Starving For Truth

“The world looks on the slaughtered Lamb with pity, disdain, and even abhorrence. Through the tinted glass of self-importance it views his sacrifice as a joke, or as the natural end of an outmoded ethic based in superstition.  But the world itself gives the lie to its own interpretation.  For had the Lamb provided such a senseless life and death, the remedy would be to leave it alone to fester and wither away.  But the Lamb would not go away.  Instead of a few bleached bones and the smell of putrefaction he left an empty tomb and His Spirit who so seared the truth of the gospel into the hearts and minds of his little band of followers that they began to turn the world upside down.  For this the world will not forgive him.  It rises up and lashes out at the Lamb while pretending that he isn’t real.  It does this because the one whose spirit pervades the world knows full well that the slain Lamb is his downfall.”

-Graeme Goldsworthy*

This quote from Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel in Revelation adequately summarizes why Jesus is the world's stumbling block today, even though said world is so positively effected by him.  What I mean is that Jesus of Nazareth is the most influential man who ever lived, and His imprint is all over the western world as we know it.  It’s similar to John 1:10, where John the apostle, describing Jesus’ coming into the world, says that though the world was made through Him, yet when he came, the world didn’t know him.  In a similar way, Jesus has profoundly transformed the western world and given it it’s entire ethical grid, yet said western world doesn’t realize it and won't acknowledge it.  

But we also have cultural and social sins that seem to mar our Christian past, and this past has an unavoidable effect on our present still.  So when one says, “We need to look to the Jesus who we used to follow,” the seemingly obvious response is, “Yeah but look where that has gotten us in the past and today!” 

But philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that our societal problems today are not the effect of applying Christian ethics as they come from Scripture, but from applying those ethics divorced from the God who first gave them to us.**  When we divorce the precepts of God from God Himself, which we’ve done in our scientific age (see Taylor), we replace Him as the precept’s reference point with ourselves, and the precepts are only thought of in terms of what it does for us.  No longer does it matter how practicing the precept glorifies Him, puts us in His will, and helps us to serve others how we’re made to serve others. 

So I submit that the real solution is not to run from Jesus who has destroyed us, but to get back to Jesus who offers us life.  And as we do, Jesus will change us and bring about good among us.   Practically, this means loving others as ourselves, but for Jesus’ sake, and treating others how we want to be treated, because of how good Jesus is to us.  He becomes the reference point for every ethic, and we move away from society’s fickle opinions as the reference point.

Hunger 

But getting back to Jesus isn’t as easy as it may sound.  Jesus said Himself that to come to him, one must hunger and thirst for righteousness (Matthew 5:6, John 6:36).  You can’t make yourself hungry directly.  It has to happen to you indirectly; the only way you can affect it is by seeing or smelling good food on purpose.  Similarly Jesus said one has to have this hunger and thirst for righteousness within them if they’d find the satisfaction that he offers.  One has to long for Him to bring healing.  And we only long because we are out of solutions. 

Paul the Apostle repeatedly referred to Jesus’ gospel as a mystery (eg. Rom. 16:25; Eph. 1:9, 3:3; Col. 1:26-27, 2:3).  He didn’t mean that the gospel is hidden from people intellectually, as though one has to have a certain IQ to understand it.  Paul meant that the gospel is only visible to the one who is hungry for it.  Just like one must be sick in order to go to the doctor's office for healing (Matthew 9:12), so one must need Jesus in order to come to him and receive him.

Proud Israel was told that if they humbled themselves and longed for God’s healing, he’d heal them (Deut. 30:2ff).  Therefore the prophets were constantly talking about the need to simply return to the Lord (eg. Hosea 6:1 – “Come let us return to the Lord … that he may heal us.”) The cultural problems might have seemed complex, but the confusion was only set in where people were outside of God’s truth.  Therefore, it was promised that the Christ would come into the world of grey, and ruled according to righteousness (Isaiah 11:3-5).  And still today, people must long for righteousness to be practiced according to absolute definitions of right and wrong; when they turn to Jesus, they see that he alone meets the need (Mark 10:14).  This is the spirit of the Psalmist in Psalm 18:30, who loves God’s truth because it cuts so clean and proves itself true.

Stumbling Block

Why is Jesus such a stumbling block to the world, as Paul says?  Because to get Him one must accept that there is such a thing as ultimate reality: truth, which must be faced, believed, and reoriented toward. Today we’re accustomed to dividing up into tribes and defining the world’s problems in terms of what the opposing tribe is doing and saying (or not doing and saying).  And there will likely be some level of truth to any accusation we make against fallen sinners in Adam.  But this will lead nowhere, because it doesn’t account either for our own problems or the good that the opposing tribe is fighting for.  Even talking about it this way seems to make the issues confusing.  But it isn’t as confusing as it may seem.  It’s only grey where we’ve rejected the idea of black and white, and I’m convinced relativizing truth to each person’s experience is an alternate reality man makes in rebellion to the God who is the ultimate reference point.  Jesus calls for us to see truth in Him.  And He not only promises to make known to us the way, but promises to love into us the change we need to reflect His glory back to Him.

