Tag Archive

Chad got me thinking (dangerous, I know).

When Jesus says to love our enemies, who does he mean? Even “enemies” like Bin Laden? Or just our private, personal enemies?

If we saw Bin Laden on the street and had the power to take his life, should we? If not, what should the proper response of a follower of Jesus and his way be?

If we are called to love even the “Bin Ladens” of our world, what does that look like? What does it really mean to LOVE our enemies? What actions? What words? Who are some examples of people throughout history, or even in your personal circle, that demonstrated love for their enemies in real and tangible ways? Does love also entail forgiveness?

If we can’t love enemies like Bin Laden, then who can we love? Really?

Forgiveness is not an occasional art, it is a permanent attitude.

~ Martin Luther

Amen and thank God.

I learned this from a friend recently:

Those who are truly broken find it hard to judge anyone, even those who had a hand in breaking them.

We all make choices. We all make interpretations. We all are led individually by the Holy Spirit. We all do the best we can with our three-pound brains and our built in, God-given human limitations. We all stake claims on our current understanding of God’s truth as revealed to us by his Holy Spirit through the bible, his creation, and ultimately through his son Jesus. And so tonight, I do so as well and stake my claim on my current understanding of God’s truth.

[In doing so, please realize that this is my human profession. By making it, I am not judging or condemning others who believe or understand God differently—we all see dimly and in part. This is simply a short, non-comprehensive statement of where I have been led and am choosing to stick my flag based on my limited, non-comprehensive human understanding. It is by no means all worked out without any issues with a tidy bow (whose belief/theology ever is?), nor do I believe it ever will be. I believe that when contemplating God, there will always be a substantial element of mystery and faith involved—if not, he would cease to be God, and I human. It is partly because of my human limitations and the mystery of God that my belief will continue to be shaped throughout my life. Currently, this is what I believe. If you don't agree with it, cool . . . that is not an expectation of mine. After all, I really believe that we will all show up with our three-pound brains before God and realize we all fell short, were in error, and misinterpreted his revelations to us to one degree or another, and even then he will show grace.]

If it helps, to understand biblically a bit more where I am coming from, I would highly encourage you to read this Word document referencing scripture before continuing: reconcilation-scriptures.doc

I believe and stand on the mountain of God’s abundant grace and love for all of humanity. That through the blood and sacrifice of Jesus, God’s justice was met and the punishment for all sin was paid in full—canceled. That because of God’s love for his kids and the reconciliation that was made through Jesus, God has forgiven all. That forgiveness is his decision alone to make and it is not dependent on our response. That a person’s belief does not trigger God’s forgiveness, but rather their belief allows them to experience and walk in God’s love and the reality of their God-declared forgiven state. That God is able to extend his love and grace even after a person’s death. That death indeed lost its victory and sting, and God is not hindered one bit by our death in extending his mercy. If God was hindered by our death, then our death would ultimately be more powerful than God. That one day, every knee shall bow (repentance) and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (worship), and on that day God will not say, “That’s great and all, but there’s nothing I can do, my hands are tied. Sorry, you died—you’re too late.” That even then man can still reject him, but I find it awfully hard to imagine them doing so given the God-reality they are now experiencing. That if rejected, God will honor their decision and what happens after that I will let God worry about. That God, in his infinite love, is just wild enough to redeem, reconcile, and restore all things to himself. That in the end, God’s love for his kids wins and we will get to join in and celebrate his victory over death and sin, and embrace our dad. That in the end, mercy indeed triumphs over judgment.

I believe that on this earth, sin still has its deadly and destructive consequences, and that God, out of his love and for the purpose of restoration, disciplines his kids. That those who ‘believe’ on earth get to begin enjoying God’s love and kingdom-life here and now, and have the honor of being God’s kingdom-vessels in both word and deed here on earth . That the good news perhaps is not, “You can be forgiven in Jesus if you believe” (which is good news to be sure), but, “You are forgiven through and by Jesus, do you believe?” That the burden of humanity’s souls is God’s burden. Our job is the declaration of forgiveness, to love God (who first loves us), to love ourselves (because he loves us), and out of God’s love we are to love our fellow brothers and sisters who happen to share the same tiny globe as us, who happen to be created by the same one and only God as us, and who happen to be loved by God as we are. That it is our joy and privilege, as pre-death embracers of God’s love and forgiveness, to love and spread the good news that man is forgiven and loved by a God—their Daddy—who is love. That through love, their image of God, themselves, and others will begin to be restored. That we can join arms and follow Jesus’ example and the Holy Spirit’s leading in bringing God’s Kingdom to earth as it is in heaven. That our highest call is love. It is on the mountain of God’s incomprehensible love and Jesus’ all-encompassing blood that I stand, come what may.

