My Centering Prayer Apology | another responsitory piece

This week in my youth group, we are practicing some ancient forms of prayer such as the Jesus Prayer, the Centering Prayer and other Bodily Prayers such as raising hands, kneeling and signing the cross. I posted a reminder on our facebook group and I had a mom of one of my regular attending students get a hold of me with this article by Matt Slick and asked my thoughts on his article. So I thought that this would be good blog fodder. Enjoy!

So, in opening, I just want to say that what Matt Slick says here (http://carm.org/centering-prayer) about the centering prayer is definitely a semi-informed opinion of how Christians should respond to the more mystical practices such as the Centering Prayer. I feel that I can say this with confidence, because from what I have studied on the subject, it is not something that can remotely be said to be outside of the greater Christian Tradition (that is, the tradition that includes Christianity’s entire existence all over the world; I will refer to this as “the greater Christian Tradition” with a big T as opposed to more local traditions with little t’s).

HISTORY

First, I want to talk a little bit about the history that is behind the centering prayer. This prayer pattern grew out of the writings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. One such monastic was John Cassian (c.360-c.430) who spent 20 years in the desert before being appointed a deacon in Constantinople and by 415 had established two monasteries (one for men, one for women) in France. Cassian was deeply influenced by his time in the desert and left us his book The Conferences about his conversations with other Desert Fathers in order to acquaint Western Christians with their teachings.

Long story short, Cassian’s approach to contemplative prayer was the main monastic practice for 10 centuries in the West influencing St. Benedict, among others. Unfortunately, during the Scholastic period (12^th-15^th centuries), theologians like Thomas Aquinas brought the West out of the Dark Ages by recovering the ancient works of thinkers like Aristotle and others. After this, intellectual theology became the “Queen of the Sciences,” and spirituality was demoted to a relic of the superstitious past.  

There was, however, a 14^th century English mystic who remained anonymous by choice who wrote a book that would become the first spiritual classic in the English language called The Cloud of Unknowing. In this book, the author urges people to return to “prayer of the heart”. The author draws a metaphor of clouds where all creatures and all thoughts dwell in the “cloud of forgetting” and God dwells in the higher “cloud of unknowing”. The goal, then, for the author is to bring the contemplative person into the “mystical silence” which is the space between the two clouds by moving beyond simply thinking into a place of utter stillness with the Lord. Here is an excerpt:

“Here is what you are to do: lift your heart up to the Lord, with a gentle stirring of love desiring him for his own sake and not for his gifts. Center all your attention and desire on him and let this be the sole concern of your mind and heart. Do all in your power to forget everything else, keeping your thoughts and desires free from involvement with any of God’s creatures or their affairs in general or in particular. Perhaps this will seem like an irresponsible attitude, but I tell you, let them all be; pay no attention to them.”

I think this is beautiful. I mean this is really what we want, isn’t it: Communion with God, at least to some degree? With all the noise in the world, I think that it makes perfect sense that this communion would be easier if we turn down the noise on the rest of the world. I’d also like to point out here that this description says things like “keeping your thoughts…” and “center all your attention…” This is not, as Slick says “non-thinking” or “emptying of the mind”, but it is simply being intentional with one’s thoughts. In fact, the method reveals this truth since the practitioner is to hold a monosyllabic word like “love” or “God” in mind and use it to bring the mind back into focus when it becomes distracted (which, we all know, inevitably happens in quiet moments). This is true mental quiet (not emptiness), dwelling with God who came to Elijah in the “sheer silence” in 1 Kings 19:12 (NRSV). While The Cloud was well loved and read by English speakers in its time, the intellectual emphasis of Scholasticism eventually trumped the influence of the book.

 In more recent years, however, Christians have searched for sources of contemplation, meditation and mysticism (none of which are anti-Christian in themselves). As the world has “grown smaller”, Eastern traditions flood the west; in the 1960’s and 70’s, Yoga (a Hindu practice), Zen Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation and other forms of Eastern meditation influenced thousands of Americans. In response, some Trappist (Benedictine) monks have looked to John Cassian and The Cloud as well as St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross for direction in how to provide this mode of worship for contemporary Christians who long to live a more contemplative worship life. These monks distilled the teachings of the Christian forerunners into a Christian method of contemplative prayer that has become known as Centering Prayer.

