Marvelous Grace of Our Loving Lord

I thought the whole "my grace is sufficient" thing was a way out of the pain inflicted by the thorn. Like, "If you'll focus on my grace, then the thorn won't hurt as bad. Just be positive." I know God has a better command of English grammar than that, but he also has a better grasp on grace than that, so let's not quibble. I experienced true weakness yesterday.

When I was completely weak,

• God's grace alone was sufficient to keep me from being destroyed by my own unworthiness.
• God's grace alone kept me from the condemnation that was my rightful my wage.
• God's grace alone kept me from my damnable pride.
• God's grace alone kept me from despair.

If not for my weakness, I would not likely have been truly cognizant of any of these saving graces, though they preexisted my sinful condition. It took my weakness to reveal the power of Christ in me. Therefore, I boast gladly in my weakness.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jesus Ninja

Sometimes Christian small groups take on an element known as "accountability." A typical session will go something like this:

Accountee: "Hold me accountable, brother. I just keep on coveting Bill's car."

Accountant: "Come 'on, brosef. It's about time you kicked this habit like a Jesus Ninja. You can't keep coming back week after week with that amateur act. You gotsta move on. I'll be prayin' fer ya."

Accountee: "Thanks bro. I do need prayer..."

Oh, the camaraderie. Oh, the man-love. Oh the terrible theology...

But they're confessing their sins one to another, right? Yep. And isn't there supposed to be accountability within the body? Yep. And should we rebuke and encourage our brothers, spurring them on toward love and good deeds, right? Yep. But here are some helpful distinctions that should keep you from walking away from your group time like it was a visit with your parole officer(s):

1.) We are not accountable TO one another. We are accountable FOR one another. Check out the whole "your brother's blood cries out" episode and the Noaic covenant. Each man is accountable not only for himself, but also for his brother. So instead of taking confessions like a disinterested and anonymous cleric, we're going to be up into each other's business. His problem is your problem. Kill it dead.

2.) Changing behaviors does not a disciple make. Transformation is not a rearranging of parts. You are not Optimus Prime. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. If your brother is continuing in a particular sin, it is because he is believing a particular lie. Identify the false doctrine and kill it with truth. Kill it dead.

3.) Don't forget that we are justified by our faith and not our behavior. We're not attacking our sin so that we can stand before God as perfect saints. We are attacking our sin because we already stand before God as perfect saints. Sin is not becoming a son of God. It is beneath us and it precludes our mission. Kill it dead.

As Close as the East is to the West

It has been said that Micah 6:8 sums up the message of the minor prophets:

"He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?"

It is indeed a great summation of the voices crying out in the near-eastern desert, but I would contend that it also encapsulates western thought quite nicely, and furthermore that the best of the west might help us to better understand this theological feast of the east.

Three imperatives are presented here: 1.) to do justice, 2.) to love kindness, and 3.) to walk humbly with God. I, like Augustine, do not believe it a stretch to see God's wisdom revealed through certain pagan men's honest (albeit blind) pursuit of the ideal, and therefore I have unapologetically assigned these actions to Greek counterparts: ethos, pathos, and logos.

"Do justice." Ethos: the "oughtness" of things, is characterized by the heart (will). The pursuit of justice and deconstruction of injustice is to be the daily activity of a Godly person. Unlike Kant's morality, ethics is not duty-based. Aristotle, like David, knew that the actions of an ethical man flow from his heart. The justice we do flows from who we are, not who we would like to become if we could only do enough justice. We are sons of God, the Just: therefore we do justice. This is goodness in the fullest degree.

"Love kindness." Pathos: the passion of things, is characterized by the gut (desire). The literal translation for this lovingkindness in Colossians 3 is "bowels of mercy" It's an intense and almost uncontrollable desire; an unquenchable thirst for something: in this case, for the Hebrew "hessid." Hessid is mercy of the deepest unction: reconciling the broken, redeeming the fallen, upholding the frail and celebrating the weak. In the Western world, bourgeois art was characterized by the beauty of raw desire. Taken at its purest, we can see in Bernini's "The Ecstasy of St. Teresa" the rapturous encounter of a fallen woman with her passionate lover of a God. A lover who kindly pursues His unworthy beloved even to his own death: this is beauty to the fullest degree.

"Walk humbly with your God." Logos: the reason of things, is characterized by the mind (thought). As two sides of a coin, humility captures the essence of truth. C.S. Lewis, the great synthesizer of western ideas, stated that "humility is not thinking less of oneself, but thinking of oneself less." Man could do with a lot less thinking of himself, this is for certain. The conflict of human history in its entirety can be attributed to man's unwillingness to lay himself aside. But the profundity of our arrogance is far outweighed by the profundity of God's humility. St. Paul reminds us that we owe our eucatastrophe to the ultimate humility of Jesus Christ, who, being in his very nature God, though it not a position to be obtained, but instead humbled Himself, even to death on a cross. The cross is truth to the fullest degree.*

I find myself wondering whether I'm stretching or not when I make these arguments, but it sure is good exercise. I hope my thoughts are a help to those who read them and are utterly forgettable to those who might be hindered by them.