I echo the words of John Bunyan, the author of Pilgrim’s Progress, who said, “I will stay in Jail ’till the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience.” And the spirit of Martin Luther when he said, “Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God.”

And if I error, I will error on the side of God’s grace and love—for all.

“For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.” Col 1:19-22

One of my more “controversial” posts was when I wrestled with Romans Chapter 5 and tried to simply let the passage speak for itself, allowing the Bible to shed light onto our interpretation and application, versus the other way around. As I did, I was stunned by what the text really seemed to be saying. I invited others to read the text and wrestle with it themselves. I then posted my own process of wrestling with what the text was saying. However, after reading it again, I felt I needed to clarify some of my thoughts and so I updated it. I would encourage you to read and engage both of the previous posts, but below is the update and additional “all men” passages.

UPDATE 3/14/08 : Though God’s reconciliation (forgiveness, grace, pardon, etc.) seems to apply to all men (humanity wise, not gender), mankind still needs to receive and believe in the fact that God has forgiven them. In a sense, mankind needs to step into the truth that they are forgiven and loved. By mankind hearing and believing this truth does not trigger God’s forgiveness (as if God says, “Oh good, now I can forgive you…thanks!”), it simply allows them to walk in and enjoy their already God-declared forgiven state.

Think of it this way, when my son does something terrible, I forgive and love him unconditionally (Do I still discipline him with the goal of restoration in mind?…In love, yes). My love and forgiveness is not dependent on anything he says or does. However, when I tell him I love and forgive him, his belief and reception of that releases him from self-condemnation and the illusion that I do not love or forgive him. As his dad, as far as I am concerned he is free and clear from my condemnation and wrath—he’s loved and forgiven. Can he still reject my love and forgiveness? Sadly, yes.

Mankind, when standing before God and hearing (perhaps for the first time) that they are forgiven and loved through Jesus, can still reject him and say, “That’s fine, but I still want nothing to do with you.” And God—despite declaring them loved and forgiven—will not force them to love him and I believe will honor their desire to not be in his presence.

Appendix: Other “All Men” passages

1 Timothy 2:4
…who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:6
…
who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

1 Timothy 4:10
…(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Titus 2:11
…For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

John 12:32
…
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”

Romans 5:18
…
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.

For whatever reason, some of the rats and mice in our neighborhood thought our house was a great place to spend their winter. Quite often when we go out into our garage, we hear the sounds of scurrying mice and rats as they rustle through our bags and boxes. Every now and then we will actually see them run along the rafters or jump from one cabinet to another; and I have to admit, I think they are kinda cute! But they chew up our stuff, leave poop everywhere, and carry awful diseases (or so I’ve been told). I don’t mind them living out in the wild or even in our backyard. But when they take residence in our residence, that’s when he gloves come off and I depart from Saint Francis’ theology of love-all-of-creation. I’ve had enough and the rats must die (not to mention I really love my wife who keeps dropping hints about our “friends” in the garage).

So here is what I did. I went to the local Lowes store and bought some d-CON Ready Mixed Baitbits (a.k.a rat and mice poison). I brought the poison home. Without reading the directions (I am a guy) I opened the box, took out a bait filled tray, removed the protective film, dumped the poison baitbits into my mouth and quickly swallowed. “There,” I thought, “That will show them.”

I grabbed a folding chair, sat down in the middle of our garage, and waited for the rats to die. Soon the rats emerged out of the dark shadows and began scurrying about. Just the sight of them made me mad! “There they go again, destroying my stuff, crapping in my garage, and threating the health of my kids.” Pissed, I swallowed some more poison baitbites. As I sat there steaming over the rats and waiting for the poison to take effect on them, my stomach began to knot up and my insides began to churn. A sharp pain sent my body into the fetal position as my stomach tried to repel the poison and its bitterness.

As I layed there in the garage convulsing, it dawned on me—this is exactly what happens when I don’t forgive. As Anne Lamott wisely noted:

Not forgiving is like drinking rat poison

and then waiting for the rat to die.

May I (we) deeply experience what it means to be forgiven by God and deeply extend forgiveness to others—even if they’re “rats”.