I once read John Piper say that because Jesus is always out of sync with the world, he is thus always relevant.***  I think this is true, because we will always be out of balance in at least some aspects our cultural sensibilities.  And thus we always need to bow the knee and ask for help.  The question is simply this: Are we hungry for righteousness, as Jesus defines it?  If so, He has the track record to validate his truth claims:  One who rose from the dead must be taken seriously as an authority figure, perhaps (as I believe) the Authority figure;  and one certainly doesn’t lie to the very people He gave himself in loving self-sacrifice for.  He promises that if we seek His way, He’ll receive us, keep us, and lead us.  But we must hunger and thirst.

I don’t know about you, but I’m starving. 

*Goldsworthy, Gospel in Revelation, 322.

**Taylor, A Secular Age, 22, describing what he describes as “Subtraction Theory.” 

***I read this in Piper’s Seeing and Savoring Jesus Christ.  I can’t find my copy to give you a page citation! I recommend this book as a powerful study in how the gospels present Jesus as the perfect man who meets all of our needs.  Even if you don’t prefer Piper (many don’t!), look past that for this book.

9/11, Social Justice among Evangelicals, and Gospel Hope

It’s been 17 years since the tragic events of 9/11.  I remember I was taking the Indiana state standardized test as a sophomore in high school.  While on a scheduled break, when all the students were in the school’s gym, a friend told me both World Trade Center buildings were down.  Of course as a 15 year old largely unconnected from the world outside of my small town (unless it had to do with basketball or TV), the weight of the matter didn’t bear down on me yet.  But then as the day went on more information came out, more videos were posted, and I started understanding the frenzy.  I watched on CNN as they played a witness video which contained expletives that usually were not allowed on TV then (or now).   I remember thinking about all of this, “This is insane – why would someone do that?”

Ideological Mind-Shaping

It’s interesting how events like this shape the developing minds of even kids.  I had never experienced anything like 9/11 or any other national catastrophe.  But upon witnessing it and the aftermath, I began developing my own opinions about what happened.  So did everyone else.  People who lean more conservative took it as a clear sign of the evils of Middle Eastern culture with its Islamic militancy.  People who lean more liberal took it as the inevitable effect of America having been involved in the turmoil of a part of the world where we had no business being.  It is staggering how easily we fall into an ideological camp once we find people who share our immediate convictions about what seems obvious.

But even after we’ve fallen into certain ideologies, we know we have blind spots.  We know we may be missing certain things.  But we insulate ourselves and judge new information by how it matches up to the old information and our conclusions about it, and we do it all to protect ourselves from the notion that maybe we need to rethink some things. 

Hope only in holding to Christ

Conversation about political or social issues appears to be impossible today, because we are each firmly fixed in our camp.   But I am a little encouraged at some recent events that have transpired.  

You may be aware that there has been a movement led by some among conservative evangelicals to bring a greater awareness to the church of its need to engage with social justice issues.  The debate on this topic has been fierce between they and other conservative evangelicals who hold that the church’s main drive is to emphasize gospel witness.  At times, the debate has been demoralizing.  Last week, the latter group released a statement attempting to clarify certain convictions regarding how the church should engage with social justice, and why gospel witness is the only way to truly address society’s problems (a statement of which I am a signer).  The response was explosive.  And Union Seminary (a historically liberal-leaning school) released a response statement via a Twitter thread that was entirely opposed not only to the earlier statement, but to evangelical Christianity entirely.   Well the first group above – the evangelicals who have been working for a greater engagement of the church in social justice – has now responded, not collectively, but decidedly en masse, by saying that while they disagree with the first statement, they adamantly oppose the second, one leader even calling the Union statement “heresy”.  And this has had a surprising (but perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising) effect, in that it has caused the conversation among true evangelicals* to actually begin.  There seems to be a little more engagement among the first two groups above than there was before.  I’m hopeful it will continue.

And herein lies the point. Those who believe the gospel, even if they disagree in what is to be the church’s emphasis (or emphases), can engage together, because the goal in moving forward isn’t a negative but a positive. It seems to me that non-evangelical Christian movements (and by “non-evangelical” I mean those who would appear to fall into the evangelical camp just by being non-Catholic Christians, yet show that they are not evangelical based on their modern convictions contra historic Christian Biblical orthodoxy; i.e. the Union Seminary group) are essentially negative.  They’re trying to shake off certain things from the past, and change culture from how it has been and who it has been “ruled” by into something new, with a new set of rules and a new kind of "ruler" (a paradigm which I take as antithetical to God's paradigm).  But evangelical Christians aren’t pursuing a negative – rather the goal is to pursue the positive of God’s reality, and the absolute best that he has for us, as revealed in His Word.  Therefore there is a humility among adherents because it isn’t about us or our desires and goals.  It is about Jesus reigning supreme over the world which He rules by the Word of His power (Heb. 1:3).  