Now that the history lesson is over, I’d like to shell out some theology; after all, this is the real reason anyone would have a problem with the Centering prayer, right?

THEOLOGY

I’ve already mentioned the theological and spiritual influences of John Cassian in the areas of Christian contemplative life, so I’ll expand a little. Cassian opposed the radical grace of Augustine, the main theologian of his (or any) time. While Augustine held that humans are totally dependent on God’s grace for salvation, Cassian held that humans must take the initial step toward God; thus, choosing him and then His grace kicks in.  This concept is known as Semipelagianism and is seen in Cassian’s practice of prayer: the believer first has to achieve a state of silence and contemplation and then God works in the believer’s heart. While Cassian’s theology wouldn’t be considered unorthodox today, it wasn’t politically wise to oppose Augustine, so Cassian’s writings were originally only influential in France. This is where Slick differs strongly as he is a self-proclaimed five point Calvinist (http://carm.org/what-i-believe-matt-slick) and, as such, believes that man has nothing to do with who accepts Christ.

Another theological charge that has been put against the Centering Prayer is “Quietism”. In the 17^th century, some people in France took some of the writings of St. Theresa of Avila, who advocated a “prayer of quiet,” to outrageous extremes. Quietists taught the prayer to become utterly passive all the way to the point of annihilating the will. Any thoughts, even of Christ or the cross or salvation or anything good was rejected. The logical end to this train of thought, however, is moral laxity since outward behaviors then would have no influence on the inner quiet of the pray-er. For good reason, Quietism was condemned by the church in 1687 and died out shortly thereafter. This seems to me more of the practice that Slick is speaking out against and to that end, he’s spot on.

Centering prayer, however, isn’t quietistic at all. As opposed to annihilating the will and fully emptying the mind, the pray-er moves into God’s presence and finds rest there. The idea is to first acknowledge the love that God has for his creation and then quiet the mind to rest in, center on and contemplate that love. In fact, the author of The Cloud spends a lot of time emphasizing the Christ-centeredness of the prayer. For several chapters he reflects on the story of Martha and Mary in Luke’s Gospel (10:38-42) in which Mary represents the contemplative life and Martha represents the active life. In this story, Jesus calls what Mary has found (joy in the presence of Christ) the better thing. The anonymous author imagines that what Mary is reflecting on isn’t Jesus’ body, voice or odor, but has moved beyond the sensory data into centering on Jesus, the Christ, her Christ. She’s simply basking in his love for her. This is drastically different from other meditations such as the Ignatian meditation where the prayer places themselves in the biblical narrative and imagines the sights, sounds and smells in that scene. M. Basil Pennington was one of the Trappist monks who helped develop the modern version of the Centering Prayer and he writes in 1980:

 “Centering Prayer is an opening, a response, a putting aside of all the debris that stands in the way of our being totally present to the present Lord, so that he can be present to us. It is a laying aside of thoughts, so that the heart can attend immediately to him.”

What’s awesome about this is that it doesn’t replace or encompass other prayer styles but instead it supports them. Prayers of petition, thanksgiving and the like are all influenced and pushed to a higher degree because the pray-er has spent a lot of time basking in God’s love.

CONCLUSION

That’s more or less all I have on the matter. When you look at the history of the centering prayer and the theological concepts behind it, I think it’s safe to say that it is very much a part of the Christian Tradition (big T) and thus completely safe to practice. Now with regard to Slick’s concerns about being open to demonic invasion, I would like to say the following:

Yes, if one were to empty their will and try and annihilate themselves in search of a spiritual high, I think that they might be making themselves vulnerable to spiritual attack; however, this is simply not what the centering prayer is all about. Now one might argue “yes, but meditation itself might open you to spiritual attack.” And to this, I would answer that, if you are a Christian and the Spirit of Christ lives in you, then there is no need to worry about demonic attack. Paul writes that we are delivered from evil in Ephesians 2:2 and Colossians 1:13&14 so, for a Christian demonic temptation and attack is expected (1 Corinthians 10:13) but with the understanding that God will always show you a way out. Also, 1 John 4:4 states that the one who lives in us (the Holy Spirit) is greater than the one who “lives in the world” (the devil) and because the Holy Spirit and a demonic spirit cannot co-exist in the same person (2 Corinthians 6:15), possession isn’t a concern.

