MODERATOR’S LETTER
TO BEAVER BUTLER PRESBYTERY
May 11, 2011
At its meeting last summer, the General Assembly proposed a change to the PC(USA)’s ordination standards stipulated in G-6.0106b of our constitution’s Form of Government. This proposal required approval by a majority of our denomination’s 173 presbyteries. Unlike previous proposals to amend this clause, the change has been approved as of May 10, with the 87th presbytery voting in favor of it. These new standards for ordination will take effect in July. While the change will affect other issues, the primary concern surrounding this debate has been the ordination of self-acknowledged, practicing, unrepentant homosexuals. This issue has deeply divided our denomination for decades, and the change will encourage some and will trouble others. It’s good for us to know exactly what the new policy is, and what the change will mean for us.
First, the previous clause stated:
“Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman (W-4.9001), or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament.”
and it will be replaced with the following clause:
“Standards for ordained service reflect the church’s desire to submit joyfully to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all aspects of life (G-1.0000). The governing body responsible for ordination and/or installation (G.14.0240; G-14.0450) shall examine each candidate’s calling, gifts, preparation, and suitability for the responsibilities of office. The examination shall include, but not be limited to, a determination of the candidate’s ability and commitment to fulfill all requirements as expressed in the constitutional questions for ordination and installation (W-4.4003). Governing bodies shall be guided by Scripture and the confessions in applying standards to individual candidates.”
The effect of this change is to do away with a denominationally uniform standard for ordination and installation, and to empower each ordaining body (sessions for elders and deacons, presbyteries for ministers) to evaluate each candidate and determine their suitability. Because each session and presbytery is likely to have its own particular perspective on this matter, we are likely to have a wide variety of standards in place. It is important to emphasize that no new standards for ordination are being imposed upon sessions and presbyteries. More specifically, if a session or presbytery believes that unrepentant homosexual conduct or sexual activity outside of marriage disqualifies a candidate for ordination, then that body will be free to act upon its conviction and refuse ordination for such persons, or installation for service if they have previously been ordained by another session or presbytery.
What does this change mean for Beaver-Butler Presbytery? Although this change is a major shift for the denomination, our Presbytery’s standards for ordination will remain the same. While each candidate for ordination is considered individually, our Presbytery has established policies related to this matter. In 2002 we adopted an Affirmation of Faith which states, in part:
“We affirm that anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of our alienation from God, neighbor, and self and that the church is called to lead people out of this alienation and into the responsible freedom of the new life in Christ. We believe that God has provided for sexual intimacy only within the marriage relationship between one man and one woman.”
In 2009 the Presbytery adopted an Open Theological Declaration which states, in part:
“We will continue to uphold biblical standards for ordination, particularly in areas of sexuality…. We will not recognize ordinations that are constitutionally or biblically unsustainable. We will closely examine each candidate seeking admission to our Presbytery. We will not ordain candidates whose behavior violates the clear meaning of G‐6.0106b of the Book of Order [the clause which will be removed].”
Practices in Beaver-Butler Presbytery have affirmed and confirmed these policies. Unless an unexpected and dramatic change occurs in the policies and practices of our Presbytery, we will continue to follow the old standards of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness,” in full compliance with the new constitutional criteria.
According to the new clause in the constitution, each session will conduct an examination of candidates for ordination as elders and deacons according to its understanding of Scriptural and confessional standards. Our stated clerk has ruled that the policy of our Presbytery applies to its churches’ sessions and to its minister members as well. Candidates for ordination and installation as elders and deacons in our churches must also comply with the “fidelity and chastity” criteria.
Please join me in prayer that this change in our constitution will not cause undue consternation or divisiveness in our fellowship and, more importantly, that we serve and glorify our Lord and Savior in all we believe, say, and do.
In Christ,
Rev. Peter C. de Vries, PhD
Moderator, Beaver-Butler Presbytery
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Interpreting the Bible
We Presbyterians believe that the Bible is the “unique and authoritative witness” to what God wants us to believe and to do. In other words, if you want to be faithful to God, the Bible is the first and most important place to turn. This conviction about the authority of Scripture is something that we share with most Christians. Unfortunately, this commitment isn’t enough to have us all agree with each other, even within the Presbyterian family. We all turn to Scripture, but frequently come up with many different perspectives from it. Acceptance of the authority of Scripture isn’t the conclusion; it’s the beginning of a conversation and adventure.
A number of years ago, the Presbyterian Church put together a summary of what the Book of Confessions (a collection of statements of our faith) has to say about interpreting the Bible. As you study the Bible and seek to hear God’s message for you through it, I hope these basic guidelines will be helpful.
a. Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture. The redeeming work of God through Christ is central to the entire Bible. Any teaching of the Bible on a matter of faith or life should be consistent with Jesus' own teachings and His embodiment of the will of God.
b. Focus on the plain text of the Scripture, referring to the grammatical and historic context of a passage, rather than to allegory or subjective fantasy.
c. Depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting and applying God's message. The Holy Spirit is living and active, so we can be open to the Spirit’s guiding presence only if we are ready to discover new and different insights for our time and place.
d. The rule of faith is the consensus of the church. Listening with respect to fellow believers from the past and in the present will enable us to interpret God's word faithfully for our time and place.
e. All interpretations should follow the rule of love, the two-fold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor. Our understanding of the Bible should promote our love for God and for people and groups of people within and outside the church.
f. Interpreting the Bible requires earnest study in order to recognize the divine message within the influence of the historical and cultural context of the text.
g. Seek to interpret a particular passage in the Bible in light of all the Bible. A proper understanding of one passage will be consistent with what the Bible as a whole teaches us.
Enjoy the adventure of learning what God has to teach you!
A number of years ago, the Presbyterian Church put together a summary of what the Book of Confessions (a collection of statements of our faith) has to say about interpreting the Bible. As you study the Bible and seek to hear God’s message for you through it, I hope these basic guidelines will be helpful.
a. Jesus Christ is the center of Scripture. The redeeming work of God through Christ is central to the entire Bible. Any teaching of the Bible on a matter of faith or life should be consistent with Jesus' own teachings and His embodiment of the will of God.
b. Focus on the plain text of the Scripture, referring to the grammatical and historic context of a passage, rather than to allegory or subjective fantasy.
c. Depend on the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting and applying God's message. The Holy Spirit is living and active, so we can be open to the Spirit’s guiding presence only if we are ready to discover new and different insights for our time and place.
d. The rule of faith is the consensus of the church. Listening with respect to fellow believers from the past and in the present will enable us to interpret God's word faithfully for our time and place.
e. All interpretations should follow the rule of love, the two-fold commandment to love God and to love our neighbor. Our understanding of the Bible should promote our love for God and for people and groups of people within and outside the church.
f. Interpreting the Bible requires earnest study in order to recognize the divine message within the influence of the historical and cultural context of the text.
g. Seek to interpret a particular passage in the Bible in light of all the Bible. A proper understanding of one passage will be consistent with what the Bible as a whole teaches us.
