Amazing Grace

When I think of central Amsterdam, of the stone-cold narrow red light district streets blocked for reconstruction, of the smell of hemp and tourist food, of the saggy-fleshed women tapping on the glass, my mind flies past all that, finds a side street with a waving sign, finds a run-down hostel where, twice, I burrowed into an overworn chair and perused the shelves for Philip Yancey. Consequently, when I think of Amsterdam, I have a strong temptation to think of grace.

Grace is startling in such a place.

It is different than the glassy-eyed freedom-from-taboo held out by the women tapping on the windows, those who themselves are captives, many of them in the most literal sense of the word. Freedom from taboo is the life’s blood of Amsterdam, and, to a lesser extent, Europe and the modern West as a whole. It is a tempting substitute. It, like Grace, offers acceptance, a smile, fraternity… At least until it becomes uncomfortable. Let’s be honest: complete freedom from taboo is impossible except in a caveman anarchy, and when everything is open and intimate, well, nothing is.

But when Grace is withheld, the temptation is to turn to one of two things: order, or disorder. Asceticism, or hedonism. A rule for everything, or barking in the spirit. The first book I ever read by Yancey was What’s So Amazing About Grace?:

“Author Stephan Brown notes that a veterinarian can learn a lot about a dog owner he has never met just by observing the dog. What does the world learn about God by watching us his followers on earth? Trace the roots of grace, or charis in Greek, and you will find a verb that means ‘I rejoice, I am glad.’ In my experience, rejoicing and gladness are not the first images that come to mind when people think of church. They think of holier-than-thous. They think of church as a place to go after you have cleaned up your act, not before. They think of morality, not grace. ‘Church!’ said the prostitute, ‘Why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They’d just make me feel worse.'”

One review I read countered Yancey’s tale: “Did Yancey never stop to think that maybe the church is supposed to make that prostitute feel bad?”

No, the church is not “supposed to make” anyone “feel bad.” Churches like this have confused their role. On the one hand they claim that God is the author of all, that he has written conscience and the stars to point to him, that political action is outside the scope of Jesus’ message, that it is against God and God alone that one sins, that God is love, that it is by grace one earns anything. On the other, they silently or not-so-silently weed out the untouchables who are too afraid or too compromised or too honest or too far away to openly condemn all the right sins. The same review notes with more than a hint of disgust: “Yancey is more impressed that they can say the words ‘Jesus loves me’ than he is disturbed by their sin.” But is this really a problem? Since when is it the church’s, or anyone’s, primary job to be “disturbed by sin,” particularly if it is outside the church? Frankly, I think this sums up the average evangelical’s attitude rather nicely (or at least the outsider’s perception of it): the middle-class white guy shaking his head at the drunk on the street/girl with the short skirt/punk with the tattoo — shaking his head not because he’s caught up in a fatherly moment of regret, but out of righteous and necessary outrage.

But he doesn’t know that in so doing he is blaspheming the God who ate so openly with such people, with the whores and tax collectors, with the unrepentant as well as the angels. It is the sick who need a doctor. It is the prodigals who are met when they were still a long way off.

It is the merciful who shall obtain mercy.


5 thoughts on “Amazing Grace

  1. The first sermon I heard after I eloped with Dan was in the Catholic church off the waterfront in San Francisco (Saints Peter & Paul church, maybe?), and it was the sermon of the prodigal son. As my homeboy Walker Percy says, “We love those who know the worst of us and do not turn their faces away.”


  2. I wonder if any of us can say “Jesus loves me” until we know and can say “x loves me”, x being that coworker, neighbor, sibling or friend who practically and incessantly provides such love.

  3. Anonymous: Yes. Without a clear picture, who can understand the love of God?

    Unfortunately, many Christians appear to think that the best way of showing God to their surroundings is keeping a straight face and even withholding overt love when the situation isn’t approved. They may not know it, because they’re also quick to say “Oh, no, I do love you inside, I just can’t be in fellowship with you/ condone you/ say it’s ok when it isn’t.”

    Possibly this is even true, but the person to whom it is being said won’t be able to feel anything but the external rejection. Human nature reads action, not words. We have to; we understand a lie by nonverbal clues; we understand compassion by nonverbal clues.

    Weirdly enough, John seemed to think people should know Christians “by our love,” not “by our haste to point out other people’s sins.”

  4. What I find refreshing in the story of the prodigal son and his devotedly religious brother, is that the dad has love and grace and forgiveness for the one and love (even in the nudging rebuke) and direction and affirmation for the other. Maybe if we realized that we’re the kids and parent, we’d be a little more likely to show rather than obscure? Oh, and thanks for the discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: