Reflection on Forgiveness

I recently heard a woman ask a question on forgiveness that highlighted major problems in our culture’s understanding thereof.  In her instance there was another person who wronged her and as a Christian she felt like she was responsible for forgiving the offender, but she was struggling with how she could forgive that person when they were not even sorry.  This is a popular question that comes from even more popular misunderstandings on forgiveness.  We know forgiveness is only called for because some intolerable form of hurt and/or loss has occurred. Moreover, it has occurred in such a way that the relationship is irrevocably damaged.  The mistake then comes when forgiveness, if it does occur, is enacted as a privatized or unilateral event.  There has been an overabundance of counselors, teachers and pastors that paint it as the process of accepting, tolerating, excusing, forgetting or letting go of the injury.  Though there are circumstances where most of these are valuable courses of action to take, not one of them should be mistaken as the process of forgiveness. Hurt and loss occur in varying degrees some of which can be pardoned and overlooked, but then there are some that cannot.  In David Augsburger’s Helping People Forgive, he suggests that one can only forgive the instances that cannot be tolerated, excused, forgotten or ignored.[1]  It then becomes a process that acts interpersonally requiring movement from both sides.  Augsburger uses the metaphor of a bridge that “must stretch, unsupported, across vast emptiness… risking the unknown, the unsupported, the unpredictable… joining the separated; forgiveness constructs a new path.”[2]   We must then see it as a reconciliation that moves forward together in a new or renewed relationship. 

So also, as Christ pointed out, forgiveness must consistently be given, so far as it is in our control, but it cannot be extended apart from another’s repentance (Matt. 18:15-35; Lk. 17:3-4). Bonhoeffer echoes this sentiment in his opposition to the “cheap grace” of the church that in one way could be characterized by the incessant preaching of forgiveness without repentance.[3]   We must see the process as being twofold in grace and truth so that it occurs on the basis of unconditional love, yet nothing is overlooked as the offense is mutually faced, restitution is made (when need be) and both the offended  and offender begin working in new direction toward a restored and healthy relationship.  If repentance is absent and relationships are not being reconciled then forgiveness has not and cannot happen.  In effect, the answer to the woman’s question of how she could forgive her offender who was not sorry (whether because that person was unaware of the offense or had no empathy for the damage they caused I don’t know) is in fact a problem until both are ready to face and work through the offense for a better way of life together. Forgiveness must overwhelm the isolated places of circumspection that forbids reconciled relationships so that all involved can move forward together in the shared life of mutual trust and care.

[1] David Augsburger. Helping People Forgive (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press 1996), 28.

[2] Ibid, 6-7.

[3] Dietrich Bonhoeffer. The Cost of Discipleship (New York, NY: SCM Press 1995), 43.

Nationalism Part 2: Overcoming Supersessionism & Embracing Inclusion

 Anthropological Failures
     To continue the discussion on nationalism, the Jewish people have stood at the center of this argument in Christianity.  Though I do not have space here to thoroughly annotate every “extreme” claim I make, I would like to suggest that there are two fundamental misunderstandings about God’s chosen, at least in Western Christianity, both of which stand firmly on nationalistic propositions.  The first is supersessionism/replacement-theology in which the church is believed to have superseded Israel’s role because they were unable to live up to God’s expectations.  This stems from the notion that Israel was entrusted with the job of keeping their portion of the covenant (the Law) for salvific ends, but when they could not God subsequently nullified all previous covenants and sent his messianic son to start afresh with the church.  However, this means that God went back on his irrevocable promise of faithfulness to the Jews as his people as-well-as abolished his perpetually reiterated promise of the future restoration of Israel (Deut. 7:6-8; Jer. 31:35-37; Ezek. 36; Rom. 11:25-29).      

The second nationalistic perspective comes from those who have misunderstood Israel’s role and relationship with God.  While many Evangelicals have avoided the supersessionistic trappings, they have made Israel out to be a tribal community that is special to God for all the wrong reasons.  Many paint them as a people set apart for God explicitly for the purpose of positioning themselves over and against all other nations (this observation mainly comes from the way we have shoehorned our loyalty to Israel into one of our two political parties).  The ideological temptations that have followed have led to idolatrous view of Israel. Now to support the Jews and Israel comes solely from the quid-pro-quo mentality in which blessing equates being blessed (Gen.12:3), but the focus is misplaced on the gift rather than the Gift-Giver.  Subsequently, this loyalty has now translated into believing Israel is fine as is and can do no wrong which misses the point and takes things too far the other direction of authoritarianism.  It is this kind of thinking that disconnects Israel from her role.  While Israel is a holy people that have long been privileged to God’s heart, it is not in such a way that it accepts some and excludes others.  In a sense the well meaning pro-Israel Christians are in need of the same correction that YHWH handed Israel in her exile. This was that they were not set apart and holy for selfish reasons, but were and are set apart to embody and offer a universal invitation (Isaiah 55).  Yet, we seem bent on recklessly propagating them as a political idol and tool that will bless our nation and its self-interests.

