Posts
I visited two churches last Sunday. One was a non-denominational
church that I visited before. The other was a Baptist church. The
Baptist church was like an African-American church, in that it had an
African-American choir, an African-American preacher, and enthusiastic
call-and-response. But there were a lot of white people there.
I will visit the Baptist church again in the future. People were
friendly, but not intrusive. I also enjoyed the worship. The songs
varied, as they included old-time hymns, classic praise and worship
songs that I used to sing at Intervarsity in the 1990’s, and modern
praise songs. At a lot of churches that I visit, we sing the modern
songs, and I miss the praise and worship songs that I sang in the 1990’s
(“Shout to the Lord,” “As the Deer,” etc.). The worship at the Baptist
church that I attended last Sunday was, thus, a refreshing experience.
To be honest, the sermons at both churches did not make me feel that
good about God or myself. At the non-denominational church, the sermon
was about I John 4:18. The translation that was being used was the New
Living Translation, which states for that verse: “Such love has no fear,
because perfect love expels all fear. If we are afraid, it is for fear
of punishment, and this shows that we have not fully experienced his
perfect love.”
The preacher was saying that love and fear cannot co-exist in the same
person. I can understand that fear can hinder us from showing love to
other people. But to say that fear and love cannot co-exist in the same
person? Why can’t a person have a concern and a desire for another’s
well-being, while still dealing with fears and phobias about life? I
don’t see why the two cannot co-exist.
And then my mind was unravelling the potential implications of what
the preacher, and possibly I John 4:18, are saying. Love is part of the
fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22). I John 4:8 says that those who
do not love do not know God. Since fear and love cannot co-exist, that
must mean that people with fear lack love, right? Does that mean that
they lack the Holy Spirit, do not know God, and are unsaved? Wouldn’t
that kind of conclusion make a person more afraid of God’s punishment,
not less, which would go against the spirit of I John 4:18? Plus, would
the preacher truly suggest that Christians are never afraid? Everyone
is afraid, on some level—-unless I am the only imperfect person to walk
into a church!
I do not think that the preacher was intending for people to arrive
at those kinds of negative conclusions. After all, he said that only
imperfect people are allowed at church. He contrasted God with the boss
Gary Cole plays in the movie Office Space, Bill Lumbergh: God
is patient, not a tyrant who keeps secrets from employees. The preacher
would probably say that, when we fear, we are not truly grasping the
depth of God’s love for us. We are still loved by God in that case, but
we have not truly or sufficiently internalized that love.
The Baptist church that I visited was going through the Book of
James. The preacher was talking about what James said about good works
being an expression of faith. The preacher was chiding those who
attended church, yet did not serve the church, or somebody, in some
capacity. He was saying that every Christian has a spiritual gift, and,
if we do not know what ours is, shame on us! The preacher was saying
that there will be Christians on judgment day whom God would let into
heaven, yet God would do so with frustration: “Oh come in, you lazy
person!” The preacher did not mention this, but I thought of Jesus’
condemnation of the servant who hid the talent in Matthew 25: Jesus
called that servant lazy and unprofitable, then ordered him thrown into
outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth!
I have a hard time seeing this God as unconditionally loving. Even if I were to start doing
service projects to make this God happy, I would still feel like I am
serving Bill Lumbergh-God. Maybe worse, since I read on wikipedia that
Bill Lumbergh was not exactly confrontational. I somewhat agreed with
what the preacher was saying about giving back: we should not just be
takers and consumers, but we should give. But the picture of God that
was in my mind after that service was not particularly positive.
Showing posts with label I John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label I John. Show all posts
Friday, June 10, 2016
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Book Write-Up: Why John Wrote a Gospel
Tom Thatcher. Why John Wrote a Gospel: Jesus—-Memory—-History. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
I got this book at a low price from Christian Book Distributors. It looked like it would be a good book for me to read for two reasons. First, I have read more than once in the biblioblogosphere that historical Jesus studies are moving away from the longstanding criteria of authenticity, and towards a focus on memory. For a long time, and even today, scholars have applied criteria to the Gospels in order to determine what parts of the Gospels are historically accurate. For example, if the Gospels say something embarrassing about Jesus, then what they say in that case is probably accurate, since why would Gospel authors make up something that is embarrassing about Jesus? If the Gospels present Jesus saying something that is discontinuous from the teachings of early Christians, then Jesus most likely said it. Nowadays, scholars are saying that there are weaknesses in the criteria (i.e., what we may consider embarrassing about Jesus may not have been thought to be so by the Gospel writers), and many are saying that we should look at memory, particularly social memory. I have read a number of blog posts about this topic, and yet there are gaps in my mind about it. I have wondered: Does the focus on memory imply that the Gospels stem from eyewitness testimony, from people who were in Jesus’ presence and remembered what he did and taught, even if they interpreted or applied those things in different ways? Because Thatcher’s book contains an extensive discussion of social memory, I figured that I might find some answers there.
