Why I Still Use "Jesus Language"

This thought came to mind while I sat in worship the other week:

Why does the "Jesus language" of the Church still move me like it does?

It may sound like a strange question to raise while sitting in a Christian worship service, especially a highly liturgical Episcopal Church, many light-years distant from my original Christian home of an independent fundamentalist-type Baptist Church. But I am no longer that almost 16-year old who was baptized 50 years ago. I no longer have the narrow vision of "getting to heaven" as the goal of the Christian life nor the understanding that only people like "me" will get in. My understanding of the love and GRACE of God has brought me to a whole different place as to what I think church and God and faith are all about.

I could go even further and ask:

Why does Christian iconography, Eucharistic liturgy and many hymns still make chills run up my spine and even tears form gently at the edge of my eyes?

I have over the years discovered depth of spirituality in many ways, times and places far beyond the Christian "way." Yoga, Tai Chi, Buddhist meditation, the presence of the Spirit in many places (and people.) Saying the great Jewish affirmation in Hebrew:

Shema Yisrael, Adonai elohenu, Adonai echad

moves me as much as the Lord's Prayer though in different ways. Singing a "Kyrie" in Latin touches places in my soul that the the English (which connects with my cognitive brain) cannot. The Doxology or the Gloria in English come forth with a sense of transcendence that words don't convey.

Today I believe more firmly in the existence of an eternal and infinite God, Creator of all, who I believe is named in many more ways than we humans are even capable of imagining. Hence every time I think I have come to a good understanding of God- that all is figured out- I catch myself and step back. If little old me in the 21st Century can understand God's infinite ways, that is not God. Time to move on- and keep it simple. God is God- I am not. Nothing else says it nearly as clearly as that.

So I ask the above questions. They come to mind because the Jesus language of the church has so often been used as exclusiveness instead of openness. It has been used to badger, harass and even kill people "in Jesus' Name." Some might ask, if I am not as narrow in my understanding, why do I keep using the language?

Well, the first answer to my questions is relatively easy. It's a hard-wired part of my brain and soul. After 50 years as a practicing Christian, it touches my life and soul and spirit because it accesses deep portions of my unconscious. These places were planted in those formative years of middle-adolescence and young adulthood. The neurochemicals of my brain respond when these external rituals and actions occur. I also know that these "Christian" ceremonies and endeavors on my part connect with something beyond me- a power greater than myself.

Even as I know that these are not the only ways to make those same connections, they have been part of my spiritual life for 50 years. Yes, then, they DO provide a foundation that in many ways still works, doing what I have needed it to do all these years.

There are, of course things that don't work in the same ways. They were important, but today aren't as effective. I think that comes simply from changes in time, place and age. I have learned to go deeper. For me that has been essential. For that I am also grateful.

The second answer to my question builds on the first. Being secure in the foundation allows me to continue to grow and explore the infinite ways God works. That means some of the words I use today have a different meaning to me today than they used to. Call it "syncretism" but the other ways to God have changed the idea behind the words. Some of that is made more real by seeing the similarities as well as the differences between the paths to, from, and with God. Which ones work for me and my personality? Which don't- but certainly can for others?

This has been one of the more difficult areas. Having originally become Christian in a more exclusive, narrow understanding of Christianity's place in the world (the ONLY way!) I still wrestle from time to time with the inevitable "What if it IS the only way?" question. As I have delved more deeply into spirituality, though, I have found that many spiritual practices are universal. Others are more culturally-based. Others are even based on political/ideological understandings. Therefore, I listen to the spirit as the Spirit has been mediated to humanity in the infinite ways throughout history. I find I am in good company.

The third answer to my questions is, believe it or not, the Church itself. Not any particular church but the Church Historic, the Church Universal, and the Church Triumphant. The Church today is in no way shape or form anything like the Church of my youth, let alone of the 16th or 1st Centuries. Much of what we now believe is THE way to interpret Scripture and History, has not been so for most of Church history. The Church, as a human institution, is continuing to evolve and grow- mature.

In fact over the past few years the "progressive" side of Christianity has certainly moved many ways away from what would even have been "liberal" those 50 years ago. Questions are being asked in new ways, theology is being worked on from new perspectives.  Churches are taking healthier stances on issues, being more inclusive and compassionate in new ways.

Continuing to be part of that movement is exciting. As I have gotten older, I have found comfort in things old AND new. It would be very sad if the church (or The Church) of 2014 was just the same as the one of 1948 or 1727, Luther or Hus, Augustine or Paul. If it were, I am not sure I would be able to be there. Sure, some of the rituals and language are similar to other periods. But in these familiar words and actions is where we, the Church, and the Holy Spirit together see the Scripture come alive:

Behold, I am making all things new.

