Just so you know, I wrote this back in November. I'm editing this right before January when it goes up, but the thoughts remain timeless!
Channeling my inner Joe – On this unusually cold November night in
The topic I have chosen is similar to Joe’s previous topic of politics and religion but jettisons the idea of politics and gets down to the religious part. As someone who has traveled to several countries and have visited several places of worship for different gods, I find a constant question echoing in the halls of my mind: what does it mean to be truly religious? I have been to temples honoring Taoist gods which seemed to be simple representations of moods. The sad people go in, pray to the happiness god and leave happy. The angry people go in, pray to the anger god, and leave peaceful. The rich people go in, pray to the giving god, and leave with their fortune. They seem satisfied with their gods Isaiah mentioned were simply the opposite end of the tree from their firewood. But at the same time, I have visited orthodox churches in
We know what James wrote on this subject, help widows and orphans and keep unspotted from the world, but the second part is still quite vague. How can one be spotted in the world? Is it simply an action?
In November we discussed whether a politician should be a Christian to get elected. One of the major problems with the positive answer most people give is the practical problem of no politician living up to that standard. But as mentioned, someone who answers the negative may not feel obligated to a higher power and can become corrupt (absolute power corrupts absolutely). So as we plunge to a new year, my question this month is:
With the myriad of attempts to worship the One God, how can one truly live up to James’ standard and are Americans falling into the indifference trap of the polytheists and Christian idolaters?
I was told to give a book to read, also. Most people who know me know I love to talk about anything, but mostly politics and ecnomics. In light of the economic crisis hitting the world right now, it's been interesting to see those with money verses those with debt. Therefore, I recommend my favorite American, Dave Ramsey. Some of you may be aquainted with him, but for those who are not, let me give you his opening for his radio show:
"Welcome to the 21st century, where debt is dumb, cash is king and the paid off home mortgage has taken the place of the BMW as the status symbol of choice!"
He's written several books, but the one that is the most up to date is the Total Money Makeover. If you're going through an economic crisis, pick it up. If you're married, it'll change your family tree. If you aren't it'll help you be like me and not take part in the recession.
If you're already in good standing financially, look for Dan Miller's book 48 Days to the Work You Love. It'll help you find a job that's not a j-o-b.
5 comments:
The topic of religion usually turns me off because of it's associations with what is seen rather than what is unseen. James' definition of true religion does leave a lot of questions to be answered, but I wonder if that may also be an indication of God's intentions for his children becoming religious people.
Religion as I see it in so many other faith's today, is comparable to how the Jews lived before Christ. In the same way, I believe the Old Law religion was laid to rest with the Old law. The religion that Christ has brought seems so backwards to what I see in religions around the world. With that being said, my answer to your question, "How can one be spotted in the world? Is it simply an action?":
1. It's a condition of your heart that dictates how or if the world overcomes you. Do things of the world define you or do they merely set the parameter's for how you will relate Christ to others.
2. Your actions are a reflection of where your heart is. Twice in the gospel's is a phrase, "For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks."
As I mentioned in the beginning, religion is irritating to me because of its obsession with the visible, when I feel our focus should be on the unseen, which is faith.
Lastly, I second the recommendation of Dave Ramsey. You would not believe how powerful is way of managing money can be. At the least, check out his website(www.daveramsey.com) or podcast. My wife and I have had amazing results from his principles. Thanks for the post Graham, I was so ready for mine to not be on the top anymore.
I appreciate this post/question a lot. It addresses the fundamental question of what one should do in response to the Christian story. I especially like the reference to James. I find it interesting that James, which some argue is the first Christian letter, is similar in content to the sermon on the mount: a list of ethical diatribes and injunctions concerning the pragmatics of following Jesus. I’m especially intrigued by the concern in both the sermon on the mount and the letter of James for Christian economics (on that note could we call the sermon on the mount Jesus’ financial peace university? “don’t worry about what you will eat and what you will drink,” “give and it will be given to you,” and later, to the rich man, “one thing you lack, sell all you have and give it to the poor.” Those words crush my arrogance).
At any rate, I have to ask first, am I helping the widow and the orphan—or for that matter, anyone else oppressed and marginalized by society?
My second question, besides the one posed concerning the meaning of being “unspotted,” is who or what is the world? I know that the writings of the apostle John have a very dichotomous mentality in their language: light/dark, good/evil, truth/falsehood, and disciple/world. The implication of such a polar view of the world is that Christians belong to one side of the pole and must take care not to slide to the other side. It seems evident that evangelicals have co-opted this approach to viewing the world, and harp against being tainted by the negative side of the polarity. This plays out functionally by creating an us/them mentality: we must stay away from the evils of “world” and the best we can hope for is to bring them out of their pagan ways into our community. The homeschooling movement emphasized by Focus on the Family is a good example of what this kind of thought looks like. Or another example is the trend in many Christian circles toward “Christian music,” often supported by the idea that “secular” music is worldly and will bring out debauchery in believers.