Second, I have long had questions about writing in the ancient world. Why were things written down in the first place, when there was oral culture and people passed down traditions by word of mouth? Why would Gospels need to be written down? Who did the writing, since writing in those days may have required some wealth or influence due to the costliness of writing materials?
Tom Thatcher’s Why John Wrote a Gospel addresses the question of why the Gospel of John was written down. He raises some of the same sorts of questions that I have: Why write, when most people arguably could not read, and when there was an oral culture? But he also asks questions that rest on other considerations. Why did the author of the Gospel of John see a need to write a Gospel, when he said that the Holy Spirit would bring things about Jesus to people’s remembrance (John 14:26)? If the Holy Spirit could cause believers to remember what Jesus said and did, would it not be unnecessary to write those things down to preserve them and to keep them from being forgotten? On a similar note, did not I John 2:27 tell believers that they needed no one to teach them because they were anointed by the Holy Spirit? If John believed that they were so anointed and guided directly by the Holy Spirit, why would he write a Gospel so that they could be taught or remember what Jesus said and did?
Thatcher’s answer is that the author of John’s Gospel was writing the Gospel down to create an official and permanent version of what Jesus said and taught, in opposition to the Antichrists whom I John criticizes. The Antichrists were denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh: they may have been saying that a Christ spirit came upon the historical Jesus of Nazareth and left Jesus when Jesus was about to be crucified, or that Jesus only appeared to be human but really was not, but rather was a divine figure. The Antichrists maintained that they were faithful to the memory of Jesus—-and they may have even claimed that they were witness to new revelations from Jesus. But the writer of the Johnannine literature did not believe that their interpretations of Jesus’ life were accurate, for he thought that Jesus came in the flesh and died as part of God’s plan. Consequently, the Johannine author wrote his Gospel. Writing in those days served to give permanence or stability to certain recollections or versions of a story, which was what the Johannine author wanted to do: once something was written down, that was hard to change, and it was even official, in some sense. Moreover, because most people could not read, they tended to revere the written word.
I found Thatcher’s book to be useful and helpful for a variety of reasons. I appreciated his reference to ancient Christian sources that actually specified why the Gospels were written down: to preserve what Jesus said and did. Thatcher’s discussion of memory was also valuable. He pointed out that the Gospel of John itself maintains that memory is about more than what Jesus said and did, for it also includes the correct interpretation of those events. The Gospel of John, after all, says that some of Jesus’ words were misunderstood until after he was resurrected (see, for example, John 2:22). Moreover, Thatcher argued that memory is social. Even if we remember doing something in solitude, we did what we did within a social context, and, if we wanted to share what we did with others, we would have to communicate it in a way that would make sense to our social context. I should also note that Thatcher’s cartoons and visual aids in the book clarified to me what he was arguing.
In terms of criticisms, I have four. First of all, although Thatcher made a fairly decent case that most Jews could not read in antiquity, he should have interacted with scholarship that argues the opposite, such as Alan Millard’s Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (see here, both my post and the comments). Second, Thatcher states that people may not have even read the Gospel of John, but he should have interacted with the question of whether they would have read from it in church services, as Jews hear the Torah being read in synagogues. Third, I wish that Thatcher addressed the question of who in the ancient world would have had the wealth, power, or resources to write a Gospel, or to contribute to the writing of one. That could have launched a profitable discussion about the role of social interests in defining what is orthodox and heretical. And, fourth, I was not always clear about Thatcher’s definition of memory. I often thought that he believed that it related to eyewitness testimony—-people remembering what they saw—-but he seems to indicate in places of the book that memory can be broader than that: that it can include believing something about the past, or even encountering events through reading a book.
Although Thatcher did not address all of the questions that are in my mind about social memory and writing, I did find what he said about the Gospel of John to be interesting and thought-provoking. His personal anecdotes also made him a pleasure to read.
