I've got 29 years of breathes lived so far - a good 12 of them where I've been aggressively pursuing learning of Jesus - the last 5 or so of which I've been bathing regularly in scripture (in a way that's more than just the sprinkling I've baptized myself with since I could read).
While doing my best at serving and equipping fellow betrothed believers as a part of a local church, I'm becoming more and more confident in who God is (i.e. that I'm seeing a clear and accurate picture of who God is). What I'm struck with at the moment is how simple His heart is. No, no, I'm not trying to pull off that cocky, somewhat condescending persuasion I sometimes pick-up from preachers trying to turn their amps up to 11 - hear me out.
I'm pretty much seeing, all throughout scripture, that God's heart and mind could pretty much just be understood as a Dad who wants a big family to enjoy all that He has with. Seriously, that's it. From Genesis-naked-in-the-garden to Revelation-awestruck-at-seas-of-crystal, I keep seeing that same strategy on God's part in relation to how He's interacting with humans: He wants us happy with Him, like a great-grampa at his family reunion - all his kids playing in the yard, music blasting, grills fired, stories recounted, good times.
I think parents and those in authority can relate to this: they just want folks to get along with each other. If that could be done without the judicial and executive branches of government, all the better. But in experience - that don't work so hot. What's the end of all that? For people to treat each other well; to love each other.
But after all those words, here's my point: The God of the Bible, Easy to Understand; The Bible, Not so Easy to Understand. This could ruffle some feathers, I'm sorry, that's really not my aim. I'm just trying to communicate an analogy which I think displays why we get so theologically messed up and confused scripturally.
Any musicians reading this? How about computer users? I suppose just about anyone who ever learned or is learning anything can relate to this. Have you ever learned "just enough" about something to be dangerous? That can be some shaky middle-ground: when you know just enough about something to start operating out of it, but not enough to troubleshoot things when they go wrong. It's like that place where you haven't quite gotten a handle on just how much of something you DON'T know. Perhaps that little bit of knowing something gets you too big for your britches, and you think you can run the whole marathon after learning to lace your boots. There's just a lot of time and content that our scriptures cover - multiple ages, multiple cultures - just about every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. That's a lot. He's a big God. Our history is a big history. This stuff isn't so easy to get after a quick read through.
I think it really helps that new believers have a pretty good sense that there's a lot they don't know - which really helps us rely on God's knowing how to take care of us. It's when we get into adolescence and think a driver's license grants us the wisdom and the right where things can get really rocky.
So why am I saying this? I suppose because I can, but also because I really think that it would help a lot of not-so-young believers to get tethered to their Good-Hearted Father by allowing themselves a lot of grace when it comes to their trying to resolve all their questions from experience and scripture. You guys should feel free to live a long time in that tension of unanswered questions, where you're just not sure why things look as messy as they do at times, all the while being affectionate with The Overseer of all things.
If you build your faith upon your understanding of the bible: not so stable. If you build you faith upon the God of the bible: stable. I hope that made sense - I'm not trying to do a switcheroo here. Be free to question and doubt and walk and love - all at the same time - God can really handle all that.
2 comments:
I fear your title “Enough to be Dangerous” may be more appropriate here than you might have intended.
As I stumbled upon this blog as I was Googling around, I was first struck by the title Free to Sin and then one of the posts entitled End of Truth. After reading the End of Truth posting down to the bottom, I’ve concluded that your fun in using double or ambiguous words could be misleading young believers that might stumble right on your fun (similar concern as Romans 14:20 & 1 Cor. 10:32).
Might I offer the following blog titles instead:
1. Die to Sin (1 Peter 2:24)
2. Live for Righteousness (1 Peter 2:24)
3. Freed from Sin (Romans 6:7,18,22 & 8:2)
4. Slaves of Righteousness (Romans 6:18)
5. Slaves of God (Romans 6:22)
6. And since you reference Romans specifically, the first part of Chapter 6 would be well fitting post as it speaks directly against a Free to Sin type of attitude.
Please consider a new title.
That's a great comment and a good challenge. I'll do my best to keep that perspective with me while I continue to pursue nurturing character in me that benifits those I'm with.
What you're proposing isn't a new thought to me. I often question and challenge how I approach things. I want to please Father, and I see that He's pleased when I love [value/treat well/benifit] His children.
The good thing is that you, the same person who is proposing less ambiguous wording, yourself admit to understanding that I am using language in this way. You get what I am saying. So what I am hearing you say is that you're concerned, not for those like yourself, but for others who aren't perhaps as perseptive or mature as you: for the young believers, or maybe even pre-believers.
In my experience, young believers, having just recently been aquainted with and encompassed in grace, are even more acutely aware [than older believers] that sin is death and righteousness is life. Can't you think of new believers whose zeal for righteousness exceeds your own? New believers wouldn't be thrown for a second if someone would actually propose that "sin is okay: no big deal," but would be the first ones to defend that freedom from slavery is to not sin.
Going further, I would infact see that pre-believers would actually be very aware of how the "it's cool to sin" way of understanding my double-meaning isn't what I'm after, but would first be intrigued by how I'm communicating, and second would have an opportunity to really understand what grace is.
It'd probably be good here to have a young or pre-believers perspective on this to really address if this makes sense to them. Any of you guys reading this now to offer your perspective? Are you stumbling over this or being encouraged by it? Does this make sense?
I think my approach has the tendency to offend the pharasee in us, who isn't a very helpful guide on our jouney with Jesus through grace by faith. I'm not trying to push the limits of what's good and acceptable, but provock engagement into what grace and true and goodness is (or more precisely, who it is).
Thanks for your engagement. I do appreciate non-anonymity (if that's a word) when you're willing, so that this dialog happens on more relational level than theoretical "some person out there thinks..." level. Plus it helps me respect what you're saying more when both of us on the line, and not just Chris and anonymous.
Post a Comment