Interfaith Blog Event #6: FAITH

This is the sixth monthly installment of our Interfaith blog conversation. In these articles various bloggers from a variety of faith traditions discuss topics of spiritual importance. I am writing from an Evangelical Protestant perspective. Links for the other perspectives will be added as the make posts on their blogs. [Mike - Buddhist] [Sojourn - Pagan] [Jeff - Druid] [Matt - Emerging]

The topic today is: What is your view regarding the meaning and the role of faith? What importance does it play in your community and in your daily life?

Faith as a concept stands at the center of Protestant Christian theology. In fact, Sola Fide (Faith Alone) was the primary marketing motto that Martin Luther used in challenging the authority of the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church (AD 1511). I deeply appreciate the topic Sojourn, and it should lead to some interesting discussion. As hopefully will be shown in this essay, faith has deep personal meaning to Christians beyond its historical impact.

Like any abstract metaphysical word, faith is a complicated term with a variety of definitions. Faith can be used to refer to "a faith" which is referring to the set of beliefs and practices that constitute an orthodox creed. Faith can also be used to refer to basic intellectual ascent to something (belief) with or without evidence. Finally, faith can also be used for the personal trust that you place in someone. A Christian concept of faith includes all of these categories, and beyond that insists that a real faith will imply action beyond mere statements.

G.K. Chesterton traces in his work "ORTHODOXY" the process he went through in his life to "discover" the truths of basic Christian teaching. C.S. Lewis calls this basic core of Christian teaching "MERE CHRISTIANITY" and discuss his journey towards those positions in a book by the same name. The creed of the church is the set of beliefs that all people who call themselves Christians (or a particular group of Christians) hold in common. Examples of creeds that all people who consider themselves Orthodox Christians would believe include the APOSTLE'S CREED and the NICENE CREED. Different groups within Christianity also list different creeds, confessions, and statements of faith to further biblically define their theological system as a group. Some famous examples of these would be the WESTMINSTER CONFESSION and the BAPTIST FAITH AND MESSAGE. One thing that can be said about all of the creeds and confessions in general is that Christians do sincerely affirm that the content of one's belief is of equal importance with one's sincerity of belief. In other words, what you believe in is at least as crucial as how you go about believing. There are treasures of thought in the ancient creeds and confessions of the church that Christians do not want to loose, even when they at times do not fully understand them.

Many times atheists and other secularists accuse Christians of having blind faith, faith that has no correspondence with reason, or that indeed challenges reason directly. While Christians certainly would not challenge the validity of such a choice of will to affirm the basic doctrines of the creed with certainty, few actually have truly blind faith. Almost all Christians would argue that their beliefs are at least possible, though they may not understand how. For most Christians there are logical, empirical, or experiential reasons that have convinced them that their beliefs are justified. Those personal probabilities are then confirmed by the will to faith creating certainty beyond probability.

For Christians this intellectual ascent to the creed, while necessary, is never (at least by most) considered "enough" to be real faith. Such belief must be followed by action to prove its validity. It is one thing for me to say I believe that God is love. It is another, and far more powerful thing for me to show my neighbors the love of God by mowing their lawn. The Apostle James argued that faith without works is dead. No one wants the rotting corpse of an insincere faith sitting around!

On a far deeper level, however, faith is more than either intellectual ascent or even the action that follows such beliefs. The closest biblical synonym for faith is trust. Personal trust is the essence of real biblical faith. Kierkegaard discusses this in length in his powerful and beautiful work "FEAR AND TREMBLING." God does not simply want people who say he exists. God wants people who will trust him with their lives, trust him for deliverance, trust him with their futures. Jesus in his ministry continually challenged people to put their trust in him. In a world where trust is so frequently broken that can indeed be a difficult choice to make. The creed and the Scriptures, however, both show us characteristics of God that demonstrate his trustworthiness. He may not do things how we would expect or even desire, but we can know that he has our best interests in mind. We can certainly know that he loves us, and that love is the ground for the trust we as Christians place personally in him.