I got this book at a low price from Christian Book Distributors. It looked like it would be a good book for me to read for two reasons. First, I have read more than once in the biblioblogosphere that historical Jesus studies are moving away from the longstanding criteria of authenticity, and towards a focus on memory. For a long time, and even today, scholars have applied criteria to the Gospels in order to determine what parts of the Gospels are historically accurate. For example, if the Gospels say something embarrassing about Jesus, then what they say in that case is probably accurate, since why would Gospel authors make up something that is embarrassing about Jesus? If the Gospels present Jesus saying something that is discontinuous from the teachings of early Christians, then Jesus most likely said it. Nowadays, scholars are saying that there are weaknesses in the criteria (i.e., what we may consider embarrassing about Jesus may not have been thought to be so by the Gospel writers), and many are saying that we should look at memory, particularly social memory. I have read a number of blog posts about this topic, and yet there are gaps in my mind about it. I have wondered: Does the focus on memory imply that the Gospels stem from eyewitness testimony, from people who were in Jesus’ presence and remembered what he did and taught, even if they interpreted or applied those things in different ways? Because Thatcher’s book contains an extensive discussion of social memory, I figured that I might find some answers there.
Second, I have long had questions about writing in the ancient world. Why were things written down in the first place, when there was oral culture and people passed down traditions by word of mouth? Why would Gospels need to be written down? Who did the writing, since writing in those days may have required some wealth or influence due to the costliness of writing materials?
Tom Thatcher’s Why John Wrote a Gospel addresses the question of why the Gospel of John was written down. He raises some of the same sorts of questions that I have: Why write, when most people arguably could not read, and when there was an oral culture? But he also asks questions that rest on other considerations. Why did the author of the Gospel of John see a need to write a Gospel, when he said that the Holy Spirit would bring things about Jesus to people’s remembrance (John 14:26)? If the Holy Spirit could cause believers to remember what Jesus said and did, would it not be unnecessary to write those things down to preserve them and to keep them from being forgotten? On a similar note, did not I John 2:27 tell believers that they needed no one to teach them because they were anointed by the Holy Spirit? If John believed that they were so anointed and guided directly by the Holy Spirit, why would he write a Gospel so that they could be taught or remember what Jesus said and did?
Thatcher’s answer is that the author of John’s Gospel was writing the Gospel down to create an official and permanent version of what Jesus said and taught, in opposition to the Antichrists whom I John criticizes. The Antichrists were denying that Jesus Christ came in the flesh: they may have been saying that a Christ spirit came upon the historical Jesus of Nazareth and left Jesus when Jesus was about to be crucified, or that Jesus only appeared to be human but really was not, but rather was a divine figure. The Antichrists maintained that they were faithful to the memory of Jesus—-and they may have even claimed that they were witness to new revelations from Jesus. But the writer of the Johnannine literature did not believe that their interpretations of Jesus’ life were accurate, for he thought that Jesus came in the flesh and died as part of God’s plan. Consequently, the Johannine author wrote his Gospel. Writing in those days served to give permanence or stability to certain recollections or versions of a story, which was what the Johannine author wanted to do: once something was written down, that was hard to change, and it was even official, in some sense. Moreover, because most people could not read, they tended to revere the written word.
I found Thatcher’s book to be useful and helpful for a variety of reasons. I appreciated his reference to ancient Christian sources that actually specified why the Gospels were written down: to preserve what Jesus said and did. Thatcher’s discussion of memory was also valuable. He pointed out that the Gospel of John itself maintains that memory is about more than what Jesus said and did, for it also includes the correct interpretation of those events. The Gospel of John, after all, says that some of Jesus’ words were misunderstood until after he was resurrected (see, for example, John 2:22). Moreover, Thatcher argued that memory is social. Even if we remember doing something in solitude, we did what we did within a social context, and, if we wanted to share what we did with others, we would have to communicate it in a way that would make sense to our social context. I should also note that Thatcher’s cartoons and visual aids in the book clarified to me what he was arguing.
In terms of criticisms, I have four. First of all, although Thatcher made a fairly decent case that most Jews could not read in antiquity, he should have interacted with scholarship that argues the opposite, such as Alan Millard’s Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (see here, both my post and the comments). Second, Thatcher states that people may not have even read the Gospel of John, but he should have interacted with the question of whether they would have read from it in church services, as Jews hear the Torah being read in synagogues. Third, I wish that Thatcher addressed the question of who in the ancient world would have had the wealth, power, or resources to write a Gospel, or to contribute to the writing of one. That could have launched a profitable discussion about the role of social interests in defining what is orthodox and heretical. And, fourth, I was not always clear about Thatcher’s definition of memory. I often thought that he believed that it related to eyewitness testimony—-people remembering what they saw—-but he seems to indicate in places of the book that memory can be broader than that: that it can include believing something about the past, or even encountering events through reading a book.
