Cross-ed.

So Voxo gave me the almost certainly impossible yet irresistible (at least to me) challenge of talking about what ‘actually happened at the cross’.  I’m not entirely sure what Voxo is requesting, and the cross is an area too big to capture, especially in one post but here is what i’ve been thinking about so far.

There has been huge debate about the technicalities of the cross. Debate deep enough to cause factions among the body of  Christ (which is a little ironic to me what with the cross enabling reconciliation and all…).  Nonetheless, it is a weighty issue (and I am definitely ill equipped, so these are just my personal musings).

From what i can see the two main controversal issues surrounding the cross are about what happened to us (the justification debate); and what God was like in the moment of the cross.  Not surprisingly, the two are linked.

If we hold to the view that at the cross double imputation occurred – where Jesus took on our sin and then also transferred his moral record of righteousness to us – we then tend to infer that our righteousness is a requirement for membership in God’s family the way a prestigious college might require 600 points on the leaving cert for admission to the course. Like we have to be ‘good enough’ to get in, and we cant do that by ourselves so God makes us ‘good enough’.

In this sense we come to attribute God’s wrath and hatred of sin (poured out on Jesus at the cross) to his disapproval of sin, the way the queen might disapprove of a hair in her soup (except way more extreme!).  We presume that God’s concern for our righteousness is because he desires our perfection as an end in itself.  We presume that someone like HIM could never associate himself with someone like US and so the cross makes it possible for us to become like him, reach his standard so to speak.

We view the cross as though it were a loophole allowing God to be true to his hatred of sin and yet true to his love for us at the same time.  It’s as though God looked at us, loved us, wanted relationship with us but he couldn’t just ignore our sin.  It’s like with one hand he was drawing us towards himself and with the other hand he was destroying us.  It’s like God was so ‘wound up’ because of our sin (because sin irritates him so much) that he had all this pent-up aggression which had to be released, but if he released it on us then he’d have to deny the part of him that actually loves us but if he couldn’t express his wrath he’d have to deny his commitment to holiness.  Because God couldn’t have his cake and eat it too he poured out his wrath on Jesus rather than us, that way he could still be a man of integrity.

But here’s the problem… God’s is not a person/being committed to holiness, He IS holiness.  God is not a person/being committed to love, He IS love. I don’t think the cross was the solution to God’s personal confusion or schizophrenic tendencies.  I think we have got so much so right, and yet the part i think we may have misunderstood when we talk about what happened at the cross is the ‘why?’ of God’s wrath and hatred of sin. The out workings dont look much different but there is something significantly different about it.

God doesn’t hate sin because it pisses him off or because it makes him unable to love us or like us.  God’s desire to deal with our sin and make us righteous isn’t because he’s obsessed with perfection per se.

Sin is death. It is the absence of life, the absence of God.  God hates sin not because it disgusts him, he hates it because his deepest desire for us is to KNOW HIM and sin blocks us from truly experiencing and knowing God and therefore it robs us of our ability to live the life that is truly life.  It robs us from being and doing what we were created for… being loved by God.

God doesn’t hate sin because he is a pompous, legalistic, arrogant being, he hates sin because he loves us with a fury and passion that we will never understand.  He hates sin FOR us.  He hates it like we hate the cancer in the body of our friend.  He hates it because its robbing us of life, of him.

On the cross therefore, Jesus was not a substitute punchbag upon which God took out his bad mood at humanity (did someone mention cosmic child abuse? *wink*). The purpose of the cross wasn’t to provide a dumping ground for God’s wrath, the purpose of the cross was the battle between God and the sin that destroys us and robs us and divides us.

We need to be justified, made righteous not because God is unable to love us unless we are but because unless we are we will never be able to truly know God or receive his love for us and therefore we will never be able to fully love him which is what we were created for.  That is why God is concerned with it.  He fought and won the battle with sin on our behalf and we get to live in the fruit of that through his spirit.