Enjoy the adventure of learning what God has to teach you!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Who Gets Into Heaven? (And What Happens to Those Who Don’t?)
I should say at the start that I’m not one to follow the latest trends and fads in the religious world. Most of them seem to me like a slick marketing strategy that encourages lightweight belief rather than deep discipleship. Not to say that there’s anything inherently wrong with WWJD, Prayer of Jabez, Purpose-Filled Life, Missional Church, and all the rest. It just isn’t my cup of tea. And so I have to admit that I don’t remember if I ever even heard of Rob Bell before this controversy about his new book has hit the fan. I haven’t read his book, and don’t plan to. But I can’t resist the temptation to chime in on the debate. You can click on the following link to see his promotional video for the book: http://vimeo.com/20272585. And you can follow this next link to read one of the prominent criticisms of it: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWinsReview.pdf.
The controversy, as I understand it, focuses upon two questions. First, who will get into heaven? And second, what happens to the people do don’t make it? Regardless of what Rob Bell and his detractors have to say, these are questions worth asking.
First, who will get into heaven? Or, to word it slightly differently, what does it take to get into heaven? For now, I won’t get into what exactly heaven is. Let’s just agree that it’s a blessed state of being in presence of God after we die and/or after the end of the world as we know it. And let’s agree that “getting into heaven” is, for Christians, essentially the same thing as “being saved.” The Biblical witness is pretty clear: our access to heaven (or, the way for us to be saved) is only through Jesus Christ. About ten years ago I helped to draft a statement for our Presbytery which addressed this topic as follows:
We believe in Jesus Christ, “who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven (Nicene Creed),” and “is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).” We believe Jesus “is the only Savior of the world (Second Helvetic Confession 5.077; see Romans 5:12-21 and Hebrews 9:15-28),” and that His life, death, and resurrection are the sole means of intimacy with God (see John 10:7-18). Our salvation is completely dependent upon the work of God’s free grace by which God credits Christ’s righteousness to those who trust in Him. We believe that salvation is the will of the Father for us (1 Timothy 2:3-6), and that the Holy Spirit opens us to receive this salvation that is offered through Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9-11). Consequently, we acknowledge that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12, see also Heidelberg Catechism 4.029).”
Obviously, since I helped to write this, I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I think it addresses the issue well.
But the current issue goes a bit deeper than this. Yes: Jesus is the one who makes it possible for us to get into heaven (or, to be saved). He is the means; but what do we have to do to avail ourselves of it? How do we get the benefit from the work that Christ has done? This, I think, gets to the issue that Rob Bell raises. How widely does God share the saving work of Christ? The Bible clearly tells us that if we believe in Jesus, we will be saved (John 3:16, Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 2:8-9, for example). So, if you want to be sure to get into heaven, that’s what you have to do (and nothing else, by the way). But the question is still open: is it possible for people who have not put their trust in Jesus to be able to get into heaven? According to 1 Timothy 2:3-4, “God … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” So, since he’s God, can’t he accomplish that? Can’t he, from his own free loving will, make the saving work of Christ efficacious for all people, regardless of whatever faith in Christ they may or may not have? Since I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book, I’m not going to say that this is his position. But there are Christians who have made this kind of an argument.
To explain my position, let me present two hypothetical people. Person #1 is someone who has never heard the message of Christ’s salvation in a meaningful way. But in her own way, as best as she is able with the knowledge of God that is available to her, she does her best to honor and follow God, or at least her perception of God. In my book, Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work touches her life. I do not believe that God holds us accountable for knowledge that is impossible for us to have. My formula is this: “We are to commit as much of our lives as we are aware of to as much of God as we are aware of, and we are to seek to learn more about ourselves and about God, so that we can offer more of ourselves to God.” After all, who among us is arrogant enough to think that we know absolutely everything about God? Every human being is upon a relative spectrum of knowledge about God. And, for that matter, we don’t even know ourselves all that well. Offer as much of yourself as you are able to the God that you know about, and seek to know God better and better. I believe that someone like Person #1 will be in heaven, because Christ’s work covers her.
Person #2 is different. He is someone who has heard about Christ’s work, but has rejected it. Because I’m describing a hypothetical person, let’s make him really easy to define. He is someone who has had regular exposure to a reasonable and understandable explanation of who Christ is and what Christ has done, and he has been given a clear opportunity to place his trust in Christ. But he refused to do so. He intentionally rejected the offer of salvation (or getting into heaven) from Christ. I believe that this is someone who does not benefit from Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work, and therefore will not be saved and go to heaven.
Perhaps you’ve already noticed: the distinction between Person #1 and Person #2 isn’t always very clear. It’s not always obvious if someone has really ever heard the gospel, or if they’ve accepted or rejected whatever amount of knowledge of God was available to them. To use the example that Rob Bell mentioned in his promotional video, did Gandhi ever really hear the gospel? What sort of trust or relationship did he have with Jesus? Did he offer as much of his life as he was able to as much of God as he knew about? I can’t answer that question, and neither can anyone else. I can’t answer it about Gandhi, or about anyone else. To use an opposite example, what about Hitler? Just before he killed himself in his bunker, did he offer his life to Christ, or to the best understanding of God that he had? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. So none of us can ever presume to judge that someone else is Person #1 or Person #2.
This now leads to the second question that the Rob Bell controversy raises: what happens to the people who aren’t saved, or go to heaven? This question assumes that there are at least a few “Person #2”s in the world. What happens to them when they die, or when the world comes to an end? The conventional, traditional Christian answer is that they go to hell: a place or condition of eternal torment. Rob Bell is certainly not the first person to question this concept: that a loving God would allow people to be in agony for all of eternity, even if they intentionally and explicitly rejected Him. I like the way that my dissertation advisor framed the issue: Is it just for a person who has committed a finite offense to receive an infinite punishment? Remember, infinite isn’t just “a really long time;” it’s forever. After a million years of torment, you still have an infinity of torment to face. After all, any offense that we commit is finite, because we are not infinitely powerful and because our actions are limited to the time period of our lives. I’m going to agree with Tony that we can’t sidestep this issue by waffling on the term “justice,” by saying that God’s sense of justice is different from ours. If that would be the case, then it would be meaningless for us ever to talk about a “just” God. However, I take issue with Tony’s sense that our offenses are finite, because they are offenses against an infinite God. The “infinite-ness” of the offenses of Person #2 does not depend upon the actions themselves, but upon the One against whom they have been committed. Simple example: if I punch my friend, the offense is not as great as if I punch the President of the United States. The first offense might cost me a friendship, but the second offense will land me in jail for a long time, with a nasty record against me when I get out. Take that distinction and multiply it by infinity, and you get the sense of what it means to offend against God.
