Author: Teddy Ray

“We are gods.” What if Kanye is right?

 

Kanye West tweeted something that many of Christianity’s greatest theologians would agree with…

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Christian–or at least theistic–tweeters rebuked him…

 

 

To be clear, I doubt Kanye intended what those Christian theologians intended when they said the same. But what if his words were actually orthodox Christian belief?[note]Best to make that “g” lower case[/note] It’s a belief that we’ve mostly lost along the way, and as a result, we’ve lost a lot of the richness and depth of Christian experience. Let’s take a quick look at our relationship to God, as depicted in the Bible and the early church.

Sharing in the Life of the Father

Jesus tells a parable many refer to as the Parable of the Prodigal Son.[note]Find it in Luke 15:11-32[/note] A son asks his father for his inheritance, then leaves his father’s house and squanders it all. He ends up so destitute that he longs to eat even pig slop. Finally, he returns to his father, hoping to receive a position as a servant in his house. The father receives him back, but as his son, not a servant. And the father throws a feast. His son has returned—kill the fattened calf!

The story closes with the father consoling his other son, who refuses to come in to the feast. The older son is upset—how could his father have a feast for the one who squandered his inheritance when this obedient son has never even had a young goat for a party with his friends? The father responds, “You are always with me, and everything I have is yours.”[note]Do you recognize that? It sounds a lot like when Jesus says, “All that belongs to the Father is mine.”[/note]

Neither son has understood his real inheritance. It’s not what they can receive from their father to enjoy on their own. The inheritance begins now—it’s sharing at the feast of the father! Everything he has is theirs! Now!

This makes me wonder if I usually look for God’s “blessings” in the wrong places. I look for how God is benefiting me, making my life better, providing the right opportunities. These “blessings” are about what I can receive from God to enrich my own life. Like the brothers in that parable, I may misunderstand the real inheritance when I watch for these as God’s blessings.

What a wonder! God invites us to participate in the divine life as his children. He invites us to his table. He invites us to share everything he has.

An important distinction: the inheritance isn’t just to take what the Father gives, but to share what the Father has.

If our real inheritance is to share what our Father has, it means we can share in God’s perfect love and holiness and joy and peace. We share in God’s divine nature.

Union with God?

This is where some theologians have talked about a sort of union with God that would sound unthinkable to many Christians. One of the greatest early Church Fathers wrote, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.”[note]From Irenaeus in the preface of Book V in Against Heresies. To be sure, this is the universal use of “men,” males and females are included equally in it.[/note]

Did you gasp reading that? We might be quick to respond, “There is no God but one!” We are creatures, not the Creator.[note]The difference between God (Father, Son, and Spirit) and humanity is that the Father eternally begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit from his very own substance. But God created humanity in time from nothing. We retain our human nature, even if we might be called “gods” or “one with God” as we participate in the divine nature.[/note]

That will never change. Those theologians would certainly agree. But we can become so united to God that we share God’s will and thoughts and actions. We can be so united to God that we become holy as God is holy. One New Testament letter refers to this as “participating in the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis comments on it like this:

The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods”[note]A note: God really does call people “gods” in the Bible. You can see this in Psalm 82, and then as Jesus refers to it in John 10:34-35.[/note] and He is going to make good His words.[note]On page 205 of the 2001 HarperCollins edition.[/note]

Notice how much more this is than the standard ways we think of life with God. Some people talk about “inviting God into your life” or a “God-shaped hole” that reveals our need for God. But God’s invitation goes infinitely beyond his entering into our small lives or filling some particular hole or desire in our lives. Instead, God’s invitation is that we would come into his divine life. This doesn’t so much fill a particular hole as it consumes the whole of us. It consumes the whole of us to the point that we would be called fully God’s, and by being God’s, we would actually be called <gasp> “gods.”

An early Christian theologian named Augustine famously wrote of God, “You have formed us for yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in you.”[note]From the first paragraph of Book I in The Confessions.[/note] He didn’t say our hearts are restless until they find a place for God, as if we should have God take a seat at our table. Instead, our hearts are restless until they find rest in God, until we are seated at the very table of God.

The problem when we decide to have life our way isn’t just that it’s sin—some sort of disobedience to our Father. The greater tragedy is that while we indulge our small desires, it’s as if we’ve chosen pig slop when we could instead be feasting at the table of God.

What if Kanye is right?

 

Evangelical Activism (pt. II): The dangers of good activism

In an earlier post, I suggested that the pro-life cause may have been the most galvanizing political issue since slavery for American evangelicals.

