The Ungodly Love of God...

 

“The Ungodly Love of God”

Romans 5:6-8

5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

5:7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die.

5:8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.

 

A good friend and mentor often asserts that our view of life and our theology is greatly affected by how we understand the nature of God. If our view of God is that God is a rule-giver and a “governor” who punishes rule-breakers, then we will focus our spiritual lives on understanding and keeping the rules we see in the Bible, and build a belief on the concept that if we are a good rule-keeper, we will be living on the right side of the Almighty. There are a number of problems with this view of the nature of God, however. First of all, it may push the adherent to see the Bible as mostly a rule book of good behavior, supported by a “cast” of potential punishments or “expulsions” from God’s favor, if we fall short of the rules. This understanding of the Bible is typically much more objective, since it hones in on the “lists” of “do’s and don’ts.” Objective is not always negative (as we might learn from science), but when it leaves one with such a limited view of scriptural interpretation that the “gray” areas of life are hardly addressed, it does a disservice to a broader view of God, God’s people, and the world. Secondly, this narrow view of the nature of God may quickly grow judgmental against those who either don’t “get” it and/or those who don’t share it, since it has such a strong “ethic” of “right” and “wrong.” Such an objective view necessarily colors one’s ability and desire to “umpire” others’ views of life, and if that one happens to regularly occupy a pulpit, it may make the sermons easier to write and give, which may be why it is a popular position among the ordained. To most of these folk, subjectivism is often seen as a pox upon the system, and a curse.

 

Of course, if one’s view of the nature of God is that of a benevolent, creative Deity who spends most of her time attempting to lure the creation toward better ends, more edifying behaviors, and a degree of mutual support that leads to a “beloved community” out there somewhere, subjectivism is a major tool of interpreting scripture and defining one’s spirituality. In this case, it is also a bit of curse, however, as rarely do such subjective views align “tightly,” even from one person to the next. Those of us with this view understand this, however, and tend toward “dialogue” and on-going “conversation” to find points of agreement and define community-nurturing “boundaries.” Leaning toward a subjective, “negotiating” view of the human’s relationship with God also energizes the dispute with the “rules” people, as what we see as our greatest “strength” and contribution to the understanding of the Bible and Deity, becomes precisely what the other crowd sees as our greatest failure. These divergent views make for many a nasty Facebook post, and Annual Conferences that sound like four-year-olds fighting over a Popsicle. 

 

This is a sermon, and not an academic paper on how theological views may differ markedly. If it were, I’d have to explore the psychology of differing personality types, socialization, and even the history of one’s upbringing. How one was parented probably speaks loads to how one views God, for example. Then there are the various “schools” we attend to explore and enrich our theology, whether this is referring to formal institutions of study (seminaries) or the books we buy and read. I might claim that “objective” types seek to reinforce their set of beliefs in this aim, while more “subjective” types are out to challenge their assumptions and grow wiser through the resulting “wrestling match.” Of course this would be a simplistic pair of assumptions, and as usual, the “truth” is probably somewhere in the middle. Again, this is a sermon, and not a treatise, so I’ll keep my stereotypes simple, and my assumptions as flawed as they often are in homiletical practice…

 

Back to my original premise: our view of the nature of God necessarily colors how we see God “behave” in God’s handling of the human condition. Now, let’s throw today’s Romans text into the fray, which I contend throws a “monkey wrench” into either simplistic and polarized views of God’s nature.

 

I had a parishioner in my earliest appointment who often did very kind, even loving things for my young family. When I thanked him for it, he would typically exclaim, “You’re welcome—it’s easy to be nice to nice people.” On one hand, I’m sure he meant that as a compliment, that we were “nice people.” However, it was always a troubling statement to me, as it made me think that it must therefore be much harder to do nice things for people who aren’t so nice. I used to think to myself, “Isn’t this exactly what God wants the Christian to be able to do? And at the drop of a hat?” I think this is at least a part of the destination the Apostle Paul is taking us to in this narrative from Romans.

 

Language like “Christ died for the UNGODLY” and “…while we still were sinners, Christ died for us” certainly signals a God who lives between the rule-keepers and the subjective wrestlers. Paul is basically saying, “I don’t care what you think, God’s love is ungodly, because it is bestowed at its most profound level (the atoning death of God’s own Son) for those who don’t deserve it, haven’t even yet yielded to it, and whose behavior resists pardon as a necessity of their self-acceptance. In short, the “lowest common denominator” of the people God “died” for are people none of the rest of us “like.” Oh, we may fain some spiritualized “love” for them, say a prayer or two for them, or even gin up religious, evangelical fervor for “converting” them, but in our heart of hearts, both the rule-keepers and the subjective wrestlers are just fine if they ultimately “reap what they have sown.” And if any of these dastardly types DO find Christ, we must again fain some level of “joy” at their change of faith, and bite our lips as their often dramatic “testimony” slams our “elder son’s” indignancy to the mat. That God would love these people enough to die for them is simply ungodly!

