Section 3: The Great Divide: The Way of Glory vs the Way of the Cross
We're now beginning the third section of our book, "On Being a Theologian of the Cross." In theses 19-21 Luther deals with "the way the theologian operates, while theses 22-24 deal with the improper use of wisdom and law." (71) So, taking our lead from Forde we'll group our discussion together in the same way.
Personally, I found this section more difficult than the other two we've worked through. Not that I disagree with anything here, but that I don't think I quite get it...so I'm looking forward to this discussion in the hopes that I'll learn.
Thesis 19 dismisses the "theologian" of glory who "looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened (or have been made, created.)" (71) Forde writes that "theologians of glory operate on the assumption that creation and history are transparent to the human intellect, that one can see through what is made and what happens so as to see into the 'invisible things of God.'" In this thesis Luther is militating against our being able to discern "virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth" by looking at the creation. His concern is that we're setting up our own way to God, a "glory road, which should eventually lead to God." (73)
As I was pondering this thesis, I was reminded (through my reading of Heralds of the King, Dennis E Johnson, ed.) of the folly of Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration. In Luke 9:28-36, the "appearance of [Jesus'] was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah...Peter said to Jesus, 'Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah' --not knowing what he said. As he was saying these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud [yep, me too]. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!'"
It seems to me that Peter is the theologian of glory who thinks he gets it. In this instance, he thinks that the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah) and Jesus are on an equal par. Great men who help other great men become greater men. But he missed it all together, didn't he? Peter gets the divine hand over the mouth as he babbled on..."This is my Son! My chosen One! Listen to Him!" The theologian of glory assumes that he can extrapolate what God is doing and inevitably ends up figuring out a way to get in on the act himself. "Hey, this is a great event! Let's build three tents here and memorialize this! And, I'll be in charge....!" Here's the deal: we can't write ourselves into His story. It's His story, not ours. We will never completely understand God's nature, plans or purposes. We can't make this story about us.
And then...when we realize that God really is something "other" we're afraid (like Peter was). "Oh! You mean he's not interested in all I have to offer???" The only thing that can calm our fears now is simply this: the Father's love demonstrated for us on the cross. The only way for us to taste divine life is to die and be resurrected. Like Peter before me and the men of Babel before him, we're all looking for a way to get to the attributes of God and bypass the cross. It always starts out like this, "I've got a great idea to help God out...".
Forde writes, "How shall fools be made wise? The problem is that at the deepest level we have here not just a set of teachings, theological opinion, or that which we might take or leave at will and which might be corrected by better information, but temptation. As we have already indicated, it is a matter finally of self-defense" (76-77). Self defense against what? Simply the realities of our bankruptcy. But does our striving to prove that we can achieve something/anything of God's life make us better people? No, in fact, just the opposite happens. "Knowledge of divine essences and qualities, Luther asserts, does not make wise men out of fools. Indeed, it is more likely to make fools out of the wise!" (77)
But then...what can we do? What is the path of wisdom? The path of suffering (the humiliation and stripping) and the cross. We can't get around the cross. All the "good" things (virtues) that we long for are actually the things that "put Jesus on the cross." (77)
We don't need another Book of Virtues. Why? because even those who might be tempted (and I mean tempted in the biblical diabolical sense) to write such a thing cannot become virtuous themselves. They are simply looking for a way to puff up pride and avoid the suffering of the cross and the terror of free falling into grace. Our children don't need Aseop's fables. They need an incarnate God who suffered in their place. We all need to listen to the Son -- not moralistic stories told by tomatoes and cucumbers, even though they are cute and the music is catchy.
