“The Hebrew is concerned with practice, the Greek with knowledge. Right conduct is the ultimate concern of the Hebrew, right thinking that of the Greek.” -William Barrett

I remember learning this distinction between these two ancient ways of thinking sometime shortly after high school when I was at YWAM. The basic idea that some saw “belief” as merely an intellectual exercise, and others as more a matter of action. Our society, and much of the church, is dominated by a Greek way of thinking. So, “believing” in Jesus is mostly a matter of praying a prayer or agreeing to a particular creed.

I’m not sure if it was some traditional Hebraic thinking in me or my love for the book of James, but I remember then immediately being hooked on this concept and that it only made sense that the Hebraic way of thinking, that belief was a matter of action, was the right way. And I still think that today.

I don’t deny that “thinking” and intellectual understanding of ones faith has relevance and impact, but if it’s not coupled with action it seems to lose credibility (though I am certainly not the judge of your beliefs or actions).

The church in the US, at least as I’ve experienced it, seems dominated by this Greek way of thinking. In most churches I’ve been in, if you do not say you believe the basic tenants, if your not a member of the church (which involves stating belief in those basic tenants of the faith), or if you express any intellectual doubt, you will be treated as one who is either not yet part of the fold or one who has fallen away or is in danger of doing so. Yet, that same measure seems to rarely be used in terms of ones actions (and I don’t just mean avoiding the big taboos or helping out at church). The church just doesn’t seem to care all that much if your life looks more like your consumeristic, secular, patriotic neighbor then your homeless, selfless, outcast Savior.

“I will show you my faith by what I do.” -James 2:18

When it comes to politics and faith I find a lot of Christians fall into one of two categories particularly when it comes to social issues: The church should care for the needs of the people (more republican leaning) or The church should influence the government to care for the needs of the people (more democrat leaning). Generally speaking, in theory, many agree that it’s a Christian thing to care for those in need, Christians just differ on how. But, then here is the crazy thing to me: both sides think something should be done AND both think the church should be a part of it. So, why aren’t we coming together to do these things?

In my experience, more liberal leaning Christians, in talk, are all about the social justice issues: feed the poor, care for the needy; and more conservative leaning Christians in political discussions are all about the church doing those very same things: feed the poor, care for the needy. Yet these two groups of folks, who are supposedly part of a unified spiritual body, seem to constantly be at odds, and mean while the poor starve and needs go unmet. Actions speak louder then words.

My guess is that in actuality neither side really cares about the needs of their neighbors. We all love a good debate and getting fired up and passionate and waxing eloquently about philosophical issues and how to solve world hunger, but we don’t really love our neighbors.

Healthcare Imagination from The Work Of The People

After discovering John Piper’s sermons (via a youth leader in my high school youth group), round about my sophomore year, I became a Christian Hedonist. At the time, I did not know what Hedonism was, but learned, via context, that “Christian Hedonism” was a bit of a radical/controversial doctrine. Piper sums it up most concisely like this:

“God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.”

The idea of our “satisfaction” being central to life’s purpose, to ‘worship’ and to God was apparently counter to what most religious people believed. Me, personally, being early in my faith and walk, soaked it up. It seemed to make perfect sense to me, we were created to have pleasure (think: taste buds).  And that quickly, I became a Christian hedonist.

Now, you can read Piper’s summaries of Christian Hedonism, but for the purpose of this discussion I’ll try and summarize it in my own words.

Basically, the idea is that following and seeking our intended purpose will lead to the most fulfilling life. Piper believes that our purpose is to glorify God and we do that through following the scripture and mandates laid out in the Bible. So, we are ultimately seeking our own happiness and satisfaction through Biblical calls to “deny yourself” and “love one another” and give to those in need and so on and so forth.

I think one of the things I connected with so strongly with this view is it is, again, something that most people, regardless of religious background can relate to. We all want to be happy. We all want purpose in life and to fulfill that purpose.  I had discovered this and then sought after it within the context of the Christian faith. And so far, despite faith struggles, I haven’t found the need or desire to seek it elsewhere.

One of the reason I think I’ve carried this doctrine or view with me for so long is that I think it had a huge impact on my turning many of my convictions in my early college years. As I read the Bible and began to see with my own eyes so much of this radical love you enemies and care for the poor sorts of commands, I did not hesitate as much as I might have without this Christian Hedonism view. For me, I’d come to believe following those mandates would lead to the most fulfilling life and so if there was clear and obvious commands like “love your enemies” then it was best to follow those.