Israel Blesses The World

It is my opinion that Israel was perhaps God’s answer to Cain’s infamous question, “am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9).  He answered with a resounding yes (Genesis 12). As Brueggemann sketches out, Israel was offered a unique invitation via YHWH’s covenant in which this was a new way for them to live in the world as those who would live in, gaze on and subsequently embody the “presence, holiness and beauty” of the world’s Creator.[1]  In doing so, they as a community would be the towering light revealing YHWH’s sanctuary of peace and restoration for the rest of the darkened world.  It is YHWH’s presence that illuminates the intimate infusion of beauty and holiness which ultimately gives evidence to his “transcendence, separateness, distance, awe and sovereignty” but Israel’s obedience emphatically means they are to be holy just as YHWH is holy (Lev. 11:44-45; 19:2-4; 20:26).[2]  Ergo, the priestly/holy role entrusted to Israel was to be a blessing to all cursed nations thereby bridging the gap between Creator and creation. 

However, when the Messiah shows up it is not because Israel has failed and therefore God is enacting a new plan apart from Israel, far from it.  Israel’s inability to get her act together was not a racial failure, but is the human inefficacy.  Our dependency could never rest on autonomous human efforts but on God’s active grace. God thus built into the covenant the long awaited representative of Israel in the “Suffering Servant” who fulfilled the Yawehistic/priestly role on their behalf (Isa. 53), and moreover that fulfillment could not have come from anyone other than in an act of God giving himself.  This is central to Paul’s message, understanding and reshaping of the Jewish identity in light of Christ.  I agree with Tom Wright that the Christian perspectives old, new and otherwise have largely ignored this aspect of YHWH’s plan which all along intended to rescue the world.  Paul saw it was coming to new levels of fruition through Israel’s and YHWH’s messianic-representative, Jesus.[3]   As Paul implies, this shows the Jewish hope and covenant is intact and progressing forward. The Gentiles are not now nor have they ever been some quasi-replacement for Israel, nor is Israel the pious-nation that isolates or asserts itself over all others.  Rather, the addition of the Gentiles is an inclusion that shows the coming together of Jews and Gentiles symbolizing the coming together of Heaven and Earth. This should be seen as the next phase toward restoring creation to its totality (Galatians 1-6).  Both Jew and Gentile can partake in grace, communion and priestly roles with YHWH through Christ as one community. Therefore, it should become painfully clear that God’s plan has never made room for nationalistic barriers when being executed as intended because it has always sought to bring home the proverbial prodigal nations. I believe the coming restoration of the Jewish people will shake the world and reignite the Church, but only because they will lead the way in Christ-likeness to all loving, healing and self-sacrificial ends.  

     

Radical Hope

To put it simply, if we are to embody God’s Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven then there is a need to break with our nationalistic ideologies.  While there is nothing wrong with having a national identity (in fact none of us will or should fully escape ours) many problems arise when it becomes the place of protected self-interest, self-worth, personal-security and ultimate-hope.  What was initiated with Israel was a community that would find its life, worth and security in God to the degree of being free from social and cultural barriers and in such a way that they could meet the needs of the world (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4).  This too is the role of the Church in the midst of our darkened world, but it is imperative that we know we are by grace invited and included to participate in that cruciform community. 

---

[1] Walter Brueggemann. An Unsettling God: The Heart of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press 2009), 30.

[2] Ibid, 32.

[3] N. T. Wright. Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2009), 35.

Nationalism Part 1: God Likes My Tribe Better Than Yours

A Misleading Dichotomy

There have been obvious fusions of Christianity and Empire throughout human history. This truth has not been more apparent than what is seen in American politics and church pulpits.  I propose that this fusion has created two forms of tribalism in church culture. First, we have made a tribe out of our political parties by aligning the church’s concerns with the government’s concerns for ruling its people.  This is to the degree that we see one party as being characteristically more Christian than the other. Second, we have perpetuated an already existent tribalism in our nation as a whole by aligning the church’s concerns with the government’s concerns for maintaining and preserving itself among other nations. 

The problem with the first assertion (political divide) is that politics addresses interior issues that seek to create laws by which all citizens abide by and it establishes rights for all to have within the broader context of our social structure.  However, the church has now bought into the idea that we should impose our moral ideology as a hard and fast rule even for those who do not share our faith. Those who oppose it become an enemy to be defeated.  If I may echo Paul’s words here, what concern is it of ours to be the moral judges of outsiders (1 Cor. 5:9-12)?  We Christians hold to the morality we do because we have entered into relationship of loving-fidelity with God and want to make his ways our ways.  I struggle to see how we can attempt to forcibly impose our morals on those who do not hold our convictions.   

