(no subject)
Driving back to work from my lunch break, while listening to Rush (yes, he’s on my presets right next to NPR), I saw a bumper sticker that read, “Jesus was a liberal! Now what’s your point again?” It’s funny how both the left and the right want to whore out the Son of God for the sake of their political ideologies. The fact is that both Liberals and Conservatives will always be disappointed and confounded by Jesus. He is neither the heavy-handed killjoy cop in the sky of the right nor the limp-wristed sky fairy of the left. As silly as I find both sides to be, they have had me thinking a lot lately.
C.S. Lewis puts it best, "He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself..." Now I’ll admit that politics in general just piss me off, especially the type which we have seen over the last few election cycles. Truth be told, both major ideologies have got some things very very right but those things seem to lose their impact in the stew of egos, agendas, self-righteousness, and power plays. As much as the liberals tick me off, I hold more contempt for the conservatives who claim the name of Christ. When it gets down to it, these conservatives are the same as the liberals they rail against. It boils down to moralism and rerelativism. They are two sides of the same coin.
I recently read a great article by Tim Keller. He expresses some great ideas (though sometimes poorly written) in this paper “The Centrality of the Gospel” (http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/centrality.pdf)
He shows how both moralism and rerelativism are enemies or “thieves” to hear of what Jesus gave and taught us. He explains them as two false ways of thinking:
“… there were two basic false ways of thinking, each of which "steals" the power and the distinctiveness of the gospel (of Jesus) from us by pulling us…to one side or the other. These two errors are very powerful, because they represent the natural tendency of the human heart and mind…These “thieves” can be called, moralism and relativism. Another way to put it is: the gospel (of Jesus) opposes both religion and irreligion.”
…"moralism/religion" stresses truth without grace, for it says that we must obey the truth in order to be saved.
…"relativists/irreligion" stresses grace without truth, for they say that we are all accepted by God (if there is a God) and we have to decide what is true for us.
... But "truth" without grace is not really truth, and "grace" without truth is not really grace. Jesus was "full of grace and truth".
Keller goes on to define moralism and rerelativism and offer the “thrid way” of the gospel.
“Moralism is the view that you are acceptable (to God, the world, others, yourself) through your attainments. (Moralists do not have to be religious, but often are.) When they are, their religion is pretty conservative and filled with rules. Sometimes moralists have views of God as very holy and just. This view will lead either to self-hatred (because you can't live up to the standards), or self-inflation (because you think you have lived up to the standards). It is ironic to realize that inferiority and superiority complexes have the very same root. Whether the moralist ends up smug and superior or crushed and guilty just depends on how high the standards are and on a person's natural advantages (such as family, intelligence, looks, willpower). Moralistic people can be deeply religious--but there is no transforming joy or power.
Relativists are usually irreligious, or else prefer what is called "liberal" religion. On the surface, they are more happy and tolerant than moralist/religious people. Though they may be highly idealistic in some areas (such as politics), they believe that everyone needs to determine what is right and wrong for them. They are not convinced that God is just and must punish sinners. Their beliefs in God will tend to see Him as loving or as an impersonal force. They may talk a great deal about God's love, but since they do not think of themselves as sinners, God's love for us costs him nothing. If God accepts us, it is because he is so welcoming, or because we are not so bad. The concept of God's love in the gospel is far more rich and deep and electrifying.
“What do both religious and irreligious people have in common? They seem so different, but from the viewpoint of the gospel, they are really the same. They are both ways to avoid Jesus as Savior and keep control of their lives.
Irreligious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through irreligion, "worldly" pride. ("No one tells me how to live or what to do, so I determine what is right and wrong for me!") But moral and religious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through religion, "religious" pride. ("I am more moral and spiritual than other people, so God owes me to listen to my prayers and take me to heaven. God cannot let just anything happen to me--he owes me a happy life. I’ve earned it!")
These are two different ways to do the same thing--control our own lives. (Note: Ironically, Moralists, despite all the emphasis on traditional standards, are in the end self-centered and individualistic, because they have set themselves up as their own Saviour. Relativists, despite all their emphasis on freedom and acceptance, are in the end moralistic because they still have to attain and live up to (their own) standards or become desperate. And often, they take great pride in their own open-mindedness and judge others who are not.) They are both based on distorted views of the real God.”
Keller uses the example of racism to see how moralists and relativists respond and then offer how a true follower of Jesus would respond:
“Moralists would tend to be very proud of their culture. They would fall into cultural imperialism. They would try to attach spiritual significance to their cultural styles, to make themselves feel morally superior to other peoples. This happens because moralistic people are very insecure, since they look a lot at the eternal law, and they know deep down that they cannot keep it. So they use cultural differences to buttress their sense of righteousness…
But the opposite error from cultural imperialism would be cultural relativism. This approach would say, “yes, traditional people were racists because they believed in absolute truth. But truth is relative. Every culture is beautiful in itself. Every culture must be accepted on its own terms.”
Christians know that racism does not stem so much from a belief in truth, but from a lack of belief in grace. The gospel leads us to be: on the one hand, somewhat critical of all cultures, including our own (since there is truth), but on the other hand, we can feel morally superior to no one. After all, we are saved by grace alone, and therefore a non-Christian neighbor may be more moral and wise than you.
This gives the Christian a radically different posture than either moralists or relativists.
