AudaciousGrace

Thoughts on Shame and Grace

2010-12-08T09:58:00.000-08:00

In a recent conversation with Andre Oosthuizen on Facebook, I shared some of my journey to see internalized-shame as the significant barrier to internalizing grace.

Andre lives in Amanzimtoti, KwaZulu-Natal and has a wide-ranging ministry that is built on a “new paradigm” understanding about grace. The paradox is that this “new paradigm” is really the “old paradigm” of many Early Church Fathers that is now being recovered as the really “good news” about grace for guilt and shame.

Just thought I’d post my comments back to Andre for those interested in the larger “conversations” that are happening outside the BT Community.

Thank you Andre. Happy to share whatever I may offer to the conversation.

At about the same time you were pondering a "new paradigm" I was exploring a shift from seeing theology through a legal-guilt paradigm to a shame-grace point of view.... I discovered that shame is more of a dominant theme in Scripture than guilt.

In fact, I came to understand that guilt is really a learned response of shame about violating some standard. That is, the capacity to experience shame is an innate affect and does not have to be learned but guilt has to have a learned standard to violate. We can have real guilt with shame and are more likely to want to do some remediation. We can have real guilt without shame and there's little motivation to seek remedy.

My experience is that many "believers" continue to have significant unhealed "shame-wounds" long after they have experienced forgiveness for their guilt. Like Lazarus, they are as alive as they will ever be but are still wrapped in grave clothes that limit them from living loved and loving life.

They are led to misidentify their shame-barrier that inhibits them "accepting their acceptance" as "guilt" and are encouraged to "repent more" or look for something for which they have not "fully repented." Seeking more forgiveness does not work we are set up to use performance-religion to work on getting "closer to God." Since whatever pattern performance-religion offers, and there are many variations, does not work to heal shame, it increases shame and sets up guilt about "not doing enough" or not doing the practices "right enough."

So many believers deal with "false guilt" that is really unhealed internalized-shame that condemns us through our shame-based conscience. Many of us assume is that our "conscience" is somehow neutral and unaffected by how we were raised and our heart-wounding life experiences. As children, the Disney character Jiminy Cricket, taught many of us to trust our conscience. However, our conscience is significantly shaped by the way shame was used by parents, teachers, and churches to influence our moral outlook on life.

Our shame-based conscience may sound like the voice of God and condemn us when there is no condemnation. Which of us raised in very conservative families know that many the prohibitions they taught are not wrong at all, yet we still feel a "pang of conscience" when we do them? Which of us who were raised in a very permissive family have not been frustrated when spiritual communities imply that belonging requires developing "convictions" about things that we're quite sure don't matter?

Well, I diverge from sharing a simple thank you.

Why Inerrance Doesn't Matter

2010-12-08T09:51:00.000-08:00

Roger Olsen, a very honest and respected theologian posted the following to his blog Roger E. Olsen. It's an example of how dysfunctional are we when mis-labeling and obfuscation are the keys to keeping one’s job in Evangelical educational institutions. Sounds like part of the Don’t Talk, Don’t Feel, and Don’t Trust Rules:

…. for most of us the word “inerrancy” has become too problematic uncritically to embrace and use. To the untrained and untutored ear “inerrant” always and necessarily implies absolute flawless perfection even with regard to numbers and chronologies and quotations from sources, etc. But even the strictest scholarly adherents of inerrancy kill that definition with the death of a thousand qualifications. Some who insist that you must be evangelical to be faithful to Scripture’s authority say inerrancy is consistent with biblical authors’ use of errant sources. In other words, they say, the Bible is nevertheless inerrant if it contains an error so long as the author used an errant source inerrantly.

How many people in the pews know about these qualifications held by many, if not all, scholarly conservative evangelicals? When I teach these qualifications to my students (as I have done over almost 30 years) the reaction is almost uniformly the same: “That’s not what ‘inerrancy’ means!” I have them read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and most of them laugh at the twists and turns it makes in order to qualify inerrancy to make it fit with the undeniable phenomena of Scripture.

