Pages

Monday, February 15, 2016

Spiritual Hot Potatoes

Parishioners are leaving pastor/author Steve Johnson's small church north of Macon by the dozen, perhaps because of an editorial by weekend columnist Bill Cummings in the Telegraph, the local newspaper. People's lives are being effected by Cummings' words, perhaps more so than what Johnson has written.
 
Who is Bill Cummings? A self-described leadership guru. http://www.macon.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/article30118116.html When given the chance to describe himself, Cummings did not mention his relationship to God. He did learn leadership from a Pope, but did not mention anything else he learned from the pontiff (though he reads the Bible daily). A quick Google search brings up not Cummings' own work, but numerous letters and columns questioning his motives and opinions. Like many in the media these days, it appears "Dr. C" uses his space in the Telegraph to stir up spiritual strife. Does he ever encourage or praise people for doing the right thing? On topic after topic it seems like he's much rather  question and tear down. With all the damage left in his wake I'm not sure I'd hang my hat or make a decision based on what he says. Sad that the newspaper I grew up reading has lowered themselves like this, aspiring to be like the liberal AJC.
 
I have a hard time loving my neighbor. Far be it from me to cast the first stone. I am in no way a Biblical scholar. Most of the words in Cummings' inflammatory January 30th opinion piece are Greek to me. For this reason I'm not going to pick ecclesiastical nits, or make spiritual decisions based on these words. Should I ever get my life in such order that I'm doing everything God requires of me, I'd like to think I would be able to look out from the mountaintop I'd surely be standing on and see even more needs I could meet in the name of Jesus. But I am a long way from that point right now. I am not one to argue various points of scripture.
 
No pastor is perfect. Most would tell you that. Many misguided saints and sinners are quick to forget this. No columnist is perfect either. Just a guess, but fewer would admit as much. Listen to a sermon on Sunday morning (or read a book) with the intent on finding fault, and you will most surely be successful. It's often harder to discern the intent, the meaning, the heart of what the pastor has to say. Many people go to church. When the preacher starts his sermon many in the pews go on a mental journey, daydreaming about that afternoon's game or what's on the menu for Sunday dinner. Listening is hard work – especially listening to God.  
 
No church is perfect. A church should not only meet an individual's needs but also provide opportunities for church-goers to serve God. A place parishioners can get together with others in the same stage of life. Certainly a place to be fed the word of God. Don't take my definition as gospel. Church means different things to different people. Instead of leaving an imperfect church, sometimes it's best to stay and work to make things better. Sometimes. Not always. I'd think there would be many more practical reasons to leave a church than splitting hairs on a particular nuance of scripture.
 
Perhaps all this shows my Biblical illiteracy. I do know that out of His love for me, God sent Jesus to die so my sins could be forgiven. How complicated is that? To me, to question God's motives as a Father is digging deeper and completely missing the obvious treasure. Isn't that enough? Wasn't that the reason Jesus lowered himself to become a man?
 
Similarly, many more spiritual than me say Syrian refugees should be allowed safe harbor in the United States. The Fox News watcher in me throws up a huge stop sign. But there's a difference in what a country should do (protect its citizens) and what a Christ-follower should do (serve others). I know I object out of fear, instead of opening my arms in love. As we approach the end times, following Christ becomes all the more difficult.

Again, don't take my words as inerrant. I plan on asking others more in the know. Do your own research. Form your own opinion. Just pray yours lines up with Scripture, with the mind and heart of God.
 
Philippians 2:5-11: Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond servant, and being made in the likeness of men, being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.    
 
"The blasphemy called "atonement"  by BILL CUMMINGS - SPECIAL TO THE MACON TELEGRAPH 1 30 2016
 
          Picture this: Dad is playing ball with his son, or flying a kite, or going on a trip; many of you mothers took videos. And we who are dads treasure these memories — those special times when we were bonding and maybe even teaching our sons things they didn't know. Sons are very special to dads. It's a lot more than just carrying on our family name.
 
          No sane dad would ever hurt his son for any reason. For example, nothing could make me deliberately cause pain to my son, not even if it helped me financially or emotionally or intellectually or in any way whatsoever. If somebody owed me a trillion dollars and said: "I'll pay you back if you let me shoot your son," I'd say, "Keep it!" And so would every sane father I have ever known.
 
                    Except God?
 
          God the Father, according to several different "Christian" theories, deliberately ordered the execution of his only son as "payback" for the sins of mankind. According to one theory all of us were being held ransom by the devil — so the payback was really made by God to the devil. Another is the Scapegoat Theory: God the Father demanded a scapegoat sacrifice like the Old Testament sacrifices, and since our sins were so great only the son of God could be the Scapegoat. A third theory is substitution. Since the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) somebody had to die, and, once again, that job fell to the only son of God.
 
          Tell me — what sane father would ever do this?
 
Stephen N. Johnson has a compelling chapter on this in his inspiring book: "The Deep Reach of Amazing Grace." He says on page 38: "Punishing an innocent person for the transgressions of another is blatantly immoral and unjust." And God the Father is neither immoral nor unjust. Steve makes a clear and surely "Christian explanation" of why Jesus was executed by the Romans: he loved too much.
 
          Eating with criminals infuriated the police. Healing the sick on the Sabbath was against the law, and publicly talking to a half-breed Samaritan woman was enough to get him banished. We know the Pharisees stoned people to death for blasphemy, and what Jesus was saying about helping an injured traveler (and a hated Samaritan, at that) on the Sabbath, was getting close. But when he told public sinners that their sins were forgiven — that was surely blasphemy and it deserved crucifixion, which only Pilate could do.
 
          And get this, their sins were forgiven, Jesus said — not because they confessed them to a priest, or because they attended a week-long revival, or even because Christ would die on the cross. None of these things. Sins are forgiven, Jesus said, because God loves us. That's all. (Good thing Jesus isn't walking around today looking for a Christian church to pastor)
 
          Johnson quotes the famous "Atonement texts" in the Pauline epistles: (Romans and Ephesians) with words like "Christ died for the ungodly" and "he gave himself up for us, etc." and Johnson claims they're not really "atonement" texts at all, but rather texts that show Christ died because he insisted on loving all these people around him, not to pay off a debt to his father.
 
          Now I know we have a few "Bible-thumpers" who will jump all over this interpretation of the Scriptures (I can hear them screaming). They have known for years exactly what these words mean. They mean that God the Father demanded the execution of his only son to make amends to him for all the sins of mankind. In essence, God the Father killed his son. If this is truly what the authors of these scripture texts meant, then I say they were wrong — because that would surely be blasphemy. I would much rather accept the interpretation of Steve Johnson and the many scripture scholars who agree with him, like Tony Jones in "Did God Kill Jesus?"
 
          In his epilogue, Johnson quotes the Danish theologian Soren Kierkegaard who said: "The most dreadful sort of blasphemy is that of which Christendom is guilty: transforming the God of Spirit into ... ludicrous twaddle."

I agree.
 
 
 

No comments:

Post a Comment