I can best illustrate how faith works by describing my relationship with my wife. I trust my wife completely. I know I can trust her because I know her character. There are some things that I can logically know about my wife that help me to know her character, but my trust in her goes far deeper than merely the things that I can prove. My experience of her along with my "creed" about her both show that she is trustworthy.

For Christians, it is the common experience of trusting God and the shared creed/confessions that give us grounds for fellowship. Indeed faith makes up the common basis that creates Christian community. Shared faith is the true foundation for every actual Christian church.

Ultimately, this hybrid concept called faith is what is necessary for a person to possess in order to experience what the Scriptures call deliverance and eternal life. Personal trust in the personal God effects every aspect of a Christian's daily life, and indeed directly impacts their experience of eternity.

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Hebrews 11:6 NIV)

Interfaith Dialogue #5: Forgiveness

This post is part of an interfaith dialogue discussing various spiritual topics from a variety of different perspectives. To read the other articles follow these links: [Mike's Article - Buddhist] [Sojourner's Article - Pagan]. This article is written from an Evangelical Christian perspective. The question we are addressing this month is: What role does the concept and application of interpersonal forgiveness play in your spiritual tradition?

If you examine "mere Christianity," beyond all of the religious trappings different groups place upon it like ill-fitted clothing, what you find at its center is a spiritual system that is primarily concerned with relationships. These relationships happen at two basic levels: the relationship between God and people, and the relationships that exist between people. This core of relationships forms the basic ground for the ethical system we call morality. Christians recognize that often people simply do not live up to the terms of their relationships, and at its most basic level, this is what is meant by saying that something is "immoral." Christian theology in fact, goes a step further, and argues that a tendency towards these immoral acts exists for all of us. It also insists that there are consequences for choosing to live in an immoral way. Immorality (so defined) is simply not healthy on an individual level, on a social level, or on a spiritual level. All broken relationships are painful, certain eternally broken relationships are quite literally hell.

Because of these philosophical underpinnings, the concept of forgiveness is central to Christian faith and practice, and this forgiveness needs to happen on two levels in oppostie directions. First, people need to experience forgiveness from God, and then people need to extend forgiveness to other people. A sceptic may at this point wave the red flag and shout: "When did I ever do anything against God that requires his forgiveness?" One way to explain the logic of this claim is as follows: Assuming God exists, and that there is a moral law in the universe, it follows that the moral law must in some way reflect both God's will and his character. If God were to create moral agents (i.e. human beings) part of the expectation he would have for them in their creation would be that they would live in the way he desires. That would be part of the terms of our relationship with our Creator. Since we all know that we have failed in some way, that means that we are all in need of forgiveness from God.

God provides the opportunity for forgiveness through what Jesus did on Good Friday just under 2000 years ago. I do not have time in this brief article to explain the entire doctrine of atonement, but indeed it could be summarized simply by some of Jesus' last words on the cross "Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing." A basic statement of the doctrine is that God designed for Jesus to take the penalty for our sin on the cross, so that whoever places their trust (faith) in Jesus will experience true forgiveness and a renewed relationship with God. Jesus can accomplish this because he was both the only man who never morally failed, and simultaneously he has a unique relationship with the Father: he is God the Son.

Jesus tells the story of a man who was forgiven a debt of millions of dollars by a powerful and influential leader. The man then goes out and demands payment of a ten dollar debt from a buddy of his. When the friend is unable to pay, the man has his friend thrown in jail. You can imagine how the influential leader would respond when he hears how this man treated his friend. Jesus, when he teaches his followers how to pray insists that they ask God "to forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors."

To a Christian, forgiving others should be the grateful and natural result of having accepted the generous forgiveness that God has given them. The process of Christian forgiveness includes confronting offenses that one experiences in relationship, extending forgiveness as people come to an understanding of their error, and allowing trust to be rebuilt over time. Beyond that, even if other people are not ever ultimately sorry for their actions, a Christian has no grounds for revenge, judgment is left in God's hands. This high standard of forgiveness is firmly grounded on the what a Christian has experienced in their relationship with God.

