Diversity = God?

Posted on September 8, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

I’ve long been pained that our United Methodist marketing campaign, “Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors,” has replaced our official doctrine (which, according to the Book of Discipline, is of determinate Christian substance). The apparent relativism of our marketing slogan makes a poor substitute for the historic faith of the church.

Especially painful is one of the statements uses in the campaign, “I believe that when you truly embrace diversity you embrace god.” My take on this has been that we’ve taken a trendy abstraction – “diversity” – and raised it to equality with deity. (“Embrace” is just as trendy, but at least it’s a verb.) I don’t watch much tv, so I’ve never seen the ad in which this statement occurs – I’ve only seen it on t-shirts – so I’ve never had the proper context to evaluate it.

Now I’ve found a deeper explanation of the theological thinking behind the campaign. Though I’m not convinced by the arguments in the paper, I was surprised to find one of the scriptural supports offered for “embracing diversity.” On p. 6 is says:

The word of the LORD came to Jonah a second time, saying, “Get up, go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaim to it the message that I tell you.” So Jonah set out and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. (see Jonah 3-4, NRSV)

Jonah didn’t want to go to Nineveh. He didn’t want to preach to the evil Ninevites. He didn’t want God to have mercy on them. But he “embraced diversity” and went. (Can we say that he went only after a Big Fish “embraced diversity?”) Jonah overcame his prejudices and stereotypes to go preach God’s word to the people of Nineveh.

What was that word? The NRSV puts is this way: “Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” As far as we can tell, there was no command of repentance, no offer of forgiveness. It was simply, “You’re going to suffer God’s judgment.”

Before I read this piece at the Igniting Ministry website I never imagined that UMCOM meant that “embracing diversity” included preaching the judgment of God on sin. I’d been afraid they’d tossed out everything about sin and judgment and were simply into affirming everything – even the popular sins of the day.

Now I know better. I stand corrected.

Posted in church growth, Theology, United Methodism | 2 Comments

Evaluating Youth Ministry

Posted on September 5, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

Back in the days that “Youth Ministry” was a central part of my job description, I used to feel bad that I didn’t fit the mold of “youth ministry guy.” You know – the overgrown, hyper-energetic, guitar playing, extraverted, always fun person – who stereotypically fills the role? I was a fairly quiet, introverted, academic type. My youth groups never had the huge blow out events. We never numbered in the hundreds – or anywhere close.

A couple of times I actually prayed something like, “God, make me more exciting so I can draw in more youth!” But my prayer was only half-hearted. I was – and remain – fairly content with my personality type. What I’ve done instead is shift the way I evaluate a youth ministry.

There are lots of ways to evaluate the quality of the youth ministry. Quite a few judge quality on the basis of quantity:

  • How many members?
  • How many regulars?
  • How many conversions?
  • How many programs/activities?

All of these can be good things. Unfortunately, each (as we judge them) can be completely irrelevant.

Instead of basing my evaluation on numbers, I ask the question, “Where will these kids be in ten years? Will what our ministry does with them now have any lasting influence? Will it stick with them – even a little – through the college years? Will it shape their families and career path?” I’m happy to say that ten years out of my last youth ministry job there is some lasting fruit. It still breaks me heart that there’s not more (also when I read stories like this).

“Fruit that lasts” sounds pretty biblical, doesn’t it? So why do we stick with the numbers game? I can think of a few reasons:

  1. Numbers are biblical also. In the Book of Acts we’re repeatedly told of thousands coming to faith.
  2. Numbers appeal to our egos. We can easily visualize them and compare them with others.
  3. The vast numbers of people in youth ministry who are insecure and think (too often rightly) that the church they work for doesn’t consider their work to be real work, feel the need to justify their measly little salary. “Why are we paying you the big bucks [20 – 30 k with no benefits] to have fun with just a handful of kids?”
  4. Numbers are something we can measure NOW. Who knows where we’ll be in ten years? We probably won’t even remember these kids.

