The word ‘radical’ is today often associated with terrorists or the extreme Christian right and with all of that baggage, its generally negative vibe is no surprise. But the word itself is not bad at all and simply means to go to the root or origin of something. So, for example, I’ve just been radical with the word ‘radical’ by not simply taking the popular notions of its meaning, but digging down to find the accurate, dictionary definition of the word. And this digging down to the root of things is another major aspect of Kingdom living as presented in the Sermon.
In the Sermon we are told that it is not enough to simply avoid murdering anyone, but that we must also not harbor anger. In the area of sexuality, it is not enough to simply avoid adultery, but we must also not even look at a woman with lustful intent. Again with marriage, we are not merely to abide by the looseness of what the law permits about divorce, but to have the higher standard of the kingdom in the seriousness of marriage commitment. These are all instances where Jesus takes a known law and radicalizes or internalizes it.
So what is He really getting at? He seems to be saying that it’s not about show, but about substance. It is not merely who you say you are, but who you really are. The inward stuff counts and it could easily be argued that it is what really counts. At least one reason for this is just what Jesus says in 7:17 about the telltale signs of a false prophet, “…every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.” In other words, the reality is that whatever you truly are in your heart will eventually and always come out in your actions. The Pharisees’ attempt to cheat this principle is what caused Jesus to come down so hard on them by saying they were like a cup that was shiny on the outside, but dirty on the inside. They were totally hypocritical; putting on an act. This, Jesus says, is simply not possible. It may be possible to fool people for a time or even for your whole life. It may even be possible to fool yourself. But God is not fooled for a moment and He sees the heart even before He sees the fruit that comes from it. But either way, this disconnect is ultimately an impossibility to live with.
And this is really a very merciful thing that Jesus is doing, because He lets us know that every tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. If we follow the argument back, He is saying that those who are not truly changed in their hearts will not be able to live changed lives either and their end is not at all happy. The opposite, however, would also be true. But the real emphasis is the heart. Actions are important, as I will soon discuss, but they are the wrong starting point. Jesus is saying you can’t win on a technicality (i.e. I haven't technically murdered anyone today) when your heart’s intention all along was sinful (i.e. But are you harbouring anger?).
This means that Kingdom people are not shallow people. Their good deeds are not a show. They are very interested in asking questions of themselves about motives, inward thoughts, etc. They are self-examiners (in a right sense) and they are far quicker to find faults in themselves than those that are in others. In other words, they are whole people; their outside corresponding to their inside. This is the radical life of the Kingdom.
Posts
8 comments:
I like it Daniel - especially your etymology. I think we often use 'radical' to indicate something on the fringe, which isn't quite relevant to central concerns, but as you suggest, it is actually from the latin 'radix' which means root. I really like how you've tied this in to Jesus teaching! It illustrates well how Jesus calls us to live.
This is how the term is used in 'Radical Orthodoxy', by the way, which argues that all reality (at it's root) begins with God. There is therefore no truly secular realm, and a genuinely radically orthodox/Christian worldview will affirm that the church can and should have a substantial and unique influence on all areas of life, from politics to pop culture. [Disclaimer: this rather simplistic and awkward description is based on my understanding of the movement at present, from somewhat limited reading ;o)].
Intriguing stuff. Reminds me of an essay I just read by David L. Schindler titled "Religion and Secularity in a Culture of Abstraction: On the Integrity of Space, Time, Matter, and Motion." Its a mouth full of a title, but it basically points to this idea you've mentioned, that is the problem of the Church considering certain aspects of the world as "secular."
For example, too often in the realm of academics we believe that there is a base of neutral principles such as criticism, research, etc. that exists first, to which other various ideologies (including religious convictions) can then be added. The problem, he explains, is that the Church, in seeing things this way, is suggesting that Christian values are only additions to the basically neutral instruments of academia, when, in fact, a biblical understanding of creation suggests that even these supposedly neutral instruments exist only because of the loving creative act of God.
I think this is what you are getting at with your, how ever brief, explanation of "Radical Orthodoxy." Schindler agrees that there is no truly secular realm in the sense that we see it today. As he puts it, to view life through a dualistic secular/sacred lens is to render "a defective sense of religion, but also a defective sense of the secular" [that is what is normally deemed as secular].
A popular phrase around Taylor University when I was an undergrad student there was: "All truth is God's truth."
General Revelation & Special Revelation =D.
These are huge points that I emphasize often.
I have a quote that I am putting on a blog post soon, but it's where Kuyper declared, "No single piece of our mental world is to be sealed off from the rest, and there is not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is sovereign over all, does not cry: ‘Mine!’"
All of creation is God's, and will testify to him.
Back to the post-
I like your referring to the Sermon as "the Sermon," hehe ;-D. This morning, it was referred to as the "Teaching on the Hill."
It's insightful that you point out that it is a very *merciful* thing that Jesus is doing for us, by highlighting these principles as internal rather than getting away with a facade on the external. Even Christians today focus on the external and put on their "Church Faces" on Sunday morning, to go have fake fellowship (speaking generally here, not specifically). Kingdom living is real, and it is getting your hands dirty. People don't like the messiness of reality, so they make a fake external show, to keep the true inward-self out of sight.
To use language from your post, this has created a church culture that *IS* shallow, and good deeds *CAN BE* a show (speaking generally, not specifically).
However, Jesus is interested in changing the heart. He is interested in changing the inside of a person, and renewing their mind and spirit (dichotomly speaking, not trichotomly, hehe ;-).
I am so excited for Christians living out the life of Jesus in reality. The ekklesia operating as Jesus intends it; filled with the spirit, loving one another, ministering to one another, engaging the community, etc. The Body of Christ simply emulating Jesus himself here, acting as his hands and feet.
Love the Kuyper quote. I'm definitely gonna use that sometime.
Ha! Yeah, that Kuyper quote is superb, I've used it in two sermons already :o)
I agree with your comments on the sacred/secular divide, Daniel. While I think 'secular' can be helpful as a term to distinguish (for example) a 'Christian' university and a 'non-Christian' university; or music by Christians as opposed to music by non-Christians, I think that that is it's only real use (and that usage is, in my view, inaccurate at it's root anyway).
In the life of Christians, such a divide seems to cause people to divide up their lives between those activities which are 'spiritual'(e.g. praying) and those which are 'non-spiritual' (e.g. watching TV). Because in church we are encouraged towards the 'spiritual' activities, the 'spiritual' places, 'spiritual' books, music etc. the Church appears to have retreated from secular things, and thereby contributed towards (rather than counteracting) the 'secularization' of society (if we use secular in that sense). This is seen especially in the UK where there is now very little clear Christian influence in politics, the arts, TV, etc. I do not find the spiritual/non-spiritual divide in Scripture - rather, it seems to be rooted more in Platonic and Gnostic dualism (spiritual vs. material). Further, apparently the term secular didn't even exist in the contemporary sense until the modern era (post-enlightenment - according to Smith). In view of that, is just one of the many modern dualisms that have become so pervasive in society (e.g. science vs. religion; faith vs. reason etc.), and which are rooted in Greek thought.
Anyway, that's enough rambling. For the Christian, all of life is spiritual and belongs to God. I believe I can experience him in all things, if there is any ounce of good in that thing. As all truth is God's truth, so all goodness is rooted in God (I've forgotten the bible ref. for this). 'All Truth is God's Truth' is also a book by Christian ethicist Arthur Holmes.
Malcolm refers to this divide as the "Christian ghetto."
We need to be salt and light, and permeate the culture.
Indeed, and that means we have to be spread out. A big lump of salt never tasted nice to anyone. An equal seasoning is better.
A wise man once said, "Jesus said we are to be salt and light in the world. I don’t like it when I’m eating, and there’s a huge clump of salt in one large pile on my food. Salt should be scattered, permeating throughout. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is like a small amount of yeast, that eventually leavens all of the flour."
(an excerpt from my blog ;-).
Post a Comment