The cross gives way for relationships to be restored and reconciled both with God and each other because the sin which stops us from loving and being loved has been destroyed in Christ and if we are in Christ we participate in that reality and life.

The cross isn’t just about the reconciliation of individuals, it’s about the renewal of all things through his body which is the church.

NT Wright puts it like this: “God must curse everything that thwarts and destroys the blessing of his world and his people.”

So yes, Jesus still has to die, but the image of God as he sends Jesus to the cross i think becomes a significantly different one.

… nervously posted by transfarmer.

Just as if I’d never sinned… or is it?

A few months ago I was given the task of writing a talk on what it is that gives me confidence as a child of God.  ‘How can I be sure God looks on me with a smile?’ they asked.  I thought, ‘this is easy, I know this one, this is the one about my passive righteousness because of Christ’s imputed righteousness’…

You know the drill… I am a wretched sinner, God is perfectly holy, something needs to happen to me in order for me to be able to have a relationship with God (’cause sin and holiness don’t mix).

It seems understandable that the solution to this problem would be that I become a perfect holy person rather than a wee devil.  BUT, because by nature I’d rather punch you (or maybe just nelly) than forgive you, I’ll never be good enough or perfect enough for God.  … Then Jesus comes along, and he says ‘ok here’s the deal, you suck, i’m perfect but i’ll lend you my perfect-ness and you can wear it like a cloak and then God will look at you with the same favour he looks at me because it’ll be ‘just as if you’ve never sinned’… in fact it’ll be better than that, God will look at you ‘as if you’ve done it all right’ just like me,’ says Jesus.  …This, we say, is what it means that we are justified. At the cross our sin was put on Christ, and we go on to say, the exchange happened in reverse so that Christ’s (record) of righteousness (all the good things he did, his perfectly lived life) was put on us. we did a swapsies.

ok, this is a very crude and quick description, but i think the basic idea is there.

This is a pretty nice concept.  Many have acknowledged it’s pastoral benefits but for many years this understanding of justification has caused me pastoral trouble rather than comfort.  For example:

1) It makes my comfort/security in approaching God to be based on me (all be it my passive righteousness ) rather than God’s character.

2) it makes me feel like i’ve tricked God into liking me.  That makes me feel like Jesus might like me but God sure doesn’t.  – but this is not true, God loved me while i was a sinner, if he could feel love for me then, then he can feel love for me now.

3) who i am without Christ’s record of righteousness upon me never really gets addressed. Can God see my sin at all? Can he see ME? how does he feel about it?

4) i feel schizophrenic and it seems God is a little bit schizophrenic too -  he hates me, no he loves me, but he has to hate me but he loves me and so on and so on…

there are more problems but that’ll do for now.

This idea that to be clothed in Christ means somehow that we have been given Christ’s record of good deeds as NT points out makes God the greatest legalist there is!

Something is terribly wrong.  To recognise this isn’t a threat, it’s an invitation to see God to be even more gracious, powerful, faithful and loving.

It is true that God’s family is a righteous one and if i am to be part of his family i need to be righteous, and i cannot do that on my own.  God the Judge however has declared us to be righteous.  But this righteousness is a declaration of my status as part of God’s family rather than a description of my character.  NT Wright helpfully uses the law court analogy (ps so does the bible) – the judge declares the defendant innocent.  That person is now free to go and enjoy the privileges of an innocent person but that verdict does not MAKE him an innocent person.  If he is guilty of the crime and the judge declares him innocent does that mean he is not guilty of the crime? of course not.  But is he free to live an innocent man’s life? yes.

In terms of me and God this means that he looks at me, knows i’m guilty but says you’re ‘in the right’ you’re free to live the life of a free person ie a child of God.  Undeserved grace.  But my righteous status isn’t just words either.  My righteousness actually becomes a living reality in my life as i live out of my new identity as a beloved member of God’s family.  I become who God says i am.  But it is not my becoming that makes God say what i am. it’s the other way round.  As a child of God i am a slave to righteousness.  I can’t not become who he has declared me to be. His spirit is in me.

