On the Road to Emmaus » Hamartiology (Sin)

Emotions Commanded in Scripture

Richard — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:53:52 +0000

The Scripture does not only command us to do certain activites. We are also commanded to feel certain emotions. Thus an emotion-less obedience is not in fact full obedience. God calls us to follow and obey him with our entire selves – all of our bodily, sensory, emotional, spiritual, and relational existence. This might seem unreasonable, as we all know it is impossible to simply turn our emotions on and off. The Bible does not call us to look like we have emotions, but to actually have them. Such requires more than will-power, but the opening of our hearts to God in a process of thorough-going transformation and restoration. In his book Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis describes the process of Christian transformation aptly:

“When Jesus said ‘be holy,’ He meant that we must go in for the full treatment. It is hard; but the sort of compromise we are all hankering after is harder—in fact it is impossible. It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg. We are like eggs at present. And you cannot go on indefinitely being just an ordinary decent egg. We must be hatched or go bad.”

While this might seem incredibly overwhelming, it is actually remarkable good news. From this we know that the religion we call Christianity is not simply about behavior modification or straight-jacketing your passions in order to conform to a behavioral norm. Rather, God would say that your passions are too weak, they are too easily satisfied, and Christianity calls you not merely to acquire this or that activity, but to have full liberation of the heart and body to fully flow and function in the manner God intended for humanity in creation. To be fully alive and fully human is at the heart of true Christianity.

The following is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but simply to show some of the extent to which God calls, indeed, commands us not only to do, but to feel.

(1) Joy—Philippians 4:4 – “Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again rejoice!” (also Psalm 100:2; 1 Thessalonians 5:16; Romans 12:8, 12, 15)

(2) Love from the heart—1 Peter 1:22 – “Love one another deeply, from the heart” (also Romans 12:10)

(3) Hope— Psalm 42:5 – “Hope in God…” (also 1 Peter 1:13)

(4) Fear—Luke 12:5 – “Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell.” (also Romans 11:20; 1 Peter 1:17)

(5) Peace—Colossians 3:15 – “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts…”

(6) Forgiveness from the heart—Matthew 18:35 – “This is how my heavenly father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.” (also Leviticus 19:17-18; Colossians 3:13)

(7) Zeal—Romans 12:11 – “Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord.”

(8) Grief—Romans 12:15 – “…weep with those who weep [sharing others’ grief]” (also James 4:9)

(9) Desire—1 Peter 2:2 – “Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation.” (also 1 Corinthians 12:31, 14:1)

(10) Tenderheartedness—Ephesians 4:32 – “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted…” (also 1 Peter 3:8)

(11) Brokenness and contrition—Psalm 51:17 – “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” (also James 4:9)

(12) Gratitude— Colossians 2:6-7 – “So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in Him…overflowing with thanksgiving.” (also Ephesians 5:20; Colossians 3:17)

(13) Contentment—Hebrews 13:5 – “be content with what you have” (also Exodus 20:17)

(14) Patience—1 Thessalonians 5:14 – “be patient with everyone.” (Also Colossians 3:12)

(15) Kindness—Micah 6:8 – “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love (love, not just do) kindness.”

(16) Compassion—Colossians 3:12 – “…clothe yourselves with compassion…”

(17) Sympathy—1 Peter 3:8 – “Finally, all of you, have…sympathy…”

(18) Cheerful giving—2 Corinthians 9:7 – “Each one should give…not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

(19) Courage (do not fear)—Deuteronomy 31:6 “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified.” (also Deuteronomy 31:7, 23; Joshua 1:6- 9, 18; 10:25; 1 Chronicles 22:13; 1 Corinthians 16:13)

(20) Confidence (do not worry)—Matthew 6:25 – “Do not worry about your life…”

(21) Awe—Ecclesiastes 5:7 – “Therefore stand in awe of God.”

(22) Hate – Psalm 97:10 – “O you who love the LORD, hate evil!”; Romans 12:9 – “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” (also Amos 5:15)

(23) Do not hate – Leviticus 19:17-18 – “You shall not hate your brother in your heart…You bear a grudge against anyone of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.” (also 1 John 2:9, 11; 3:15)

Prayers for Revival – Hatred of Sin

Richard — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:09:48 +0000

The problem with sin is not “because God said so.” Sin is a cancerous force which seeks to destroy all that is good, true and beautiful, leaving the wreckage of alienation and death in the wake of its violence.

