I assume that most if not all readers here love the Bible for its capacity to have a verse or part of a verse jump up and hit us between the eyes, often from the most familiar of passages, and provoke an instant reactive thought, "Wow, I never saw that before ... thank you, Lord."
The other day, happening upon Hebrews 12, I read verse 14 (a la the sentence above):
Pursue peace with everyone and the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
Now, admittedly, my reading of this verse on this day may be slightly peculiar (but it is how the verse struck me). I read it in this way;
When we are divided as Christians, and when our lives fall short of what people expect we will live like as Christians, then non-Christians will not find their way to encounter Jesus.
In our day, when (to cite but a few examples), we have very public division among Christians (e.g. over Trump, over Israel/Gaza/West Bank, over Ukraine/Russia, to say nothing of divisions over sexuality, women in leadership, and more generally, our denominational differences) and we have very public examples of unholy behaviour (most notably, sexual abuse by church leaders), we also have some - despite, wonderfully, signs of church growth in the West - clear determinations by people (e.g. among our friends, workmates, extended family) to avoid church like the plague.
I acknowledge that, on further reflection on Hebrews 12:14, that my "reading" on that day is not how the writer to the Hebrews intended his or her sentence to be read. In the context of the verses preceding and succeeding 12:14, the writer is saying this:
(As you follow Jesus, the author and perfecter of your faith, of your discipleship), pursue peace (rather than division) in your relationships with people, especially with your brothers and sisters in Christ, and live holy lives (as you are called to do by God's prophet's and apostles, and by Jesus himself), because only holy people can "see the Lord", that is, be in eternal fellowship with the Lord. [Verses 15 and 16 spell out to specific aspects of living holy lives, as does the whole of chapter 13.]
More simply, my "peculiar" reading a few days ago was an evangelistic reading of the verse; closer to the intention of the writer is, in fact, a discipleship reading of the verse.
Nevertheless, it is, is it not, a salutary reflection - whatever the "correct" reading of the verse is - that we acknowledge barriers to people coming to Jesus Christ such as Christian division; Christian bad behaviour?
17 comments:
And I went to the Beatitudes:
Blessed are the pure of heart
for they shall see God
i.e. When we are in a state of war with others and with our self, or so entangled with the world of duality, we cannot encounter the Presence directly.
Yes! but... there's more to it and perhaps you're intending to do a follow-up post Peter? The church hasn't been divisive enough! Women have been gaslighted so badly by church leaders for trying to highlight the issue of abuse. Women are so "hysterical", "alarmist", whatever. So "divisive"! And anyway, so the story goes, the issue's not that.. it's all the worldly alternatives available to people on Sunday! WHEN the vulnerable (e.g. women, young people, racial minorities) in a patriarchal structure speak up they should get a fair hearing - with proper and appropriate actions following. Y'know.. actual justice. And too many church leaders have been complicit in culture war posturing instead of making it their business to stand up for the vulnerable (and actually be divisive ON BEHALF of the vulnerable, poor and abused). And it's this LACK of *good* divisive action ("good trouble") that is where the church has failed so badly. Compromised church leaders, lawyers, and other influencers have conspired against the vulnerable, protecting each other and the institution instead, and they've been allowed to get away with it. Other leaders haven't made it a priority to CONFRONT the compromised leaders, EXPOSE their hypocrisy, and hold them accountable, and dismantle their protective networks.
Thanks Mark - a helpful extension!
Hi Liz, I see what you mean and I could make my post longer etc, or post another post, but the point of reconciliation is this: pursuing peace does not mean covering up or hushing up that which is wrong. Conversely, refraining from speaking up against wrong is not pursuing peace. The writer to the Hebrews at this point in the letter is not making any particular commendation of smoothing over cracks in the life of the church.
Thank you for confirming that these "good trouble" actions are not things in opposition to the pursuit of peace. Because people have too often been unfairly maligned and marginalised for these very actions - which are in support of the common good and, ultimately, for the good health of the Church!
Christ taught in images of conflict and duality (sheep and goats, I come to bring a sword etc) as well as images of unity and union (love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, be one as the Father and I are one).
The tricky art is to hold both - both the prophetic and the mystical - or be held in the latter when engaged in the former. Of course our world seriously needs this right now, but so it seems did the early church. Being part of a church and part of a family gives me ample opportunities to practice this difficult way!
I have to share a quote from a priest whose sermons I used to read/watch, and whose name I have probably mentioned too many times, Fr Cantamalessa, who as far as I can now ascertain is in his 90’s and retired quietly to a monastery after seeking permission from the Pope. His life witness is fascinating going from quite a academic/catholic beginning to being lead by God into a passion for the spiritual gifts and ecumenical unity (of course not giving up his teaching/preaching & biblical proficiency):
“Spiritual ecumenism is born through repentance and forgiveness and is nourished by prayer. In 1977, I participated in a charismatic ecumenical congress in the U.S., in Kansas City, Missouri. There were 40,000 participants, half of them Catholic – Cardinal Suenens among them – and half from other Christian denominations. One evening, one of the leaders of the meeting began speaking at the microphone in a way that, to me, at that time, was strange: “You priests and pastors, weep and mourn, because the body of my Son is broken. … You laypeople, men and women, weep and mourn, because the body of my Son is broken.”
