This was very very good to read Ross. It gets to the heart of a lot of what I find lacking across many denominations I have attended or visited. There can be no expectation of discipleship if we are utterly incapable of doing anything except sinning and confessing in a vicious cycle, waiting for Jesus to come back and justify us because we called upon His name.
We know in our hearts it's true that we are called to keep attempting to live as Jesus commanded, to reach towards completion/perfection (despite our failings), to allow each time we succeed in pleasing God's heart and each time we fail be a way for our capacity to forgive and be forgiven (or love and be loved) be expanded or deepened. There is a scurrilous cowardice in the way churches teach (implicitly and explicitly) that we are all sinners and there's no hope in trying to follow Jesus perfectly/purely.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to write and share this clarifying essay.
Thanks for this, man. Beautifully said. And it encourages me a lot. This was a hard one to write, and it makes me glad it resonated with people like you!
The modern man only has faith in his own internal experience. Anything outside of what he sees or feels is viewed as illusory. The modern man doesn't really believe in friendship as an external reality, but only as an internal experience. The same is true for love, glory, honor, beauty, goodness etc. Even in the evangelical world, this has become the norm. Which is why the fruit of the spirit - "love, joy, peace, longsuffering" etc. - are so often talked about as internal experiences rather than realities that exist between us. Forgiveness requires faith in a reality outside of my own internal experience. Thus why the modern man manages relationships in all sorts of complex ways, while never truly forgiving.
Sid, so many thoughts on this. Thinking of relationships and virtues and fruit of the Spirit as only internal experiences for “psychological man” (as Philip Rieff calls our current zeitgeist) is right on. Very well said.
Excellent piece, Ross. I believe this quote sums it up well:
"...true grace is a gift with strings attached, and those strings mercifully bind us to Him. “Forgive us as we forgive” is one such string. Such a gift affords us the salvation of restored relationship.
That "salvation of restored fellowship" is what we (should) want in terms of our relationship with God, each day. God is a forgiver, and we his children should be as well. We who have been forgiven much have no right to withhold forgiveness, and when we do we essentially cut ourselves off, not from our eternal salvation, but from our salvation of fellowship with God. An unforgiving heart makes us sideways with God, a place we should never want to be. Forgive, as we have been forgiven.
I'm not disagreeing, but it seems slightly off to describe the reflective quality of forgiveness as "strings attached." So many of Jesus' teachings are about breaking down the boundaries between self and other, created and Creator. "As you love yourself." "As you would have them do unto you." "What you did for the least of these, you did for me." His take on forgiveness seems of a piece with this. He's talking about the very nature of forgiveness, not gatekeeping God's forgiveness.
I think it's important to distinguish that from the contingencies we normally call "strings attached." There's just too much eagerness on the part of religious leaders to actually gatekeep God's forgiveness, beyond what is required by the nature of forgiveness itself.
I think you did a great job carefully describing why forgiveness has this reflective nature. Also I love the phrase "uttermost theology." It nicely captures my beef with most conventional theology.
Thanks Jack. Great comment, and I appreciate the pushback. To be clear (because I probably wasn't) I'm using "strings attached" in a toungue-in-cheek sort of fashion. I'm trying to be poetic, though it might be bad poetry. In common parlance, that term tends to mean, "What's in it for me?" But I don't mean it that way. I mean, in all of Jesus's interactions, there is a kind of trick he's pulling to woo us closer into relationship with him. I meant that the end goal is not some abstract or individualized reward for the recipient apart from Christ himself, but rather, a relationship with him IS the reward. We can "believe in the resurrection," but he IS the resurrection. We can ask him for (and receive) our "daily bread," but he IS the Bread of Life. This is what I mean by "strings attached," every time he gives you bread, he is sneaking a bit of himself in there, because he is the true source of life. He is the bread. Likewise with forgiveness. He commands us to forgive, because forgiveness is good for the other (like giving them bread), because forgiveness is good for us (like receiving bread), but primarily because in the act of forgiveness of others we get a taste of his forgiveness for us, and therefore a taste of HIM. Probably I'm stating the obvious here, so forgive me (no pun intended). But maybe that helps clear things up a bit? Or maybe there is more you could say to that? Thanks again for the thoughtful comment!
That makes sense! I'm a Christian because I believe God is Love, not the other way around, so seeing Christ as relationship will get no complaints from me. Thanks for the thoughtful response!
Beautiful and challenging read, Ross! Do you think part of the issue is that we’ve pressed more into theological abstraction over an experiential theology?
Our church is going through Matthew right now, and I’m struck by how “earthy” Jesus’ teachings are - far more wrestling in lived experience rather than sitting with systematics and categories (not that these are bad in and of themselves - it just doesn’t seem to be what He was primarily concerned with)
Thanks Erick, yes definitely. I tend to say that our theological abstractions are often keeping us from a more participatory faith. Experiential works too, though in some circles can still be a bit too individualized or internalized. But yes. As you said, Jesus’s teachings (especially in Matthew) are indeed very down-to-earth. And yes, not that dealing in systematics and abstractions is bad. We must organize and generalize the patterns we see. But we also need to keep them grounded and integrated. If we are not daily living out the things we believe in, we may not believe them nearly as much as we think we do.