I'll close now with one more quote from Forde: "God refuses to be seen in any other way, both for our protection and to put down the theologian of glory in us. Theologians of the cross are therefore those whose eyes have been turned away from the quest for glory by the cross, who have eyes only for what is visible, what is actually THERE to be seen of God, the suffering and despised crucified Jesus. It was the pagan Pilate who said it: Ecce Homo! Behold the man!..." (79) "...What is vital here is ABSOLUTE CONCENTRATION ON THE REJECTED, CRUCIFIED JESUS....Theologians of the cross are those from whom all support other than the cross has been torn away...we operate on the premise that faith in the crucified and risen one is all that we have going for us." (80)
So, let's be quiet and stop hammering away at that tower, that plan, that project and listen to the Son. He's continuing to speak -- can you hear him? Are you willing to free fall into his grace?
Personally, I found this section more difficult than the other two we've worked through. Not that I disagree with anything here, but that I don't think I quite get it...so I'm looking forward to this discussion in the hopes that I'll learn.
Thesis 19 dismisses the "theologian" of glory who "looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things that have actually happened (or have been made, created.)" (71) Forde writes that "theologians of glory operate on the assumption that creation and history are transparent to the human intellect, that one can see through what is made and what happens so as to see into the 'invisible things of God.'" In this thesis Luther is militating against our being able to discern "virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth" by looking at the creation. His concern is that we're setting up our own way to God, a "glory road, which should eventually lead to God." (73)
As I was pondering this thesis, I was reminded (through my reading of Heralds of the King, Dennis E Johnson, ed.) of the folly of Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration. In Luke 9:28-36, the "appearance of [Jesus'] was altered, and his clothing became dazzling white. And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah...Peter said to Jesus, 'Master, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah' --not knowing what he said. As he was saying these things, a cloud came and overshadowed them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud [yep, me too]. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, 'This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!'"
It seems to me that Peter is the theologian of glory who thinks he gets it. In this instance, he thinks that the Law (Moses) and the Prophets (Elijah) and Jesus are on an equal par. Great men who help other great men become greater men. But he missed it all together, didn't he? Peter gets the divine hand over the mouth as he babbled on..."This is my Son! My chosen One! Listen to Him!" The theologian of glory assumes that he can extrapolate what God is doing and inevitably ends up figuring out a way to get in on the act himself. "Hey, this is a great event! Let's build three tents here and memorialize this! And, I'll be in charge....!" Here's the deal: we can't write ourselves into His story. It's His story, not ours. We will never completely understand God's nature, plans or purposes. We can't make this story about us.
And then...when we realize that God really is something "other" we're afraid (like Peter was). "Oh! You mean he's not interested in all I have to offer???" The only thing that can calm our fears now is simply this: the Father's love demonstrated for us on the cross. The only way for us to taste divine life is to die and be resurrected. Like Peter before me and the men of Babel before him, we're all looking for a way to get to the attributes of God and bypass the cross. It always starts out like this, "I've got a great idea to help God out...".
Forde writes, "How shall fools be made wise? The problem is that at the deepest level we have here not just a set of teachings, theological opinion, or that which we might take or leave at will and which might be corrected by better information, but temptation. As we have already indicated, it is a matter finally of self-defense" (76-77). Self defense against what? Simply the realities of our bankruptcy. But does our striving to prove that we can achieve something/anything of God's life make us better people? No, in fact, just the opposite happens. "Knowledge of divine essences and qualities, Luther asserts, does not make wise men out of fools. Indeed, it is more likely to make fools out of the wise!" (77)
But then...what can we do? What is the path of wisdom? The path of suffering (the humiliation and stripping) and the cross. We can't get around the cross. All the "good" things (virtues) that we long for are actually the things that "put Jesus on the cross." (77)
We don't need another Book of Virtues. Why? because even those who might be tempted (and I mean tempted in the biblical diabolical sense) to write such a thing cannot become virtuous themselves. They are simply looking for a way to puff up pride and avoid the suffering of the cross and the terror of free falling into grace. Our children don't need Aseop's fables. They need an incarnate God who suffered in their place. We all need to listen to the Son -- not moralistic stories told by tomatoes and cucumbers, even though they are cute and the music is catchy.
