I was offended by grace last night.
My wife was reading the story of Jesus interacting with Zacchaeus to our 6 month-old daughter, the version from Sally Lloyd Jones’ Jesus Storybook Bible that falls under the heading “The Man Who Didn’t Have Any Friends”. Usually, children’s bibles are filled with simple moralistic truisms, but this particular bible is spectacular in its ability to point to Jesus and his Gospel in every single story I highly recommend it to parents who aren’t trying to raise mean little fundamentalists.
Back to the offense. As my wife read the story I found myself hating Zacchaeus because he was exploiting the poor. I was imagining him taking double taxes from elderly couples, letting his buddies off the hook of their taxes, and wasting the hard-earned money of hard-working people so he could live in luxury. It’s no wonder that people were shocked when Jesus went to his house for dinner.
No Christian wants to be on the side of Pharisees. They are the poster-children for cranky, up-tight, legalists who got Jesus killed. But there I was last night siding with the Pharisees against the tax collectors: “Jesus, you can’t associate with this man who exploits the marginalized. You have to preach against him, not eat dinner with him. This is your chance to really show that God is FOR the oppressed and beaten-down. Attack their oppressor.”
I thought of Madoff going to prison for 150 years. I wanted the equivalent of that for Zacchaeus. That would be justice.
And then Jesus’s message got through: grace is for the oppressed AND the oppressor, God gives me mercy and NOT justice, and God resists the proud BUT gives grace to the humble.
Thanks, Jesus Storybook Bible, for making Jesus’ message so simple and clear:
Jesus loved Zacchaeus when nobody else did. He was Zacchaeus’ friend, even when no one else was. Because Jesus was showing people what God’s love was like – His wonderful, Never Stopping, Never Giving up, Unbreaking, Always and Forever Love.
COMMENTS
19 responses to “Offended by Jesus (and The Man Who Didn’t Have Any Friends)”
Leave a Reply
Awesome post, Justin. I was thinking about that very idea, but I had the Rosenbergs, that FBI agent who was spying for the Russians a few years ago, Benedict Arnold, and those types of folks who have betrayed their countrymen in mind.
Madoff definitley fits and is as apt as apt can be.
It sucks when you identify more with the bad guy in Jesus' stories. Yes, the Rosenbergs are perfect for this. Any others you al can think of?
Hitler?
No, Michael. That would not be a good example 😉
Why not? Jurgen Moltmann tackles that thorny issue in his little book, Jesus Christ for Today's World. It is THE question for any quasi-universalist, or for those who believe there may be grace available for those who are not "conscious, creedal Christians" and that God's love and forgiveness in unconditional, period. I'm not saying I'm one of those people, mind you, but I think there may be some of them in this neighborhood 😉
Justin!
Magnificent post! I can relate on every level. Thank you for this.
When it comes to examples, I instantly thought about David Browder:). Just kidding Browder…I actually thought about myself.
Good news: A Christian book written for children that's actually Christian! Hey, how about this: Zacchaeus is a type of Christ in a curious kind of way. A sinner in a tree. A wee little man, and we esteemed him not. No, not even a man, but rather a worm (Ps 22). "Come down from that tree, Zacchaeus." And he did come down for the love of Christ constrained him. "If he is the Christ, let him come down." He did not, for the love of Christ constrained our Savior to remain in the tree. No nails held him, rather his love for you bound him to that tree: For you and for your sins. Jesus really did mean it when he said that the Scriptures testified of him…. all of the scriptures. For more such insights check out the Lutheran site http://www.motleymagpie.org(speaking of birds of a feather!)
Petros
Petros: Your Zacchaeus story is thrilling. Thank you so much.
What about the "mean little fundamentalists." Doesn't that fit the Pelosis the Boxers and other fundamentalist liberals?
Is there no one to scorn except the "mean little fundamentalists"? or is your meanness showing here?
Bud, you obviously don't understand the rules: "mean fundamentalists" are fair game; everyone else gets a break. Because many here have been "wounded" by "mean fundamentalists" for some it's payback time. It's understandable, but not exactly commendable. But thank the Lord, the fundamentalists, their victims, and their victimizers are all one day going to be praising God together with "pure and upright hearts" at the foot of the Lamb, free at last. Until then, we are all just a mess.
Bud, you obviously don't understand the rules: "mean fundamentalists" are fair game
Michael,
Far from being against "mean fundamentalists," the entire point of this post is that the very people we demonize (on whatever end of the spectrum you find yourself) are exactly the people that Jesus came for and, by extension, are the people we actually are although we wish otherwise. As Justin wrote, "grace is for the oppressed AND the oppressor. . . And, the fact that we all believe that we are the unfairly oppressed (ie. not-Pharisees) only helps prove the point. But aside from what Justin meant, I'm more concerned with what, evidently, you perceive to be the "rules" of this blog.
You wrote: "Because many here have been "wounded" by "mean fundamentalists" for some it's payback time .
As one of the people watching the content and the comments on this blog, I can assure you that this is exactly the tone that we are trying to avoid.
In the future, if there are specific posts and/or comments that you think are unfairly attacking "mean little fundamentalists," then just let me (or any of us) know. I don't see how this post falls into that category, but we can certainly "talk" about it–that's the fun of the blog:)
From NT times on, it sees that it doesn't matter whether its a difference of Law/Gospel understanding, Baptism in the Holy spirit, high church/low church, etc. . .some of the most difficult aspects of Christian "dialogue" are around the areas where there is genuine disagreement. Of course, it seems like none of it should matter, since we're all going to be praising God together, as you've pointed out; nevertheless, theological differences exist and have significant pastoral ramifications–ones that we are trying to tease out here on this blog.
Sometimes in the hopes of an entertaining read, we may overstate the case, but we're aiming for genuine disagreement and critical engagement with as little anger and as much humor and Christian charity as possible. . . those are the official "rules," and if we break them, then please let us know!
JDK- I actually enjoyed Justin's post. I think it raises some very important issues concerning the extent of our being willing to extend forgiveness to the "victimizers", hence my "Hitler" comment. But in the midst of this post, even Justin, who no doubt is as full of grace and the love of Jesus as you are, and certainly far more than I am, lets slip the "mean little fundamentalist" comment, which seems a bit judgmental. But my point, which you have missed entirely, is not to condemn Justin, you or any of those who post here, but to point out that all of us are hopelessly tainted and will always be until we meet our Lord in glory. So this blog and those who post on it are not perfect, but isn't that the whole point?
Michael,
I don't think I missed your point, were it simply that we were all hopelessly tainted, seems like on that, at least, we're all agreed.
What I was responding to, which seemed to also be your point of clarification to Bud about knowing the "rules of the blog," is that you believe that there are those on this blog who, on account of being wounded, are engaging in some, to quote again, "understandable but not commendable" retributive internet justice against "mean fundamentalists."
Since these are the things you brought up, quite apart from the blanket idea that we are all totally depraved and in need of grace, I thought that perhaps you were trying to say something else.
In my need to have everyone get along, I may have read too much into your comments–es tut mir Leid:)
At any rate, its always a pleasure to have your voice and insights on here!
JDK–I do think that it is unavoidable for those who see themselves as victims to, at times, and, resist it as they might, seek to strike back, even if it is in a passive-aggressive way. What I am saying is that, in my opinion, that happens at times on this blog, and the object of that ire most of the time is people labeled as "fundamentalists" or "conservative evangelicals" or the "orthodox" or what not. On the other hand, great effort is spent on trying to find points of contact with people who have rejected Christianity, but with whom people identify because they see themselves as fellow victims of the same "legalism." (see, "Three Ways of Feeling Disenfranchised by Orthodoxy" as an example) So, in my opinion, there is not a level playing field. You, and I am sure 99% of readers and 100% of contributors, obviously disagree.
But much more importantly, what I am also saying is that we are all tainted, myself included, you included, and everyone on this blog included, and that this is not just some abstract theological point. It has specific manifestations which are different for each of us. What that means is that we are all in need of mutual forgiveness, and that, since we are all equally righteous only in Jesus, we do not have to engage in self-justification. That is the true beauty of the gospel.
And, finally, I don't think Justin is "seeking retributive internet justice", whatever that is, with his off-hand reference to "mean fundamentalists." What I think of Justin is that he has one hell of a good understanding of John Calvin ("John turns 500 today") and that is as rare as hen's teeth.
Dear Michael,
You wrote: What I am saying is that, in my opinion, that happens at times on this blog, and the object of that ire most of the time is people labeled as "fundamentalists" or "conservative evangelicals" or the "orthodox" or what not.
That's what I thought you meant by the first post. . . so we are not misunderstanding each other at all. . .
Again, and as someone who would consider themselves an "Orthodox Evangelical," if you think that any of the posters have been unfair in their characterizations then, by all means, please make those concerns known. It doesn't bother me that you may take issue with particular posts, what I was worried about (and have responded to) is the idea (that you communicated to Bud) that there was a general tone of condescension and or lack of charity towards other viewpoints that one just had to get over or put up with in order to read this blog. While this may be the case in some notable exceptions, it is certainly not the intent.
I look forward to learning with and from your interactions how we can best communicate this message that is in many ways contrary to a lot of what passes for American Evangelicalism and has some significant points of departure (although overall sympathies) with much of Reformed thought in a spirit of humility and (appropriately) Grace:)
Thanks for your comments. . .
JDK–I really do appreciate your comments. I am not trying to issue some blanket condemnation of this blog, which is a breath of fresh air in many ways, but I do stand by my earlier statements. We disagree, and that's fine.
My approach is to just let it rip. But then again, I am a lawyer, not a pastor. But even for preachers, trying to be "good at showing grace", whether on this blog or in general, puts one right back in the "law" boat that is always springing a leak. So I would rather people not try to show "grace" in their posts, just tell us how you REALLY feel. We can then have it out, forgive each other for being jerks, and go drink a virtual beer together. "Mutual forgiveness" is key. If we have that, which is itself pure gift, we can be a lot more honest with each other. I hope we made a step in that direction.
I think we certainly did! And may the virtual beer only be a placeholder for the real ones to come in the future!
-Jady
Folks, I've just realized that the author of the Jesus Storybook Bible, Sally Lloyd-Jones is a friend of mine, though I haven't seen her in some time. She's close friends with Mockingbird contributor Tom Becker (aka., Mr. T's) wife, Gayle, and, when I knew her, was a member of Redeemer. Small world.
Lee Irons—-we are told, not that sin is rebellion against God deserving his wrath. Rather, “not being close to God was like a punishment,” and so, by implication, the punishment Jesus took was “not being close to God.” That seems a far cry from saying that Jesus bore God’s wrath in our place. If God’s love is primary, if the root of sin is distrust in God’s love, and if the human race is merely wandering from God rather than condemned under his punitive wrath, then it is hard to see what prevents us from taking the next logical step, namely, denying that Christ bore the wrath of God in our place. http://www.upper-register.com/papers/jesus-storybook-bible-review.pdf