I don't like tension. I like clarity. I want a God who I can understand.
So I read the Bible.
"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." - Matthew 5:23-24Simple enough, if I've offended another it is my responsibility to seek him out in reconciliation. It is the guilty who must ask for forgiveness.
But I keep reading.
"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." - Mark 11:25Here it is the victim who must initiate reconciliation. But the verse in Matthew said the opposite. How can I understand this tension?
Now it can be tempting to analyze and systematize this. Maybe the difference is in the fact that one one is in the context of offering, the other in the context of prayer. Maybe one applies to Christians ('a brother') while the other applies to all people. Or maybe this is just another contradiction in the Bible and another reason to throw the whole thing out. Such is the ultimate result of 'either/or' logic.
What if the truth is in the tension? What if it is the responsibility of both parties to make amends? This indeed would be a beautiful thing. It paints a picture of the guilty and the victim meeting on the road of reconciliation as they each move toward the other. This was the case of Jacob and Esau (Genesis 33).
I must embrace the tension for within it lies the truth. It may be easier to choose one verse over the other and release myself from the responsibility of reconciliation. But to do so would be error. Whether I have wronged someone or they have wronged me, it is my responsibility to seek reconciliation.
We do this all the time, choosing one verse over another for complex theological reasons which often serve only to reinforce our preferences. We try to solve tension rather than embrace it. We make God understandable, fitting into a neat box of logic.
If I think I can understand God, I fool myself into thinking I can control Him. Then I become God.
But I am not God and I cannot control Him. I can understand Him only inasmuch as He has revealed Himself and no more. So if I see tension in His self-revelation I should always seek to embrace not explain. The Truth is in the Tension.
7 comments:
Not only did I teach a two-week Sunday school class on this very idea (about 9 years ago at Skillman) but I used the exact same title. Creepy, eh? Your words were much more eloquent than mine. Very well said.
That is creepy, I guess great minds think alike ... or maybe not-so-great minds also think alike. I guess never understood that saying ... :-)
Hi Lee, a couple of things:
I think you are saying two different things:
1) We should embrace the tension between two competing facts as stated by God, and in doing so we are embracing the godhood of God.
2) We should see within a conflict between competing statements that there are higher truths to be learned upon its resolution.
For example, you resolve the tension between Matthew 5:23-24 and Mark 11:25 by stating
"Whether I have wronged someone or they have wronged me, it is my responsibility to seek reconciliation."
In stating both of these, you invoke two different definitions of tension. One is a type of tension that cannot be relieved through any act of logic, and the other is a kind of tension that can be resolved through rational thought.
Both kinds of tension are kinds we can learn from. Through understanding that the first kind exists, and we can do nothing about it, we either learn humility and trust (essentially, to embrace), or we learn discouragement. Through resolving the second kind, we learn simply what what really there in the first place.
-Ryan
Ryan,
I admit the forgiveness example is probably a weak example of 'tension'... I cite it mainly because it is hard to argue with :-) Few people are anti-forgiveness (at least is principle if not in practice) It is true that logic can resolve this issue without too much of a leap.
It is in the more difficult tensions where this becomes more useful, and perhaps controversial.
I can see four different positions whenever P and not P are encountered:
1) Sure, P and not P, but remember the context.
2) P and not P, and that's all, and we need to have faith in God.
3) P. "not P" is a result of a translation error.
4) Let's go ride bikes.
-Ryan
Very nice. Very nice.
I think Kluzak needs a blog :-)
Post a Comment