I'll close now with one more quote from Forde: "God refuses to be seen in any other way, both for our protection and to put down the theologian of glory in us. Theologians of the cross are therefore those whose eyes have been turned away from the quest for glory by the cross, who have eyes only for what is visible, what is actually THERE to be seen of God, the suffering and despised crucified Jesus. It was the pagan Pilate who said it: Ecce Homo! Behold the man!..." (79) "...What is vital here is ABSOLUTE CONCENTRATION ON THE REJECTED, CRUCIFIED JESUS....Theologians of the cross are those from whom all support other than the cross has been torn away...we operate on the premise that faith in the crucified and risen one is all that we have going for us." (80)
So, let's be quiet and stop hammering away at that tower, that plan, that project and listen to the Son. He's continuing to speak -- can you hear him? Are you willing to free fall into his grace?
I don't think you finished your thought (in the second to last paragraph) concerning those amazing creatures in Veggie Tales.
Our children can profit greatly from moralistic stories (Aseops Fables, Chronicles of Narnia and the a fore mentioned Veggie Tales) They do need to know the incarnate Christ. I fear they are not ready for the "meat" of the message.
Reply to this
Hi James! Nice to "see" you here.
I would have some very definite opinions on moralistic stories (or even turning Scriptural narratives into examples of good behavior) but would like to hear what other people have to say. Anybody willing to jump into this discussion?
I would say that I make a distinction between moralistic stories and the Chronicles of Narnia. Lewis wrote pointing children/adults to the gospel and I think that the point of the Chronicles is that the children aren't good enough and can't be good enough, hence the need for Aslan.
But, I really would like some other folks to jump in.
Reply to this
Hi James,
I have three children ages 5-10, and I can tell you that I believe the only thing that my children will ever need at 5 or 95 is this "meat". Every time they disobey I believe what they need to hear is "Christ and Him crucified". Moralistic stories are fine and they have their place, but why would there be an age on hearing the truth of the gospel? Every time we watch a Veggie Tales or read a fable we need to be reminded that even though we may see (momentarily) the wisdom in being unselfish or kind or in sharing or in loving others, or whatever it may be... we must then remind our children that these are not things they can do on their own, and even when they do these things they often do them for their own glory (oh... isn't Sally so sweet... she always shares) They must be shown their need for a Savior. They must be shown that even though they can't be unselfish and share their favorite toy... God has made a way for them to have relationship with Him anyway. We cannot and must not reduce the 10 commandments to a nice set of rules to follow if you want your life to be nice. We must use these commands from a Holy God to show our children that they in fact can't do it, that they need Jesus. This is what Veggie Tales misses out on. They never say "look kids you are selfish just like King George and you need to be forgiven! You need a Savior! And here is the really great news.... YOU HAVE ONE!!!! One who shared perfectly on your behalf. He always loved his brothers and sisters the way he was supposed to. He always submitted to His parents perfectly." The problem with VT is that they are forgetting the good news. The good news we need to bathe our children in everyday... they are sinners and they have/need a Savior. And as we bathe our children in this good news, our minds will also be washed. Everyday as I am disciplining my children I find myself freshly aware of the amazing love and grace of God that Christ, has bestowed on me. And as I see this amazing love and grace it makes me so grateful, and this gratefulness results in such a softness of heart, and such a desire to obey God. I pray everyday that as I attempt to make Christ beautiful to my children that the Holy Spirit will grow in them such a love for "meat" that it cannot be satisfied. And as they grow in love and grow in thankfulness this will result in unselfishness in kindness and in love for God and others.
One more thing... it is nice to see a man posting
Reply to this
I'm glad you brought this up Jim. Here's a great article worth reading by Tim Keller. It will take me two posts to get it all in, I'll post the web address at the end:
We have said that you must preach the gospel every week–to edify and grow Christians and to convert non-Christians. But if that is the case, you cannot simply ‘instruct in Biblical principles.’ You have to ‘get to Jesus’ every week.