It is hard to say for certain why the medieval church had a preoccupation with sin—fear, money, control…perhaps—but it is fairly obvious that an entire religious system was built around this preoccupation. It seems, in fact, that one of the church’s primary roles was dealing with sin. Professions were built around it. The rich could hire personal confessors to help them cleanse themselves from sin. Indulgences would be sold. They would pay clergy to say personal masses in order to soften God’s heart towards their sin. Relics could be bought to earn a certain level of spirituality.

Their theology seemed to feed a well thought out financial system. There seemed to be no teaching about the absolute assurance of God’s forgiveness. All of the religious services that people purchased just temporarily dealt with sin; or made it more likely that God might let them into heaven; or possibly lessen their time in purgatory. The purchases never completely, fully, once-and-for-all cleansed sin…nor was it taught, it seems, that such a cleansing was even possible. After all, if sin was completely forgiven, then how could the church still make money off of selling sin-cleansing services? So the theology they adopted helped support the religious system they created. In order to maintain it and survive, they had to teach: “There is no absolute forgiveness of sins. The best one can hope for is just barely getting in…maybe. And that ‘maybe’ will cost you X amount…for now.” Self-preservation of the system—and those who benefited from it—perpetuated a theology of fear and uncertainty; freedom from which could be purchased from the local church.

I honestly do not see any benefits that come from such a focus, save perhaps a false sense of righteousness and a real sense of fear. To focus on sin and God’s wrath creates only an atmosphere of fear or anger. But where such an atmosphere exists, people can be manipulated and controlled. Their fear can be leveraged into doing all sorts of things and giving great amounts of money to appease God’s anger and lessen their fear. No restoration fully comes. No redemption is fully realized. Grace is not extended, because to do so would mean the loss of an income. Absolute forgiveness is not declared, because to do so would mean to say goodbye to a personal self-kingdom of power and authority.

So they teach the people to remain fearful of God and thankful to the church that it is doing everything it can to help them please God and attain his favor. They teach them, “God is against you, you sinner; but lucky you, the church is for you! WE are for you!!” As long as the church can keep the people believing that God is against them and the church is for them—doing all it can as Christ’s Bride to beg this angry God on their behalf—they will pay tooth-and-nail for its help. And pay they did.

Perhaps today, for some, the preoccupation on sin has changed. But I see the underlining fault as this: holding to a theology in order that established systems of religion can be protected and maintained, and that those benefiting from such systems can continue too benefit. Today, at least in America, a theology that supports the selling of sin-cleansing services just wouldn’t fly. So we adopt other, more “acceptable” theologies that support our system—same root problem, just a different focus and different words. Today (though I do not think the element of fear is completely done away with) we imply, “If you really loved God, then you would do such-and-such.” Or we just flat-out say, “Because he commands it”…or …“You’ll be rewarded”…or…“He loves a cheerful giver,” to financially support our stuff.

We are no less sinful than they were.

We need his grace no less then they did.

He loves us no less.

“Not forgiving is like drinking rat poison and then waiting for the rat to die.”

~ Anne Lamott, Traveling Mercies

Post 2 of 2

If you haven’t already, please pause and read post 1. I am still in process over this and have been for some time…

My journey with this passage began about a year ago. I was reading a book written by a Calvinist who believed in the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP) and it got me thinking about where the doctrine of Total Depravity stemmed from (inherited sin nature, fallenness of man, etc.). So I wanted to see which passages they sited for that doctrine…which led me to the Presbyterian Book of Confessions. It was here (and some other sources) that I discovered that Romans 5 was the main source (even more that Genesis, which lists only specific consequences for Adam and Eve’s sin). So I went to read Romans 5. Rightfully so, according to the text, they applied the consequences of Adam’s sin across the board to all of humanity, regardless of belief, religion…even over those who have not hypothetically ever sinned (such as a newborn)! Verse 18a, namely, was the main verse cited for this doctrine. But then I read the verse in its context and that is when I saw an apparent double-standard of interpretation being applied to the passage as a whole, at times even within the same sentences of thought.

