But then again, in football a team can get penalized severely for piling on after the whistle blows. So, maybe it is not absolutely true that piling on always is good. Oh wait, in previous blogs we discussed that "good" may have multiple meanings. One meaning of "good" is that circumstances become more favorable to us. The other meaning is that the experience, purpose, and expertise of the author or builder is what makes an object "good". If we apply the later meaning of "good", are there ever any situations where adding on to what the architect or author decided was right is "good"?
Ok, now to my point. There are 3 areas in Christian theology that I believe the stealth influence of carnality has influenced even the best scholars and preachers to "add on" to God's view as revealed in His word. These three are (1) progressive sanctification, (2) faith, and (3) suffering. I will briefly defend my thesis that piling on occurs on these topics because the core assumptions of the carnal mind compel us to add to what God has said. But mainly, in my arguments here, adding on is not "good" because it alters the architect's or author's (in this case, God's) intent.
First, everyone agrees that "sanctification" is God's willful and grace filled action to set us apart for His purposes. However, for some reason I have yet to determine, the Reformed tradition has adopted an add-on of progressing toward a sin-less righteousness as a part of sanctification. I say it is an add-on first because they use the word "and" to introduce this progression. It seems that it is faithfulness to the sanctifying act of God on our behalf that testifies of the glory of a living God to a dying world, not anyone's approach to living righteously. This add on that sanctification is a function of time or our behavior fits the carnal disposition of obligation and duty and man's need to contribute to God's finished work on the Cross. It seems to me that when an orphan is adopted, it is a binary action, it occurred or it didn't. He/she belongs to the father. Although the orphan would benefit more if he/she trusted and appropriated the adoption, the adopted child is no more or less adopted. There is no progression of adoption that is a function of time or anything the adopted child does.
Of course we have God saying that He "works in us both to will and do for His good pleasure" and that "He who began a good work in me will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ." These are promises God makes because He sanctified us. Feeling that we are to live day by day to progressively become more Holy runs the risk that we feel guilty or in despair over our "progression". Knowing we already have all the righteousness we will ever have when we receive Christ and that God will be ever present to work in and thru us in many ways for His Glory produces freedom and hope.
Second, the word for faith is "pitsis". This term refers to reliable evidence that an object is true, but it is evidence that we cannot prove. Scripture constantly refers to faith as separate from our trusting in that evidence. Trust is a willful vulnerability. Faith is reliable evidence, but we must make our self vulnerable to it to receive the power of its truth. Faith is given to us, we supply the trust. When trust is added on to the evidence, faith then is misunderstood in terms of what is provided to us and what is our role in receiving the power of the object we trust. When we say "our faith", what are we referencing? It is our reliance on or trust in the evidence we believe to be true. It would help to replace the word "faith" with "conclusive evidence" as we read and teach. This can help everyone see faith as equally or more important as scientific evidence in what we trust to be true.
Third, "suffering" is a favorite topic of preachers and theologians. However, the English word suffering has numerous different Greek words that represent different views of suffering than just the one concept we have in English. We hear suffering and we think of pain or affliction brought on by circumstances that are not in our favor. But often in a particular passage of Scripture suffering means something very different and rarely (I am not sure I have ever) heard a pastor or teacher make any distinction.In fact, almost 100% of the time the singular notion of suffering is added on to the passage, distracting from the actual meaning. This add on appeals to a human core assumption about circumstances. It is in our human nature to see joy as happiness, a consequence of our circumstances. We tend to want to view a situation or an object as "good" if it favors our desires.
However, one word translated "suffer" simply means to allow. "Suffer the children to come unto me", Jesus says. This one is hard to add on the notion of pain so "piling on" doesn't happen here often. In Romans 5 we have the famous passage on perseverance. We are told to hold steadfast in our "suffering" - our difficult circumstances that do not conform to our desires because God will win in the end. But the word often translated as suffering here is actually tribulation. Tribulation means pressure we receive spiritually. It is the pressure we feel by being in the world but not of the world. That is a very different discomfort that affliction from losing a job or getting a disease, But this distinction is not made in the preaching and would make a big difference on the understanding and response of the listener. Peter talks a lot about partaking in the "sufferings of Christ". Here the Greek word means "the human emotion of an experience" (I have blogged about this several times). This notion of suffering has no positive or negative connotation so when we make it such, we add on to its meaning and lose what God is saying to us. God's view of this notion is that He intends us to have emotions to every situation like Jesus did. If we did, I don;t think the world would see Christians as worriers and emotionally fragile. How can our faith (evidence of the truth of the Cross) be attractive to a dying world when we look no different than those whose faith is somewhere else?
I do not mean to be critical of theologians, pastors, teachers, etc. I want to encourage them. I understand the phenomenon of add on. Preachers are in the Pauline tradition when they preach against adding anything to what God is saying. Yet we all do. An add on then becomes institutionalized, like progressive sanctification, and becomes legitimate, even "heresy" to question the add on.
Pondering these three add ons are what i do. It is like a curse to me, but God has not shut my mouth on them yet. You may understand this or not, you may agree with me or not, but you should at least ponder all the different ways we pile on to what God sees....
No comments:
Post a Comment