“Zacchaeus was a wee little man, and a wee little man was he. He climbed up in a sycamore tree. for the Lord he wanted to see.” This song, burned … Continue reading Zacchaeus story teaches much about about ‘sinners’ coming to Christ
The Apostle John stated that God is love (1 John 4:8), but many years later H. Richard Niebuhr made a great distinction in regard to the thinking of Jesus. “Though God is love, love is not God” for Jesus.
Niebuhr’s words were published in 1951 in what has become a classic, Christ and Culture. And, as with any true classic, there is a timelessness to the insights.
An interesting thing has happened in America since 1951; it seems that love has indeed become a god in our culture. Almost everyone exalts love; fewer exalt the God who is love and who, in Christ, showed us what love really looks like.
Jesus had his thoughts and worship fixed firmly on the God of love, faith, hope, and humility — not on those attributes themselves. “The greatness and the strangeness of Jesus’ love of God does not appear in his love of cosmic love, but in his loyalty to the transcendent power” of God the Father, Niebuhr wrote.
Jesus had a single-minded devotion to God, and his ethic was centered in God the Father and the value of the human soul, Niebuhr said. He was referring to Jesus’ “Great Commandments” to love God and others. These loves, however, are not on equal footing. “It is only God who is to be loved with heart, soul, mind and strength; the neighbor is put on the same level of value that the self occupies.”
Love and worship of God were at the center of Jesus’ theology and ethic. We err when we place love and worship at the center. The object of our love and worship is the key. When we put God at the center, then love and worship flow from our lives, and then other people want to know more about the source. And thus we are reminded of how worship, Christian living and evangelism are connected. When we worship God and live for Christ, evangelism becomes more genuine, more authentic because we have become more like Christ.
Images of the church lady from “Saturday Night Live” came dancing in myhead as I read a recent column by Daivd Brooks, “Let’s All Feel Superior,” in The New York Times.
Brooks’ Nov. 14, 2011, column came out in the aftermath of the child sex scandal at Penn Stae University, but I just now read it. Brooks wrote:
“First came the atrocity, then came the vanity. The atrocity is what Jerry Sandusky has been accused of doing at Penn State. The vanity is the outraged reaction of a zillion commentators over the past week, whose indignation is based on the assumption that if they had been in Joe Paterno’s shoes, or assistant coach Mike McQueary’s shoes, they would have behaved better. They would have taken action and stopped any sexual assaults.”
Brooks said studies have shown that people often do not do what they ought to do or what they think they would do if they discovered such an atrocity.
“Over the course of history — during the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide or the street beatings that happen in American neighborhoods — the same pattern has emerged. Many people do not intervene. Very often they see but they don’t see.”
In a 1999 study at Penn State, of all places, students were asked if they would “make a stink if someone made a sexist remark in their presence. Half said yes,” Brooks reported. “When researchers arranged for that to happen, only 16 percent protested.”
We’ve all heard stories of people standing by and watching as terrible things happended to others. But why?
The Apostle Paul said we do the things we don’t want to do and don’t do the things we want to do. In other words, our intentions differ from our actions.
David Brooks gets this point without allusion to the Bible.
“People are really good at self-deception. We attend to the facts we like and suppress the ones we don’t. We inflate our own virtues and predict we will behave more nobly than we actually do. As Max H. Bazerman and Ann E. Tenbrunsel write in their book, ‘Blind Spots,’ ‘When it comes time to make a decision, our thoughts are dominated by thoughts of how we want to behave; thoughts of how we should behave disappear.’
“In centuries past, people built moral systems that acknowledged this weakness. These systems emphasized our sinfulness. They reminded people of the evil within themselves. Life was seen as an inner struggle against the selfish forces inside. These vocabularies made people aware of how their weaknesses manifested themselves and how to exercise discipline over them. These systems gave people categories with which to process savagery and scripts to follow when they confronted it. They helped people make moral judgments and hold people responsible amidst our frailties.