All this to say that what I teach to students and friends is the centering prayer of the Christian Tradition that is all about turning down the noise of the world and the noise of our own minds in order to engage and rest in the love of Christ. We need this in our loud world. I think that Slick’s final comment about avoiding the centering prayer and whatever church promotes it is, in a way, him saying to avoid a large part of the Christian heritage in the Desert Fathers and Mothers and thus is kind of a silly thing to say. I do, however, understand him saying it based on his previous occult experiences, I would just say that his conclusion is under-informed and bias.

 Peace,

The Dread

My Theology of Worship

I wrote this as part of a written interview and thought i'd share :)

My theology of worship is, in a nutshell, more about a lifestyle and attitude than 30 minutes set aside on a Sunday (or any other day for that matter). First, I believe that worship can be done in any action throughout the day as long as the will and intention is directed toward glorifying God. I read the book “practicing the presence of God” by Brother Lawrence and, while it was somewhat exhaustive, the one line that stuck in my head more than any other was when Brother Lawrence says that for him, he feels as much in the presence of God while picking up a straw from the ground as administering the Holy Eucharist in service. I think that worship is this: having an attitude of reverence and relationship with God in every moment of one’s day. Paul writes to the Church in Corinth and says “So eat your meals heartily, not worrying about what others say about you --you’re eating to God’s glory, after all, not to please them. As a matter of fact, do everything that way, heartily and freely to God’s glory” (1 Corinthians 10:31, MSG). The way that I understand this passage is that this is Paul saying not only CAN everything be done to God’s glory, but that we SHOULD do everything, even eating, to God’s glory; this is worship.  This attitude relates to corporate worship in this way: one cannot be a leader of a congregation in worship in any capacity if he/she does not first have a regular habit of worshiping in their personal life and maintain it as a lifestyle. I also believe that this will be evident in the effectiveness of a leader. Worship is not something that can be marginalized to any time frame without sacrificing some of its purpose; that is, a relationship. After all, one would hardly call meeting with their spouse for half an hour a week, a relationship. I do believe, however, that the time spent in corporate worship is a beautiful and beneficial time for all who engage their hearts in an effort to draw especially near to God.

Peace,

The Dread

my thoughts on Rick Warren's service event: a reactionary piece.

in reponse to Erik Raymond's "What are we saying when we cancel church services in favor of community service?"

Ok, so first off, I know almost nothing about Erik, so I hope that this does not come off as offensive. Love over everything. Also, I am not necessarily gung-ho for Rick Warren either as I admittedly have not read any of his literature; my position about what I’m going to say is strictly in reaction to the blog (?) that Erik posted here --> http://www.ordinarypastor.com/?p=9521

First, I would like to commend Rick Warren on his event; 20,000 people is an amazing number of people acting out God’s love.

In answer to Erik’s “the Good”

I agree that this number of people doing good in their community in the name of Christ is an encouraging thing; so, I only want to add to Erik’s comments here. Acts of service is more than simply an idea in Christianity, but it is indeed what Christ acts out in his ministry. As Christians, we are trying to be like Christ; Bottom line. We are not trying to imitate the religion, Christianity, but the man who started the movement. There is a lot to be learned from our Church history, but this goes in positives and negatives (for example, hospitals set up by the beguines versus the “holy” crusades). We need to remember that the formal church is our family history and in order to be effective, we must imitate the successes by following the heart of Christ instead of simply doing church because it’s what we do.