So what does this mean for how God looks at me today, in the ‘now and not yet’ phase?  To me it all makes much more sense.  God looks at me transfarmer and sees exactly what is true.  He sees a girl whom he loves and whom he has without any merit of her own welcomed freely into his family.  She has equal standing with his beloved son Jesus, she has equal standing with his beloved son zoomtard, and beloved daughter clairbo she has equal standing with all the saints as beloved children of God.  One day transfarmer will be so transformed (see what i did there) that she will not only be called a member of God’s family but she will begin to look like it.  Already you can see some evidence if you look very closely and if you consider who she was a long time ago.  God looks at transfarmer and sees her failures and the hatred in her heart and the selfish lusts but all the time he sees these realities in the context of the perfectly redeemed transfarmer, He can do so because he already knows that version of her.  today he just whispers… you’ll not believe who you’ll be, you’ll not believe who you really are, i cant wait to see the look on your face when on that glorious day i give you a white stone with your new name that reveals the true you.

There is no lies, there is not hiden-ness, there is no tricking God into liking me because Jesus swapped the cover on our book of deeds.  There is truth.  God interacts with me as i am now, warts and all and speaks directly to this version of me, but he interacts with me now knowing who i will be because he has defeated death and all of his friends on the cross.  The battle has already been won.  Who i will be on the last day is a reality because of the cross.  It is the truest reality about me and God treats me so.  He hates and addresses my sin becasue it is preventing me from enjoying the fullness of my new identity as a memeber of His family, not because i have to be good enough for him to let me in.

there is so much more to say and so much more to write, but i need to stop somewhere.

PS. NT Wrights book called Justification is simply stunning at explaining all this.  read it and read it again.

later

surrendering to the horrible belief that God loves us anyway.

“…what’s most amazing to me,” the pastor said… “is that Jesus comes to people like us. Cowards, liars – even mother mockers! And entrusts us with the kingdom of God, with carrying the message of peace. We get that peace too, when we surrender to the horrible belief that God loves us anyway.” (Anne Lamott in her novel Blue Shoe)

girls who love boys who love girls…

From the film “Lars and the real girl”:

Lars Lindstrom: How’d you know?
Gus: How’d I know what?
Lars Lindstrom: That you were a man
Gus: Ahhh. I couldn’t tell ya.
Lars Lindstrom: Was it… okay, was it sex?

The other week zoomtard was givin it socks and I learned a lot.  But one of the things that it got me thinking about (through a picture of some man i’m too young to appreciate) was how thankful i am that Jesus never got married.  Not because it would have been a terrible thing, but because it reminds me that being whole sexually, physically, emotionally, spiritually and any other way does not depend on sex or marriage because Jesus is the most complete human being that has ever been.  And in today’s culture that seems significant.

Every culture has it’s rites of passages.  Hunting, tattoos, graduation, first beer, first communion, first kiss… sex… .  our community tells us that we’re not quite whole unless we’ve gone through ‘the’ process.  We will always be an outsider looking in until we do it (whatever ‘it’ may be).   In the west one of the strongest messages we receive is that our sexuality is only complete when we’ve experienced sexual intercourse.  We will not be real women or men until…  but Jesus’ sexuality was not lacking anything.  Therefore, our femininity and masculinity is never found in sex.  I know this to be true and yet i still find it hard to get my head around.

What is our masculinity and femininity? are they even real things or are they social constructs? i don’t think so.  But what is it then that allows these parts of us to flourish or be restored?  It’s definitely not sex, and the sooner we learn that the better because to live like it is damages us and those around us.

