In his blog, John Mark McMillan was saying:
"Why do church people focus so much on the cross when Jesus' death was actually powerless without the resurrection? (at least that's what the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 15:13)
If Christians taught more on resurrection than death, would Christianity be more interesting? Or maybe Christians might be more interesting people? Would I be more interesting?
Do we focus more on death because we don't really understand resurrection?
What if I focused on living resurrection instead of mostly talking about it and singing about it?
What if I don't have to wait until I die to be resurrected but my body, which dies a little everyday, could be resurrected every day?"
And I've been reading Rob Bell's book Jesus Wants to Save Christians. In it he talks about the church actually being the Eucharist. I've been pondering this all as I look at various churches and their websites and what they are about. Some churches practice the Eucharist every week. Some do not mention it at all.
This is all very interesting to me.
Does practicing the Eucharist keep our focus on Jesus' death and our sin? Or does it point to the life we can live as the resurrected?
I do think that practicing the Eucharist every week does build community ties if it's done in a manner that would cause us to be in contact with each other. I mean breaking bread and drinking wine/juice across the table from someone really brings it to "Jesus did this for US" rather than "Jesus died for ME." I think how you execute communion is key. But I don't really know. I'm just thinking it through.
I would like a season of having it every week I think.
But John Mark was right, we focus too much on the death rather than living the resurrected life every day, living like Jesus no matter what.
I don't know. I've been sitting on this for days, but my thoughts still aren't fully formed. I'm kind of living in a daze right now.
Anyone else have any profound, or otherwise, thoughts on this?
And I've been reading Rob Bell's book Jesus Wants to Save Christians. In it he talks about the church actually being the Eucharist. I've been pondering this all as I look at various churches and their websites and what they are about. Some churches practice the Eucharist every week. Some do not mention it at all.
This is all very interesting to me.
Does practicing the Eucharist keep our focus on Jesus' death and our sin? Or does it point to the life we can live as the resurrected?
I do think that practicing the Eucharist every week does build community ties if it's done in a manner that would cause us to be in contact with each other. I mean breaking bread and drinking wine/juice across the table from someone really brings it to "Jesus did this for US" rather than "Jesus died for ME." I think how you execute communion is key. But I don't really know. I'm just thinking it through.
I would like a season of having it every week I think.
But John Mark was right, we focus too much on the death rather than living the resurrected life every day, living like Jesus no matter what.
I don't know. I've been sitting on this for days, but my thoughts still aren't fully formed. I'm kind of living in a daze right now.
Anyone else have any profound, or otherwise, thoughts on this?
5 comments:
I only have a minute but I wanted to at least put this out there for now. Both death and resurrection are needed. We can't have either one without the other. I think we have to look at them as a package. Also, and this is what I want to get back to later. Jesus didn't give a lot of instruction to the church as to how to do it(church). However, he did "show and tell" how to do the eucharist. "Do this in rememberance of me". That sounds like a cry from Christ's heart. I'll be back on this....
Yes! I think we need a full understanding of Christ--the Word who was at creation, the fulfillment of Messiah prophecies, God with us in the flesh, the one who lived a sinless life, the miracle maker, the sinless sacrifice, the resurrection, the ascension, the giver of the Holy Spirit, and the one who will return in triumph--in order to know the fullness of the Gospel.
When we focus on crucifixion as the primary function of the Gospel, we only have one message: release from the guilt of sin.
But, what about people who don't feel guilty? They might see the injustice and pain in the world, but believe that they are basically good. Do we have good news for them?
What about people who don't understand wrongs in terms of personal guilt as much as bringing shame on one's family? Do we have good news for them?
What about people who so intimately understand suffering for someone else's crimes (ex. victims of childhood sexual abuse)? Do they see a just or an unjust god in the crucifixion? Do we have good news for them?
We can try to shoehorn everyone's need for salvation into our limited image of the good news, or we can expand our toolboxes.
Here's a link to several excellent articles about this very subject (it happened to be the topic of my theology class last night).
Thanks for the link Amy. I'll check those out as I have time.
I read something recently that I have certainly read/heard before, but it really struck me: that the basic Biblical definition of sin is simply "missing the mark." I think even those who "don't feel guilty" or they think they are "basically good" would admit that they often miss the mark. That definition really expands sin from this black and white, right and wrong thing to something else altogether. I miss the mark every time I eat too much or am lazy and don't clean my house like I should, etc. That doesn't mean I live in condemnation over constantly missing the mark, but it means I do as John Mark says and live resurrected, dying a little each day and being resurrected each day as well. A constant "cleansing by the blood" (to use some great Christianese). We all fall short. The Eucharist reminds us not only that we fall short, but that Jesus has us covered. He's got the tab. All is well. All we need to do is say thanks!
Just read what I said again, and it's still all about the crucifixion as our release from the guilt of sin, as Amy said.
How do we change our mindset? Growing up in the church has really tainted me! ;-) Seriously though, it is so hard to rework it all in my brain. So hard to develop God's mindset rather than the western Church's mindset.
Man!
A few other biblical definitions for sin that I find personally useful are: 1) The things we do that break relationships; 2) The state of the world ("living in sin") that dehumanizes us and destroys creation; 3) Chaos; 4) Striving to be more than human (simultaneously denying human finitude and God's provision); 5) Injustice; 6) The absence of shalom.
I think you are right, we all know that something is wrong with the world, and many of us feel the tension between who we want to be and how we know ourselves to behave, even those of us who do not affiliate with the Church.
But, not everybody feels guilty about those things. To tell you the truth, I don't feel guilty over a lot of things I do that miss the mark. That doesn't mean that I don't repent. For instance, I used to drink alcoholically. I didn't feel guilty about it, but I started to realize that I was being dehumanized by my own behavior and that my relationships were broken by it too. So, I learned how not to do that anymore (although I can't guarantee that at some time in the future I won't do that again). I didn't feel guilty about that any more than I feel guilty about not being as mature now as I will be (hopefully) when I'm 80. I was doing the best I knew how with the tools and challenges I had at the time.
A guilty conscious didn't motivate or cause that change. Realizing my own worth and dignity did. Once I began to experience greater hopefulness and acceptance of myself as a limited human, I was able to use more powerful tools.
Christ as the incarnation of God (the one who says, "I am not ashamed to be a limited human being, and you don't have to be either") and Christ as miracle worker/healer (the one who says "Take my hand, stand up. Now, pick up that mat and get on with life") were two images that were more helpful to me in that case. I simply didn't feel a need for absolution, but for presence, acceptance, and a borrowed hope. Like you said, the crucifixion is pretty hopeless without the rest of the story.
I know lots of people that live good and moral lives who look at Christians as the Antichrist. And, I can't say that they are always wrong. They don't feel guilty, but the image of Emmanuel, God who declares solidarity with the world, and works together with humanity to restore peace in the world, can be powerfully important. If God is for us, who can be against us? If God is bringing shalom (food for the hungry, medicine to the sick, and peace to the war-torn), sign me up! I'm taking my laments straight to the Top!
On the other hand, I see plenty of "atoned-for Christians" that don't feel the slightest guilt for the exploitation of the poor and needy. We don't even want to know about the people who are enslaved by our need for cheap t-shirts and plastic toys (don't get me started), and ignorance isn't even the problem here. Most Christians who have the information, continue not to care (or much). Guilt isn't always felt by the guilty.
Having said all that, sin is very real. To deny sin, and the power of death, is to desecrate the work of God. Sin is real and it is taking a miserable toll on God, humanity, and all of creation.
I'd go into my understanding of forgiveness as radical acceptance, and that would throw a wrench into the works, but I've written more than enough for now.
Post a Comment