The conclusion I reach from all this is that it’s vitally, infinitely important to do all we can to make sure that there are no “Person #2”s in the world. And because we’re not exactly sure where the line between Person #1 and Person #2 is, we ought do what we can to help even the “borderline” cases.
The controversy, as I understand it, focuses upon two questions. First, who will get into heaven? And second, what happens to the people do don’t make it? Regardless of what Rob Bell and his detractors have to say, these are questions worth asking.
First, who will get into heaven? Or, to word it slightly differently, what does it take to get into heaven? For now, I won’t get into what exactly heaven is. Let’s just agree that it’s a blessed state of being in presence of God after we die and/or after the end of the world as we know it. And let’s agree that “getting into heaven” is, for Christians, essentially the same thing as “being saved.” The Biblical witness is pretty clear: our access to heaven (or, the way for us to be saved) is only through Jesus Christ. About ten years ago I helped to draft a statement for our Presbytery which addressed this topic as follows:
We believe in Jesus Christ, “who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven (Nicene Creed),” and “is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6).” We believe Jesus “is the only Savior of the world (Second Helvetic Confession 5.077; see Romans 5:12-21 and Hebrews 9:15-28),” and that His life, death, and resurrection are the sole means of intimacy with God (see John 10:7-18). Our salvation is completely dependent upon the work of God’s free grace by which God credits Christ’s righteousness to those who trust in Him. We believe that salvation is the will of the Father for us (1 Timothy 2:3-6), and that the Holy Spirit opens us to receive this salvation that is offered through Jesus Christ (Romans 8:9-11). Consequently, we acknowledge that “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12, see also Heidelberg Catechism 4.029).”
Obviously, since I helped to write this, I agree with it wholeheartedly, and I think it addresses the issue well.
But the current issue goes a bit deeper than this. Yes: Jesus is the one who makes it possible for us to get into heaven (or, to be saved). He is the means; but what do we have to do to avail ourselves of it? How do we get the benefit from the work that Christ has done? This, I think, gets to the issue that Rob Bell raises. How widely does God share the saving work of Christ? The Bible clearly tells us that if we believe in Jesus, we will be saved (John 3:16, Acts 2:38-39, Ephesians 2:8-9, for example). So, if you want to be sure to get into heaven, that’s what you have to do (and nothing else, by the way). But the question is still open: is it possible for people who have not put their trust in Jesus to be able to get into heaven? According to 1 Timothy 2:3-4, “God … wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” So, since he’s God, can’t he accomplish that? Can’t he, from his own free loving will, make the saving work of Christ efficacious for all people, regardless of whatever faith in Christ they may or may not have? Since I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book, I’m not going to say that this is his position. But there are Christians who have made this kind of an argument.
To explain my position, let me present two hypothetical people. Person #1 is someone who has never heard the message of Christ’s salvation in a meaningful way. But in her own way, as best as she is able with the knowledge of God that is available to her, she does her best to honor and follow God, or at least her perception of God. In my book, Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work touches her life. I do not believe that God holds us accountable for knowledge that is impossible for us to have. My formula is this: “We are to commit as much of our lives as we are aware of to as much of God as we are aware of, and we are to seek to learn more about ourselves and about God, so that we can offer more of ourselves to God.” After all, who among us is arrogant enough to think that we know absolutely everything about God? Every human being is upon a relative spectrum of knowledge about God. And, for that matter, we don’t even know ourselves all that well. Offer as much of yourself as you are able to the God that you know about, and seek to know God better and better. I believe that someone like Person #1 will be in heaven, because Christ’s work covers her.
Person #2 is different. He is someone who has heard about Christ’s work, but has rejected it. Because I’m describing a hypothetical person, let’s make him really easy to define. He is someone who has had regular exposure to a reasonable and understandable explanation of who Christ is and what Christ has done, and he has been given a clear opportunity to place his trust in Christ. But he refused to do so. He intentionally rejected the offer of salvation (or getting into heaven) from Christ. I believe that this is someone who does not benefit from Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work, and therefore will not be saved and go to heaven.
Perhaps you’ve already noticed: the distinction between Person #1 and Person #2 isn’t always very clear. It’s not always obvious if someone has really ever heard the gospel, or if they’ve accepted or rejected whatever amount of knowledge of God was available to them. To use the example that Rob Bell mentioned in his promotional video, did Gandhi ever really hear the gospel? What sort of trust or relationship did he have with Jesus? Did he offer as much of his life as he was able to as much of God as he knew about? I can’t answer that question, and neither can anyone else. I can’t answer it about Gandhi, or about anyone else. To use an opposite example, what about Hitler? Just before he killed himself in his bunker, did he offer his life to Christ, or to the best understanding of God that he had? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. So none of us can ever presume to judge that someone else is Person #1 or Person #2.
This now leads to the second question that the Rob Bell controversy raises: what happens to the people who aren’t saved, or go to heaven? This question assumes that there are at least a few “Person #2”s in the world. What happens to them when they die, or when the world comes to an end? The conventional, traditional Christian answer is that they go to hell: a place or condition of eternal torment. Rob Bell is certainly not the first person to question this concept: that a loving God would allow people to be in agony for all of eternity, even if they intentionally and explicitly rejected Him. I like the way that my dissertation advisor framed the issue: Is it just for a person who has committed a finite offense to receive an infinite punishment? Remember, infinite isn’t just “a really long time;” it’s forever. After a million years of torment, you still have an infinity of torment to face. After all, any offense that we commit is finite, because we are not infinitely powerful and because our actions are limited to the time period of our lives. I’m going to agree with Tony that we can’t sidestep this issue by waffling on the term “justice,” by saying that God’s sense of justice is different from ours. If that would be the case, then it would be meaningless for us ever to talk about a “just” God. However, I take issue with Tony’s sense that our offenses are finite, because they are offenses against an infinite God. The “infinite-ness” of the offenses of Person #2 does not depend upon the actions themselves, but upon the One against whom they have been committed. Simple example: if I punch my friend, the offense is not as great as if I punch the President of the United States. The first offense might cost me a friendship, but the second offense will land me in jail for a long time, with a nasty record against me when I get out. Take that distinction and multiply it by infinity, and you get the sense of what it means to offend against God.
