And They’ll Know We Are Christians By Our…?
November 10, 2008 by lauraThere’s a favorite hymn lyric that goes “They’ll know we are Christians by our love”. These words are sung in churches every Sunday. But I wonder if many of the people singing them really want to be known as Christian. It seems to me that lately we will do anything possible not to be identified as a Christian. Whether this is because we don’t want to seem intolerant, weak, prissy, or boring, claiming the identity of Christian has become something we do with reluctance rather than pride. And we take great care to make sure our lives are indistinguishable from everyone else around us.
In reading Tom Wright’s discussion of the very beginnings of the early church in The New Testament and the People of God, I came across a passage which paints a very different picture of Christian identity than the one I just described. “But that there was a striking difference in general praxis as between pagans and Christians there can be no doubt. That there was even a viable expectation of a striking difference is remarkable in itself… Early Christians took it for granted that in the details of their behavior they should be significantly different, in clearly defined ways, from their pagan neighbors” (NTPG, p. 363).
I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who is vegan, which I understand is a different type of life choice than faith, but still effects her life in a similar, all-encompassing way. She was reflecting on how during the first year of her new vegan diet, she was very careful not to push her diet or her views on anyone else, attempting to be very polite and never wanting to offend anyone because of the personal choices she was making. But recently she has had a shift in her thinking. She has come to realize that if she truly believes that the choices she is making lead to a healthier, happier life, why shouldn’t she tell others about them? Not in a judgmental or holier-than-thou way, but in a way that conveys the passion and conviction she feels about the choices she is making.
That conversation about veganism has helped me to sort through some of my questions concerning the distinctiveness of Christian identity. I do believe that I have found a way to live my life that makes me healthier (in every sense of the word) and happier. And that way is through Christ. So why wouldn’t I want to share that with others and explain the decisions I make that do end up looking distinctly different? I want to be able to expect, as the early Christians did, that my life will look different because of what I believe. And I shouldn’t hide my identity out of fear of offending someone else if I truly believe in those choices.
Craig Downey
Wright has an interesting comment on how torah functions as a boundary marker in a new sense in Climax of the Covenant, I think this dovetails nicely with Larua’s quote from Wright above. He writes: “The torah is the covenant boundary-marker, and when its δικαίωμα is fulfilled through the work of the Spirit in the new covenant, it retains exactly the same function, of demarcating the people of God.”(Wright 1993. 213) Earlier he writes “They [those in Jesus] are not ‘under torah’; they are not bound by ‘works of torah’; but they ‘submit to it’, in the sense of its deepest intention, and thereby, again by implication from v[8].8, actually please God.” (212). If I understand Wright then here he is arguing that for Paul, the love that characterizes Christians is one that is shaped and informed by torah, one that does the δικαίωμα of the law, but isn’t bound to continue in the “works of the law”. Considering that a large portion of the deuteronomistic and levitical laws are concerned with socio-political relationships, Wright’s reading of Paul has important consequences for Christian praxis and political theology. Hence we see Wright’s continued emphasis on pursuing jubilee style economic justice in the world.
With Wright’s reading of Paul in mind, I wonder if part of the reason why western Christians are so hesitant to be defined as Christians grows out of a capitulation by the western church to the political liberalism of our day. Liberalism’s tendency seems to be towards the promotion of moral inclusivism in service to its pursuit of individual rights. Torah’s intolerance for certain behaviors (morally, politically, and, economically) runs counter to this central tenant of political-liberalism. Claiming that love has a particular shape and content would mean running counter to the prevailing winds of our day and running against the cultural grain has always proven dangerous. Wright’s emphasis on Christian praxis, rooted in Christ, and shaped by torah, seems to me to be a much needed prophetic critique of the westerns church’s close affinity with political liberalism.
The western church’s capitulation to political liberalism I find to at least partially be influenced by Reformational readings of Paul which have tended to drive a wedge between Paul and the law. Detached from the boundaries of the law, the Church has been free to float around in a world of sub-Christian socio-political ideas at the mercy of those ideas. This however raises a number of questions I’d love to see you guys dive into. Is Wright’s reading of Paul convincing and does the church need to give greater attention to the shape of love in the torah (esp. the socio-political dimensions), or are older Reformational readings more convincing and are we free to reject aspects of the law that run counter to our culture? How would Wright draw a line between ‘works of torah’ and the δικαίωμα of the law? Does torah’s integration of cultic and social-political laws make any sort of separation impossible?
Comment — November 11, 2008 @ 11:43 pm