BLOG.ELYSEFITZPATRICK.COM

Thesis 28 -- The Qualitative Distinctions of Love

2009-09-12T11:00:00Z

There is simply nothing like God's love. God's love is so high above ours, so powerful and transformational, there's really no comparison. I suppose that living in the veritable "light" of that love is what will make heaven as wonderful as it will be.

Here's thesis 28: The love of God does not first discover but creates what is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through attraction to what is pleasing to it.

J C Ryle echoed Luther when he wrote, "Our love is excited by the extraordinary charms of worth and grace... Who ever loved that which was altogether hateful? Such is the manner of man." The manner of our God is entirely different. "God loves us before one particle of grace enters our soul, when we are a loathsome mass of vice and iniquity. God loves that which is altogether unlovely." (Holiness)

God "loves sinners, evil persons, fools, and weaklings in order to make them righteous, good, wise and strong. Rather than seeking its own good, the love of God flows forth and bestows good." (113)

Look it, here's the truth about me and my "love". I have problems loving even those I find lovable. That's not to say that the Lord hasn't worked in my heart, but the longer I bask in God's love for me in Christ, the more I understand that I don't really love like this at all. In fact, I think it's kind of funny when people make fools of themselves on WipeOut and bounce off those big balls or get smashed in the gut with the sweeper. Oh, for the day when I can look into the face of my brothers and sisters and really love them...freely, genuinely, generously. But in the meantime, my love is "awakened by attraction to what pleases it. It must search to find its object and, one might add, will likely toss it aside when it tires of it." (113) So, won't you please sign up for WipeOut so I can laugh at you?

Christ did not come to call the righteous (lovable). He came to call unlovable sinners. "This is the love of the cross, born of the cross, which turns in the direction where it does not find good that it may enjoy, but where it may confer good upon the bad and needy person. 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" (Go figure. Did you ever understand that verse in that context? I sure didn't.)

"God is not, as in the theology of glory, one who waits to approve of those who have improved themselves, made themselves acceptable, or merited approval [through believing!], but [he is] one who bestows good on the bad and needy." (113)

And so we come to the end of our disputation. We began talking about our utter poverty and inability to obey the law. We must die. "The sinner must be reduced to nothing." (114) We must suffer the humiliation of knowing we bring nothing but debt. But we can face this destruction of our "ego" because we've been loved. We haven't been loved because of anything lovable within us. We've been loved because He chose to love us and in that very act of choosing us and loving us into His kingdom, he's made us perfectly righteous. It's from this position of having been loved like this that experiential heart change takes place. We begin to love others -- not in any effort to earn or merit -- but simply in response to what he's done in loving us. God looks over the whole earth of our hearts, sees that they are formless and void, sends the Spirit to brood over us, and creates that which he can look upon and call "very good." He creates ex nihilo -- out of nothing. From the "nothing" of our souls he creates beauty that pleases him.

In Christ we have true goodness because God's love is powerfully transformative and makes us, by the very act of loving us, worthy of love. Yippee?!

************************************************************************

I've enjoyed doing this study with you all. Thanks to all of you, particularly those of you who posted. Thanks for the lively discussions and pushing me to think more deeply.

I'll be back to this in a few days with some thoughts on how we might proceed from here. Oh, BTW, if you're interested you might check out my store at www.shop.elysefitzpatrick.com. I'm trying to help fund our son Joel's seminary education, so if you want to buy any of my resources, please check us out and Joel will be glad to serve you.

Why don't you write back with your fav Luther/Forde quote? Thanks for dropping by.

Thesis 27 and Down With Summer Brain and Weather Pansies

2009-09-05T15:17:00Z

Lovely. Here's one of the most beautiful theses in the whole disputation and one which, if we but believe, will enable and "arouse" us to good works.

For those of you who don't have the book in front of you here it is: "Rightly speaking, therefore, the work of Christ should be called the operative power, and our work, the operation: so our operation is pleasing to God by the grace of the operative power."

Yes, yes I know that's a bit confusing, but don't succumb to lazy Summer Brain. It's summer and today it's supposed to be 95...although "they" keep saying that the weather is cooling...it's still going to be 95 today. I know all about lazy Summer Brain. I'm tired of it being hot and, yes, I know I'm a weather-pansy and this hot weather gives me lazy brain...or perhaps it's just an excuse for me to not push through and really think. Maybe it's the same for you. I'll try to help and hope that my poor old-lazy really-gray cells will come alive and that I don't have a hot-flash in the meantime.

Here's what Luther means in a nutshell: "The real operative power in all works that can be called "good" is the work of Christ, that outrageous assertion that in Christ all that God demands has been fulfilled and that this Christ dwells in us by faith. The believer is "aroused" to work through living faith in Christ's work, to be "imitators" of God..."drawn" after Christ." (111)

So it is this very knowledge...come on...track with me...the very knowledge that everything, yes really everything!!! has already been done for us AND that Christ dwells within us in power and love. Here are the two sides of this truth: Christ has done everything that needs to be done by us AND he indwells us giving us his mind and his Spirit and his desires. I think that deserves a "wow." Wow.

I found myself sinfully angry at ineptitude yesterday. This happened in a number of areas too boring to discuss. I awakened this morning to the realization that my life and love yesterday wasn't anywhere near what I think it should be -- again. How do I fight to try to believe that today will be different? Where is the joy and peace and faith that will overlook the small trifles of others and rest contentedly in God's providence? Simply here: Everything that I should have done yesterday was done by Him in my place. Everything I shouldn't have done (but did, nevertheless) was atoned for by Him in my place. This alone is my record today. And this is the motivation to try again. Yes, I'm sinful and impatient and short-sighted and crabby (a nice word). But he isn't and His record is mine! Not only that, but He's indwelling me by His Spirit, so my union with Him assures me TODAY that I have unhindered access and full acceptance before Him and that I can fight this sin again.

So now this is what I understand from Luther/Forde and Thesis 27: "The impetus to do good works comes entirely from being moved, aroused, and motivated by the completed work of Christ, who dwells in the believer through faith." (111) He has loved me like this! He has atoned for it all! He has completed it all! He's placed himself, as a good husband in union with me. That's love and it's that sort of motivation or operation that God has accomplished that draws me to good works. God pleases himself by completing all the work for me, saying "It is good" and then loves, woos, draws, impels and motivates me to get up off my sinful...ness and fight the war again today, even though it's hot and I'm a pansy. Only love motivates us to continue to fight. The law fails. Our pride wains. Our good intentions fade in the heat of idolatrous desires for ease and comfort and a cool day. Only his love for us motivates or as William Romaine wrote -- we need the power of a new affection -- affections that have been warmed and enlivened by such a love as this.

Okay...there you've got it. Back to the iced tea and Lazy Summer Brain. You're loved and welcomed even when you're sitting in a pool of sweat and your faith is wilted and you couldn't care less and you wished people had their act together (like you). And..if you live in Phoenix, I don't want to hear about how hot it is there. It's supposed to be hot in the desert. It's not supposed to be hot in San Diego. .

What the Law Requires From Us is Freedom From the Law -- Put Your Dancin' Shoes On!!!

2009-08-30T06:00:00Z

How on earth I'm going to encapsulate in a few short paragraphs the depth of the riches and wisdom and grace and mercy of God as distilled by Luther/Forde on pages 107-110, I don't know. When practically the entire passage has been underlined (more than once) and I've got my personal notes scribbled in margins and exclamation points everywhere...how can I distill this for you? I feel what Forde must have felt as he wrestled and finally gave up and said,

"The language has to break out into preaching. Never mind that when we look to ourselves we find no sign of good works. Never mind our fears and anxieties. We are looking in the wrong place. Look to Christ! He has done it all. Nothing will be gained by trying to shore up the OId Adam. Christ leaves nothing for the Old Adam and Eve to do. The old can only be killed by the law, not given artificial respiration by recourse to it. That is the point of the language here and its exuberance. To the theologian of the cross the language of grace and faith must be pushed absolutely to this length -- until it kills the old and raises the new. We will only fall back into law where the demand continues endlessly and nothing is ever finally done. So we can only let the language of grace sound forth. Grace says, "believe it" and everything -- EVERYTHING! -- is already done. It is the creative Word of God. If that doesn't work then nothing will." (110)

I'm having to control myself now. I want to dance! I'm remembering that lovely scene from the movie Babe when the staid old farmer is alone with his pig and the music starts and he dances with abandon for joy. That's what I'm feeling right now. I'm getting a feeling that that's what I'll feel like for eternity in heaven. EVERYTHING! has already been done! Yippee! I'm in love! I'm filled with joy! I'm at peace! I am coming to "know and believe the love that God has for me." This is a Dancing-Shoe-Mandatory Zone. Don't be afraid that this kind of talk will make you apathetic, lazy, cavalier. Just the opposite will happen. Don't be afraid of being loved like this.