In his Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, Jonathan Edwards describes one of the signs of a true work of the Holy Spirit in that it causes people to hate sin. So I decided to set my hand to writing some prayers related to the subject. The starting point for my reflections was Genesis 1, the account of God’s original creation. Here human beings are given their initial and original commission to “rule the earth,” (Gen. 1:28) in other words, to be the agents of God’s gracious and life-giving presence on earth. Further, in chapter 2 (verse 15), the human beings are called to “cultivate and keep (i.e. guard, protect)” the Garden of Eden. Here their task is to foster the life that God intended for his creation, to preserve its integrity, and guard it from all harm.

For me, this is the starting place when thinking about sin. I will occasionally run into people who only think sin is wrong because “God said so,” as if God started from absolutely nothing and arbitrarily came up with a list of “good things” and “bad things” to subject us to. Then sin mostly becomes about abstract accounting systems in heaven – how well I have done at doing the good list and keeping away from the bad list and the respective tally that God is keeping. This obsession with “accounting in heaven” is a haunting specter over some places in American evangelical Christianity. The result is people who are much more concerned over their “status” as a “good girl” or “bad boy” than whether their actions lovingly cause life to flourish or instead cause damage and destruction to people.

It further degenerates to a delusional belief that once you ask God to forgive you for your sin, all things are “just-as-if-you-never-sinned.” This near-heresy is essentially a fundamental denial that our actions have real consequences and that there is even something wrong with sin. It is indeed gloriously true that God can and will forgive us when we ask and seek to amend our lives. But the reason we need forgiveness in the first place is because our actions have consequences – what we do really matters. Sin is not wrong because God said so – it is against nature and inherently destructive. Every sin grates against the purposes of love, life, joy and freedom for which God brought forth his creation. Every sin causes hurt and havoc in the lives of real people on planet earth, which does not magically vanish with an apology. When we sin, we cease to be the agents of God’s life-giving presence and rule on earth and rather operate in collusion with counter-forces which produce death, violence, hatred and alienation. God takes this personally, not primarily because we don’t “do what he says,” but because in his immeasurably vast love for us, he is personally affected when we are hurt by others’ sin, when his desire for love, joy and freedom in life are undermined. He is full of compassion and feels the pain of those who are injured (cf. Ps. 34:18; 145:8-9; Isa. 63:9). It is from this depth of love that God is virulent and assiduous in his opposition to Sin and Evil.

It has become my conviction that I need a more powerful motivation for life than my status as a “good boy” and abstract accounting systems in heaven. God has called us as humans to be the representatives of his gracious rule on earth. He has called us to love the life he created and so foster its growth and protect its integrity. He invites us to understand sin as it really is – not simply something on a “bad list,” but the antithesis and nemesis of everything good, true and beautiful, a cancerous presence which progressively produces increasing death. As our hearts are filled with the love God has for his creation, as we participate in his compassionate longing for the full flowering of life on earth, as we rise into our role as those bearing God’s image and his gracious life-giving rulership, our actions take on new weight and our decisions come into new light. Hating sin is not about being a “good boy or girl.” It is about treasuring the life God has created and loves.

Majestic Lord, you possess within yourself the pinnacle of goodness, truth and beauty, and grant all creatures to share in that same splendor: Enthrall us with this radiance and fill your church with a tenacious distaste for all sin, that as you restore the lost splendor of your creation, by the gracious nurture of your Holy Spirit, we would with great determination disavow every thought, word and deed seeking to perpetuate the bondage of Death and the tyranny of Night, whose sway is already fading in the dawn of your resurrection life, through Jesus the Messiah, your Son our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

O God: the heavens of heavens are yours, but the earth you have given to humanity: grant to your Church an inexhaustible love of life, that hating all which compromises the integrity of your creation and fails to foster that society of love for which you called us into being, we would walk before you in holiness and righteousness all our days, treasuring the good, true and beautiful, stewarding your creation as faithful agents of your royal power, through Jesus the Messiah, Your Son our Lord, who is alive and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit in glory everlasting.

Lord God, whose heart overflows with the purest delight: help us see and understand the insidious nature of sin, which in the end only steals, kills and destroys, that, hating all which destroys life, and loving that which restores, we might find holiness to be the very fountain of joy, welling up to eternal life, through Jesus the Messiah your Son, our Lord…

New Exodus – Part 4 – The Ending of Exile and the Forgiveness of Sins

Richard — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:05:44 +0000

Last time, I wrote about the “new exodus,” describing it as a way of speaking of the ending of the Jewish exile while investing it with the epochal significance of replacing the Exodus as the defining event in Israel’s history and their revelation of God. I then described reasons for believing that theologically, the Jewish people did not understand the exile to have ended when the exiles in Babylon physically returned to their homeland in 538 B.C. Understanding this brings a dynamic twist in understanding the NT and the person and message of Jesus. Before we look at how interpreting the New Testament is affected by these realities, it is important to add another dimension.