And that’s where it leaves me. I know others might find this semi-heretical and still others might find it makes a great argument for ditching Christianity and seeking many other hedonistic routes. I’d like to hear opinions from all sides. What I wrote above is some reflection on where I have been, I’m comfortable holding loosely to those views and open to hearing others.

I intended to put a lot more time into this post then I have. I was also hoping for some dialog with others pre-writing to get my thoughts stirring, but neither of those two things happened, and I promised you readers I’d get something up, so here goes (how’s that for a lame preface)

Last week, I suggested listening to this sermon, Did Christ Die For Us or for God?, by John Piper. It was one of the foundational sermons in my early faith development and something I had not really gone back to reflect on in several years. Listening to it this past couple weeks I found I could still quote much of it verbatim, which gives you an idea of how much I’ve listened to it. So, for those who have and haven’t here is an ever so brief summary.

SPOILER ALERT: The answer to the sermon title is “for God.”

Summary:

• Secular Mindset: Man is at the center of the universe vs. Biblical Mindset: God is the most absolute reality.
• “Is the basic riddle of the universe how to preserve man’s rights and solve his problems (say, the problem of suffering)?” “How shall God be known in the fullness of his personhood and glory?”
• Jesus Christ was a sacrifice of atonement to show God’s righteousness, “because in his divine forbearance he had passed over the sins previously committed.” (Romans 3:25)
• “All sin is a preference for the fleeting pleasures of the world over the everlasting joy of God’s fellowship.”
• “God would be unrighteous if he passed over sins as though the value of his glory were nothing.”
• But, how can self-exaltation be an act of love? “God’s self-exaltation is loving, because it preserves for us and offers to us the only all-satisfying Object of desire in the universe – the all-glorious, all-righteous God.”

(quotes pulled from this transcript)

That is an ever so brief summary. Now let me breakdown a couple things that I think have really had an impact on me.

First of all, I really resonated with Piper’s explanation of mindsets, because I don’t think it has to assume you believe in the Bible (the catch 22 of many apologetic arguments). If a creator exist, then it would be fair to argue The Creator has the ultimate rights in the universe, not the creation. That does not, for me, have the terrible implications some people see in believing in God (that of an angry supreme being eager to wreck havoc on the earth for no reason). I think it simply settled in my mind that, if I believe in a Creator (which I do), then that creator should be considered in your worldview (rather bland explanation).

Two, and I think this is the main thing I’d like to get at, I think Christ’s death and sacrifice make sense as a “vindication of God’s righteousness.” The explanation used in the sermon is that say someone tried to assassinate the president, was stopped at the last second, apologized, and where then let go, scot free. What would that say about how much we value our president? God would not be a righteous God if there was not some sort of payment for the wrong doing we humans have done (and continue to do, myself included). See, God was already being a loving God by forgiving wrongdoings (like King David), but, unless there was some form of payment (like a sentence served in the above example), God would be unjust. Thus, Christ life and death was an act to vindicate God’s righteousness.

Now what does that all mean for me? Even after writing it, I’m not totally sure. I didn’t find in revisiting the sermon and the theological points or anything else, that I was uncomfortable with the theology or points put forward. Maybe there are things that should make me uncomfortable, maybe not. I do think my above two paragraph sound a lot more evangelistic and typical “gospel presentation” then I intended.

The reason for doing this though was to allow for dialog. So please, take a minute after reading to lend your insight as well. Push back if you have a thought. Lend an encouraging or corrective word if you have it. Add further insight you came across. I can’t find the second sermon tape, but I’ll do my best to talk about the next topic next week: Christian Hedonism. Peace.

In preparation for a post I intend to write next week, I’ve been listening to one of two John Piper sermons that have been quite foundational in my early formative faith/theology years (sophomore and junior year of high school). The sermons are from a Passion Conference, which was an annual college student conference focused around bringing students together toward a shared evangelistic and missional call (this is my own summary). I did not attend, but received the tapes from a leader in the youth group I was attending. The two Piper sermons resonated with me and I listened to them many times over the next several years. I’ve since lost my copies of the tapes and my search to recover audio from one of the two sermons has been futile. I do have the first sermon though, which I will link to below and ask that you try and find the time to listen to it before the weekend is over.

