There but for the Grace of God, Part III

The last commenter to this blog, Postmodern Redneck, stated simply what I intended for this post. Postmodern said, "... religious activity can help a person mask their sinful nature and keep from facing it."

True!

...and we Christians tend to call it "grace" from God. There is no getting around it, Jesus did say, "Forgive seventy times seven." So, yes, when we have sinned but seek forgiveness, receiving forgiveness is grace. To receive forgiveness multiple times is also a function of the deep and wondrous grace of our Lord Jesus.

Which brings us back to Jerry Sandusky and his example: a person who appears dedicated to good works, attends church regularly and maintains an abhorrent secret life of molesting children. Some people harbor a particular sin. That's it. They make friends with it, living "for Christ" outwardly while practicing the sin in hiding. This duality weighs on some, but for others, it is just the way life must be lived. The conscience becomes silenced purposely or "hardens" through the individual's lack of response. Such a condition is both evidence and process of a growing spiritual darkness. The jargon employed explaining this behavior to one's self may include phrases such as, "life-dominating sin", "the area of my struggle", or the inane euphemism "my cross to bear". Ultimately, however practicing the sin is accepted, the perpetrator accepts a rationalized truth that humans are a mixture of good and bad. Thus, the "bad" has to be accepted as inescapable reality, but the good one works is of value. Hey, one must take the good with the bad, eh?!

Seems to work okay when the "bad" is a bit of laziness, over-indulgence in food or alcohol, or maybe a bit of lying--the little white ones, of course. But we must be honest with ourselves and with the Lord. Does degree or type of sin actually dictate who receives "grace" and who does not? Is the person who tells lies occasionally, who admits these are wrong to the self, but who nonetheless accepts that behavior as both inevitable and as forgiven under the covering of God's grace any better than a man who sets up a charity that helps hundreds of kids but molests only 10-15 boys? If we allow that "grace" accepts our continuing in the sin of lying, since after all, we do much more good than that little bit of lying we won't let go of; then "grace" must have accepted Sandusky in his continuing acts of child molestation in view of the real good he accomplished otherwise.

Either God justifies individuals on the basis of the good done, or He does not. Either God must allow us to be ruled by sin under the flag of grace or our logic about grace is faulty.  Why do we Christians not notice a non sequitur. I suggest many of us simply do not accept grace for its true power. If we are claiming Christ but living with a secret sin, the evidence of this lack of understanding is clear.

Grace as undeserved forgiveness certainly is part of the gospel message. That grace does function in the face of seventy times seven. However, once we accept our sin nature as the inevitable way we must live, we have denied the spiritual reality of a grace which also equips us for walking a victorious life over our sinful natures.

Grace, the full measure of the grace in the gospel truth, leads in righteous choices. Such choice is exercised over our inclination to sin and into the light of submission before the in-dwelling Presence of Jesus by the Holy Spirit.

Does my natural man rule me? Yes, unless by the grace of God, I choose a different way. Except for this grace, I travel the same road of self-delusion as Sandusky and... well...every other human. 

There but for the Grace of God, Part II

The topic is child molestation not Jerry Sandusky, but as the latest public version of the problem,  he allows us a human face.

Simply put, as abhorrent as his behavior was, there is no room to cast stones at him. It is a human story of failure to recognize sin or to recognize it but fail a walk in the available grace of God. Perhaps knowing the meaning of grace is part of the problem. I contend Jerry Sandusky --no matter what he believed about God, professed about God, nor practiced in his religion -- did not understand the grace of God.

That is the end of the matter, however. Rewind to the beginning.

How did he manage to become ensnared by such vile desire? I'm guessing, but I am confident in the guess, to assert his sexual exploration began as a child with other boys, perhaps even pre-pubescent. In his teens while he acted oriented toward girls of appropriate age, he maintained some level of secret behavior involving boys. Some part of his soul driven by his fallen, flesh nature never matured beyond this. He developed heterosexually or pretended to do so, but a secret willingness to participate in homosexual behavior remained. The desire remained along with the knowledge some boys could be so coerced. With his advancing age, developing position and disposable income, he learned techniques of manipulation. This likely behavior pre-dated the start of the charity, and it is plausible he started the charity without plotting a way to groom a never-ending list of boys of the age he targeted. He may have even prayed, "God help me not use the charity this way." Such is the folly of self-denial.