The conclusion I reach from all this is that it’s vitally, infinitely important to do all we can to make sure that there are no “Person #2”s in the world. And because we’re not exactly sure where the line between Person #1 and Person #2 is, we ought do what we can to help even the “borderline” cases.
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Word of God
You’ll frequently hear people talk about “the Word of God.” What comes to mind when you hear that phrase: the Bible? Or something else? It’s a hugely important concept for us Christians, so it’s good to take a moment to ensure that we understand it well.
A foundation for our Christian faith is the conviction that God reveals himself to us. (This isn’t unique to Christians, by the way. For example, Jews believe God revealed himself through the Torah, and Muslims believe that God revealed himself through a series of revelations to Mohammed.) Because God is so completely different from us (Isaiah 55:5), the only way that we can know anything at all about him is if he shows himself to us. That’s what “the Word of God” is all about: God speaking to us so that we can know him and know about him.
There are at least three ways to understand the concept “the Word of God,” and each flows from the one before it.
The first and most important is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-2, for example): the Living Word of God. God has revealed himself to us most fully by becoming one of us through the person of Jesus. It’s the only aspect of this concept that deserves to be capitalized.
The second is the Bible: the written word of God. The Bible is the word of God because it testifies to Christ, the Word of God. We risk turning the Bible into an idol if we believe that it is, by its own merit, God’s perfect revelation to us. It reveals God to us only because of its witness to Christ.
The third is the spoken word of God (Acts 4:31), for example. Whether it is a sermon in the church or a conversation between two people, God is revealed through our words about him. When the phrase “the word of God” is used in the New Testament, it most frequently refers to the message that is preached and believed by people. But, just as the Bible is the word of God only as it testifies to Christ, our words become the word of God only as they also testify to him. And our words can witness to Christ most fully as they are grounded in the Bible, the written word of God. That, for example, is why a sermon is only a sermon if it is based upon Scripture.
It’s good to keep in mind that the word of God, in whatever form we encounter it, is only the word of God (lower case) because it directs our attention to Jesus Christ, the Word of God (upper case). He is the one who reveals God to us in a way that no one and nothing else ever could.
Peter
A foundation for our Christian faith is the conviction that God reveals himself to us. (This isn’t unique to Christians, by the way. For example, Jews believe God revealed himself through the Torah, and Muslims believe that God revealed himself through a series of revelations to Mohammed.) Because God is so completely different from us (Isaiah 55:5), the only way that we can know anything at all about him is if he shows himself to us. That’s what “the Word of God” is all about: God speaking to us so that we can know him and know about him.
There are at least three ways to understand the concept “the Word of God,” and each flows from the one before it.
The first and most important is Jesus Christ (John 1:1-2, for example): the Living Word of God. God has revealed himself to us most fully by becoming one of us through the person of Jesus. It’s the only aspect of this concept that deserves to be capitalized.
The second is the Bible: the written word of God. The Bible is the word of God because it testifies to Christ, the Word of God. We risk turning the Bible into an idol if we believe that it is, by its own merit, God’s perfect revelation to us. It reveals God to us only because of its witness to Christ.
The third is the spoken word of God (Acts 4:31), for example. Whether it is a sermon in the church or a conversation between two people, God is revealed through our words about him. When the phrase “the word of God” is used in the New Testament, it most frequently refers to the message that is preached and believed by people. But, just as the Bible is the word of God only as it testifies to Christ, our words become the word of God only as they also testify to him. And our words can witness to Christ most fully as they are grounded in the Bible, the written word of God. That, for example, is why a sermon is only a sermon if it is based upon Scripture.
It’s good to keep in mind that the word of God, in whatever form we encounter it, is only the word of God (lower case) because it directs our attention to Jesus Christ, the Word of God (upper case). He is the one who reveals God to us in a way that no one and nothing else ever could.
Peter
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Open vs. Closed Society: An Ecclesial Consideration
This reflection begins from a very problematic foundation: the summary of a work that I didn’t actually read – Karl Popper’s The Open Society. But I will sin boldly and jump from this shaky platform. Maybe someday I’ll read Popper himself.
While denying historical determinism, Popper sees a sociological progression from closed to open societies. Closed societies are marked by the imposition of conformity upon a society by an elite that forbids questioning or dissent. Such closed societies are marked by “tribalism”, or the rigid identification of groups according to national, racial, religious and ideological boundaries. Open societies, in contrast, allow for and encourage the free debate of ideas by everyone who accepts broad and simple societal parameters. Citizens of an open society possess not only greater freedoms but also more personal responsibilities than their closed society counterparts. Open societies tend to be more flexible and adaptable.
But there is no inevitable march from closed to open societies. The transition from a closed to an open society can be difficult, even traumatic. Consider, for example, the current upheaval in Libya. And open societies may revert to becoming closed societies, particularly during times of stress. Consider, as an incomplete and simple example, the reaction to 9/11 in the US; personal liberties were curtailed and dissent was vilified.
This tendency to return to closed societies exists because the individual and sociological traits remain which created them in the first place. New predilections and sensitivities may emerge which engender open societies, but the old remain. A helpful analogy comes from the pop psychology description of the human brain as a superior cerebral cortex overlying a primitive reptilian brain. In a crisis, the urges of the primitive brain take over, and we act out of anger, fear, and passion, rather than reason and logic. Similarly, societies under stress allow the drives which promote unquestioning conformity and group identification to dominate over the flexibility and freedom of an open society.
What follows is a reflection of how these insights may provide a helpful perspective on Church governance and discourse. My goal is not to vilify certain church traditions although regrettably this may at times appear to be the case. Rather, my purpose is to determine (1) if an open society model is preferable to that of a closed society for the Church, (2) what factors influence the Church’s tendencies toward an open or a closed society, and (3) what, if anything, can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model.
Using this roadmap, the first task is to determine if, for the Church, a closed or an open society model is the most faithful response to the work of God through Christ in the world. As 2 Corinthians 5 explains, and as the Presbyterian Confession of 1967 elucidates in our contemporary context, Christ’s work is reconciliation: reconciling humanity to God, and reconciling people to each other. This seems to validate the goal of an open society; closed societies thrive in the competition and conflict between rival groups, or “tribes.” The reconciling work of Christ strives to eliminate the “us/them” dichotomy of groups with prescribed boundaries, enforced by expectations of conformity.