A note: I’m neither endorsing this as clearly appropriate (many other issues are serious and could have been galvanizing––especially regarding civil rights), nor would I call it inappropriate (the numbers are tragic). I’m simply naming that this has been a galvanizing issue, whether you agree that it should have been or not.

For evangelicalism as a whole, I’d like to suggest that religious affiliation led the way to political affiliation. But somewhere along the way, I wonder if the political cart got ahead of the religious horse.

How evangelicals became Republicans

In 1976, Democrat Jimmy Carter became the first “born again” evangelical to become president. Newsweek declared it “The Year of the Evangelical.”

To be sure you caught that… The first “born again” evangelical to be elected President of the United States… was a Democrat. Less than a half-century ago, evangelical did not mean Republican. In fact, the election of a Democrat[note]this particular Democrat––not that all evangelicals were Democrats[/note] to the presidency spurred Newsweek to deem it “The Year of the Evangelical.”

And then in 1980, the Republican Party added anti-abortion planks to its platform. They have continued as the anti-abortion / pro-life party to this day.

By 1992, white evangelicals leaning Republican outnumbered Democrats 2 to 1. By 2014, white evangelicals leaning Republican outnumbered Democrats 7 to 2.

picture from Pew Research Center

In April 2018, a Public Religion Research Institute survey showed white evangelical support for President Trump at an all-time high: 75% compared to general population favorability of 42%.

For many people, evangelical and Republican have become one and the same.

It was not this way in 1976 when Jimmy Carter was the first evangelical elected to the presidency. But as anti-abortion / pro-life policy made the Republican platform, evangelicals flocked to, and took up leadership in, the GOP.

The dangers of good activism 

If we think we may be among those who would have flocked to the Liberty Party in the 1800s because of its anti-slavery platform (see that earlier post), I don’t think we can blame evangelicals for doing the same because of the GOP’s anti-abortion platform.[note]To be sure, there are other ways to advocate for the lives of unborn children. Especially by offering hospitality and the option to adopt to pregnant women unprepared for a baby. I’ve watched several pro-life advocates (some whom I’m related to) make serious personal sacrifices to do exactly this. And they have also advocated for changes in public policy. The two don’t have to go together, but they’re not mutually exclusive, either.[/note]

But over time, that good activism has led many evangelicals to be more Republican than evangelical. This large voting bloc came to the political party primarily because of one issue. They saw anyone who was anti-abortion as ally and all others as foes.

An interesting thing tends to happen over time with allies and foes. Our allies begin to look like heroes to us. We’re so committed to them on the one issue that we begin to see all of their battles as ours. And our foes begin to look like villains to us. We’re so opposed to them on the one issue that we begin to see every battle as a battle against them.

So today white evangelicals are the demographic group most likely to support refugee bans and deportation of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.[note]Yes, I know even the terminology for this group of people has become a political debate. Here I use the terminology used by pollsters in the linked poll.[/note] They have more positive views toward guns than the general public. And they’re the group least concerned about environmental protection. All of these stances have some kind of reasonable case associated with them (some of them, in my humble opinion, a very weak case). But the case for each is mainly a Republican case. We can’t argue that Christian faith obviously leads us to any of these stances. In fact, on the surface at least, Christian faith would lead us in the opposite directions.

It is not because of biblical arguments that white evangelicals have become the single demographic group most likely to say the U.S. has no responsibility to accept refugees. Not when the Bible persistently advocates for special care for the foreigner, the fatherless, and the widow. (See Deuteronomy 10:18; 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17, 19-21; 26:12-13; 27:19; Psalm 94:6; 146:9; Jeremiah 7:6; 22:3; Ezekiel 22:7; Zechariah 7:10; Malachi 3:5)[note]One well-meaning evangelical recently asked, “But are there any examples in the Bible of a group of foreigners who are growing in numbers and could take over the country?” He wasn’t encouraged when the only example I could think of came from Exodus 1: ” ‘Look,’ [Pharaoh] said to his people, ‘the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.’ So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor.”[/note]

I expect this century’s general evangelical disregard, or even hostility, toward those who are not American citizens to look as bad for the Christian cause in the future as the American church’s failure in the last century to speak and act with one voice against lynching and segregation.