In the movie Lars’ brother answers the question like this:

Gus: Um. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s uh, yeah, yeah it’s kind of – it’s uh – no. Well, it’s kind of sex but it’s not uh, you know? I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s – uh – good question, good question.
Lars Lindstrom: Yeah, but I have to know
Gus: Well, it’s not like you’re one thing or the other, okay? There’s still a kid inside but you grow up when you decide to do right, okay, and not what’s right for you, what’s right for everybody, even when it hurts.
Lars Lindstrom: Okay, like what?
Gus: Like, you know, like, you don’t jerk people around, you know, and you don’t cheat on your woman, and you take care of your family, you know, and you admit when you’re wrong, or you try to, anyways. That’s all I can think of, you know – it sound like it’s easy and for some reason it’s not.

loving people well? is that the answer to what it means to be whole sexually, and any other way.  maybe old Gus is onto something?…

Me in my small corner has also been thinking about this if you’re interested.

Juilet Turner

So tonight i got to hear the wonderful Juliet Turner live in Chester, (which incidently is alright but doesn’t hold a candle to sweet maynooth).  I forced my friend to buy a cd just so we could meet her (let’s hear it for pizza rach not pizza and wine!).  I have an intense fear of meeting people i admire, mostly because i say the most asshole things so i didn’t really say anything.  However, what i would say is that if you havn’t seen Juliet sing live you need to.  Her performance tonight was simply beautiful.  She is one of those singers who is so present in her words and music that sometimes it makes you feel like crying, forcing your heart into a place of deep silence that you dont want to wake from.

the what and how of discipleship?

I have been debating this question a lot lately and i need help.  One friend says that discipleship is defined by Jesus in Matt 28 – ‘…teaching them to obey everything i have commanded you.’  If this is what discipleship is then logically the how of discipleship is simply the study of scripture where we can learn the commands of God and then obey them.  This is not a bad argument, i even kind of agree.  But it leaves me a bit cold.

I guess what bugs me is that if this is how i approach discipleship with another person then my goal for them and their goal for me is that we would be people who are obedient to God.  This is a good thing, but it is only a good thing if obedience is not seen as an end in itself and i fear that too often it is.  If my goal for you is that you would simply be someone who obeys God then my goal for you is much less than God’s goal for you.  And that seems like a foolish thing and a bit sad.  I sometimes have a picture of God telling us to do certain things or to live in certain ways and deep down i feel like the reason he is doing so is because i’m his child now and he doesn’t want me to be an embarrassment to him.  But surely this is not the heart of God the Father.

God wants us to know life to the full.  God wants us to know Him.  He wants us to know all that he offers us, the depth of love that he lavishes on us.  His commands are invitations to this, invitations to knowing him. This is why when another friend defined discipleship as ‘helping people comprehend the love of God.’ i kind of got a lot more excited.  If this is true then the how of discipleship is rooted in the bible for sure, but it involves so much more than studying the bible with people.  Perhaps it is to live the bible with people.

Jesus did so much more than teach the disciples.  That was a significant part of it, but he loved them and they felt it, he served them, he gave them vision, hope, he fought for them, he challenged them… He did life with them.

I’m not sure what i make of all this, maybe i’m being flakey, but there wouldn’t be anything better for me than being able to look back on my life and say that somehow i’d helped people more fully comprehend the love of God.  Because it is only then that we will become people who truly obey Christ not because of our efforts to do so but because of the transformation that occurs in us as we bring all areas of our heart and life into the light of his love and grace.

maybe we’re all saying the same thing and this is a waste of time, but it helps me process so deal with it!

burning or building bridges?

You may recognise the above picture known as the ‘bridge diagram’ (although my artistic skills have made this version particularly unique).  This simple diagram is often used among the evangelicals in order to communicate the gospel.  Ideal for those situations where your friend or even a stranger asks you how the separation between them and God can be overcome (of course it can happen!).  These 3 or 4 simple illustrations show the separation between us and God, the cross that bridges the gap, and the result: that you can hold hands with Jesus.