I think something in him believed in doing acts of charity. This idea on my part is tied to my life experience of knowing we humans, Christian and not, are a mixed bag of good and evil decisions. How many church going folks will lie on their tax forms? How many folks would never steal anything but have very immoral sexual fantasies? How many pastors, policemen, judges, doctors, firemen, teachers, etc., went into their chosen vocation to answer some inner-drive to help fellow humans, and yet harbor feelings, desires, thoughts or out-right actions of wrong behaviors? Jerry Sandusky is not alone. He got caught because he abandoned himself to a lifestyle of self-indulgence in his prurient interest, which produced enough witnesses to incontrovertibly testify he did the acts.

Is the one who acts out a prurient desire worse than the dreamer of such? Perhaps so in most US citizen's eyes, but not when judged by the holiness of God our Father. Our actions may or may not be judged by the law. The heart is judged by God.

Next path in the Wild Wood will examine the nature of the grace of God, and Sandusky et al professing grace while living outside the same.

There but for the Grace of God...

The news is vile on most any occasion...or at least too many facets of it. Gruesome murders, scandals amid politicians and others of lesser note, child abuse, drug conglomerates leaving their piles of human debris. Sandusky couldn't be missed, eh?

The child predator appears one of the worst, no doubt. However, the unease of a man establishing a charity reaching for and lifting up under-privileged youth, who then picked his victims from the clients of the charity is peculiarly nauseating. That mask of overt goodness as a cover-up of pedophile predatory behavior ravages one's sense of trust in any goodness at all.

Raises some questions; no doubt about that at all.

How could others turn a blind eye?
How could this man's theology not scream at him he was in the wrong? (I read in the news he was a church goer of some regularity.)
How did he get himself involved in sex with minors to begin with, and why did he determine to start the charity?

I could go on.

It's all about sight, or lack thereof. I have some windows to wash so,

more later from the Wild Wood.

How Hard is Forgiveness?

The teaching illustration of two posts back was intended as the introduction to a discussion on response to sin within a group of believers. There appears to me a gap between the instruction in Scripture and our practice.

Consider Jesus' instruction to forgive 7 x 70. He has just taught the way to address a sinning brother (show him his fault in private; if he refuses to acknowledge his fault, take another with you on a second attempt; if he refuses to acknowledge his fault, take it before all gathered together) when Peter asks, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?"

Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."

How many of us keep track of another's sin 490 times then on violation 491 refuse to forgive? None of us. Isn't that the point of Jesus giving us the number?

Yet, how many of us after the first or second time we are offended think or feel something like, OK, I forgive him but I will not trust again. Or worse we enter into some degree of judgment against the other. Our feelings and related thoughts are the measure of the condition of our heart regardless of the religious spin we verbalize about ourselves. Mature faith will fully release within the heart all which is not a complete and renewed embrace of the other person. Everything!

I have watched myself and others harbor feelings other than love toward someone following some sin for which forgiveness has been requested and describe this state in "spiritual" terms such as, "He asked for forgiveness and I gave it. Now I'll wait and see whether or not he produces fruit that evidences true repentance." I could always find some "scriptural" reason for not fully trusting this person. At the very least, I would whine something to God about how hard His words were.Then one day God broke through into my hard heart: simply acknowledging how hard Jesus' instructions on the matter of forgiveness are without disciplining my internal emotional response is excuse-making. Worse, this state of non-compliance perpetuates my own spiritual immaturity.

And the "hardness" of God's expectation goes further! We should be able to move into the same release with the same brother/sister repeatedly. Up to 490 times? No, there are not limits. Love keeps no record of wrong.

"Impossible," you say? "Unrealistic!" "I am not there, yet," followed by a friendly but rueful chuckle.

You never will be! It must and will only be accomplished as we learn to rest in the in-dwelling Presence and exchange our way for His. Oh and to make this not be hard, God allows unlimited attempts to understand abiding in Him.

Here's a Tangent

In the field of teaching there is a tedious and occasionally baneful activity we are expected to accomplish: record-keeping. The outsider may think, "Oh yeah, grades and attendance, that sort of thing." If only that were the limit. I call it tedious because of the time consuming nature of the activity. I call it baneful because of the possible consequence of the content required.

A current educational buzz word is documentation. In our school system, teachers are told quite plainly that administrators will back us up (in confrontations with parents, especially confrontations which enter the legal domain) as long as we have documentation. This means that for all decisions I make, whether of academic or a disciplinary nature in the life of one of my students, I need documentation that justifies my decisions.

This is good...mostly. Teachers cannot operate as loose cannons, specifically in regards to the content of one's teaching. The expectation is teach a state approved curriculum and use strategies supported by research as best practice. Since I am not observed constantly, documentation of planning, evidence of process and student products must be supplied on demand to an administrator when he or she asks. Documentation requires mandated curriculum and best practices be evidenced by these artifacts. Reasonable? Yes. Tedious? Insanely so, but nonetheless important.

I must also document why I have decided to answer a student's inappropriate behavior. Johnny refused to complete a math assignment today. Johnny appeared distracted by another student's appearance. I gave him preferential seating to remediate his lack of effort. (Professional speak for Johnny would not leave the little girl in front him alone, so I made him move his desk over by the wall.) Again, the reasonableness of this is apparent. When I take the significant step of intervening in a child's life by calling for a parent conference or sending a student to the principal's office, the documentation is useful in establishing patterns of student behavior and teacher intervention strategies.This answers some automatic questions--Is the teacher unfair?--while providing information that can guide effective questioning--What has been attempted; what has not?

This is where the adjective "baneful" enters and the reason for this post. The documentation of behavior becomes part of a permanent file that follows the student through school, and when necessary, into court. Serious administrative decisions such as suspensions are sometimes made guided by the record. Court actions may include the system entering the child's life because behavior has become lawless or the parents are dragging the child through court in a custody battle. Either way, the child's permanent records from school will be used to address various issues.

Now all those little notes of documentation various teachers have written are not necessarily available, but classroom documentation has driven reports and analysis of the student by administrators, which will have resulted in various labels that "officially" describe the child. Be assured that by the time these labels are written into the permanent record, the child has been confronted with the words. Often. Do labels create a detrimental self-awareness? The record may influence a judge's decision-making, that's reasonable; but the emotional state of the child may have or may be changing. The documentation supports actions which may miss the mark of addressing the current needs of the child. This is especially true in court actions considering the slow nature of jurisprudence.

You may be saying to yourself, "If the child has earned the consequences of his or her actions, so be it." I understand and even accept that logic on the natural level. Sorting this out becomes the fodder of "conservative" versus "liberal" politics, but that can of worms is not the point of this post! I originally intended this as an introduction to the astounding power of God's plan of forgiveness 7 x 70 and love keeping no record of wrong.

But that will have to be another post now.
Ah well, until next time...

Responsibility within the Body

Jesus walked from the Mount of Olives through brilliant morning sunshine toward the Temple. He was noticed and recognized. The flocking after Him occurred this Jerusalem morning, as well. Those of the city who already whispered in reverence, "He is the Messiah," those who hoped He was and the merely curious angled as close as possible in their steps on the chance of hearing or seeing some encounter between Jesus and anyone else. His words comforted or jarred but were never like the numbing discourse of the other rabbi's.

Entering the Temple courtyard, Jesus stopped and slowly turned gazing upon the forty or so people who had formed in His wake. His feet shifted easily, and the sound of His sandals scraping the grit on the flooring stones of the Temple could be heard over the quieting group. Many already standing in the Temple court gathered themselves in without speaking, swelling the crowd of followers. Though no one announced, "Be quiet and the Rabbi will teach," all knew He would soon loose His knowledge and insights upon the crowd. His hands opened toward the people, then palmed down toward the ground and everyone settled there. He sat down and began to teach them.

Within minutes, a swirling noisy group entered the courtyard and drowned out Jesus' words. Several men easily identified by their garb as scribes and Pharisees pushed a frightened young woman before them while other men just behind shouted epithets against her. This raucous cluster split the listeners apart scattering them like startled livestock. Jesus stood to face men who shoved the trembling woman to the ground at His feet. The sun felt glaring and hot in mere seconds as a tense hush stalked the courtyard in sharp contrast with the quiet harmony of only a few moments before.

John 8: 4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

Reflecting on the above story, what do we make of it? Forgiveness covers adultery perhaps.

Take in the next verse. 12 Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."

The adulterous woman was in darkness, no? This passage is often used to teach about the forgiveness of God toward sinfulness, and since we are all sinners we should not judge others. But there is more to infer. The Pharisees follow immediately with a charge that Jesus is testifying falsely about Himself being the Light. Jesus challenges them, as well, and the confrontation continues with the Pharisees claiming their lineage from Abraham. Their claim is intended to establish their right position before God. Jesus counters and places Himself before Abraham leading to the Pharisees wanting to stone Him.

The whole scene does include the extent of God's forgiveness toward sin. However, I think the woman being forgiven adultery is the prelude to the point of the passage. Within the story those who would condemn her are told to cast stones if they are without sin. The passage ends with these same men identified as denying God. Are they not the "darkness" to which Jesus refers in verse 12?

The Body of Christ suffers today intensely from condemnation and judgment. Within local bodies identified as being of the same mind by denominational doctrine, the willingness of people's hearts to look judgmentally upon one another with condemnation rather than unconditional love scores the light of fellowship with darkness.

