I grew up in the church. I can remember attending services since I was four. Heard countless sermons from countless individuals. Precious few of them preached about grace.
Why is grace always avoided in sermons? The pious talkers and holiness men have seen presumptuous Christians and used this as an excuse to despise grace in their sermons and preach wrath. The liberal floosy-woosy preachers like to think that they talk about God's love but always resort in the end to instructions in moral development. The Emerging Church has its spiritual disciplines, the Mennonites have their Sermon on the Mount and the Reformed have their endless and wretched "tests" to see whether you are truly in the faith. No one talks about grace. And if it is mentioned at all, it is usually as an embaressing afterthought to a lesson on how to make yourself more pleasing to God, or even as a rebuke so that you can go home feeling awful about having not responded adequately to God's grace. Sometimes an impatient grace is taught, as if God has unmerited favor but is really high strung and uptight about you using it properly to fulfill His Law.
The sense I mostly get with preachers is that they think the Law of God is more important than the Gospel. And of course the fruit of this is endless bad behavior in the congregation, because what the preacher doesn't realize is that the Law of God has no power to change a person. Only grace can do this. In the end they perpetrate a continuous cycle of preaching more Law and less grace (thinking this will abolish sin) as the congregation grows colder and colder and colder. Finally there is no joy left in the audience but a cold and dishonest piety on the outside and a flaming and wretched sinful disposition on the inside.
The Letter kills.
The Law brings wrath.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Monday, July 12, 2010
A dialogue between a Lutheran and a Wrightian on Paul.
Just wrote this up now. Hope you enjoy it. I tried to be as neutral as possible but it is a very difficult thing to do when the Lutheran understanding of scripture so vastly outweighs the Wrightian:
Marc came across two of the college students in a local tavern, and- being in a sour mood- decided to sit down across from them. Something about the negative emotions (be they bitterness, anger, anxiety or hatred) have a way of moving the soul to seek company. And it is never that the company possesses some immanent potential to change one’s mood, but that one truly wishes this would be the case and will act as if it were so (albeit indignantly).
The two students were heatedly discussing a text from Galatians, in a world of rhapsody and intellectual conviction that always replicates history but never produces history. Proud youth. Stupid youth.
“I just cannot see how you could attribute such weight to the mere shells of the subject matter and miss Paul’s point all together!”
“Shells? You moron. Circumcision and Sabbath days are the very markers that would keep Gentiles from experiencing God’s grace in the first place!”
“You and your wretched boundary markers! Enough. The whole of the law is a boundary marker, and not to Gentiles only but Jews. If you had read a page from Romans you would know this already. “
“ And this is my problem with you, you discuss the subject of Law as if it is some painful, evil thing that is an inconvenience to both God and man. “
“Of course it’s an inconvenience! Anything that must be added to check transgression is an inconvenience. Spanking my child is a freaking inconvenience. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s right.”
“You’re at it again! Read Psalm 119 and see what I mean. The law isn’t just a cudgel to beat sinners over the brow with. The Jews would have never taken it that way. It was a gift from God to them…something to delight in, to mull over, to keep as precious.”
“I’m glad you’ve introduced the factor of Jewish reception to your Ebionitic orgy. While we are on that subject, might I take you- say- through the whole of the Jewish history in Scripture from the reception of Law to the time of Christ? I’m sure you’d love to see the affection and adoration your Jews poured out towards their law and how well they kept it.”
“Never so poorly as to be outside of God’s covenant faithfulness.”
“Never so well as to avoid fire breaking out from heaven, pestilence, famine, disease, raiding parties, plagues, and exile.”
Marc came across two of the college students in a local tavern, and- being in a sour mood- decided to sit down across from them. Something about the negative emotions (be they bitterness, anger, anxiety or hatred) have a way of moving the soul to seek company. And it is never that the company possesses some immanent potential to change one’s mood, but that one truly wishes this would be the case and will act as if it were so (albeit indignantly).
The two students were heatedly discussing a text from Galatians, in a world of rhapsody and intellectual conviction that always replicates history but never produces history. Proud youth. Stupid youth.