On the other hand, the Christian community is defined by its acknowledgement of the lordship of Christ. This critical feature appears to conform to the closed society model: the expectation of unquestioning conformity to the authority of the elite (i.e. Christ). Granted, there is a strong tradition in the Christian faith of complaining to and even of accusing God. But disavowal of Christ’s lordship, by definition, disqualifies one as a member of the Christian society. Conformity to the authority of the elite (Christ) is demanded, and violation is punished.
The proposal that the Christian community approximates a closed rather than an open society can be refuted along three lines First, while Christ’s unquestioned authority is affirmed, this does not necessarily lead to the sort of hierarchy that closed societies share. To name Christ as an “elite” is very different from doing so for a tribal chieftain or the Politburo. While some Christian groups consider the authority of their leaders to derive from Christ’s authority, this is not necessarily the case. In any event, the admonition that “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:44) precludes any sense that Church leaders wield authority in the way that leaders of closed societies do.
Second, it is disingenuous to argue that acceptance of the lordship of Christ is a demand of unquestioning conformity akin to that of closed societies. Popper explains that open societies also expect compliance with broad principles (such as the Bill of Rights in the US), which are less specific and encompassing as those in closed societies. The absence of any points of agreement would prevent a collection of people from being a society at all.
Third, open societies nurture and value flexibility, whereas closed societies require “one size fits all” conformity. Response to Christ’s lordship is nothing if it is not diverse and flexible. There is no single way, or set of ways, to live faithfully to that call. Consider Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, and Ephesians 4:7-13 as expositions of this point. Like Popper’s open society, Christian community encourages a wide range of activities and initiatives in order to respond faithfully to Christ’s lordship. For these reasons, it seems clear that the Church’s mission is more to be an open society than a closed one.
The second task of this reflection is to consider the factors that would influence the Church to be a closed or an open society. I will assume that its motivations to be an open society are self-evident, given the mission of the Christ described in the first part of this reflection. If the Church is to be an open society, what leads it toward being closed? The factors are several. Bear in mind Popper’s explanation that the motives which lead to the development of a closed society continue to exist in an open one. In situations of stress or conflict, these closed-society tendencies emerge and dominate, just as the “reptilian brain” takes over when a person is in crisis. In the same way, the Church’s tendencies toward a closed society and, I argue, away from a more faithful response to Christ’s lordship are more pronounced when the Church is in crisis or under stress. Parenthetically, let me note that this is not inevitably the case. Often, through the amazing work of the Spirit, the Church acts with the greatest faithfulness and courage precisely when it is in the greatest peril. I am speaking now of the times when this is not the case: when circumstances may lead the Church toward the traits of a closed society. I describe three such traits.
The first is tribalism. Despite Christ’s prayers that his followers may all be one (John 17:20-23), Christians frequently seek to identify themselves and associate as subgroups. Sometimes these sub-groupings are formalized, such as denominations. But these groups also, and perhaps more problematically, coalesce around particular beliefs, practices, and priorities. It is the danger that CS Lewis warned of in The Screwtape Letters: “Christianity And.” Once you no longer consider identity as a Christian to be enough, you qualify it as a particular type of Christian. You may label it “evangelical,” “progressive,” “orthodox,” “Bible-believing,” and so on. We seek to create our own tribe within the Church. The “reptilian” closed-society tendencies within us are unwilling to accept the lack of boundaries to define the group, and our own identity. In order to affirm ourselves and validate our own position, we create a division so that we can identify ourselves in opposition to “them.”
Second, the Church tends toward a closed society because of the inherent sinfulness of its leaders. Any individual, when given enough authority and enough time to exercise it, will inevitably begin to abuse it in order to advance his or her own position. And they frequently do so with the encouragement and blessing of the people under their authority. This is as true for leaders in the Church as it is anywhere else. Indeed, it is even more likely in the Church because the Church’s true Leader, Jesus Christ, is not as apparent and visible in his leadership role as other more conventional leaders may be. This is the temptation spoken of by the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. It is difficult for people to accept the ambiguity that comes from the freedom Christ offers. So they are willing to accept the restrictive, even oppressive, leaders of other humans in order to feel more secure.
Third, the Church may tend toward the characteristics of a closed society in order experience greater clarity of belief and purpose. The diversity and flexibility of response of Christ’s lordship can be unnerving: we want specifics. This desire for clarity and specificity can be termed “fundamentalism,” but a word of explanation is in order to avoid confusion. I do not refer to fundamentalism as a particular set of beliefs, such as fundamentalist Christianity. I refer not to any particular set of beliefs but to the establishment explicitly or implicitly, of any clear set of beliefs. “Political correctness,” in this sense, is just as fundamentalist as rigid evangelicalism. The “reptilian” brain wants certainty, and certainty requires clear rules. It wants to know what is right and what is wrong. Thoughtful reflection is much more difficult than following a code of belief and conduct.
The third and final task of this reflection is determine what can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model, which has been demonstrated by the first task to be an open society. One way for this to be done is to counter the three tendencies toward a closed society, which have just been explicated: tribalism, authoritarian leadership, and fundamentalism. Each of these can be neutralized, at least in part, by a renewed focus upon the lordship of Christ, the Living Word, and to the written word which bears witness to him.
The first of three tendencies toward a closed society, tribalism, can be diminished by a greater awareness of the universality of Christ’s kingdom. As Revelation 7:9 describes, his kingdom includes people “from every nation, tribe, people, and language.” But, even with this promise, we may still be tempted to draw distinctions and form tribes within the universal Church. We find a corrective for this in Ephesians 2:11-22 (among other places), where Paul addresses the first tribalist division in the Church: between Jews and Gentiles. Christ’s mission is to bring peace by destroying “the dividing wall of hostility,” in order to reconcile people not only to God but to each other. By removing these human barriers, Christ does not take away what makes us distinctive: Paul’s readers were still Jews and Gentiles. But these identifying features are no longer criteria for group identity, inclusion and exclusion.