The biggest qualification is that only the original autographs were inerrant. Think about this. … (more)

Audaciously Re-Reading Romans

2010-12-08T09:43:00.000-08:00

Richard Beck has tackled an in-depth review (10 posts as of today) of an amazing book on his blog Experiential Theology. The book The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul has created quite a reaction. It’s a major rethinking of the way most of us have been taught to read Romans that is foundational to what he calls the Justification Theory of the Atonement.

What is the Justification Theory? Briefly it includes:

there is a just, holy and omnipotent God who is characterized by retributive (punitive) justice;
human beings, across the board, are unable to achieve moral perfection;
God will judge us negatively. Despair comes when we realize that we cannot rescue ourselves;
the judgment of God, previously directed at the human person, is satisfied by the death of Jesus;
the righteousness of Jesus, his blamelessness, is imputed or reckoned to the believer.;
accepting through faith the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. God’s judgment is satisfied and the believer is “saved,” counted as righteous before the Judgment Seat of God.

Sound familiar? For many of us the idea that there might be another way to understand “the Gospel” seems dangerously audacious. The glue holding this point of view together is the usual reading of Romans 1- 4 as an expression of Paul’s personal theology. Campbell suggests is that in those four chapters,

“what Paul is actually doing in 1.18-3.20 is presenting the core of the “false gospel”–a rant against pagan immorality using the principle of desert–and then applying that same criterion (i.e., desert) to the Judaizing teachers themselves. When Paul is finished with this diatribe we see that the “false gospel” isn’t good news at all. There is no ethical or eschatological advantage to being a Jew. …

Paul isn’t presenting his gospel in Romans 1-4. So where is Paul’s gospel? Paul’s gospel is in Romans 5-8. Thus, 3.21-31 is kind of a rest stop on the way to Romans 5-8. A teaser or preview if you will. This helps explains the brevity of this gospel presentation in relation to the condemnation offered in 1.18-3.20.

What this means is that 3.21-31 shouldn’t be read backward into 1.18-3.20, as the “solution” to that “problem.” Rather, 3.21-31 should be read forward as an anticipation of Romans 5-8. Having dismantled the “false gospel” by the end of 3.20 Paul pauses to give us a sketch of what is to come short” (Beck, Part 10)

Translations of the Bible are always influenced by the translators theology – consciously or unconsciously. One of the translation decisions critical to support the Justification Theory is in Romans 3:26. Here is how two different translations differ in significant ways:

Rom 3:22, 26 NIV This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. … to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Rom 3:22, 26 Net Bible – This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.

Here is how Beck sums up the difference this translation makes:

What we know for sure is that Pistis means “faith” in Greek and that “Christou” means “Christ.” So far so good. But in the Greek there is some genitive ambiguity concerning how the two noun’s–faith and Christ–are to relate to each other. Martin Luther, and those who followed him, translated Pistis Christou as “faith in Christ.” But a growing number of scholars (e.g., Richard Hays, N.T. Wright) have argued that the proper translation of Pistis Christou should be “faith of Christ.” Wow, so much hanging on the switch from “in” to “of”! But it really is a huge change. Specifically, the change moves us from an anthropocentric view of salvation to a Christocentric view. In the former, the human person is the locus of salvation. I, Richard Beck, must have faith in Jesus Christ. My act of faith functions as the key to unlock salvation. In the latter view, it is the faithfulness of Jesus that unlocks salvation. Christ’s faithfulness saves me.

Campbell’s book is certainly audacious! Yet, it certainly makes sense to me. I have not tackled Campbell’s book yet (if anyone wants to purchase it for me, I’ll gladly read it) but I have been following Beck’s review. Why don’t you join me in reading Beck’s review. In fact, why not check out his blog and consider reading it consistently.
Dr. Paul

Healing Our Stinking Thinking

2010-12-08T09:29:00.000-08:00

A comment to a previous post continues to bounce around in my mind like a pinball machine – thanks Lenny.

