Sanctification with a pickle on top? or, Why Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich

I actually had a lot of quasi-cynical titles I was debating between.  "Christianity with a side of waffle fries" was way up there too, but you can only put so many titles on the title. ;)  The topic of this post ought to be blatantly obvious already, unless by some miracle you've managed to avoid the trumped up news (and I'm using that word very loosely) flurry over the last few days.

It boils down to Chick-Fil-A's stance against gay marriage and the scores of Christians (and non-Christians) that turned out to wolf down some heterosexual poultry on "Chick-Fil-A" appreciation day.  This post is not about whether it was a meaningful act of the citizenry to proclaim their democratic values and freedom of speech (the link above is a fascinating article on the legal/constitutional implications, btw), or whether it was merely representative of genius marketing and the naive, public belief that we can positively change the world by eating MORE fast food. (really!?)  This post is directly aimed at those who saw their patronage of Cathy's chicken empire as an act of spiritual devotion.

Now, I realize that nothing would so quintessentially pigeonhole us as American Christians as to believe that we could actually grow in spiritual depth by gorging ourselves on waffle fries (oh, but they are soooo tasty!  WWJDF?  What would Jesus deep fry? Answer: waffle fries! :) but I'm afraid there's just no basis for that.  To widen the context, there is a growing interest in what is labelled "moral consumerism" or "moral boycotting" on the negative side.  The idea is that through our purchases (or refusing to purchase) we can be more or less moral.  Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to think about what we are purchasing or that it has absolutely no value, just that it has no spiritual value.  Yep, you heard me.  Jesus doesn't care about your chicken sandwich or if you're scarfing Oreos.  Allow me to give you the practical reason and then the biblical one.

Practical: The fact is that our global economy is far too interconnected for "moral consumerism" to really mean anything.  Some Christian friends of mine lamented the rainbow-stuffed Oreo and how they will no longer be able to enjoy it's wafery-creamy goodness.  Fact: Oreo is owned by Nabisco, which is a division of Kraft Foods.  Are really you going to stop eating ALL Kraft Foods products?  Good luck.  What about the fact that (prepare to be shocked...) gay marriage (and/or abortion) is NOT the only moral issue Christians should be concerned about?  What about companies who oppress their workers in distant lands?  What about those who provide "golden parachutes" to their CEO's while basically screwing over the rest of their employees, not to mention the rest of the world economy?  Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't think about these questions or even that we shouldn't take some form of action to ensure that the companies we buy from are more ethical, but to take the practice of "moral consumerism" to its logical end, you will end up naked and starving or living on a kibbutz, weaving your own hemp clothes and eating from the collective garden.  If that's your thing, go for it, though even then one of the kibbutzniks might be gay and, by the same logic, you'd have to abstain from eating their vine-ripened tomatoes.  Go for it, but don't think it will make you more holy. 

Biblical: Fortunately, we are not not stuck with a merely pragmatic argument.  The question of purchasing goods as an expression of faith was actually a question that arose with the very first generation of Christians.  In God's providence, we have the answer of the Apostle Paul to this quandary in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10.  The issue of the day was buying meat at the market.  Almost all the meat in those days was previously offered to false gods in sacrifice before being sold at the market.  What was Paul's answer?  Boycott meat?  At least go ferret out the kosher butcher (which probably wouldn't have been too hard to do in a church with a good portion of Jews)?  Nope.  He says, "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market, asking no questions... food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse."  So much for "moral consumerism".  Paul goes on to argue that if we receive it and praise God for it, we can eat (i.e., consume) whatever we want.  It doesn't really make a bit of difference who it was offered to, or what the butcher (or CEO) stands for or against.  Eat it and thank God. 

I'd like to look at a few results of this idea of "moral consumerism" to see why is has no real spiritual value.  First of all, notice that it is a current trend primarily in the western world where there is an over-abundance of material goods.  If you are really willing to say that "moral consumerism" is the duty of all mature Christians, tell me this: Are you really saying that if your starving, Christian brother in India can barely get grain to eat, and then only from a Hindu merchant who has offered it to one of his plethora of gods, that he has to continue starving?  Or if he does eat it, that he is somehow less "moral" than you are as you waste more money than he will see in his lifetime on your own personal amusement at the mall and on christian t-shirts with witty, little brand rip-offs that make you feel justified in spending more money on yourself than you send to help him?  What about the Christian in a Muslim country where EVERYTHING he buys is Halal?  The thing about "moral consumerism" as a supposed "spiritual virtue" is that it presupposes a material over-abundance of products to choose from and that the consumer has enough money to be picky.  It's not even a viable option for most of the world's population (or in reality for westerners.  See practical reason #1).  But in our self-centered affluence, we like to think that blowing money on ourselves makes us "moral" as long at the CEO stands for what we do.

And here we come to the next point.  The term "moral consumerism" is an appalling, uniquely western term that is really rather oxymoronic.  The premise is that I can be a self-centered consumer and feel good about myself at the same time.  I have no problem with the term "responsible consumerism".  Much like "responsible drinking" it implies that you are careful with this intoxicating practice of blowing money on yourself and do not do it in excess.  But "moral consumerism" seems like it should imply something more than just binging on all of my materialistic desires as long as I can attach some superficial moral value to the CEO of said company.  "Moral consumerism" ought to imply that we are moral in not spending as much on ourselves, that we consider those other brothers across the world who are starving while we debate between waffle fries and Oreos and instead send the money we would've blown on ourselves to help THEM!  Imagine that.  Perhaps the real reason we seek moral alleviation in what we buy is because, deep down, we realize we're simply spending too much on ourselves.

And here we get back to the Apostle.  He goes on to say in these chapters that though we are free to eat whatever we want, we should put one principle over our freedom: love.  If buying meat sacrificed to an idol is a point of offense to the person you're with, then abstain.  If you are with a vegan, don't eat a burger in front of him.  If you are having lunch with a homosexual friend (yes, Christian, you should actually DO that! ;) don't go Chick-Fil-A.  The point of our freedom is to use it to love others.  Spiritually speaking, what you eat doesn't matter.  Why you eat it does.  And the reason in these choices should be because you love others.  If we were half as concerned about exercising ourselves in true, self-sacrificial generosity and submitting our taste buds to loving our neighbor as we are about which trans-fat laden tidbit agrees with our values, we'd go a whole lot further in real sanctification and holiness instead of contenting ourselves with a paltry show of self-centered pseudo-spirituality.

El fin.  Rant, done. ;)  Comments welcome!

social justice in the church: the necessity and the danger

Recently I've been hearing (and reading) lots of people take strong stances on the question of social justice in the life of the church.  These opinions are as varied as "if you're not actively participating in programs to serve the poor and marginalized, you're a horrible Christian", to "social justice is not the calling of the church and is a distraction from the Great Commission."