I don't know how to proceed. I'm stuck trying to decide how to summarize what Lewis called "the language of heaven" (joy). I'll just write out the thesis and a few of my favorite quotes and let them work on you till your feet start twitching and you've got to jump up and burst forth with hallelujahs and thank you's:

Thesis 26: The law says, "do this," and it is NEVER done. Grace says, "believe in this," and EVERYTHING IS ALREADY DONE.

"In commanding love law can only point helplessly to that which it cannot produce...What the Law requires is freedom from the law." (108)

"...grace, instead of demanding love, simply gives it unconditionally. It is simply the "I love you."

"Faith justifies. Faith is the righteousness God wants and aims to get...Faith obtains what the law commands. Through faith Christ is in us. We fulfill everything through him since he was made ours through faith."

"The insistence that only those works are truly good that are done spontaneously and joyously out of faith, hope, and love belongs to the very heart of Luther's Reformation. That is why he can make the claim that faith doesn't have to be prompted to do good works because the Christ who fulfilled all things dwells within the person of faith, EVERYTHING! has already been done! There is simply nothing to do!...The Christ of the cross takes away the possibility of doing something."

And now to the truth that this entire discussion has been heading: The point is precisely that the power to do good comes only out of this wild claim that EVERYTHING! has already been done. (110)

Oh, my sister, my brother: be done with the law! Embrace this faith, this wild, illogical, incomprehensible reality. EVERYTHING! has already been done! Wholly lean on Jesus' Name! I'm singing now...On Christ the solid Rock I stand...All other ground (my own works, abilities, goodnesses) is SINKING SAND! ALL OTHER GROUND IS SINKING SAND. Flee the sinking sand. Get up now. Lift up your hands. Dance and believe. Really. Now.

Section 4 God's Work in Us: The Righteousness of Faith

2009-08-26T23:15:00Z

With this discussion we begin the final section of our book. Since there are only 4 theses and they're each so very yummy, I think I'll write a bit on each one. Here's the first:

Thesis 28: He is not righteous who works much, but he who, without work, believes much in Christ.

As Forde writes, this doctrine of justification by faith alone, is always "a polemical doctrine and a permanent offense to the Old Adam and Eve." (104) Yes, it is, once again insulting to think that I have nothing to bring. Honestly, when I read that thesis, I begin to wonder if I'm doing enough believing -- you know, if I'm working hard enough at it? Ah, my heart.

Then Forde writes what I think is one of the most pointed and profound sentences in the whole book: "What is asserted here is precisely that God simply is not interested in works issuing out of the self's concern for its own righteousness." (104) I'm reminded of Tim Keller's parable of the man who gives a horse to the king believing that he'll be richly rewarded for it. When he doesn't receive anything honoring his gift and asks why, the king's paraphrased response is, "You were giving that horse to yourself and you have your reward." If we are doing good so that we receive God's approbation, we are doing it for ourselves not God.

What it means to die and be raised to newness of life in Christ is simply believing in Christ and dying to everything I would bring to assure myself and earn credit from the Lord. "Works performed on the premise that one was going to become righteous thereby are not good to begin with. They defend us against the goodness of God. They are not done for the neighbor but for the glory of the self." (105) This has been the theme of our discussions throughout this entire book, hasn't it?

Then Forde brings us to the wonderful reality that there are works that come from us, but they "flow from righteousness as from an overflowing vessel...It is not like accomplishing something but like dying and coming to life. It is not like earning something but more like falling in love..Once it is clear and actually believed that only we who 'without works' believe much in Christ are righteous before God, once that preposterous joy actually hits us, a new day dawns. It is like the joy and ecstasy of love...[So that now] the way is cleared for good works.

I love those words. I love preposterous joy and the ecstasy of love. I'm thrilled that my works, because they are his and have already been done are like falling in love. Of course I want to work when I think in this way. I'm in love! I've got zeal to work and pray and witness because I've been fully convinced that he loves me this much, he's this good, his grace is this great. Now...I can rest and while I rest I can work. Freely, joyfully, zealously, lovingly. Why? Because "Good works are God's work" in me. He's already done everything that needed to be done and so, in response to that and because of the work of the Spirit in my heart, I can joyously serve.

If service has become onerous to you, don't decide to buckle down, make a list and try harder. No, you need to fall in love. And how will that happen? Think about what he's already done for you and believe.

Why "Good" Friday Is Good

2009-08-20T20:18:00Z

Let's discuss the second half of our section, "The Great Divide: The Way of Glory versus the Way of the Cross" now. I'm going to collapse this entire section into one entry, even though there are so many wonderful thoughts here.

Forde begins his discussion of thesis 21 by pointing out our tendency to want to blame our "theology" [something outside of us] for our love of the glory story. Of course, this is just another way we try to dodge our inner fallenness. He writes, "Our temptation is always to change the subject. In this case the blame is switched from us to theology...[The truth is that] [t]he theologian is ALWAYS the culprit here, not the theology as such." (81)

I can see this very clearly in my own thinking. I frequently militate against the theology of glory without remembering that it is the theologian of glory who is the problem. We construct these faulty theologies, as Forde writes, because we "must". "Faulty seeing leads inexorably to false speaking." So let's have an end to believing that if we could just straighten out everyone's theology we'd all be fine. No, the problem is that our man-centered theologies have their genesis in our man-centered hearts. We'll never get completely over this. At least not in the here-and-now.

A theologian of the cross, then, learns to see and speak plainly. She [he] learns to talk honestly and openly about what we do and what happens to us. We see this most clearly in the ways we respond to suffering. The suffering that Forde/Luther is referring to here is the good suffering of knowing that you are "worthless and that [your] works are not [yours] but God's." This is the great suffering that the theologian of glory refuses to admit. Instead he "prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, wisdom to folly, and, in general, good to evil." (82)

It's only through the good of the suffering of the cross that we can see and know good and truth as it is. "Direct, plain, entirely unsentimental, but for that reason difficult and offensive words" are the result of seeing the suffering of the cross and embracing it.
What seems evil is actually good. What seems good is actually evil. "Good" Friday seems evil. What can be "good" about a stripped, humiliated, bloodied, dying man stretched out on a Roman cross, receiving insults? What can be good about God's plan seeming to have gone awry? Good question. What's good about railing against Whitney Houston's lyrics deifying children..."Show them all the beauty they possess inside, Give them a sense of pride..."? Should we give children a "sense of pride"? Don't they already have it? I'm pretty sure that's something I passed on to my kids without any help from Whitney. Good for me.

So, here we are again, "We are inveterate theologians of glory We are tempted and bound to be so. We invest all our capital in works...We depend upon and glory in our works and we call these self-serving deeds good. Suffering [primarily in admitting that what the cross says about us is true, but also admitting our struggle with sin in the midst of difficulty] is bad." (83)

"The suffering that Luther has in mind first and foremost is the result of God's operation on the sinner...We suffer this unilateral action of God. We suffer because we don't like it. We don't like being put out of control. It means that we are rendered totally passive by the divine operation through the cross and resurrection of Jesus...". (87)

Narratives like the Book of Job mystify and terrify us so we make up excuses about why Job suffered. I've heard it said that Job suffered because he was afraid so what he "feared came upon him." This is again a perfect example of the defenses we must erect against seeing the cross and God's view of suffering as it is: good. Forde writes that we're like "Job's friends, [who] try to make excuses for God. We adjust our doctrine of God to fit our glory projects. If God doesn't 'play fair', how can our works count? Thus we render God innocuous by our flattery. Instead of being brought to the praise of God, we bend our efforts to justify him." (89) Yipes.