For example, look at the story of David and Goliath. What is the meaning of that narrative for us? Without reference to Christ, the story may be (usually is!) preached as: “The bigger they come, the harder they’ll fall, if you just go into your battles with faith in the Lord. You may not be real big and powerful in yourself, but with God on your side, you can overcome giants.” But as soon as we ask: “how is David foreshadowing the work of his greater Son”? We begin to see the same features of the story in a different light. The story is telling us that the Israelites can not go up against Goliath. They can’t do it. They need a substitute. When David goes in on their behalf, he is not a full-grown man, but a vulnerable and weak figure, a mere boy. He goes virtually as a sacrificial lamb. But God uses his apparent weakness as the means to destroy the giant, and David becomes Israel’s champion-redeemer, so that his victory will be imputed to them. They get all the fruit of having fought the battle themselves.
This is a fundamentally different meaning than the one that arises from the non-Christocentric reading. There is, in the end, only two ways to read the Bible: is it basically about me or basically about Jesus? In other words, is it basically about what I must do, or basically about what he has done? If I read David and Goliath as basically giving me an example, then the story is really about me. I must summons up the faith and courage to fight the giants in my life. But if I read David and Goliath as basically showing me salvation through Jesus, then the story is really about him. Until I see that Jesus fought the real giants (sin, law, death) for me, I will never have the courage to be able to fight ordinary giants in life (suffering, disappointment, failure, criticism, hardship). For example how can I ever fight the “giant” of failure, unless I have a deep security that God will not abandon me? If I see David as my example, the story will never help me fight the failure/giant. But if I see David/Jesus as my substitute, whose victory is imputed to me, then I can stand before the failure/giant. As another example, how can I ever fight the “giant” of persecution or criticism? Unless I can see him forgiving me on the cross, I won’t be able to forgive others. Unless I see him as forgiving me for falling asleep on him (Matt.27:45) I won’t be able to stay awake for him.
Reply to this
In the Old Testament we are continually told that our good works are not enough, that God has made a provision. This provision is pointed to at every place in the Old Testament. We see it in the clothes God makes Adam and Eve in Genesis, to the promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs, to the Tabernacle and the whole sacrificial system, to the innumerable references to a Messiah, a suffering servant, and so on. Therefore, to say that the Bible is about Christ is to say that the main theme of the Bible is the gospel–Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9).
So reading the Old Testament Christocentrically is not just a “additional” dimension. It is not something you can just tack on - to the end of a study and sermon. (”Oh, and by the way, this also points us to Christ”.) Rather, the Christocentric reading provides a fundamentally different application and meaning to the text. Without relating it to Christ, the story of Abraham and Isaac means: “You must be willing to even kill your own son for him.” Without relating it to Christ, the story of Jacob wrestling with the angel means: “You have to wrestle with God, even when he is inexplicable-even when he is crippling you. You must never give up.” These ‘morals-of-the-story’ are crushing because they essentially are read as being about us and what we must do.
(Jo Anne - there's just one more post to finish!)
Reply to this
A BASIC OUTLINE FOR CHRIST-CENTERED, GOSPEL-MOTIVATED SERMONS
The following may actually be four points in a presentation, or they may be treated very quickly as the last point of a sermon. But more generally, this is a foundational outline for the basic moral reasoning and argument that lies at the heart of the application.
The Plot winds up: WHAT YOU MUST DO.
“This is what you have to do! Here is what the text/narrative tells us that we must do or what we must be.”
The Plot thickens: WHY YOU CAN’T DO IT.
“But you can’t do it! Here are all the reasons that you will never become like this just by trying very hard.”
The Plot resolves: HOW HE DID IT.
“But there’s One who did. Perfectly. Wholly. Jesus the—. He has done this for us, in our place.”
The Plot winds down: HOW, THROUGH HIM, YOU CAN DO IT.