 

But they are the ones God loves most, because they most need the rescuing power of God’s grace to break through. THIS is “ungodly” love, at least according to the classic “poles” of the views of the nature of God outlined earlier. Pretty much all of the rule-keepers and the subjective wrestlers grew up in a church and/or a “church-going” family. The ones God gravitates most toward, at least according to Paul, did not, and therefore don’t have a clue about “how this works.” The rule-keepers will “rejoice that another sinner has come home” when the ungodly repent, but let that one break a “major” rule after having done so, and the lesson will begin with haste and hellfire. The subjective wrestlers will, likewise, be happy to see the “faith journey” of the ungodly inaugurate, but neither do we refrain from our theological and sociological “analysis” of their sitz im leben, or what the restorative powers of grace must do to “fix” them so their life will be better. Either way, these people will not find rest from the religious crowd when they discover the ungodly love of God.

 

Paul is writing to people who are already “Christian” in this text when he says that God “proves God’s love to us.” The “ungodly” who repent have no need of proof, as it is a sudden and life-changing discovery for them. The “proof” is regularly necessary for the “community of faith” these new converts will be urged to join, as we continue to doubt a God who loves people who are “like that.” We won’t say it, but we feel it, WAY too often. Both “poles” honestly have a problem with the ”ungodly” grace of God. The rule-keepers—while obvious beneficiaries of it—don’t cotton to how widely it is spread by God, and would prefer to narrow this focus, at least until some of these people are willing to take the rules more seriously. The subjective wrestlers celebrate the breadth of God’s grace, but will go postal when these “baby Christians” jump into the bath water with the rule-keepers and “Bible-thumpers,” as most certainly will. Why? Because when an individual experiences such a traumatic (even when it is “good” trauma) “paradigm shift,” one craves the firm footing of objectivity, at least for a “milk of the Word” season. The subjective wrestlers aren’t thrilled when these formerly “ungodly” folk begin spouting scripture and even promote “button-hole” evangelical practices. We would prefer that they “engage in dialogue” with us, deepen their “faith journeys,” and find a place in our supportive community.

 

Let’s face it, there are so many more “ungodly” people out there today—ones not at all familiar with the church, our “traditional” (or even liberal) beliefs, or who even realize they are “missing” something when they aren’t familiar with any of it. Paul is reminding us that it is the movement of God’s Spirit—as it was the practice of Jesus when he walked this earth—to gravitate toward these people. The ungodly love of God is tailor-made for ungodly people! The church, unfortunately, is not. We’re too caught up in defining who is “in” and who is “out,” and what “rules” are the most important ones to keep, especially if someone wants to get married or be ordained within our “tradition.” Again, the rule-keepers will drill down on the minutiae, erecting barriers to servicing people who just don’t keep the right rules they have extracted from their objective interpretation of the Bible, and we subjective wrestlers will want to throw open the doors like a fast-food restaurant, offering a full “menu” of services to folk with little regard for accountability or a defined plan of nurture and growth for them. In so many cases, they may slip by our “soft sides,” and “shrivel on the rocks in the hot sun,” like the parable says, because of our agenda and its often short-sighted view of what they need to thrive. Either way, the church may seem—or even BE—irrelevant to the new “converts” from among the “ungodly.”

 

We all must come to realize the radical nature of Paul’s assertion in Romans 5, namely that GOD is “ungodly” in making the ultimate sacrifice for the “ungodly” among us. God’s love will ALWAYS be biased toward those who most resist it, or who have little concept of what it is about. Or who can afford to pay their own freight. The church must wrestle with this fact! And our denomination is poised to split into the Global Methodist Church and the post-separation United Methodist Church, when we have no clue about how to be “global” or “united.” 

 

One last insight from this text: the author says “at the right time” Christ died for us. The use of the word Kairos for time here indicates that this was a very special time, indeed, and I suggest that it was less about the linear time (chronos) when Christ died, but more about the “special” time that Christ’s sacrifice for sin is applied to the life of believers. Each person who yields her or his life to Jesus Christ experiences this “special” or “festive” time as the time when they begin the transformational process of faith in Him. It also may be realized as the fact that the perfect time for Christ is NOW. Our day may be the stage for a very different kind of “revival” in the Body of Christ. In Methodism, our pending schism may be a type of “cleansing” that will relieve us of the petty fighting and theological scholasticism that has paralyzed our denomination for some time now. The new Global Methodists will be free to “evangelize the world” as they see fit, and the post-separation United Methodist Church, if it is smart, will remove the rules-based restrictions that keep us from opening the Good News to ALL of God’s people, including those whose inclusion in the LGBTQ spectrum has been a barrier for them. It should not be for the reforming UMC, going forward, because the perfect time for the ungodly love of God in Christ is NOW! Amen, and Shalom!