Second, hierarchical authority no longer leads to a closed society when Church leaders heed the example and instruction of Christ. Authority does not exist in Christian communities for the purposes of imposing the leaders’ will on the people, or to consolidate and wield power. Leadership in the Church is servant leadership, as Jesus’ words of correction to James and John emphasize (Mark 10:35-45). Christ’s authority is based upon his emptying of himself (Philippians 2:5-11), not the exploitation of others for his own benefit (Ezekiel 34:1-16). Church leaders must constantly repent from the ways in which universal human impulses for self-aggrandizement lead them away from the example of Christ’s leadership.
Third, the witness of Scripture can help us to withstand the appeal of simplistic certainty, which can lead to a closed society. The very fact that the Bible is not an encyclopedia that delineates proper belief and practice demonstrates this point. It defies attempts to convert it into a simple answer guide. The juxtaposition of Proverbs 26:4-5 makes this point clear; two sayings exist side-by-side with contradictory instructions about how to deal with a fool. This does not indicate that Scripture contradicts itself; it compels the believer to seek God’s guidance at deeper and more complex levels. In the face of the discomfort that this ambiguity causes, we are tempted to manufacture our own code of ethics and belief, or to subscribe to those created by others. We can resist this temptation as we recall Christ’s promise in John 14:25-26: the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, instructs and guides us. Like the light that illuminates the footpath but not the entire landscape (Psalm 119:105), this guidance requires a constant dependence on God, rather than providing an overall perspective which enables us to be our own guides.
In summary, this reflection demonstrates that the Church exists more faithfully as an open society instead a closed society, and that the Bible’s witness to Christ helps us to avoid the allure of tribalism, authoritarianism, and fundamentalism.
While denying historical determinism, Popper sees a sociological progression from closed to open societies. Closed societies are marked by the imposition of conformity upon a society by an elite that forbids questioning or dissent. Such closed societies are marked by “tribalism”, or the rigid identification of groups according to national, racial, religious and ideological boundaries. Open societies, in contrast, allow for and encourage the free debate of ideas by everyone who accepts broad and simple societal parameters. Citizens of an open society possess not only greater freedoms but also more personal responsibilities than their closed society counterparts. Open societies tend to be more flexible and adaptable.
But there is no inevitable march from closed to open societies. The transition from a closed to an open society can be difficult, even traumatic. Consider, for example, the current upheaval in Libya. And open societies may revert to becoming closed societies, particularly during times of stress. Consider, as an incomplete and simple example, the reaction to 9/11 in the US; personal liberties were curtailed and dissent was vilified.
This tendency to return to closed societies exists because the individual and sociological traits remain which created them in the first place. New predilections and sensitivities may emerge which engender open societies, but the old remain. A helpful analogy comes from the pop psychology description of the human brain as a superior cerebral cortex overlying a primitive reptilian brain. In a crisis, the urges of the primitive brain take over, and we act out of anger, fear, and passion, rather than reason and logic. Similarly, societies under stress allow the drives which promote unquestioning conformity and group identification to dominate over the flexibility and freedom of an open society.
What follows is a reflection of how these insights may provide a helpful perspective on Church governance and discourse. My goal is not to vilify certain church traditions although regrettably this may at times appear to be the case. Rather, my purpose is to determine (1) if an open society model is preferable to that of a closed society for the Church, (2) what factors influence the Church’s tendencies toward an open or a closed society, and (3) what, if anything, can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model.
Using this roadmap, the first task is to determine if, for the Church, a closed or an open society model is the most faithful response to the work of God through Christ in the world. As 2 Corinthians 5 explains, and as the Presbyterian Confession of 1967 elucidates in our contemporary context, Christ’s work is reconciliation: reconciling humanity to God, and reconciling people to each other. This seems to validate the goal of an open society; closed societies thrive in the competition and conflict between rival groups, or “tribes.” The reconciling work of Christ strives to eliminate the “us/them” dichotomy of groups with prescribed boundaries, enforced by expectations of conformity.
On the other hand, the Christian community is defined by its acknowledgement of the lordship of Christ. This critical feature appears to conform to the closed society model: the expectation of unquestioning conformity to the authority of the elite (i.e. Christ). Granted, there is a strong tradition in the Christian faith of complaining to and even of accusing God. But disavowal of Christ’s lordship, by definition, disqualifies one as a member of the Christian society. Conformity to the authority of the elite (Christ) is demanded, and violation is punished.
The proposal that the Christian community approximates a closed rather than an open society can be refuted along three lines First, while Christ’s unquestioned authority is affirmed, this does not necessarily lead to the sort of hierarchy that closed societies share. To name Christ as an “elite” is very different from doing so for a tribal chieftain or the Politburo. While some Christian groups consider the authority of their leaders to derive from Christ’s authority, this is not necessarily the case. In any event, the admonition that “whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (Mark 10:44) precludes any sense that Church leaders wield authority in the way that leaders of closed societies do.
Second, it is disingenuous to argue that acceptance of the lordship of Christ is a demand of unquestioning conformity akin to that of closed societies. Popper explains that open societies also expect compliance with broad principles (such as the Bill of Rights in the US), which are less specific and encompassing as those in closed societies. The absence of any points of agreement would prevent a collection of people from being a society at all.
Third, open societies nurture and value flexibility, whereas closed societies require “one size fits all” conformity. Response to Christ’s lordship is nothing if it is not diverse and flexible. There is no single way, or set of ways, to live faithfully to that call. Consider Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, and Ephesians 4:7-13 as expositions of this point. Like Popper’s open society, Christian community encourages a wide range of activities and initiatives in order to respond faithfully to Christ’s lordship. For these reasons, it seems clear that the Church’s mission is more to be an open society than a closed one.
The second task of this reflection is to consider the factors that would influence the Church to be a closed or an open society. I will assume that its motivations to be an open society are self-evident, given the mission of the Christ described in the first part of this reflection. If the Church is to be an open society, what leads it toward being closed? The factors are several. Bear in mind Popper’s explanation that the motives which lead to the development of a closed society continue to exist in an open one. In situations of stress or conflict, these closed-society tendencies emerge and dominate, just as the “reptilian brain” takes over when a person is in crisis. In the same way, the Church’s tendencies toward a closed society and, I argue, away from a more faithful response to Christ’s lordship are more pronounced when the Church is in crisis or under stress. Parenthetically, let me note that this is not inevitably the case. Often, through the amazing work of the Spirit, the Church acts with the greatest faithfulness and courage precisely when it is in the greatest peril. I am speaking now of the times when this is not the case: when circumstances may lead the Church toward the traits of a closed society. I describe three such traits.