Religion led many evangelicals to the Republican Party over the last fifty years because of abortion policy and its wider attitudes toward abortion (as something to lament rather than openly celebrate). But once they got there, the political cart of the full Republican platform got ahead of the religious horse that brought many evangelicals here. White evangelicals, as a voting bloc, seem now more inclined to support and oppose issues based on partisan divides than based on an examination of Scripture and the Christian tradition.

The threat of religious idolatry

Is it possible that political partisanship is one of today’s most threatening idols? Someone’s political party identification is now far more reliable than their religious identification for predicting their stance on issues as wide-ranging as abortion, the environment, or immigration. Their political party identification seems more reliable than their faith for determining when a politician’s misdeeds are cause for moral outrage and when they’re an occasion for understanding and forgiveness.

This is not only a problem among white evangelical Republicans, but also among many Christian Democrats who insist their faith has led them to their political stances. When one politician talks with messianic overtones, the partisan Christian responds, “We already have a savior!” Yet when they hear similar statements from their own preferred party, they respond with silence or celebration.

Christians of all stripes, it SHOULD NOT BE THIS WAY! This is not far from idolatry, if it isn’t idolatry, properly defined. Neither of America’s political parties derives its standards from the Christian faith. Both parties include people of virtue and both include people whose behaviors should be cause for moral outrage. If we find ourselves always morally outraged by one side’s policies or people and always defending the other, it may be a signal that our politics have become our gods.

It may have begun with good activism. It’s threatening to become idolatry.

Agree? Strongly disagree and want to discuss it more? “I don’t agree with all of this, but it raises some interesting points…”? Share it using the social media links here. Or send me an email for follow-up discussion. Or if you haven’t already, click here to subscribe for more. Thank you!

 

The Lectionary and the UMC: The subjects of our verbs

Another version – from “Ungodly Evangelicals”

“When I have taught homiletics (preaching),” writes Fleming Rutledge, “I have always put a lot of emphasis on subjects and verbs. It’s remarkable how infrequently many of today’s preachers make God the subject of active verbs. Usually it’s the human being who is given the verbs.” [note]If you have not read everything Fleming Rutledge has ever written, your life is incomplete.[/note]

In a longer paper, Rutledge discusses our love for the “triumph of the human spirit” story. She’s worth quoting at length:

“Our addiction to our own supposed powers leads us perpetually to sentimentalize and romanticize human possibility rather than acknowledge our desperate predicament. This tendency, in turn, subtly or not so subtly encourages the making of sentences which have human capacity as their subject and God as their object. Thus we have the current enthusiasm for ‘spiritual journeys,’ with the human religious search as the controlling metaphor.”

Because of Fleming Rutledge, I’ve begun to pay more attention to my grammar––especially in preaching and church leadership, but also in everyday life. How often is God the subject of my verbs?

When God is the subject

I’ve also begun to pay more attention to the subjects and verbs in the Bible. My general finding: When God is the subject of the verbs, things tend to go well. When people become the subjects of the verbs, things often go awry. Which can lead back to God being the subject of some rather unpleasant verbs…

A warning in the book of Deuteronomy illustrates well. As the people move into the promised land, they risk convincing themselves that they did it all. I’ve highlighted several key subjects so we can see the movement:

When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the LORD your God for the good land he has given you. Be careful that you do not forget the LORD your God, failing to observe his commands, his laws and his decrees that I am giving you this day. Otherwise, when you eat and are satisfied, when you build fine houses and settle down, and when your herds and flocks grow large and your silver and gold increase and all you have is multiplied,  then your heart will become proud and you will forget the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.  He led you through the vast and dreadful wilderness, that thirsty and waterless land, with its venomous snakes and scorpions. He brought you water out of hard rock. He gave you manna to eat in the wilderness, something your ancestors had never known, to humble and test you so that in the end it might go well with you.  You may say to yourself, “My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me.” But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your ancestors, as it is today.[note]Deut 8:10-18[/note]

The Bible story is not a “triumph of the human spirit” story. It’s a triumph of God story. God is the main character. The main plotline is about God creating, God rescuing, God redeeming, God restoring, God with us.

People are the supporting cast. Our story, apart from God, highlights the weakness of the human spirit and the evil inclinations of the human heart. Only because of God’s active role in this narrative can we celebrate triumphant and good people.

“Why have you not built me a house of cedar?”

This week the lectionary brings us to 2 Samuel 7 where David considers building a temple for Yahweh.

Is it an act of genuine piety? David sees the contradiction between his royal palace and the place of the ark of God––literally “in the midst of curtains.” He wants to give Yahweh a more fitting dwelling place.