It’s a 40 minute sermon entitled: Did Christ Die For Us Or For God?

If you’ve listened or read much of John Piper’s theological stances, you might know some of what he talks about in the sermon. Maybe you’ll just need to skim it to get the main points. Anyways, my hope is that you’ll listen to it and provide your input and feedback in the comment section below. My hope is that regardless of how you feel about Piper, you’ll put that aside to simply listen to the sermon and converse with me about it.

I will be posting some of my thoughts and reflections next week, but I want to open up the discussion in hopes of bringing further thoughts out to help me reflect on it and what about this sermons I’ve found so shaping. Please, chime in with questions or comments.

(P.S. This is not an endorsement of John Piper or his theology. This is part of a series of posts of mine reflecting on those sermons, books, etc that were foundational in my early theology and my attempt to revisit those tenants. For better or worse, I credit Piper for impacting much of my foundational theology, I’ve also harshly criticized him on this blog.)

If I did musical intros to my blog posts, the one for this post would be Bob Dylan’s, Gotta Serve Somebody. I’m not quite sure when I chose this title for my blog or mantra for my life, but as time goes on I find myself more and more comfortable with it. I think the question that it immediately evokes is: who? Who am I trying to follow?

Several years ago, that answer would have been staunchly black and white. I am following Jesus, the God of the Bible and no one and nothing else. “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus…and run with perseverance…” Back then though, I probably wouldn’t have used the word “trying”, it’s too wishy-washy, too uncommitted. The songs sung in church never have the ambiguity of “trying” they are steadfast commitments, battle cries and no compromise allegiances. Most of that’s not bad, positive self-talk certainly has it’s place, but somewhere along the way I found it fairly disingenuous to be singing those types of words. I wasn’t really following Jesus, not most of the time anyways.

Nowadays, I’m quite happy with just trying to follow. I don’t have aspirations to be a leader, I’m going to just stick with doing my best at following. And, I’m going to be honest about my lack of resolve and commitment, I’m gonna “try” that’s the most I can offer and I’m okay with that.

As to the who, I still use this line sometimes:  “I once read the words of a man who said, “Follow me,” and I’ve been on that journey ever since.” That is definitely a reference to Jesus and his teachings, which I’d still consider the primary path I’m trying to follow. I’ve found nothing more fascinating and life-changingly radical then the philosophies and teachings I’ve seen in Jesus’ words, that’s just the honest truth. At the same time, along my journey there have been other mentors whose wisdom and lives I’ve found inspiring, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, MLK, Dorothy Day. I’ve also found I don’t need to completely agree with someone to find wisdom and encouragement in their teachings. Greg Boyd and John Piper have both been largely influential in my theology and yet they appear to be each others archnemesis.

Trying to follow means taking this humble journey one step at a time. Being okay with making mistakes, being wrong, needing to turn around, or seeking further wisdom on the path. It means no one person might have all the answers, that maybe there is kernels of truth lying in many. And it means not being too stubborn to think your going to lead the way on your own. We all know, you’ve gotta serve somebody.

A series of occurrences recently have caused me to really want to revisit some of my basic beliefs that probably formed sometime in high school and beginning of college. It’s interesting that much of my spiritual growth and understanding of my faith came about over 10 years ago when I was in high school. And it was during that time that I think I formed some of the sort of root theological views that I had and have continued to hold or ascribe to for several years. What’s interesting is that much of it hasn’t been called into question or changed despite many of my changing beliefs on social issues, politics, daily lifestyle choices, etc.

So, I’d like to start writing about these things and share them with you here. I’m not sure if these old beliefs I’ll dig up from the back of my brain have simply line dormant and unused or if they silently serve as the very foundation upon which much of my other thoughts are formed. We’ll find out. I might even get around to writing a post explaining the long held title of this blog.

I ask this of you in return, if you are going to come back and read what I write. Be gracious, but feel free to critique or call out what you see as off or misguided. I might very well share things I believe, that I’ll decide shortly after I don’t really believe at all, please give me room to grow and change and make mistakes. And I ask if you do read, please don’t be a silent participant. Dialog with me, be willing to share your own thoughts, be open to your own mistakes. Not sure this final disclaimer was necessary, my post might end up being underwhelming, but at least we prepared for something potentially bigger.