The first is tribalism. Despite Christ’s prayers that his followers may all be one (John 17:20-23), Christians frequently seek to identify themselves and associate as subgroups. Sometimes these sub-groupings are formalized, such as denominations. But these groups also, and perhaps more problematically, coalesce around particular beliefs, practices, and priorities. It is the danger that CS Lewis warned of in The Screwtape Letters: “Christianity And.” Once you no longer consider identity as a Christian to be enough, you qualify it as a particular type of Christian. You may label it “evangelical,” “progressive,” “orthodox,” “Bible-believing,” and so on. We seek to create our own tribe within the Church. The “reptilian” closed-society tendencies within us are unwilling to accept the lack of boundaries to define the group, and our own identity. In order to affirm ourselves and validate our own position, we create a division so that we can identify ourselves in opposition to “them.”
Second, the Church tends toward a closed society because of the inherent sinfulness of its leaders. Any individual, when given enough authority and enough time to exercise it, will inevitably begin to abuse it in order to advance his or her own position. And they frequently do so with the encouragement and blessing of the people under their authority. This is as true for leaders in the Church as it is anywhere else. Indeed, it is even more likely in the Church because the Church’s true Leader, Jesus Christ, is not as apparent and visible in his leadership role as other more conventional leaders may be. This is the temptation spoken of by the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. It is difficult for people to accept the ambiguity that comes from the freedom Christ offers. So they are willing to accept the restrictive, even oppressive, leaders of other humans in order to feel more secure.
Third, the Church may tend toward the characteristics of a closed society in order experience greater clarity of belief and purpose. The diversity and flexibility of response of Christ’s lordship can be unnerving: we want specifics. This desire for clarity and specificity can be termed “fundamentalism,” but a word of explanation is in order to avoid confusion. I do not refer to fundamentalism as a particular set of beliefs, such as fundamentalist Christianity. I refer not to any particular set of beliefs but to the establishment explicitly or implicitly, of any clear set of beliefs. “Political correctness,” in this sense, is just as fundamentalist as rigid evangelicalism. The “reptilian” brain wants certainty, and certainty requires clear rules. It wants to know what is right and what is wrong. Thoughtful reflection is much more difficult than following a code of belief and conduct.
The third and final task of this reflection is determine what can be done to encourage the development of the preferable model, which has been demonstrated by the first task to be an open society. One way for this to be done is to counter the three tendencies toward a closed society, which have just been explicated: tribalism, authoritarian leadership, and fundamentalism. Each of these can be neutralized, at least in part, by a renewed focus upon the lordship of Christ, the Living Word, and to the written word which bears witness to him.
The first of three tendencies toward a closed society, tribalism, can be diminished by a greater awareness of the universality of Christ’s kingdom. As Revelation 7:9 describes, his kingdom includes people “from every nation, tribe, people, and language.” But, even with this promise, we may still be tempted to draw distinctions and form tribes within the universal Church. We find a corrective for this in Ephesians 2:11-22 (among other places), where Paul addresses the first tribalist division in the Church: between Jews and Gentiles. Christ’s mission is to bring peace by destroying “the dividing wall of hostility,” in order to reconcile people not only to God but to each other. By removing these human barriers, Christ does not take away what makes us distinctive: Paul’s readers were still Jews and Gentiles. But these identifying features are no longer criteria for group identity, inclusion and exclusion.
Second, hierarchical authority no longer leads to a closed society when Church leaders heed the example and instruction of Christ. Authority does not exist in Christian communities for the purposes of imposing the leaders’ will on the people, or to consolidate and wield power. Leadership in the Church is servant leadership, as Jesus’ words of correction to James and John emphasize (Mark 10:35-45). Christ’s authority is based upon his emptying of himself (Philippians 2:5-11), not the exploitation of others for his own benefit (Ezekiel 34:1-16). Church leaders must constantly repent from the ways in which universal human impulses for self-aggrandizement lead them away from the example of Christ’s leadership.
Third, the witness of Scripture can help us to withstand the appeal of simplistic certainty, which can lead to a closed society. The very fact that the Bible is not an encyclopedia that delineates proper belief and practice demonstrates this point. It defies attempts to convert it into a simple answer guide. The juxtaposition of Proverbs 26:4-5 makes this point clear; two sayings exist side-by-side with contradictory instructions about how to deal with a fool. This does not indicate that Scripture contradicts itself; it compels the believer to seek God’s guidance at deeper and more complex levels. In the face of the discomfort that this ambiguity causes, we are tempted to manufacture our own code of ethics and belief, or to subscribe to those created by others. We can resist this temptation as we recall Christ’s promise in John 14:25-26: the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, instructs and guides us. Like the light that illuminates the footpath but not the entire landscape (Psalm 119:105), this guidance requires a constant dependence on God, rather than providing an overall perspective which enables us to be our own guides.
In summary, this reflection demonstrates that the Church exists more faithfully as an open society instead a closed society, and that the Bible’s witness to Christ helps us to avoid the allure of tribalism, authoritarianism, and fundamentalism.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Jerub-Yahweh
In Judges 6, God calls Gideon to lead the nation of Israel back to faith, and to defeat the Midianites who had invaded the land. The first thing God told Gideon to do was to destroy the altars of the pagan gods that the people had begun to worship. One of these gods, Baal, was worshiped as the god of war and storm. When Baal’s devotees saw what Gideon had done, they demanded his death for his act of sacrilege. Gideon’s father Joash told the angry mob, “Are you going to plead Baal’s cause? Are you trying to save him? If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar” (Judges 6:31). His words made sense to the people. If Baal is a real god, he can fight his own battles. He doesn’t need anyone to fight his battles for him. So they gave Gideon a nickname: Jerub-Baal, which meant “Let Baal contend.” Or, to put it in more common lingo, Let Baal Deal With Him. Because Baal really isn’t a god, he wasn’t able to deal with Gideon. The altar remained broken down, and Gideon faced no supernatural punishment. The moniker “Jerub-Baal” changed from being an accusation against Gideon into a mockery of Baal. Baal couldn’t deal with him, after all.
There are times when we need to heed Joash’s advice ourselves. We see people mocking and violating the things of God that we hold dear. God’s ways are disregarded, and his laws are scoffed. We are as outraged as the people of Gideon’s village. Like them, we want to grab those blasphemers and make them pay for their disregard of the Lord and His ways. You may not have to think very hard to come up with at least one example of someone, or some group in society, that is performing some sacrilege. But we need to remember Joash’s words. If the Lord really is God, He can defend Himself. He doesn’t need us to do His dirty work for Him. Call these people “Jerub-Yahweh:” let the Lord (whose name in the Old Testament is Yahweh) deal with them.