"God can be known and had only through the divine deed of the cross. The cross...attacks and afflicts. Knowledge of God comes when God happens to us, when God does himself to us. We are crucified with Christ (Gal 2:19). There is no cure for the theology of glory." (90) The only cure is death. Our only hope is that we have been crucified with Christ!

Let me draw one more point from this section and leave you to meditate on these truths. We love the law (and rules and charts and lists and...) because we think it will help us be better people. We think that God is the "pot of gold at the end of our rainbow of merit." (85) Aside from our Christian lists, the world bombards us continually to trust in ourselves. For instance, I've decided that I'm not going to buy any product that advertises itself as helping me "feel good" about myself. This is such...um...garbage. These advertisers are appealing to our sinful desire for self-righteousness to sell their products by telling us we can "save the planet." Whatever. Want to be good? Feel good? Simply buy our product. Being green, eating organic is where it's at. At the end of the day how many people assure their souls that they are good because they recycled or ate free-range eggs? No wonder our kids starve themselves. I'm pretty confident that at the end of time when I stand before God he won't be asking me, "What did you do with my chickens? Did you recycle your plastics?" May God have mercy on us!

Here's Forde and then I'll be done:

"Religiously we like to look on ourselves as potential spiritual athletes desperately trying to make God's team, having perhaps just a little problem or two with the training rules. We have a thirst for glory...We are always tempted to return to the safety and assurance of doing something anyway. Generally, it is to be suspected, that is all we planned to do, a little something. But to surrender the "wisdom" of law and works, or better, to have it taken away, is the first indication of what it means to be crucified with Christ."(92-93) God must "extinguish" the desire for glory by merit through the suffering of the cross.

Why is Good Friday called good? Because true good was accomplished there: a good we could never conceive, a good that seems evil, a good that strikes and crushes our sense of pride and a good that ultimately frees us to die, to be resurrected and to live freely. This is the good that God alone will accomplish in all his children.

Section 3: The Great Divide: The Way of Glory vs the Way of the Cross

2009-08-17T01:38:00Z

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?

God Gives Grace to the Humble So Give Up and Believe the Gospel!

2009-08-09T23:00:00Z

In case any of you have missed the ongoing discussion on free will between my dear shirt-tail cousin, JoAnne, and I, you might want to look at it. Because I've spent a good deal of time responding to her, I think I'll just blast through the rest of this section. I'm assuming that most of you who are reading this blog are already on board with the Doctrines of Grace and wouldn't profit from more meandering through this section. And yet, there are a few points that I think are helpful for us to remember:

"[Saving] Grace is acquired not by 'doing what is in one' [by just trying your hardest]. It is acquired when we are so completely humbled by God's alien work in law and wrath that we see how completely we are caught in the web of sin and turn to Christ as the only hope." (61)

Of course, as Forde points out, the theologian of glory will say. Yipee! Humility is a work that we can perform! But, "the humility Luther has in mind is in no way a human work....[we must say that] humans have no active capacity to humble themselves but only a passive capacity. They can be humbled. Thus...humility is always something done to us...Humility in this context means precisely to be reduced to the position where we claim absolutely nothing."

"The law humbles, grace exalts. Something is done to us." (62) The theologian of glory always wants to make our salvation about us, about something we can do, even if that "doing" is humbling ourselves. "Thus the impetuous question of whether or not humbling oneself or falling down and praying for grace is 'doing something' can only be turned back on the questioner: 'When you humble yourself and plead for grace, are you making the claim that you are doing something? If so, you are not pleading for grace, but only your own cause. And so you are still lost. Give up and believe the gospel!" (63)

The thought that we have nothing to offer shouldn't bring despair. Rather, despair is the fruit of belief in one's own ability to do ANYTHING sufficient for salvation. ["Theologians of glory are trapped in the 'merit machine' and thus can fight despair only by falling back on their own accomplishments." 64] The Doctrines of Grace bring us hope that in all our insufficiency, God is sufficient. We must simply give up and believe that God is that good and that loving.

And, finally, we'll just think a moment about the nuanced distinctions Luther makes between ultimate despair (the despair of a Judas who believed in his perverse pride that not even the grace of God can blot out his failures." (66) and utter despair of our own ability. In other words there is an evil despair, one that forces us into ourselves and batters our pride with thoughts of inadequacy. I think that this is the kind of despair that people mean when they say that they "can't forgive themselves." Aside from the fact that we're not commanded to forgive ourselves, the truth is that we struggle with doing so simply because we really haven't believed the gospel message. We really don't think we're that bad and then when we do something that's REALLY BAD we can't get over it. Why? Because we're theologians of glory and think we ought to be able to do better. Is it in this way that God uses our sin for good, to show us our poverty and need for a Savior? to free us from our innate theology of glory?

There is another kind of despair (what Luther calls "utter" despair) that forces us to Christ. Paul talks about these differences in categories of worldly and godly sorrow. Godly sorrow always leads to repentance -- to running to Christ, to giving up and believing the gospel. Worldly sorrow brings death -- the death of a Judas who couldn't live with the realities of his sin. Rather than making us morose, godly sorrow brings us joy and happiness. Yes, I am insufficient. Yes, I am unable to save myself. But I have come to know and believe the love that God has for me and that's all that matters. I believe he loves sinners. I am a sinner, therefore, I'm qualified to be loved by him.

"Ultimate [Judas'] despair is due to the temptation to believe that there is no hope beyond our own abilities. Despair itself then becomes ultimate and so leads to death. Utter despair of our own ability, however, looks to the grace of Christ and so leads to life. This subtle nuance points to a fundamental theological divide." (67) So, we are to despair but not ultimately.

Now then, where do you see ultimate (Judas) despair in your own life? Are there sins in your life that you just can't seem to forget, even though you've asked for forgiveness for them? For instance, all the times you and I have said, "I just can't believe I said/did/thought that," we're proving that we still haven't completely given up and believed the gospel. And although we'll never get this perfectly right, we'll never completely believe our poverty of soul, we can ask the Lord to help us give up our striving and self-flagellation and simply believe.

Like you, I need grace. I need grace to give up on my glory story and humbly believe that Jesus Christ bore my sin and suffered his Father's just and immeasurable wrath for me. And that now, because of all he's done, I stand righteous before his sight -- as though I never believed in my own goodness, as though I never struggled with pride and self-reliance. May God grant us all the humility to give up and believe the gospel.

The Problem of (Free?) Will

2009-07-31T18:02:00Z

In this, the second section of our book, we're beginning to look at the problem of will.

Remember that the question Luther is seeking to answer is simply this: What advances us on the path to righteousness?

In the first section, he obliterated our works as advancing us in any way. In fact, he said that seeking to obey the Law of God in order to gain righteousness before God was mortal sin. It cuts us off from grace.

In my Bible reading this morning, I came on this study note for Galatians 2:18 (in my ESV Study Bible, of course!) "Ironically, the one who is most clearly seen to be a sinner is not the one outside the law, but the one under it." So, following the teaching of Paul, Luther refuses to allow any righteousness-producing Law keeping. None.

In Galatians 1:10, responding to those who kept the Law so that they would look good to other slaves of the Law, Paul writes, "For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man [by obeying the Law], I would not be a servant of Christ." When we read Luther/Forde, we feel like they're saying something really shocking. But when we read Paul and personalize what he's saying, we're completely undone. Here's what I think might be a fair paraphrase:

"Are you seeking to approve of yourself or have other people (religious or irreligious) approve of you? Are you seeking to quiet your conscience by your own works or are you seeking God's approval that ONLY comes through Christ? If you are still trying to approve of your goodness and have others approve of you, you are not a servant of Christ. You're only serving yourself." Well, yipes.

So, there you have it. The Law does not advance us on the path to righteousness. Okay, now we come to an even thornier issue. Let's assume that we all acquiesce now to the fact that our obedience to the Law doesn't save or advance us; but certainly the choices we make can advance us, right? I mean isn't it a little bit like Ben Franklin's old saw, "God helps them that help themselves?" So, we make baby steps toward God and he supplies grace and we make more baby steps and he supplies more grace and on and on as we advance ourselves toward righteousness (with a little or a lot of help from God).