As for the idea of social justice being a distraction from the church's true calling, this just doesn't seem like a serious argument to me, or one with any biblical foundation anyway.  It really only requires taking a look at perhaps the one Christian who fulfilled the Great Commission like no other: the Apostle Paul.  When Paul went to Jerusalem to tell the other Apostles about how God had been working salvation among the Gentiles through him, fulfilling the Great Commission in an unprecedented way, their reply was that they "perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do." (Gal. 2:9-10)  Far from being a distraction from the Great Commission, the early church and Paul himself looked on issues of social justice as inseparable from the Great Commission.  Their encouragement to Paul is not "make sure you don't let anything distract you from that, Paul", but rather that social justice MUST be part of the Great Commission.  Can anyone really read the epistle of James or 1st John and doubt the importance of social justice in the life of the believer?  I'm not going to attempt a full, theological justification of the necessity of social justice ministry in the church in this blog post.  If anyone is in need of convincing, I'd simply recommend reading Generous Justice, by Tim Keller.

However, I do believe there is a potential danger in the recent awakening to social justice.  That danger is not in the recognition of the need for justice, nor in our call to pursue it, but rather in the motives and goals we hold behind the pursuit.  It is no coincidence that the majority of the noise surrounding the church's call to social justice is coming from developed countries where there is a justice system in tact.  In the rare (read "western") corners of the world where justice is the accepted standard of society, there is a subtle temptation to import the value of justice from society at large into the church, without examining its form and source. 

If the ardor behind our pursuit of justice is the expectation of establishing a just system rather than out of love of our neighbor and to manifest the nature of the coming kingdom, we will burn out and not really be fulfilling the biblical call to social justice.  In other words, there is a danger of seeing ourselves as the fountainhead of justice rather than waiting expectantly for the returning Judge.  Western society, where this renewed call to social justice in the church is strongest, generally supports the value of justice for the individual (compared with the rest of the world anyway).  But has the growing cause of justice in secular society been born from spiritual insight into the character of God?  Is it not more likely the result of abandoning any belief in ultimate, eternal justice and hence there arises our need to create our own justice here and now?  And therein is the danger: that as the church pursues justice she will do so in a way no differently from society at large.  She will merely mimic the secular pursuit of justice.  The danger is that our pursuit of justice ceases to be a manifestation of love to our neighbor and a sign of the coming kingdom of Christ, and rather flows from a desire to control our circumstances, to mitigate our own suffering in the world, and from a lack of real belief in the ultimate justice of the Judge of the living and dead.  The truth is that our pursuit of justice can flow just as much from a lack of faith in the coming justice of God as it can from our obedience to the Judge and in conformation to His character.

The church is called to social justice, but we must understand why and from what motive.  The church is called to transformation into Christ's image and to love our neighbor, therefore social justice is not an optional activity for the Christian.  See, we can hardly pretend to be loving our neighbor if we are indifferent to his suffering (though many do).  This is the whole point of John's rhetorical question in his first epistle: "But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?" (1 Jn. 3:17)  John goes on to make the point that anyone who doesn't love his brother but says he loves God is a liar.  Therefore, it's true that if we neglect questions of social justice and shut up our hearts from others' suffering, we ARE horrible Christians.  But we must be sure that the motives behind our pursuit of justice are namely these: that we pursue social justice out of love for our neighbor, because God loves him or her and calls us to be conformed to His image.  We do so not in expectation that we as the church will be capable of creating perfect conditions where justice flourishes.  In fact, our attempts may not actually change the structures of justice at all.  Another way of saying this is that we pursue social justice as a manifestation of love, as a reflection of the kingdom of God in which Jesus will establish complete and ultimate justice.  We must not forget that we, as believers in Christ, though being the firstfruits of the inaugurated kingdom of God, are not currently in the fully realized version of that kingdom.  Neither is it through our efforts that this realization will come about, but through the return of the King to establish His kingdom. 

I have lived the last 10 years of my life in a country that lacks a just society (at least compared with North America or Western Europe).  Sons of millionaries and members of parliament rape and pillage (literally) whatever and whoever they want and are rarely called to account for it.  Workers in factories labor in conditions that would be considered animal cruelty in the west.  The honest are few and far between and usually suffer for their integrity.  Even rarer are those who would step up to defend the helpless for fear that they would be the ones to bear the blame (and history has often justified this fear.)  Corruption among those who are supposed to uphold justice is so pervasive that people openly joke about it. (One of those "we laugh so we don't cry" kind of things.) The government is interested primarily in stuffing its own pockets rather than caring for the welfare of its citizens.  And it is in that context that I am called to seek justice for my neighbors as a manifestation of love.  What must be the goal?  If the calling is the creation of a just society by my efforts (or even those of the church at large), there is cause for despair.  But if the calling is to come along side the victims, the oppressed, the marginalized and take their suffering as my own and to work to the extent of my ability to serve their tangible needs as a reflection of the coming kingdom where this will be realized, that pursuit of justice can be a true act of love regardless of the outcome.  Sometimes this pursuit yields results (my clout as one of only 2 Americans in the city does tend to improve the attitudes of the government employees I've had to deal with in seeking to serve others, and I am grateful for God's providence in that), but mostly not.  The danger of the pursuit of social justice as a goal in itself becomes very clear, very quickly.  In the framework of corruption and abuse of power, "justice" as an end in itself may never be achieved.  However, justice as a manifestation of compassion, empathy and love will not be diminished or frustrated by its practical results.  We must see that coming along side to take the suffering of the oppressed and marginalized on ourselves is already a victory as it manifests the love of the God who came to bear our suffering, regardless of if temporal justice is served or not.

thoughts?

the obedience that's actually disobedience

I have been a seriously truant blogger of late.  Hoping to correct that a bit... at least post more than once every 4 months. :-/  As we are studying through Deuteronomy on Sundays, there's one topic that comes up fairly often, and on which I've been meaning to post for a while: obedience.  For any of us familiar with the stories of the children of Israel in the desert, we also know it seems to be something that they were not particularly good at.  But the interesting thing that stands out in these passages is the nature of their disobedience.

Perhaps the most infamous act of disobedience the Israelites committed was when they refused to go into the promised land.  The epistle to the Hebrews gives us some fascinating insight into what the essence of their disobedience actually was in that instance.  The writer of Hebrews explains that they could not enter in because of unbelief.  That might not be news to us.  But the question is, "what did they not believe?"  Surely it doesn't mean they didn't believe in the existence of God.  What then did they not believe?  In Heb. 4 the explanation is more specific: "For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard."  We are told that the essence of their sin was unbelief in the Gospel.  What Gospel?  That God was giving them a land purely by His grace.  As He says to the Israelites while the are still gathered around Sinai, presumably not moving on because they think they need to keep the Law first, "Enough sitting on this mountain!  Go in and take the land!  It's a gift!" (Deut. 1:6-8) 

The reason they didn't enter into the promised land is because they still believed it had something to do with them, that it somehow depended on their ability and strength.  See, the thing was, God had set their bodies free from the slavery of Egypt, but in many ways it took much longer to set their hearts free.  The only king they had ever known was a demanding tyrant who would severely punish them for not fulfilling his every whim.  The only life they had known was a life where they had to sweat and bleed and perform back-breaking labor to receive even the smallest amount of provision.  It was completely foreign to them that their new King, the Lord, would bless them, would give them something so bountiful as a whole land of their own, simply by His grace.  The Israelites were torn between their complaining and infidelity to God on the one hand and their fearful attempts to fulfill the Law and hesitance to believe in the grace of God on the other.  These are really just two sides of the same coin.

