Redefining Redemption

Maybe God redeems the world one person at a time, one heart at a time, one square foot at a time.

Maybe redemption is a process that occurs in stages and includes temporary setbacks as well as humble steps forward.

Maybe the redemption of the world is happening every moment, but we don’t see it because we are looking for something else, something more sensational. Maybe we are looking for an apocalyptic big bang or cosmic fireworks instead.

Maybe there is more to redemption than simply enduring what some say is a “sinful” world while hoping to go to heaven.

Maybe redemption is actually here and now—a here and now that opens up to God’s future that is on the way.

Can our concept of redemption itself be redeemed? Can we be redeemed from a narrow, sectarian view of redemption? Or are we stuck? The world keeps moving and changing, and the world doesn’t wait for people who are stuck.

Carl Jung believed that at the bottom of every neurosis there is a type of “stuckness.” Can religion itself become neurotic? Can religion become so stuck or fixated that it results in irrational, neurotic inflexibility, out of touch with reality and the world? We have all met people like this. They are stuck on “Middle C” and have no other notes or melodies to play. We see this in the person who can’t get beyond a divorce that happened twenty years ago, or in an apocalyptic fanatic who knows only the book of Revelation. This happens in religion whenever when it loses its ability to adapt or to re-interpret anything. The theology of neurotic religion resembles a former geological age; it shoots certitudes at people like spit wads, but nothing sticks. People just walk away. We instinctively sense that neurotic religion is for the like-minded who have lost their minds. We instinctively know there is more to God’s music than “Middle C.”

If God is at work in the world, everywhere and every day, then redemption is happening now, not just in some far off future. And if God is a God of love, then we need to see God’s love popping up in all sorts of places and among all sorts of people. If we take God’s redeeming love seriously, we will also take the world seriously. We might even embrace the fact that we are co-workers with God to bring about a new redemption here and now, in this place, at this time—our square foot of space.

--Brad

The bogus battle between science and religion

A college student once asked me, “How can I believe there is a God out there when there is no scientific proof of it?”

I answered him, “Is reality limited to that which can be proven by the scientific method of investigation? Are we required to reduce reality to the findings of science?”

I have a problem when science becomes “scientism,” just like I have a problem when religion becomes “fundamentalism.” I reject scientism and I reject fundamentalism.

The so-called “battle” between science and religion is bogus and is based on a misunderstanding of both. Science is one mode of knowing, and religion is another mode of knowing. Science and religion represent two valid ways of knowing, but they are different in their goals and methods.

Science deals with data of the observable, natural world, and tries to explain why things happen according to the laws of causality—cause and effect. Think of modern medicine. I’m glad that science has discovered how to relieve pain and cure diseases. I’m thankful for the many inventions of science that have made our lives better compared to centuries ago.

Yet religion deals with other questions, ultimate questions. Where did we come from? Why are we here? What is the meaning of truth? What are the sources for ethics and morality? What is our destiny? What happens when we die? Why should we care about the world and each other? To what or to whom are we ultimately accountable? How do we deal with meaninglessness, condemnation, guilt, and fear?

None of the above questions are scientific questions. They deal with spiritual realities. Such questions cannot be put into a test tube, but they are essential to what it means to be human.

Yet religion makes a huge mistake when it tries to be scientific! For example, when religious persons try to use the scientific method to “prove” that God exists or to “prove” that the earth was created in six days . . . this is when religion oversteps its bounds.

Let science do what it is meant to do, and let religion do what it is meant to do. But don’t try to turn science into religion or religion into science. Science is one valid mode of knowing; religion is another valid mode of knowing. As long as we remember this, the battle between science and religion is bogus.

Bearing witness to the crucified Christ

In my World Religions class I try to encourage students to develop at least a partial appreciation for the non-Christian religions. It is not evangelism but an academic course on global religion in a college setting. Students are expected to be open to new learnings, to consider the various ways that “truth and grace” have manifested themselves in different cultures.

Yet I am aware on a personal level that, as a Christian, I have a place to stand. One needs a place to stand, a referent point, a normative center. At the heart of Christian faith is Jesus Christ crucified and raised from the dead. The biggest difference between Christianity and the non-Christian religions is Jesus himself—the message of the cross and resurrection. It is not a matter of “converting” people to this. The traditional “conversion model” of mission is laden with problems. For one thing, it ignores the new parity there is now between the world’s religions, and it smacks of arrogance.

Rather, Christians are called to bear witness to the crucified Christ through cruciform living. How do we do this? We bear witness through our words and deeds. We bear witness through our worship and service. We bear witness through suffering and sacrifice and by loving a world that needs the healing power of the gospel. We bear witness by following Christ and sharing his fate: cruciform living in the name of the crucified Christ.

Jesus willingly died without retaliation or violence. He died with a vision of the coming kingdom of God. God raised him from the dead as the sign that the New Age has already begun. Therefore, Christian faith is hope—hope in the God who turns crucifixion into resurrection, and who brings in the kingdom through vicarious suffering: the triumph of love over hate.

There are many Christians in America right now who are very good at hating and very good at being angry. They are very good at judging who is saved and who is lost. Do they really understand the crucified Christ?

Sooner or later the message of the crucified Christ has to get through. The world needs to hear it. But more importantly, the world needs to see it.

Judged by Our Words

I spend most of my work days driving throughout northeastern Wisconsin and visiting patients who are dying. I’m a hospice chaplain. For better or worse, I often listen to the radio. It’s hard nowadays to find a radio station that has decent programming, other than some FM stations that play recycled music all day long—and that gets old, too.

I listen to sports updates, but I also tune in to conservative talk shows. I try to give the hosts a chance every time, and every time I turn them off after about ten minutes because that’s all I can take. The hate-talk, the bombastic rhetoric, the stereotypes and generalizations, the one-sided propaganda—it’s all too much for me.

But I always wonder about those people who digest this stuff day in and day out…what effect does it have on their minds and souls? I believe thoughts have karmic consequences. That is, we are what we think, and we become what we think. Not only this, our words proceed from our heart. Our words reveal our heart. To me, talk radio reveals a bunch of hearts that are really in trouble and words that can set off karmic ripples of negativity and prejudice.

Don’t ever think that words are irrelevant. Words do matter. Words are powerful. Words can save us or harm us. Words can build up or they can destroy.

One of the things that disturb me most about America today is intemperate speech. We’ve reached the point where “freedom of speech” means the freedom to say whatever we want, no matter how obscene or hateful it is. I don’t believe that is what is meant by the First Amendment.

But why limit ourselves to the First Amendment. Let’s go further back to Jesus, who said, “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks . . . on the Day of Judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you have spoken. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt 12:34-37).

Speaking of words, these are some of the most stunning words in the New Testament. I’m fairly certain, however, that radio talk show hosts aren’t listening. After all, they aren’t getting paid to really listen, are they? But I think God is listening . . .

The Resurrection and God's Future

Christian faith is openness to the future because the future is God’s future. Christian faith includes a living hope that leans into God’s future. It is not hope in this or that, or hope in utopia, or even hope in “heaven.” It is hope God alone—the God of Jesus Christ, the God who raised Jesus from the dead, “the coming God.” This is why Christian faith is eschatological. It always keeps “the end” in view and interprets the present in the light of God’s coming future. There can be no selling out to the present, as if the present is all there is, without a future horizon: “Live for today because tomorrow we die!” That’s nonsense. The present without God’s future makes no sense, and Christian faith without Christian hope is a contradiction. Christians await “the new creation.” All creation is groaning for the coming of God’s future.

God’s coming future is the presupposition of the New Testament. We cannot understand the New Testament apart from the awareness that “the times” have shifted. Salvation has arrived in Christ. The cross and resurrection have inaugurated “the new age.” We are already living in “the last days,” and the Spirit is the “first fruits” of “the age to come.” The first rays of dawn are shining. We eagerly await the full light of God’s glory. There is a horizon! Therefore, to work for the kingdom of God here and now is to also keep in view the kingdom yet to come, the kingdom established by God alone, by God’s initiative.

