Hi all! Over the weekend, I read a completely different book, How to Human by Carlos Whittaker. It's a secular book, of sorts, but Carlos is unabashedly Christian and relates a lot of his lessons back to who Jesus was and Christian principles.
It was a very encouraging book and he helpfully talks about some of what I think have become Evangelical hangups. I'll highlight a few that hit me:
1. Seeing someone / engaging with someone does not mean that we agree with them. I was in a men's study recently, and one of the leader's thought-provoking questions was, "A gay co-worker invites you to his same-sex wedding. Do you go or not? Why?" The leader's view was that participation was approval.
Whittaker uses the example of Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch to point out the lesson that we can and should engage with people who have unknown or even known-to-be-different views.
There will be some chariots that you won't agree with a single bumper sticker those chariots have on them. You may agree with everything those chariots stand for. That's great. I would hope that you have strong convictions. But, don't for a second think that disqualifies you from getting in the chariot. You are getting in the chariot to let the person in it know that you see them, not that you agree with them. (p. 93)
I see this reflected in Jesus's interactions with people, which Carlos points out in other chapters. He touched the leper. He allowed a woman of ill repute (according to the Pharisees) to anoint him with perfume. He stood by the woman caught in adultery. These were all situations where the religious leaders were pointedly declaring that engagement with the sinful was approval of sin, but Jesus disagreed.
2. Our work vs. the work of the Holy Spirit. This was one of the first lessons I learned after leaving the RP church, and definitely not early enough as I burned some friendships and strained family relationships trying to do that work in them.
Because I'm a follower of Jesus, it's my responsibility to ferociously pour His love on my friends and my foes. It's not my responsibility to convict them. That is the role of the Holy Spirit. Comment-section debates won't convince a heart to change. Thirty-second video clips where your side "destroys" the other team won't convince a heart to change. Those may make us feel better but won't ever move their hearts toward change. So, is that love? Does it bring joy? Encourage peace? Go through that list of the fruit of the Spirit from Galatians and compare it to how we so often are. Does it line up? Probably not. Not like it should.
We must love those we disagree with in order to let them know they matter. That they are seen. That's the actual goal. That's what will help us all human better. That's why when you see a "Christian" online calling other humans names meant to wound them, it should make you cringe -- even if you agree with their point of view. (And if it doesn't make you cringe, there are deeper problems.) Now, just because it's the Holy Spirit's role to convict doesn't mean we don't have convictions. It just means that when we take on His role ourselves, with our human nature, it's far easier to fall into the trap of demeaning someone made in the image of God by throwing cheap and easy insults. (pp. 203-204)
Coming out of a church tradition where people took upon themselves (cough 'apologetics') the role of the Holy Spirit, it was easy to fall into the trap of being similarly, I suppose, anti-apologetic. So I spent my first few months as an ex-RP politely(?) bashing everything I found objectionable. It took so much trauma to get myself to the point where I could walk out that I needed a way to process that trauma, and, unfortunately, I didn't have a counselor to dump that on. I ended up processing my RP trauma on my RP friends, who unchecked that box (friend, not RP).
3. Study and Follow Jesus. It might seem trite, but I appreciate that Carlos, who points out that he dropped out of college and has no seminary training, over and over shows us a simple and clear understanding of who Jesus was and what he was here for. I think we Reformed Evangelicals have figured out how to reimage Jesus into what we want, not who he is. Jesus turned his cheek, but really... turning our cheek is weakness. Jesus stood by the adulterer, but really... we should shame adulterers. Jesus welcomed and cherished children, but really... we should parentify and adultify them as soon as possible so they can be useful, and before then, ignore them.
4. Be, See, Free. Maybe this is just a sales pitch, but these are the major headings of the books. How do we re-acquaint ourselves with what it means to be human? How do we see the humanity in others beyond stereotypes and biases? How do we use our humanity and our gifts to free others from bondage (more social justice than proselytizing)?
It's difficult because Whittaker is probably the most extroverted person I've ever read, and as a massive introvert, it's hard to imagine just going up to someone in the ways he does. He asked if he could livestream a hotel housekeeper singing her heart out, and asked a street musician if he could film him, so that others could enjoy their gifts. But, I definitely appreciate his love for people and his willingness to engage with them in a way that demonstrates that they are seen and loved.
