. To be fair, in my limited observation such opposition is not to evangelism itself but to specific strategies of evangelism (I am in that category: indeed, I find many evangelism strategies outright counterproductive to the gospel!) On the other hand, I don’t recall seeing an effective evangelistic strategy emerge from that set. I do hear considerable rationalization about quality versus quantity.

Which brings us around to the issue of balance.

I watched the “Stupor Bowl” last night (you might guess I had no pony in that race). I’m not a fan of either team; but, it was less stressful to watch without caring who won. I don’t think I yelled at the TV even once!

It occurs to me that evangelism and social justice ministries might be like offense and defense on a football team. It takes both. If a team is weak at either, it is less effective.

The hoards leaving the church, and those who never got involved, speak volumes to the ineffectiveness of an unbalanced church.

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Wallis, Jim (2013-08-15). Who Jesus Is and Why It Matters (Ebook Shorts) (Kindle Locations 192-213). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Seven Biblical Principles of Unity #6

The Purpose of Unity: God Can Finish What God Has Begun

Philippians 1:6 (NRSV) I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

If you are active in a church or synagogue or other faith community, think  of times, situations and events in which you see God at work in that group. Is that work completed, or is it still in progress? The verse from Philippians promises that God completes what God begins! But God’s work is not yet finished! God isn’t through with us yet!

If your faith community has discerned a vision or mission or other guiding expression of God’s call, where and how do you see that being lived out in the life of the community? Again, God completes what God begins! But God’s work is not yet finished! God isn’t through with us yet!

[And when I look in a mirror I rejoice that God isn’t finished with me yet!]

There once was a young minister whose first parish was a small church in a farming community in the Midwest. There was some resistance in that community to a woman minister, and she found a cool reception on her first Sunday.

“They’ll warm up to me as they get to know me,” she assured herself, and she set out Monday morning to begin calling and getting acquainted. She approached the first farm house, and was greeted with restrained courtesy.

In her most enthusiastic, bubbly voice, she began, “God has so richly blessed you on this farm. Every direction I look I see healthy cattle and green fields. It’s such a beautiful place God has given you.”

The farmer cleared his throat and said, “Well, preacher, you shoulda’ seen this place when God had it by himself.”

It’s true: God completes what God begins; and God’s work sets us up for accomplishment. God gives us all we need; but God doesn’t do the work for us.

In Paul’s joyful letter to the church in Philippi he writes of two days: “^1:5(I am) thankful for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now.  ⁶And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ. There’s a “first day” and a “day of completion,” which he calls “the day of Jesus Christ.”

The uncertainties and upheavals surrounding our own lives us remind us that the day of completion has not yet come. We live in a “promise-not-yet-fulfilled” world, to which there are two usual responses:

The first is a kind of utopian expectation that things will get better and better until they reach an omega-point (“the day of Jesus Christ”) and it is the task of Christians to work for that day. We are commissioned to build the kingdom of God, and its growth is a foregone conclusion.

There are two problems with that understanding: (1) in the verses quoted above God is the subject of the sentence, not us; it is God’s work, not ours, that will bring about the day of completion. (2) Life contradicts it—things are not getting better and better.

The second response in the “promise-not-yet-fulfilled” world is fatalism: why bother? No matter how hard we work, the outcome is not up to us.

The truth is that some things are important and deserve our faithful efforts; other things are to be left to God, and part of our work is to discern the difference. And while we wait for that day of completion, our calling is to live in unity in order to live out our servant vocation.

There’s a story that’s been around for awhile. It’s about another minister going to a new parish. On the first Sunday he disguising himself as a homeless man and showed up at the front doorstep of the church holding a cardboard sign asking for money. The people either ignored him as they entered the church, or told him to go away.

There was concerned when their new pastor hadn’t shown up, and the time for worship drew near. Imagine their dismay when the homeless man walked down the center aisle, peeled off his shabby wig and beard, donned his pulpit robe and introduced himself. Then he announced his text, “Inasmuch as you did it not to the least of these…”

That church had no unified sense of calling regarding the work to which the minister’s text referred; therefore the work was not completed. 

Compare that story with the stories of countless churches and faith groups that engage in times of prayerful discernment and, having discerned God’s calling move together toward the fulfillment of their calling.

Or contrast the story with the inestimable number of faith groups involved in some hands-on form of mission, whether its purpose be evangelism, feeding the hungry, visiting prisons, organizing a mission trip to Honduras, hosting a blood drive, participating in “Habitat for Humanity,” or any of innumerable expressions of God’s work. In virtually every case the work produces a sense of unity among those who participate, and those involved will likely participate in more mission-oriented activity in the future.

God completes what God begins; but God is not finished with us yet.

It works both ways, and it matters little whether the church discerns a common sense of calling and on that basis unifies their life and work, or whether it is through doing the work of the Gospel that the church becomes unified and discerns its calling. Whether the heart follows the hand or the hand follows the heart, the Lord’s work moves toward accomplishment, and “he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.”

That’s how I see it through the flawed glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim