Recently in Embracing Grace Category

Julie Bogart, a regular reader and commenter on this blog, has a story about forgiveness worth reading at her site. You can interact there or even here. Here's how it begins:

I remember when my parents got divorced, people used to tell me, "Time will heal your pain." I hated that rhetoric. Why should my dad and his new wife get away with wrecking our family by virtue of time's ability to heal, to make us forget, to help us move on? So I vowed that time would not heal, that I would not forget, that, in fact, the pain would last.... [Please click on her name above to read the rest.]

In my book Embracing Grace I tell the story of a little "eikon" I had in my office for many, many years. We called him Pierre because he was a French-looking man with a beret. Now for the rest of the story.

Pierre had a twinkle in his eye and some mischief in his smile and whenever anyone looked at him, they smiled. Well, as history has it, one day at North Park my windows were open and the door was open and the winds blew and slammed the door shut and poor little Pierre fell to the ground and shattered into bits and pieces. I had to throw him away. He was irreparable.

For a few years I have told this as a counternarrative to the gospel story: I threw the little eikon away, but God did not do that with his two original Eikons, Adam and Eve. Instead, God picked up Pierre and put him back together in the context of a community through the life and death and resurrection of Christ and the gift of the Spirit.

So, one time after a sermon someone suggested I try to find another "Pierre" on the internet. So I googled "Pierre" and didn't come up with any figures. Then I tried once to google "head figures" and "bust" and "plaster" -- and nothing came up.

Last week I thought of contacting the shop where we originally bought him, some twenty-five years ago. Tinder Box. After a few failed attempts, a kind gentleman in West Dundee said, "They were Bosson Heads. The family went out of business."

I went to business immediately ... I googled Bosson Heads, discovered Pierre on E-Bay, called my son Lukas to take over the E-Bay bidding (neither Kris nor I have ever bought anything from E-Bay until Pierre). Monday night Lukas e-mailed, "You won. Pierre is on his way." And guess what arrived Friday in the mail? A brand new, mint condition Pierre for much less than the original cost. Here he is! He's back! So for many of you who have empathized with me when I tell the story of Pierre, now there is a happy ending.

Here's a link to a podcast I gave on the whole gospel.

Here's a link to a radio interview through Elmbrook Church with Mel Lawrenz. Click on the Leadership button.

The problem with this as a moral strategy, which is a routine refrain for the traditionalist view of homosexuality, is that it is nearly indistinguishable from hate the sin and the sinner. If we have to reduce moral views into sound-bytes then we ought to prefer "welcoming but not affirming" or, as I will suggest below, something far more potent.

Someone wrote me this note:

Exactly what does it look like to, as they say, hate the sin and love the sinner on this issue? This problem obviously exists with other sins, but I think this particular situation causes me the most angst. How do I love my homosexual friends and neighbors without appearing to approve of their lifestyle?

Here's my response.

First, I know very few -- if any (and I can't think of any) -- who have meaningful relationships with gays and lesbians who would dare think of their "strategy" with such persons in such terms. Instead, those of us who have relationships with gays and lesbians use first and family names for such people. So, I call her "Michelle" or "friend" or him "Mike" or "friend."

Second, it is nearly impossible -- and I may be understating it -- to use a sound-byte like this and not identify the gay or lesbian with the term "sinner." Now, this cuts both ways: either you refer to everyone as "sinner," which would not make for much meaningful conversation, or you refer to no one as "sinner," unless your purpose is to single gays and lesbians out as singular sinners of our day. (I'm not speaking here theologically, as in "all have sinned" for I believe in that sense we are all sinners.)

Third, we have to ask about the intent of the strategy: Is it to single out homosexuality as the cardinal sin or is it -- for those who believe homosexuality is not God's will and design -- to minister to and mentor and guide away from what one believes to be sinful? If the latter is the intent, I doubt very much that the sound-byte will be of any use whatsoever.

Fourth, I don't believe there is a gay or lesbian in the world who doesn't know what the Bible says in its traditional interpretation. And the Bible neither uses this sound-byte nor is it that un-nuanced in its statements. To be sure, ever since Boswell's famous book that contended that homosexuality in the Bible was not addressing committed, faithful relationships of a same-sex type, there have been those who say, "I know what you think the Bible says, but the Bible really says this ... and therefore you are wrong." But, even those who have come to such conclusions know full well what the traditional interpretation is. (My favorite, readable book on this topic is by Chad Thompson.)

Fifth, I'm a Trinitarian -- and for me that means I believe fully in the Holy Spirit. And while I firmly believe it is the Christian's responsibility to teach orthodoxy and the Bible and what we believe the Bible teaches (with both firmness and sensitivity), I know that most people don't change simply by arguments. People change behaviors as a result of a complex of factors: Bible, tradition, authorities, friends, time, counseling, loving relationships, experiments ... and let's not forget that we believe that humans are only made whole as a result of the Spirit of God's refreshing re-creations. But it's pretty obvious to most of us that gays and lesbians who follow Jesus don't all of a sudden -- and they too have the Spirit -- find it easy to become heterosexual. Do we believe in the Holy Spirit? If so, let's let the Holy Spirit transform people and let's wait for the Holy Spirit to do Holy-Spirit work and let's not try to do what is not ours to accomplish.