A significant theme which recurs throughout the later OT writings is the link between the ending of exile and the forgiveness of sins. The classic introduction of this theme is in Isaiah 40 where (if you do something funny to account for the peculiar placement of Isaiah 35) Isaiah’s in-depth exposition of New Exodus kicks off:

Comfort, O comfort my people, says your God.

Speak tenderly to Jerusalem,
and cry to her

that she has served her term,
that her iniquity has been pardoned…

Notice the two couplets that I have marked off by leaving space between them. This is to illustrate the extremely common and primary feature of Hebrew poetry called parallelism. We commonly think of poetry as rhyming the sounds of words. This however, is not at all how Hebrew poetry functions. Instead of rhyming words, they would rhyme thoughts. This came in two primary forms (although technically one could tease out various additional nuances). The first is synonymous parallelism, where the two lines of poetry express synonymous thoughts, i.e. their meaning are essentially the same. Examples of such would include:

O come, let us sing for joy to the LORD,
Let us shout joyfully to the rock of our salvation. (Psalm 95:1)

I will extol You, my God, O King,
And I will bless Your name forever and ever. (Psalm 145:1)

One generation shall praise Your works to another,
And shall declare Your mighty acts. (Psalm 145:4)

The LORD of hosts is with us;
The God of Jacob is our stronghold (Ps. 46:11)

The wilderness and the desert will be glad,
And the Arabah will rejoice and blossom (Isaiah 35:1)

Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might,
With His arm ruling for Him (Isaiah 40:10)

The point in all these and many other verses is not that each line is communicating a new and distinct idea. Rather it is a poetic way of saying the same thing. Where this becomes critical is that seeing parallelism can often indicate to us two concepts that the author is holding closely together in a semi-synonymous (though not necessarily precise – remember this is poetry) relationship.

The other major form of parallelism is antonymous parallelism, in which the two lines of the couplet express the opposite idea. This form of parallelism is much less common than the former.

The LORD keeps all who love Him,
But all the wicked He will destroy. (Psalm 145:20)

For the LORD knows the way of the righteous,
But the way of the wicked will perish. (Psalm 1:6)

They will find gladness and joy,
And sorrow and sighing will flee away. (Is. 35:10) – an interesting case, not precisely synonymous or antonymous parallelism, it is expressing the same idea in opposite ways

The purpose of this digression on Hebrew poetry is to show how meaningful it is when the Isianic text brings into parallel the notion of the ending of exile (she has served her term) and the forgiveness of sin (her iniquity has been pardoned). In other words, the author is bringing into a poetically synonymous relationship, the twin notions of the end of Israel’s exile and the forgiveness of their sins. How can these two seemingly disparate themes be related? One has to do with their historical circumstances, the other with their relationship with God. One concerns “horizontal” relationships, the other “vertical.” The one is temporary, the other eternal. Let me explain how I think this works.

The book of Deuteronomy is essentially the covenant charter of the people of Israel. It explains at length the relationship between God and Israel. In chapter 28, blessings are described, which are for Israel if they keep the covenant, while curses are described for Israel if they do not keep the covenant. Interestingly, these blessings and curses are not for individuals, but are for the nation as a whole with regards to corporate obedience or corporate disobedience (an extremely foreign concept for twenty-first century individualism-assaulted denizens). The result of obedience is that God “will establish you as a holy people” and consequently, they will be blessed and prosper, specifically with regard to the surrounding nations of political adversaries. However, if as a nation they do not follow the covenant, they are told that “the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth” and that “The LORD will bring you back to Egypt in ships.” In other words, God’s deliverance of the people from the Egyptian captivity (the exodus) will be reversed by virtue of their corporate disobedience. Chapter thirty also promises that if while in captivity in foreign nations, if they will return to the Lord, he will bring them out of captivity, restore them to the land and bless them abundantly. In summary the result of corporate disobedience is exile and the result of corporate repentance is return from exile.

What we see from Deuteronomy is that the concept of sin and exile are intricately related. Sin is understood in essentially a causal relationship with going into exile. The reason why the captives addressed in Isaiah 40 are in exile is because of their corporate sin. These sins are delineated in much of the pre-exilic prophetic literature and the historical books.

