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.

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.

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?

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.

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. 

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...

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  "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.

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: 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.