Here's the question at the heart of our musings: Do we make the decision to serve Christ? And when Paul/Luther/Forde all answer, "Nope. Sorry, you can't do even that," we want to pull our hair out and scream, "Oh yeah? But I remember when I went forward or prayed that prayer or...Don't tell me I didn't make that decision!" Can you see why the RC's wanted to kill Luther? Following St Augustine, Luther agreed that "without the aid of grace the will is bound and can do nothing to merit salvation...we are saved by grace alone." (49)

"Yeah, but what about the decision I made. I remember making it?!?" And here we get to the crux of the matter. The question isn't whether you made a decision or not. I remember the night in June of 1971 when I bowed my knees in my little apartment and prayed for God to take me and make me His. Again, the question isn't did I do that or not? Of course I did. The question is "Why?" Why did I bow the knee? Was it, as some in my family have said, "You're a good sort of person." But I know better -- if people had known me then, they would never say that. Am I particularly wise? Absolutely not. You see, that night in 1971 I had a will and it was free -- but it was only free to choose according to my nature. And my nature had been fallen and dead spiritually. But my humble prayer in 1971 was evidence of God's sovereign election and regeneration of my soul, of His prior work, making me alive to Him and inclining my heart to desire and giving me the strength to obey. My salvation is of the Lord and I freely choose to serve Him because He had so inclined my heart and made me alive to Him. And so, that night I prayed and my prayer was answered because it was in accordance with His will that He had already written on my heart.

Luther's point is that the very frustration that we feel when someone tells us that we don't have the ability or desire to choose God and that He must (and does! thankfully), choose for us is proof that we don't want Him to be our God. If it aggravates you that God chooses, you've made Luther's point. Forde writes, "But the point is that this kind of protest is precisely the proof of the pudding. It is evidence of theologians of glory at work defending themselves to the end. They actually admit that they cannot and will not "will" God to be God...The cross stands behind the question of the will. The cross itself is the evidence that we did not choose him but that he, nevertheless, chose us (John 15:16)." (51) If we could choose Him, the cross was a cosmic overreaction. Instead of sacrificing His Son and pouring wrath out on Him, God should have just given us better self-improvement instructions and a little help and we would be able to work it out. But, of course, that's not what he's done.

That's not to say that we don't choose things. We are free to choose according to our nature. So I can choose to blog or not to blog. But I will NEVER choose to humble myself before the cross of Christ and an all-sovereign God unless he inclines my heart to do so. So the question before us is simply this: Will you accept a choosing God? And the answer is, "No; not unless he inclines my heart to do so." (We'll get to the obvious next question of responsibility in a subsequent blog.)

Here is Thesis 13: "Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits a mortal sin."

This thesis is the most offensive to the theologian of glory and was to Luther, "the highest and most important issue of our cause." (53) Since the fall, our will has been bound by sin and "hence not free." (54) "'Every one who commits sin is a slave of sin...So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.' Further backup comes from St. Augustine, "Free will without grace has the power to do nothing but sin." (54)

I'll end this now with one more quote from the book: "Sin makes it impossible for the will really to be called free because sin means an enslavement and bondage from which it is impossible for the will to escape. The self seeks its own self in all things, even in its piety."...Hence, "doing our best becomes a defense against the totality of grace."

Once again we are brought to the truth that what we must have is God's grace through the cross and God's grace alone. And then our hearts are where they should be and we're humbled and thankful and free amd filled with joy -- all to the glory of God. And that's the Christian life.

Theses 8-12 -- The Painful Truth about the Problem of Good Works or Wow! Earthquakes Are Scary!

2009-07-22T23:50:00Z

In this post we'll finish up the first section, "The Problem of Good Works," of our book. Thanks to all of you who are pushing past our typical response to tectonic shifts in our assumptions: "put it down and turn something (anything!) else on..."
.
Before I begin to unpack them a bit for you, here they are:
Thesis 8: By so much more are the works of man mortal sins when they are done without fear and in unadulterated, evil self-security. (Wow.)
Thesis 9: To say that works without Christ are dead, but not mortal, appears to constitute a perilous surrender of the fear of God.
Thesis 10: Indeed, it is very difficult to see how a work can be dead and at the same time not a harmful and mortal sin.
Thesis 11: Arrogance cannot be avoided or true hope be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work. (Wow again).
Thesis 12: In the sight of God sins are then truly venial when they are feared by men to be mortal.

I live in Southern California. (Right now I'm blogging from Boston, but that's beside the point.) Whenever I travel out of SoCal, women are always saying things like, "Oh, you live in San Diego? It's beautiful there...but we have seasons here...". When I hear this I'm most frequently tempted to reply, "Yes, we have seasons, too. Spring, Summer and Fall...mostly Spring." Then a comment about earthquakes is usually made. "I could never live there! You have earthquakes!" I've lived in SoCal pretty much consistently for nearly 60 years. I can remember some earthquakes. Last year when I was teaching up at the Master's College there was a doozie. Like most (all?) of you I don't like earthquakes. Unlike Carol King, I don't like it when the "earth moves under my feet." Earthquakes scare me.

Over these last 12 theses, Forde and Luther have been hammering away at the ground upon which we love to stand. They've been stripping us of our self-security. They've been telling us that we need to fear our good works as much as (more than?) we fear our sins. These last four theses simply complete that work...Not that we're completely convinced (any of us) that our good works are to be feared, but they've come to the end of this present line of reasoning.

Luther himself makes the point that none of us are convinced as we should be:

"It is impossible to trust in God unless one has despaired in all creatures and knows that nothing can profit one without God. Since there is no person who has this pure hope...and since we still place some confidence in the creature, it is clear that we must, because of impurity in all things, fear the judgment of God...Thus arrogance must be avoided, not only in the work but in the inclination also, that is, it must displease us still to have confidence in the creature." (47)

Here's the point even (especially) for we theologians of the cross: if you think that you've finally got the theology of the cross, that you're finally trusting perfectly in Christ, and that this trust in His righteousness and personal self-doubt will make you acceptable to God, you're simply to falling, once again, back into the glory story. Yipes. I'm always looking to save myself. Even in the blood soaked mud at the foot of the cross.

All my life I've been taught to stand under a door jamb when an earthquake strikes. Supposedly, that's a safe place to be. That's how it is in my spiritual life, too. I'm always trying to make it under that door jamb, trying to find a place of security. If I throw out the theology of glory then I'll stand under a theology of the cross thinking that if I can just get this right I'll finally be okay. Every fiber of my being militates against the free fall of faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone. Or, as Forde writes, "All possibility of confidence in our own works...are impossible. This, of course, seems quite depressing to inveterate theologians of glory." (48) Yes, it is depressing. And please don't miss my point. My heart is boastful enough to take the theology of the cross and make it into a theology of glory. This is the truth about me. And, yes, it is depressing. Is there nothing in my heart not addicted to the glory story? Of course not! Will I never lie down at the feet of my heavenly Kinsman-Redeemer and let him put his robe over me? Not for more than a millisecond!

But Forde and Luther do not leave us there. Here's how Forde finishes up the section on the problem of good works and I'm thankful:
"...[W]e should not miss the new note that sounds out of the rubble of rejected human works. It is the note of hope. It is not possible...for true hope to be present unless the judgment of condemnation is feared in every work. Every hope built on human work will prove untrue. the hope that arises out of the ashes of the refining fire will not disappoint. The way, however, is the way of the cross." (48)

I bring myself once again to rest -- under that blessed door jamb, under the cross beams -- and in thankfulness I know that He's forgiving my self-delusion and reminding me again that it's not about me at all. And then I go running out from under again and again and again and I wonder at the perversity in my heart and then I wonder why I wonder at it and then I rest again for the moment. And the Lord keeps reaching down, covering me again and I lay down again and rest and wait for our wedding day when the heavens and the earth will melt away and everything will be made new and I'll see Him in His glory and be fully at peace. And then the ground shakes and I go racing off to find that door jamb du jours again...

Theses #5-7, Charles Spurgeon, J I Packer and the International Christian Retail Show

2009-07-16T17:44:00Z

Here are theses 5-7 from "On Being A Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518:
Thesis 5: The works of men are thus not mortal sins (we speak of works that are apparently good), as though they were crimes.

Thesis 6: The works of God (we speak of those that he does through man) are thus not merits, as though they were sinless.

Thesis 7: The works of the righteous would be mortal sins if they would not be feared as mortal sins by the righteous themselves out of pious fear of God.