So how do you do youth ministry if you’re looking for fruit ten years out? I’m far from an expert, but here are some ideas:

  1. Give the kids what they need, not just what they want. Matt Friedeman says the same thing. The problem is, kids know what they want right now – but they rarely know what they want for their lives as a whole. As people who are – or ought to be – at least a few steps ahead of them in terms of spiritual maturity, we can have a better understanding of what they’ll want from a whole life point of view.
  2. How do you know what they need? First, pray your socks off. Second, converse with them. Rely on your maturity to know what to do with what they tell you.
  3. At the same time, make the kids partners in their own spiritual development. Let them know what you’re doing. Help them to grasp the big picture. A key way to do this is to involve them in the ministry so they can be part of the same process in the lives of others.
  4. Continually challenge them. Sure, they’re only youth. So what? Get them into the bible. Get the bible into them. Teach them that God calls his people to be his Kingdom agents.
  5. Relate to them not merely in formal settings (i.e., group meetings and scheduled events), but also in normal life. Help them to see and understand “ordinary” life from a Christian point of view.
  6. Let them see your heart. They generally will anyway – you can’t hide it from them. If you’re in it for the money, they’ll know. (While youth ministry rarely pays a living wage, there are enough insecure people filling the ranks who think they’ve invested too much in it and couldn’t possibly do anything else.) Show them how much you love them. Show them how much your heart is broken for them and their peers.
  7. Reinforce your own ignorance. Ignorance is normal. Advanced degrees only expand ignorance – they don’t eradicate it. When your kids hear your own admission of ignorance, and see that you (at your exalted stage of spirituality) still have significant distance to cover, they’ll be more likely to have realistic expectations for themselves, and won’t give up at the first sign of failure.
  8. Following closely on the last point, fail frequently. I don’t mean that you should SIN frequently (I’m not making the same point Staupitz did to young man Luther). Failure is a normal part of life. They need to see us obeying God whether it “works” or not.
  9. Still following closely – we need to demonstrate – not just say – what it means to takeup our crosses daily. Even though Jesus has defeated the powers of sin, death and hell in his death and resurrection, the Christian life is no mere walk in the park. The world is still a dangerous place. If we can hold together a healthy sense of our own fragility, a sense of the danger of the world, AND a sense of the awesome role God calls us to in life, we will be able to stay weak, humble and usable.
  10. Finally, (and I recognize many more things are needed) don’t do it alone. This has always been my greatest error. I know by observation that I’m not alone in making this error. In the short term its almost always easier to do it all myself. In the long term I cheat the kids, cheat the church, cheat the ministry as a whole, and wear myself out. The kids need multiple role models. They need to see multiple ways of following Jesus. The ministry needs the wisdom of several people of diverse experience with God.
Posted in church growth, Leadership, Youth Ministry | 2 Comments

Assimilation

Posted on August 29, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

Americans have prided themselves for doing a better job than the Europeans assimilating “our Muslims.” There are now indications that pride may be mistaken. In Sunday’s Washington Post Geneive Abdo reports on her conversations with Muslims (especially Muslim women) around the country. She find that while assimilation to the American way of life was on the increase, after 9/11 and the changed attitude toward Muslims here, Muslims have increasingly deepened their identity as Muslims.

Over the past two years, I have traveled the country, visiting mosques, interviewing Muslim leaders and speaking to Muslim youths in universities and Islamic centers from New York to Michigan to California — and I have encountered a different truth. I found few signs of London-style radicalism among Muslims in the United States. At the same time, the real story of American Muslims is one of accelerating alienation from the mainstream of U.S. life, with Muslims in this country choosing their Islamic identity over their American one.

A new generation of American Muslims — living in the shadow of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — is becoming more religious. They are more likely to take comfort in their own communities, and less likely to embrace the nation’s fabled melting pot of shared values and common culture.

What ought we to make of this? Should we wonder where Muslims put their ultimate allegiance – to their country or to their religion? When we interact with them can we expect them to respond like “one of us” or like one of those stereotypical Muslims on TV (violent, angry, irrational)?

The supposed contrast between the peace loving American way and the raging Muslim way isn’t what Abdo finds, however. Her Muslim friends instead find the American way – the way to which they choose not to assimilate – to be characterized by immodesty, irrelegion, and loose morals.

Fatma described the mosque as central to her future: “What made me sane during years of public high school,” she said, “was coming to the halaqa every Sunday.” Fatma was also quick to distinguish herself from other young Muslim women who embrace American mores. “Some Muslims do anything to fit in. They drink. They date. My biggest fear is that I might assimilate to the American lifestyle so much that my modesty goes out the window.”

In recovering Muslim habits and practices they take a stand against the American notion that faith ought to be privatized, rather than integrated into all aspects of life.

Sounds pretty dangerous, doesn’t it? If they won’t assimilate – if they won’t takeup the American way of life – how can we trust them? How can we know they won’t turn on us?

At the end of the third century A.D. the Romans felt that way about Christians. Beseiged by enemies on every side, the Romans saw the Christians as a fifth column: living off the blessings of Roman power, yet unwilling to give simple honor to the empire. Just a pinch of insense, just a small offering. “We’re open minded. You can honor your Jesus too, just don’t forget our gods. You think our gods aren’t real gods? Well, what are we supposed to think of your god? We crucified him as a common criminal a few hundred years ago. Sure doesn’t sound very godlike to us. But we’re tolerant: if only you’ll assimilate.”

In the next generation a mutual assimilation – the church with Roman power – took place. Now the Christians were on the inside, encouraging (too put it mildly) the pagan hordes, Roman and barbarian alike, to assimilate.

Nowadays Christians don’t need to assimilate. We live in a Christian country – God’s own nation. What? You think not? Well, I guess it is the case that liberals and conservatives alike find America mired in sin (though the sins they coddle and the sins they decry differ). If from so many major Christian viewpoints America is no longer – if it ever was – a Christian nation, then why should we think it a bad thing when Muslims no longer assumilate? Is it because they make us feel guilty for assimilating – for being mostly indistingsuishable from the world?

Perhaps instead of fearing Muslims in America, we should be jealous of them. After all, they seem to still have institutions capable of helping people resist assimilation. Most of our churches, on the other hand, gave up the battle long ago and some have even become temples of the American Way.

Am I saying that it’s a bad thing to be an American? No, not at all. I don’t see any other nations out there that I’d rather live in. I also understand why so many the world over want to come live here. But being an American is not the same as being a Christian. I believe God has us here to be a blessing to the people of this nation. We become that blessing not by assimilation (losing our saltiness), but by living as apprentices of Jesus, demonstrating to the watching world – whether secular America, American Muslims, or whomever – the reality of Jesus. Maybe if the Muslims in America could distinguish the Christians in America from the overwhelming background noise of a morally degenerate culture, they might develop some curiousity about Jesus.

Posted in Current events, Islam, Politics, Theology | 1 Comment

Some Sunday News Items

Posted on August 28, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

The Atlanta Journal- Constitution tells us today that “Churches hunger for young clergy.” By “churches,” they mean “denominations.” There’s no mention of the long standing congregational request for a young pastor, with years of experience, many children, a hard working wife who will volunteer (a few may have gotten to the point where they’d tolerate a hard working, volunteering husband), boundless energy and enthusiasm, willing to work for a fairly small salary (although the church will give cost of living raises when it can afford it, reckoned by rounding down to the nearest whole number from a recent report of the inflation rate), and to do exactly what they’ve always done. Instead, the article focuses on several young clergy who have bucked the trend. Serveral theories are mentioned:

Ask a church official why more young people aren’t coming to the ministry and the answers will vary. Some will cite the pay — starting salaries may hover around $30,000.

Others, such as Kime, think the career has lost some of its prestige. Some people are liable to think ministers are just following orders from an earthly hierarchy.

“Pastors aren’t seen as individual thinkers,” she said.

Still others are likely to echo the Rev. Carter McInnis, a 29-year-old Methodist minister who last year started a church at a Lawrenceville elementary school.

“I think we’re missing out in college,” he said. “Sometimes, that’s where the church loses its touch.”

Missing out in college? How could that be? Our own colleges value their acceptance in academia more than calling people to faith in Jesus. At least here in the Texas Conference we have a couple of Wesley Foundations that are accounting for a few younger pastors entering the ministry. But as far as I can tell, many around the country are dwindling, settling for a reductionistic social gospel. It looks more attractive to get the business or law degree and than do social work on the side than it does to join “institutional religion.”

**************************

In today’s Dallas Morning News, Billy Abraham argues that theology matters.  Our culture cannot understand radical islamist movements because of our secularism. The churches are no better off because of their rejection of substantive theology. Too many no longer believe in theologicial error. Abraham, however, declares that theological error is exactly the problem with radical islamism.

We also must face squarely the theological challenge of all forms of Islam. The vision of divine revelation, without which Islam is unintelligible, challenges the foundations of Western democracies. The emergence of jihad as a global war against Israel and the West is rooted in a serious engagement with the Quran. Neither pacifism nor just war theory are adequate as a basis for the challenge we now face; we need more robust moral and military resources.