This is the same dilemma many Christians find themselves in.  They toss back and forth between wandering from the Lord to serve idols and fitful attempts at keeping God's commands.  But both of these come from the same root: a lack of belief in the Gospel of grace.  On the one hand, our lack of belief manifests in running to things that really can't fulfill us, because mistrust the heart of God.  If we believed that we were accepted by God no matter what, we would not be snared in the trap of people-pleasing.  If we believed that God cares so much for us that He gave His life to secure our blessing, we would not be greedy out of a fear that God will not provide for us.  The root of any and every sin is a lack of belief in the Gospel of grace, a mistrust of the generous heart of God.

On the other hand, and this is the more deceptive part, our obedience would be a very different obedience if we truly believed the Gospel.  See, the Israelites at times attempted to prove their worth, their ability to earn God's love.  But the truth is, they were still obeying like slaves: out of fear.  They didn't obey out of joy or thanks that God had shown them grace or in a confidence that their obedience was a reaction to His favor, not a condition for it.  That is, their "obedience" was not obedience at all because it was born out of a mistrust of God's heart.  Paul writes of this distinction in Rom. 8 saying, "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, 'Abba! Father!'"

A slave mentality is summarized by the motivation of fear.  A slave must obey otherwise the the master will beat him or worse.  There is absolutely no trust involved.  In fact, the master-slave relationship exists for the purpose of the slave's obedience.  That is what the slave is there for and if he should cease to perform his tasks, the relationship is in jeopardy.  But God has, by His act of grace, redeemed us and made us children and heirs.  We, as Jesus told His disciples, are no longer called slaves but friends.  The obedience of a child is entirely different than the obedience of a slave.  Ideally, the son obeys his father not in order to earn love or favor, but because he is confident that the father already loves him.  His obedience (again, we're talking ideally here) exists for the purpose of relationship with the father.  Not the other way around, as with the slave.  His obedience is not a condition for the father's love but a response to it.

When, as children of God, we attempt to keep God's commandments or fulfill the instructions of the Bible with the mentality of a slave, we are actually disobeying.  When we see God's acceptance of us as dependent on our obedience, when we do what we are supposed to do out of fear that He will punish us or cast us out if we don't, then despite what we are doing externally, it is not obedience.  It is the mentality of slave.  But that mentality implies of our God that He is a cruel and harsh master rather than a loving and gracious Father.  Therefore, any fulfillment of commands which is born out of a mistrust of His loving, fatherly heart is actually disobedience.  This view of obedience ought not to surprise us, since God Himself was the one who said, "the LORD does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Is your obedience that of a slave or a child?  Is it born out of a trust of His grace or unbelief in the Gospel?  Have you mistakenly thought you were obeying God when the doubt in your heart of God's fatherly love actually meant that your rule-keeping was disobedience?  May we learn to be just as attentive to the motive of our hearts as to the works of our hands, because God does not want slaves, but children. 

This post is adapted from the sermon on Deut. 1:1-8 - Slavery and Sonship, available in Russian here.

what is worship?

It might seem like too simple of a question.  As Christians, we talk about worship frequently.  We say that we were created to worship.  But what does that mean?  If we're talking about something that is, ultimately, the purpose of our life, we'd better have a firm grasp on what we're talking about.  Too many Christians seemingly think that glorifying God consists in the bare realization of the facts of God's power, majesty, etc.  The sky is blue, 2+2=4, and God is almighty.  Perhaps the concept of worship is even taken to mean acknowledgment of these facts with a measure of fear. 

However, this cannot be what is meant biblically by the idea of “worshiping God”.  All we need to do to make that clear is answer this question: does satan realize the facts of God’s omnipotence and majesty?  Better than we do!  He has SEEN God’s unveiled power and glory directly!  Is he terrified in the presence of God?  Does he have an abundant “measure” of fear?  Yes!  James says, the “demons believe and tremble”.  Yet, pay attention: neither satan nor demons worship God.  Therefore, recognition of facts, even with a measure of fear, is NOT worship!  A Christian who thinks, by acknowledging the facts of God’s power and majesty, even with a little fear, that he is worshiping God is doing no such thing!  If that’s you, you’re lying to yourself.  What then is the biblical meaning of worship to God?  This is an important question, right?

The opposite of worship is not denial of fact, but rather blasphemy.  Satan realizes God’s power and majesty, but he has absolutely no pleasure in it.  He is disgusted by it and filled with anger because of God’s majesty.  This should give us a hint as to the essence of biblical worship.  If the opposite of worship is to be disgusted by God, then worship itself is, above all, to find pleasure in God.

The word “worship” in Scripture is used, and we use it in Christian context, interchangeably with the word “praise.”  But what is praise?  Think outside of the religious context for a moment.  When we watch a great movie, we praise it to our friends, “oh, you have to watch that!”  When we eat a delicious meal, we praise it, “this is amazing!”  Praise then is the expression and culmination of our delight in something.  Not only is it the expression of delight, but the expressing completes the delight.  This is what it means, biblically, to praise God: to express our delight in Jesus and therein, our delight finds it’s culmination.

Therefore, biblically speaking, it is impossible to worship Jesus if we do not enjoy Him.  If you think you worship Jesus, but do not have any enjoyment in Him, you are not really worshiping.  Jesus convicted the Pharisees of this very thing, saying “you worship me with your lips, but your hearts are far from me.”

To worship Jesus, to love Him, in the biblical sense, is to delight in Him as a bride in her groom.  This is the heart of true worship.  True worship is not self-improvement motivated by fear and duty.  Sadly, that is what many Christians call “worship”.  Rather it is rapture, delight in the arms of our Beloved Jesus.  We may find this difficult to understand, because we have got this stoic, pharisaic idea into our heads that worship of God can’t mean enjoyment of Him. We've been told that one must suppress and deny desire for the Lord's sake.  CS Lewis writes that our problem is not that we seek pleasure too much but that we seek it not enough.  "We are content to fool about with drink, sex and ambition, not even suspecting that we are offered infinite joy in Christ."  Lest it be misunderstood, this is not making a god of pleasure.  John Piper states pointedly in his book Desiring God, “[this understanding] is not making a god of pleasure.  Rather, it is saying that you have already made a god out of whatever you find most pleasure in.”  The words of Scripture confirm enjoyment as the essence of worship.  Ps. 16:11, “In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.”  Are you truly worshiping?