I heard believers “…stating that only “Christian(s)” do the “right thing” for nonselfish reasons and non-believers do the “right thing” for selfish motives. These people have been believers since childhood. It is my opinion that they have had little experience with choosing the “right thing” without relating to God. I remember choosing to the do the “right thing” unselfishly before being a believer, so I disagreed with their belief. With this being my experience I have questioned what difference does God make in our lives?

The quality of a believer’s here-and-now thinking and choosing is the issue (not eternal destiny). How we answer this question makes a significant difference.

It may feel audaciously offensive to suggest that a significant part of being a Christ-follower is to seek a complete transformation one’s thinking to be radically different from where we began our faith journey and different from fellow non-believers. It sounds arrogant and offensive in our world of pluralist acceptance. But the embarrassingly simplistic answer given to Lenny is also offensive. What Christ-follower wants to claim they’ve always made a good choice from only unselfish motives?

Yet, that that transformation in thinking from natural reason to what T. F. Torrance calls “instinctively theological” is clearly what the Apostle Paul experienced and called Christ-followers to seek:

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him…. Col 1:19-22a NRSV

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect. Rom 12:2 NRSV

The difference between the simplistic answer Lenny heard and what Paul is saying is that the transformation is a process and not simply an automatic change of moving to being a Christ-follower. In fact, it is a life-long arduous process that must be embraced intentionally. When the Gospel is “sold” as a quick decision focused on not going to hell someday it lends itself to a lack of focus on the transformation of the mind here-and-now.

But the very heart of the task is “… the transforming of the human mind in such a way that it is no longer conformed to the patterns of this world but brought through renewal into conformity to Christ through the communion of our mind with the mind of God in him and its assimilation to the holiness and truth incarnate in Jesus. This is far from being easy, but it is something which fidelity to the gospel will not allow us to avoid.” T. F. Torrance (Atonement p. 442)

The strong emphasis Torrance makes about this transformation in thinking and his loyalty to the church makes his criticism of the church’s effectiveness in helping people experience it even more audacious:

“This (the rejection of the need for transformation of the Christ-follower’s mind) applies not the least to ‘evangelical Christianity’ today, which on the whole seems to work with what may be called “unbaptized reason’, … Hence the mind of the church and mind of society are not inwardly formed by the Gospel – they remain basically unevangelized. The reason for this is that we have not taken seriously enough this New Testament emphasis that the mind of man is alienated at its very root.” (Atonement p. 440).

More pondering to come ….

Prayer as Trinity Dancing

2010-12-08T09:22:00.000-08:00

Perichoresis is a term used to describe the dynamic, creative interaction within the Trinity and into which we have been adopted. Often referred to as the “dance of the Trinity,” how does that relate to our image of prayer?

“Lengthening Our Memory 4“: Scott McKnight, at Jesus Creed, shares from Chris Hall’s book, Worshiping with the Church Fathers, in which he examines the topic of prayer in the fathers….

What, or who, has been your best teacher for prayer?

Clement of Alexandria: prayer is communication with God. But this brings in theology: “true theology is the adoration offered by the intellect” (86). Hall here explains the Trinity in terms of perichoresis: God is love in communion, God has always been love in communion, and God created out of that love. Prayer is communion in that communion and God wants us to talk to him because those who love one another want to hear from one another, even when they know what the other one asks.

Father, Son and Spirit, I like that. I’ll have more of that communion dance please.

Confidence in the Incarnation

2010-12-08T09:14:00.000-08:00

Is there a vision of the future in which we can have enough confidence to find meaning in today? What is the basis of that vision in a world that seems to have no confidence in any ultimate reality? Without that ultimate vision we become experience-seekers, moving on to the next stimulating experience when the current one fades (relationally, spiritually, emotionally, and drug-seeking behavior at its extreme.)