I've just returned from the 2009 International Christian Retail Show in Denver, Colorado. I was blessed by my publisher, Crossway, to be able to attend and was there talking about my book, "Counsel from the Cross: Connecting Broken People to the Love of Christ." I'm thankful for Crossway and for publishers who are standing for truth.

I'm going to try to be very measured in my remarks about the state of "Christian" publishing in the US. To say that I was grieved, burdened and utterly heartbroken at ICRS would be about right. I won't share everything with you that I saw -- some things you would hardly believe. I will simply say that the gospel of Jesus Christ was (aside from a few notable exceptions) pretty much missing. Not just downplayed. Utterly missing. The primary theme of the convention was what are the 5 steps that one must take in order to gain God's approval and have fun on the beach. Really. If the books that sell well in Christian bookstores are analogous to the spiritual state of the American church, we're back in Rome without all the litergy and deep thought. We're sort of in DisneyRome. Cotton candy purgatory. Luther wasn't writing only for himself and his contemporaries. He was writing for us. Of course, the problem is that we don't think his concerns apply, which, I guess, proves his point.

Rather than becoming rabid about ICRS now -- I was, in fact, very encouraged by a Tweet from John Piper yesterday -- I want to simply copy a few quotes from the book and then close with two other quotes: one from Charles Spurgeon and J I Packer (neither of whom wrote in the 16th century). Then I'm off to the Women Discipling Women conference in Sun Valley.

From our book: "A deadly sin is one that actually separates and seals us off from God. That occurs when the apparent goodness of our works seduces us into putting our trust in them, that is, it occurs when the very goodness of the work is such that it dissuades us from confessing [that our works must be wrought in/by Him and that even (especially?) when I think they're really good I can't trust in them]...the works of the law are used as a defense against the very unconditionality of the gift of grace...Deadly sin lurks in the most pious places." (37)

Most poigntly: "When then are the works of the righteous not mortal sins? When they fear that they are!" (39) And finally, "The point here is that when we have no fear of the Lord and we instead presume to come before the Lord bustling with self-confidence in our own accomplishment, enjoying ourselves in our works, as Luther puts it, our works are deadly sins even if we think they are done with the help of grace. [We must see that they are done by Him, not just that He is "helping us."] For then our works stand between us and God; they usurp the honor belonging to God. This is a transgression of the first commandment. The self sets itself as an idol. Piety is no protection." (42)

Now for the more "modern" theologians -- thanks to Of First Importance for these quotes:

The proud heart of man is very anxious to have a hand in the justification of the soul before God; preparations for Christ are dreamed of, humblings and repentings are trusted in, good works are cried up, natural ability is much vaunted, and by all means the attempt is made to lift up human tools upon the divine altar. It were well if sinners would remember that so far from perfecting the Saviour’s work, their carnal confidences only pollute and dishonor it. The Lord alone must be exalted in the work of atonement, and not a single mark of man’s chisel or hammer will be endured.

There is an inherent blasphemy in seeking to add to what Christ Jesus in His dying moments declared to be finished, or to improve that in which the Lord Jehovah finds perfect satisfaction. Trembling sinner, away with your tools. Fall on your knees in humble supplication. Accept the Lord Jesus to be the altar of your atonement, and rest in Him alone.”

- Charles Spurgeon, Morning by Morning (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 2001), 204.

“The holiest Christians are not those most concerned about holiness as such, but whose minds and hearts and goals and purposes and love and hope are most fully focused on our Lord Jesus Christ.”

- J.I. Packer, Keep in Step with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 134.

Well, that about sums it up for me. I saw that the blasphemy of seeking to add to what Christ Jesus has accomplished is alive and well in DisneyRome where we live and skip merrily, as my friend, Beth said, down the road to self-godulization. May God have mercy on us. Thank God that His love is everlasting on those who fear Him and fear that they may trust in themselves and not in him.

Theses #3 and 4 -- Naked Confidence

2009-07-11T20:33:01Z

Theses 3 and 4 "Although the works of man always seem attractive and good, they are nevertheless likely to be mortal sins. Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil, they are nevertheless really eternal merits."

Let's summarize where we are, where we've come from: Neither the law of God, the natural law nor 27 steps to self-reformation can accomplish righteousness before God. I once visited a cathedral in Mexico City where the penitent, needy, and seemingly spiritual believers crawled on their knees through a massive courtyard to demonstrate true piety. Listen, you can crawl on your knees from here to Rome and back and all you'll get is bloody knees and a heart shattered by pride and despair. Not interested in being Romish? How about those 7 tried-and-true steps to becoming a more beautiful, wonderful, successful, powerful, spiritual you? We've even got verses!

Perhaps we're not as far from Our Lady of Guadalupe as we think. All those steps that seem so good, so reasonable, so useful are actually steps away from true righteousness because they speak lies to us. They tell us that we are good and simply need a little help from the man upstairs and a sprucing up here or there. We need to demonstrate true sincerity. These steps or "works of man" always seem attractive and good but nevertheless are likely to be mortal sins. We scoff at people who whip themselves or crawl on their knees. Are we that different? Perhaps we know enough to avoid saying 15 Hail Mary's as penance for our misdeeds. But do we see things as they really are? Do we promise God we'll be a better person tomorrow if he just helps us find a parking place today?

The works of God always appear unattractive and evil. They aren't very optimistic. The works of God are a bloody baby born to a woman of questionable morals, whimpering in a feeding trough. They are a not-so good looking bloke being misunderstood, abused, bloodied, stripped, crying out in anguish. They are dark skies and earthquakes. They are wrath poured out and life given up. They are a borrowed, musty tomb. They are also a risen Christ, yes! (hallelujah!) -- but where is he? Why doesn't he show himself? If he's still alive, why must be also be ascended and ruling sovereignly -- hidden to our view? I want to be on the winning team -- not hanging out with a bunch of pathetic losers. So, let's join a political party and transform the world! Want to be a millionaire? Start acting like one! Hate being a loser? Make choices like you're a winner! At heart, don't we militate against the outward unattractiveness of Christianity? That's why we're always trying to spruce it up by adding something more respectable (worldly wise) to it. It's just so unattractive (to use Luther's term).

Yes, it's easy to get there, isn't it? We hide our eyes from the One with no form or beauty that we should desire him. And yet, that's what we are, too. Here's Luther's point: We've got no beauty or comeliness and God ought to hide his eyes from us. But he hid his eyes from his Son instead and now he's hidden us IN his Son. There's no false optimism here. It really does look to the world like we're the losers who are awaiting some pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-by-and-by while they go for the gusto. But the truth is that we've got real righteousness. Why? Because God's Spirit has so worked upon us that he's humbled us so that now we believe we don't have any of our own.

What do we have? Where can we stand? Only in the bare confidence in his mercy. He "humbles us thoroughly, making us despair, so that he may exalt us in his mercy, giving us hope..." (33). What does God's work accomplish in us? It humbles (humiliates is better, I think, doesn't sound so gentle...) us. The cross itself demonstrates the truth of our poverty. And then it implants within us the fear of God. Not the cringing, slavish fear -- rather the realization that even my best deeds (which appear so beautiful to me) are actually putrid before him. Yet...in his mercy he purifies and beautifies them and presents them as sweet offerings to my Father. That makes me worship -- that gives me hope.

Does all this seem a bit pessimistic? I hope it does. I hope it's pessimistic enough to drive us all out of our blind and self-deceived optimism and into naked confidence in the mercy of God. Want merit with God? Strip yourself of everything that makes you feel like you deserve it and stand in naked confidence that he's as merciful as he says he is. There. Stand there. Undoubtedly you'll have to strip down a thousand times a day. That's okay. Fifteen minutes from now you'll forget you ever read this. That's good, too. Because then you'll begin to know that even your ability to stay naked won't save you. Your ability to keep this mindset isn't meritorious. Naked confidence in mercy is ALL we've got. Whether we remember it or not. The humility that comes from the realization that I keep forgetting this truth and that I'll never be good enough is all that I've got to offer. But it's enough. He welcomes it because it's his unattractive, seemingly evil work (it's HIS WORK!) which really is eternal merit because it postures you as a receiver, not a contributor, not a giver. Standing naked clothed in his righteousness alone. There. Stand there. Receive.

