God's Economy

I know I am wading into water that has a huge drop off point a very few feet from shore but here goes…
If you think of God in terms of a financial system you might start at talking about what equals what.
In our current economy $1.50 equals (medium slurpee, souvenir key chains, 6 bell pepper bedding-out plants, a referee whistle, etc)
In God’s economy sin equals (sour consequences, exclusion, brokenness (gross word), and ultimately death (spiritual and physical)). In other words if someone wanted to pay God for sin they would have to give God life. And obviously that life could not have any sin itself otherwise that life would owe God another life – follow? So alone comes Jesus and offers his life as the payment for sin. Great! But wait? How does that really work? What did Jesus actually do?
You see in our current economy $1.50 can buy one medium slurpee not two. It also can’t buy a slurpee and a key chain.
And in God’s economy Jesus’ perfect life can pay for death but can it pay for the consequences and all the other stuff? Well it seems clear that it doesn’t. (ex. Jesus can pay for the sin of premarital sex for instance but his death on the cross has not yet reversed the processes of pregnancy.)
But is this spiritual economy actually fair? I mean let’s take someone hideous like Robert Pickton. Here’s a dude that kills people but let’s just say that Bobby over here encounters Jesus and makes a request to God to have his sins atoned for through Jesus. What’s God gonna do? Forgive him? Is that just? I mean to put it in a real crass way does Mr. Pickton over here get to play the ‘get out of jail free’ card on his last turn and then everything is wiped off?
The short answer we have to take is yes.
God’s mercy and grace are huge and so his righteousness and justice. So God exercises mercy and grace in forgiveness of the things that his justice and righteousness demand payment for. So then the smart kid at the back of the classroom puts up his hand and asks, “Okay so basically our sinful behaviour does really matter. As long as we can put up with the consequences and brokenness we’ve at least got our lives back – and look how much more beautiful Jesus’ sacrifice is if we just sin even a little more.”
Shoot I’m stumped. Is there actually such a thing as justice if God just openly forgives (counts as uncommitted) the sin we or anyone does? Do we have the right to demand justice for evil perpetrated against us or others? We could never begin to pay the debt for our own sin but what role do our actions play in the whole redemption scheme?
One of the things that I am sure of is: I really underestimate the price of redemption. What an incredible price God paid. Maybe I don’t value redemption because I am actually not redemptive enough myself…
Interested in reading more on this topic? Here are some of the things I read recently to get me thinking.
Scot McKnight
Phil Johnson

More of what do they hear?

McKnight gives more of his take on this book.
Personally, I identified most strongly with the disciples in this case. But of the things that I have to ask based on Mark Powell's study is why to clergy identify mostly with Jesus? Is it perhaps that we have this subverted Christ complex? hmmm!

what do they hear...

This sounds like a fascinating book to read.
Scot McKnight gives us a sneak peak at what looks like it might be very timely piece of work. This topic raises all sorts of questions in my mind. Like:
Should we trust our own individual interpretation of the Scriptures?
Are we to trust our leaders to interpret the Scriptures? Is it appropriate to question that interpretation? How?
If everyone’s reading of scripture is legitimate how do we determine which one is actually accurate?
One thing I am convinced of is the importance to be clear when we communicate from ‘the front’!

I like this little blurb from McKnights post, from the book:

He tells the story of his mom saying she liked one of Mark’s song when he was in high school, listening to Creedence Clearwater Revival. Mark is an expert on music (and I’ve heard of this group but not listened to them that I know of). She heard “There’s a bathroom on the right!” when they were singing “There’s a bad moon on the rise.” The focus of the 1st chp is on this very thing: People hear things we don’t intend because they absorb what we say into their social location. And, he admits, “We want to be taken out of context — but only when that is a good thing.”

Are catastrophes God’s judgement?

After reading Scot McKnight’s posting here and here. I was drawn to couple of wonderings…
Is it appropriate to say that catastrophic events are God’s judgement? At first glance, I would have to say, “NO!” If the great tsunami of South East Asia, or the hurricane that buckled New Orleans, or even the 9-11 incident are attributed to God’s judgement on people it calls into question my notion of God’s grace. Of course I scoffed at Jerry Falwell and others who claimed that 9-11 was God’s judgment on homosexuality in America.
But might that position actually be sort of handcuffing God to a preconceived notion of grace? Is it possible for us to suggest that God set up some natural consequences for our behaviour?
Kinda like this…
Re: Tsunami – If humanity is going to exploit the natural beauty this landscape and refuse to take the precautions to ensure their safety – they will be judged for their decadence and ignorance. So then God’s judgement isn’t so much about the fact these are ‘godless’ countries who promote cults as it is about the natural consequences of our behaviour.
Re: New Orleans – Again a lack of forethought seems to be what is judged here. That lack of forethought might be directly related how preoccupied the people of that city had with their ‘activities’. But what is being judged there is not so much the iniquity of the town but the way people can get preoccupied with activities that distract them from natural consequences.
Re: 9-11 – Here is seems for more clear that the U.S. foreign policy and materialist culture was a direct contribution to the attack on these buildings that represented those dynamics. God’s judgement looks something like: if you are going to tick people off with unjust policy and exploitation they will get mad and try to make you pay for it. The accusation that 9-11 is a judgement from God about homosexuality is really ridiculous.
One of the concepts that McKnight talks about is the idea of focus that we tend to have in this issue of judgement. Lots of time we wonder if God is judging the individuals or if He is judging the community or humanity in general. Of course, this is far from a settled matter in my mind – I mean is God actually judging people or are these events to be understood to be completely random and meaningless…

Emerging church...

For those of for whom the Emerging Church movement has provoked questions, problems or even derisions…
And for those of you who for various reasons might feel inclined to find affinity with this stereo type of the Emerging Church movement…

“Here’s the urban legend: The emerging movement talks like Lutherans – which means they cuss and use naughty words; they evangelize and theologize like the Reformed – which means, in the first case, they don’t do much of it, and in the second, they do it all the time; they confess their faith like the mainliners – which means they say things publicly they don’t really believe in their hearts; they drink like Episcopalians – which means – to steal some words from Mark Twain – they are teetotalers sometimes – when it is judicious to be one; they worship like the charismatics – which means with each part of the body, some parts of which have tattoos; they vote liberal – which means they all move to Massachusetts come election time; they deny truth – which means Derrida is carried in their backpacks.”

Scot McKnight has written a wonderfully articulate paper on the essentials of what the movement is about. This paper was presented at Westminster Theological Seminary. His challenge to all of us is to allow the movement to define itself.

“In order to define this movement, there is a correct method to follow.
Which is where I want to go now: to define a movement we must, as a courtesy, let it say what it is or describe it until the other side says “Yes, now you’ve got it.” To define a movement, we must let the movement have the first word.”

So read it. In the first part of the paper McKnight exposes the conclusions of D.A. Carson and other critics for what they are - speculative projections of doom. As I read McKnight's paper I was struck by the idea that in many instances it seems that Evangelicalism has had to prop up the image of a formidable opponent as a threat to evangelical orthodoxy in order to defend and perpetuate its own schema.

I follow McKnight’s blog: Jesus Creed as well.
Ht: Mike King