community, autonomy and the resurrection

over the last couple decades society has experienced a huge disconnect.  you can see the recognition of this trend in just about any sociological work you'd care to get your hands on.  perhaps the most famous example of this is a book called bowling alone by robert putnam.  the title comes from the anecdotal evidence that today there are many more people who bowl than a couple decades prior, but less who bowl in leagues.  the illustration is meant to show the fragmentation and isolation of individuals in modern society.  putnam blames this tendency primarily (though not exclusively) on technology.  he is not the first to write of the isolating effects of technology, nor will he be the last.  it is probably one of the great ironies of the 21st century that though we are drowning in a plethora of connections, we feel the lack of connectedness ever more acutely.  however, to try to blame this shift on TV or the interwebs is a huge over-simplification.  certainly the high mobility and transient nature of modern society is another large factor.  we feel isolated because we move every few years to new places where we know no one and actually are socially isolated, at least for the first while.  people rarely factor in how much social capital it will cost them to get that better job to increase their financial capital.  another one of those millenial ironies i suppose. 

at some point we started defining what it was we were looking for with the word "community".  we worked on that for a while.  but once we realized that flinging a buzz word around wasn't helping us to create it, we did the most logical thing we could think of to help the problem: make a new buzz word.  that word today is tribe.  our shallow attempts at building "community" had ended in largely superficial solutions and just weren't enough.  we needed something with some more depth to it.  we had accomplished our goals for "community building" and were still left with a deep sense of isolation.  hence, we came up with "tribe".  we now attempt to create "tribe" in our companies (not to slam seth godin. he has some really interesting ideas.), tribes on the internet and tribes on tv.  the idea of tribe really does shoot at what we're all actual hungering for.  a deep, meaningful inter-connectedness.  cause the simple problem is, we're devastatingly lonely.

here's the thing: tribes (i mean real tribes, like the ones that wear hollowed-out vegetables for underwear and don't have iphones) are deeply interconnected  because of a very obvious but perhaps overlooked prerequisite: they NEED each other.  in a tribe there is a real, unglamorous dependence on one another for survival.  the connection they experience is not voluntary.  it is mandatory.  if the tribe doesn't stay totally inter-dependent, they die.  whether that's cause there's not enough food or cause another tribe destroys them makes little difference.  therefore they exist around a common purpose: the preservation of the tribe.  this highest goal is the same for each member.

this should already be enough to see why modern, individualistic society can never (that's right, NEVER) experience real "tribe" or "community" or whateveryouwannacallit without a radical shift in values.  the fact of the matter is that since the days of descartes, we have put the ultimate value in western society on our individualism and autonomy.  if you ask any modern, western urbanite "who gets to define your purpose in life?" you will most likely hear a single, oft-repeated answer: i do.  (isn't it ironic that in the attempt to be unique, people end up being clones of each other?)  as long as we continue to define the most important aspects of our lives autonomously, we will never experience tribe for one very simple reason: we don't believe that we actually need each other.  if real tribe requires a true dependence on others and we are out there defining the essence of our lives through independent, autonomous decisions, how will we ever develop a true sense of tribe?  short answer: we won't. 

i should insert here that in more traditional societies today (and even in western society a long time ago) there is no such delusion of autonomy and independence.  people are solidly convinced that they are not independent of each other.  historically this sense of tribe has been provided by, well, the tribe.  the family.  people were really dependent on each member of the family to contribute to the family's survival and prosperity.  along with this the common goal was the family's continuation.  modern society has largely shunned this goal as being too small for our life's purpose (and rightly so.)  despite being told by the materialist worldview that we have no other purpose than to propagate our own DNA, we refuse to believe it.

the dilemma we have is that on the one hand we want a real sense of tribe and inter-connectedness.  on the other hand we want to maintain our autonomy (or at least freedom) and not make that inter-connectedness itself the only common value.  now, you may have been thinking "what does the resurrection have to do with this?"  the answer is: everything.

Christianity is a uniquely historical faith in the sense that it depends entirely on historic facts: the death and resurrection of Christ.  every other religion, while having historical details, is not even close to dependent on its own history.  that is why all other religions are, in essence, philosophies and rules.  Christianity, however, is news of an historic event.  the upshot of this is that since it is news, it doesn't come like a bolt from the blue.  no one can just intuitively "figure out" the gospel, the same way you can't just meditate your way to knowing what's on the 6 o'clock news.  the gospel can only be received from another and passed on.

in other words, the historical nature of the gospel automatically creates tribe among those who receive it.  each person is literally dependent on others to tell them this news.  there is no way of receiving the gospel except through the community of faith.  this initial dependence establishes a paradigm for the rest of the Christian life: it cannot be lived alone.  we are dependent on others in the tribe to receive the gospel and dependent on them (though not in an exclusive, unhealthy sense) to grow further in the gospel.  this is why the Bible describes the Christian church with terms of deep inter-connectedness, such as, "you are all one body and members of one another."  on the other hand, the Christian community, while preserving the inter-dependence of tribe, keeps freedom in tact.  ultimately, you must make the choice to enter this tribe by receiving the gospel.  the tribe of the Crucified is about much more than self-preservation.  the goal (one which is sure of coming to pass) is nothing less than the coming of the Kingdom of God to the planet.  big enough goal?  the solution for our dilemma of wanting tribe yet also wanting freedom and bigger purpose is resolved in the gospel community of Jesus.

sadly, many Christians, while acknowledging the historicity of the resurrection of Christ and even agreeing that the gospel must come through others, deny its consequent paradigm: that growth in the gospel must occur in community.  this denial is rarely an out-right renunciation as much as it is evident in Christians' choices to avoid real community, to keep their relationships at church superficial or worse yet to come, sit through service like they would a TV show and leave with absolutely no interaction.  too many Christians are content to be a "body" with others in name only.  if this is the case with us, we need to recognize that though we assent with our lips, we are contradicting the consequence of the historical resurrection of Christ with our lives.

playground restoration

This summer our church took on some community service projects. One that we've completed was the restoration of a playground near our house.  As the Lord provides opportunities and resources for these projects, we hope to continue to reach out in this way to our community.  While the group of volunteers from our church was working on this playground, many people approached with amazement and asked why we would do this.  It was a blessing to share with them that Jesus loves our city and He told us to.  In a land where far too often people are happy to get ahead at the cost of ripping others off and the government is primarily concerned only about maintaining power for itself rather than caring for the public, it is truly counter-cultural to serve in a self-sacrificial way.  We believe God is using these projects to reach and convict hearts about the reality of the gospel.  If you'd like to be involved in sponsoring a project, please contact me, or visit our church's giving page.  Below is our vision statement for these community projects and a few pics of the playground we restored this summer.

Vision for Community Service Projects

As we enjoy the free grace and love that Jesus shows us, this necessarily births in us a desire to share that grace and love freely ("freely you have received, freely give." Mt. 10:8).  It is in allowing that grace to not only pierce our hearts but to be reflected through our lives and joining in His work to bless others that our enjoyment of Jesus is multiplied.

God came and gave grace to us who were undeserving and ill-deserving at great cost to Himself. We not only recognize but image that fact in serving others who have not asked for or earned it and at our own cost (of time, talent, and treasure). God "makes the rain to fall on the just and unjust." (Mt. 5:45) In this active thanks for His grace, we are further rooted in it, as where our treasure is, there our heart will be also.