So with a little bit of that background, let me share my answers to the questions. (Note: The questions are referencing this document Adam / Jesus in Romans 5 )

1. What column does Paul seem to be emphasizing? 2nd. Based on his words, Paul seems to be emphasizing the work of Jesus. The term “How much more” is repeated 5 times, almost like a bell. Then twice, he says that the “gift is not like the tresspass”, but is so much more!
2. Which column does Paul seem to be saying has more power? 2nd. The emphasis on “How much more”, plus his emphasis on how Jesus is our Lord and God (not a created being like Adam) says that Jesus’ work of reconciliation and justification has the power over Adam’s work of death and condemnation.
3. Which column does Paul seem to be saying trumps the other column? 2nd. Again, it seems clears whose actions overcame the others’.
4. Which column do you interpret as Good News? 2nd. Paul almost seems to be shouting, “Do you see how bad it is because of sin and Adam? It’s horrible. But look at was done through Jesus!! What fantastic news that where sin increased, grace increased ALL THE MORE!!”
5. Which column applies to “all men”…to “the many“? Both. It is one passage that uses the same exact, identical words to show how Adam’s sin applied to all men and that Jesus’ reconciliation applied to all men. Again, just letting the passage speak without us bringing in our pre-conceived ideas to it.
6. Which column is the result of a created man’s actions? 1st: Adam
7. Which column is the result of God’s actions? 2nd: Jesus

_______________________________________________________________

1. Which column do we traditionally apply to people whether they believe it or not? 1st: Adam
2. Which column do we traditionally apply regardless of what they do or not do? 1st: Adam
3. Which column do we traditionally say that a human only has to be born into this world to have it apply to them? 1st: Adam
4. Which column do we traditionally apply to only the people who believe it is true? 2nd: Jesus
5. Which column do we traditionally apply to all people? 1st: Adam
6. Which column do we traditionally apply to only some people? 2nd: Jesus
7. If we say one column applies to all people, and the other to only some, then based on this, which column do we traditionally say has more power (though perhaps we would never say it)? 1st: Adam. Again, not based on what we would ever say, but based on how we APPLY these two column.

________________________________________________________________

What do you see? I see that what Paul is saying, based on his words and emphasis, does not line up with how we traditionally apply the implications and words of this text.

What stands out? The words HOW MUCH MORE and THE GIFT IS NOT LIKE THE TRESPASS. Plus the exact tit-for-tat interplay between Adam’s work compared to Jesus’ work. Also, “How much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! For if, when we were God’s enemies (which we view today as people who do not believe in or follow him), we were reconciled to him through the death of his son.” When were we reconciled?…when we were still his enemies!! Not after we said yes to his freindship, but while we were still spitting at him…that is WHEN he reconciled us. Wow…hmmmm. Crazy.

What inconsistencies are there, if any? “All men” and “the many” are not equally applied. If fact, the traditional emphasis of these words (applying them universally only to Adam’s sin) seems to flip-flop Paul’s intended emphasis of “How much more” the reconciliation and grace of Jesus is to “All men” and “the many”. Paul uses the same exact words for both columns and yet we apply them completely differently. Sin=all men. Reconciliation=some men.

Do your answers line up with what Paul was saying? It does not seem like it. Quite the opposite, actually.

Do you see a dual-standard being applied to this verse? Meaning, do we interpret and apply parts of this passage one way, then apply and interpret other parts another way, sometimes within the same sentence? It absolutely seems to be the case. You cannot have it both ways. If you apply “all men” and “the many” regarding sin (condemnation, judgement, death, etc) to every human being that is born regardless of anything they believe or do, then you HAVE to apply the “all men” and “the many” regarding reconciliation (forgiveness, grace, pardon, etc) to every human being that is born regardless of anything the believe or do. You CANNOT apply one, one way then turn around and apply the other, another way. They are the same words in the same sentences. Same way with the other alternative. If you do not apply “all men”and “the many” to everyone, regardless (like we do with Jesus’ work), then you HAVE to apply “all men” and “the many” the same way in regards to the effects of Adam’s sin, that it does not apply to everyone, regardless. Do you see the dilemma this passage and our traditional application of it creates? Something is not right.

What was you experience like doing this exercise? Frustrating and, “oh my God…what IS this passage saying?”

How were you stretched? Still being stretched.

Are there any new conclusions or insights you have drawn? It has opened up the possibility that how Paul viewed Jesus’ work of grace and reconciliation is SOOOOOOO much bigger and glorious than I had EVER imagined!!