“I just cannot see how you could attribute such weight to the mere shells of the subject matter and miss Paul’s point all together!”
“Shells? You moron. Circumcision and Sabbath days are the very markers that would keep Gentiles from experiencing God’s grace in the first place!”
“You and your wretched boundary markers! Enough. The whole of the law is a boundary marker, and not to Gentiles only but Jews. If you had read a page from Romans you would know this already. “
“ And this is my problem with you, you discuss the subject of Law as if it is some painful, evil thing that is an inconvenience to both God and man. “
“Of course it’s an inconvenience! Anything that must be added to check transgression is an inconvenience. Spanking my child is a freaking inconvenience. That doesn’t change the fact that it’s right.”
“You’re at it again! Read Psalm 119 and see what I mean. The law isn’t just a cudgel to beat sinners over the brow with. The Jews would have never taken it that way. It was a gift from God to them…something to delight in, to mull over, to keep as precious.”
“I’m glad you’ve introduced the factor of Jewish reception to your Ebionitic orgy. While we are on that subject, might I take you- say- through the whole of the Jewish history in Scripture from the reception of Law to the time of Christ? I’m sure you’d love to see the affection and adoration your Jews poured out towards their law and how well they kept it.”
“Never so poorly as to be outside of God’s covenant faithfulness.”
“Never so well as to avoid fire breaking out from heaven, pestilence, famine, disease, raiding parties, plagues, and exile.”
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Robert Cargill on Gay Marriage.
http://robertcargill.com/2010/07/08/a-note-to-christians-opposing-gay-marriage-get-over-it/
His post is worth a careful read. Mr. Cargill points to various systems of conduct derived from the scripture that we valued in the past (ie. slavery, prohibition against divorce, male teachers only) and reminds us all of the shame we feel now in having lived under some of them. Oughtn't we to be ashamed now of the way we are dealing with the homosexual issue?
The problem with Mr. Cargill's post is that it neglects to tell us precisely how we are to discern a culturally bound word in scripture from an eternal word. I finally fear that all of the scriptures he references were never meant to be taken as time-bound, but the type of word which Christ would honor with the promise: "These will never pass away."
The slavery passages he mentions, for instance, do not need to be "gotten over." Why? Because in absolutely none of them does the writer command or condone slavery. Rather, he is inculcating a right Christian attitude within the circumstance of slavery (ie. "love your enemies" which I doubt Mr. Cargill would call a cultural precept). I am also aware of a scripture where Paul outright says that if a slave can win his freedom, he should.
The passages on divorce are not time-bound but part of the great rock which is the Word of Christ, or his strange work of instructing us in Law. I fail to see why anyone should "get over" this ethic.... indeed my church hasn't. Divorce and remarriage is still normatively verboten.
Female preachers? No one needs to get over condemning this unless it can be proven that the Apostle was only addressing a particular situation (which is doubtful).
There is nothing to get over in opposing gay marriage. It is forbidden by scriptures and we all do well to stand by them (in God's radical mercy alone). Finally, the only true and lasting conduct that everyone should be ashamed of, that everyone must "get over" is scoffing at the words of Christ and rejecting them for the currency of our time-bound and manifestly foolish culture.
His post is worth a careful read. Mr. Cargill points to various systems of conduct derived from the scripture that we valued in the past (ie. slavery, prohibition against divorce, male teachers only) and reminds us all of the shame we feel now in having lived under some of them. Oughtn't we to be ashamed now of the way we are dealing with the homosexual issue?
The problem with Mr. Cargill's post is that it neglects to tell us precisely how we are to discern a culturally bound word in scripture from an eternal word. I finally fear that all of the scriptures he references were never meant to be taken as time-bound, but the type of word which Christ would honor with the promise: "These will never pass away."
The slavery passages he mentions, for instance, do not need to be "gotten over." Why? Because in absolutely none of them does the writer command or condone slavery. Rather, he is inculcating a right Christian attitude within the circumstance of slavery (ie. "love your enemies" which I doubt Mr. Cargill would call a cultural precept). I am also aware of a scripture where Paul outright says that if a slave can win his freedom, he should.