Or is it about self-serving legitimation? A grand temple validates the king. It’s a mark of his success. (Does this have similarities to church building programs?) In some ways, it makes the god a patron of the king.

Walter Brueggemann calls temple building “undoubtedly a mixed act of genuine piety and self-serving legitimation.” [note]In his outstanding Interpretation commentary.[/note] Isn’t this how it is with so many of our decisions, especially as Christians and church leaders? Advancement and self-preservation––of both individuals and institutions––can have motives that are at once noble and self-serving. To the extent that it may be difficult to discern which is which.

Whether David’s motives are pure or impure (or more likely, an indivisible mix of the two), Yahweh changes the subjects of the verbs. Look at these subjects:

“This is what Yahweh says: ‘Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in?’ “

Subject: David.
Object: House (temple).
Recipient: Yahweh

And then the reversal:

“I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar?‘ “

From here through verse 16, Yahweh is the subject of 23 active verbs, as I count them.

He’s the subject of past-tense verbs: “I took you from the pasture.”

He’s the subject of future-tense verbs: “I will make your name great.”

He’s the subject of the great promise that extends far beyond David’s small vision of a temple: “Yahweh declares to you that Yahweh himself will establish a house for you.”

Subject: Yahweh.
Object: House (dynasty).
Recipient: David.

The Bible story is also not a story of people doing good things for God. It’s the story of God continually sustaining his sometimes anxious, sometimes self-serving, sometimes faithful people by giving them far more than they have envisioned. Ultimately, God has given us his Son, the offspring of David, whose kingdom never ends.

Regarding human plans that didn’t begin with God, he asks, “When did I ask you to do this for me?”

God does tell his people to do things for him. Principally, he tells us to trust and obey. Outside of trust and obedience, Yahweh is the subject of most of the good verbs in the Bible. The difference between Noah building an ark and the people building a tower at Babel––one is an act of human trust and obedience, the other an act of human will.

The lectionary and the UMC

A favorite phrase of United Methodist leaders today is “non-anxious presence.” In a time of anxiety, our Bishops are urging us to “project a non-anxious presence.”

This amidst much (legitimate) concern about the state of the United Methodist Church. It’s difficult to speak of “death tsunamis” and potential schism with a non-anxious presence.

I don’t expect we’ll become non-anxious through reading the right leadership book or mustering up enough confidence. I don’t expect the newly released report of the Commission on a Way Forward to reduce anxieties. From the beginning, many have viewed the task of the Commission as impossible––so far as the task is to maintain the unity of the UMC.

I expect the only legitimate way to cultivate (not just project) a non-anxious presence is to make God the subject of more of our verbs. I want to resolve as a leader in the church to spend less time prognosticating and more time asking what faithfulness to God means in my life and the life of my congregation today. I want to resolve as a leader in the church to spend less time wringing my hands about the future and more time in prayer, in gratitude for what God has done, and in sure and certain hope that God will sustain his church.

Does this mean that God will sustain the United Methodist Church in unity? We don’t have that promise. Nor can we fixate on making it happen ourselves. In our efforts to save our denomination, perhaps we have romanticized human possibility rather than acknowledging our desperate predicament. Perhaps we have made ourselves the subjects of too many of our verbs.**

Perhaps, like David, our determination to do something for God (with all the mixed motives that surely entails) has veiled our eyes to the larger designs of God. Perhaps we’ve sought to preserve and build an institution at the expense of celebrating the greater promise of God––his Son, Immanuel, God with us, as the one whose kingdom will last forever. If that kingdom is our end, we have no need for anxiety.

Fleming Rutledge writes, “The biblical story has God as its unfailing subject. God is not for us to find; God has found us, and keeps on finding us, and will chase us down even in Sheol (Psalm 139:8).” I don’t know the future of the United Methodist Church as a denomination. But I believe wherever it is we end up––each of our churches and members and clergy––God will be there already, with us, seeking us out, chasing us down… even in Sheol.

Like it? Or just want to discuss it more? I’d be honored if you’d share it –– use the social media links at left. Or send me an email for follow-up discussion. Or if you haven’t already, click here to subscribe for more. Thank you!

** To be clear: I don’t mean to negate good and faithful work done by many of our leaders, and particularly the Commission on a Way Forward. I trust many of them are asking questions that acknowledge our desperate predicament and God’s action as our only true hope. And I’m thankful for them. I write this more as admonition for myself and others like me than for those who already have God as the subject of their verbs.