I began to see people around me fall to their knees, one after another, and to weep with repentance for the divisions in the body of Christ. And all of this went on while a sign reading “Jesus is Lord” went up from one part of the stadium to the other. I was there as an observer who was still rather critical and detached, but I remember thinking to myself: If one day all believers shall be reunited in one single body, it will happen like this, when we all are on our knees with a contrite and humiliated heart, under the great lordship of Christ.”
Here is the link to this particular sermon on unity
https://livingbulwark.net/the-visible-sign-of-unity-is-communitarian/
A strong caution. Notice how in the quote that Jean's shared the speaker's form of speaking is as if they are speaking for God. This is *typical* of today's neo-charismatic "prophets" - the same folk who played a major role in orchestrating the Capitol Insurrection. I'm not criticising the 1977 event *but* you need to be aware of what the mass charismatic movement has developed into. The "apostles" and "prophets" in it now have vast networks of followers (connected on social media and via mass events and various non-denominational church networks) and these can be "deployed" very effectively as we saw at the Insurrection with their "Appeal to Heaven" flags. This is what I'm always warning about - the likes of Lance Wallnau and the Seven Mountains Mandate - their ambition is to be the primary influence in all areas of culture and society GLOBALLY. The army of God. Be wary of people who speak like a Christian medium i.e. like they're speaking words from God the Father. To learn about how the 1977 event fitted into the overall charismatic renewal movement from a Catholic perspective, I found an interesting and informative article at https://www.nsc-chariscenter.org/statement-on-year-of-jubilee-2017/
Hi Liz, I agree it is prudent to give a word of caution in any instance when a person ‘has a word from God.’ Whilst I believe God through the spiritual gifts can give such words through people, I also acknowledge discernment and testing of the word is an important role for all Christians a part of the use of such gifts - and I suppose in reference to a particular person also the fruit they produce from their ministry. If you read the link itself it will demonstrate Fr Cantamalessa’s thought on unity are very grounded and comprehensive.
One small observation I notice in the teaching of people I am skeptical of is many invent almost like a new language (e.g. specific words or phrases) and this becomes the lingo of their ‘brand’.
+Peter apologies I forgot to say in my previous post that yes indeed I do know as you say likely as many others do, that experience when a part of scriptures literally pierces ones spirit. I guess where this led you to ponder makes sense, that providing a witness to people who have no knowledge or have no belief in Jesus would be strengthened if the Church was more unified/reconciled - the number of times I have encountered young people who talk about the different dominations 😂 (not quite comprehending what a denomination is but almost getting closer to the mark by doing so). Personally I feel comfortable in most churches (discernment notwithstanding) and see myself as a Christian who is a member of an Anglican Church.
Interesting comment Mark holding the tension between duality, the conflict between the way of God and the way of the world, whilst called to be salt in the world, called also not to conform to the world.
"...pursue peace (rather than division) in your relationships with people, especially with your brothers and sisters in Christ, and live holy lives (as you are called to do by God's prophet's and apostles, and by Jesus himself), because only holy people can "see the Lord""
The question is, *who* are our brothers and sisters in Christ? Fascism has come to America wrapped in cross and flag. Why did the Church not unite and speak out against the heresy of dominion theology and global domination - and against a gospel of fear and violence? This movement has been gaining traction for decades, especially since the 1990s and Jesus-followers preferred silence to confrontation. What's the point of learning theology (and all those earnest academic discussions on all manner of bible topics) if our christian leaders in the US couldn't even warn, confront, protect and exhort against the rise of the political "christians" on the religious right in the US? What warnings did they issue against the modern advent (since 2001) of the so-called "new" apostolic age - i.e. where "apostles" and "prophets" supposedly enjoy direct revelation from God! A few brave individuals spoke out consistently, and for the most part they got ignored by the great and good. Heresy, even blasphemy, have been allowed to run rampant - and not much more than a murmur from the Church!
To help console a little Liz, some Christians in the U.S. do but perhaps they just don’t appear as often in global media, one is Shane Claiborne https://www.shaneclaiborne.com/bio/ (https://redletterchristians.org/) and there is the Brooklyn Tabernacle and Jim Cymbala https://seedbed.com/beware-these-detours-which-lead-churches-off-track/
Curiously both are evangelical or from an evangelical backdrop.