Forgiveness is indeed the central experience and practice of Christianity. Furthermore, as Phillip Yancy claims, it is in fact a good example of a miracle - an supernaural act. What a wonderful miracle to celebrate this Holy Week!

Interfaith Blog Event #4

This is part of an interfaith blog dialogue on various topics occurring between the Protestant Christian perspective of this blog, a person writing from a Buddhist perspective, and a person writing from a Pagan perspective. The topic for this discussion is: What role does justice play in the universe?

Have you ever spent much time observing toddlers and children interacting with one another? Over this past week I have had many such opportunities as we have gathered with extended family for our Christmas celebrations. One thing that you will almost inevitably face if you are responsible for keeping the peace between warring tribes of children is one of the most common statements in the world: "That's not fair!" If you are comfortable gambling you could win quite a bit on a wager that bet that statement would be made at least once ever 10 minutes between children who are playing. The question of course is, what do they really mean by that statement.

No doubt children when they claim something is not fair are saying more than "that did not turn out how I wanted it to" or "I am displeased with that outcome." They are claiming, without even understanding at all what they are saying, that by some objective standard their position is in the right and their friend or cousin is in the wrong. They are claiming, with out the sophistication to say so, that there has been some kind of crime against Justice by the fact that the other child swiped the toy they were playing with out of their hands. They want to see Justice fulfilled though they are too young to know for what they are actually asking.

We can all readily see injustice in the world. The wealthy person who uses their wealth to oppress others and gain more wealth. The court case that let a person who was obviously guilty avoid punishment (and no, I have no specific case in mind, but I am sure there are a billion from which to pick). A person who seems to have a ridiculous string of "bad luck" that damages every aspect of their life and relationships. Yes, it is very easy to see injustice in the world, what is very difficult is to admit the injustice we do to others. Though, in fairness to ourselves, I would guess in our moments of honesty we can even see that we ourselves at times are not fair towards others.

Atheist philosophers often use the concept of injustice to raise a specter of doubt upon the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God. But, Christian philosophers actually began working on this question long before the atheist's did, and in fact the biblical writers actually hint that the fact of injustice in the world may be a compelling argument for the existence of that very God the atheist's question. Let me briefly trace that argument [for a full logical defense of this position, read C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity]:

There is simply no clear reason in a purely Darwinian world why the concept of justice would even arise at all. Natural selection by its very definition insists that "might makes right." Social constructs must come from societies. Societies are run by those in power. Why would those in power construct a natural check on their own power? Indeed toddlers amazingly know how to challenge the justice of their parents long before parents do much in teaching them what justice involves. So if nature does not give us a concept of justice and other people cannot directly and entirely support this concept of justice where does it come from? What or indeed Who would have the authority to define what justice is by the sheer fact of His character? The answer that Christian philosophers give is:"Great and marvelous are your deeds, Lord God Almighty! Just and true are your ways, King of the nations!" [NIV Revelation 15:3b]

We may be able to ask questions about God's justice, but ultimately if He were not just there simply would be not adequate philosophical root for that concept. Indeed, By attempting to stain God's justice through atheist philosophy, we burn the bridge we are walking upon. In the end we remove the only grounds we have for expecting justice.

Ultimately, Christians have three separate simultaneous perspectives on justice. First, Justice was ultimately fulfilled upon Jesus on the cross, so that those who trust in him are "justified." Second, we strive by the power of the Holy Spirit to live as justly as we can in this world. Third, we look forward to the coming Kingdom, when God will fulfill the promise that Justice makes through the enactment of judgment.

