A call to shine

I reread a favorite passage this morning from Matthew 5, the Beatitudes. I have occasionally wondered about the verses (13 –16) that follow. They are:

13 You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become
tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything but
to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men.
14 You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be
hidden.
15 Nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on
a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16 Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may
see your good works, and glorify your father in heaven.

I have never understood the placement of these seemingly unrelated ideas, nor have I ever felt satisfied with the usual interpretation with the first, which is that salt (Christians) are a preservative in the decaying world. Rather, as I suggested in a sermon I preached in Kenya, in the first word picture Jesus was referencing 2Kings 2:20-22 where salt was used to miraculously purified bad water and unfruitful land. Salt refers to disciples that can change the world for good. This then connects to the next word picture. While my listeners seemed unimpressed at the time, I still feel confident in this, and this morning the verses spoke to me, again, saying to me that Christianity has become “tasteless”, rejected and scorned by most in its present form. God wants to make us salty again so that we can transform this world. We can only do this if we make our light visible. At the moment it's hidden, and instead of lighting the world we preach mainly to the converted and are excluded from public discussion. God calls us again to “let our light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your father…”

What way is that in our time? Is the post-modern worldview an opportunity given to us to allow us to rethink and replace theology and practice that has not served God well for many years now? It makes alot of sense to me.

As indicated in the last post, a post-modern approach may require that we give up our fundamentalist pretension that we know objectively and with certainty what God wants. This does not mean abandoning our belief. Rather we confess that we believe God has in Christ reconciled the world to himself, but acknowledge that our belief is the result of revelation, not objectively verifiable and therefore a matter of interpretation and perspective.

Surely this is nothing more than honesty. For instance, I didn’t see the Spirit descend on Jesus at his Baptism, or hear God’s voice (in fact it’s not clear that anyone other than Jesus did; the disciples weren’t called yet, nor do they say that they were there and heard it. John reports only the dove descending, which he apparently learned from John the Baptist). Yet I accept the gospel writer’s account (interpretation) of these events as a result of faith, the Holy Spirit at work in me.

As well, I often wonder if we haven't fooled ourselves in claiming that we know the “truth”? Assuming that in each Biblical passage there is wholly unfiltered, unvarnished, untainted truth, untouched by the individuality of the author, waiting to be revealed, who is the one to be trusted to determine that truth? I am certain God knows. But in reality doesn’t the average Christian either simply accept an interpretation by some theologian, which appears reasonable, perhaps even profound? Or alternatively, don’t we read and decide upon our own view (interpretation)? Is this not why some believe in election, others free will; some are pre-, mid-, post-, whatever- millenialists; why there are charismatics and dispensationalists, various beliefs in types and timing of baptism, the role of women – the list could go on and on. Are there not somewhat different accounts in the gospels of the same event, which we have reconciled? Have Christians not made mistakes in interpretation in the past – leading to some very regrettable conduct (the crusades, slavery, apartheid) that even now haunts our witness?


Finally, our modern claim that only we have the”truth” has marginalized the church. As Chuck Smith Jr. wrote in Stories of Emergence, we gather in our buildings decrying immorality, wanting to be the epicentre of revival, holiness and the inspiration to the world that would cause them to forsake their lives, and outside of a small circle of influence no one pays any attention to us. No one (including many that are in church) is listening. We have been “ghettoized”, portrayed as mean spirited and bigoted. Accepting that we have no right to claim that only we have the truth creates a climate of dignity and respect. Other interpretations of reality including those of science, other faiths, government, right and the left wing ideologies have no higher claim to superior knowledge than do we. The post-modernist knows that they too have agendas and religious beliefs which affect their view of truth. In this climate we can humbly assert our interpretation. We can reenter the discourse. We can be the shining and evident light He called us to be?

I wonder.