It is time that theologians come to terms with the real world and that citizens awake from their dogmatic slumbers and theological indifference. Theology matters; it has always dealt with matters of life and death – now more than ever.

It’s heartening to hear this coming out of one of our United Methodist seminaries. Go, Billy, go!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Presidents & Public Opinion

Posted on August 22, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

Mario Loyola at The Corner talks about the President and public opinion, contrasting him with his predecessors who bent with every poll.

Conservatives who are piling on the anti-Bush bandwagon should consider that this trait—which makes the Bush family historically great—is a historical rarity to be treasured. This administration would do well to be more concerned with its popularity — the President and even Vice President should appear every week in press conferences and on the Sunday talk shows — if only to strengthen the political viability of their agenda, and be able to shape the terms of debate. But it was not so long ago that Americans could only wish for a president who was obviously trustworthy, upstanding, and principled. And the day is not far off when we will think ourselves lucky to have seen this President defend the honor and integrity of his office—and the American people—for eight years. The times are difficult, and nobody could have gotten through the last five years without making mistakes. But in that station to which God called him, George W. Bush has been himself honestly, and thank God for that.

As a leader in an organization I know the temptation of bending with the polls. In churches we don’t do as many polls as politicians do, but we have an endless line of people offering us opinions. We, like presidents, have a responsibility to listen to people, and that for two reasons that go beyond trying to be liked.

First, we need to recognize we don’t know it all. We can get it wrong. Whether we discover our first principles are wrong or simply our ways of pursuing them, we are dependent on the wisdom of other people, even people who radically disagree with us.

Secondly, if we are true leaders, and not mere dictators, we need to know what our people are thinking so we can engage them where they are. As a pastor I need to know what people people think about past, current and proposed actions. Even if I think their attitudes are completely misguided, my responsibility to lead them compels me to engage with them so I can try to bring them around. President Bush, as many have noted, is clearly not doing an adequate job of engaging with people – either on his own side or the other sides. Giving in isn’t the issue. It’s getting out and making a case for what he thinks needs be done in light of what other people see and say.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Render to Caesar

Posted on August 20, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

I just finished Christoher Bryan’s, Render to Caesar: Jesus, the Early Church, and the Roman Superpower. Looking at the variety of stances toward the state, particular large, powerful, obnoxious foreign states that often made life miserable for the people of God, Bryan finds four basic responses.

  1. Full acceptance. God made the powers that be and we simply need to be subservient.
  2. Acceptance with a willingness to question. Government is God’s idea. But because the state is God’s idea, the state is always accountable to God. It’s job is to work toward God’s peace and justice.
  3. Non-violent rejection. The state is a power for evil, and through non-cooperation and peaceful protest we will stand against it.
  4. Violent rejection. These guys are horrible, evil pagans. We need to do everything in our power to remove them.

Bryan finds traditions of interpretation with in first century Judaism as well as the later church, that seem to adhere to each of these views. His consideration of Jesus and the New Testament, however, finds them to take position 2. Much like Jeremiah in Jer. 29, they recognize an exile relationship vis-a-vis the imperial power, but seek to be a blessing to the “city” in which they find themselves.

So if the early Christians followed Jesus in not seeing Rome as a big bad guy to be resisted, why was there so much persecution and resistance to the faith? Bryan’s theory is that the Romans’ primary reason for working against the Christians was their perceived atheism. The gods guarantee our happiness, safety and prosperity. When we see these on the wane, it must be because of the lack of piety, i.e., Christians, in our midst.

Since my own thinking on church and state has been molded of late by contemplation of Jeremiah 29:7, I find Bryan’s point of view attractive. I think his greatest weakness is avoidance of the notion of the church as an alternative people, a holy nation belonging to God. I’m still working on understanding how that nation relates to the nations in which we find ourselves.

I also think Bryan underestimates the degree to which the NT folks – from Jesus to Paul, Luke, Peter & John – took themselves to be offering an alternative vision of the meaning and purpose of life – intentionally different from that offered by Rome. While I don’t see Jesus, Paul, et al., agitating against Rome, seeking to replace the empire with a theocracy, or going into the desert to escape the corruption of the age, their teaching and corporate lifestyle surely posed a challenge to the established way of doing things.