A Housekeeping Memo

2009-07-08T17:14:00Z

For some reason that I can't figure out, some of you are still being put in "moderation." That means that your comment stays inactive until I post it. Don't get discouraged. Just go ahead and comment and I'll try to be faithful to get those comments up there by the end of the day.

Thesis #2 -- The Seven Secrets to "Successful" Self-Reformation, Pride and Despair

2009-07-06T04:14:00Z

Thesis #2: Much less can human works, which are done over and over again with the aid of natural precepts, so to speak, lead to that end.

My husband, Phil, always jokes around about how he'll live after I "write the big one." I tell him he's got a rich fantasy life. I'm thankful for the way that the Lord has used my writing but I'm pretty sure I won't ever write "the big one." At least not one that will enable my poor dear to retire early. Humanly speaking, my books won't be best sellers for at least three reasons: First, because I'm too serious for most women (a sadness to me), men won't read a woman's writing (a conundrum to me), and I'll never write about the Seven Secret Steps to Success, Happiness and a Great Sex Life Without Trying Too Hard (thankfully). I suppose I should also say that I won't have a best seller because I'm not that great of a writer...Don't blog back at me about this. I'm okay with it. I don't see myself as a writer -- more like a counselor who's somehow gotten into print.

Luther is getting at this last reason (the Seven Secret Steps one) in Thesis #2. In #1 he stated that the way of God's Law was not the way to righteousness because none of us obey it. Now he takes his proposition a bit farther. You are not able to reform yourself through natural law or repeated self efforts. That's where the whole self-help movement went wrong from the beginning -- and by the way -- that's also why it continues to be successful. People continue to buy the latest "Seven Step" book and then after a year or so (and after falling into both pride and despair) they hear about the new hot secret and buy it. Best seller in the making. The book we're reading, on the other hand, has fallen off the grid. Why? Because as Luther says, it's not very optimistic about our abilities to reform ourselves. And who wants to pay $17.99 to hear that? Again, the cross is rather insulting, isn't it?

Luther's point is simply this: if we only become more wicked by trying to reform ourselves through God's holy law, there's no way in the world that we'll be transformed by our own clever ideas. Snap your wrist with a rubber band until your hand falls off and you still won't change your heart or become righteous. We cringe when we hear about the self-flaggelation of the Hindu's but are we all that different? Of course, we shy away from too much blood and guts...unless we're into cutting or starving ourselves. But a little smack on the head with a nerf bat might just do wonders, mightn't it? I digress.

Here's where Forde believed we are now: "The modern world too tends to reject the law of God as a word from without. The self is encouraged to turn inward to the "moral law within" ("listen to the force Luke") and the self's own inner resources for assurance and power. Whatever may be the usefulness of such encouragement in the human sphere (it's better for one's family if you're not a cocaine addict), this thesis insists that it can hardly advance the cause of righteousness before God." (29) So, we're told to turn inward and access the 'truth" within. This, of course, will end in futility, too.

"The cross makes it clear that the law, whether from without or within, is a dead-end street when it comes to the question of righteousness before God. For the law demands love. ..It is not able to produce or induce what it demands...What the law requires is freedom from the law! Or as Luther could say, putting words into God's mouth, 'I'm obliged to forgive them their sins if I want the law fulfilled by them; indeed I must also put away the law, for I see that they are unable not to sin, especially when they are ... laboring to fulfill the law on their own."

So, if I want to love God and obey I don't give myself the law because the law will only make me guilty and despairing or proud. Instead I give myself the free grace of Christ and let that work upon my heart to produce love and joy and generosity. In the meantime, I fight to obey and pray that my motives are what God would have them be: love for Him, not approval of myself or the approval of others or even a best seller.

I'm working at this. In the meantime, I'll continue to write as long as the Lord opens the door. But I won't get rich and Phil won't retire. I've just read this to Phil and he's decided to reconsider the Lotto. Just kidding. Good thing I'm a kept woman.

Thesis #1, The Law of God, Michael Jackson and Us

2009-06-28T22:49:00Z

Thesis 1. The law of God, that most salutary doctrine of life, cannot advance humans on their way to righteousness, but rather hinders them.

    Michael Jackson died this week. Aside from concern over the state of his soul, I'm not broken up about it. I was never much of a fan. I will say this, though. Michael Jackson was enormously talented and worked hard at his craft. But he was also enormously twisted. Michael Jackson was blessed by a gracious God with great gifts, good health and opportunity to use them. Instead of being thankful and using his gifts to bless his Father, he wasted them in futile endeavors of self-aggrandizement and self-perfection.  It seems to me that at one time he was a Jehovah's Witness. (I may be wrong about that.) But it would fit if he were.

    Michael Jackson was all about changing himself through his own efforts. He worked hard to try to outwardly change himself into something other than what he was (a black male). He had immense resources that he squandered in his vain attempt to escape his despair as no real change was ever sustainable. Like many poets, he was aware of the darkness within his soul and did all he could to heal that darkness. But he also loved the darkness and had no inward power to transform himself. He lived a life of pride, perversion, despair. And he died like a circus freak. There is only one inevitability when we live with largess in the glory story: freakish despair and ultimately a tasteless nibble for Screwtape.

    I am sorry for Michael Jackson and I would like to think that there is a great gulf fixed between MJ and myself. It's not true though. MJ was seeking out a way to advance his own righteousness. Yes, probably, righteousness in his own eyes. But surely, at least at one time, in the eyes of God. He constructed laws and sought to obey them. He couldn't so he gave himself more-and-more to neverland fantasies, skin bleach, scalpels, perversion and despair.

    I don't have the inclination to bleach my skin or get plastic surgery. But, like MJ I'm tempted to believe that I can perfect myself through my own efforts. It's here that Luther's first thesis gets at me. I assume that "good works done in obedience to divine law must be the way" (23) to advance toward righteousness. I have a different grid than MJ did. My inclinations (and giftings) run in a different stream. But that doesn't mean that I'm different from him at heart. I, too, fight the cross and want to embrace the law. Anything to avoid that humiliation! Really!

    Here's Luther's take on our ability to advance into righteousness through the law. "...the law cannot advance us to righteousness. The law cannot save. The shocking fact is that the law is not a remedy for sin, although we never quite seem to believe that. Indeed, when righteousness before God is at stake, It only makes matters worse." (24)  The law, as Luther (and Paul) say, is "holy and righteous and good", "most salutary." It is good but we are not. And because of that, it stirs up sin within us and plays into our natural self-trust. Don't think that Luther is only being concerned about the Michael Jacksons of the world. He's speaking to those who "stand under the revealed law of God, the people of God." Here's why: "It is common among evangelical Christians to believe that we can't perfectly fulfill the law, but we often try to because we assume that if only we could we would do it. So we believe that we must try to do something at least, and then, it is assumed, Christ will make up for our 'shortcomings'. But here is the bombshell: doing the law does not advance the cause of righteousness one whit. It only makes matters worse." (24)

    So...if I can't bring to God at least a little bit of my good law-keeping -- after all, I'm not like a Michael Jackson!!! -- then what can I bring? How can I stand? Only by the gospel: the incarnation, sinless life, substitutionary death, bodily resurrection, ascension and reign of the God-Man, my Savior, Jesus Christ. So, I must flee Sinai and run to Calvary.

    Here's the reality. Without the cross we all are circus freaks in the eyes of God. Slicing and dicing and sprucing and bleaching and working and working and working to recreate ourselves into our own image of perfection. Chutes and Ladders over and over again. We must embrace the gospel every moment of every day or we will work and work and work and then slide right back down to start over again. Hear Luther again, "The righteousness that obtains before God comes 'apart from the law,' through the gospel of resurrection [new life]. So we have the paradox that the very law of God does not improve sinners but makes them worse. The cross itself...is proof of that." (25) If the law (any law) could make anyone righteous Christ would never have died. We wouldn't have had the need to be made entirely new. We would merely have need of education and loads of stickey pads and plastic surgeons.

    But the perfect, spotless Lamb did die. He died because he had done what we never could have done. He fulfilled the Law and then took our punishment. Thank God for his wounds, for the white robes of righteousness that are now yours. And mourn. For for all the Michael Jacksons in the world who are revolving round and round on their neverland merry-go-rounds of Law heading to nowhere; trying to reach the golden ring that will turn to dust and despair as soon as the grasp it. And then throw yourself again and again into your Savior's nail-pierced hands and say, "There but for the grace of God go I"?... No, not quite, "There go I again and again and there I would eternally stay but for the sweet grace of God." And then smile a true, wrinkled smile, spread the joyous news.