13 comments:
I sure find it a lot less stressful and much more enjoyable to embrace people and empathize with them than to scold and try to fix them. Most preaching makes me feel guilty about that.
Compassion (empathy, at bottom) is not human, but divine. Humans cannot have empathy without Christ, and it is always those without Christ who can’t comprehend it and, therefore, decry it - lest their lack of it expose them. The RP church is the coldest sepulchre I’ve ever experienced- people totally dead on the inside. I say this as someone who is very serious about the Faith, and no bleeding heart of any kind. The Church started in homes and I think it will end there.
We were created in the image of God. Adam and Eve would have experienced compassion as humans. We did not become inhuman when we fell, nor was the imago dei destroyed within us. We are not totally depraved, evil, inhuman robots as RPs would like to suggest without Christ. Unsaved mothers feed their babies just as saved mothers do. We might argue the exact spiritual mechanism, whether it's common grace or that Total Depravity is not so total as Reformed pastors like to misrepresent it. My experience is that selfishness is pretty universal, but the vast majority of people aren't going around purposefully committing evil acts against one another. Maybe it is the promise of Jeremiah that the law will be written on peoples' hearts.
We have zero compassion without Christ. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and I do know what a use the RP’s make of shame (though many will call it by another name or deny this- they are clever fools many of them). I find great comfort in having surrendered any goodness wrought in myself outside of Christ, and it has only knitted me closer to Him. I have nothing to do with the RP church, haven’t for some many years, and see it not as the tip of any Christian spear, but the very hilt that rests in the mire. But I am able to separate their sin and doctrinal web of lies from what is true. There are some things they teach that are true- some. Their excesses in doctrine, as they’ve added and deleted as they’ve willed, do not negate what is true. They have cancelled empathy because of their spiritual bankruptcy- they are as Adam and Eve hiding in the bushes from God, clothed with lies to hide the nakedness of their spiritual infancy. You need to heal, sir or madam. I wish this for you with all my heart. When we heal, we begin to separate what is true from what is not, rather than cancelling with a broad brush everything that came from our abuser. The RP church abuses everyone, and we are all of us wounded in various measure who have been in this church system. But so long as we cancel anything that they taught, while convincing ourselves said thing(s) are wrong in themselves, we are still living in their abuse…and still very much in their grip. Come out from them totally- be free of them. Our depravity is no ugly thing for those in Christ Jesus. It is treated as ugly by Phariseical men who would use it to control others. Everything in the RP church is constructed to support and defend the many wicked elders and their sycophantry. If you be in Christ, your depravity without Him doesn’t matter- your status as an adopted son or daughter takes precedence, and there is no need to keep trying to level a mountain already summited by our Father. The world calls it “how to human.” Those of us in Christ know it is Him- only Him. And we are glad, not ashamed.
I don't agree. I think this is the RP church putting their interpretation on the Bible. We don't know exactly what the state of man was before the Fall, and we don't know exactly what the state of man is under the curse, except that we are incapable of perfectly obeying God's law. However, we are "without excuse" meaning that we still retain responsibility for our actions. We also don't know what change happened at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit was poured out "on all flesh".
So, you can pontificate that non-elect humans have no capacity for compassion, but that seems to fail on multiple fronts:
1) Earthly witness: I have non-Christian family members who appear to have similar compassion to Christian members.
2) Scripture: "Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!" (Matt 7:9-11)
3) Logic/Reason: After remarking that Christians are not obviously "nicer" than non-Christians, CS Lewis says, "Even then we must be careful to ask the right question. If Christianity is true then it ought to follow… That any Christian will be nicer than the same person would be if he were not a Christian…" (Mere Christianity, 4:10)
The debate over non-elect people doing "good" hasn't traditionally been whether or not they have the capacity to do good, but how that capacity comes about. Is it the residual imago dei, is it general grace (common grace) or is it somehow a specific spiritual enablement? And, yes, we can say that all this (and imperfect life altogether) is only bought with the price of Jesus's blood, but it doesn't seem like your argument is, "if Jesus didn't die on the cross, Adam would have been immediately killed, but humanity has been, to some extent blessed with the remnants of the imago dei, including compassion", but "post-fall non-elect people can only pretend to have compassion. Only Christians can experience compassion." The latter seems repugnant and unsupported by experience, reason, and scripture.