Thanks Jean! Yes, I've quite often come across references to Red Letter Christians/Shane Claiborne. Your other ref I'll check out later.. ta! Re being evangelical - typically the people who speak out *do* have an evangelical past - they understand the danger better than anyone. E.g. Matthew D. Taylor, Andre Gagne, Rob Schenck, Diana Butler Bass, and many more. But the Church as *a body* needs to confront this issue head on - it needs a robust *ecumenical* resistance with sound theological rebuttal - and a more compelling authenticity in sharing the Truth of the gospel.
P.S. I've read the Jim Cymbala link, Jean. Very good, thanks. Two lines that particularly caught my attention:
"God is not interested in building up or promoting a specific country. He’s intent on building his church." That's a very good rebuttal to American Exceptionalism!
"To redefine the Christian church is a terrible thing in God’s sight." That's what the New Apostolic Reformation is doing (and that's why I persist in warning about their ambitions).
Very useful article that Jean shared (thanks!) The link:
https://seedbed.com/beware-these-detours-which-lead-churches-off-track/
"But the Church as *a body* needs to confront this issue head on - it needs a robust *ecumenical* resistance with sound theological rebuttal - and a more compelling authenticity in sharing the Truth of the gospel." ~Liz
I wrote that in my own words - it's the conclusion I've come to after a lot of reading. I'll back that up with this article I've now re-found in my browser favourites:
"By ourselves we are not very powerful, but together we have power. We urgently need ecumenical and interfaith spaces to convene scholars and faith leaders to talk with one another, to offer support to one another, and to test and share pedagogies of resistance as we imagine and disseminate more responsible and life-giving ways of leveraging the biblical narrative for the common good."
~ Dr. Drew J. Strait, an associate professor of New Testament and Christian origins at Anabaptist Mennonite Biblical Seminary in Indiana. Guest essay, published in e-newsletter Word&Way, 03-Jul-25.
https://publicwitness.wordandway.org/p/how-to-challenge-magas-biblical-authoritarianism
Just one comment ...
Liz, It would be wonderful if "the" American church spoke up about things that are not right etc, but my observation is that there is not "the" church to speak ... perhaps there once was when, e.g. Billy Graham could (and sometimes did) astutely speak for most Protestants, if not Protestants and Catholics; and perhaps an American Cardinal could speak for all US Catholics. But these days the US church is quite fissiparous (or so it seems to me): Catholic bishops do not all align on various matters (though mostly are agreed about immigration); there is no one single commanding Protestant or Pentecostal leader; and all churches now have bad public records of abusive pastors/priests etc. However, that does not mean the church here is of no importance - church going is a "thing", and church leaders do speak up ... but where the church may head to in the 2030s and 2040s will be interesting to observe.
Referencing the US church was to ensure I wouldn't be read as critical to ACANZP :) I think the response of the church is SUPER important but mostly of little effect (with the notable exception of Bishop Budde's sermon). Individuals here and there won't cut it because the other side have huge church, media and political networks to broadcast their messages. But this issue must be addressed, it's like the CofE not prioritising the issue of abuse and then eventually getting bitten big-time.
While resources are still available the various denominations must co-operate and get their best minds and spokespeople onto defending and propagating a robust theology centred on faith in Jesus and proclaiming the victory that Christ has already accomplished. Theirs is a false gospel where apostolic authority is established through fearmongering about demons whereas we know from scripture that "he who fears has not been made perfect in love" 1 John 4:18. It's got so bad that people get told they're not real Christians if they vote Democrat and this even issues from Catholic clergy e.g. “So just quit pretending that you’re Catholic and vote Democrat. Repent of your support of that party and its platform or face the fires of hell.” One quote in an eye-opening article by James Martin S.J. where he discusses faulty moral reasoning and offers the actual Catholic teaching about personal conscience. He stresses "a pattern of messages from bishops and priests" and stresses his examples aren't simply isolated instances. It's a 2021 article but I think things have only got worse since then:
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/01/12/capitol-riot-congress-trump-catholic-bishops-james-martin-239697/
There is a level of irony here Liz, by failing to live to the letter of biblical texts, and tolerating the irrationality of those who do, Christian moderates, such as those posting on this blog, betray faith and reason equally. Regards, Thomas
I've just read such a great article about vertical and horizontal morality. The terms are explained and then it's shown how they apply to the current situation in the U.S. - a very useful framework for helping appreciate the differences in Christian understanding - and how that plays out in politics.
[E.g.] “There’s a quote I heard often growing up in this world that says, ‘Some Christians are so heavenly-minded that they’re no earthly good.’ And I think that perfectly sums up the risks of holding solely to a vertical morality,” Ajoy said. “Our history is full of instances of Christians causing human suffering because they believed they were obeying God. And God’s will can be manipulated and weaponized for all sorts of harm.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/vertical-morality-maga-christians_l_68dc8386e4b0b11989f00fb8
Post a Comment