Interfaith Blog Event #3 - A Most Valuable Ritual

This article is representing a protestant Christian perspective as part of an interfaith dialogue discussing the question: Within your religious traditions, what rituals and/or traditions give you a sense of connection to your fellow congregants, beliefs, and communities? What actions do you take to ensure the stability of those connections? Do you feel that the connections that have been made are sufficient for your spiritual and/or religious needs? Other perspectives from different faiths are presented by Unknowing Mind (Buddhist) and Sojourner (Pagan)

Jesus loved to party. That may come as a surprise to some who have well designed preconceptions of the Master's demeanor and habits based on some of the attitudes some of his followers display sometimes, but especially as his life is recorded in the Gospel of Luke Jesus always seems to have a leg of lamb in one hand and some fruit of the vine in the other. Clearly, he was not a glutton or a drunk, but his reputation for enjoying a good time proceeded him, and was often exaggerated in the process. The simple fact is that Jesus valued relationship. He loved people, and he loved all kinds of people. He could be found hanging out with religious elites, and prostitutes, and oppressive IRS-type agents, and union-type fishermen, and rich dudes, and the terminally ill (though he often changed that), and the poor, and Roman soldiers, etc...

Because of that it is highly apropos and rather touching that the central ritual of the Christian faith, and by that I can confidently say all branches of the Christian faith, though how they interpret the celebration varies greatly, is the Lord's Table. This event goes by many names in the Christian community: Eucharist, Communion, the Lord's Supper, a Love Feast, etc. I will not go into details on the specifics of how any particular tradition practices the event. First, that would be a very daunting process and take a long time for you to read, but second, out of respect for the individual traditions it is important that people experience the Lord's Supper as disciples of Jesus or observe it as seekers rather than merely hearing it described "objectively". I suppose this my respecting the ancient Christian tradition of the "discipline of the secret." On top of that, I do not wish to bore you with comparisons of different "substantiation" theological theories, though if you know the debates and observe my terminology you could probably construct the fact that I view the Supper as a powerful symbol of a discipling community's relationship with Jesus.

There are a number of things that are taught directly through the celebration of the Supper, however, that are helpful in answering the question at hand. First, the Supper is an act of Thanksgiving to God for his provision of forgiveness and relationship in the death and resurrection of Jesus. Second, the Supper recognizes the unity of common love that followers of Jesus (both globally and historically) share because of our common experience of deliverance. Third, the Supper memorializes what Jesus did on the cross in a very existential, kinesthetic, and timeless kind of way. Fourth, the Supper is an act of hope awaiting the wonderful things that Jesus will do in the future. Fifth, the Supper recognizes the daily provision of grace to meet our spiritual needs that Jesus offers. Sixth, it is an opportunity for disciples to practice a time of introspection and ensure that their relationships with Jesus and each other are healthy. Seventh, if done in conjunction with a more complete meal the Supper can actually be an opportunity to build relationships with other people who are Jesus followers. Eighth, the Supper reminds us of our historical connections to God's people in ancient Israel (the Supper was first celebrated during a Passover meal), Finally, non-Christian seekers who are observing at a Supper event receive a clear visual and auditory proclamation of the message and acts of Jesus.

Of all of the different faith acts that Christians do, the Supper is probably the most meaningful in accomplishing simultaneously all the different goals mentioned in the question. Because it is practiced by the actual local gathering of disciples and not merely by an individual it reflects the Christian focus on the whole person including their relationships. It undoubtedly helps connect with other disciples, reinforces Christian teachings, and can renew a focus on serving the world. Because the Supper is taken frequently (how frequently varies by tradition and individual church) the lessons that it teaches are confirmed and established perpetually in the lives of disciples.

As for the sufficiency aspect mentioned in the question, clearly all Christian faith acts are more than sufficient from God's part of the equation (obviously, that is the whole point of grace), but the question comes down to the attitude of the individual disciple. It should be noted, that rituals in and of themselves accomplish absolutely nothing of spiritual value. An Christian act such as the Supper, that is done with an attitude of trust (faith), however, can have a highly meaningful impact on the life of the person who is experiencing it. I know that because I have experienced that before myself, and many fellow disciples share that same experience.

I apologize for an overabundance of technical jargon in this blog entry. That is, however, part of the nature of dealing with a topic of this detail. Thank you for a very good question! I look forward to the dialog that will follow in the comment section. I hope some day (either in this age or the next) to celebrate the Supper with any of you who are or become followers of Jesus. For those of you who do not yet know him, we would be happy to share a meal now with you as well, I share my Master's fondness for dining!

"For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." [NIV 1Corinthians 11: 23 - 36, the words of the Apostle Paul c.60AD]

Interfaith Blog Event #2: Ethics, Intrinsic or Relative?

This article is representing a protestant Christian perspective as part of an interfaith dialogue discussing the question: Is there anything that you consider to be intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong? What grounds do you have for coming to that conclusion? How does the concept of morality impact your everyday life? Other perspectives from different faiths are presented by Unknowing Mind (Buddhist) and Sojourner (Pagan)

C. S. Lewis, in his work "Mere Christianity," argues that humans live under a kind of natural law. That when we tell someone that they are wrong we mean something more profound than mere aesthetic decisions. For example, if you tell a friend that they were wrong for lying to you, you mean more than if you say, "I like chocolate ice cream" or "the color red is the best." That may be hard for us to understand in a culture that insists on the relativism of all ethics, but even in our culture there are still things that are seen to be indefensible. Most people would agree with the statement "It is always wrong to be intolerant." But, if you press people as to WHY that statement is wrong they will say something vague about the "common good" or "peace and harmony" but they have no real ground for their ethical claim. Lewis point out that while we may disagree on the specific content of our moral law, we all claim a moral law nonetheless. That begs the question: what possibly could be suitable grounds for a moral law? Clearly our perspectives on this law can be different, we can disagree or even warp ourselves into thinking that something wrong is actually right, but in the end we all assume in our use of language that there really is a right or wrong somewhere out there in the objective world.

This actually leads us to a very interesting argument: If there is an internal moral law that requires a legislature bigger than ourselves (otherwise it is merely an aesthetic choice). If we are to hold society and nations to the same standard of justice, we are therefore looking to a lawgiver bigger than societies and nations. Natural selection could not account for the arising of a moral law, indeed, often it would seem a person or society much more survivable without a sense of morality. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves we all seem to be in a bit of a paradox (that Lewis also points out), we often do things that are natural to us, but that we know by our internal law that they are wrong. This draws us deductively towards the conclusion which the ancient Hebrews were given:

And God spoke all these words: "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. "[1] You shall have no other gods before me. [2] "You shall not make for yourself an idol .... [3] "You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, .... [4] "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.... [5] "Honor your father and your mother,... [6]"You shall not murder. [7] "You shall not commit adultery. [8] "You shall not steal. [9] "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor. [10] "You shall not covet your neighbor's house.... [excerpts from NIV Exodus 20: 1 - 17]

An old mentor of mine once said that God did not give us his law to "rain on our parade." God gave us his law because it simply is the best way for us to live. Rob Bell, in his work "Velvet Elvis," discusses the law of God in these kinds of terms as well. Think about it, don't God's values make the most sense Being careful of what we say about and attribute to God is very wise. Taking a break each week to refocus is extremely healthy. Treating your parents with honor confirms your own existance. Respecting human life is obviously important. Placing value on the relationship of marriage is the only way to make a marriage work. Being honest is particularly important when in a court of law. It is a rotten way to live always wishing you had someone else's life, or trying to take someone else's stuff. These things are not rocket-science, but they are shockingly difficult to incorporate into life no matter how intuitive they are. Perhaps that is why the ancient sage said:

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes. The fear of the LORD is pure, enduring forever. The ordinances of the LORD are sure and altogether righteous. They are more precious than gold, than much pure gold; they are sweeter than honey, than honey from the comb. By them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward. [NIV Psalm 19:7-11]