Posted in Bible, Books, Theology | 1 Comment

Biggest Project Yet

Posted on August 17, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

The Great Pyramids…

The Great Wall of China…

The Golden Gate Bridge…

Hoover Dam…

The Apollo Space Program…

We know how much effort and expense these required. We hear of future plans to build a moon base or colonize Mars. The cost of either would be in the billions if not trillions.

I’ve seen announcement of a new plan that would leave all these in the dust, a plan so audacious it would make these earlier projects no bigger than buying a piece of bubble gum in comparison.

You’ve probably seen the headline also. If you’ve read the story, you probably noticed that they haven’t put a price on it yet. They’re probably afraid of what we’ll say.

If you haven’t seen it, here’s the headline:

Plan Would Add Planets to the Solar System

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Demonizing the Enemy?

Posted on August 17, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

One my sources for analysis of world events is The Belmont Club blog by Wretchard. I’m not sure what to do with today’s post on the will for victory. Discussing the point that the West (including Israel) have the technology and means to beat Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc., many times over, yet frequently find ourselves defeated (or at least stimied) by their sheer will to prevail no matter what the cost, the rhetorical subtext seems to be that if we don’t match their will we will be doomed.

As an illustration of Hezbollah’s will to victory, he points to a story from a German news source:

Die Welt relates the experience of an Israeli officer who fought Hezbollah during the early 1980s. Israel had artillery, tanks, airplanes to Hezbollahs guns and knives. But Israel was a liberal democracy and Hezbollah a ruthless criminal organization. The overmatch in will made knives were more powerful than tanks because Hezbollah was willing to use them unhesitatingly. “Hezbollah’s barbarism is legendary. Gen. Effe Eytam, an Israeli veteran of that first Lebanon war, tells of how–after Israel had helped bring “Doctors without Borders” into a village in the 1980s to treat children–local villagers lined up 50 kids the next day to show Eytam the price they pay for cooperating with the West. Each of the children had had their pinky finger cut off.”

When you read that you can understand how Hezbollah can start a war with Israel, invite the devastation of their own people, have at least half their fighting force killed, gain no territory, and still think of themselves as the victor. As they play the newsmedia like puppets, its easy to imagine that they will stage operations against their own people, as long as Israel or the West gets blamed.

I don’t know about anyone else, but when I read stories like this I find it very easy to think of Hezbollah as demonic – as an evil so great the only possible response is extermination. With them its either kill or be killed. So we kill.

But that is neither the only nor the strongest inclination I feel. I feel a deep sadness for the people of Lebanon, that they are ruled by such merciless thugs. I feel a deep sadness for the Hezbollah people themselves that they have been deceived into thinking what they are doing is good. I also feel a deep sadness for the enemies of Hezbollah who think their only alternative is to become like them.

Over and over again in the Old Testament, Israel thought it had to learn from its neighbors. “All the other nations have a king, we want one too!” “All the other nations have statues and images of their gods. We’re visual people, we need idols also!” “The other nations rely on their armies and alliances. It’s nice to say, ‘In God we trust,’ But god gave us a brain and our brain says we need more weapons and a bigger army than they do. Our god-made brain tells us we can’t trust in god alone.”

Wretchard’s right. Compared to a fair number of the Islamists, the West is weak willed. We’re ruled by a morality that constrains our actions of retribution. At least in the short term, it costs us more. But if Jesus is right, it’s only in the short term.

We do need stronger wills, but not stronger wills bent on killing or enforcing our vision of rightness. We – and I speak here of Christians – need a stronger will to adhere to Jesus. We need to remember 2 Timothy 3:12 and not be surprised when people don’t like us. At the same time we need to face up to the fact that there are people out there who are sold out to evil. GWB didn’t make that up.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Passive Sin

Posted on August 17, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

I’ve been leading a study of Romans for a little over a year now (we’ve made it about half way through the eighth chapter). Reading Romans 4 pretty closely made me wonder. For years I’ve read the chapter as simply pointing to Abraham as an example of faith. Abraham has faith and is justified. Paul explicitly quotes Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Here’s the picture. Abraham discovered he was a sinner. Feeling guilty, he sought forgiveness.

