A remarkable exchange between characters in Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning:

Ethan Hunt: I swear your life will always matter more to me than my own.
Grace: You don’t even know me.
Ethan Hunt: What difference does that make?

For the joy!

By which I mean to answer questions such as: Why do anything? Why work? Why make music?

A brief message I sent to our house church ahead of a meeting that I was going to miss about how one ought to relate to the Bible:

As for the questions [my friend] is posing tonight at church, my two cents (God help me and may it be of some value): The Bible is our touchstone. If you can’t square it with the Bible, you can’t square it with God. But importantly, there are two touchstones within the touchstone: the greatest commandment(s) and Jesus himself. All interpretation and application of Scripture must be subject to those.

Even here, people sometimes come to different conclusions on some matters. (In this, we mimic a milennia-or-two longer Jewish dialogue on the same subject.) While we argue these things out—because these matters are often not unimportant—we nevertheless grant these differences and love always.

Sexual ethics is not about consent. It’s about love, of which consent is just one, small, basic constituent.

The universe is singing! “Come Together,” indeed! (Éa and Sullivan will be sharing a two-instrument-and-vocal cover of it this week at school.) The word of last year was “with.” The word of this year is, “Finally, all of you be of the same mind, feeling with one another…” (1 Peter 3:8, my translation). Same mind, same feelings (sympathy). That latter part is what I’m working on with Dr. Wes Scala. If you want to understand behavior, you have to understand someone’s feelings, which in turn requires that you understand their thoughts, says Shawn Ishler of Bartell & Bartell at Leadership Flight School. Push toward understanding—and thinking and feeling!—the thoughts and feelings of Carla, of Sullivan, of Éa.

friend

[after I had “warned” someone against saying “God is always speaking”]:

I hope you didn’t walk away tonight feeling discouraged or unheard in any way tonight. Would love to pickup on connecting with God when we’re together next. Love you.

me:

Good morning! Nope, so probably no need. If you came away from last night thinking, “Ooh, Scott is ticklish about hearing God’s voice because he thinks he doesn’t hear from God,” you came away with the wrong impression.

I am ticklish about something, but it’s not my connecting with God. It’s my hearing abiblical maxims about God making their way unchecked around the church, running the risk of spiritual harm. The potential spiritual harm of “God is always speaking” is at least twofold: First, it can facilitate people spouting things they think are from God but which are not, and second, it can lead other people to suspect they are spiritually deaf, as I said last night.

What to say to my friend about why I’m on edge about his emphasis on vulnerability? Basically, I think he worships at its altar. Not everybody has problems all the time. My friend is like a problem-seeker: Dig up a problem in a person, get them to talk about it, apply the salve of God’s love. Right? That’s great, right? But the problem is that being vulnerable with someone leads them to have some measure of power in your life.

This Brené Brown quote seems adjacent: “Trust isn’t a grand gesture—it’s a growing marble collection.”

“And let me be blunt about this: Whenever Christians decide that they need a strategy, they’re writing a recipe for disobedience to the Lord Jesus.”

— Richard Beck

The sun’s up!
The sun’s up!
Tell everyone the sun’s up! ✏️ 🎤 🎵

Professing Christianity is what Renn calls a “status-enhancer” when and only when the Christianity one professes is in step with what your society already and without reference to Christian teaching describes as “being an upstanding citizen.”

— Alan Jacobs

Living unanxiously mindful of your own certain death is probably salutary. Living unanxiously mindful of the certain death of those you love might be even more so.

“A person who’s not open to answers doesn’t really have questions” (Samuel James, “Letter to a Deconstructing Christian”).

Methinks 1 Corinthians 11:17 tempers a mindless application of Hebrews 10:25. is.gd/1cor1117heb1025

Love itself is the prime spiritual discipline. All others, including Bible study and prayer, are good only insofar as they serve to empower, amplify, or inform love.

Pianists don’t cultivate their skill and musicianship by reading books on the history of piano music or by talking with composers, as enriching and obliquely helpful as that might be. They improve by playing piano.

Similarly, the way you get better and more consistent at loving is by trying to love.

Speaking harshly was one of Jesus’ love languages.

Become love plankton.

Lord, be more than a topic.

“With.”

— God, in answer to another round of “What should I do?” or “How to decide what to do?”

“I only do what I see the Father doing.” Does that mean Jesus never masturbated?

In reply to a piece of email correspondence in which Ethan indicated an eagerness to incorporate “communion” into our weekly church schedule:

I’m not sure I’m game for the “every week” part yet myself, so let’s slow down on that and make sure to subject it to consensus. Part of my concern is procedural—ensure consensus for all such decisions—but part of my concern might also be personal: I maintain a tenuous sense of what His body being given and His blood being poured out “for [me]” even means.

Or maybe it’s not tenuous but feels that way because it’s substantially different from what I think most of us learned growing up, and I haven’t had much chance to share (and thus practice knowing) it. Maybe I’ll make it part of what I share when I tell the story of my life and the life of God in and around me.

“Died for us” and “died for our sins” are obviously crucial Jesus’ whole shebang. But I don’t want to establish a ritual around those concepts if I don’t have a firm grasp on what they mean. I could see us spending a whole meeting teaching each other about this and discussing this…

Anyway, no immediate actions out of the above. Let’s yes set aside time to ritualistically break bread and drink sparkling grape juice this Friday (provided there’s no objection from anybody else at the time) and then take it from there. I bet doing it this once will make the topic of doing it more often come up naturally. But let’s not be pre-married to the idea of doing it every week yet. Please.

The important part for me in leisure is a deliberate decision to engage and stay engaged. “…do it with all your might…” Remember the lesson of the ceiling at the Upper Room.

“It is a sin when someone knows the right thing to do and doesn’t do it” (James 4:17).

Community is built, not found. Therefore, stay for UBBC’s little post-service social time even though it is on Zoom.

If the church is the people, then the gatherings and their proceedings are at their worst an excuse to bring those people together that we might realize more our inheritance of God’s kingdom. That means I should not wring my hands to worry about proceedings, whether liturgical as in the the case of UBBC, or low-churchy, as in our house churches. If I am to be unhurried, unworried, and deliberate, then I must be so about church. I will not worry about the way church proceeds. I will simply be deliberate.

friend:

As I’ve left the penal substitutionary atonement understanding of things, I’ve come to believe that God’s forgiveness was present before the Cross and that the blood of Jesus was not legally necessary for God to forgive sins: It was necessary for us to understand it. Because of this, I don’t see forgiveness in legal terms, but rather in terms of relationship: We simply return to Him, which was available pre-Christ as well.

Yet there are many troubling passages which allude to a legal understanding, as in “If you do this, then legally you’re out of mercy.” Among them Hebrews 10:

> For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there is no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has ignored the Law of Moses is put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severe punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God (vv. 26-31).

What do you do with passages like this? And how do you see the work of the Cross? I feel like I have to keep going around this tree to understand the PSA theory and there are certainly a lot of scriptures that affirm that understanding of things.

me:

My short answer to any question about the New Testament’s talk of Jesus’ blood, sacrifice, and the resulting cleansing from sin: What’s wrong with a little metaphor?

Of course, it’s not all metaphor. Jesus really did make a sacrifice, viz., a relinquishment of something to gain a greater good. And it really was bloody. And it really does have an effect on sin. But don’t completely literalize the reference to the Levitical system, especially in a book that’s explicit that God doesn’t want that kind of sacrifice.

It also helps to always keep the following two and a half facts in mind:

1. Who killed Jesus? People, not God (although Jesus did relinquish his life willingly).
2. Could God forgive without the Cross? As you’ve already said, yes.

Now, the beginning of my long answer to your specific question goes like this: For my part, I don’t see a legal understanding in the passage you cite. But in it I do see most of your paraphrase—“If you do this, then … you’re out of mercy.” And you’re right that this idea isn’t unique to Hebrews. You’ll find it in:

• 2 Peter 2:20-22,
• James 2:13, and
• Matthew 6:14-15,

along with echoes of it in any passage implying an only conditional, potentially temporary efficacy of salvation (Mark 4:16-19, 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, 1 John 2:24, 2 John 1:8, Revelation 3:1-5; see also Matthew 7:21-23, Luke 9:62, and John 8:11).