Through these projects, we seek to live in love in a way that is received as such by those we serve. The most loving thing we could do for a person is to share the gospel with him. However, if he is not open, he will see it as us just trying to cram our opinion down his throat. If we show our love in a tangible way, it will give such a person cause to ask why. Scripture itself says "let us not love only in word and tongue, but in deed and truth." (I Jn. 3:18)

The culmination and goal of this is particularly to reach the world. It is these projects as an outworking of our own delight in Jesus, a manifestation of grace and a tangible act of love that is one way we seek to reach the world with the gospel. These projects will not themselves preach the gospel. However, they are a powerful witness that we as Christians have a truly self-sacrificial love for others and do desire the good of those even who reject us. Our hope is that these projects will be compelling in themselves as a manifestation of the reality of the gospel and open doors to share of the One who is the true Servant. “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.” (Mt. 5:16)

Now the pictures...

before:

 in process:

after:

how love heals shame

this post is an excerpt of the sermon from 1 Cor. 13:7a, "how love heals shame".  

the audio is available in russian here.

 

shame is an experience common to every human on the planet.  charles darwin, in classic materialist fashion, defined shame primarily in terms of the physical expression: casting the eyes downward, lowering the head, blushing and a slack posture.  interestingly, no matter what part of the world a person is from, these are universally accepted signs of this universally experienced condition.  to clarify what we’re talking about it's helpful to differentiate between shame and guilt.  the difference has been stated very well in the following way: “guilt is a sense that my actions are wrong.  shame is a sense that i am wrong.”  it’s interesting that even when a person denies guilt over certain actions, the sense of shame is much harder to escape.  a person might completely deny the existence of “moral standards”, and yet they may still go through life with a sense that “i’m not right”.  but where does shame come from?

the theme of shame runs throughout the whole Bible.  we see it from the very beginning.  in the garden of Eden God created Adam and Eve.  Gen. 2:25 says that they were both “naked and unashamed”.  but in ch. 3 they fall into sin, disobey God and all of a sudden, there is a change.  the very first result we read of after they eat the forbidden fruit is that “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. ”  the very first result from sin mentioned in the Bible is shame.  it was the direct result of sin.  it wasn’t just that they thought their action was wrong.  they thought that they were wrong and had to hide themselves, so they sewed coverings.  when God calls to Adam, Adam says, “I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”  they didn’t just wipe their mouths from the juice of the forbidden fruit to hide their action.  they tried to hide themselves.  this is shame, not just guilt.  shame is the fear that "someone will see me as i really am and reject me because i am disgusting".  they realized that now, in a real sense, they themselves were not right.  and their immediate reaction was to create a covering, a way to hide their own shame.  think about it: was there anything sinful in the fact that they were naked?  just adam and eve were there, a man and his wife.  no!  the problem was not their nakedness.  but their shame caused them to try and hide themselves.  the act of covering oneself as an expression of shame is well-known to all of us, even when that shame has nothing to do with a directly physical cause.

the picture of nakedness as an illustration of shame continues throughout Scripture.  essentially this is something we associate with nakedness anyway.  almost everyone has had the nightmare where you show up to school and you forgot to put on clothes and you're standing there in your undies or naked and everyone is laughing and you’re just dying of shame.  (even if you haven't had that dream, the concept is so ubiquitous that you're sure to have seen it in a movie or two.)  but along with this picture of nakedness as shame in Scripture, clothing nakedness is a picture of the covering of shame. 

now, in the sense that we’re fallen, sinful people, that shame is appropriate.*  we should have a sense that we aren’t as we should be, because we aren’t as we should be!  we were not created to exist in the condition of sin and alienation from God!  but at the same time, it’s impossible to constantly live in shame.  it will lead us to despair and depression.  in fact, in some cases, the horror of the conscious realization of shame is so strong that it's a motivating factor in suicide.  and so we attempt to “heal” our shame in one of 2 ways:

1) we sew fig leaves for ourselves.  that is, we attempt to hide our shame under that which we’ve made with our own hands.  even if we refuse to admit guilt over a specific action, if we try to justify it or even if a person denies the existence of moral standards, we still go about life trying to cover our shame through our works and accomplishments.  we attempt to cover who we are with what we do.  that might be accomplishments in business or wealth, perhaps in popularity or relationships or sex, or even in religious accomplishment and devotion.  we feel that we are wrong on some level and attempt to cover that with the work of our hands.  only it doesn’t work.  

think about the story in Eden.  if the fig leaves had really covered their shame, why did Adam and Eve hide in the bushes after they had made themselves a covering?  it becomes obvious that, although they attempted to deal with their own shame through their accomplishments, it didn’t work.  if it did they would’ve been standing in the middle of the garden in confidence.  see, whatever accomplishments we try to heal our shame with, it will never work.  we will only make matters worse.  there are 2 (at least) major down sides to making your underwear out of fig leaves.  first, it's a very temporary solution.  the fig leaves would quickly wither and Adam and Eve would constantly have to be renewing the fig leaves.  secondly, if you’ve ever felt a fig leaf, you know that they feel like sandpaper.  there's a mental picture for you: sandpaper undies.  you think that was comfortable?  nope!  that’s why they don’t sell fig-leaf underwear. ;)  they weren’t made for a covering! 

when a person attempts to cover their inherent sense of shame, that “i’m not right” with any accomplishment, first, it doesn’t last for long.  that temporary sense of relief from shame will soon disappear, like all fig leaves, and you’ll have to find another covering.  that’s why a person who uses, say, material goods to mask his shame has to keep getting more.  the old leaves fade.  that’s why a person who uses romantic relationships to mask shame has to keep getting more, changing partners, etc.  second, whatever you’ve made your “covering” from shame will begin to irritate you and you’ll hate it in the end, cause it wasn’t made to cover your shame!  that’s why people who try to use their families to cover their sense of shame end up leaving their families, or crush them under heavy demands and resentment.  that’s why people who use religious duty to cover shame often harbor a mild contempt for God and are very irritable.  whatever you are trying to cover your shame with today, the sense that you’re “not right”, be sure that it won’t last and you’ll hate it in the end.