*Paul also tells us that the cross is foolishness to the Greeks, but even John uses the Logos as the subject of his gospel. We can quibble on this one if you'd like; I think I could be swayed by some good rhetoric.

The False Poverty Gospel

I could be reaching here, but I'd like to expose a potentially trendy heresy before it becomes a popular one. This is my theory: As is the case with many breakout theological trends, the prosperity gospel is developing an antithetical counterpart which is equally destructive and even more deceptive than the original. I'm calling it the false poverty gospel and it goes like this:

"Because I am saved, all of my treasure is in heaven, and I therefore live like a vagrant. If anyone questions whether I love Jesus, I need only point to my lack of worldly goods as unquestionable proof that I do. Furthermore, anyone who keeps any worldly goods is clearly a rich young ruler who has walked away from Christ."

I have worded this in such a way that it sounds ridiculous, but that's the point. Of course it's ridiculous when you say it out loud. And yet I see this attitude expressed non-verbally on a consistent basis nowadays. I also see people who have had much taken away from them due to economic difficulties beyond their control become quite self-righteous about their new found simplicity. Claiming poverty as proof of God's love is no less ridiculous than claiming prosperity as proof of God's love.

Poverty is not fruit of the Spirit. It is a condition which can allow us to have faith in the provision of God through others. Prosperity is not a fruit of the Spirit. It is a condition which can allow others to have faith in the provision of God through us. We are justified by grace through faith in the prosperous poverty and impoverished prosperity of Christ.

Mute Math's Electrifying Track

I've been asked about my thoughts regarding "Electrify," track 8 on Mute Math's new album, Armistice. I can only assume this is because the song seems to play fast and loose with the tenaciously guarded boundaries of purity as established by conservative ideals. Within the context of pop music in general the lyrics are far from racy and might even pass as wholesome in comparison to most. However, the expressed faith of the band members forces their more conservative listeners into the position of either censors or defenders of the group. Mute Math seems to have struck a sensitive chord here. They seem to be endorsing (or at least depicting) a lifestyle at odds with the values their brothers and sisters, so if they wish to retain communion with the southern conservative church, this song must be defended or rescinded.

Now. A literal reading of the text seems to establish that the poet is captivated by a woman with such intensity that she is in control of the development of the relationship as he is rendered helpless by his infatuation. There are boundaries established which he hopes she will break because he is very pleased with how their chemistry makes him feel. He hopes to convince her to move at a quicker pace very soon. He would like for her to be committed to him. There are sexual undertones. Does this fairly encapsulate what's going on here?

"Electrify" is not exactly the depiction of a healthy, "Song of Solomon" type relationship. It more faithfully evokes a different Solomonic relationship: that of the foolish man and the adulteress as seen in Proverbs 5. It is clear that this portrait of a relationship is at odds with the ideal image. No argument there.

Now before we make a judgment on this piece of art, we first should begin with a few questions:

1.) What does its context say about a piece of work?, and

2.) Is an artist obligated to present a portrait of the ideal at all times?

I hesitate to answer these questions because this is the point at which I might move from general consensus to an offensive position and I try not to be divisive over non-essentials. Nevertheless I was asked, and since we're all on the same team here and agree to play nice, I will oblige.

I believe Milton gave a very accurate picture of Satan in his Paradise Lost and, separated from the whole of the work, the poem could be viewed as a flagrant celebration of the Evil One. Now obviously the differences between Milton's opus and Paul Meaney's pop are magnificent, but I hope you will generously consider the point. The depiction of evil is justified inasmuch as it points clearly to the depravity left in the void of Glory. If you disagree, you throw out the Bible. So does the entire album point to something greater than the sum of its parts? Does the darkness shown in a single track illuminate the brightness of its negative image? I think one could make an argument that it does, but that's not my purpose here.

I will only suggest that the themes of the album and indeed its name indicate the underlying situation of a war. Just listen to the first track. Then the second. Then just keep going. He's not painting a pretty picture here. What kind of grace is it going to take to call a farewell to arms in this chaos? I think Meaney is searching for bigger answers than traditional moralism can provide. Immediately this separates his ends from those of puritan separatists. Meaney is considering himself an apostle to the Gentiles, and their world is a lot messier than the world of their Jewish homeboys. I think Paul is being honest about the thousands of voices of this world and I think he's painting a bigger picture than a single track can contain. Granted, our culture habitually ingests tracks as independent from the whole, but I would argue that his audience is not going to be led astray if they choose to take "Electrify" and ignore the rest of his work. They're already lost. One might say that Mute Math's decision not to be sold at Christian retail outlets was a severing of their association with the church. You can peddle that bull crap somewhere else. We are united by blood, not marketing. I guess what I'm saying is that if someone is offended by his message, they aren't his audience, and he made that fact clear when he decided not to allow his message soil their "holier-than-thou" shelves.