Only 2 Religions??? Really???

2009-06-22T04:20:00Z

    As I've heard from many of you that you're still awaiting the arrival of your book, I'll fool around here in the Introductory Matters for a few more days in the hopes that you'll not get discouraged or impatient or covetous of those of us who have Kindles or who ordered the book weeks ago and have already dug into it. The truth is that I love this chapter and could hang out here indefinitely.

    Forde is developing the thought that the theology of the cross is offensive because it attacks what we "usually consider best in our religion." Of course, we're not terribly concerned about discussing what is evil or obviously bad in our religion, "our bad works," because we don't fall into the trap of feeling proud about them or putting our trust in them.  He says that theologians of the cross are more concerned about the "pretension that comes with our good works." In other words, we're not tempted to be proud about our sin, we don't put our trust in it, but we are tempted to be proud and put our trust in our goodnesses -- our prayers, our devotions, our witnessing, our church attendance, our good theology, our growth in sanctification, our refusal to sin. Which leads me to my discussion tonight: There Really Are Only Two Religions in the World. The ultimate question in your religion tonight is, "Who do you trust?"

   I'm sure you've noticed the "Co-Exist" bumper-stickers that use the symbols of different religions. The message is clear: there are all sorts of equally "true" religious "truths" so in the words of that great diplomat, Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along???"

    The producers of that bumper sticker (and most of us) have misunderstood Christianity. Christianity is not like any other religion. Christianity does not tell you how to live so that you can obtain eternal life. Christianity tells you that you cannot do anything worthy of eternal life. Christianity tells you that all your goodnesses are like a used Kotex (Isa. 64:6). (Sorry, guys!) Wow! That's offensive! Put that on a bumper sticker! "Hey, you, reading this bumper-sticker, all that good you did today (recycling, mowing, exercising, eating healthy, giving blood, volunteering, being nice to a nasty co-worker, merging without screaming at other drivers, remembering your dad) that made you feel good about yourself and assured you that you're really okay, is in actuality a putrid pile of rot and God thinks it's like a used Tampon." Yipes. Maybe it's a good thing I couldn't fit all that onto a bumper sticker.

    All that good you did will damn you if you trust in it, or as Forde writes, "...the way of glory, the way of law, human works and free will...simply operates as a defense mechanism against the cross." (12)

    On that "Co-exist" bumper sticker there should be only two figures: the cross and a human stick figure that would represent everything else: Islam, Buddhism, atheism, intellectualism, hedonism, Mormonism...I know that most of you are shaking your head in agreement with that. Yeah! Those people and all their "works-righteousness" really stink! Those people!!! But now stop and think: Luther isn't talking only to "those people." He's talking to us all. To people who would say that they trust Christ for their righteousness and then live as though what he did was nice but not all that necessary. Or maybe it was necessary but just for getting in the door. Surely, there's something we can add, isn't there?And, by the way, the way of the cross and the glory story will NEVER just get along because the way of the cross is so demeaning and frankly, apart from the work of the Spirit it just aggravates us. How insulting! The cross is offensive. Being told that all your goodnesses reek will tick you off unless God's been at work attacking your self-esteem. Perhaps that bumper sticker should have a cross and next to it a stick figure fighting against it with the word "impossible".

    The Disputation demonstrates that there are antitheses -- the differing stories "focus on basic issues of salvation: the question of law and works; the power of the human will; the attempt to 'see' God; the task of speaking the truth in these matters; faith and ultimately of the love of God, which creates its own object...In every instance all loopholes are closed so that the believer will in the end simply be cast on that creative love of God, which makes the object of its love out of the nothing to which the sinner has been reduced." (p. 12, italics added). Better go back and reread that quote. Here's the difference between gospel Christianity and every other form of religion, including all so-called Christianity that isn't focused on the cross: in gospel Christianity we are annihilated by the cross and then God, by his love makes us into what he wants us to be and we become this simply by believing that he's that good, that powerful, that loving, that merciful. This is shocking. It is humiliating. It is annihilating. It is freeing. It makes us smile.

    There are only two stories, only two religions. There is the doomed and despairing glory story, the "'glory road', a way of law, which the fallen creature can traverse by willing and working and thus gain the necessary merit eventually to arrive at glory....[In this view]
[t]he cross 'makes up' for failures along the glory road." (12) Works-righteousness is the way of every religion. This is the way of Chutes and Ladders Christianity: Attend church today? Go ahead 3 spaces. Say a bad word in your heart? Move back 2! Practice hospitality? Move ahead 6 spaces and pick a pretty flower! Lose your temper with your spouse on Father's Day? Spend three turns in purgatory. Feel properly sorry. Make up for it by making his favorite meal. Tell the children to be quiet. Light candles. Work it off. Read Joel Osteen? Fold up the board. You lose. You lose because you've landed on a chute that will slide you down into the drowning despair of a "sea of narcissistic moralism" (Mike Horton's phrase). You're dying of thirst but you'll never get a soul-satisfying drink. You'll never make it out of this bog on your own because your "soul's insatiable thirst for glory is not ended by satisfying it but rather by extinguishing it."

   And then there is the story of the cross. "In theological terms, we must come to confess that we are addicted to sin, addicted to self, whatever form that may take, pious or impious. So theologians of the cross know that we can't be helped by optimistic appeals to glory, strength, wisdom, positive thinking and so forth because those things are themselves the problem. To repeat Luther again, the thirst for glory or power or wisdom is never satisfied even by the acquisition of it. We always want more -- precisely so that we can declare independence from God" (17), or to paraphrase Tim Keller, we construct strategies of our good works precisely so that we can avoid the humiliation that comes when Jesus is Savior.

    Luther's (and, I believe, the Bible's) cure for this thirst for independence and self-erected glory is the cross. "The cross does the extinguishing. The cross is the death of sin, and the sinner." (17, italics added) Why? because the cross tells us the truth about ourselves. We've got nothing to offer but demerit. But we are loved. Because we are loved, we'll be kept and changed and glorified. Because we've been loved, we've been effectually called, given faith, granted a heart of repentance, justified, adopted and sanctified. He speaks as though our glorification has already happened. We're in union with Christ. Annihilating, liberating truth! Alleluias!

    Fold up the board. He's won. You're in him. Now...live in the light of that. Trust him. There are only two religions. In one you trust in yourself. In the other you trust him. He's already made every righteous move on the board and he's been punished for every wrong move you've made. He's ruling now as the exalted King and...oh...by the way...he's your husband. So, put away the board and pick up all the game cards that tell you how to make yourself good and flush 'em with...everything else that needs flushing... and trust in him. Alone.

Crux sola est nostra theologia -- OOOO! Latin! --- The Cross Alone is Our Theology! Post #2 Introductory Matters...Almost

2009-06-16T04:03:00Z

    Permit me to make one more comment from the Preface: Forde asks: "Has the thirst for glory finally issued in the despair Luther foresaw? This treatise is written with the suspicion that the malaise of the theology of glory is the ultimate source of contemporary despair, not the theology of the cross." xiv

    Everywhere I look I see people despairing because they don't believe there's any real hope left. Don't we see that in the multiplied addictions that flood our streets? From eating to gambling to drugs and alcohol, to cutting and internet porn...people are simply drowning themselves in despair and well...stuff. More and more stuff. The world's quite an easy target, frankly. Anesthetize the soul with today's drug de jour. Wear a Mickey hat. Ride a new coaster. Eat a cream-cheese filled pretzel. Forget. Enjoy. Spend. Eat, drink, be merry. Tomorrow we'll do it all over again. On-and-on, there's really nothing more and everything we've tried has failed. So much for the allurements of cheesy Vanity Fair. What about an intellectual Vanity Fair? Or a Vanity Fair for progressives? Or a visit to the Moralist?