2) the second approach is to pretend you aren't naked.  to just deny the existence of shame.  to attempt to be very proud in your wrongness.  but the fact of the matter is, even people who theoretically deny a sense of shame will still ultimately act out of it.  you might pretend you're not naked, but if you go outside in the winter, you're gonna realize it.  one interesting example in our culture here in Ukraine is «civil (common-law) marriage».  people will say that there's nothing shameful about living together and having sex outside of marriage.  and yet they'll most often call the person they're in fornication with «husband/wife».  why do that?  if it's really not shameful, why are people attempting to cover it up under the name of marriage?  the truth is we can deny shame all we want, but it will still be there and we'll still act out of it.

so here's the problem:  how can shame be healed?  how can we get rid of that sense that «i am wrong»?  if we can't cover it over with our own accomplishments and we can't effectively pretend that shame doesn't exist, are we doomed to remain in that sense of shame forever?  no!

now we look at the healing of shame.  let’s return to the story of Eden.  Adam and Eve had sewn their fig leaves to cover their shame.  but then God came and called them.  when Adam confessed to hiding because of his shame of nakedness, God asks, «who told you you were naked?  did you eat the fruit?»  once God had clearly convicted them of sin, pronounced the result of sin in the curse, and as Adam and Eve were leaving the garden, God sacrificed a lamb to make them a covering for their shame.  but here's what we maybe don't think about: in order to accept God's covering for shame, His healing of their shame, they had to take off their fig leaves.  they had to stand naked before Him in the reality of their shame, not hiding it, not denying it, but confessing their shame and only then was God free to cover their shame for them. 

the fact is that a person can never cover their own shame, no matter what achievements they try to use.  the reason for this is that the healing of shame takes place as much in the undressing as it does in the covering.  the healing of shame is in having someone see you in all your shame and, knowing you as you are, then cover your shame.  the healing takes place when God says “I see you as you are, your shame, and I will accept you and cover your shame.”  it’s not just the covering, but that He gave the covering, knowing what we were like without it.

well, that’s a beautiful story for Adam and Eve, but are we so lucky as to have God offer us the healing of our shame?  YES!  the other condition we need to notice in that story is that for Adam and Eve’s shame to be covered, the lamb had to lose it’s covering, have it’s skin ripped off.  it had to die.  of course, some animal could not truly heal the deep shame of fallen sinners.  it was a promise that one day the Lamb of God, Jesus, would come to heal our shame.  His skin was flayed off with a roman whip.  He hung completely naked, bearing our shame, before the crowd that ridiculed Him.  He lost the covering of His honor and blessing and was rejected by the Father on the Cross.  that was the price of our shame.  but in doing so, He gives us His covering: the rich robes of His righteousness.

if we will take off our fig leaves before God, stand spiritually naked before him admitting that we are “not right”, open our shame to Him, not hide or deny it, then He will cover us with the very righteousness of Jesus, the Lamb of God.  He will see who we are and accept us and cover us anyway.  and in that we will find the true healing of our shame.  He will declare “you are right”.  this is what it means to be "righteous"; right before God. this is why the Bible can boldly promise that “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” (Rom. 10:11)  it is with this sacrifice of the Lamb of God in mind that Isaiah prophetically writes in ch. 61, “I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, My soul shall be joyful in my God; For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation, He has covered me with the robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. ”  here we also see the hint that we are not dressed in just any clothes, not even in His righteousness in a generic sense, but that the robes of salvation are a wedding dress.  in Revelation 19 at the return of Christ we see the Church, those who have received Christ, and it says, “Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.”  Christ doesn’t merely heal our shame but clothes us as His bride in His righteousness.  shame is the fear that someone will see me as i really am and reject me because i'm disgusting. the gospel is the assurance that God sees us as we are and accepts us anyway because He is beautiful.  the gospel heals shame.

* there is an "illegitimate shame" which is the result not of our sin, but of others' sins against us, be that mockery or physical/sexual abuse, etc.  this shame is not something that is our "fault", and yet we still need to see that it is in Christ that this kind of shame is also healed.

the gospel destroys rudeness

this post is taken from the sermon "Love Is Not Rude" from 1 Corinthians 13. 
the audio version is available in russian here.

 

today we’re gonna look at what rudeness is, why we are rude with others, and how to uproot rudeness.

first of all: what is it?  sociologists and psychologists define rudeness as a “violation of human dignity” (we could clarify, usually a minor one, otherwise it’s called something different.)  it is essentially a lack of respect and attentiveness to others, for the feelings of others, possibly for the rights of others.  it's not usually an intentional cruelty, but a result of you considering your own thoughts, opinions, feelings more important than the other person’s.  rudeness is the manifestation of selfishness and pride in our relationships.  when we’re rude to others, we’re essentially saying “the way i act, communicate, understand, is right and anyone who doesn’t like it can just get over it.”  when we are rude with others, we show that what is of greatest importance is ME.  i did this to my wife just the other day.  we were having a conversation about something, and i answered her rudely.  not cause i was mad, not trying to be cruel, but as she was honest and expressed that i had hurt her, she pointed out totally correctly that in our conversation, my opinion was more important to me than she was at that moment.  totally right.  i had to repent. 

think about when we're usually rude: when were in a rush, late (i know i do this) and someone gets in our way, we brush them aside or bark at them.  what i'm saying is  “my obligations/plans are more important than you, so i'm not gonna consider your feelings.”  when we are upset, angry, etc., we can easily pour out our rudeness on another.  we are essentially saying that our situation or feelings are more important than the other person.  again, it's not that it's intentional cruelty (usually).  rather, it's based on our pride.  love doesn’t do this!  do you?

here it says “love isn’t rude”.  we can state it positively, though here it’s stated negatively: “love always counts the thoughts, feelings, opinions of others as just as important as it’s own.”  in fact, more important.  this is why Scripture says “let each one esteem others better than himself.”  do you REALLY consider others above yourself?  do you consider ANYONE better?  if you haven’t noticed, this is incredibly difficult!  because it applies to ALL people: those who are very different from us, very sensitive in comparison to us, and those who are rude to us!  love doesn’t write anybody off, thinking “well, they’re just strange and that’s their problem.”  maybe they are strange.  so are you!  that conclusion is back to saying that “my feelings, preferences and strangeness are more important than theirs.” probably the most difficult to not be rude to those who are rude to us.  how hard is it when someone is rude and insulting not to answer back w/ the same?  very!  because when a person is being rude to us, it’s actually a subtle attack on our worth as a person.  that person is implying that you aren't as important as he is!  our lack of assurance flares up and we are rude back, trying to prove our worth by belittling theirs.  the reason we are so outraged is we are terribly afraid that they might be right, that we aren't as important, that we have no worth. 

see, ultimately, rudeness towards others is an attempt to establish our own worth at the expense of another's dignity.  the reason we feel compelled to prove our worth at the cost of someone else is because we are unsure of our worth.  when we feel our worth is under attack, we defend it viciously namely because we ourselves are not sure of it.  this is why we also tend towards rudeness when we are accused of something.  we defend ourselves, being rude to the accuser and attempting to justify our worth.

but here there is a danger of a false conclusion: “okay, so we should only ever say things that are pleasant to hear and sweet and could never offend someone.”  too many christians think that this is how love treats others, how we should, maybe some of you.  not so!  understand, Proverbs says a lot about sweet words that are spoken from hatred (flattery) and also how sometimes sharp words/rebuke is the evidence of true love.  read just one place, ch. 27: “Open rebuke is better Than love carefully concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”  if you are so careful to never say anything to offend, and you are focused on saying only sweet things and that’s most important, you need to know you’re not loving others.  you’re loving yourself.  you’re flattering others, probably to gain acceptance from them and you don’t care about telling them the truth, helping them grow.  so ,what you need to see is that "rudeness" as we've defined it here (from an attempt to establish our own worth at expense of another) is NOT the same as offending someone out of love.  in fact love, at times, demands that we speak strong words or we are not really loving.  rudeness is not the same thing as severity.  what is the difference between these two?