Of course there are many among the evangelical camp – especially in the social justice camp – who have made some staggering claims implying that evangelicals who disagree with them aren’t even Christians.  But there have also been some from the other side who have made questionable and accusatory claims as well.   But the thing that both sides have in common is the gospel of reconciliation to God through Jesus (2 Cor. 5:17-21), which then has the effect of working reconciliation among people (see 1 John 3-4).  And therefore even if the conversation is difficult, and at times explosive, Jesus’ sheep are those who are following Him and doing so together.  So they’ll work it out.  I'm encouraged to see this happening.

Jesus is still the issue

All of this to say that 17 years post 9/11, Jesus is still the issue.  If those involved in the terrorist attack knew the real Jesus, it would have never happened.  Of course, Peter knew Jesus and he cut a guy’s ear off (John 18:10).  But that happened as an example so that we’d understand our natural propensity to try to get people out of our way if they stand there; the goal of telling the account is that the reader will repent of needing to be in control, and let the risen Jesus rule as only only He can, ordering events, controlling the outcomes, and working His perfect will even amidst a fallen and wicked world.

Since He does indeed rule as Lord of all (Acts 10:36), our goal must always be to get behind Him and follow.  And He promises that, as dark as the night may be, He is with us as light and is leading us into His light.  But we can only have the light if we acknowledge Him as Lord. So therefore Jesus' Word to those on the fence is the same as it was in John 12:36: "While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light." 

**Christians who hold to: 1. The authority of Scripture as it is written; 2. The doctrine of the Trinity including the full divinity and full humanity of Christ; and 3. The gospel of justification by faith alone

Nike, Convictions, and Intentions

You may have seen Nike’s ad with Colin Kaepernick’s face that reads, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.”  I’ve been purposely ambiguous in my view about the kneeling at games and how Kaepernick was treated afterward, because it’s such an explosive conversation, and I have too much offline to deal with to give the time needed to engage online with the issue.  

But the Nike ad summarizes what seems to me to be the real issue in all of this.  Perhaps you’ll agree, perhaps not.

What I like

What’s good about the statement: the emphasis on the need to live with conviction.  We should be a people who believe deeply in what we believe.  We should try to avoid living half-hearted and half-committed lives.  That’s highlighted by the Nike ad, and I most definitely agree.

What I don’t like

What’s bad about it: the clear implication that it doesn’t matter what cause you live for, as long as you’re authentic about it.  No one really believes this (or at least, they shouldn’t).  I saw one twitter user say yesterday that Hitler believed deeply in what he was doing, but no one today in their right mind would applaud his decidedly authentic efforts.  Some may respond that he knew that what he was doing was wrong.  But this doesn’t take into account the Biblical truth that when one rejects the truth about God, their hearts are darkened and hardened, and they become fools though they think they’re wise (see Romans 1:22).  Therefore their whole standard for what is right becomes skewed and twisted in their hearts.

Belief – and strong belief at that – isn’t enough.  What matters is what the belief is in. But the standard of our current cultural moment is that as long as one means what they do, it’s all good.  The problem, as I said earlier, is that no one really believes that.  If they did, they’d have no ground to call something someone else does wrong, because the person could mean what they're doing, whatever it is.

Pride

I have the conviction that it is the height of human pride to say that authenticity is all that matters.  While authenticity does matter, the thing itself– what you’re fighting for and standing for – matters, too.  And Western culture has all but rejected this concern for the irreducible minimum of the cause.  It isn’t one or the other – it is both/and.  One must stand for that which is right, and one must mean it while they stand.  I call this the height of human pride because the combination of rightness and authenticity requires subjection to the standard which only God provides, and I think we're doing everything we can to avoid this.

I’m a Christian because I believe that God alone is the One who can objectively define what is right for us.  Indeed a Christian is one who knows “that He (Christ, the God-man) is righteous” (1 John 2:29).  Only he can define what is right because, while we were all created upright, we’ve lost our uprightness through sin (Ecclesiastes. 7:29).  Therefore we now know that what is right matters, but we have within us injustices, blindspots, and a tendency to demonize those who disagree with us.  Therefore we're never fully upright even in our best moments.

Postmodernism and Truth 

But this ad displays what seems to me to be the most obvious maxim of postmodern culture: truth doesn’t matter, except for that one.  Therefore, Nike says, “Stand for something (anything, everything?), even if it costs you everything.”  

Further, no one asks the question, “What if what I’m standing for, in costing me everything, also costs others something?”  Then, is it still right? (And for the record, I’m not saying Kaepernick is doing this; just making the point that if you follow Nike's statement into its implications, this is unavoidable).  

Nike is only making a simple statement.  But it is a message which many many people will see, either in agreement or disagreement.  So what is being said should really be considered in depth, as I've tried to do here.

I get what Kaep was standing for (ironically, in his kneeling).  While I don’t agree fully with the means, I do understand and appreciate the ends.  He was standing against what he saw as the hypocrisy of a society saying equality matters but not actually practicing equal rights.  But may we not, in condemning hypocrisy, become hypocrites ourselves.  I believe that in Nike's statement, this is the inevitable outcome, because we'll merely believe deeply about things without considering if they're right or not.  Only Jesus is “true” and isn’t “swayed by appearances, but truly teaches the way of God” (Mark 12:14).  And only if we start with him can we stand for what is true, and do so with our whole hearts.