T. F. Torrance suggests that vision is not rooted in a future-state dualistic heaven with the destruction of creation, as typically in Evangelicalism, but a here-and-now reality that is yet to be revealed. The confidence in it is rooted in both the character of the Trinity’s love and that the redemption of creation was intended before its existence. [He uses the term "church" here way beyond any institutional expression]:

“The church of the risen Lord has no right to be a prophet of gloom or despair, for this world has been redeemed and sanctified by Christ and he will not let it go. The corruptible clay of our poor earth has been taken up in Jesus, is consecrated through his sacrifice and resurrection, and he will not allow it to sink back into corruption. Hence the whole creation groans and travails waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, looking forward with eager expectation to the hour of final liberation and renewal in the advent of its risen savior.”

Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ Thomas F. Torrance, Ed: Robert T. Walker; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic and Paternoster, 2009. p 263

Univeral Atonement?

2010-12-08T09:01:00.000-08:00

When we don’t see something, we just don’t see it. Like the arrow in the FedEx logo that I did not see until someone pointed it out, truth can be hiding in plain sight. There are many places that Early Church theologians addressed the universality of the atonement as if it was such a common assumption that it did not need to be addressed with emphasis.

Here is Cyril of Jerusalem, 4th Century bishop and theologian, offering advice about the Cross and it’s effectiveness for all humanity that he wanted his pastors and deacons to share as part of the catechism of those preparing for baptism.

... the glory of the Cross led those who were blind through ignorance in to light, loosed all those who were held fast by sin, and ransomed the whole world of mankind. And wonder not that the whole world was ransomed; for it was no mere man, but the only-begotten Son of God, who dies on its behalf. Moreover one man’s sin, even Adam’s, had the power to bring death to the world; but if by the trespass of the one death reigned over the world, how shall not life much rather reign by the life of the One? (Romans 5: 17-18) And if because of the tree of food they were then cast out of paradise, shall not believers now more easily enter into paradise because of the Tree of Jesus? If the first man formed out of the earth brought in universal death, shall not He who formed him out of the earth bring in eternal life, being Himself the Life? – The Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 13, para. 1-2 (Emphasis mine)

Shamelessly adopted from my friends at The Adopted Life

I Need A God Who ....

2010-12-08T08:51:00.000-08:00

What kind of a God do you need? Sure, we all want One who makes us healthy, wealthy and wise (along with all the people we care about). We imagine One who gives us exemption from all the ordinary problems of life and logical answers to all of our questions. Some churches actually that market that kind of God and attract quite a crowd by offering an escape from reality.

Personally, I want a God who is with me in all the darkness that life throws my way. One who is there as a “present help in times of trouble.” Not one I have to call to come from where ever He (They) is/are to where I am. Isn’t that Jesus said the Holy Spirit would be another Advocate with us forever (John 14:16, 17)? Yet, how often have I prayed in my darkness “God, where are you? It’s time for you to show up.” – as if He was not present.

That misses the whole meaning of the Incarnation – God with us – Emmanuel – lowering Himself to become like us forever (the enfleshment of Christ was not a temporary condition that he could discard like a dirty suit when He ascended. He still sits inside our same skin.)

Here is a description of the God I need – and the One we all have:

Any gift Christ has for me depends on this, that he became poor. I need a God to heal the trouble of my life, but a God remote, inapprehensible, is no God for the heart. He may have all the fulness of strength and wisdom and love, but if these cannot display themselves they might as well have no existence. Wisdom does not sit apart from life, but proves itself wisdom by entering into affairs and guiding them to worthy issues. And love, also, is no abstraction; it shows itself in loving, entering into conditions which are foreign to it in order to prove its quality. It takes upon itself burdens which are not its own, it throws aside every privilege and restriction, and plunges into the thick of common life. All that is in God could not be known without an incarnation.