Now Plato raised the question (he actually attributed it to Socrates), How can God be declared good and at the same time be the one who is defining good. While this is a very clever logical riddle (much like Xeno's paradox), indeed it is impossible to imagine how it could be otherwise. What does the law say about God? Parents who give their children good rules show that they care about their children, and ultimately, show that they are (at least to some degree) good and wise people. Christianity, however, offers an even deeper and more profound answer to that riddle. Jesus summarizes the law in the following way:

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." [NIV Matthew 22: 36 - 40]

Indeed, at the core of all the commandments is God's primary value: sacrificial love in relationship. The Christian doctrine of God insists that he is a Trinity. That means the Father loved the Son loved the Spirit in perfect relationship for all of eternity. If that is the case, than the law which God commands for us to follow is an extrapolation on who he is by nature. Therefore, his good law is based upon his good nature. The ground for Christian ethics lies in the nature of God. He is good in that he always remains faithful to his loving nature, and his law is consistant with that nature.
As a follower of Jesus, God's law effects me in two ways. First, it shows me the areas in my life where I am in need of the forgiveness that Jesus offers. It demonstrates to me the things that I have done wrong, and gives me to opportunity to receive God's grace. Second, as the Holy Spirit works in my life I more and more begin to value the the things that God values. He slowly transforms the Christian's life into one that better reflects the things God finds important. As
He does that I find more and more the truth of how truly beneficial His law is.

Relgious Diversity

I was a guest blogger for my buddhist friend Mike. Check out my article at Unknowing Mind.

Interfaith Dialogue Topic #1: Karma

This article is representing a protestant Christian perspective as part of an interfaith dialogue discussing the question: "How do you view karma, the thought that your actions in some way determine your experience, in your spiritual path?" Other perspectives from different faiths are presented by Unknowing Mind (Buddhist) and Sojourner (Pagan)

The concept of Karma seems to have saturated contemporary American culture. Earl has merged the concept with redneck mores, and in misleading billboards insurance companies mangle the concept beyond recognition. Perhaps this is betraying an underlying desire or expectation for justice in our culture. As a Christian scholar I do not consider myself an expert on this topic of karma. But given the infinite spiritual scope of the Book in which I do claim some kind of expertise, an interesting question arises: What, if anything, do the Christian Scriptures say about this concept of karma? I should also make one additional disclaimer: much of what I am about to express has been shaped by various professors and commentaries that I have studied. Clearly this is not a strictly academic piece or I would attempt to cite those sources, but we are all indebted to those who have taught us.

For a moment, picture yourself in the ancient near-east. You are an Israelite, your world revolves around the challenges of ancient agriculture, the realities of ancient local politics, and the glimmer of hope you glean from your tri-annual journeys in festival to YHWH. For you the known world ends with the Philistines to your west, the Egyptians to the south, the Mesopotamians to your "north" and the mysterious desert to your east. The "wild - west" of the Israelites was across the Jordan River to the east, and beyond was the world of the rising sun. I took us on this brief journey into this alien world simply so we could get our minds around one concept: for the Israelites wisdom was nearly synonymous with the east.

It does not surprise me to find parallels in ancient Israelite wisdom literature and some of the teachings that arise in the Far East. There is particularly a strong parallel between the eastern concept of karma and the concept from biblical principle that "you reap what you sow." Though perhaps more interesting are the bounds and limits that the Scriptures place around these teachings of wisdom. Most interesting of all are the exceptions the Scriptures give to these general principles of wisdom, and the critique those exceptions bring to the concept of karma.

Parallels between Karma and Wisdom

A brief caveat should be made at this point. While I will demonstrate some parallels between the concept of Karma and biblical wisdom, they are not identical in their scope or definition. The Scriptures are deeply concerned about ethical and moral goodness and badness. These principles are defined by theological terms: wickedness and righteousness. Righteousness means to be relationally faithful to the agreements one makes, whether with God or with other people. Wickedness means the opposite: to be crooked in how one relates with other people and God.