well, if you’re still unsure that love must be severe at times, let's look at how Jesus spoke to the pharisees. Mt. 23:27-33  is Jesus "rude"?  you say, “well, it was probably offensive.”  yes, it was, they killed Him it was so offensive.  but is it rude?  have to look at the motive: is He saying this out of a desire to prove His worth at the expense of theirs?  not at all!  on the contrary, He is saying it so they can find their worth in the grace of God, but for that to happen, they have to abandon their mentality of "worth-by-works".   rudeness to others ultimately flows from the underlying belief that my worth is bound up in my thoughts, feelings, actions and that those are of more importance than someone else.  Christ was never rude, though He did, because of love, at times speak strong words that caused offense for those who didn’t want to receive them.

now, we talked about those who are afraid to offend and prone to flatter others, lie, etc.  some are on that extreme.  others of you are on the other end: you’re not afraid to say anything that could offend.  if the other extreme is powdered sugar, you are vinegar.  and you would take the passage from Mt. and try to justify how you offend people.  you’d say “see, i’m just being a prophet like Jesus.  i tell it like it is.”  no, you’re probably being a jerk.  especially, if that’s your usual approach to people.  you see, Jesus was also very gentle and patient and loving with people, especially those who were broken sinners. He was even often kind to Pharisees.  but this was an instance where Jesus spoke some hard truth, some strong words and conviction, NOT because He was trying to prove his own rightness and worth, but to draw the Pharisees to repentance.  but if that’s your usual approach, you’re just a jerk, rude.  you care more about proving yourself and being right than about others and you’re not walking in the truth of the gospel.  before you apply your “strong words” to others, check your heart before God to see if it’s cause you actually care about helping them, or you just want to prove your own worth.  a doctor from time to time will cut a patient to help him, but a psychopath will cut anyone without discretion for his own sick pleasure.  how do you use cutting words?

Jesus was never rude, never cut another down to lift Himself up, prove worth.  He always considered the other person, was attentive to their feelings/thoughts and put them above Himself.  this is what it means that Jesus came as a servant: one who considers the other above Himself.  He was not afraid to offend in love, though He knew they'd respond only with rudeness (and a lot worse), and yet He didn’t turn to rudeness in return.  why?  because He had heard the Voice of His Father "THIS is my beloved Son, in whom is my delight".  His worth was solidly grounded in the Father's love for Him.  He didn’t need to prove His worth at cost of others.  therefore, He was ready to try to point others to their worth in God, though they would respond with rudeness (and deliberate cruelty).  He was willing to go to the Cross and give his life, that they and we might break free from the trap of basing our worth in competition and our works.  you see, the Cross of Jesus itself is the final and only statement we need about how much we are worth before God; so much so that He would give His one and only Son, the Beloved, so that we could be His children.  our worth is confirmed at the expense of Jesus, not by our comparison, but by His own willing sacrifice for us.

when we see that and cease to base our worth on what we do, what we think, our feelings and opinions, then we will also cease to live in rudeness, attempting to compete w/ others.  we won’t need to do that anymore!  we don’t have to establish our worth at the expense of others, because Jesus established our worth at His own expense!  if we are still living in rudeness to others and competition, it is a sign that we are basing our worth on something other than the Cross, though that is the only basis we need.  on the other hand, if we believe the Gospel, that we have immeasurable worth to God as He suffered immeasurably for us, we will not turn into smarmy christians who never say anything that could offend.  we, in love, will speak words of conviction when necessary, words that may be painful to the hearer, but only for their good, not for our own.  not to boost our worth, but that they would root theirs in Jesus instead of themselves.  not only this, but we will be free from the rudeness that results when we try to defend our guilt.  the Cross tells us we ARE guilty, but that we have been forgiven.  that we need not defend and justify ourselves, in fact we MUST NOT justify ourselves, because He has already justified us. 

now, one can find the rare individual who, for reason of personal success, popularity, religious performance or some other false basis, is supremely confident of their own worth. (the Pharisees were in this group).  their attitude may grow to a pride beyond the simple competition of rudeness because they consider themselves in a higher class than most people.  this kind of pride breeds a patronizing condescension towards others which may be mistaken for true mercy when it is an extreme form of pride. it is actually a settled form of rudeness that thinks it has already proved it’s worth over others.  the attitude of “how sad that you’re so far below me.”  there are some so-called Christians that have this very attitude towards unbelievers or others they see as far below them spiritually and it passes for mercy when it is not at all.  it’s a sign you’re a Pharisee.  but the Gospel destroys this kind of condescending.  we are made confident by the Cross that we are of immeasurable worth to God, but at the same time the Gospel humbles us because it says that this worth we have is God’s gift, not what we’ve earned.  that others around us are of just as much worth because Christ died for all men.  the Cross therefore destroys rudeness and it’s worst form, condescension, setting us free to truly consider others better than ourselves.

mirror or portrait?

we are currently studying through 1 Cor. 13 and before we got into the definition of love presented there, we had to deal with an all-important question: who is this text primarily about?  you or God?  in fact, this question should be asked and answered by every person about the whole Bible.  who is this book primarily about?  to use an illustration, do you see the Bible as primarily a mirror or a portrait?  many christians see the Word of God as being primarily a mirror to examine ourselves, to note and attempt to fix our shortcomings and faults.  but this understanding of the Bible will ultimately lead to despair, because we are focusing on our own wickedness.  and if we are in despair, we will never be transformed.  the effect (probably sub-conscious) is a growing resentment and distaste for reading the Word.  and with good reason!  who would want to spend large amounts of time standing in front of the mirror bemoaning all their faults and attempting to pop spiritual zits?  and though we may continue to do it out of a sense of duty or guilt, it will not transform us.

but if we see that the Bible is primarily a book about God, a portrait of His glory and beauty, the effect will be the opposite.  it will not lead to despair in ourselves but joy in God.  which in other words is worship.  the effect of this is that we will be transformed into His image, since Scripture says we always become like what we worship.  our attitude toward the Bible will also become one of growing desire and thirst for God's glory rather than resentment.  and conviction and transformation will come by way of contrast and thanksgiving, rather than by macabre navel-gazing.

now, the Bible does use the analogy of a mirror about itself in the book of James.  however, the comparison there is that a man who sees himself and goes away and forgets what he saw is like one who hears the Word and does not do it.  but though this "mirror" aspect does exist, it is not primary.  in fact, the Bible says in John 1 that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld His glory... no one has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son has revealed Him."  so we see in the nature of Jesus Himself, who is the Word of God, that His primary mission was to reveal the glory of God to us.  it should be no surprise then that the Bible, the written Word of God, has this very same, primary purpose.

how do you view the Bible: mirror or portrait?

kirk cameron, salvador dali, jrr tolkien and Jesus

it's possible that the mere combination of those names has left your head swimming and you're thinking "what in the world could they all have to do with each other?".  in a word: art.  in four words: the gospel and art.  i recently taught on the gospel and art and how the two relate to each other.  i'd like to suggest each of the first three men in the title as a paradigm for different approaches to art in light of the gospel.