So, how does Jesus once-for-all sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 10:10; Romans 6:10) have its good effect on our sin? And, understanding that effect, how can it be that it can be nullified?

More than a few books have been written to answer the first question. And I think you’ve done a lot of thinking on the subject yourself that will help you interpret the second. Here’s the tip of the iceberg of my response, based mostly on Hebrews itself:

Note the very first way the writer of Hebrews says we are saved. It’s been one of your favorite biblical phrases of late: “Since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives” (Hebrews 2:14-15, emphasis mine). Two sentences later, this very liberation is put into terms closer to those of chapter ten: “Therefore, he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every way. This was so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, in order to wipe away the sins of the people” (v. 17, CEB). The two concepts—removal of sins and freedom from the fear of death—are related.

And now I’ve got to go to work. More later. Hopefully we can boil this stuff down when we’re done.

me again:

Lemme see if I can finish this now. Perhaps a dose of hurry-up-you’ve-got-to-go-to-work will get this stuff out faster.

God doesn’t need blood sacrifice to forgive sins. God instituted (or allowed the Israelites to believe that He instituted) various blood sacrifices because that’s what they could comprehend as the way to be reconciled to God. And indeed, it’s worthwhile to see that sin and estrangement from God cost something. But God Himself doesn’t need it.

It’s no different with Jesus. God didn’t need Jesus’ sacrifice to forgive sins. Israel may have needed to see it that way for a time for them to have any chance of a crucified messiah making any sense to them. But more to the root of things, God has always been in business of, for our good and as an expression of His essential character, subjecting Himself to human misconstrual and resistance and not being overcome by it, defeated by it, or cowed into giving up on going for His rightful, very loving, very beneficent reign among us. On the Cross, God goes as far as He can go in doing that by allowing humanity to do its very worst to Him and then overcoming it. He overcomes it by utterly refusing to retaliate—indeed, by offering forgiveness and “times of refreshing” (Acts 3:19)!—and by raising Jesus from the dead.

Thus, He has proven that He is not a “hard man” (Matthew 25:24). He really is slow to anger—the only thing that makes Him mad are things that keep people from Him and from flourishing—and abounding in mercy, as the Old Testament always said.

And thus, He has shown that we are not to fear death—neither as annihilation nor as the doorway to unjust, unkind divine judgement.

So if you sin willfully after learning this stuff, the “sacrifice for sins” goes away for you in Hebrews 10:26 because there’s nothing more God can do this side of heaven to convince You that He is not like you thought, that life’s not a bitch and then you die, and that therefore sin, which hurts other people and rejects God’s loving kingship, is not worthwhile. Was the Incarnation not enough? Was Jesus’ ministry not enough? Was His subjection to gruesome, unjust execution at the hand of your fellow men not enough? Was His resurrection not enough? Was His refusal to retaliate upon His resurrection not enough? Well then nothing will be enough. You’re trampling underfoot the Son of God, regarding His sacrifice as unclean, and insulting the Spirit of grace (i.e., gift). There will be terrifying judgment for that, and as long as you hold that view, you are by definition in outer darkness.

By the way, given its very nature, the sacrifice for sins doesn’t actually cease to exist in some ontological sense. It only becomes unavailable, in an epistemic sense, if you sin willfully. And read 1 John 1:7–2:2 and Luke 17:3-4 and tell me the sacrifice doesn’t become immediately available to us again upon confession and repentance.

So none of this is legalese. It is utter, self-sacrificial Gift from the king of the cosmos and its refusal. Think of how you’d feel if you went all out, liquidating all your net worth so you could buy [your wife] a gift that cost that much—and then her not believing that you love her and acting against your wishes and hurting herself and others and spurning you. Would’t you be a little angry? Wouldn’t you be righteous in calling her ungrateful? Might you not cast her out of your house for a time?

Of course, we’re judged in light of what we know. If we haven’t fully received a knowledge of the truth, which is the prerequisite for Hebrews 10:26ff to take effect, then God will not judge us as harshly. If [your wife] couldn’t or didn’t know how much you paid, failed to see why you gave her the gift in the first place, couldn’t grasp what good it accomplished, or, say, didn’t know who you were, you wouldn’t be harsh at all. It’s only those who have received a knowledge of the truth and then sin willfully who will have to face a severe judgment.