Relativists (as we said above) are ultimately moralistic. And therefore they can be respectful only of other people who believe everything is relative! But Christians cannot feel morally superior to relativists.” (or to anyone)
Keller goes on to list many other examples of how these three ways differ. It’s an interesting read. Check it out here:
(http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/centrality.pdf)
C.S. Lewis puts it best, "He who surrenders himself without reservation to the temporal claims of a nation, or a party, or a class is rendering to Caesar that which, of all things, most emphatically belongs to God: himself..." Now I’ll admit that politics in general just piss me off, especially the type which we have seen over the last few election cycles. Truth be told, both major ideologies have got some things very very right but those things seem to lose their impact in the stew of egos, agendas, self-righteousness, and power plays. As much as the liberals tick me off, I hold more contempt for the conservatives who claim the name of Christ. When it gets down to it, these conservatives are the same as the liberals they rail against. It boils down to moralism and rerelativism. They are two sides of the same coin.
I recently read a great article by Tim Keller. He expresses some great ideas (though sometimes poorly written) in this paper “The Centrality of the Gospel” (http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/centrality.pdf)
He shows how both moralism and rerelativism are enemies or “thieves” to hear of what Jesus gave and taught us. He explains them as two false ways of thinking:
“… there were two basic false ways of thinking, each of which "steals" the power and the distinctiveness of the gospel (of Jesus) from us by pulling us…to one side or the other. These two errors are very powerful, because they represent the natural tendency of the human heart and mind…These “thieves” can be called, moralism and relativism. Another way to put it is: the gospel (of Jesus) opposes both religion and irreligion.”
…"moralism/religion" stresses truth without grace, for it says that we must obey the truth in order to be saved.
…"relativists/irreligion" stresses grace without truth, for they say that we are all accepted by God (if there is a God) and we have to decide what is true for us.
... But "truth" without grace is not really truth, and "grace" without truth is not really grace. Jesus was "full of grace and truth".
Keller goes on to define moralism and rerelativism and offer the “thrid way” of the gospel.
“Moralism is the view that you are acceptable (to God, the world, others, yourself) through your attainments. (Moralists do not have to be religious, but often are.) When they are, their religion is pretty conservative and filled with rules. Sometimes moralists have views of God as very holy and just. This view will lead either to self-hatred (because you can't live up to the standards), or self-inflation (because you think you have lived up to the standards). It is ironic to realize that inferiority and superiority complexes have the very same root. Whether the moralist ends up smug and superior or crushed and guilty just depends on how high the standards are and on a person's natural advantages (such as family, intelligence, looks, willpower). Moralistic people can be deeply religious--but there is no transforming joy or power.
Relativists are usually irreligious, or else prefer what is called "liberal" religion. On the surface, they are more happy and tolerant than moralist/religious people. Though they may be highly idealistic in some areas (such as politics), they believe that everyone needs to determine what is right and wrong for them. They are not convinced that God is just and must punish sinners. Their beliefs in God will tend to see Him as loving or as an impersonal force. They may talk a great deal about God's love, but since they do not think of themselves as sinners, God's love for us costs him nothing. If God accepts us, it is because he is so welcoming, or because we are not so bad. The concept of God's love in the gospel is far more rich and deep and electrifying.
“What do both religious and irreligious people have in common? They seem so different, but from the viewpoint of the gospel, they are really the same. They are both ways to avoid Jesus as Savior and keep control of their lives.
Irreligious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through irreligion, "worldly" pride. ("No one tells me how to live or what to do, so I determine what is right and wrong for me!") But moral and religious people seek to be their own saviors and lords through religion, "religious" pride. ("I am more moral and spiritual than other people, so God owes me to listen to my prayers and take me to heaven. God cannot let just anything happen to me--he owes me a happy life. I’ve earned it!")
These are two different ways to do the same thing--control our own lives. (Note: Ironically, Moralists, despite all the emphasis on traditional standards, are in the end self-centered and individualistic, because they have set themselves up as their own Saviour. Relativists, despite all their emphasis on freedom and acceptance, are in the end moralistic because they still have to attain and live up to (their own) standards or become desperate. And often, they take great pride in their own open-mindedness and judge others who are not.) They are both based on distorted views of the real God.”
Keller uses the example of racism to see how moralists and relativists respond and then offer how a true follower of Jesus would respond:
“Moralists would tend to be very proud of their culture. They would fall into cultural imperialism. They would try to attach spiritual significance to their cultural styles, to make themselves feel morally superior to other peoples. This happens because moralistic people are very insecure, since they look a lot at the eternal law, and they know deep down that they cannot keep it. So they use cultural differences to buttress their sense of righteousness…
But the opposite error from cultural imperialism would be cultural relativism. This approach would say, “yes, traditional people were racists because they believed in absolute truth. But truth is relative. Every culture is beautiful in itself. Every culture must be accepted on its own terms.”
Christians know that racism does not stem so much from a belief in truth, but from a lack of belief in grace. The gospel leads us to be: on the one hand, somewhat critical of all cultures, including our own (since there is truth), but on the other hand, we can feel morally superior to no one. After all, we are saved by grace alone, and therefore a non-Christian neighbor may be more moral and wise than you.
This gives the Christian a radically different posture than either moralists or relativists.
Relativists (as we said above) are ultimately moralistic. And therefore they can be respectful only of other people who believe everything is relative! But Christians cannot feel morally superior to relativists.” (or to anyone)
Keller goes on to list many other examples of how these three ways differ. It’s an interesting read. Check it out here:
(http://www.redeemer2.com/resources/papers/centrality.pdf)