The second aspect of tribalism (the nation-state) proves itself to be an expanded version of the first.  There is an inherent attitude in Western culture that we are the superior country to all other countries and our system should become a beaming model for many, which carries frightening undertones of manifest-destiny.  We believe that we are entitled to our life, liberty and pursuit of personal happiness and anyone that opposes this is our enemy.  Problems arise when the church adopts this mindset as if our self-worth and identity are defined in the context of this social-structure. Do we really believe that the American way of freedom is an adequate representative of the Christian way of freedom?  Our future hope would then rest on our social structure’s stability and when that stability is threatened our country’s enemies become our enemies. The problem then escalates when we falsely suppose those enemies to be God’s enemies thereby reducing our Messiah to that of a tribal deity.  Certainly we are in need of recalibrating our vision because we have lost sight of the Eucharist. The Church’s freedom, hope and stability rests on Christ alone and it was he who saved all sinners; of which we are chief (1 Tim. 1:15).  

Origins

Though nationalism is nothing new, there was a drastic change seen specifically in Christianity early in the fourth-century with the rise of the “Holy” Roman Empire.  Stanley Hauerwas once remarked that before Constantine it took courage to be a Christian, but after Constantine it took courage to be a pagan.  For any unaware, Constantine supposedly had a vision during a battle in which he believed Christ would help him conquer.  Upon winning that battle he converted to Christianity (though that might be debatable) and legalized Christianity, but then asserted his totalitarian-self as chief overseer of the church.[1]  This made the church a new political tool for bringing people under loyal submission to the Roman Empire throughout Rome, Constantinople and elsewhere.  By the end of the fourth century Theodosius became emperor and made Christianity the official religion of the empire, but also criminalized those who did not follow it.[2] To both greater and lesser degrees, this has continued to repeat itself throughout Christian history.  

Power in Meekness

However, prior to Constantine, Christians were radically different.  Boyd suggests that they refused to pledge their allegiance to emperors or fight for any countries and were criticized, persecuted and killed for being unpatriotic and weak.  Yet, they were also characterized by their radical faithfulness to Christ in living according to his eschatological vision and ethic with a willingness to die for it. [3]  So if this is what it looked like to seek the kingdom first (Matt. 6:33) then perhaps it is time we rethink what the church’s politics look like.  Hauerwas and Willimon point out that the church’s purpose and self-worth is not predicated on our ability to conquer others which tends to put us at odds with nations. Though the war Christian’s are entrenched in is evident, this war cannot be fought with weapons of violence and coercion, but are fought through witness and love which is what Christ was getting at and Paul expounded on (Lk. 22:25-27, 49-51; Eph. 6:12-19).[4]  In this way we become a community that is free of any need to assert itself over and against others, rather we have always existed to welcome, embrace and reconcile humans across all national and cultural boundaries.  Perhaps the narrative we have taken part in requires greater measures of grace and inclusiveness of our own actions than we want to see…

---

[1] Jonathan Hill. The History of Christian Thought (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press 2003), 60-61.

[2] Ibid, 64.

[3] Greg Boyd. The Myth of a Christian Religion: Losing Your Religion for the Beauty of a Revolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan 2009), 81-82.

[4] Stanley Hauerwas & William H. Willimon. Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press 1989), 62.

Cruciform Dogmatics… Or Something Like That

       It only seemed fitting that my first blog-post be a reflection of my blog’s title given that this will be the underlying theme in many of my posts.  The idea of dissident-theology simply means that I find reason to disagree and correct the many stereotypes, faulty doctrines, personal agendas, and empty “spiritualities” that have corrupted the Christian community.  This is an area that I believe the Church should find resolve in rather than allowing it to divide us further, but it may require abandoning the old thinking and traditions that bear no resemblance to Christ.   If Christ is the visible image of God (Col. 1:15) who defines what God’s present kingdom looks and lives like on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 5-6), then it becomes evident that our doctrine and ethic are not only inseparable, but cannot be defined apart from Christ.  However, the only way we can bear witness to such a God and his kingdom is by producing it in our work, ministry and daily life.  One theology/ethics professor lays it out like this:

The only way we can bear witness to a patient God who forgives seventy-times-seven is by our practicing such patient forgiveness. The only way we can bear witness to a God who seeks to reconcile all peoples unto himself is by our ministry of reconciliation. The only way we can bear witness to a God who serves is by serving. The only way we can bear witness to a God who loves even his enemies is by loving our enemies.[1] 

Though there is much that can be said about this doctrinally, exegetically and so forth, it first becomes a call for personal change.  Change can only happen by returning ourselves to Christ, the source of life, in a relational and receiving posture not just once and for all, but daily.  This gives way to a whole-hearted love for God and a daily surrender of self that shapes our attitudes and actions towards others.  It is the only way we can willingly, if not joyfully, come to a place that we exist as a community that serves, draws and heals.

---

[1] Lee Camp. Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing 2008), 64.