I cannot change everyone, but I can decide differently for myself. How about you?

Contrasting Worldly Hierarchy with God's Love

Stu Weber wrote a book (back in the 90's, I think) entitled Locking Arms. As I recall, its main thrust built around the idea that deep relationships open to believers through the Presence of Jesus. In that discussion, I have never forgotten something he identified. The world system functions according to a flow chart, which is backwards from what humans need:

Authority
Accoutability
Affirmation
Acceptance

In the world, we must always answer to a hierarchy of authority, whether within government, business, education, even ecclesiastic or on the street. Authority holds the one ruled to standards of accountability. When someone functions well meeting accountability standards, affirmation may or may not flow from the authority. We receive no human affirmation from the IRS, but often a boss trained in how to increase productivity will congratulate a worker on a good job. Possibly such congratulations will become comments that are genuine respect and acceptance on the part of the boss for the worker.

God's love:

Acceptance
Affirmation
Accountability
Authority

God has already communicated His profound acceptance through the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. His affirmation flows concurrently with this acceptance. As a function of the level of acceptance and affirmation we receive through our faith, we make ourselves accountable in full surrender to His authority. How would our experience within the Body of Christ be altered if we all learned to mirror the Father's order in relationship? What if people immediately felt from us our acceptance and affirmation tied to what we knew within our hearts as the love of God? Would you feel more secure in your relationships if complete acceptance were granted to you by brothers and sisters in Christ regardless of your maturity level? What if church leaders did not see themselves as "over" others? How would your experience be different, if you recognized you were treated with the same respect and deference as all others?

Lack of Contentment May Mean a Lack of Imagination

The word for me today is contentment. I get home from work, which has been demanding but rewarding this week, and find an e-mail from an old friend. I am separated from him by distance but our contact is always warm, if somewhat infrequent. I had e-mailed him to let him know I had started the blog and am approaching a personal milestone of which he is aware. Dave emailed me encouragement in his gentle way. He finished his e-mail stating he thought I was a contented man. Perhaps, but there is more to know. I have every reason to be content, though like anyone I suppose, I have to address the content of my thoughts.

Then I check the blog of another old friend, he can be read at Looking for the Long Ride link on the right. He has written his latest blog entry exploring among other things, contentment. I do not find such overlap a coincidence. God is in every aspect of my life, and such circumstances as these described here occur continually in my life. I always accept them without question as God calling my attention to something. This may cause you to question, but I don't anymore. I have seen this proven over and over. It a reason I am content in the Father. His faithfulness to communicate with me never fails.

Last year at work, a colleague lamented, "I want to hear from God, if that's possible." I ached for her. Her Christian tradition has shaped her by liturgy and tradition. Her concept of God is deeply carved but limited by the cut marks of her particular system. It has informed her for years on end how to perceive God, and so she does. The culture she participates in communicates strict boundaries for the structures she must abide in, the symbols she must reflect upon and draw inspiration from, and the conflicts which are hers in the natural.

After we left the church we had been in for 18 years, I visited many local congregations. I was open to the Lord leading me again into the arena of organized groups. On one Sunday, I entered a congregation to discover in attendance there a family whom my wife and I knew from community soccer. The husband was an usher and led me to the pew in which his wife sat. I slid over near her, and we greeted we another. Since I was seeking, and she was "full-time", I led off after the pleasantries with, "So how do you like it here?" She was visibly shaken and turned to me with newly formed tears and spoke of her disappointment and disillusionment with this particular system. I did my best to sound supportive and remain neutral. I began imagining what could cause such a reaction. She was a chronic complainer, though her example on the sidelines of soccer disproved that muse. She did not clearly understand her circumstances and was overwhelmed by life, though her respected position in a local public school undercut that possibility. Her true feelings erupted when I touched on the sore spot of her life. That clicked with me as the truth of that moment.

At another prominent evangelical church in our community a week or so later, after I had been handed a "Prospective Member" card to fill out in Sunday School. (I filled this in with the questions "Why do you automatically put me in the category of prospect?" and, "If I am in Jesus like you, am I not part of you already?") During the Sunday School class itself, a regular member (some one with far more status within this group than most) delivered a scalding message of condemnation against anyone who was not actively witnessing for the purpose of expanding the roles of the church. Hmmm...it was clear from these two social mechanisms, the card and the message, that the church was focused on numbers. Additionally, the abject disparity between Romans 8:1 and the empty-hearted scolding I had just heard demonstrated this group 's spiritual lack.

What did these three people have in common? My takes is a lack of contentment because of a failed or inactive spiritual imagination.