(image: http://sfgospel.typepad.com/sf_gospel/comics/)
There are not many lessons I actually remember from youth group or church camp, but there is one that I do remember. I don’t actually remember any specific teaching, but I remember there being something that a lot of youth ministers, camp preachers, and Christian leaders talking about- the power of God. Here was the basic outline of the power of God sermon.
1. A little bit of Greek razzle-dazzle to show the connection to the Holy Spirit and dynamite.
2. Then into a description of omnipotence and omnipresence.
3. Then there might be a story from the Old Testament of a religious hero or a reference to Acts.
There are not many lessons I actually remember from youth group or church camp, but there is one that I do remember. I don’t actually remember any specific teaching, but I remember there being something that a lot of youth ministers, camp preachers, and Christian leaders talking about- the power of God. Here was the basic outline of the power of God sermon.
1. A little bit of Greek razzle-dazzle to show the connection to the Holy Spirit and dynamite.
2. Then into a description of omnipotence and omnipresence.
3. Then there might be a story from the Old Testament of a religious hero or a reference to Acts.
4. The stage would then be set to build a case:
a. The vastness of the universe
b. Creation(ism)
c. A wealth of scripture references pointing to the power of God
d. And maybe even some end times thrown in
5. It was then time to move into a practical application demonstrating the power of scripture (the written word, not so much the revelation of Christ) in our lives.
6. And then the bold leap to the power we have as believers:
a. With access
b. And presence of the Holy Spirit
It is not my intention to devalue the power of God or even the inherent power we have through a relationship with God, but I think that it is important to put the talk about victory, strength, and power, and all that other language that has found its way into motivational Christianity into a little perspective. The entire story of Christ is one of service and humility (he may very well return as a lion, but the access we have to God came in the form of a lamb). Paul makes it clear that the weakness of God is more powerful than the strength of man which implies there is a weakness to God. This means that we have to balance the propaganda and marketing of Christianity with the reality of a God that ultimately offers free will. And even though the greatest demonstration of the power of God is seen in his willingness to forgive and give mercy, the intrinsic brokenness of that has to be recognized.
Where does this need to ensure that Christianity is linked to power come from? There is no doubt that there is also a lot of talk about humility and brokenness in the church. But somehow all that has to end up referencing how we have access to power. What if the point is to seek out ways to understand, to borrow from the language of Caputo, the weakness of God? What if the story of us in relation to God doesn’t just preface with weakness, but rests soundly on weakness? What if we abandoned the need to quantify God and his interface with us in such a way as to make sure that God is relevant for a society that values power and victory above all else? And what if we begin to abandon the need to understand God in such a way as to exploit him to meet our own agenda?
As applicable as naming God as a king may be to ensure that we are on the winning side, the process of naming him at all objectifies God. Peter Rollins states, “We misunderstand the truth of faith if we think that the nature, revelation, and event of God can be torn apart from each other and compartmentalized in isolation from one another.” A Christianity that is rooted in modernity and borrows most of its language from the middle ages has a deep seeded need to identify God as all powerful and make a superhero out of him because that somehow that makes us able to understand God and this life that really makes much less sense than I think many of us are comfortable acknowledging. However, in the process of naming God we have come to only relate with him in a way that requires that we understand him first. But ironically, in naming him we isolate ourselves from him because we have made him nothing more than an object. The same epistemology is then translated across the spectrum in that we must name and objectify the world that we live in and are ultimately attempting to escape. By labeling God in such a way that he has power of anything in this life that is unpleasant and then covering us with the same ability objectifies our experiences and our God so that even though we can make sense of them we are completely isolated from them.
What then we live by is a worship of power. By defining God so that we can understand him so that we can be sure that we have power over the challenges of this life. And it works. Every culture throughout history has developed some idea of God to explain, give comfort, and empower its people. Those who have used this need for power to exploit people have in turn gain even greater power. So then what would it look like if we began to worship a weak God: a God that is more adjective than noun? What if we embraced a God that, while still has power, relates with us in weakness? And what if we quit attempting to understand God and explain the circumstances of this world for the purpose of coming into intimacy with God? Ultimately this becomes an issue of trust. Trusting in God on the basis of rejecting a grand narrative and fully embracing the experiences of this life take away our power. The way of the world is a way of power. We are called to go against that flow. So is it possible to be strong enough to be weak?
a. The vastness of the universe
b. Creation(ism)
c. A wealth of scripture references pointing to the power of God
d. And maybe even some end times thrown in
5. It was then time to move into a practical application demonstrating the power of scripture (the written word, not so much the revelation of Christ) in our lives.
6. And then the bold leap to the power we have as believers:
a. With access
b. And presence of the Holy Spirit
It is not my intention to devalue the power of God or even the inherent power we have through a relationship with God, but I think that it is important to put the talk about victory, strength, and power, and all that other language that has found its way into motivational Christianity into a little perspective. The entire story of Christ is one of service and humility (he may very well return as a lion, but the access we have to God came in the form of a lamb). Paul makes it clear that the weakness of God is more powerful than the strength of man which implies there is a weakness to God. This means that we have to balance the propaganda and marketing of Christianity with the reality of a God that ultimately offers free will. And even though the greatest demonstration of the power of God is seen in his willingness to forgive and give mercy, the intrinsic brokenness of that has to be recognized.
Where does this need to ensure that Christianity is linked to power come from? There is no doubt that there is also a lot of talk about humility and brokenness in the church. But somehow all that has to end up referencing how we have access to power. What if the point is to seek out ways to understand, to borrow from the language of Caputo, the weakness of God? What if the story of us in relation to God doesn’t just preface with weakness, but rests soundly on weakness? What if we abandoned the need to quantify God and his interface with us in such a way as to make sure that God is relevant for a society that values power and victory above all else? And what if we begin to abandon the need to understand God in such a way as to exploit him to meet our own agenda?
As applicable as naming God as a king may be to ensure that we are on the winning side, the process of naming him at all objectifies God. Peter Rollins states, “We misunderstand the truth of faith if we think that the nature, revelation, and event of God can be torn apart from each other and compartmentalized in isolation from one another.” A Christianity that is rooted in modernity and borrows most of its language from the middle ages has a deep seeded need to identify God as all powerful and make a superhero out of him because that somehow that makes us able to understand God and this life that really makes much less sense than I think many of us are comfortable acknowledging. However, in the process of naming God we have come to only relate with him in a way that requires that we understand him first. But ironically, in naming him we isolate ourselves from him because we have made him nothing more than an object. The same epistemology is then translated across the spectrum in that we must name and objectify the world that we live in and are ultimately attempting to escape. By labeling God in such a way that he has power of anything in this life that is unpleasant and then covering us with the same ability objectifies our experiences and our God so that even though we can make sense of them we are completely isolated from them.
What then we live by is a worship of power. By defining God so that we can understand him so that we can be sure that we have power over the challenges of this life. And it works. Every culture throughout history has developed some idea of God to explain, give comfort, and empower its people. Those who have used this need for power to exploit people have in turn gain even greater power. So then what would it look like if we began to worship a weak God: a God that is more adjective than noun? What if we embraced a God that, while still has power, relates with us in weakness? And what if we quit attempting to understand God and explain the circumstances of this world for the purpose of coming into intimacy with God? Ultimately this becomes an issue of trust. Trusting in God on the basis of rejecting a grand narrative and fully embracing the experiences of this life take away our power. The way of the world is a way of power. We are called to go against that flow. So is it possible to be strong enough to be weak?
It is important to note that this isn't humility. Here is the response I gave to someone from my facebook page suggesting that I should have used humility, "No. I am sticking with weak. Humility is a valuable characteristic, but it isn't opposed to strength. In fact, I would say you can have real humility and be either weak or strong. Weakness is the trait that I think is more important to explore. It is important because it is juxtaposed to power and power is the modern characteristic that is not descriptive of God."
ReplyDelete