In answer to Erik’s “the Concern”

First I would like to point out the logic behind your initial concern. The way you have set up the dilemma is as follows:

N = Nebraska game is on

W = Wedding

C = Formal Church Service

S = Acts of Service

~ = negation

H = Holy

> = greater than

If N, then ~W

Therefore, N >W

W is H

 So if all this is true, then the following must also be true

C is H

if S, then ~C

Therefore, S > C

The problem with this logic is that it all hinges on one premise: the commonality that weddings and church services are Holy in some way.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that people won’t get the idea that S > C, but I think that this is kind of a Slippery Slope of an idea to ride down since it’s not really based on the necessity of people following this train of thought. One might just as easily say that ~W or N (either you don’t want a weddings or you do want to watch the Nebraska game). It really comes down to just that. Maybe a small group of people will choose to watch the game over having the wedding, but the fact that they still want the wedding eventually is grounds enough to say that N > W is not a deductively necessary conclusion from the first premise (If N, then ~W).

I agree that this is getting exactly at the debate over the mission of the church and I think Erik draws the dichotomy well:

“Are churches primarily called to the ministry of the word and sacrament or the ministry of mercy in the community?”

While I think this is set up well, I think Erik poses a false dichotomy immediately following:

“If the former you prioritize the church gathered. If the latter then this type of thing is easier to do.”

What I mean by this false dichotomy is that there are other options or reactions to the issue that are not being acknowledged here. For example one other reaction might be:

“if the former, you take the word of the gospel to people outside of the formal church and teach them about sacraments in everyday conversation; If the latter then you will drop everything you own materially and devote your life to serving people much like St. Francis did in giving up his birthright.”

What this response poses is a “both/and” approach to the issue. The false dichotomy comes in and says “there are only 2 options”, the both/and comes in and says “but wait, I have a third”. I’m not saying that the both/and is necessarily right; I’m only saying that posing it as a dichotomy, doesn’t really seem to capture the entire issue.

In Christ’s ministry, he often served people and healed them where they were hurting when they were hurting; much like Saddleback Church is doing. He also, however was a pious Jew and made sure to not neglect the traditions that teach us who we are. And finally (and I would say most importantly), Jesus was all about relationships. He didn’t set out to make a religion; if that were the plan, he would have wrote a book or, dare I say it, come as the Messiah that the Jews expected: knight in shining armor, there to slay their oppressors and rule the earthly kingdom of Israel. But this is not Jesus’ method; instead, he starts making friends. That’s it. He goes around and meets people and forms relationships with them and then lets them write about him and tell his story later.

To me, this means that the proper reaction to the question “is the church’s primary calling to word and sacrament or mercy in the community?” is “well, what did Jesus do while he was here?” and the answer to that is “Jesus did both”. So I don’t think we can look at what Rick Warren is doing as flexing between two options, but simply exercising the other arm (pardon the work-out metaphor) or being more Christ-like in action.

“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”                -- Heb. 10:25 (KJV)

I looked up the verse Erik gave in Hebrews and initially, I agree that it appears to say “you must have an assembly of Christians formally”. Upon closer inspection, however, the word used in this verse that gets translated as “forsaking” is Egkataleipo (transliteration) in the Greek which is to say abandon, desert or to leave behind. I hardly think that Rick Warren is encouraging his church to abandon meeting formally all together. Furthermore, in this verse, the word translated as “exhorting” is Parakaleo (transliteration) in the Greek which means to summon, to admonish, to beseech,  to instruct, to teach, to console, to encourage and strengthen, to comfort. To me, this sounds like an interesting way to say “be in relationship with each other more and more as we see the big Day approaching”. It is framing the way Christians should act from a context of teaching, comforting, consoling and strengthening, but implies a sense of someone asking for this to be done. I believe in my core that the people being served on the day that Rick Warren cancels “church” will feel comforted, will be encouraged and strengthened and by this, they will learn what it means to be a Christian. I don’t think they will immediately think to the doctrine of what the church’s calling is, though they (unfortunately) may be shocked that a church is doing this; instead I think they will be attracted to Christ the same way that the marginalized were attracted to Him while he was on earth in human form.