I hope I have communicated myself well, and I pray that my thoughts would be either helpful or forgettable to you in your pursuit of God's glory and His kingdom.

"Electrify"
Paul Meaney

She knows every little way to get the thing that she wants.
My heart is an oven, and she’s pushing the buttons right now
She’s gonna kill me with a stare and I’m very aware.
No matter what I say, she’s just walking away right now.
But I’ll be ready when she calls.

I’m in love with this girl, , that’s got my head, Electrified.
I hope that someday she might go too far, Go too far.
Cause all I can think about is me and her, Electrified.
I hope that someday she might take me home, and lose control.

Stall and wait is the game she plays,
She knows better than to try,
But I’m hoping she might wear down.
Oh it’s just tearing me apart getting stuck in the dark.
I’m doin’ what I can,
But she can’t understand right now.
But I’ll be ready when she calls.

I feel it, I feel it, I feel it, I feel it, I feel it, I feel it,
I feel it runnin’ through my bones.

I’m in wires for you girl,
You’re coursing through my mind.
All I think about is you,
Yeah I’m electrified.

Maybe sometime, sometime, sometime.
Say that you are mine, show me, sometime.

You gotta electrify.

I Do Not Believe in Equal Rights (and Neither Do You)

Should six-year-olds be allowed to purchase handguns? Should criminals be incarcerated? Should illegal immigrants have the right to vote? Are these people not among men, all of whom were "created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"?

I hear a lot of talk about private and individual rights these days. It seems silly to demand public recognition of one's private rights unless one first assents that the public's approval of his rights is essential. This is because we know intuitively that rights are always and only granted and withheld within the context of a community.

You see, individual rights are granted only as far as the governing body dictates that they do not conflict with the corporate rights of the community. Action was taken in the conception of our government in order to form a more perfect union. The purpose of government is actually to create healthy community: NOT to ensure the private rights of those residing therein. In fact, the goals of the constitution as set forth in its preamble are domestic, common, and general, NOT private, individual, or specific. Individual rights within the union are only of value if they do not corrupt or undermine the integrity of the union. (On the flip side, as long as those private rights do not affect the public sphere, shouldn't they be free from legislation, period?)

My goal here is not to judge which individual rights should be forcefully forfeited in the name of the common domestic good in general (although I do have my opinions), but rather to urge readers in the name of reason to give up all this extreme civil liberties nonsense. Even the word "civil" denotes the public and not the private. I am also interested to know to what extent granting some people more or less rights than others for the good of the community is possible given that humans tend toward the despotic when given the upper hand.

America is a tricky idea...

Bring It.

Sometimes we crawl into worship on Sunday morning. Frankly, it’s all we can do to get up out of bed in the morning after the week (or weekend) we’ve just had. We can’t wait to escape the world and be encouraged and uplifted. We need to hear that familiar song and be empowered by that inspiring message. The last thing we want is for this to be the week the pastors decided to do something “creative.” Why do they keep rearranging the chairs? What’s with the light show? Why does the guitarist always look like his dog just died? Did they really need to move the cross again? For once, can’t something be dependable? Why do they make it so hard for me to worship? My friend Karen said something really insightful this week. She said, “You bring your worship with you.”

Wow.

You know, in the Old Testament, that’s exactly what they did. They sacrificed their resources to secure an offering that would be a tangible representation of their need for a savior and they brought it with them to sacrifice at the altar. There, they laid it down in an act of penitent humility. They knew that they could not come empty-handed to the altar and expect their righteous God to be pleased with them.

I know what you’re thinking. Christ has offered himself as a sacrifice once and for all for our sin debt, but this doesn’t give us an excuse to show up empty-handed to the altar. Paul encourages us to offer ourselves as living sacrifices as an act of worship, not so that God will forgive our sins, but because He already has. This is a time to bring Him the good, the bad, and the ugly, and to say, “I give it all to You. You paid for it, now what do You want me to do with it?” It’s true that we bring that hard week with us to worship: the financial struggles, the marital spats, and the adolescent dramas; all of it. But with it, we should also bring the recognition of God’s abundant grace, an attitude of humility before God and man, and a posture that says, “I am a grateful child of God here to worship Him among His people.”

Our prayer while we are planning worship services is that we are creating an environment where the altar is big enough for everyone to come to lay their burdens down and pick up the yoke that is light. If something is different this week, ask God to reveal to You His divine desire for your worship through it Or in spite of it. God is much bigger than our services, but we always hope that our offering as planners is something that He is pleased to use in your lives. We are confident that if you are willing to bring it all with you and lay it all down at the cross, you’ll never walk away from worship empty handed again.