first it's worth stating that there are basically two views in the world, two answers to the question: why art?

the first answer is the answer of modern western society, so proudly roared by the MGM lion (until he filed chapter 11 bankruptcy): ars gratis artis, or "art for art's sake".  the highest purpose in art, it is said, is self expression.  art should have no didactic purpose, no lessons or messages, lest it be decried as cheap propaganda.  this view looks at art through the lens of art and so folds in upon itself.  the abstractionist movement took this concept to new heights when things like a plain, black square, soup-cans, or an unmade bed were unabashedly paraded as masterpieces.  even classic aesthetics were not most important.  of course, the catch in this approach is that to say there is (and should not be) any didactic purpose in art is to engage in didactics: it is to say that the most important thing, the only acceptable goal in art, is the glorification of self. it is the absolutizing of the individual.  propaganda at it's best, i'd say.

the more classic answer to "why art?" was "for the sake of beauty."  as far back as aristotle, aesthetics were seen as something objective and as the purpose of art.  often aesthetic beauty was even tied to moral beauty.  this view attempted to look at the world through the lens of art.

each of these approaches encapsulates an important part of the light that the gospel sheds on art.  the story of the very first Artist and His very first masterpiece gives important insight into this question.  in Genesis, we read of God creating the universe with all of it's glorious stars and planets, trees and flowers, birds, fish, animals and the like.  God's refrain upon creating these things is a recognition that "it was good".  not "well, I think it's nice, but then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder."  we find in the very creation an undercurrent of a true and objective aesthetic value.  however, that is not the end of the story.  the great favor the abstractionists have done us (whether you like soup-cans or not), was to underscore the question: "and who gets to define beauty?"  as it turns out, there is only One who can: God.  the point that is thrown back in the face of modernism's classic aesthetics is that aristotle or da vinci have no more right to define beauty that malevich, warhol, or pollock.  they are absolutely right.  the abstractionists have removed man from his pedestal as the ultimate judge of beauty.  man never did belong there.  but God always has.  therefore the gospel approach to art on the one hand recognizes there is an objective beauty in the universe, of which God is the source and judge.  however, in humility we should also realize that no one person has the monopoly on that definition, just as no person can exhaustively define God, and therefore our approach should be to discover or strive for beauty in art, rather than arrogantly proclaim we've monopolized it (and bottled it up for sale in christian bookstores.)

but how should we as believers in Jesus "do art"?  the truth is that, despite the supposed aversion to didactic messages in art in modern society, no art lacks this element.  another (and far more aesthetic) way of saying this is: all art tells a story.  whether its a song, painting, dance, movie, book, etc.  so the question we are really asking when we say "how should we do art?" is "what story should we tell?"  as christians the answer to this should be obvious: the gospel.  the narrative of creation, fall, redemption, restoration through and for Jesus Christ.  (not that every work of art has to capture all of these aspects at once to be formed by the gospel.)  the question then is how do we tell the gospel in and through art?  i suggest there are 3 main ways that christians attempt this.  here's where we get back to the figures from the title who epitomize each approach:

1) kirk cameron: now, i watched growing pains in my childhood just like any 30-ish american.  but for the sake of illustration, i'd like to focus on a little series of "christian" movies called left behind in which cameron was the lead.  to continue the lens analogy, this approach is looking at the gospel through the lens of the world (not of art).  that is, in order to get our message across, we are willing to stoop to popular forms of art (usually movies more than anything).  we try to "copy" the world's forms to get unbelievers to hear our story.  this approach is, first of all, mercenary.  there is no real value in the art produced. rather, it is just a means to an end.  i'd argue that's not even a biblical approach.  when God made the first flowers, He didn't say "well, that'll be good one day if it leads someone to pray the sinner's prayer."  nope!  He said it is good in itself.  it has intrinsic value and worth as art, as a small reflection of God's own beauty and glory.  secondly, this approach produces bad art.  art is merely a means to another end, and so, because it is second priority, ends up being second rate (no offense to those of you who really think the left behind movies are flawless examples of cinematic mastery....  pfwhahaha!  sorry, that's too funny.  okay, honestly, i think you're nuts. :)  lastly, this approach rarely even accomplishes our mercenary goal, because the art produced is a) bad, so people who aren't being paid to go by their youth pastor are likely to skip it and b) blatant (notice that these kinds of movies almost always have someone uber-schmaltzy sharing the sinner's prayer with an open Bible or something to that effect), so an unbeliever who does wander in is doubly turned off (by bad art and blatant "propagandizing".)

2) savador dali:  dali was a surrealist artist in 20th century spain.  though he was raised catholic, he was, as far as we know, not a christian.  however, he did not escape his upbringings as, at the very least, themes in some of his art.  one of my favorite paintings of his is corpus hypercubus (pictured at the top of this post).  the second paradigm, illustrated in this painting, can be described as looking at the gospel through the lens of art.  in this approach the gospel is blatantly the subject, but it's different from the first approach, in that the art itself is valued and actually adds something to the presentation of the gospel.  dali's painting shows Christ on the cross, yet the cross is unusual.  it is actually a three-dimensional representation of a hypercube, a four-dimensional figure.  in using this figure as the cross, the statement is that the death of Christ transcends human understanding.  all art in this second category could be considered "devotional art."  but when this kind of art is done well, it draws unbelievers much more than the first approach.  for something to be good christian art, it first has to be good art.  any art which is intended to be used for devotional purposes should most likely be done in this second approach (hymns, illustrated bibles, etc.)  interestingly, catholics, orthodox and anglicans (and sometimes non-believers) tend to be better at this approach than many evangelicals.  perhaps it is because they have a continued tradition of devotional art, where we as evangelicals (and our predecessors) have taken iconoclasm to an extreme and rid ourselves of artistic appreciation and ability all together.

3) jrr tolkien: if you don't know by now, i will tell you: the lord of the rings is by far my favorite fiction book ever.  tolkien was a devout christian (catholic) who actually led cs lewis to Christ.  tolkien used a very different method than the first approach in his creative writing.  rather than looking at the gospel, he used the gospel as his lens to look at the world.  tolkien was fascinated by languages, mythology, ancient culture and in writing his masterpiece, choose to look at that part of the world that interested him through the lens of the gospel.  it is no coincidence that the lord of the rings is the best selling single fiction story of all time (after a tale of two cities).  a little investigation shows how the story echoes the gospel:  aragorn, the peasant king, rises from humble obscurity to be the king of the whole realm.  gandalf, the human who is more than human, fights a demon, falling into the abyss and at last defeats him on the mountain top.  in the fight he loses his life, but it brought back to life as a glorified gandalf.  the whole story echoes the gospel, which is why people are so drawn to it.  it is subtle and so doesn't push away non-christians.  it is great art and so reflects the glory of God.  the art, therefore, that has the most potential to reach the hearts of people who do not know Christ is when we look at the world through the lens of the gospel, make great art to the glory of God and allow Him to use those hints of the Great Story in our art to draw many to Himself.

i'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, especially if you are an artist of some form yourself.

(btw, an audio version of this teaching is available in russian here.)