Although Thatcher did not address all of the questions that are in my mind about social memory and writing, I did find what he said about the Gospel of John to be interesting and thought-provoking. His personal anecdotes also made him a pleasure to read.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Book Write-Up: Breaking Free, by Kevin W. Shorter
Kevin W. Shorter. Breaking Free: How to Be Completely Free from Any Addiction. Kevin Shorter, 2014. See here for Amazon’s page about it.
Breaking Free contains Kevin Shorter’s suggestions on dealing with addiction. Shorter writes from an evangelical Christian perspective, and he says that his own addiction was pornography. Shorter’s suggestions include recognizing God’s love, allowing God to shape one’s perspective about one’s experiences and other people, looking at the root causes of addiction to find healing, doing service work to get out of oneself, and being in a non-judgmental group where one can share openly. I would say that Shorter’s suggestions overlap with those of Alcoholics Anonymous, only Shorter’s perspective is evangelical Christian.
In my opinion, the greatest asset to Shorter’s book is his interpretation of I John. I John is a book of the Bible that has long troubled me, since it seems to assert that people who sin repeatedly or who fail to love others are not truly saved. Shorter offers another perspective: that addiction to a sin is not a sign that one is not saved at all, but rather is an indication that one has failed to shine God’s love into a certain area of one’s life. I do not know if that is what I John originally meant, but I do find Shorter’s interpretation to be a constructive way of looking at the Christian life.
There were areas in which I may have differed from Shorter, but I could understand and appreciate his rationale. First, I personally am not dogmatic about when God speaks to me. But I can appreciate Shorter’s point that, with God’s help and the help of a mature human being, we may need to look at the negative experiences of our life and place them within a more positive narrative, or that we should look for the positive in ourselves and other people. Second, I tend to shy away from small groups, but I can understand why many find them helpful. I appreciated that Shorter mentioned the challenges of finding non-judgmental friends and a support system.
In some cases, I found myself wishing that Shorter gave specific examples. Shorter mentioned service work as a way for one to get outside of oneself and thereby lessen alienation and depression. In my opinion, he should have listed examples of service work that one can do.
Shorter’s book had grammatical mistakes, but, overall, they did not detract from the book’s readability or clarity.
The author of the book asked me to write a review. That did not influence the review’s content.
Breaking Free contains Kevin Shorter’s suggestions on dealing with addiction. Shorter writes from an evangelical Christian perspective, and he says that his own addiction was pornography. Shorter’s suggestions include recognizing God’s love, allowing God to shape one’s perspective about one’s experiences and other people, looking at the root causes of addiction to find healing, doing service work to get out of oneself, and being in a non-judgmental group where one can share openly. I would say that Shorter’s suggestions overlap with those of Alcoholics Anonymous, only Shorter’s perspective is evangelical Christian.
In my opinion, the greatest asset to Shorter’s book is his interpretation of I John. I John is a book of the Bible that has long troubled me, since it seems to assert that people who sin repeatedly or who fail to love others are not truly saved. Shorter offers another perspective: that addiction to a sin is not a sign that one is not saved at all, but rather is an indication that one has failed to shine God’s love into a certain area of one’s life. I do not know if that is what I John originally meant, but I do find Shorter’s interpretation to be a constructive way of looking at the Christian life.
There were areas in which I may have differed from Shorter, but I could understand and appreciate his rationale. First, I personally am not dogmatic about when God speaks to me. But I can appreciate Shorter’s point that, with God’s help and the help of a mature human being, we may need to look at the negative experiences of our life and place them within a more positive narrative, or that we should look for the positive in ourselves and other people. Second, I tend to shy away from small groups, but I can understand why many find them helpful. I appreciated that Shorter mentioned the challenges of finding non-judgmental friends and a support system.
In some cases, I found myself wishing that Shorter gave specific examples. Shorter mentioned service work as a way for one to get outside of oneself and thereby lessen alienation and depression. In my opinion, he should have listed examples of service work that one can do.
Shorter’s book had grammatical mistakes, but, overall, they did not detract from the book’s readability or clarity.
The author of the book asked me to write a review. That did not influence the review’s content.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Philo on Logos
Source: Peder Borgen, "Philo of Alexandria," Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 273.
