aldenswan.com

I have been very surprised that what is turning out to be a common “hot button” with atheists with regard to Christianity is the concept of grace. Actually, more than surprised - I am just shocked. I never would have thought that anyone (besides those legalistic types we refer to as Pharisees) would be so angered by the thought that someone else thinks they’re getting forgiven for free. One example comes from The Great Blasphemy Challenge Debate, where one of the atheists - I think it was Brian - went off on the subject. If you find it online somewhere, it’s worth watching, just to hear the emotion when the subject is discussed.

Grace is obviously offensive. Should I be shocked? As I mentioned, I’ve known legalists - those who insist that there’s some kind of point system, or that you get saved for free, but to stay saved you’ve got to work for it - who are outright grace-haters. I understand this - it’s all explained in the famous story we call the Prodigal Son: the older son gets ticked that the prodigal gets welcomed back with open arms. However, to those who don’t believe there’s a point system in the first place, why should they care? If there’s no God to do any law-giving or forgiving in the first place, and then no absolute moral code to break, therefore there are no sins to be forgiven from. What, then, does it matter that Christians claim to be forgiven for sins that don’t exist? Interesting, isn’t it?

Of course, there also seems to be a complete misunderstanding of the Gospel; there’s apparently some belief among atheists that Christians believe that because they are forgiven, they are now free to sin. On one hand, of course, the atheists may understand this better than many Christians. Paul works through this in Romans chapter 5, where his argument for grace comes to the point where sin increases, grace increases all the more. There is no sin (except that gnarly old unforgivable one) too big for God not to forgive. However, if we turn the page to Romans 6, we get to where Paul asks the obvious question, “should we then sin more to get more grace? God forbid!” For you see, the Christian teaching is that sin is tantamount to slavery - it is the opposite of freedom (which, of course, we get along with grace). So, “free to sin” is an oxymoron. Now, we do have some oxymorons out there who can’t seem to figure this out, but they are actually quite rare.

Paul teaches this clearly, as does John in 1 John 2:3-6:

We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

It is clear Christian teaching that yes, we are forgiven, once and for all (no indulgences or penance required). It is also clear Christian teaching that we are to “be perfect, as the Heavenly Father is perfect.” That, of course, is really what grace is all about - the power to actually live up to the forgiveness we’ve received.

So, perhaps a better presentation of the Gospel would make it less offensive… or, perhaps not. As Paul also says in 1 Cor. 18 & 19,

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

The Gospel does have that offensive aspect to it, especially the way Paul puts it:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:18-20

He goes on, before he gets to the grace part, to point out how we all have sinned, yada yada. Now maybe we’re getting somewhere… to get to grace, we have to get through the part where we actually need grace - and that means accepting who we are as sinners, and accepting who God is as not just the lawgiver, but as forgiver as well. It’s like accepting an Altoid from someone - it means admitting you’ve got barn breath.

So, grace is offensive… but given the option, I’d rather have it. Altoid, anyone?

Today is Easter, at least the date we celebrate it in our tradition. For Christians, although many don’t really get it, Easter is where the rubber meets the road, so to speak. The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15:14-19:

And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. … And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

There you have it in a nutshell; all of the claims of Christianity, the good moral teaching, etc., etc., are all fluff, if in fact Jesus was not raised from the dead on the day we now call Easter. The origins of the name and so on are another story that is quite irrelevant; the issue is whether the event happened, not how it came to be named or calendared.

All of the radical, “fundamentalist” atheists who are trying to disprove Christianity only have to focus on this one thing, according to Paul’s own testimony, which we accept as part of the Word of God. That’s it; this is the line in the sand.