Biblical wisdom points out the truth that the world was originally created to be good to those who are righteous (bless them) and to be bad to those who are wicked (curse them). This was to occur not in a context of reincarnation, since the Scriptures never mention that concept, instead focusing on the miracle of resurrection, but primarily it was to be experienced in this life and by one's descendents.

There are many examples of this principle in the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. Here are two brief passages that are demonstrative of the genre:
Many are the woes of the wicked, but the LORD's unfailing love surrounds the man who trusts in him.

[NIV Psalm 32:10]
The fear of the LORD adds length to life, but the years of the wicked are cut short. The prospect of the righteous is joy, but the hopes of the wicked come to nothing. The way of the LORD is a refuge for the righteous, but it is the ruin of those who do evil. The righteous will never be uprooted, but the wicked will not remain in the land. [NIV Proverbs 10: 27 - 30]

This principle can even be seen in the New Testament writings of the Apostle Paul:
Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. [NIV Gal 6: 7 - 9]

Thus, the Bible teaches that in general those who do bad things gain bad consequences in this life, and those who do good things gain good consequences in this life. God created the world originally with that basic design in mind.

Biblical Limits on Wisdom Literature

While biblical wisdom literature does imply that the righteous will be blessed and the wicked will be cursed, there are limits to that principle. The Scriptures recognize that we live in a fallen and broken world. Our evil impacts the suffering of others, and sometimes in this temporal existence, there is no clear explanation for why a particular kind of suffering exists. We have polluted the moral world system God originally created, and at times in this world injustice seems to at least temporarily flourish. The Bible reserves much of the ultimate blessing and cursing individuals receive for the eternal realm of the resurrection.

In the biblical story of Job we find a man who is caught up in horrific circumstances that happen to him primarily because of a kind of cosmic wager going on in heaven. His friends try to quote to him the contemporary wisdom. Perhaps his unrighteousness is coming back to get him? But Job holds to his integrity, refusing to acquiesce to primary culpability in his current situation. While not a perfect man, he asserts that he has done nothing that would merit the kind of suffering he is now facing. In the end, God confirms his perspective and disagrees with Job's friends: "My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has." [NIV Job 42:8]

Jesus obviously is the example of the righteous sufferer par-excellence. In the book of Isaiah it reads: He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. [NIV Isaiah 53:9] This Old Testament passage was taken as a prophetic foretelling concerning Jesus by many of the early Christian writers. Jesus' unjust death being executed through the cruel Roman method of crucifixion clearly was not something that he personally deserved as the concept of karma would imply. Religious leaders involved in his execution used contemporary wisdom to mock him: "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" [NIV Matthew 27: 42-43] The resurrection of Jesus from the dead clearly demonstrates that God was vindicating him. God proved by bringing Jesus back from the dead that the suffering Jesus faced was not due to any moral defect (which in fact, Jesus had none) but instead was on the behalf of others. In that amazing act God clearly traced the limits of wisdom and outlined the border of grace.

A Brief Philosophical Critique of the Concept of Karma

In the end, the unique biblical concept of grace runs counter stream to most wisdom, especially any sense of karma. Perhaps that is why the apostle Paul states in reference to the crucifixion of Jesus: "For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? .... For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.' [1Cor 1:19 - 25]

Indeed, that is the most amazing aspect of the good news about Jesus. Because of Jesus' death we can receive forgiveness for our bad choices. We can thereby avoid the ultimate and eternal negative results of our negative actions simply by accepting that Jesus took those results upon himself for us. This does not mean that we never face any consequences for our behavior in this life, but it does mean that the worst of possible consequences, a destroyed relationship with God, can be avoided by anyone who places their trust in Jesus. Thus, the costly bill of our unrighteousness, injustice, hate, and evil has been paid by Jesus in his death. This reversal of "karma," or rather this folly of pure love is available to anyone who will trust in Jesus.