    Christians should recognize the folly of trying to quiet the despair we've experienced by multiplying idols, but we bow down anyway. We try to silence the despair and fill the vacancy with all sorts of moral glory stories. Stories that we add to the story of the cross. Stories of "reforming the culture" with our politics; saving our children by homeschooling them; celebrating recycling; saving gender roles; saving our bodies by eating organically; celebrating modesty; celebrating Christian sex; saving the planet by being vegan; saving whales; saving the unborn; doing yoga; celebrating recovery; preserving good doctrine; celebrating beer; saving Willow Palin; saving our Christian nation; saving the KJV; celebrating morality; saving abused dogs.

    Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying that any of these things are idolatrous in themselves. I'm thankful for many of them! I'm simply wondering if at the end of the day we don't put our trust in them. I wonder if we're trying to pour these good things (works, if you will) into our heart's vacuity because Jesus Christ and the story of the cross has been pushed out to the periphery.

    I wonder if we don't say, "Aren't I good? I saved a .... today!" "Aren't I good? I'm not like those people out there. I'm conservative, I homeschool, I recycle, I'm feminine (sorry, guys, masculine), I eat only sea salt that I grind myself, I never show any cleavage (again, sorry guys), I enjoy sex in it's proper place (notice how avante guarde and non-puritanical I am!), I don't eat animals, I love whales, I march for life, I attend a meeting every night, I study Luther and the Puritans, I brew my own beer, I'll never watch Letterman again!, I didn't vote for the-one-who-cannot-be-named, I only read the red letters, I don't go to R rated movies, I adopted my dogs from rescue instead of buying. Yes, I'm good. Jesus? Oh, yes. There's Jesus, of course. But I've got to have a cause and...frankly...the only one that really captivates my heart is me and my own self-righteousness. Yummy. Oh, yes. Jesus is nice for that imputed righteousness stuff. But I've got to get to the end of the day and say that I've got hope that I'm better or at least good enough...and there's where my real trust is."

    Now...let's get to the Introductory Matters. Just a thought: Forde writes, "The cross is in the first instance God's attack on human sin...As an attack it reveals that the real seat of sin is not in the flesh but in our spiritual aspirations, in our theology of glory." (1)..."Therefore the theology of the cross is an offensive theology. The offense consists in the fact that unlike other theologies it attacks what we usually consider the best in our religion" (italics added, p. 2).

    Have at it. I can finally feel better about myself now because I've blogged for you. Aren't I good?

Some Brief Housekeeping Points

2009-06-16T01:38:00Z

First, thanks to all of you who've posted (and tried to!). In order to stop unsavory characters from posting on our blog, I have to keep everyone in "Moderation" until I approve your posting (and you). So...if you've tried to post and can't figure out why it wasn't showing up immediately, it's because I had to approve you. Now that I have approved everyone's comments, you'll be able to simply post whenever you like. There you go...post at will...

Here we gooooo!!! Posting #1 on "On Being A Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518"

2009-06-12T16:35:00Z

    Let me begin our discussion today with a few sidebars: 1) I know that many of you haven't gotten the book yet. Don't worry about it! We'll just discuss the beginning matters today (and this week) and you can start whenever your book arrives. 2) The beginning matters are more difficult to understand than the actual body of the book -- so if you struggled a bit during the last week trying to understand what Forde was saying, again...don't worry about it. Once you get into the actual discussion of Luther's theology, you'll find it easier to understand -- yet so very difficult to really plumb and live out.

    One more housekeeping item: if you're going to quote from the book, try to remember to give us page numbers. That will make our interaction so much easier. And...if I fail to mention something that you think is important, please point it out!

    Thanks also to all of you who have let me know you're joining me. I think some people had trouble logging on. Keep trying, it is possible! Also, to those of you who emailed me personally and haven't posted yet, please join in. It will make our discussions so much more interesting and lively if we've got lots of ideas to consider.

    So now: the Preface. What I'll do is simply go through the text -- make comments, ask questions and then leave it up to you to begin discussions about the areas that interest you.

    Forde gives three reasons for writing the book. The first is that he sees that there is interest in talking about a "theology of the cross" but there really isn't much available. Why do you suppose that is? Does that strike you as odd?

    The second is that he believes that the cross is being "sentimentalized." I think that by this he means that people are feeling sorry for Jesus the Victim and using Christ's supposed "victimhood" as a way to connect with our psychologized "victim" culture. Here's a wonderful quote:

"In the end, Jesus suffers and dies because nobody identified with him. The people cried, 'Crucify him!' One of his disciples betrayed him, another denied him, the rest forsook him and fled. He died alone, forsaken even by God." (ix)

    But then he writes that Jesus isn't a victim. He's an operator. Jesus warns, "Weep not for me, but for yourselves and your children." Let's not sentimentalize the power and self-sacrifice of the cross. Because God is the one operating in the cross, we suffer the "absolute and unconditional working of God upon us." (ix) It's humbling to see that we have to be "operated [worked] on". How do you respond to that thought?

    Forde's third reason for writing is that language is slipping. "We are no longer sinners, but rather victims." Luther was concerned that we "say what a thing is." In other words the theology of the cross should make us call a spade a spade and not give in to "greeting card sentimentality." (x)

    Further, we are to be concerned with "usus, the way the cross is put to use in our lives." (xii) [Luther] "gives an account of what those who have been smitten and raised up through the event of the cross do." (xii) How is the cross "put to use" in your life today?

    The theology of the cross will always seem negative and critical against the optimism of a theology of glory. (xiii) People love the optimism of books that explain the "7 secret steps to a more wonderful you" because we love the glory story. You'll understand this more fully as we go on. Can you think of some glory stories that are in our culture? Some that you've embraced?

    Wowzers. Well, I think that's enough for now. There's plenty more to be said from the preface alone but I want to hear from you. We'll get to the "Introductory Matters" tomorrow or Sunday or...Have at it!

Don't Be Intimidated! This is a NO-FLUFF ZONE

2009-06-07T21:49:00Z

I'm so excited about our virtual book club especially since I've heard from many of you (most haven't posted) and I'm really glad that you're going to take the plunge. Can't wait!!!

Here's a word of encouragement/caution...don't be intimidated by this book! It might be a little slow going to begin with. In fact, I spent last evening re-reading the preface and introductory matters and I'll be honest -- there were times that I was wandering a bit in the forest and just didn't have a clue.

That's been my experience while reading many books that have become dear friends. Sometimes I just don't get what the author is saying. There...I've said it. Now we all can. Let's practice together: 1-2-3: "I don't get it!"

Even so, here's the lesson I've learned: if I keep reading (and praying) I eventually get it (sort of). I've learned to take what meat I can and leave the bones of confusion on the page. (Euuu...that's an icky metaphor!) Saying all this to say don't be discouraged. Don't give up. Whenever I start a new exercise program it always hurts to begin with and then it's amazing how quickly I find myself adapting. My husband, Phil, is reading a book that's stretching him and he told me today that he's really beginning to understand it -- he's half-way through! It's that way for all of us. He's adapting. You will, too.

This won't be a fluffy study. You wouldn't expect that from me and it's my persuasion that fluff won't feed your soul the way you want to be fed. But real food takes some cutting up and chewing (here I am back at THAT metaphor again).

So...you're entering a no-fluff zone. You'll love it. Don't give up. Be comfortable with "I don't get it." Ask for help. Ask God for help. Keep reading. The fluff stops here.

A Virtual Bookclub?!

2009-06-06T16:31:00Z

One of the most enjoyable times of fellowship I've had over the last decade or so has been during the book club that met in my house. Like most book clubs, we chose a book and then we "Swans" went through it together, often with very lively discussions. Because my life is now such that this kind of gathering would be very difficult for me and because I love On Being A Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518...I was thinking that it might be fun (my goal in everything!) and deeply enriching to spend some time working through this wonderful little book that will change your life and tweak your thinking, too.

So, let's start this discussion in earnest in about one week around the 12th of June; that would give you time to get the book and read Introductory Matters. I'll try to get through a few pages each week (notice that I'm not committing to getting through a whole chapter each week!) and post my thoughts.

Here's a quote from page 1, "The cross is in the first instance God's attack on human sin...Strange attack -- to suffer and die at our hands! God's 'alien work,' Luther called it. As an attack it reveals that the real seat of sin is not in the flesh but in our spiritual aspiration, in our 'theology of glory.' The point is that what happens in the cross is completely contradictory to our usual religious thinking."

Pertinent bibliographical info on the book:
On Being A Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther's Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 by Gerhard O. Forde, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.