A Sunday for Theology

Trinity Sunday

The day set aside to discuss Christian doctrine.

Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior.

Yet the Trinity is one of those doctrines that resists explanation. The use of Celtic knots does a far better job. There's the triangle knot, in this case also looking like three fish intertwined. The fish (Ichthus) symbol being one of those ancient symbols of the faith. - Ichthus. As always the circle of the completeness of God holding it all together in one.

As does an M. C. Escher-ish triangle. No end, no beginning, no one side or the other. Just when you think you have it figured out, you look again and it doesn't quite meet our expectations. Just like God. Every time I think I have God figured out, everything shifts. Up is down, right is left, what I thought was light is dark and darkness is overcome.

This one also says it well for me. Another Celtic knot-type design with the triangle interweaving with itself, winding around and around in a way that is unsolvable. Holding it all in one is the circle, the completeness of God.


But you don't have to understand it. You don't have to be a theologian with advanced degrees. We experience God in these three-

Father
Son
Holy Spirit

Creator

Redeemer

Sustainer

God.

One God.

Forever and ever.

What more is there?

Different And Connected

from Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC by Frederick Buechner:

Sacrament:A sacrament is when something holy happens. It is transparent time, time which you can see through to something deep inside time. If we weren't blind as bats, we might see that life itself is sacramental.

Ritual:A ritual is the performance of an intuition, the rehearsal of a dream, the playing of a game.

A sacrament is the breaking through of the sacred into the profane; a ritual is the ceremonial acting out of the profane in order to show forth its sacredness.A sacrament is God offering his holiness to [humanity]; a ritual is humans raising up the holiness of their humanity to God.

Very few can bring theology down to earth like Buechner can. How simple, yet profoundly sensitive can you get?

It bears repeating, here, and everyday we roll out of our beds into the world...

If we weren't blind as bats, we might see that life itself is sacramental.

The Center of Our Own World

A "fingerpost" is one of those old signposts that point in different directions. As Wikipedia describes them they are "traditional British and Irish sign posts comprising a post with one or more arms — known as fingers — pointing in the direction of travel to named places on the fingers." Here you stand and there they are- how to get to where you are going.

Well, maybe. Or so it seems in the very interesting historical mystery novel, An Instance of the Fingerpost by Iain Pears. There is a murder and four letters describing the events around the murder. Each letter from one of the principals gives the story as they interpret it. There's an Italian physician interested in blood transfusions, a cryptographer involved in the 17th century English intrigues, a son attempting to clear his father's name, and an antiquarian, lost, it seems, in his musty books.

Are they who they seem to be? What are they hiding and what are they trying to reveal by making sure only the right information gets out? Pears gives us a remarkable treatise on the ways philosophy, science, theology and politics can interweave, conflict and be used for whatever purposes we want.

Underneath the mystery is the simplicity that not all signs point to the right thing. Each of us is limited by our own point-of-view and can even skew things to make sure they fit. The conflict in medical thought in the book is nothing short of creepy. We see the role of superstition in our human thinking and that is quite discomforting.

In the end we can see that we believe we are the center of our own worlds and make all judgments based on that simple self-understanding. Our core beliefs and values color all we see. As a result we can then be so wrong that we are blinded to the reality in front of us, the clues that point in other directions, the understandings that can be our hope or our destruction.

In all that, with the philosophies and discussions going in so many directions, if we can be so wrong in what we know- maybe our beliefs are not as safe and solid as we like to think. On less than that have wars been started.

In short An Instance of the Fingerpost is worth the read.

Trinity Sunday

I don't want to talk about theology. Theology is much too head-level thinking. It is twice removed from experiences of God. It is often a way of explaining something that we really don't know. Take the theologies of Holy Communion. We could talk forever about what the correct theology is. We could further split Christianity into more smaller groups just by doing so. Remember, personal experience is first; telling someone else about your experience is second; explaining the experience is third.

As far as I'm concerned getting back to the original experience of the Trinity is probably much easier than with some theological doctrines. Yes, the Trinity is a doctrine. It is only peripherally biblical. It is an explanation of something that we can't explain. We can only experience it.

God the Father,
God the Son,
God the Holy Spirit.

Any way you try to describe what that means will make you a heretic to someone.

In short, to me, it is simply the three ways that God had been experienced by God's people. There was no problem with any of this until Jesus came along. He really threw things into a theological uproar. How could he be God when God was God. Then this Holy Spirit. Wait, God is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God? I can't wrap my human mind around that.

Which is good because we can look at the many ways we have gotten into trouble when we have tried to wrap our human minds around something with human logic and reason. Human logic and reason don't work. We're talking about God here. We're not talking about something we could understand. John Chrysostom (345-407) said it well in a quote I read recently.

A comprehended God is no God.