I contend that it is, in fact, good for people to see that the church’s priorities include them. I don’t think that Rick Warren’s actions show that the church doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be doing, but that the bottom line is that Christ is all about people. Saturday would work for something like this also, but by doing it on a Sunday and canceling what people think is the entirety of what it means to be the church, Rick Warren is teaching (Heb. 10:25) his congregation and the people that they touch that there is more to Christianity than filling a pew and this is how to do that part also. Many don’t know how to practice acts of service, so what better way to show them, but to use time that they have already blocked off for God to do God’s work.

Summary

I want to say to Erik, that I apologize if my response seems offensive; please believe that there could be nothing farther from the truth. Part of the universal church’s beauty comes in her diversity of opinions.  I only wish to point out that the Great Commandment (Love God and then Love people) fits well within the Great Commission (preaching, teaching and making disciples). Teaching someone something doesn’t necessarily mean instructing; I learned most of what I know about cars by working on my own in the garage with my father-in-law. Making disciples, means making Disciples of Christ; to be a disciple of Christ means to be a pupil or adherent to what Christ was all about. What better way to be a pupil of Christ but to imitate him. Again, I think logically, it’s a far jump to say that this one event that Saddleback Church is having is going to sway people’s opinions on what the mission of the church is (hundreds of years of intentional debate hasn’t even accomplished this) and furthermore, I can’t see a single reason why we have to separate a traditional faith (that is, tradition oriented) from a practical faith (that is, one that is out there living what you say you believe).

As I said in the beginning of my response, Love over everything.

Pax,

The Dread

my reaction to "Love Wins"

So, I just got done reading Rob Bell's book "Love Wins". This is one that i had bought a while back and have really wanted to get to, so a couple days ago, i decided that i wasn't going to put it off any more..

Immediately after reading it, i felt inspired. It was kind of one of those "wow. that was a great...book?" The interesting thing is that after reading it, I didn't feel like I had learned a lot of doctrine or that i had been instructed. Instead, I felt like I had been challenged to stop and look again at how i actually act as a Christian.
In the book, Rob poses the question "are we going to believe our story about our lives or God's story about our lives?" I think this is the basic question when thinking about Christian living. it's not about the rules and how good or right about things i can be, but instead it is simply "will I live into the person that God says I am, or will i continue to go on being the best person that i can come up with?"
A challenging question to say the least, but so important when one makes the decission to be a disciple of Christ instead of a "Christian" or "small-town church practicioner" as one Pastor Lyman Bowling has said.
Bell is definately a pastor/preacher before he is a theologan. This is seen throughout the book in the form of his passion for the people. He doesn't write with the condescending tone of one who has it "more figured out" than everyone else and then is dutifully enlightening all of us. Instead, he longs to show people how God is, bottom line, Good and loving and because of that and the fact that he is God, Love wins in the end. Bell shoots to open peoples eyes to the misconcepts they may have held about God and the lie that Jesus saves us from an angry God. I love his words in the last chapter: "Love is what God is, love is why Jesus came, and love is why he continues to come, year after year to person after person." God is a pursuant of us which is why Jesus comes. To hold the distortion that God is the punisher and Jesus is the sympathetic one is just not going to work; because, its not the truth.
Immediately after this book came out, there was a lot of stir about what Rob Bell says about Hell. Francis Chan even went all the way out of his way so as to write a book called "erasing hell" as a reaction to Bell's book. I haven't been able to read all of it yet, but I mention this just to say how big a stir this caused. As you can imagine, then, i was anxious to read that particular chapter. When i got to it, however, I was a little let down in that i didn't find anything I didn't already believe to an extent. Bell definately does not claim a universalist stance; in fact, he affirms that Jesus is indeed the ONLY way, truth and life. I cannot really say too much about the details since he never outright says "here is my personal doctrine on hell". because that was not his intention as a pastor. Instead he adds this chapter in order to affirm that "yes, there is a result when you choose against God's will and God's truth about you. That result is exclusion from experiencing God for eternity.
I especially like his chapter about a real heaven in which it is not the fluffy clouds and white robes. I have recently said "Heaven should not be a goal for a Christian unless Heaven is strictly defined as eternal face-to-face experience with the Creator-Father". I think this falls well in line with what Bell is advocating. When we reduce salvation to a ticket in, we miss the point completely.