What is critical to grasp here is that sin and forgiveness are not primarily viewed from an individualistic or existentialist perspective. The concern in Isaiah 40 is not “how one feels” when relating to God (i.e., feeling forgiven or feeling shame). Neither is the concern the accumulation of merits and demerits, nor the eternal fate of individuals (i.e., heaven or hell). Rather, the concern is typically Jewish: it is historical, national, geographical, political and related to the future of life on earth. When these people were awaiting the “forgiveness of sins,” they were not anticipating a spiritual experience whereby their guilt-anxiety complex was assuaged. They were not expecting a declaration from heaven announcing their forgiveness or status of righteousness. They certainly we not even dreaming of being assured of escaping the earth for an eternal heavenly abode. They were looking forward the ending of the exile, freedom from foreign powers, the restoration of the nation and the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises in which the entire earth would be renewed. According to Deuteronomy, they would know they were forgiveness, not by the warm-fuzzies, but because they had been brought back to their land and restored as a people. In this passage the forgiveness of sins is not individualistic, internal or “spiritual.” Rather it is corporate, historical, national, geographical, ecological and political. For the exile to end means that Israel has been forgiven of their sins. If the exile has not ended, the logical interpretation is that they have not yet been forgiven and the “wrath of God” still remains over them.

This perspective helps to makes sense of some other “baffling” passages. I always used to get tripped out over verses like these:

Psalm 103:9 – He will not always accuse, nor will he keep his anger forever.

Psalm 85:4-6 – Restore us again, O God of our salvation, and put away your indignation toward us. Will you be angry with us forever? Will you prolong your anger to all generations? Will you not revive us again, so that your people may rejoice in you?

Psalm 79:5 – How long, O LORD? Will you be angry forever? Will your jealous wrath burn like fire?

Micah 7.18-20 – Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the remnant of your possession? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in showing clemency. He will again have compassion upon us; he will tread our iniquities under foot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. You will show faithfulness to Jacob and unswerving loyalty to Abraham, as you have sworn to our ancestors from the days of old.

I would think, “don’t the Israelites understand that we’re saved by faith? All you have to do is ask God to forgive you and he will.” I would change the words of these Psalms around when praying and singing them. Instead of saying “you will not always accuse, nor will you keep your anger forever,” I would say something like “you do not always accuse, you do not stay angry forever.” I didn’t make any sense that one would have to plead with God for him to forgive you. That sounded like Medieval penance theology.

These verses (and MANY others) only doesn’t make sense when a modern notion of “justification by faith” and the radical individualization of sin and forgiveness is applied to these passages (See my posts on “Reading the Bible in the Right Direction” for more on this). There is certainly a personal concept of sin in the Scripture but it is not the only way sin is treated and in many passages it is not primary. The verses given above, however, are patently not about the individual assurance of forgiveness. That was not the primary concern of the Israelites in captivity. We don’t see in the Scripture a spirituality of “well, we’re in captivity and slavery, but at least we have the inner assurance of God’s forgiveness so we are content.” That kind of forgiveness was not on their radar. For them, to be forgiven meant to be restored in the full sense of the word, as we see in Ps. 85:4 (restore us again). This is not an issue of “pre-cross/post-cross” as I’ve sometimes heard it described (as if only after Jesus died on the cross can we be forgiven immediately, before then we had to beg and do penance). The context of these passages make clear to us what they are about without bringing in an artificial theological framework that is foreign to the texts. The context of Psalm 85:4-6 is immediately in relation to the notion of the captivity of Israel in exile. The context of Psalm 103 immediately preceding the quote above is all about Moses and the exodus and a quotation from Moses’ encounter with God on Mt. Sinai. Psalm 79 is about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as the Babylonian exile was inaugurated. The passage from Micah seven explicitly correlates forgiveness of sin to faithfulness of the covenant with Abraham (i.e., the land).

As I will develop further in my next post, the notions of the ending of exile and the forgiveness of sins are intricately linked in these and many other passages. Understanding this helps restore a more authentically Jewish (and less of a Medieval European) biblical perspective and sheds (in my opinion), radical new light on the both the OT and the NT, especially the life, message and mission of Jesus and the theology of sin, forgiveness and justification in Paul.

One way it immediately helps us, is it beckons us to break out of the morose and obsessive inwardly-bent introspective posture that we can develop when all we think about is dealing with our personal sin and the corollary confusion that the focal point of Christianity is to aid you in dealing with your guilt-anxiety complex. I hate to break it to you, but there is more to Christianity than you and your personal sin! God has a much more expansive and exciting vision for the world and the future than for you to neurotically manage your besetting sins. Of course, dealing with sin and our own insidious propensity towards hatred and violence is incredibly significant, but it can only be done when we are fully engaged with God’s bigger picture for the human race and the future of life on earth. It will necessitate getting our eyes off of ourselves, perhaps at first for only moments at a time, but more and more we will lift our gaze and begin to see the wide and open space of freedom and life God is inviting us to.