So I'm not comfortable talking about theology in times like this. God is Father- Creator, yes, but more than that. Father is a relationship word. As is Son- God the Son. These aren't cold theological constructs. These are words we understand if only poorly in some families and better in others. In the end for me faith is always about relationships more than it is about correct theology. None of us will ever have a truly correct theology. So we might as well work at the relationships.

I Have Trouble With This

After last week's bridge disaster here in Minneapolis our famous local pastor John Piper was quoted around the blogosphere as having the following conversation. He was putting his 11-year old daughter to bed and part of the conversation went like this:

But you and I know that God did not do anything wrong. God always does what is wise. And you and I know that God could have held up that bridge with one hand.” Talitha said, “With his pinky.” “Yes,” I said, “with his pinky. Which means that God had a purpose for not holding up that bridge, knowing all that would happen, and he is infinitely wise in all that he wills.”

Talitha said, “Maybe he let it fall because he wanted all the people of Minneapolis to fear him.” “Yes, Talitha,” I said, “I am sure that is one of the reasons God let the bridge fall.”
--Desiring God Blog

While I realize that my poor human persepctive is both narrow and biased, I find such a view of God not one I would want to believe in or follow. It shows a God who does- or doesn't do things as punishment, as a way of getting people's attention, as lack of caring or passion when it comes to human suffering. That is not the God I see in the teachings of Jesus. It is not the God I have seen in many ways over my lifetime.

But somehow we have to give an explanation for something as awful as this. We have to come up with answers as to why God would let such things even happen in the first place.

It is not a new question. It has been around since the days of sitting around campfires and telling stories of God. Like the one about Job and losing it all in a bet between God and Satan. (Let's leave that theology aside for now. Please!) There are all these comforters who have all the answers and try to show Job the error of his ways. "You must have done something bad. Your children or your great-grandparents must have done something bad. God wants you to pay better attention and become a better person." Sound familiar?

At the end there is no resolution. God speaks to Job and says simply, "Don't ask. All is in my hands. Trust me."

That is NOT the same as saying God chose to let the bridge fall for some greater reason. That is NOT the same thing as saying that God uses death and destruction as a way of getting people's attention. That IS saying that no matter what happens, God is around and in control. What that means is far beyond anything that I can even begin to explain.

All I know is that at times like this God is very present. No questions asked.

One last comment from John Piper though. Beond the first question, there is always this as well.

I said, “You know, Talitha, that is true whether you die in a bridge collapse, or in a car accident, or from cancer, or terrorism, or old age. God always keeps you, even when you die. So you don’t need to be afraid, do you.” “No,” she shook her head. I leaned down and kissed her. “Good night. I love you.”

I think those are also God's exact words.

The Nature of Truth- What is Unorthodox
Christianity Today reported earlier this week on a brewing theological debate in the UK. It involves a speaker that was considered "unorthodox" in his views because he does not subscribe to the "orthodox" understanding of penal substitution.

Good old C.S.Lewis was probably far more aware than most of us when it comes to thinking about the different interpretations of atonement:

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.
--Wikipedia information about atonement. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Atonement".

When I became a Christian at age 15 I never knew there were any other ways of looking at what Jesus did. It was penal substitution. What I later found as interesting is that this is not the oldest or most basic understanding.

In Christian theology, various doctrines of atonement have been advanced in history, all of which give central place to the life and death of Jesus. The classical theory of atonement, widely accepted in the early Church, depicted Jesus as the divine victor in a cosmic struggle with the devil for rights over the human soul. In medieval Latin theology emphasis shifted from the divine to the human side of Jesus. The most widely held theory at this time, often called vicarious atonement, was first stated by St. Anselm in Why God Became Human (1197–98): only human beings can rightfully repay the debt which was incurred through their willful disobedience to God, although only God can make the infinite satisfaction necessary to repay it; therefore God must send the God-man, Jesus Christ, to satisfy both these conditions. Anselm's doctrine, slightly altered or elaborated, has become part of Roman Catholic theology and of that of many Protestant churches. In another theory of atonement emphasis is placed on God's unconditional mercy and on the gradual growth toward union with God as inspired by Christ's selfless example. This theory was given its standard form by Peter Abelard in the 12th cent. Here the juridical concept is replaced by an organic and social concept.
--Columbia Encyclopedia information about atonement The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/

When people claim that someone else isn't following the right, ancient, or proper understanding of things - i.e. being unorthodox - I guess the question sooner or later becomes - which orthodoxy? Somehow I think that God simply wants us to follow Jesus and love God. Theology is interesting sometimes.

But now, let's get back to reality- Jesus is Lord. I don't know what all the different theologies say about that- I just know it at this point. And for that I am glad that He doesn't give a theological essay exam at the Final Judgment.

I hope.