The passages on divorce are not time-bound but part of the great rock which is the Word of Christ, or his strange work of instructing us in Law. I fail to see why anyone should "get over" this ethic.... indeed my church hasn't. Divorce and remarriage is still normatively verboten.
Female preachers? No one needs to get over condemning this unless it can be proven that the Apostle was only addressing a particular situation (which is doubtful).
There is nothing to get over in opposing gay marriage. It is forbidden by scriptures and we all do well to stand by them (in God's radical mercy alone). Finally, the only true and lasting conduct that everyone should be ashamed of, that everyone must "get over" is scoffing at the words of Christ and rejecting them for the currency of our time-bound and manifestly foolish culture.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Israel's high places.
There were quite a few of them. Evidently Israel had no time for the Deuteronomic commandments against worshipping their God in more than one place. They also took no heed of the disastrous war that almost resulted from the Trans-Jordanian tribes building an "altar" in Geliloth (Jos 22).
I realized the other day that various sacred sites for Israel's worship can serve as cool symbols of the way the modern intelligentsia worships God.
Laish corresponds with the Redaction critics, who were "unable" to accept their conservative theological allotment and instead descended on a peaceful and unsuspecting scripture..with grievous damages ensuing. The golden calf that was erected here by Jeroboam is a sufficient emblem for the bovine god that the critics worship in the place of the One True God.
Jerusalem corresponds with the New Perspective on Paul, which has adequately defended "Israel's story" but cannot go further.
Alright, I had some good ones for Bethel, Gilgal and Beersheba but I forgot them. Maybe I'll jot them out later.
I realized the other day that various sacred sites for Israel's worship can serve as cool symbols of the way the modern intelligentsia worships God.
Laish corresponds with the Redaction critics, who were "unable" to accept their conservative theological allotment and instead descended on a peaceful and unsuspecting scripture..with grievous damages ensuing. The golden calf that was erected here by Jeroboam is a sufficient emblem for the bovine god that the critics worship in the place of the One True God.
Jerusalem corresponds with the New Perspective on Paul, which has adequately defended "Israel's story" but cannot go further.
Alright, I had some good ones for Bethel, Gilgal and Beersheba but I forgot them. Maybe I'll jot them out later.
Jensen
I've trained Jensen to detect and destroy any Bonhoefferolaters that come into the home. The cat on the left issued a "meow" that sounded suspiciously like "costly grace!" and Jensen (the good Lutheran/Mennonite that he is) was right on it.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
On the difference between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics.
When I spend time with my friend Richard I talk like a philosopher.
When I am with my sister I speak with no small measure of giddiness and loquacity.
When I worked construction I spoke like a moron.
At the restaurant I talk like a typical youthful ignorant.
All of these modes of speech profoundly differ from the others, and yet each is appropriately and truthfully adapted to the occasion of the friends or co-workers I am with.
So why the heck are we making such a big stink about the way Jesus speaks in John and the way he speaks in the Synoptics?
When I am with my sister I speak with no small measure of giddiness and loquacity.
When I worked construction I spoke like a moron.
At the restaurant I talk like a typical youthful ignorant.
All of these modes of speech profoundly differ from the others, and yet each is appropriately and truthfully adapted to the occasion of the friends or co-workers I am with.
So why the heck are we making such a big stink about the way Jesus speaks in John and the way he speaks in the Synoptics?
Sunday, July 4, 2010
The Communion of Saints in the Protestant Church.
It is reprehensible, but it is true. We mock and jeer the Roman Catholics for their intricate system of saints, calling their practice idolatrous and abominable. Meanwhile, when trouble comes upon us (heck, even in plain old good times) we bypass the worship of God and go straight to a book by Karl Barth or Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Our theology is not made up of the praises of Jesus Christ and his glorious word of salvation, but in the adoration of mere men and endless meditations on their works. The apple never falls too far from the tree, and I suppose that such will be the state of things so long as we measure out our stern judgments to the Catholics without so much as poking a stick at our own devious hearts.
God and Father, may you help us all, and most especially me!
God and Father, may you help us all, and most especially me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)