This eschatological perspective drives the theology of the New Testament. Christians never lose hope in the present because they never lose hope in the coming God who is the ruler of both present and future. This is the God who raises the dead and brings life out of death. Jesus has been raised from the dead! God’s future has already begun! There is more to come! This, to me, is the theological meaning of the resurrection.

I live today with hope, no matter what. Why? Because Christ lives! And his life is the guarantee of God’s ultimate triumph.

Lent: Giving Something Up or Adding Something?

Lent: Giving Something Up or Adding Something?

Somehow Christians managed to survive for over three hundred years without Lent. The original Apostles didn’t keep Lent. The Apostle Paul didn’t keep Lent. The early church “Fathers,” such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, never kept Lent. My goodness, how did they all survive without Lent!

The formal observance of Lent as a forty day period of fasting and penitence arose in Rome in the 4th century. Fine. Religious observances are a good thing. Lent can be a good thing. We go with Jesus, so to speak, into the wilderness for forty days of fasting, prayer, and contemplation. This is a good thing.

It is good to remind ourselves of our finitude and limitations. It’s good to remind ourselves that we are sinners! We fall short of God’s standard of love. We need forgiveness. I’m on board with all that. I get it.

But people have this habit of giving something up for Lent. I’ve never given up anything during Lent in my entire life, even when I was a pastor. I don’t believe in giving things up for the sake of giving things up, and then taking them back again as soon as Lent is over! It strikes me as artificial and contrived. For example, I know some people who give up chocolate “for Lent.” Woo-hoo! Christ died on the cross and I’m giving up chocolate for forty days! Pretty impressive!

No, Lent is a time to take something on, to add something—as a sacrifice, as a way of breaking out of our entrenched selfishness. So, add more prayer time to your life. Add more people to your prayer list. Add a visit to someone who is lonely. Write a real letter to someone to cheer them up. Do something extra for Lent, and do it in the name of God.

I don’t think God needs us to give up a lot of stuff. I think God would be content to see us add a few more things that really make a difference in someone else’s life. That, to me, is Lent.

The whole fasting thing . . . it’s never impressed me. Fast all you want. I won’t.

Thoughts on the Apostle Paul . . .

A few words on the Apostle Paul, my favorite Christian theologian. This is isn't a head trip. It's about understanding freedom and the radical message of Christ for today.

Jewish theologian, Samuel Sandmel, wrote, “Paul did not create Christianity, he re-created it."

I have discovered that Jews are often the best interpreters of Paul. Why? Paul was a Jew, a rabbi, and the framework of Paul’s thinking is largely Jewish, including his apocalyptic world view. Paul never saw himself as deviating from “true Judaism.” To him, Jesus Christ had been revealed as the crucified Messiah, raised from the dead and exalted as Lord. Paul saw a continuous line from Abraham through Moses and the prophets to Christ and beyond. In his view, those Jews who do not accept the gospel are the ones who have deviated and gone astray.

Nevertheless, Paul is the great non-conformist of the early Christian church. We cannot place him in Palestinian Jewish Christianity. Paul represents Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Christianity. Were it not for Paul, Christianity would have remained a sect within Judaism. Paul was called by Christ to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and this could be called “a second beginning” for Christianity.

This is the main reason we see such tension in Paul’s life and letters. He was breaking new ground, deviating from the Jewish Christian path into the wider Gentile world. Most of his enemies and opponents were Christians. Most of his arguments were with people inside the Christian movement. Thus in Paul we see the stress of a fledging religious movement trying to define itself. Paul is the “genius” behind Hellenistic Christianity, and he paid a price for this.

Paul is interesting, though not always likable. He is impressive, though not always convincing. He is wrong at times, but he is never shallow.

I'm convinced that the institutional church has never understood Paul and his gospel of freedom in Christ. The only way the institutional church can use Paul is by misinterpreting him! Otherwise Paul is too de-stabilizing. Church bureaucrats must water him down. Whenever Christianity gets dull and boring, you can be sure we've lost touch with Paul and that we don't understand him at all.