When I look into the face of Jesus Christ and see the face of God, I know that I have not seen that face elsewhere and could not see it elsehow, for he and the Father are one. Person of Jesus Christ by H. R. Mackintosh,T. F. Torrance T&T Clarke Publishers, 2000

Wish I had said that!

God's Dangerous Grace

2010-12-08T08:38:00.000-08:00

My post “BS We Accept About God” stirred up sincere questions. What I believe about God seems dangerously graceful. When I presented God as angry, wrathful, hard to please, conditionally loving people have brain freeze and are not shocked at all.

Theology discussions always involve assumptions that makes clear answers challenging. To address one part requires dealing with many other areas. For example, here the first part of Adam’s question:

Dr. Paul: “The OT and NT Scriptures speak often of the anger and wrath (thumos) of God(Romans 1:18) and the “judgment” of God (Romans 2:5) and eternal punishment. Granted in my view these passages refer to non believers. But do you teach and address these attributes of God?

Answering requires looking at assumptions about several key issues: What is the character of God? Who is Jesus and why was he here? What point-of-view we are using in reading the Scriptures? Our answers become working assumptions as answer other questions. For example, Adam’s phrase “eternal punishment” likely assumes that the primary meaning is “everlasting, without an end, or forever.” And the same applies to “eternal life.” I now see the meaning not primarily about a permanent state but about a quality of life beginning here and now. What is eternal life? Jesus’ links it to a quality of relationship, “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” John 17:3 (NSV) “Know” here is not about facts but intimate experiential knowing.

The early church Fathers assumed that of the characteristic unselfish loving, pure and dynamic relationship among the members of the Trinity was the essential nature of holiness and righteousness. Later theologians shifted to a legal definition of holiness, purity and righteousness. John’s “God is love” was twisted into “Yes, but God is just” and then “God must be just and justice requires punishment.”

Today I am amazed and shocked that I believed that and at the same time read Jesus’ description of the Father as the farmer who paid the late-hired workers the same wages as those who worked all day. Was that just? There was the humiliated father who danced his son home as if he’d never left. Was that just? I even missed that after elder brother attacked the father for being unjust and refused to come to the party, the father lets him off scott free to stew in his own anger. The brother had to sit in the hell he created for himself; a hell in which he heard the sounds of joy, laughter and music to which he had a full invitation. Now that’s punishment – but self-inflicted, not father-inflicted.

My answers will create interesting dialog. I am creating, AudaciousGrace.org, to post answers there. Some may be comforting and others may seem quite dangerous. What I know is that “unlearning” is much more difficult than learning.
Grace and Peace 
Dr. Paul

BS We Accept About "God"

2010-12-08T08:33:00.000-08:00

I am amazed at what we read, hear, and even causally say some amazing things about God without being shocked. We seem to go blind and brain-dead so that when we experience contradictory messages about God's character, it does not even register as a big deal. [By the way, BS stands for Belief System.]

Take a look at the church sign in the picture and see if you are shocked. Yes? No? I am not referring to Brad and Steve's acting but the message, "Have you made God smile today?" I find that absolutely shocking for a church to infer that God's default view of humanity is at best neutral or probably angry. It's as if God starts each day grumpy and needs humanity to do something to put a smile on His face. Of course then we have to start each day figuring out what we can do to make Him smile. What kind of loving relationship is that? What kind of self-centered Trinity would that represent?

Imagine a child who wakes up every morning worried about what they will do today move their parents from being grumpy and angry or distracted? Yesterday's smile is gone and its got to be earned all over again today, tomorrow and everyday the rest of life. I think that child would be destined to want to get our that house as soon as possible. Wonder if that's a clue for churches to explore about their declining attendance?

