On Commitment

The Second Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, who never failest to help and govern them whom thou dost bring up in thy stedfast fear and love: Keep us, we beseech thee, under the protection of thy good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Language is important. Studies show that language affects how we think. Externally, the words we use reflect what we are thinking. In the context of Christianity, the words we use reflect not simply our thoughts, but also it reflects our theology and the doctrine of our church.

One big change that occurred in the 20th century was a transition from the language of submission to the language of commitment. Christians are now ones who make a commitment to Christ, accepting him in the hearts, while we now commonly view Islam as the religion of submission and indeed sometimes contrast Christianity with Islam in terms of viewing Islam as a religion that requires submission to God, while Christianity is more a religion of friendship and partnership with God.

While there is some truth in the view of Christianity as being more personal compared to Islam, to suggest that it is a partnership implies some form of equality with God, which is utterly false.

By making a commitment to Christ, we are approaching Christianity on our own terms, seeking to negotiate with God. “God, I commit myself to you, so long as it's comfortable.” It’s an attempt to retain control, to avoid submitting oneself completely to God’s authority.

This is not a uniquely modern innovation, as the Bible itself is full of examples of those to whom God had revealed his will, and who remained reluctant to submit themselves to it.

In the Old Testament, the Pentateuch contains a number of examples, including Numbers 16 when the people rose up to challenge Moses and Aaron, and even more directly in Exodus 16 when they grumbled that they had lived better in slavery in Egypt and murmured against God freeing them. Jonah’s story is another extremely well-known and clear example of someone who professes to follow God, but becomes reluctant and unwilling to follow God when God’s will conveyed to him becomes more difficult and goes against his own desires.

This phenomena is found in the New Testament as well. St Paul reminds the Christians in Galatia that he had been forced to rebuke St Peter and others when he found that they were backsliding into Jewish traditions under pressure from Judaisers. His criticism was essentially focused against those who were attempting to hedge their bets on their salvation. It was one thing to listen to one of the apostles coming by saying salvation was found in Christ and not the law, but here they were seeking to accept salvation in Christ while still following the law just in case.

Here, the early Christians were still professing their belief, but it was their actions that revealed that their words did not reflect their inner convictions. They were not willing to release control and submit themselves to God’s promise, instead resting on their own abilities to fulfil the law to secure their own salvation. It is no different when we say we are making a commitment to Christ, and no longer submitting to Christ’s lordship.

We can, in modern times, see this as well with the language of taking communion rather than receiving it. By taking communion, we view communion as something we control, with God as a passive partner. When we receive, it is God acting on us. This even further illustrates the troubling reality of making a commitment to God rather than submitting ourselves to God. When we make a commitment, we are saying, “I will follow you on these terms.” When we submit, we are saying, “I will follow your will always and in all things.” We are in effect replacing God in our lives by ourselves, making ourselves our own god. This is similar to anyone else who rejects God, but perhaps more insidiously, we don’t see it that way.

In a similar way, mission has become a new buzzword among Christians. Being a missional church, a missional community. In the Anglican Church of Canada, we no longer respect the Solemn Declaration and many Anglicans seem to see the Catholic Creeds as antiquated, but the Five Marks of Mission are a sacred charge. If you read statements from the Primate and other national organizations within the Anglican Church of Canada, you would see the Marks of Mission as the engine driving the Church.

The problem remains that mission is often defined on our own. Only two of the five marks, to proclaim the good news of the kingdom and to teach, baptise and nurture new believers, are distinctly Christian. Responding to human need in loving service, to transform unjust structures of society, to challenge violence of every kind and pursue peace and reconciliation and to strive to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth are three goals which could easily be taken from the mission statements of any secular charity organizations.

There is nothing wrong with these statements, and they are clearly inspired by Christ’s example. The problem comes when they are so easily pursued under our own commitment rather than in submission to Christ. When we are a missional community, we are a community that subscribes to missions, based on these parameters, and that’s it. The actual missions undertaken may or may not be rooted in God’s will, even when they are clearly rooted in God’s examples to us in some way or another.

We are seeking to maintain our own agency. The goal of a missional church is to perform these missions. Its engine, what powers it, is not a desire to submit to Christ or to live a disciple’s life, but rather to accomplish missions.

In his Epistle to the Philippians, St Paul describes Christ’s ultimate submission:

who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Phil 2. 6-8)

Verse six might be taken by a supporter of the Missional Movement to justify their position. Christ took the form of a servant. In St Matthew 20. 28, Christ himself says, “Son of Man came not to be served but to serve,” but in both these cases, that is attempting to justify doctrine and theology with Scriptural verses rather than with Scripture. In Philippians, St Paul tells us that Christ’s ultimate purpose was obedience to God, even unto death. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Christ finishes his sentence saying, “and to give his life as a ransom for many.” In St Luke’s Gospel, just prior to his arrest, Christ prays, “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done,” (St Lk 22. 42). Christ’s death was in submission to God’s will and serves as example to us.

Discipleship must be the engine of our faith and our lives. Mission will build from it, but when we do not submit and instead pick and choose how we will follow, we are not truly following God at all, but ourselves.

On God's Side

The Third Sunday after Easter

ALMIGHTY God, who showest to them that it be in error the light of thy truth, to the intent that they may return into the way of righteousness: Grant unto all them that are admitted into the fellowship of Christ’s religion, that they may forsake those things that are contrary to their profession, and follow all such things as are agreeable to the same; through our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

There is a tendency in Christian song and in writing to refer to the concept of God being on our side. There is some Scriptural reference to this. The hit contemporary Christian song Whom Shall I Fear? by Chris Tomlin creates stunning visuals to reference the Psalmist who writes, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me?” (Ps 118. 6).

Overall, this seems to imply God is for us. It is simple to say, “God is on my side.” But is that the proper way of looking at it? When someone makes an argument and then invokes God’s favour saying, “God is on my side,” or, “God supports my position,” is that a fair argument to make?

To make a more concrete example, many of the revisionist innovations implemented in the Anglican Church of Canada over the last forty years have been preceded by arguments that it is the movement of the Holy Spirit and that, to take the perspective of the proponents of these innovations, “God is on my side,” or, “the movement of the Spirit is calling us to do this.”

The idea that God is on our side and supports us, more ludicrous still is when we suggest God supports every particular cause we believe in. In Canada well into the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec would remind parishioners before an election that, “le ciel est bleu, et l’enfer est rouge.” Literally, heaven is blue and hell is red, priests were instructing parishioners to vote for particular parties.

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding and perspective that is wholly twisted. God is not, in that sense, ever on my side. In the Lord of the Rings epic, Tolkien writes sage words from the mouth of the ancient Ent Treebeard, a living tree who is being asked to join the war in Middle Earth on the side of protagonists. “I'm not altogether on anybody's side because no one is altogether on my side.” Rather than God being on our side, we are called to be on his. As St Paul writes, all fall short of God’s glory. We are not, altogether, on his side. Yet, by faith and Christ’s death and resurrection, we are able to be reconciled to him in order to more fully live in his will.

Claiming the support of God is a historical reality. When the people of Israel God’s exclusive chosen ones, they were able to boast of God being on their side. In the Psalms, the Jews proclaimed it in song, “The LORD is on my side; I will not fear,” (Ps 118. 6). The context of this verse shows the Psalmist is indeed referring to how God was on the side of Israel and his chosen people. When the people of Israel were acting in God’s will, he supported them in their endeavours, be it battle or freedom from slavery. When St Paul echoes these words in Romans 8. 31, though, what is the context in which these words are repeated? Does he mean God is on the side of all Christians, the new chosen? Not entirely. The context of Romans as a whole makes clear that while St Paul is speaking there specifically of Christians, he has been making the case throughout Romans for God being on the side of all humanity, wishing for their salvation and for all people to be reconciled to him. St Paul has just explained how we cannot justify ourselves under the law and are reliant on God’s grace.

When St Paul asks who can be against us, he his point is more that when we place our trust in God, no one can overcome his desire for us to be reconciled to him. In the season of Eastertide, as we celebrate the resurrection, we are also celebrating victory over sin and death through Christ’s atoning sacrifice. The classic CS Lewis novel The Screwtape Letters creates a fictional account of how the enemy might seek to attack our faith, and also shows how ultimately God is stronger.

More clearly, St John explores the same topic from another perspective in his first epistle:

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers. 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? Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth. (1 Jn 3. 16-18)

Here, St John reminds us of God’s abiding presence as the governor of our lives. As St Paul asked if God was with us, who could be against us, St John reminds us that for God to be with us, we must be with God. God is not on our side, but rather, we must be on God’s side.

Going back to the Old Testament, it should equally be noted that when the people of Israel rebelled against God’s will, he did not act for them in the same manner as was referred to in the Psalms. God helped free the Jews from persecution and slavery after they abandoned him, allowing themselves to fall into those predicaments in the first place.

Perhaps an easier way of viewing this is to say who is leading and who is following. When you say, “God is on my side,” what you are really saying is God is following me and is endorsing what I do. The problem is that God doesn’t do that. God never follows us, we only ever follow him. God’s support for the people of Israel was for when they acted in his will, because in acting in his will they served ultimately to reconcile themselves to him. While it is possible that we can say, “God supports me,” and be correct in the sense that God does support what you are doing, it betrays a false narrative which more correctly stated would be, “I follow God’s will.”

The parable of the two sons recorded in the Gospel of St Luke helps to show the difference of these two mentalities. In the parable, a man has two sons. His younger son demands his inheritance and leaves the family home. He squanders his wealth and beggars himself, ultimately deciding to humble himself and return to his father to beg forgiveness. The elder brother, on the other hand, remained at home, was dutiful and fulfilled all his obligations. When his younger brother returned home and his father forgave him, unconditionally and joyfully accepting his return, the elder brother became angry and jealous, demanding to know why his brother should be celebrated for his return when he had never been celebrated for being dutiful all the while.

In this parable, the younger brother shows the life of a Christian who ultimately seeks to live in the will of God. He has been given a great inheritance, which he may at times squander, but his loving father will always accept him and forgive him if he returns. The elder brother on the other hand seems at first glance to be the one truly living in his father’s will, yet by the end of the parable it becomes more clear that he would be the type to say, “God is on my side,” out of what CS Lewis described as spiritual cancer: pride.

When we take the prideful view that God is on our side, and not the view that we strive to follow his will, we go from being followers of God to agents of his will. The problem with this is when we fall short. If we are followers of God and fall short, then, like the younger brother, we can ask forgiveness and be forgiven. When we are enactors of his will and fall short, however, we are essentially claiming authority from God while acting outside of his will.

It is easy to see how this mentality is adopted, though. There are plenty of Scriptural references to God being for us and God supporting us, and it can be simple to slip into a mentality that convinces ourselves that we are clearly supported by God. Christianity is not having an omnipotent and all-powerful deity who can be called upon to support our politics and our sports teams, but is the teaching of how can, through faith, reconcile ourselves to God in order that we might live this life in submission to his will, and ultimately to be reconciled to him for all eternity.