Mastiff or Shih Tzu?

<“When Jesus had spoken these words, he went out with his disciples across the Kidron Valley, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. [2] Now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place, for Jesus often met there with his disciples. [3] So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. [4] Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” [5] They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. [6] When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. [7] So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” [8] Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.” [9] This was to fulfill the word that he had spoken: “Of those whom you gave me I have lost not one.” [10] Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant and cut off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) [11] So Jesus said to Peter, ‘Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?’ ”

(John 18:1-11 ESV, highlighting added)

“Jesus has always many who love His heavenly kingdom, but few who bear His cross. ”

(Thomas A’Kempis, The Imitation of Christ)

In God’s perfect and sovereign wisdom, the joyous, secure, and permanent, socio-political order of the Christ, Jesus, (a.k.a. the kingdom of God) is and yet is not. There is presently war on earth, and there will be no justice or peace until God’s “will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Mathew 6:10 ESV). To that end, his followers are called to bear, not a sword, as Judas, in betraying Jesus, nor even as Peter, in forcing the kingdom, but a cross, as Christ himself, in willingly drinking the cup of his passion. Yet Jesus prayed, on the night of his betrayal, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done.” (Luke 22:42 ESV, emphasis added)

Christ doesn’t call me to participate in his suffering because there is intrinsic worth in pain. So I don’t seek for affliction or marginalization as something of value, neither do I provoke non-believers and then whine when I am persecuted, nor do I mope about in morbid navel-gazing. But I am called to bear the cross of Christ because there is being waged violent war with eternal consequences, because the kingdom of God is not yet realized, and because the greatest weapon in this conflict is humble obedience to the rightful King. And this joyful “Yes!” to God will always seem foolish to non-believers. How can it not seem so if they are blind to the Resurrection and its implications? But I think there is a link between believers following Christ, even to the cross, and the power of their testimony to a lost, broken, and dismissive world. So then, if the zeitgeist categorizes Jesus’ followers as judgmental hypocrites, or religious neat-niks, or as striving for post-modern relevance chances are good that the Church is playing the enemy’s lapdog. But if it labels Christians foolish, obsolete, or deluded by myths, then the Church is more likely being a Mastiff than a Shih Tzu.

Atlas Hugged

"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist; the fashionable non-conformist." - Ayn Rand

The title has zero to do with the blog, unless you can think a real clever relation. Otherwise, I was just tyring to think of something that rhymed with one of Ayn Rand's books. In general I think she is dead wrong, but I think this quote has truth. The conformist, in Rand's analogy, is one who melds into the population avoiding thinking independently merely for the sake of security and laziness. The fashionable non-conformist does the same thing, just under a different guise and more deceptively.

I'd have to break with the meaning of the quote in the general case. There are those (the handicapped, children, etc.) who should live dependently and not be considered cowards. Rand has elsewhere written things which reveal her disdain for the needy and those unable to produce. After all, productivity is the primary measure of worth for Libertarians who follow Rand to  her logical conclusions. But even more, I consider it courage and wisdom to conform to the word and will of the Living God. But sticking with the idea of the sheep in hipster’s clothing, consider an application to the Church.

Is a person who avoids Jesus by going to church a greater sinner than a prostitute?

Maybe in this modern age ‘prostitute’ is too trite an analogy. How 'bout 'pedophile'? Is then, a person who avoids Jesus by going to church a greater sinner than a pedophile?

Eric Metaxas on Glenn Beck show for his new book Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Prophet, Martyr, Spy

This interview with Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Prophet, Martyr, Spy (PPMS) is absolutely fascinating. 

At one point Metaxas is talking about the German Church climate during the first decades of the 20th century being characterized by theological liberalism and how Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Barthian, stood courageously against that tide, much as he would later stand, even more courageously, against the tidal wave of National Socialism. Referring to that climate, Beck interjects to say, “In many ways what we have here now.” But our current theological climate is really nothing like Germany of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. It is one of sawdust, prom-date Jesus, easy believe-ism. I doubt our generation could stomach the kind of raw, gritty issues that those apostates (the theological liberals of turn of the last century) wrestled with in coming to their erroneous conclusions. They were braver men and women than us. 

FASCINATING 

At another point, Beck points out how, part of Hitler’s gimmick was to pepper his diatribes with vague references to Jesus Christ and God in order to mollify the nominally Christian public. And the amazing irony is that Beck, a professing Mormon, doesn't seem to see the parallels to his own Restoring Honor rally. One thing I learned reading PPMS is that Adolf Hitler utilized two sirens in wooing the German people- restoration of national honor (following the nationally humiliating outcome of WWI ) and a return to conservative morals (a slight aimed at the “degenerate” Bolsheviks), all under the guise and to the glory of a loosely defined God. The only problem was that, according to Metaxas, Hitler’s Christ turned out to be Nordic not Jewish and his God turned out to be gods and of the old Germanic pagan type- gods of war and power, brutality and subjugation. As Beck referenced, in his closing statement, America’s core value of freedom, I felt a chill to imagine just what type of god he is thinking of.