This was very very good to read Ross. It gets to the heart of a lot of what I find lacking across many denominations I have attended or visited. There can be no expectation of discipleship if we are utterly incapable of doing anything except sinning and confessing in a vicious cycle, waiting for Jesus to come back and justify us because we called upon His name.
We know in our hearts it's true that we are called to keep attempting to live as Jesus commanded, to reach towards completion/perfection (despite our failings), to allow each time we succeed in pleasing God's heart and each time we fail be a way for our capacity to forgive and be forgiven (or love and be loved) be expanded or deepened. There is a scurrilous cowardice in the way churches teach (implicitly and explicitly) that we are all sinners and there's no hope in trying to follow Jesus perfectly/purely.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to write and share this clarifying essay.
Thanks for this, man. Beautifully said. And it encourages me a lot. This was a hard one to write, and it makes me glad it resonated with people like you!
Huzzah!! It finally came out. Love it Ross. Thanks for asking these difficult questions!
Thank you for patiently reading and editing my original draft. You’re the man.
Great stuff.
The modern man only has faith in his own internal experience. Anything outside of what he sees or feels is viewed as illusory. The modern man doesn't really believe in friendship as an external reality, but only as an internal experience. The same is true for love, glory, honor, beauty, goodness etc. Even in the evangelical world, this has become the norm. Which is why the fruit of the spirit - "love, joy, peace, longsuffering" etc. - are so often talked about as internal experiences rather than realities that exist between us. Forgiveness requires faith in a reality outside of my own internal experience. Thus why the modern man manages relationships in all sorts of complex ways, while never truly forgiving.
Sid, so many thoughts on this. Thinking of relationships and virtues and fruit of the Spirit as only internal experiences for “psychological man” (as Philip Rieff calls our current zeitgeist) is right on. Very well said.
Excellent piece, Ross. I believe this quote sums it up well:
"...true grace is a gift with strings attached, and those strings mercifully bind us to Him. “Forgive us as we forgive” is one such string. Such a gift affords us the salvation of restored relationship.
That "salvation of restored fellowship" is what we (should) want in terms of our relationship with God, each day. God is a forgiver, and we his children should be as well. We who have been forgiven much have no right to withhold forgiveness, and when we do we essentially cut ourselves off, not from our eternal salvation, but from our salvation of fellowship with God. An unforgiving heart makes us sideways with God, a place we should never want to be. Forgive, as we have been forgiven.
Thank you, Charlie. Beautifully put!
I'm not disagreeing, but it seems slightly off to describe the reflective quality of forgiveness as "strings attached." So many of Jesus' teachings are about breaking down the boundaries between self and other, created and Creator. "As you love yourself." "As you would have them do unto you." "What you did for the least of these, you did for me." His take on forgiveness seems of a piece with this. He's talking about the very nature of forgiveness, not gatekeeping God's forgiveness.
I think it's important to distinguish that from the contingencies we normally call "strings attached." There's just too much eagerness on the part of religious leaders to actually gatekeep God's forgiveness, beyond what is required by the nature of forgiveness itself.
I think you did a great job carefully describing why forgiveness has this reflective nature. Also I love the phrase "uttermost theology." It nicely captures my beef with most conventional theology.
Thanks Jack. Great comment, and I appreciate the pushback. To be clear (because I probably wasn't) I'm using "strings attached" in a toungue-in-cheek sort of fashion. I'm trying to be poetic, though it might be bad poetry. In common parlance, that term tends to mean, "What's in it for me?" But I don't mean it that way. I mean, in all of Jesus's interactions, there is a kind of trick he's pulling to woo us closer into relationship with him. I meant that the end goal is not some abstract or individualized reward for the recipient apart from Christ himself, but rather, a relationship with him IS the reward. We can "believe in the resurrection," but he IS the resurrection. We can ask him for (and receive) our "daily bread," but he IS the Bread of Life. This is what I mean by "strings attached," every time he gives you bread, he is sneaking a bit of himself in there, because he is the true source of life. He is the bread. Likewise with forgiveness. He commands us to forgive, because forgiveness is good for the other (like giving them bread), because forgiveness is good for us (like receiving bread), but primarily because in the act of forgiveness of others we get a taste of his forgiveness for us, and therefore a taste of HIM. Probably I'm stating the obvious here, so forgive me (no pun intended). But maybe that helps clear things up a bit? Or maybe there is more you could say to that? Thanks again for the thoughtful comment!
That makes sense! I'm a Christian because I believe God is Love, not the other way around, so seeing Christ as relationship will get no complaints from me. Thanks for the thoughtful response!
Agreed!
Beautiful and challenging read, Ross! Do you think part of the issue is that we’ve pressed more into theological abstraction over an experiential theology?
Our church is going through Matthew right now, and I’m struck by how “earthy” Jesus’ teachings are - far more wrestling in lived experience rather than sitting with systematics and categories (not that these are bad in and of themselves - it just doesn’t seem to be what He was primarily concerned with)
Thanks Erick, yes definitely. I tend to say that our theological abstractions are often keeping us from a more participatory faith. Experiential works too, though in some circles can still be a bit too individualized or internalized. But yes. As you said, Jesus’s teachings (especially in Matthew) are indeed very down-to-earth. And yes, not that dealing in systematics and abstractions is bad. We must organize and generalize the patterns we see. But we also need to keep them grounded and integrated. If we are not daily living out the things we believe in, we may not believe them nearly as much as we think we do.