Knots and Amazing Grace
So. It's been a while, huh?... I just finished reading Philip Yancey's What's So Amazing About Grace? In his book, Yancey sets up the dichotomy of "grace" and "ungrace." Unfortunately, as he points out, Christians tend to have a reputation of "ungrace" with the rest of the world -- a reprimanding tone, verses one of love and forgiveness.
Yancey uses politics and world events (and Christians' roles in both) to make sense of this dichotomy. He writes powerfully towards an open-handed grace between Christians and non-believers rather than judgement -- a lesson that I often found lacking in the church I grew up in, but that my current church lives out pretty well. Overall: very interesting, and also a very in-depth conversation ... so much so, I have to admit, I had to skim a little bit here and there.
I fell in love with one word picture of Grace:
"God in heaven holds each person by a string. When you sin, you cut the string. Then God ties it up again, making a knot -- and thereby bringing you a little closer to him. Again and again your sins cut the string -- and with each further knot God keeps drawing you closer and closer" (273).I think this is precisely what Jesus tried to model as he unashamedly, and unconditionally, spent time with the sinners ... not the saints.
Yancey closes his book by urging his readers to take up radical honesty. Wow. Radical honesty. About ourselves. Our junk, not "theirs." Think about that for a minute. He quotes Lewis Meyer as saying:
"It's the only place I know where status means nothing. Nobody fools anybody else. Everyone is here because he or she made a slobbering mess of his or her life and is trying to put the pieces back together again ... " (276).He said this about an AA meeting .... but what if this was true of every church you walked into?
posted by Ash at 8:04 PM
5 Comments:
You'll be happy to know that even though much of your text was readable in Google Reader, I still clicked through to read your post.
On ungrace: I think this is a danger for any group that thinks they have the right idea about how the world should work. The focus somehow shifts from living the right way to making sure everyone else agrees with you. Part of it is a legitimate desire to see the world change, part of it is probably that dissenters seem to bring trouble to the group's worldview. Maybe they feel opposed or hindered - maybe it's just easier to shift the blame onto a devious "other" who knowingly or unknowingly is chipping at the foundation of the perfect world that this group is trying to build.
Maybe that's a little dramatic.
In any case, this reaction is not exclusive to Christians. I think the answer is Grace, but I get teh feeling that not everyone carries the same idea of what that looks like.
I have mixed feelings about Radical Honesty. It's the name of a self-help program published about a year and a half before Yancy's book. The concept is pretty self explanatory: Say what you think - say it bluntly. No watering it down or being polite. There's some good in that. I think lying does wear us out and for some it can be a bad habit that stems from deception or insecurity, but do we really want total honesty? Where the practiced script is "I resent you for ___"?
While I think a move toward the honesty camp would be a good one, I can't say I'd want to live in a world where no one kept things to themselves, where no one softened the blow. It's too simplified, too extreme.
http://www.radicalhonesty.com/
That does make me happy :)
I think we have different interpretations of "Radical Honesty." I'm not talking about saying everything that pops in your head ... I'm talking about honesty in the face of our personal sin. I agree with Yancey's point in the book that it's easier to judge and condemn others' sins and ignore your own. He's talking about being honest about your personal sin -- with how you've screwed up.
Being honest and aware of your own sin -- and how God has extended you unconditional grace despite all your junk and rebellion -- it's easier to maintain a more humble perspective that wants to pass that redeeming grace on to others ... rather than obsess on their errors and alienate them from the kingdom.
I assumed you do have a different idea of "Radical Honesty," but that's not just a generic term, it's a specific psychological movement that's practiced in specific ways. Given that Yancy wrote this book shortly after the first Radical Honesty book was published, I'd say there's more than a good chance he read that (or at least heard of it) and was pulling that idea into his own book. What you're talking about is just something different than what Radical Honesty is.
Even from your description, what does that look like exactly? Who do I need to tell about how I feel I've sinned? How much do I need to share? Do I need to disclose my sexual activity to my grandmother? Or to the girl I fantasize about? Do I need to turn myself in if I commit a crime? Do I need to tell people whenever I'm unjustly angry at them?
Being completely honest, even if it's just about the things you specified, seems like it could be impractical and hurtful if not just unnecessary.
I think I took it to mean being honest with Yourself -- not confession to others.
I'm taking it -- at least in my personal application -- to mean balancing your perspective of yourself (which we can tend to elevate) when being tempted to judge others by their "faults" or "flaws."
... an internal dialogue that steps back, and sees yourself and the other person as God sees you -- BOTH sinners, BOTH messed up, but BOTH unconditionally loved and pursued by their Maker
... verses seeing yourself being "a little messy, but mostly okay" and seeing the other person as incredibly screwed up because they have views or values or whatever that are different than you.
Does that make sense?
Post a Comment
<< Home