Zoomtards obsession with Bill Hybels has lead me to think about the ‘bridge diagram’, and as tempted as i am to mock it without mercy i am trying to consider the good stuff about it.

ok i’ve tried.  cant do it

Aside from the fact that it is probably rarely used in real life, I think the picture of the gospel that the bridge diagram presents is distorted.  It is distorted mainly because it is incomplete.  But that is exactly the problem with trying to boil the gospel down.  we try to sum it up in a diagram, or 3 sentences or an anagram or a multi-coloured bracelet… and although the motive behind this is to communicate the truth of the gospel clearly which i love, i don’t think this does it well.  Part of the problem is that in our efforts to communicate the gospel in these ways we are only communicating part of it, that in itself is not a problem, but it is a problem if we are letting people believe that what we are telling them is the whole gospel.  This is my frustration with many of these tools.

I do however recognise that they can be helpful tools, they provide memorable pictures in our minds that are useful when we are in conversations about the gospel, and even if we dont whip out the old napkin and pen, they can help anchor our thoughts and words. I think i would like the bridge diagram more if God walked over the bridge to us rather than us to Him, i think that is a truer picture of the gospel.

Mostly i dislike these methods because they feel conceptual and a little clinical.  To me the bridge diagram feels like a step by step programme to something good, but such a diagram is useless unless i know something of the beauty and love of God and his heart for us.  Why else would i care to ‘walk across the bridge’ to God.  I know that people who are fans of these diagrams see them as only tools to be used inside the context of sincere and loving friendships though which really helps provide good context.

I do not doubt that God has used these tools to bring many people to Himself.  I also do not doubt that these tools communicate truth clearly.  But personally I don’t feel that they capture the sense of story that exists, nor do i feel that they capture the heart of God for us, the way he relentlessly loves and pursues us.  Mostly they don’t communicate that our salvation is only part of God’s big plan of cosmic reconciliation (which lets face it is way cooler).

When someone comes up with a diagram that illustrates the life that is truly life i might listen.

from she who is preparing her apologies in advance of offending many that she loves.

ps if napkin evangelism was advertised in the US it would take on a whole new meaning right?!

do we still grow in heaven?

A SNIPPET OF A DAY INSIDE MY HEAD…

“I wonder what hell is like?  Not what it is like, but what would I be like if i were there?

I wonder if Lewis is right, that i would become an eternal horror that i couldn’t imagine in my worst nightmare?

Or what if I was just me as I am today but without the potential to become a better lover of people.  (cue the eerie feeling in my stomach).”

Despite what hell is or isnt like, this thought got me thinking about the old theme of absences.  Part of what makes hell hell is not just the reality of how things are but the absence of what we long for and the inability to reach it.  The potential to live.  The potential to love.  Simply the absence of potential.  The idea that i could be frozen as i am today and never grow any more in heart is actually one of the most torturous thoughts i have ever had.

THIS in turn made me wonder about heaven.  I know there I’ll be sinless but will i be static or will there always be room for me to grow in the expanse of my heart for others?  Will there always be potential?

my torment is laid to rest

dissenterdan i wish you’d just said that about 6 weeks ago, it’d have saved me a lot of trouble and heartache!  thanks for your comment, i am giving it it’s own space so that the issue is cleared up without me having to write about this ever again! (i’m only partly joeking).

Dissenterdan said: “Hey. enjoyed the blog. Since we are being speculative let me say that for me the separation of Jesus from his Father was a separation of the Father as God and Jesus as man. The danger might be in thinking of Jesus on the cross as only God. In the incarnation Jesus sets aside his equality with God and takes the form, the limitations, the emotions of a man. He does not only appear to be a man (who is really God all the time), he is a man, fully and completely (who is also really God all the time.) For me, the point of the Psalm is both that Jesus the man fully experiences the full horror of separation from God sin has caused and that he has knowingly entered into it because he knew his Father’s will would not be to leave him thus separated. in this way as God, the nature of the trinity was never in doubt but as man, Jesus (who had walked with God as a man in perfect relationship all his life) faced and bore the genuine separation and torment it meant to take what we deserved upon
himself. For me, anything less implies docetism on Jesus part and poor service to the Psalm on ours.”

God’s wrath?

Partly in response to neuro in the previous post and partly because i wanted to talk about this anyway.