We tend to associate these things with salvation – with forgiveness of sins. I wondered: What sins is Abraham accused of here that make him a necessary recipient of righteousness? Since we don’t see any in the text, we’re forced to depend on the general theory of sinfulness. Everyone is a sinner, everyone needs righteousness. Well, yes. But is that all? Paul keeps going back to talking about Seeds, and heirs and Abraham’s faith. What is Abraham described as having faith in – which promises of God did he believe? Promises regarding forgiveness of his sins? Promises about being declared righteous in the sight of God? My guess is that Abraham would have thought these good things. But curiously those are not the promises Abraham is believing. Rather, he’s believing that God will overcome his childlessness. Is it possible then, that righteousness – at least in Abraham’s case – includes a son?

This seems to connect well with Tom Wright’s claim that when Jesus preached the forgiveness of sins, his audience didn’t merely hear what we hear, i.e., “My individual sins will be forgiven” but rather a proclamation of return from Exile. Wright’s claim has been extremely controversial, but if he’s right, might it be an instance of God’s desire to deliver his people from the consequences of sin – and thus analogous to his desire to deliver all people from the consequences of sin (through faith)?

I call this sin that we need deliverance from passive sin. Unlike active sin – which includes both the traditional categories of sins of commission and sins of omission – passive sin is not connected with our own action (or non-action). We suffer from passive sin simply by living in a sinful, broken world.

Back to Abraham. What salvation – or righteousness was Abraham looking for? Eternal life? Heaven? A heart strangely warmed? As far as I can tell, all he wanted was a son. I also see no evidence that God thought this desire misguided. In fact, Abraham’s having a son was part of God’s grand plan to bring deliverance from sin – righteousness – salvation – to the whole earth. Thus considered prospectively, the birth of Isaac was a victory over sin. Could it also be seen as a victory over sin when we look backward? Can we see Abraham’s childlessness as an effect of sin in the world – sin that Abraham and Sarah were suffering the consequences of? So when God declares Abraham righteous, one of the things that comes with that is Isaac.

The notion of passive sin – sin that we suffer and need deliverance from, but don’t actually do can be hard to grasp, especially when something as painful as childlessness is associated with it. It’s easy for people to think, “Here we are in great pain and anguish, unable to have children. And you want us to believe it’s our fault because we’re sinners?”

There are several reasons that it’s tough to grasp the notion of passive sin:

  1. We’ve been taught for generations that sin, forgiveness and salvation are all about “merit” – what we deserve. As good bible protestants, we know that our problem with God is sin. We can each say, “I am a sinner, separated from God by my sin.” We also know that forgiveness is purely of grace. It’s not something we deserve (or merit). Rather, so the story is told, Jesus supplies the merit (the deserving) that we lack. Because he loves us and died for us, he’s happy to share what he’s earned (forgiveness, eternal life). We’re saved (and forgiven) not by works, but by faith.
  2. We’re taught that it’s our individual sin that is the problem. So when something is observed to be a problem (a ‘religious’ problem – or one pertaining to God stuff anyway), it’s natural to think that it’s our ‘fault.’ If we’re ok with God (i.e. a practicing and observant Christian), actively avoiding sinning (except for some little stuff here or there, or the theoretical, “Sure I’m a sinner. Everyone is.”) and yet have a problem, we are sometimes inclined to define it as a ‘non-religious’ problem, one not pertaining to God stuff. The upside of this strategy is that we don’t go through life feeling condemned, thinking all the stuff that happens to us is our fault. The down side – and I think this is a big one – is that we have an unsolvable problem of “Why Bad Things Happen to Good People.”

What I’m trying to do that’s different is this:

