Our Hope

A poem I wrote a while back (This Church is Dying) started a conversation going with a person who goes by the name bjs. I don’t know for sure, but I’m going to call bjs a man – only because my mother, the English teacher, told me that that’s what we do when we don’t know the gender of someone.

The poem is the story of a man who walks into church and misses the presence of God. It is “church” as seen through his eyes. I included a stanza that said, “The choir sang a postlude, and as they finished, the congregation burst into spontaneous applause. Clapping! How dare they? This is Church!” That particular stanza, I think, is what prompted bjs to start leaving comments on that post, because he felt that clapping in worship denoted a lack of reverence for God.

I think that it is important to understand that bjs is Catholic, and his comments relate to Mass, while I am not Catholic, and my experience is not through Mass. At times, I think, we may have been talking about two different things. Even so, I think the comments bring up two questions:

What is the basis of our hope?
What is our response to it through worship?

I am not a debater. I have never been able to formulate quick responses to an argument or to defend what I have to say with great clarity or speed. I often end up saying to myself things like, “Well, hmm, that person has a point with that comment.” – not really the kind of thought process that breeds great debate. The latest comment left by bjs a couple of days ago seems to place me in the position of speaking for the United Methodist Church, which I am certainly not qualified to do. Having said that, I do think the basic questions I see in these comments are interesting. While I do know that I disagree with bjs, I am to a point in the discussion where I am at a standstill. What do I really believe? How can I articulate it? So, rather than do that in the comment stream of that poem, I’m doing it here.

So, first, what is the basis of our hope? What is it that we are hoping for? Isn’t it true that we are hoping for reconciliation with God? Through that reunion with God – that transformational process in which we are made whole again – we are able to enter into relationship with our creator.

The verse which comes to mind here is from Hebrews 6:19 – “We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, sure and strong.” I read through those few chapters this morning. I think from those chapters we learn that Christ is the ultimate high priest – instead of the accepted Jewish sacrifices, he sacrificed himself – one ultimate, never needs to be repeated – sacrifice to remove our sin. In this, bjs is right – the crucifixion – the sacrifice – was necessary for our salvation.

But Hebrews doesn’t stop there. It continues that the high priest now sits at the right hand of the Father to be our advocate. Verse 9:24 – “For Christ did no go into a man-made Holy Place, which was a copy of a real one. He went into heaven itself, where he now appears on our behalf in the presence of God.” To me, that says that salvation did not stop at the cross. It says that the process continued. If Christ had died, and had not been resurrected, then he surely could not appear on our behalf in the presence of God.

In the comments to that poem, I mentioned a “wise friend” who said that in order to understand Christianity, we need to begin at the resurrection. I believe – I have faith – that he was right. We start at the resurrection, and we see Christ reunited with God. We start at the resurrection, and we see the fruition of our hope of eternal life spent in relationship with God. If we end at the crucifixion, then we see the sacrifice, but not the end result. Truly, if Christ were not to enter into eternal life with God, then what hope do I have of doing so?

I don’t argue that the crucifixion wasn’t necessary. The Bible says it was. I believe that God says it was. Jesus certainly must have thought that it was necessary in order to do it. I do think, though, that to say that the crucifixion is ALL, is everything, is the complete story, is to make salvation too easy to understand. If we think that Christ was only a substitute sacrifice – only the Lamb sacrificed for our sins, then we miss, I think, so MUCH MORE.

Bjs says that if we forget the crucifixion, then “our belief in our faith becomes only more casual.” I certainly do not want to forget the crucifixion. Absolutely not. My only point is that our reconciliation with God is so much more complicated than “Christ died for our salvation.” I’m not saying that he didn’t – he did. But the faith that he was resurrected completes our hope. It means that Christ is with God and is not dead. Where is our hope if Christ is dead? I would say that it would be dead in a stone tomb with him.

And what do I really think? I really think that I do not understand it at all. I think that to say that salvation is much more complicated than any of us will ever understand is not to trivialize the crucifixion, but is instead to reach out and brush the complexity that is God. The truth is, though, that I don’t have to understand it, I only must have faith.

Where is our hope? It is in Christ. It is as beautifully simple and as unendingly complex as that.

In that this post is rather long, I’ll wait on the second question for a different post.

Images: Three bridges in Ritter Park. Christ is our bridge.