___________________________________________________________

So you see why I hate/love this passage (and the others that say the same thing)? Again, much of what we believe to be true is simply what we have been taught, which is what they were taught, which is what they were taught, and slowly belief evolves into what it is today. How would the first century church and those in Rome understood this passage? How did Paul explain it when he was with them? How might we be misinterpreting words and their meanings based on our understanding as white, 30 something, middle-class, evangelical Christians, in a high-tech, rich urban culture, in the world’s most powerful nation 2000 years later? We have to ask these questions…

My question is this. Based on this passage, why do we believe (and find it easy to do so) that what Adam did, universally and automatically effects more humans (every human in fact) than what Jesus did…and we believe Jesus is God? That a man—a man!—and his decision to rebel has more of an effect on the whole of humanity than God himself does through Jesus and his decision to redeem and forgive?

What I am saying does not gel with certain Christian faith traditions (though there are some traditions that would say, “Jeromy, this is nothing new…we’ve believed this all along”). But this thought of a man impacting humanity in a greater way than Jesus does not gel with anything I believe.

I’m sure it is up for debate, but just about every source says Paul’s audience for Romans was a Gentile one. Meaning Romans 5 was written for unbelievers. This letter was a pre-cursor to Paul’s missionary journey to Rome and so the Gospel of Jesus had not even been introduced in Rome. Some say this was their first introduction to the gospel. Which makes sense as you read its message from cover to cover…”We are so bad and deserve nothing….but look what God did and who he is…now let’s celebrate and learn how to live in Jesus….by the way, I’ll see you soon.” Food for thought…

[UPDATE 3/14/08 : Though God's reconciliation (forgiveness, grace, pardon, etc.) seems to apply to all men (humanity wise, not gender), mankind still needs to receive and believe in the fact that God has forgiven them. In a sense, mankind needs to step into the truth that they are forgiven and loved. By mankind hearing and believing this truth does not trigger God's forgiveness (as if God says, "Oh good, now I can forgive you...thanks!"), it simply allows them to walk in and enjoy their already God-declared forgiven state.

Think of it this way, when my son does something terrible, I forgive and love him unconditionally (Do I still discipline him with the goal of restoration in mind?...In love, yes). My love and forgiveness is not dependent on anything he says or does. However, when I tell him I love and forgive him, his belief and reception of that releases him from self-condemnation and the allusion that I do not love or forgive him. As his dad, as far as I am concerned he is free and clear from my condemnation and wrath—he's loved and forgiven. Can he still reject my love and forgiveness? Sadly, yes.

Mankind, when standing before God and hearing (perhaps for the first time) that they are forgiven and loved through Jesus, can still reject him and say, "That's fine, but I still want nothing to do with you." And God—despite declaring them loved and forgiven—will not force them to love him and I believe will honor their desire to not be in his presence.

Appendix: Other “All Men” passages

1 Timothy 2:4
…who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

1 Timothy 2:6
…
who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.

1 Timothy 4:10
…(and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.

Titus 2:11
…For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

John 12:32
…
But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.”

Romans 5:18
…
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.]

Jesus was labeled a glutton and drunk because of the table-time he spent sharing meals with “sinners”: those not accepted by the religious people of his day. He practiced this unacceptable habit of sinner-meal-sharing with regularity. Based on His expressed heart and the example he left us, I have a hard time picturing him turning away one of today’s “sinners” from his table. In fact, when Jesus inaugurated his meal (the Lord’s Supper, Communion, Eucharist…), he foretold Judas’ betrayal, then, in the next breath, served him the bread and the wine. To share a meal with someone is a very intimate, relational gesture. To withhold a meal from someone is a very inclusive insult, saying, you are not worthy to eat with me at my table. I am not sure, but I picture God grieving when we, acting as the gatekeepers of his table, deny “sinners” a seat at his meal.

A protestant friend of mine spent a year studying at a Jesuit seminary where he was denied, every day, a place at the Lord’s Table. Some of the priests, who were good friends of his, kept urging him to at least come forward to receive the blessing. He would graciously sit there and reply without an ounce of bitterness, “No thank you.” He would then offer a subtle prayer from his heart, “Lord, help me to never forget this feeling of alienation I am feeling by being denied a place at your table. Forgive me of the times, as a pastor, I have done the same.” And he would sit there, day after day, allowing this alienating feeling to sink deep into his soul so it would never be forgotten.

Lord, allow me to be a gracious host inviting and welcoming all to your table. May I never forget your stories and example of including “sinners” at your table while you walked the dust of this earth. May I never become too pious to think that I am worthy of your table-fellowship and others are not–– forgive me for the times I have.