“But we’re not Puritans anymore. We live in a society oriented around our inner wonderfulness. So when something atrocious happens, people look for some artificial, outside force that must have caused it — like the culture of college football, or some other favorite bogey. People look for laws that can be changed so it never happens again.
“Commentators ruthlessly vilify all involved from the island of their own innocence. Everyone gets to proudly ask: ‘How could they have let this happen?’
“The proper question is: How can we ourselves overcome our natural tendency to evade and self-deceive. That was the proper question after Abu Ghraib, Madoff, the Wall Street follies and a thousand other scandals. But it’s a question this society has a hard time asking because the most seductive evasion is the one that leads us to deny the underside of our own nature.”
Ah, that “inner wonderfulness,” is such sweet bliss, but so is ignorance, and they are connected.
Back in the 1980s, a friend and I used to go for walks in Chatham, Illinois, for a little exercise and mostly for a little talk. Joe was a committed Democrat who worked for a U.S. senator from Illinois, and I described myself at the time as a “Reagan Democrat.”
While that is how I used to describe myself politcally, there was one thing Ronald Reagan used to say and imply something that bothered me. He was convinced of the basic goodness of people–that people, when given the chance, will do the right thing. That seemed naive to me then and it still does.
The Bible paints a picture of people being created in the “image of God” but having “fallen.” The Apostle Paul said we all are sinners.
The biblical picture seems more accurate than Reagan or others who espouse that “inner wonderfulness.” The image of God stills shines through in many people in many circumstances, but this image has been marred by self-centeredness–our sin, if you will. This sinfulness is in evidence, even among seemingly “good” people.
There is an “inner wonderfulness;” it comes from the Creator of all of this. There also is an inner sinfulness; it comes from our heritage of self-centeredness. It is dangerous to think either does not exist, because that is ignoring reality, that is living in a fantasy world of one’s own making.
“Remember that you are weak, that you, too, need endless conversion. You are able to strengthen others only insofar as you are aware of your own weakness.”
Those are the words of the late Pope John Paul II. I picked them up from Richard John Neuhaus writing in the January 1995 issue of First Things. The Pope said it was as if Jesus wanted to give that message to the Peter. Those of us who would be modern-day Peters — read Christian leaders — would do well to heed such advice.
More from Iain H. Murray: “… the salvation of souls … is not finally determined by our efforts.” (Pentecost – Today? p. 11)
Yes, Murray is a Calvinist, but he’s not a hyper one. He recognizes that Scripture clearly says followers of Christ have a responsibility to share the good news. But while hyper-Calvinists make one mistake, others, let’s call them hyper-evangelists, make another. They basically reduce the salvation of souls to a rote process of cause and effect — if believers do this and that, then revival will invariably come. It doesn’t. Murray deals with this well, citing both Scripture and general experience.
Murray quotes Theodore L. Cuyler: “God always means to be God. He bestows spiritual blessings when he pleases, how he pleases, and where he pleases. We may labour, we may pray, we may ‘plant’, but we must not dictate.” (p. 12)
I’m not a Calvinist, but I sure love the importance they place on the sovereignty of God.
We should work, pray and plant; but we should always remember that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to save. There is no magic formula that we can concoct to produce one salvation, much less a revival.
In short, salvation is divine, in more ways than one.
“The operation of the Spirit in believers … is a great mystery. He works more on them than they feel or know; and they feel more than they can express in words; and they express more than any who have not received ‘the same Spirit of faith’ (2 Cor. 4:13) can understand.”
Those are the words of Puritan Robert Traill. I read them this morning in Iain H. Murray’s book, Pentecost – Today? The Biblical Basis for Understanding Revival (Banner of Truth, 1998, p. 5)
I love to read something that resonates with your own thoughts or experience even though you have not been able to articulate it as such. This was such a reading.
Here are a couple of other quotes from Murray’s opening pages:
“If we could understand revivals they would not be the astonishing things which they are.” (p. 5)
“Our thoughts are not to be left hanging loose like clothes impeding one who must run. We must earnestly desire to understand.” (p. 6)