I don’t intend this blog to be about the controversial figure of Glenn Beck or about the misguided movements to whom he pontificates, and hopefully I will find better things to write about in the future. But, I find it amazing that, while I see so many parallels, in reading PPMS, between pre-Nazi Germany and present America, I also see Beck and his popularity as an example of those parallels. And that was before I saw this interview. Ironically, Beck seems to see, not himself, but his enemies as that pre-Nazi equivalent. 

But his gross attempt, during the interview, to co-opt Dietrich Bonhoeffer as one who stood against social justice is exactly the kind of ploy Hitler might have tried. I’m not sure Beck completely read the book (PPMS) which he so effusively plugged. It is, by the way, brilliantly written and worth repetitive readings. But if he had read it, he might have also read the forward by Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in NYC, which, of course, is the church Beck’s interviewee attends. Reviews of Keller’s recent book, Generous Justice, usually contain, in the opening line, references to the very same pastor’s public support of social justice- seemingly Glenn Beck’s favorite scapegoat. Of course, Tim Keller advocates justice as he believes Christ would and not as a political program or ploy. As an aside, it is Keller’s approach to politics which I am learning to embrace, after years of being angry, frustrated and eventually indifferent over the subject. That is, a Christian’s response to politics ought to be eager engagement while not at all committing to any person, party, or agenda other than that of Jesus Christ and His rightful, righteous sovereignty.

Some people might interject and say that Glenn Beck, after all, is a Christian, a follower of Jesus, what more can one expect of such an influential figure? Surely a win for conservative morality is a win for Jesus. I mean, he’s against socialist health-care, abortion, and the other hot-button issues. That’s what we (Christians) want, right? Or, even if he is a professing Mormon, and not a Christian, his influence is good for the cause of Christ because it helps restore our godly heritage (whatever that means). I would respond by asking those people if their loyalty lies with an agenda, a person, a party, or Christ? If it is Christ, then I would appeal to them that any form of co-belligerency with non-Christians for social and political ends is futile, distracting from what truly matters, and possibly even destructive to our witness to a world well-versed in guile and hypocrisy.

A positive outcome of this ironic interview was how Metaxas was able, repeatedly, to say the name of Jesus Christ on national television and to present various forms of the Gospel interwoven in his answers. Maybe even someone like Glenn Beck can be wooed by Christ’s amazing grace. I was, surprisingly.

"...all that is high is not holy..."

What if a group of people was made to believe that the world was a cold, dead place? That is, this group of people was taught, from childhood, that there was nothing beyond physical phenomena. And though their heart might yearn for meaning, they were told that you can't ask a rock for meaning. This group of people might learn to repress their hunger for God by scolding themselves for being intellectually weak and assuring themselves of their superior reasoning skills.  

And then suppose, after years of eating naturalist cardboard and breathing positivist dust, this group of people was somehow awakened to a deeper, more spiritual understanding of the world in which they found themselves. Then, any fruit would seem appetizing, any brightly-colored perspective appealing, and any explanatory cosmology sensible.

This, I think, is how many who have been suckled by post-modernism respond when they break the shackles of the “cold, dead universe” worldview. They regard any spirituality as good or any support for traditional morality as godly. For some that might look like jumping on Oprah’s quasi-spiritual bandwagon. For others it might look like falling into lockstep with Glenn Beck’s God and country shtick.

"For all that is high is not holy: nor all that is sweet, good; nor every desire pure; nor is everything that is dear unto us pleasing to God."  Thomas A' Kempis, "The Imitation of Christ" (pg. 112)

God is not good. Good is God.

God's text:
[18] Let this be recorded for a generation to come,
        so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD:
     [19] that he looked down from his holy height;
        from heaven the LORD looked at the earth,
     [20] to hear the groans of the prisoners,
        to set free those who were doomed to die,
     [21] that they may declare in Zion the name of the LORD,
        and in Jerusalem his praise,
     [22] when peoples gather together,
        and kingdoms, to worship the LORD.
 (Psalm 102:18-22 ESV)

my very loose paraphrase:
God transcendent condescended to redeem the damned for his own name's sake and glory.

my response:

What is the distinction between God's will and my will? In choosing to trust him I don't agree to a standard of trustworthiness but to a Person beyond my comprehension. Not all of his choices will make sense to me or conform to my sense of goodness. The life and work of Jesus are astounding demonstrations of his love. But, that he loved Jacob and hated Esau, that we were born cursed to die, and that some children suffer neglect, abuse, and/or rejection while others are privileged and indifferent, are, in the least, beyond my understanding. And more, God's wrath as I read it in the Bible sparks fear and trembling at the thought of being an object of his holy anger. In the end I am left with a decision to humbly acknowledge or dismiss his sovereignty. What I never can do is assume that since he has proven his goodness to me he is worthy of trust. God is not good. Good is God. I have been offered peace and reconciliation to the living God, but ultimately I must choose whether or not to abandon myself, not to That which is beholden to a finite description of love, but to That which defines love.