Wow. I’m kind of getting excited and am feeling this already-too-long post burgeoning into more than can fit here. More on this to come…

Spirit and Flesh Part 2

Richard — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:36:35 +0000

In the last post I developed the idea of flesh/spirit, particularly from the angle of eschatology. To understanding the Spirit biblically, it must be considered in light of eschatology because the Spirit is the life and power of the age to come. The Spirit is not simply a force or power, but a person who is drawing the entire created order towards God’s future, renewing life and overcoming the powers of death and disorder. Understanding what the “flesh” is, has extremely practical implications for the life of faith and the orientation of one’s focus with regard to sanctification.We all know the “flesh” is bad and we should be against it, therefore the identification of this enemy is crucial in warring against it. In the last post I employed the methodology that we start with the solution and then explicate the problem rather than vice versa. Instead of beginning with a description of the flesh, we first described the nature of the Spirit and then were able to discern the contours of our enemy “the flesh.” In that post we looked at the Spirit through the lens of eschatology. Now we will look at the Spirit through the lens of the Trinity and seek to explicate “the flesh” from that perspective.

The doctrine of the Trinity tells us that God’s own being resides in the inter-relations between Father, Son and Spirit. The foundational underlying reality of God’s being is not the individual persons of the Godhead, but their communion of love with each other. Since humans are made in God’s image, this tells us that contrary to Boethius, the “basic atomic reality of humanity,” the essential indivisible constituency of humanity is not the individual, but the community. The existence of the community is ontologically and biologically prior to the individual. Our true humanity is only expressed, not as individuals, but as persons in loving relationship. This illuminates the fundamental characteristic of holiness – perfect love. The holy person is the person who loves in relationships. Notions of holiness cannot be abstract, detached or impersonal. Rather, they must be concrete, involved and relational.

The Trinitarian understanding of human relationality also illuminates the negative dimensions of human existence that holiness and sanctification seek to overcome. Sin is often understood as either “pride” or alternatively “self-centeredness.” Advocates of both views often claim Augustinian grounding. Some see understanding “self-centeredness” as an improvement over “pride” in that it is rooted in a Trinitarian theology of love. Sin is disordered and inwardly focused love rather than simply pride. The phronema tes sarkos, the “mindset of the flesh” is thus understood as a “self-centered mind-set” or “mind set purely on human goals and values.” The problem with humanity is that it is inwardly bent in pursuit of self-sovereignty, self-glorification, self-promotion, self-sufficiency, self-importance and self-gratification.

However, what the doctrine of the Trinity tells us is that we cannot allow the individual to be the fundamental unit of reality. Thus our foundational concepts of sin and depravity cannot be at center individualistic. Sin and the flesh cannot be confined to the isolated disorder of the individual. They cannot solely be understood or explicated in terms of self-centeredness. They cannot be explained only with reference to the self if it is truly impossible to rescind one’s relational nature. As long as one exists in relationship, others are involved. Therefore the nature of sin and the disordered motivation of the flesh are better viewed as an active anti-love or even hatred towards others. One’s attitudes towards one’s self and the actions of one’s self always involve others in the form of their presence or absence.

Self-sovereignty always means other-subjugating. Self-glorification always means other de-valuing. Self- promotion always means other-diminishing. Self-sufficiency always means other-rejection. Pursuit of self-importance always means other-insignificance. Misbegotten self-gratification always entails the utilitarian exploitation of others or the refusal to be generous to others. The sin of “self” is in fact not merely the “sin of self.” It must always be interpreted and articulated in the light of the relationality that one fails to exist without. Hence, these self-bending sins are all in fact forms of anti-love, or even hatred.

This demonstrates that the application of the centrality of relationality to harmartiology (the doctrine of sin) does not “reduce” a concept of sin. Humans are not in fact indicted for “selfishness” alone but for various forms of hatred and violence against others. The concept of sin through the doctrine of the Trinity seems to actually radicalize the doctrine of sin. This furthermore necessitates that any solution to the notion of sin, as manifested in a form of positive holiness and sanctification, must radically address that while humans have an insatiable craving for relationship and an instinctual urge to abscond their unavoidable sense of loneliness, they simultaneously possess an, at times insidious and at times unambiguous, fear, aversion and hostility towards the very thing they crave.

On the Road to Emmaus » Hamartiology (Sin)

Emotions Commanded in Scripture

Related posts

Prayers for Revival – Hatred of Sin

Related posts

New Exodus – Part 4 – The Ending of Exile and the Forgiveness of Sins

Related posts

Spirit and Flesh Part 2

Related posts