Why would anyone stake an entire religion on this one, absurd claim? It really is, of course, absurd from a “common sense” standpoint. Seriously - the thought that God Himself became incarnate, died and then rose again is absurd. Camus has nothing on God when it comes to absurdist theater. Here, I guess, I’m sounding rather Kierkegaardian, but I think he had a glimpse of something: when compared to man’s ability to reason, God can be quite absurd. Now, I know many theologians who will take issue with that, and I think alot of it has to do with semantics. But, here it is from God’s own word, as spoken through Paul:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength. - 1 Cor. 1:18-25

Now, this does not mean that the Christian faith is irrational; far from it. The historical basis for the resurrection is quite strong, as strong as many things that we accept. In fact, we accept many historical accounts that do not stand up near as well as this story. Yet, to rest an entire belief system on something so seemingly unbelievable - we have to ask ourselves, “why?”

And of course, this is “it” for the Christian: this is essentially all we have to do, to believe in this event, in order to “be saved,” go to heaven, be “right with God” or whatever other terminology you wish to use. Certainly a religion could do better; perhaps add in a few rules or things to achieve - and many religions indeed have. So again, why this simple resurrection story?

The very simple answer - which understandably frustrates people - is that this absurd tale is simply true. The “faith” part of the equation, as I mentioned earlier, is not that we have to make a faith-leap to believe the story. What takes real faith is to believe that this death and resurrection is simply enough for us to be forgiven.

In the words of the ancient liturgy, “Christ is risen! Christ is risen, indeed!”

I have written before (beginning here) concerning issues of contemporary “Evangelical” spirituality; if you haven’t read the prior “My Own Personal Religion” series, I highly recommend it. This is another in that series, as I continue to read, watch, and evaluate things. 

Among other things, I have been paying close attention to the lyrics of the worship songs we have been singing and the congregation’s (I am tempted to say audience’s) response. I’ve also paid close attention to the sermons I have heard (from 4 different speakers that I’ve heard in the last 2 months), and following are some observations.

First, concerning worship: Most of the songs are theologically vacuous. That is, the songs beg for some real worship material. God, you are great…  Why?  Jesus, I love you…  Again, why?  What characteristics produce this response? What can inspire me to sing heartily along?  You’re too marvelous for words…  I think the Psalmists could disagree. Some of these songs are not far off from George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord.  Now, I am not totally against these songs; but, if that’s all you sing, it’s like eating cotton candy for every meal.

A couple of weeks ago, we sang a song by an old friend of mine, Brent Helming, Your Beloved:

Lord it was You who
Created the heavens
Lord it was Your hand
That put the stars in their place
Lord it is Your voice
That commands the morning
Even oceans and their waves
Bow at Your feet

Believe it or not, the song gets even better. One thing that I was instantly aware of was that my mind was actually engaged in worship, perhaps for the first time in months. It struck me at that moment that most of our contemporary worship songs are aimed at our emotions, actually encouraging us to disconnect our brains. 

In fact, if you actually think about many of the worship songs we sing, it actually kills worship - if the words aren’t wimpy, they’re actually wrong. There’s nothing like bad theology to kill a good worship set. That is, unless people have been encouraged to not think about what they are singing.  However, sing a great old hymn or a song like Your Beloved, and thinking about the words actually inspires worship! What a concept!

Last Sunday, this suspicion - that we are trained not to think about worship -was further supported: I watched the congregation as one wimpy song ended, and another song with a great beat and a heavy rock guitar riff started in - the people started “worshipping” without any words at all.  Worshipping? or just rocking out?  It’s really difficult to tell.  Perhaps they just anticipated the words…

Jesus told the woman at the well that “those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.”  Now, this is a somewhat enigmatic statement, at least as it is translated into English. What I understand it to mean, at least in part, is that worship is not only a liturgical/physical/emotional act, it also has to be based in truth. That means that true worship should also involve our mind.

Bottom line: I believe that it is a worship leader’s job not just to manipulate an emotional / spiritual response - although an emotional / spiritual response is not in itself wrong. It is their job (yeah, I’ve been a worship leader…) to encourage people to worship with their minds as well as their spirits. In Spirit, and in Truth.  Of course, that requires a bit more of a worship leader than just being a fair musician.

Next: The problem with sermons