This is the story where Jesus casts out lots of demons from one guy (the guy says his name is Legion because there are so many) and sends them into a herd of pigs, which then promptly drown themselves. The story is full of all sorts of interesting things, not the least of which is Jesus negotiating with demons, but what caught me this time was something that happens near the end. A crowd has gathered and sees the man who used to be demon-possessed sitting clothed by Jesus. They are afraid and beg Jesus to go away. As Jesus is getting in the boat to leave, the formerly demon-possessed man begs to go with him. Surprisingly, Jesus says no. Jesus tells him instead to go back to his house and to tell everyone what has been done for him.
I think we often respond to being saved from our demons in much the same way. We have a salvation experience of some kind and decide we need to become a monk (Martin Luther, anyone?) or go be a missionary or work in a church. I'm not saying that any of these things are bad things, because they're not. Also, I'm not saying that nobody is called to these things, because some certainly are. What I am saying is that there's nothing left to accomplish in our salvation, so we don't need to go do these things to prove ourselves or repay our debt or something. The gift has been given, salvation has been accomplished.
Let me say this another way. Often, in our discussions of salvation, we tend to emphasize the eternal importance of it while neglecting the immediate implication. We get so caught up focusing on Heaven and eternal life that we forget about the here and now. We tend to live "for Heaven" or something like that and therefore we strip our actions of any earthly meaning. We don't help one another for the other's sake, rather we do it with Heaven in mind. We know that we aren't earning our way to Heaven, but we are secretly trying to make ourselves more "heavenly." We live in such a way as to make ourselves holier, to be more "like God," thereby succumbing to the original temptation. When we become so focused on Heaven that we forget the here and now, we fail to fully receive the gift that has been given. Because salvation is something done for us, rather than by us, we don't have to worry about it. To be "saved" is to be saved from all of our attempts to save ourselves, from our tendency to ignore the here and now and interpret everything that happens against some constructed eternal meaning. In saving us, Jesus gives us back to this world. Because we don't have to worry about our eternal life, we can focus on this one. We are free to live earthly lives, to live as humans and give up attempting to be God. We are now free to really live; to eat for pleasure, to enjoy a sunset, to help our neighbor for his own sake, to thank God for every day.
As I sat in the garden, thinking about this, with the beauty of creation all around me, I heard a child squeal with delight when she saw, of all things, a fish. It's funny that it has taken so much reading and thinking to begin to understand what a child knows so effortlessly, but I guess that's just the way it is sometimes.
Lovely.
ReplyDeleteThat reversion back to Original Sin is quite interesting. You ought to read pages 1 and 2 of Ethics by Bonhoeffer. He expounds this idea succinctly and much more eloquently than anything I've ever written that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteKyle: What do you mean by "reversion back to Original Sin?" I don't think I followed you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, thanks for the Bonhoeffer recommendation. I haven't read any of him, and I really should.
This part:
ReplyDelete"We live in such a way as to make ourselves holier, to be more "like God," thereby succumbing to the original temptation. When we become so focused on Heaven that we forget the here and now, we fail to fully receive the gift that has been given."
Bonhoeffer writes this (page 17 of Ethics):
"Already in the possibility of the knowledge of good and evil Christian ethics discerns a falling away from the origin. Man at his origin knows only one thing: God. It is only in the knowledge of God that he knows of other men, of things, and of himself. He knows all things only in God, and God in all things. The knowledge of good and evil shows that he is not at one with his origin."
I'm not sure if this ought to be an example for us, or if we ought to--because we are now living with the results of sin--give this ideal up. We are not at our "origin," or really anywhere near it. I know good and evil, other people, myself, etc. outside of this origin, and so your point makes perfect sense, pragmatically.
But is Christianity a pragmatic thing? Should we continually shoot for this ideal of being so absorbed in God that we know things only through that lens? Is it even possible? It would seem that if redemption were complete, it would be. But I don't actually think that.
Sorry for a comment that's longer than the original post.
Kyle, I'm not sure I understand you, so I'm going to say some stuff that may or may not apply to what you're saying... let me know how I do.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if what I'm talking about in that sentence should be called Original Sin or not. I'm going to spell out what I mean and let you decide. I think that the first sin was really the attempt to be something that we are not and to put ourselves on an equal standing with God. This tendency (too weak of a word, but you understand) to try and be something "higher" than we are, to be heavenly beings rather than earthly ones, is endemic to humanity at least since the fall, if not from the beginning of humanity. I don't believe in original guilt, at least not in a legal sense, but I do believe that we are all by default pretty arrogant and want to take control of our salvation (or whatever word you choose) as though we could do a better job of it than God could. The definition of sin that I currently agree with is that it is an inability to receive from God. Rather than receive a gift that's freely given, we would rather do something to earn it, or claim that we really don't need the gift after all. So, I don't know if that fits Original Sin to you or not, but that's what I think.
As for the Bonhoeffer quote and your comments after it, I think I may understand it differently than you do, so tell me if you think I'm wrong. I'm equating knowing all things in God with living by faith. At the start, Adam and Eve had to trust God in everything except for what he gave them dominion over. All Adam and Eve knew was earthly matters, and I would guess that was limited to basic agrarian knowledge. Everything else they left to God. They lived entirely by faith. The "fall" came when they tried to gain knowledge that was above their station, tried to "climb into heaven," by means of something other than God. I'm not sure the knowledge of Good and Evil is itself the bad thing, but rather the attempt to get it on our own terms, apart from God. I put "fall" in quotes earlier because I think that it is a misleading label for what happened. It wasn't some sort of fall from heaven to earth, from some higher station to our current lowly one, but rather an attempt to leave our earthly station and usurp a heavenly one under our own power. It's really more of a "climb" or "coup" than a "fall."
Anyways, because I am reading Bonhoeffer's quote this way, I see the point I am trying to make in my post and "knowing all things only in God" as being one and the same. I don't see being saved for this world as being some sort of compromise, a settling for something less, but rather a full return to our appointed place in creation. So I'm not making a pragmatic concession, but rather advocating the ideal; a return to our original mandate as well as imitating the humanity of Christ, for it was he who completely and totally lived by faith, trusting all things to his Father, even his own resurrection.
Oh, and sorry for a comment that's way longer than yours.
ReplyDelete