I should also remark on another RPism. In one sense, we recognize that no action we take is entirely, 100% absent of some sinful taint. Yet, RPs hold up some sort of ideal as the standard by which all actions should be judged. In other words, "compassion" is only compassion in some untainted, idealistic sense, which includes a motivation to serve God. But, that standard is unattainable by Christian and non-Christian alike, in this world. If we say that the non-elect is incapable of compassion in this sense, we are merely equivocating the word compassion and moving the goalposts. In other words, we hold the non-elect to the "pure idealistic compassion in perfect harmony with God" and the Christian to "something closely resembling warm, fuzzy feelings towards another in need" - since we cannot meet the first standard. This is a form of pharisaical legalism.
I didn’t say only Christians can have compassion. Most who call themselves Christian show zero compassion, and deciding who or who isn’t Christian isn’t a major part of my walk. But regardless of whether a person is or isn’t Christian, the ability to have any capacity for empathy and compassion are solely of God, be it called common grace or anything else. The manner is not a concern. That all that is good is from God alone is the absolutely true. God is our Creator, Christian’s and non-Christian’s alike, and if there is any good found in any one of us it is a credit to Him alone. I’ve been clear on this, and on my complete disdain and separation from this particular church system. The twisting vortex of doctrinal terror is never ending among them, and it is apparent even when people come out of this Egypt, it is resistant to coming out of them. I sincerely hope you find healing and peace, ever increasingly in your life. God is the only source of any good, anywhere, and in any person. The manner isn’t our concern. The Gospel is, and it’s simple. That’s what’s important.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'without Christ', then. It's a tautology to say that everything "good" comes from God. I'm assuming you're trying to make a distinction, but I don't get what belongs in category A and category B. I was assuming elect/non-elect, but that doesn't seem to be your point.
I had to look up what tautology means. Honestly all of this tedium is exactly what they do in these RP churches. Doctrine is their God, they are obsessed with it.
Likewise, any discussion about anything at all results in a thorough forensic analysis, out of which comes another forensic analysis, et cetera. Do you see what I mean by an endless twisting vortex of doctrinal terror? There’s no time to think, let alone develop into any sort of meaningful practice when one is consistently chasing down the next rabbit hole of highminded and contrived argument (or clever baloney). Aren’t you exhausted with reasoning and discussing like they do still? Making essays out of answers, bullet points to boot? I’ll Is human: just a simple conversation. A conversation from the heart, not disengaged from the mind, but just from the heart of a simple Christian (or will someone take the word simple out of context here)? Jesus is God. Which Name of the godhead I used isn’t a concern for my meaning. There are no categories. I am not a RP, and doctrine is not my God. The distinction that should be considered in anyone reading, is that between a theist and a Christian. In the RP church I met many theists are my long years; I did not meet many who had the fruit the scriptures say Christian’s have. “ Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.” James 1:17.
You made a statement, "Compassion (empathy, at bottom) is not human, but divine" that seemed incorrect and in contradiction to my post. I sought to gain understanding by explaining my viewpoint and asking you to clarify yours. I don't think asking for clarification and analyzing your argument is somehow making doctrine my God. I still don't understand what point you're trying to make, and I think your statement above, taken at face value, is concerning. Sometimes clarification leads to agreement, like we seem to have, and sometimes it leads to a point of disagreement that we can leave on the table or study further.
I’m sorry you don’t understand. I’m not sure what else to tell you, Sir or Madam. You have my empathy and prayers.
You mean CHRIST'S empathy?
All light natured ribbing aside :) I don't think it's wrong to want to have precision and clarity. The church needs to have space for people like me who pursue that sort of understanding, as well as people who desire more to be Spirit-led and trying to act from the heart of God. I think people of all stripes have much to learn from each other. I certainly have MUCH to learn about the heart of God.
Post a Comment