But I also don’t think that the Johannine duality is the only voice in the Bible. The Scriptures are full of other voices that impinge on this motif. For instance, in Genesis 12, we find the call of Abraham; the singling out and blessing of Abraham, we learn, is in order that all people will be blessed through him. This theme is repeated throughout the Old Testament: Israel is chosen in order that they may be a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19). What do priests do? They serve as connectors between the God and man. This priestly function is imagined in the prophetic text of Isaiah 19:
23 In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria. The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. 24 In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. 25 The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, "Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance."
Another even more surprising passage is Amos 9:7, which says that Israel is no more important to God than Egypt or the Philistines—it even goes so far as to say God himself had his hand in the bringing up of these people who were enemies of Israel.
I think there are plentiful other texts that support this theme, and I think this theme relates to the above question. God, when he elects a people, does so not in order to separate them, but in order for them to fulfill a task: namely, to help him in bringing about salvation to the world. Even the apostle John in his first letter says something that explodes the polarity seen in his other writings: he writes that Jesus “is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (2:2). The privilege of atonement, at least according to this verse, is not reserved for only those who follow Jesus, but for the “whole world.”
I guess the idea I’m trying to explore is that perhaps if the disciples/world duality is not so helpful in conceiving of our relationship to the world. This polarity tends toward an arrogant, exclusivist, and separatist Christianity.
It is also interesting to me that the Greek version (and please note, I’m generally against the empiric parsing of the Biblical text always in search of the “precise” and “true” meaning, but sometimes it is helpful) of the verse in question does not have an “and” linking the two explanations of pure and undefiled religion, so the text reads like this: worship pure and undefiled before the God and Father is this: to regard the orphans and widows in their tribulation unspotted oneself to keep from the world.
I haven’t found a translation that reads like that, so perhaps the translators know something I don’t (likely enough), but it is at least an interesting reading. Such a reading of the text suggests that helping the marginalized is the answer to what constitutes the boundary between us and the world, which certainly jives with what James says later, that deeds are the manifestation of faith.
At any rate, such an interpretation fits nicely with what I’ve been trying to say: the boundary between disciples and world is not a black-and-white delineation like the polarities we tend to think in—thus, not an ontological status of “being” God’s people—but rather, the disciples are marked by a kind of doing—like caring for the widows and orphans.
I don't know if anyone unfamiliar with the church of Christ reads this, but for those who don't know, we are from a religious background (loaded term, I know) that is very finicky about doctrine, and getting our beliefs just right. That has borne some good fruit, in that we have the right idea about baptism, and we don't have little statues of saints that we pray to.
However, I have come to despise the spirit of doctrinal meticulousness. My dad shared with me recently that the word "meticulous" used to mean afraid. It still means that in many churches of Christ. Being so careful about correct doctrine is largely an excuse for inaction. (I.e. "We can't do that - we're not sure if it's doctrinally correct.")
The inertia, or perhaps the fear of engaging the world, is disguised by a blustery confidence of doctrine. God's Spirit of perfect love drives out the spirit of fear. God tells us that He has not given us a spirit of fear. So where has it come from? Perhaps it's best not to dwell on such things.
I have recently found that living in a bold certainty of God's grace makes me do things I never would have done before. (Perhaps Joe and Thomas remember what I was like before.) I am not talking about boldly sinning so that grace may abound. I am talking about boldly living God's grace, engaging sinners, without worrying about being spotted by the world in so doing. I am talking about acting without waiting to make sure all the doctrine has its i's dotted and its t's crossed. I am talking about going dancing, or going out to a bar after work with my coworkers, or treating my homosexual friends like they're just friends.
True religion springs from a heart of grace, and it affects everything you do in your life. Nothing is left unchanged after being touched by God's grace.
I have to apologize for not posting sooner. Last month was the busiest I have had in a while. This is a great topic.
I have always leaned toward what Dave suggested: the key to pure religion is caring for the marginalized. You can call them weak, unprotected, needy. In the Psalms I have been surprised to see that every other one calls out for God to save them, the weak, the needy, the oppressed. But these passages make sense to me because that's our relationship to God through Christ. That's how you play out your faith. You admit your own neediness and transfer the strength that God gives you to those who need it. That's what Jesus did by dying. That's the reason I'm a believer. It makes sense to my heart. That is the unifying thread through all the more difficult aspects of Christianity to accept.
I always have a hard time explaining this basis for my faith though. Maybe because nonbelievers have a hard time recognizing their own neediness. For example my students in China asked me, "But wasn't that just easier for Jesus to do? Didn't he go to protect the poor and needy because the proud wouldn't accept him?"
Dave's other comment is fascinating to me. It seems that if his translation is correct, to be spotted by the world would be to ignore the needy and only care for yourself, not making the same sacrifice that Christ did. That definition of the world would be that it is a selfishness. However, when I was growing up it was pressed on me that being spotted by the world was listening to bad music, watching bad movies, smoking, drinking, and so on. Yet Jesus affirms James in saying that it's not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out. It seems that my education failed me in focusing too much on defense and not enough on offense. How do you teach kids to have pure hearts? (Other than making them watch the movie BABE)
I like Thomas's bent toward the unseen. That seems to be key as well.
Finally, I want to ask what is the difference between the words religion and faith? Religion is just the acting of the faith? So James might have written, "Faith that is pure and undefiled is in Jesus Christ."
Post a Comment