And we drive by signs like that or hear similar messages in sermons and it seems to not register how contradictory that is to the image that Jesus gave of his Father's love. We listen to Christian radio and TV speakers contradict both themselves and each other's messages and don't even recognize it. A message begins "God will never leave you or forsake you" and then it switches to " but if you don't ______ then God might choose to lift his hand of protection from you." Or, "God loves you unconditionally" and then they add "IF you will just _______. If not, then you will suffer retribution like you can't imagine." Or like the message of a nationally recognized pastor last week suggesting that it was a loving God who directed a tornado to damage the church-building to warn a denomination about the liberal direction they are about to take. Does that not suggest we accept a lot of unhealthy BS about God?

Yes, I know the old fall back positions people use to avoid seeing the contradictions, "God's ways are above our ways" and "God works in mysterious ways." I get that but it is usually a signal that says "end of conversation."

On the other hand Jesus had a lot to say about the Father. One of the most profound statements attributed to Jesus is "...no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Matt 11:27b) So neither Abraham, Moses or the OT prophets understood the Father like the Son. If Jesus is the full, complete and clear revelation of the character of the Triune God then, to a large degree, God's ways have been communicated more accurately than the OT witnesses left for us. The "Truth" that Jesus models is not logical, objective theology but the extravagant compassionate love and acceptance that is the core characteristic of the Trinity. His stories reflect the Father's passion for us to know His heart for us.

Yet, it does not shock us to hear disasters called an "act of God.". Someone is ill and not getting better and family members wonder, "Has someone sinned secretly and God is withholding healing to reveal it?" or "Yep, I guess God had to use that to get my attention." Well known Christian leaders get up without embarrassment after disasters like 9/11 or Katrina or AIDS saying that it is God's punishment for tolerating "sinners" among us. We hear and read these kinds of BT about God all the time and don't seem shocked by them.

"Ok Dr. Paul, but does it really make any difference?" ABSOLUTELY IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE because it impacts the relationship we experience with the Father and that is what The Trinity is most passionate about. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so we could worry about whether we had made God smile?" NOT. His passion is for our heart to be thrilled with His heart for us.
Let me be so bold as to suggest that the focus of the Trinity's heart is "What can we do today to make them smile?"

Welcome To Audacious Grace

2010-12-08T08:21:00.000-08:00

Audacious au⋅da⋅cious: adjective 1) extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; 2) extremely original, without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive; 3) recklessly bold in defiance of convention propriety, law or the like, insolent, brazen; 4) lively, unrestrained, uninhibited. Synonyms: courageous, intrepid, dauntless, venturesome. 3. unabashed, shameless; impertinent, forward.

The Grace of the Father, Son and Spirit is truely audacious. Rather than GOD being simply a distant, Unmoved Mover, the Father, Son and Spirit are the active source of the energy and dynamic flowing through humanity. Their inter-penetrating unity is a divine dance into which they have not only invited humanity but have gone to the ultimate length to secure it for us and for all creation. Talk about “extremely original,” their plan from before creation for the Incarnation is without precedent. Christ, the co-equal with the Trinity, became flesh and blood with us in a permanent change do that we could become what He is. Somehow, we forget that He remains human and is portrayed as being at the right hand of Father representing and interceeding for us.

If there is a word that describes the political and religious reaction to the ministry of Jesus, it was “audacious.” His view of Father was radically different from the religious leaders and he was a threat to their system. Jesus compassion for the poor and oppressed confronted both the religious and political system with ideas that seemed to be designed to destroy everything. How audacious of Him.

So, we killed Him and he audaciously submitted to the cruel humiliation. His words, “Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing.” Now, that’s an original and brazen statement for a man about to die on a cross to pronounce. Who does He think He is? Then They do it again and pull off the highly original and convention defying Resurrection. Rather then returning with a vengence it is as if the Trinity climbed out of the grave and said, “OK, now you’ve done your utmost to humilate us but we love you even more than ever. In fact, there’s never been a day we even wanted to be God without you. So, look at Jesus and see the true face of God rather than the lie you humans have believed. Now, let’s have a party and dance.”

If that is not audacious grace then …….

That’s just the beginning of the Audacious Good News about Grace.