  1. I deny the place of merit. It’s not simply that we don’t deserve forgiveness or salvation – deserving (or meriting) is completely irrelevant. It’s not even the case that we don’t merit it but Jesus does so he, after receiving what he’s earned, gives it to us. I recognize that when I say this some folks seem to hear me saying either that we aren’t sinners in need of salvation, OR that I have a low view of Jesus and his work. But I’m saying neither.
  2. I am a sinner. That’s a problem. BUT: Even if I weren’t a sinner, sin would still be a problem. Consider Jesus. The NT clearly teaches that Jesus was not a sinner. But look what sin did to him. Sin was very clearly a problem for Jesus. Sin was not a God-problem for Jesus. I don’t think sin so tainted Jesus that the Father said, “Eeeuuuuwww Yuck!” and looked away, wanting nothing further to do with the Son. While some may theorize this from Jesus’ use of Psalm 22 (“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” – God forsakes Jesus [temporarily, it is stressed] because Jesus has “become sin”), I theorize that (the omniscience of the Second Person of the Trinity aside) Jesus’ experiential perception here does not accurately depict reality. That is to say, though Jesus perceives himself to be forsaken by God, this is only a matter of perception. God has not in fact forsaken him.
  3. This mistaken perception is part of the suffering of Jesus. Another term for the ‘suffering of Jesus’ is the ‘passion’ of Jesus.
  4. Passive sin is sin that we suffer. While on the cross Jesus was not suffering [from] his own sin, but [from] the sin of others. The suffering was very real.
  5. Unlike Jesus, we do suffer from our own sins. Not only do our own sins harm us directly, they also have consequences that harm us. LIKE Jesus, however, we also suffer from the sin of others. Sometimes this is clear and obvious. When Saddam Hussein persecuted and killed the Shiites and the Kurds, they suffered the consequences of his sin. That’s pretty easy to see. What may not be so easy to see is that sin (my sin, your sin, everyone’s sin – stretching back to Adam) has messed things up big time. There have been (and still are) cosmic consequences of sin. Because of sin, we live in a broken world. I realize this is a controversial claim, but by my reckoning things like hurricanes, earthquakes, cancer, heart disease, – and even childlessness – can be seen as effects of sin. We suffer the consequences of this sin even though it is not technically our sin.
  6. Why talk about passive sin? Not merely because we suffer from it, but because I believe the salvation Jesus offers is salvation from all sin. While we frequently stop with salvation from our sin – with forgiveness – Jesus’ intention is to do more. In fact, his goal is nothing more than the renewal of all creation.
Posted in Bible, Theology | 3 Comments

Study Questions on Romans 8:9-17

Posted on August 16, 2006 by Richard Heyduck

Since I had a graveside service at the same time as my morning bible study today, I left some questions with the group so they could make some progress until I returned. Here are the questions. Perhaps someone will find them useful.

Romans 8 Bible Study Starter Questions

 

v. 9      It appears that our two options are to be controlled by either the flesh (“Sinful nature” in some translations) or the Spirit. What do you think of the lack of other possibilities? Can you imagine someone saying, “I’m the only one who controls what I do.”? It might be worth considering the response to Jesus in John 8: 31-47. Do you think the response there parallels what Paul says?

 

What is the mark or sign that one is owned by Christ? You can find parallel texts in 2 Corinthians 1:21-22 & Ephesians 1:11-14. On the other side, what is the mark that one does not belong to Christ?

 

v. 10    What are the consequences of having Christ in you? What might this look like in our world today?

 

v. 11    What does the Spirit do in this text? In light of what you’ve seen of the Spirit’s work  in this paragraph (v. 9-11) how might you respond to someone who thinks the Holy Spirit is merely optional for Christians, or perhaps only for Pentecostals?

 

v. 12    If these Spirit does all this for us, what are the consequences? What obligation do we have?

 

v. 13    What is the result of living according to the sinful nature (flesh)? Whose job is it to “put to death” the misdeeds of the body? What kind of misdeeds do you think Paul might be thinking of? Can you think of any misdeeds that we need to try to exterminate? How do we go about putting our misdeeds to death? Consider both what you know of scripture and your previous experience of putting misdeeds to death. Deeper question: Do you think most Christians have experience putting misdeeds to death? Why or why not?

 

v. 14            According to this verse who are the sons (children) of God? What is it that makes them children of God? You might compare this with John 1:12.

 

v. 15    What does this verse show the Spirit doing in our lives? Is this good or bad? Why? What is a “spirit of sonship?”

 

v. 16    In this verse there are two “spirits” in view: The Spirit and our spirit. How do these spirits relate to each other? If you (as a human being) have a spirit, how does your spirit relate to the rest of whatever you are (assuming that you are not entirely or just spirit)?

 

v. 17    What is the consequence of being God’s child? What might it mean to be an heir of God? A co-heir with Christ? There is some big stuff in view here. You might think in light of Ephesians 1:18-2:7. What does it mean to “share in his sufferings?” Whose sufferings? Which sufferings? How does this connect with Jesus’ command to take up our crosses and follow him? Other passages to consider include Philippians 1:29; 3:3-11; Colossians 1:24-29.

Why do you think suffering is part of being a child of God, a co-heir with Christ? Do you think those who simply live according to the flesh, that is, those who ignore Christ and the life of the Spirit, get to miss out on suffering? If they do suffer, what is the difference between their suffering and the suffering Christians experience in Jesus?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment