Sheep and Goats

Matthew 25:31-46
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we drove our dog to get some shots yesterday, my husband and I began discussing salvation. There seems to be an ever-present discussion among those of my faith regarding who's in and who's out, how do you know if you'll be in heaven, etc. Those questions, perhaps, beg some more questions in return, but that might be another post.

I strongly believe that there is simply work to be done in the Kingdom of God, and in some sense, that work can be done by anybody. Countless times in the Gospel, we are told to love others as ourselves, serve the widow, the orphan, the poor. And we are to do so with love in our hearts, not so that we can gain attention or applause. We are never called to simply sit and discuss matters of faith - not that those discussions aren't valuable and important and encouraged, but they cannot be the be-all and end-all of Christianity. There is work to be done, and we must do it. Our right belief must foster right action. Our salvation is not won by works, but our faith cannot be stagnant. James 2 says, "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

The question begs, then, what about those who perform these "right actions" without having "right faith"? What about the Buddhist who works diligently on behalf of the poor? What about the atheist who gives clothes to the homeless woman on his front steps? What about the Hindu who volunteers in a soup kitchen? What does God do with that? I would say he uses it for his kingdom. There is work to be done, and these people are doing it - and I think our God of grace accepts these gifts freely and graciously, despite their unbelief.

I would even go so far as to say that these "unbelievers" who are doing Kingdom work are doing more for the Kingdom than the professing Christian who goes to church weekly, remains diligent in personal devotions, never swears, cheats on his wife, or watches pornography but won't even make eye contact with the homeless people he sees on his way to work, much less help them.

(By the way, in my reading of Philip Pullman, I think this is his main complaint. The worlds are colliding, it seems - innocent children are becoming soldiers, the world is becoming warmer because of human activity, and the church seeks to hide itself and control those under its authority - as well as those outside - rather than work to alleviate the situation. Interesting...)

Our discussion, then, headed in the direction of salvation. How can our gracious, loving God possibly have condemned Ghandi? I cannot honestly say that I don't hope to see Ghandi in heaven, despite his Hinduism. And I would like to bring along the atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu mentioned in the paragraph above. If someone is working diligently on the work of the Kingdom, how can they be denied the beautiful fruition of it - regardless of if they knew what they were doing or not? I have a hard time saying that a God of grace and mercy and love would condemn those who were so clearly following his calling, even if they knew it by another name.

Yet, where, then, is the room for Jesus? Does "right belief" not matter? I can't honestly say that it doesn't, either. I am convinced that the Christian faith is truth. God came to earth as a man, was murdered, and rose again. We are made free. I'm convinced, and I cannot believe any other way. And, ultimately, at some point I have to believe that truth is important.

The above passage from Matthew 25 focuses solely on the "right action". The difference between the "sheep" and the "goats" is that one side fed him, one did not. The passage does not read, "You faithfully worshipped me, spent time alone with me, fasted every Wednesday, and even volunteered to serve cookies at church. Welcome to paradise." It has nothing to do with those things. In this passage, at least, all that matters is that the naked were clothed, the hungry fed, and the thirsty quenched.

So where does that leave me? With a whole host of questions, honestly. Does that mean that without these actions, you are condemned? And even if you do those actions but actively deny Christ, you are saved? I don't know. And, honestly, I don't care. While the passage is not clear on the answers to these questions, it is clear what we are to do. Clothe the naked, feed the hungry, give the thirsty something to drink. And that's what I intend to do; and I will do so because Christ allowed himself to be murdered for the least of these, and it is that action which motivates me. And if anyone wants to join me in that endeavor, please do; I don't care what you believe or don't believe - the work must be done. And I'll work next to you any day.

Philip Pullman

I've been reading Philip Pullman's "Dark Materials" series, including the popularly controversial The Golden Compass. Around the Christmas season, move-makers released the first of three movies from this series - beginning with that one, the first book - and Christians everywhere cringed, urging believers to boycott the movie.

The books (and movie) offer a rather un-flattering view of the church. The story takes place in a different world, where John Calvin is pope and has instituted hundreds of laws and rules that the Church (the government in this world) enforces rather harshly. The Church, or Magisterium, or Authority, as it's also called, is seen as an imposing force created and existing simply to control the people. The Church is perceived as an institution that seeks absolute control, even going so far as brainwashing, which all happens under a veil of secrecy and violence. The church is also deathly afraid of Dust, which seems to have something to do with either original sin (as the Church would have its scholars believe) or the very core of what it is to be human - so afraid, in fact, that it's even gone so far as to attempt to cut away a part of children's humanity - their daemons - in order to control them more completely.

I could go into much more detail of his protests, but I don't want to ruin the story. Still, it's clearly not a very pretty picture of the church.

I cannot say that Pullman is completely correct. The church was not built for the sole purpose of controlling its followers. But, the world-conscious Christian hasto admit, I think he may be on to something. As an "insider" of the church, I can see that the point of the church is not to control society. Instead, it is (or should be, at least) to transform society into something as close as possible to the Kingdom of God for which we wait in hope. The theologian Jurgen Moltmann calls this a theology of the cross; the idea that Christ, in his work of salvation on the cross, identified himself with the lowest, most hurting of creation. Moltmann refers to these as the "godless and godforsaken" - the poor, the orphan, the widow, the needy. Yet, in the resurrection, Christ pointed to and promised that some day all things would be renewed, transformed, made right. That, then, is the objective of the church - to love those who most need loving, seeking to make the present reality as much like the future for which we hope as possible.

So, what is the church actually doing? Pullman, who is openly anti-Christian, says the church is controlling society. The church is oppressing. The church is not helping the lowly, rather (like the Magisterium in The Golden Compass who cut away part of the humanity of innocent children in the name of control) it is cutting them down even lower in order to keep them under its jurisdiction. Could Pullman have a point?

If he does, we are in a sad state, my friends. If his critique carries any weight, we must be called to account. And, it seems to me, Pullman's critiques are not unique to Pullman alone. It's a prominent complaint of the church from "outsiders" everywhere (check out a book called unChristian, which cites some research info from the Barna group that will tell you just that). So, then, isn't it worthwhile to listen to such critiques? Rather than shunning Pullman's ideas as immoral and corrupted, wouldn't it be more beneficial to listen to what he has to say, and really take a good look at ourselves? If this is really how we're perceived - isn't it possible that something has gone horribly wrong?

So, Christians - read Philip Pullman's "Dark Materials" series. Think about it, take it to heart. (And, of course, enjoy the great story along the way...) Maybe we'll see that somewhere, something has gone wrong.

Latest News

If you read my husband's blog it's okay to feel that he outshines me in both depth of subject and writing proficiency today (although I did just use the word "proficiency," which gives me some points, I think...), but that's okay. I'll let him win this time.

This morning I went to work and found the building completely dark and empty, except for one man on his cell phone saying, "This is just a nightmare..." It turns out that the giant thunderstorm which flooded our backyard last night also cut out all the power in the seminary, and no one could work that day. So - surprise! I have a day off today! Which is nice, because my poor husband is sick, and so is my puppy(?), so I don't mind being home with the two of them.

Meanwhile, tomorrow is the 4th of July, and while I've never been a hugely patriotic person, to be honest, I always have enjoyed the 4th. And the 4th of July always makes me want to sit outside and eat brats, so I bought some this morning. And some beer. We have no plans tomorrow at all, so Jeremy and I will just hang out, eat brats, drink beer, and maybe hit some fireworks.

I'm also getting my hair cut today. Pretty significantly, I decided. So, next time any of you see me, I will look different.

And that's my latest news. :)

But, of course, I have more pictures. So - here's Charlie! :)