God is a big boy; He can take care of Himself. He doesn’t need us to fight His battles for Him. It’s only natural for our blood to boil when we see people attack or disregard things that matter so much to us. But, as Paul said, “‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Part of the submission that comes with discipleship is to recognize that we do not need to take charge of God’s battles for Him. Yes, we have the responsibility to act when God calls us to do so. But we must be careful to distinguish between God’s call and our own desire to act. Perhaps it is our anger that is leading us to want to respond. Or it may be our own sense of self-importance, as though the forces of good and decency depend upon us to make things right. When you begin to feel this, just tell yourself, “Jerub-Yahweh. Let the Lord deal with it.” Then, not only can we avoid the danger of having zeal without knowledge, of being hasty and missing the way (Proverbs 19:2), but we can find a sense of peace and security. God is in charge. We can rest secure in His power and providence.
Letting the Lord deal with such things has an additional benefit. Sometimes, the offenses that we want to fight against may not actually be sacrilege. Because of our sinful shortcomings and incomplete process of sanctification, our own moral compasses may be a bit out of whack. That which seems terrible to us may not really matter that much to the Lord. In fact, there may be times when we’re the ones who are on the wrong side of God’s will. So we need to be “Jerub-Yahweh” as well, and ask the Lord to deal with us.
There are times when we need to heed Joash’s advice ourselves. We see people mocking and violating the things of God that we hold dear. God’s ways are disregarded, and his laws are scoffed. We are as outraged as the people of Gideon’s village. Like them, we want to grab those blasphemers and make them pay for their disregard of the Lord and His ways. You may not have to think very hard to come up with at least one example of someone, or some group in society, that is performing some sacrilege. But we need to remember Joash’s words. If the Lord really is God, He can defend Himself. He doesn’t need us to do His dirty work for Him. Call these people “Jerub-Yahweh:” let the Lord (whose name in the Old Testament is Yahweh) deal with them.
God is a big boy; He can take care of Himself. He doesn’t need us to fight His battles for Him. It’s only natural for our blood to boil when we see people attack or disregard things that matter so much to us. But, as Paul said, “‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19). Part of the submission that comes with discipleship is to recognize that we do not need to take charge of God’s battles for Him. Yes, we have the responsibility to act when God calls us to do so. But we must be careful to distinguish between God’s call and our own desire to act. Perhaps it is our anger that is leading us to want to respond. Or it may be our own sense of self-importance, as though the forces of good and decency depend upon us to make things right. When you begin to feel this, just tell yourself, “Jerub-Yahweh. Let the Lord deal with it.” Then, not only can we avoid the danger of having zeal without knowledge, of being hasty and missing the way (Proverbs 19:2), but we can find a sense of peace and security. God is in charge. We can rest secure in His power and providence.
Letting the Lord deal with such things has an additional benefit. Sometimes, the offenses that we want to fight against may not actually be sacrilege. Because of our sinful shortcomings and incomplete process of sanctification, our own moral compasses may be a bit out of whack. That which seems terrible to us may not really matter that much to the Lord. In fact, there may be times when we’re the ones who are on the wrong side of God’s will. So we need to be “Jerub-Yahweh” as well, and ask the Lord to deal with us.
Monday, December 20, 2010
It's Time to Be Two-Faced
New Year’s Day is an odd little holiday. For most of us, it’s mostly an opportunity to stay up late and have a party. Or, it’s a bookend to the holiday week that begins on Christmas. But the meaning of the holiday itself is pretty trivial: time to buy a new calendar and remember to date your checks with a different year. Perhaps you’ll use it as an opportunity to change something in your life by making a new year’s resolution. This year I’d like to suggest that you try something different. And for inspiration, I’d like to suggest that you consider a pagan god, of all things.
Usually, being called two-faced is an insult. But Roman mythology included a two-faced god named Janus; our month of January is named after him. For the Romans, Janus was the god of gateways, doors, beginnings and endings. He was depicted as having two faces, looking in opposite directions, so that he could see both what was in front of him and what was behind him. If you’ve wished that you could have eyes in the back of your head, then you can understand the advantage that Janus had. If he was guarding the gate, he could see people coming from both directions.
The Romans’ consideration of Janus extended beyond the literal, physical, practical aspect of having a guardian god that you could never sneak up on. Janus was also understood to be the god for times of transition: when something ends and something else begins. Metaphorically, he could look back upon the past, but also look to the future.
As you change your calendar and practice writing 2011 instead of 2010, I invite you to be two-faced. First, spend some time reflecting on what happened in the past year. Remember what God has done in your life. How has He changed you? What wonders have you been able to experience? What challenges has God brought you through? What has God taught you in 2010? And second, think about what 2011 will be for you. We of course have no idea what surprises and changes are in store for us. But we should be watching for the new things that God will do, so that we can respond to them with faith. We can prepare ourselves to participate in the unfolding of His plan that we will see in 2011.
Our God is not named Janus. But our Lord urges us both to remember what He has done (Deuteronomy 6:10-12, for example), and to watch in expectation for what He will do (Revelation 21:1-5, for example).
Happy New Year!
Peter
Usually, being called two-faced is an insult. But Roman mythology included a two-faced god named Janus; our month of January is named after him. For the Romans, Janus was the god of gateways, doors, beginnings and endings. He was depicted as having two faces, looking in opposite directions, so that he could see both what was in front of him and what was behind him. If you’ve wished that you could have eyes in the back of your head, then you can understand the advantage that Janus had. If he was guarding the gate, he could see people coming from both directions.
The Romans’ consideration of Janus extended beyond the literal, physical, practical aspect of having a guardian god that you could never sneak up on. Janus was also understood to be the god for times of transition: when something ends and something else begins. Metaphorically, he could look back upon the past, but also look to the future.
As you change your calendar and practice writing 2011 instead of 2010, I invite you to be two-faced. First, spend some time reflecting on what happened in the past year. Remember what God has done in your life. How has He changed you? What wonders have you been able to experience? What challenges has God brought you through? What has God taught you in 2010? And second, think about what 2011 will be for you. We of course have no idea what surprises and changes are in store for us. But we should be watching for the new things that God will do, so that we can respond to them with faith. We can prepare ourselves to participate in the unfolding of His plan that we will see in 2011.
Our God is not named Janus. But our Lord urges us both to remember what He has done (Deuteronomy 6:10-12, for example), and to watch in expectation for what He will do (Revelation 21:1-5, for example).
Happy New Year!
Peter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