I could say much more about the book and all the things i liked about it, but I don't find much point. So, I want to leave you with this: Go get the book and read it. it's like sitting in on an amazing sermon. it convicted my heart to evaluate what i think of myself and if i truly live into what i claim i believe about God. Read the book and be challenged to remember that God is, at a base level, love and that in the end, Love Wins.

peace,
The Dread

Nicene Creed: beneficial or counter productive?

           The Nicene Creed as the declarative summation of what Christians believe is helpful but only in that definition. When one starts deciding to define a religion, it necessarily means excluding things that do not fit within that definition. The Creed was successful in affirming Christianity in many different theological topics, such as Christianity as a Trinitarian religion, by claiming that Jesus Christ was the “true God of true God” and then claiming to believe in the Holy Spirit. While this was good in giving the early church something to hold on to while culture pulled at them in different religious directions, it effectively shut out anyone that might have a different idea of what God is like such as those conceding to Arian beliefs. Arianism claims that Christ was a subordinate god to the true God who is uncreated and thus was created as the superior God’s tool to create. Furthermore, it holds that the Holy Spirit is another, even more subordinate god to Christ and the Father-God. This tier of god’s is definitely outside of the Nicene Creed; therefore, those who believed this easy-to-swallow version of what God(s) is/are like were in effect excommunicated from the greater Christian body. It is my opinion that this was useful in the sense of saying “we are our own religion with an exacting God-story that we believe is applicable to our lives and includes us”; this is what all religions essentially claim, so to the effect of better establishing Christianity, the Nicene Creed was beneficial. On the other hand, the exclusiveness of such a document is actually working against what Christ was doing and, indeed, commissioned all his followers to do; that is, love all and spread his message of divine love to the world. Jesus never said “make sure you’re more right than everyone else”, he simply lived into what he believed and taught those that were willing to learn what he is really like. Not that it is a bad thing to hold beliefs as a community; instead, I think it more important that we functionally live out the great commission of Christ and spread his love regardless of the detailed diversity of opinions of the nature of God which we can never fully know anyway.

            For Christians today, this means gracefully accepting that not everyone will have the same opinions and beliefs as us. But beyond that understanding, Christians must be ok with this a priori truth to the extent that they can still love and accept those with differing beliefs. I am reminded of an Aristotle quote: “it is the mark of a learned mind to entertain a thought without accepting it”. I would like to believe that most of humanity has evolved enough in thought processes to be able to consider other people’s beliefs without letting them affect our own until we have decided that it is a sound belief to hold. Honestly, I don’t think that any version of Christianity is 100% correct because we are all prone to fault. I do believe, however that being graceful in dealing with disagreement will be more progress forward in expanding the Kingdom of God than trying our best to make sure that we are more right than everyone else. At a very basic level, we’re all going to place all our chips on one theory or another, so I think it is our responsibility to make the best bet we can and inform those who will listen why we think it’s the best bet, but ultimately, let others cast their own lot.

 please feel free to comment.

Peace,

The Dread

Act Right

            Paul gives more direction on how to live here in Philippians 2:1-18. Recalling Christ’s attitude, he tells the church in Philippi to live as children of God and to hold firm to the word of life. This is the same instruction that we as the universal church of God need to hear on a daily basis; situation to situation.

            Paul begins chapter two with a series of questions in order to ask the church to do him a favor and be wholeheartedly in agreement with each other in love and working toward the same purpose. He asks them to be like Christ in personality by not seeking self glorification, but exhibiting submission to God even at the cost of one’s own life. He says that by submission to God the father, Christ was elevated to the highest place of honor in heaven and that in the same way, we are to submit in order to gain favor in God’s kingdom. Paul goes on to tell the church in Philippi how important it is that they follow his instructions in working hard to show a change in their lives by obeying God in their lives. He admonishes them to do everything with a good attitude so that Christians don’t gain a bad reputation among non-believers and then tells them to stick closely to Jesus so that when he returns, they can all share in the joy that is to be found at that time.

