Skip to main content

Christ's sufferings and ours


Contemporary wealth and technological development have normalised secular self-gratification in the "developed" "Western" world. We expect a life of ease, where the only difficulty is choosing which new pleasure to pursue next. As Matt Fraser says over at The Gospel Coalition Canada, this makes it difficult for us to believe what "many other Christians through the ages" took for granted, and what many "around the world" still experience today: "following Jesus is painful."

I think this expectation of ease is a socio-cultural, not a uniquely "religious" or  "theological," issue. For most of human history, life has been difficult. Most religions invest religious effort with value - doing good makes you worthy to be "saved" (whatever "salvation" means within that religion - nirvana [Hindu and Buddhist], Jannah [Islam], less time in purgatory [Roman Catholic], etc). It's no surprise that we're in the midst of a "vibe shift" against this kind of lazy decadent hedonism - e.g. Jordan Peterson. Don't be surprised if some faithfully religious people dismiss the gospel as being too easy. They may even criticise the gospel - and you, the Christian - for nurturing that kind of decadent hedonism through the apparent ease of divine grace in Christ. There's a reason Paul wrote Romans Six after Romans Five. It sounds like he's saying "let us do evil that good may come” (Rom 3:8). 

By the way - if you get mocked for standing firm on the free grace of complete forgiveness in Christ, you're suffering hardship for doing good to undeserving sinners. Well done. You're imaging the one who prayed that his executioners be forgiven - Luke 23:34, see also Stephen in Acts 7:60. Keep it up. 

The flip side of being surprised by Christian suffering would be to permit it to feed self-righteousness - that we are superior to those lazy sub-Christians who have never gone through any hardship. For an example from church history, find out about the Donatist schism

We need to get the order right. Christ's sufferings, and his alone, atone for our sins. Salvation is for us completely free, simply through abandoning ourselves to Christ through faith. He does work; we get the benefits. We may go through all kinds of opposition for Christ. They are an aspect of our testimony to him. They flow from our love for non Christians - we continue to tell them about Jesus, and his free forgiveness, when it would be easier and safer for us to be silent, let unbelievers continue in their unbelief, and laugh at them from glory as they burn in hell. But these hardships don't add to our status before God. That depends on Christ, and his unique suffering, alone. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...