“For those who love the Lord, His presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death… The “fire” that will consume sinners at the coming of the kingdom of God is the same “fire” that will shine with splendor in the saints. It is the “fire” of God Himself who is love… For those who love God and who love all creation in Him, the ‘consuming fire’ of God will be radiant bliss and unspeakable delight. For those who do not love God, and who do not love at all, this same ‘consuming fire’ will be the cause of their ‘weeping’ and ‘gnashing of teeth’. “Thus it is the Chruch’s spiritual teaching that God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light” (Thomas Hopko).

Between God and us there is an analogical gap. There is always analogy in all our language about God. Eg. If i say ‘God loves me’ the meaning of the word love in this sentence is different than if i am to say ‘my mum loves me’. My mum’s love for me is not the same as God’s love for me and yet i have used the same word. my mum’s love is in someway like God’s love but they are also different. and yet they are not so different that i can’t grasp something of God’s love by thinking about the love of my mother. Make sense? SO, there is always a gap between God and creature even in our language about Him. It is wrong to say there is no gap (eg God’s love is exactly like my mothers love) and it is also wrong to say that there is no connection at all (eg God’s love and my mum’s love have nothing in common whatsoever). We must recognise this gap as we read scripture and talk about God.

It is in this context that i have been thinking about God’s wrath. I (maybe we) have a tendency to leave no gap in our understanding of Gods wrath and our wrath. We understand that it is bigger and more just (perfectly just) but the nature of his wrath we think of as the same rage and danger that we see in ourselves and each other. Because of this the quote above by Thomas Hopko really caught my eye, along with a reminder of CS Lewis’ thinking in ‘the weight of glory’.

As you read above, Hopko describes God’s wrath as we know it, as actually being God’s glory or beauty. This beauty destroys that which is not of it because it is unable to bear the weight of glory. When we see moments of God’s wrath eg in stories in the Old Testament we think that God must have just lost it in that moment. This is ok to us because we understand that God only looses his temper for the right reasons and from the right heart and motivation. (admittedly it does make God seem a bit like jackal and Hyde at times)

But what if Hopko is right? What if our experience of God’s wrath is actually his love and beauty and glory being revealed and the parts of me that are not of Him cannot bear it and are destroyed by it. This is very different than the picture i often have in my head of God zapping people (i picture lightening coming out of his finger cause that’s how my mind works) because they didn’t bring the right sacrifice or whatever. It is not so much God punishing but rather God simply revealing himself and that which is not born of Him cannot survive in his presence. Bonaventure said “I cannot see God’s face and live, so let me die!”.

This idea also makes sense to me in light of the fact that God is love. He is not only loving, but he is in fact Love itself. This means that God can be and do nothing other than love. Kind of like the way sun is light and can’t not give light (i plagiarised that). So what we call God’s wrath is actually His love. I’m not saying that God is wrathful for loving reasons i’m saying that His acts of wrath are actually themselves acts of love.

We need to view every experience of God through the lens that He is love and his love is constantly and fully expressed in every moment. This is where i begin to struggle, because when we ask questions of why did God allow suffering the answer must somehow be ‘because he loves me’. Although i find this hard to swallow somehow i also feel freed by it and for many years i have lived my life on the same kind of premise except it was the words of Jesus when he said ‘i have come that you may have life to the full’. when i really saw this i was able to view everything in my life and everything that God commanded me to do through this lens. So when i hear God say forgive your enemy and i say but why God? i know the answer is partly because He wants me to have life to the full. That is always his agenda for us. To live like this is to see God as much more involved in your life and everything that he allows in your life. It also allows me to enter into pain with a sense of joy and hope at the same time.

BUT! I really struggle with this whole idea though because it seems then that God is not angry and (although i don’t want him to be angry at me) i want him to be angry at the people who have hurt me and the people who hurt others. If he is not angry it seems like he doesn’t care about the suffering in the world, kind of like he is passive towards it and uninvolved. This doesn’t really sit right with me but i cant seem to reconcile it all.

SO, bring on the comments i need your help.