grace

In my previous post I argued that, at one level, all religions are the same in their attempt to fill a fundamental human need and in providing similar guidelines for how to live your life. This is what most people see on the surface of all religions and, therefore, from what they see, all religions look the same.

At this point, Christians might attempt to argue that they are different than this because they don't believe in a works righteousness, but that they need Jesus and grace. But, at the same time, when they talk about Jesus, they talk about making a decision, or making him Lord of their life, or going through certain rites or rituals, or some other thing that they have done that sets them up for grace.

Consider this in light of a comment a friend of mine made a while back. Basically, he argued that the Muslim doesn't deny a need for grace, rather, they believe that it is through the five pillars of Islam that they receive grace. We make a decision, they pray. We have certain rites at church, they fast. Once again, at that level, all religions are the same, it's just a question of what you do to get what you need from God.

This is where classic Christian teaching, something we find very little of in popular Christianity, comes into play. Whether it's God going to Abraham, the nation of Israel, or us as individuals, at its root, Christianity says that while there is plenty we can do to maintain right relationships with our neighbor (the level where it's all the same), it is impossible for us to do anything that will give us a right relationship with God (the second level), which is why we need God to come to us (without us doing anything to prompt God's coming). From what I've seen this is what makes Christianity, at least classic Christianity, different from other religions.

Note: I also address this in the closing section of the elemental life.

For the past few days, I've been using pray-as-you-go as one of my daily devotional readings (I'm also following a track that will have me read all of the Lutheran Confessions in a year). Today, they brought up what is, to me, one of the most frustrating passages of Scripture, Matthew 25 and the discussion of the sheep and the goats who were divided based on their treatment of "the least".

The thing about the passage that causes my frustration is that, "the least" is typically interpreted as the poor because they are hungry, thirsty, naked, imprisoned strangers. However, if we follow the logic there, then we are saved by our works (our treatment of the poor) rather than by grace through faith. So, in attempt to figure out what was going on here, I spent some time with the passage this afternoon.

The first thing I noticed is that these verses take place in an ongoing private discourse between Jesus and his disciples that begins in Matthew 24, where he is helping the twelve to understand the end of the age. This immediately causes problems with the "the least" being the poor because the full line says, "the least of these my brothers". That little pronoun creates an image of Jesus pointing to the very people who are the least which, in that context, would imply "the least" being the disciples, aka, Jesus brothers.

So, how could this be important in our understanding of works vs. faith in Matthew 25? Back in Matthew 10, Jesus sent his disciples out to share the faith. They were to go without extra food, clothing, or money, and visit various homes in the villages to see who would receive them and who wouldn't. In homes where they were received, they were to share the Gospel, and in homes where they weren't, they were to shake of their feet knowing that that place would be cursed on the day of judgment.

So, here's what I'm thinking. "The least" in Matthew 25 are actually the disciples who went into towns as strangers in need of food, water, and clothing. Those who received them are among the sheep, not because of their works, but because they were the ones who heard the good news. The goats on the other hand, are damned because they rejected the ones who brought the good news of Jesus (and this is their curse on judgment day). This also makes more sense with the visiting in prison line.

I know it challenges historic interpretation, but it makes a whole lot more sense in the broader Biblical picture. Thoughts?

It's interesting to listen to different people talk about prayer. In the end, there seems to be two views towards its purpose. On one side, you have those who see prayer as a "means of grace", that is, something that prompts God's gracious action. So the idea here is that we pray and God acts because of our prayer.

The other view, prayer as a "means of faith", is described in an e-mail I received this morning from the American Bible Society. The devotion is based on the writings of Lutheran theologian and martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Bonhoeffer writes: "God's name, God's kingdom, God's will must be the primary object of Christian prayer. Of course it is not as if God needed our prayers, but they are the means by which the disciples become partakers in the heavenly treasure for which they pray."

The devotion had these thoughts: "If all we ever pray for is what we need or want, we are shaping ourselves to become narrow and selfish. If we pray for the things of God's kingdom, we will also be drawn into the concerns and realities of that kingdom. Thus our lives will begin to reflect these new values. Change the focus and concern of our prayers, and our values and lifestyle will also begin to change." It then concluded with, "Prayer does not so much change God; it can profoundly change us, however."

So, which matches Jesus' teaching on prayer (the Lord's Prayer).

As a side thought that I find very interesting is that each group views the Sacraments (Baptism and Communion) as the opposite means from prayer. If prayer brings grace, the Sacraments bring faith, but if prayer forms faith, the Sacraments give grace.