"Philo's technical use of the term Logos connotes God's mental activity during the act of creating. The Logos, one of the powers of the intelligible world, reaches into our world, mainly through the mediators Moses and Aaron, both called Logos. The plural logoi can indicate the heavenly principles which are embodied in the laws and precepts given to the Jews through Moses. In another sense, the Logos and the logoi may be conceived as heavenly figures such as angels and archangels. The Logos is also called a 'second god', or God's firstborn."
In light of this historical context, what did John mean when he called Jesus the Logos (John 1:1)? Was Jesus God's spokesman? Was he the thoughts God had during the creation (i.e., the order of the universe)? "Second god" makes sense, but in what way did Philo understand that? Philo wasn't a binitarian, was he?
"Philo's technical use of the term Logos connotes God's mental activity during the act of creating. The Logos, one of the powers of the intelligible world, reaches into our world, mainly through the mediators Moses and Aaron, both called Logos. The plural logoi can indicate the heavenly principles which are embodied in the laws and precepts given to the Jews through Moses. In another sense, the Logos and the logoi may be conceived as heavenly figures such as angels and archangels. The Logos is also called a 'second god', or God's firstborn."
In light of this historical context, what did John mean when he called Jesus the Logos (John 1:1)? Was Jesus God's spokesman? Was he the thoughts God had during the creation (i.e., the order of the universe)? "Second god" makes sense, but in what way did Philo understand that? Philo wasn't a binitarian, was he?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Why I Dislike I John So Far
For my daily quiet time, I'm in John's first epistle to...Christians, I guess. The book doesn't specify the exact location of its audience.
I still have other write-ups to do for my daily quiet times. There are Luke topics that I want to write about, but I haven't gotten to them yet.
Yesterday, I read I John 1. Today, I read I John 2-3. I'm somewhat of a Paul-man myself, or a "Paul as Martin Luther interprets him" man. I need to believe in God's free grace and unconditional love, since I have a lot of sins, plus my deeds are not good enough to please God.
But the Epistle of James looks good next to I John! And, to be honest, I actually like the Epistle of James (Martin Luther's opinion notwithstanding), and it's not only because its author shares my name. I like it because James seems to meet people where they are. Consider the following verses:
James 1:5: "If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you" (NRSV).
James 3:3, 8: "For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle...but no one can tame the tongue-- a restless evil, full of deadly poison."
James 3:14: "But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth."
James 4:7-10: "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you."
James 5:13: "Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise."
What's the common theme in these verses? To me, it's that we shouldn't lose hope if we find spiritual flaws within us. If we lack wisdom, we should ask God for it, and he's eager to help us! We should come clean if we have bitter envy and selfish ambition, rather than patting ourselves on the back. We all make mistakes with our tongues, and only God can tame them. We should draw near to God if we find ourselves in a spiritual ditch. And we should pray when we are suffering. James meets people where they are.
Granted, James still has his perfectionist tendencies. In James 1:6-7, he states: "But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord." My problem with this passage is that I will always have some doubt when I pray to God. I'm not perfect! James would encourage me a lot more if he said that God is faithful in spite of my doubts.
James also affirms that faith without works cannot save a person (John 2:14). My question here is, "How many good works must I do before I can finally be assured of salvation?" It's not that I fail to see James' overall point. James says, for example, that belief in one God is not sufficient to save (James 2:19), and that makes sense. If I believe in one God, yet I don't have any desire to live a holy life, then what's so meritorious about my faith?
But, overall, James presents the reader with a place to go, or more accurately, someone to go to. He offers hope, even though he includes works in the salvation process.
I John, however, is more like: "Look, these are the characteristics of a true Christian, and, if you don't have them, then you're not really saved."
There are a variety of texts that indicate this (I John 2:3-4; 3:14, et. al.). But what really disturbed me was I John 1. In vv 6-10, we read the following:
"If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
My problem is this: in order to be assured that I am saved, I need to be walking in the light. But if I say that I have no sin, then I'm a liar. So I just can't win! I must convince myself that I'm a righteous person in order to have any assurance of salvation, but I also have to see myself as a sinner.
Also, I John presents things as so automatic. If we have a relationship with God, then we're walking in the light. If we're walking in the light, then we have fellowship with other believers. But are things that automatic? Does having a relationship with God necessarily mean that I will click with other believers, or fit into their nice little Christian cliques? For me, "fellowship" means Christians socializing. But if one struggles with social skills, then that shuts him out of fellowship!