            This passage is important to Christians as a bare-bones version of how to act. We as followers of Christ are supposed to exhibit the same attitude of servant-hood that Christ demonstrated time and time again throughout his time here on earth. We are also called to be an example of that type of person to the world in how we act so that the world can see that we are different. All too often, Christians look exactly like the secular world in the way that we talk and act in public. Paul recognized this as a long-standing problem with humanity which is why he says that it is important to follow his instructions. In the present day, we can also use this as a reminder that everything we do in front of people is a representation of Christ to them. If we act just as quickly angered and self-gratifying as the rest of the world, we won’t be able to claim Christianity as life changing. If we don’t pour our lives out like an offering to God, we cannot say that we are any different and therefore are not children of God.

            When I read this, I’m personally convicted to examine my life and the image I emit in front of coworkers, family and on the internet via social networking. When people look at my life, do they see Jesus working in me or do they see another religion that is restricting and a cause for avoidance? I think that it is our responsibility and should be our longing to resemble Christ so that no one can criticize Christians as unclean, crooked or perverse. This is what God wants for us and this is how we find favor in his sight.

Peace,

The Dread

Instruction for them is instruction for us

 There is a lot of teaching here in 2 Corinthians 5:11-21 from Paul to the church in Corinth. Paul covers three main topics in these verses: a statement of why they are doing what they are doing, a point-of-view adjustment for the letter recipients and finally a note on what the church’s role is in this world.

            So, looking at the three sections in pieces, Paul starts this selection with his statement about what his true motives are. He says that it is their (the church and himself) responsibility to work hard and that God will see how sincere their hearts are in searching. He says that if they seem crazy, it’s only to glorify God and not to draw attention to their own actions. Paul then draws a parallel between the Christian life and the life and death of Jesus. He says that since Christ has died for the entire world, they believe that all Christian believers have died to their old lives and are re-defined as living for Christ. This moves into his second section in which he says that, as Christians, we have to look at our lives as new in nature and in purpose. Living with this perspective on life will keep us from evaluating things from a human perspective. He ends chapter five with a section that functions as a replacement identity for the church in Corinth. He basically says that God’s whole point in sending Jesus was to reconcile people to him; in the same way, Christ is sending us to continue the work he started in bringing God and people back together. He says “we are Christ’s ambassadors; God is making his appeal through us” (NLT v. 20).

            This passage was extremely important for the church in Corinth as they were dealing with all types of immorality and non-Christian traditions penetrating the church there; as people who were fairly new converts they were slowly losing their mission focus without a solid Christian leader living among them. This passage gave them a point of reference on how they should be assessing ideologies and traditions that were leaking into their church. This portion of Paul’s letter also gave them a sense of purpose and belonging in that he gives them the title of “Ambassadors for God”; they are the one’s pleading with people to come back to God through accepting Jesus and what he did to bridge the gap between man and God.

            This message is just as applicable in our lives as it was to the church in Corinth. We all too often as materialistic, western Christians forget that evangelism and calling people back to God is a central mission accepted by us when we accepted Christ and that in deciding to become disciples, we are also deciding to make disciples. It is all too easy in this age of communication and technology to forget that we are dead to our materialistic selves and our identity is now in Christ as the continuation of his message of love. Paul also gives a word about directing glory to God and not bragging about how spectacular our ministry is, but rather having a sincere heart for lost people. This charge for this ancient church is the same charge for our church.

            My reaction to this passage was that of a student listening to a teacher. Paul writes in such a direct way (this being a letter) that everything he says is instruction for my life. All we have to do is place his instruction in current day terms and settings which, strangely, is similar to the sinfulness of the church of Corinth. I know I can learn something from Paul and I think that any Christian can also grow by applying Paul’s instruction based on its validity and not on his reputation.

Peace,
The Dread