Sixth, a blog-friend of mine (Jamie Arpin-Ricci) reminds me that a fear of affirming homosexuality permeates the Christian community whenever one of us encounters a gay or lesbian. Trust me when I say this: the homosexual community isn't worried about Christians affirming homosexuality. (I'm a bit back to the fourth point, but this point deserves to be addressed.) Jesus, after all, was not known for being soft on sin but he was known for being big on loving relationships. Jamie writes me this: "I don't feel the need to make it clear to my gay friends that I don't approve of their lifestyles anymore than I feel the need to make it clear to my Muslim friends that I disagree with their beliefs. When it comes up, each situation is unique, requiring sensitivity and grace." I agree.

Well, these are my thoughts on the sound-byte strategy of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I prefer the Jesus Creed: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. You might be surprised how gospel-ish that moral strategy and sound-byte of Jesus can be.

The following outline was used for my talk at the Spiritual Formation Forum in Milwaukee last week. My week was more hectic than I wanted -- owing to about five things happening at once, not the least of which was major house repairs, and so was unable to attend the whole forum. Next year I hope to. But, this is my outline. My central thesis, which I outlined in Embracing Grace, is that a theory of spiritual formation is at work in how we present the gospel and that everything flows from that gospel. To change spiritual formation from an individual emphasis to an ecclesial emphasis will mean that we have to broaden our sense of the gospel so that Church is vital to the gospel.

Robust Gospel, Robust Spiritual Formation

Scot McKnight
North Park University

Spiritual Formation Forum
Elmbrook Church
Milwaukee

Introduction: Here I talked about developing "skills" in basketball -- like shooting and dribbling. But some skills can't be learned alone in your driveway -- like passing and rebounding and team play. Spiritual formation is too often too much about shooting and dribbling and not enough about about passing and rebounding. (And reading the defense.) So, this talk is dedicated to a one-sided emphasis on the need for a gospel that will lead Christians to realize that spiritual formation is not just about individual spiritual formation but also about ecclesial spiritual formation.

1.0 The Standard Gospel Presentation

God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.
Your problem is that you are sinful; God can’t admit sinners into his presence.
Jesus died for you to deal with your “sin-problem.”
If you trust in Christ, you can be admitted into God’s presence.

Problems:

1. No one in the NT really preaches this gospel.
2. This gospel is about one thing: Humans gaining access to God’s presence.
3. This gospel creates an individualist Christian life.
4. This gospel sets the tone for the entire evangelical movement.
5. This gospel leads to spiritual formation being entirely about “me and God.”
6. The evangelical gospel has created a need for evangelical monasteries.
7. The evangelical gospel turns local church into a volunteer society.
8. The evangelical gospel is rooted in Theism or Deism, but not perichoretic Trinitariaism.

2.0 A Robust Gospel Presentation

1. A Robust gospel can’t be “tractified.”
2. God made you as an Eikon to relate in love to God, to self, to others and to the world.
3. The “fall” cracked the Eikon in all four directions.
4. Bible readers can’t skip from Genesis 3 to Romans 3.
5. Genesis 4—11 reveals the “problem” of sin: the climax is a society of Eikons trying to build their way to God.
6. Genesis 12 begins to restore the Eikon by (1) covenantal commitment and (2) forming the family of faith. THE REST OF THE BIBLE IS ABOUT THIS ELECTED FAMILY OF FAITH.
7. The “problem” is finally resolved in “four atoning moments”: the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
8. The “locus” of resolution is the family of faith: three big words in Bible are Israel, the Kingdom, and the Church.

3.0 Robust Gospel, Robust Spiritual Formation

Individual spiritual disciplines are important; they aren’t the point.
I assume their importance and their disciplined practice.

Jesus

1. Jesus thinks with the term “kingdom”: society in which God’s will is done.
2. Jesus’ primary category for spiritually formed people is the Jesus Creed: Mark 12:28-32.

Paul

1. Paul thinks with the term “church”: the fellowship of the Spirit that realizes through the Spirit the kingdom vision of Jesus.
2. Paul’s primary category for spiritually formed people is “giftedness”: 1 Cor 12—14.

John

1. John thinks with the term “life” or “fellowship”: the light of God invading a person’s life so that they live in the light of fellowship and love.
2. John’s primary category for spiritually formed people is “love God, love one another”: 1 John.

4.0 Conclusions

1. The Church is what God is doing in this world.
2. Spiritual formation is both personal formation and ecclesial formation.
3. The gospel is something that is both proclaimed and performed and what we see is what we are really preaching.
4. Our biggest needs:

A gospel that is robust.
A spiritual formation that flows out of that robust gospel.
A spiritual formation that is shaped by the kingdom/church vision.