“Our failure to do it is due to our functional rejection of what he did. Remembering him frees our heart so we can change like this…”
a) In every text of the Scripture there is somehow a moral principle. It may grow out of because of what it shows us about the character of God or Christ, or out of either the good or bad example of characters in the text, or because of explicit commands, promises, and warnings. This moral principle must be distilled clearly. b) But then a crisis is created in the hearers as the preacher shows that his moral principle creates insurmountable problems. The sermon shows how this practical and moral obligation is impossible to meet. The hearers are led to a seemingly dead end. c) Then a hidden door opens and light comes in. The sermon moves both into worship and into Christ-application when it shows how only Jesus Christ has fulfilled this. If the text is a narrative, you can show how Christ is the ultimate example of a particular character. If the text is didactic, you can show how Christ is the ultimate embodiment of the principle. d) Finally, we show how our inability to live as we ought stems from our rejection of Christ as the Way, Truth, and Life (or whatever the theme is). The sermon points out how to repent and rejoice in Christ in such a way that we can live as we ought.
This article can be found at:
http://www.eucatastrophe.com/blog/archives/2005/03/14/moralism-vs-christ-centered-exposition-by-tim-keller/
Reply to this
Right on, JoAnne. Keller's been channeling Luther and Forde. So glad that you're reading him. Let me also recommend to you (and all our readers) Ed Clowney's "Preaching Christ From All the Scriptures" and Dennis Johnson's "Heralds of the King." Seeing the cross everywhere -- in the law, in the prophets, in every narrative is really the way to understand Scripture. Good for you! Let me encourage our readers to follow your link to Keller's site.
Reply to this
I hate to interrupt the wonderful exchange so far, but I have a different question about this part of the reading. The first time I read this section I was very confused by it and also worried that I would have to give up one of my favorite ways of "seeing" God. I am referring to Thesis 19 (and 20, its opposite): "That a person does not deserve to be called a theologian who claims to see into the invisible things of God by seeing through earthly things (events, works).
I didn't understand this because God himself seems to allow and even command us to understand him by seeing him through earthly things (Psalm 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God..." and Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived...in the things that have been made.") Jesus himself invited his disciples (and us) to understand him "through" the earthly events of the Old Testament: he is Jacob's ladder, the bronze serpent, and the manna. He also revealed himself "through" creation: he is bread, water, light, etc.
I also was dismayed that the flashes of insight about the nature of God that come through such analogies and bless my socks off (!) make me a "theologian of glory." Must I repent of this approach and change my ways?
As I studied further, I don't think Luther/Forde and I are talking about the same thing. Luther is talking about scholars--call them theologians or philosophers--who uses analogies to explain God for the purpose of managing him. God no longer terrorizes me when I can explain his ways through analogies (like the egg analogy for the trinity, for example.) Further, God is more accessible when my explanations help me figure out how to imitate him, as if I could be good or great by acting on the insights provided by the analogy.
By contrast poets (and worshippers) also use analogy to see God--but not as an explanation. They employ metaphor as a glimpse into mystery. The flash of glory doesn't last long enough to provide explanation. It only invites worship.
Do you think this distinction is legitimate?
Reply to this
Thanks for making this clearer, Rondi. I had the same trouble and you've helped me. I think it's particularly important to see that the purpose of the theologian of glory is trying to "manage" God, making approach to him accessible through our own virtue and good works. A sort of helping us understand him (as if!) so that we can get close to him.
In my reading of Luther's Commentary on Galatians, I've been struck by this theme here, too. One of the main points that Luther makes right out of the gate is that there is no approaching or knowing God aside from Christ and the cross. "No one comes to the Father except through Me" is used by Luther to apply this concept. I've always thought of this verse very narrowly, just as it applies to initial salvation. But I think that the truth is different. We NEVER approach God or know God or understand anything about God except through Christ. I think the ramifications of this truth are wide ranging and deep and I'm just beginning to understand it.
Luther writes, "Therefore, aprart from Christ you will find no other way to the Father, but only wandering; no verity, but hypocrisy and lying; no life, but eternal death. Take careful note, then that when any of us has to wrestle witht he law, sin, death, and all other evils, we must look to no other god, but only this God, INCARNATE AND CLOTHED WITH HUMAN NATURE." (p. 35, Galatians, Luther, The Crossway Classic Commentaries.)
Thanks again, R.
Reply to this