But maybe I John offers some hope. He calls his readers "forgiven" (I John 2:11-14), so he seems to assume that they're saved. But not all of them are carrying out the implications of their salvation. On the other hand, he appears to manifest a Calvinist sort of approach, the "there are true believers and false professors" school of thought. He says in I John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us."
Another possible verse of hope is I John 2:8: "Yet I am writing you a new commandment that is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining." Is this saying that the people in John's audience are on the path to holiness, as God sweeps away the darkness within them that there might be light?
Overall, however, I John's message seems to be that we need to be righteous before we can have assurance of salvation. But how righteous do I have to be?
I still have other write-ups to do for my daily quiet times. There are Luke topics that I want to write about, but I haven't gotten to them yet.
Yesterday, I read I John 1. Today, I read I John 2-3. I'm somewhat of a Paul-man myself, or a "Paul as Martin Luther interprets him" man. I need to believe in God's free grace and unconditional love, since I have a lot of sins, plus my deeds are not good enough to please God.
But the Epistle of James looks good next to I John! And, to be honest, I actually like the Epistle of James (Martin Luther's opinion notwithstanding), and it's not only because its author shares my name. I like it because James seems to meet people where they are. Consider the following verses:
James 1:5: "If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you" (NRSV).
James 3:3, 8: "For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle...but no one can tame the tongue-- a restless evil, full of deadly poison."
James 3:14: "But if you have bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not be boastful and false to the truth."
James 4:7-10: "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you."
James 5:13: "Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise."
What's the common theme in these verses? To me, it's that we shouldn't lose hope if we find spiritual flaws within us. If we lack wisdom, we should ask God for it, and he's eager to help us! We should come clean if we have bitter envy and selfish ambition, rather than patting ourselves on the back. We all make mistakes with our tongues, and only God can tame them. We should draw near to God if we find ourselves in a spiritual ditch. And we should pray when we are suffering. James meets people where they are.
Granted, James still has his perfectionist tendencies. In James 1:6-7, he states: "But ask in faith, never doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind; for the doubter, being double-minded and unstable in every way, must not expect to receive anything from the Lord." My problem with this passage is that I will always have some doubt when I pray to God. I'm not perfect! James would encourage me a lot more if he said that God is faithful in spite of my doubts.
James also affirms that faith without works cannot save a person (John 2:14). My question here is, "How many good works must I do before I can finally be assured of salvation?" It's not that I fail to see James' overall point. James says, for example, that belief in one God is not sufficient to save (James 2:19), and that makes sense. If I believe in one God, yet I don't have any desire to live a holy life, then what's so meritorious about my faith?
But, overall, James presents the reader with a place to go, or more accurately, someone to go to. He offers hope, even though he includes works in the salvation process.
I John, however, is more like: "Look, these are the characteristics of a true Christian, and, if you don't have them, then you're not really saved."
There are a variety of texts that indicate this (I John 2:3-4; 3:14, et. al.). But what really disturbed me was I John 1. In vv 6-10, we read the following:
"If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."
My problem is this: in order to be assured that I am saved, I need to be walking in the light. But if I say that I have no sin, then I'm a liar. So I just can't win! I must convince myself that I'm a righteous person in order to have any assurance of salvation, but I also have to see myself as a sinner.
Also, I John presents things as so automatic. If we have a relationship with God, then we're walking in the light. If we're walking in the light, then we have fellowship with other believers. But are things that automatic? Does having a relationship with God necessarily mean that I will click with other believers, or fit into their nice little Christian cliques? For me, "fellowship" means Christians socializing. But if one struggles with social skills, then that shuts him out of fellowship!
But maybe I John offers some hope. He calls his readers "forgiven" (I John 2:11-14), so he seems to assume that they're saved. But not all of them are carrying out the implications of their salvation. On the other hand, he appears to manifest a Calvinist sort of approach, the "there are true believers and false professors" school of thought. He says in I John 2:19: "They went out from us, but they did not belong to us; for if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But by going out they made it plain that none of them belongs to us."
Another possible verse of hope is I John 2:8: "Yet I am writing you a new commandment that is true in him and in you, because the darkness is passing away and the true light is already shining." Is this saying that the people in John's audience are on the path to holiness, as God sweeps away the darkness within them that there might be light?
Overall, however, I John's message seems to be that we need to be righteous before we can have assurance of salvation. But how righteous do I have to be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)