Luther Quote

This fall I've been going through the book of Romans with a group of High School students.  In preparing for last week's discussion on Romans 7 I came across this insightful quote from Luther's commentary that I just have to share.  The verse that he is exegeting is 7:14 which reads, "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin." Concerning this Luther writes:

"That is the proof of a spiritual and wise man.  He knows that he is carnal, and he is displeased with himself; indeed, he hates himself and praises the law of God, which he recognizes because he is spiritual.  But the proof of a foolish, carnal man is this, that he regards himself as spiritual and is pleased with himself" (Muller 112).

One of the things I love about Luther is that he says things that seem completely out of line with our natural tendencies.  It's natural to think that we should be pleased with ourselves if we "behave" properly.  For Luther this is precisely the point where we are most lost. 

This is why we need the law to constantly thrust us to Christ even after conversion.  The second I believe that I've got my stuff together is when I'm most vulnerable.  Is this a depressing way to look at life?  I'll let Luther answer this one:

"Nor does speaking in this manner give cause for despair, but for arousing the desire to humble oneself and seek the grace of Christ...  Yearning for grace wells up when recognition of sin has arisen" (Lull 56).

Lull, Timothy (Trans.) "Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings"

Mueller, Theodore (Trans.) "Commentary on Romans"

Antinomianism and Legalism vs. the Gospel: Is it Legalistic and Ungraceful for Saint Paul’s to Leave the ELCA?

This blog post is a response to a variety of questions and statements regarding Saint Paul's Evangelical Lutheran Church's open criticism with the Evangelical Lutheran Church's (ELCA) decision in August. In case you're unfamiliar with the decision here is the denomination's official statement:

Resolution 1: "RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships"

Resolution 2: "RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church."

Saint Paul's, the church in which I serve, does not support this decision given its implications on Scripture and the Gospel (some of which I've outlined in a previous post: "No Law, No Gospel: Some Thoughts on the ELCA's decision"). Along with this, she has also been openly critical with this decision even going so far as requesting to withdraw from the ELCA.

Throughout this whole process Saint Paul's has remained as transparent as possible and has also offered numerous avenues for open dialogue and disagreement. From these discussions there have been several reoccurring themes of criticism that have surfaced concerning Saint Paul's response to the ELCA's decision. The two that I wish to discuss here are:

"Saint Paul's in choosing to leave the ELCA is not exhibiting the grace of Christ. Jesus showed acceptance and grace to everyone who crossed his path. Why are we focusing on this issue? Remember, 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone…'"

"Saint Paul's in disagreeing with the ELCA's stance on homosexuality is being legalistic…"

These are two serious and legitimate charges that need to be answered if Saint Paul's desires to have a clear conscience in its decisions over the next several months. This said, I would like to address these two criticisms by looking at antinomianism; legalism; and how a church rooted in the Gospel of Jesus Christ transcends them both.

From its outset Orthodox Christianity has always been accused of antinomianism. Antinomianism (lit. Anti-law-ism), which simply means any teaching that is critical; overturns; undermines; or is against the rule of law, was a branding that even followed Jesus Christ and Saint Paul around. I myself have even been accused of it from time to time. The charge almost seems appropriate for a religion that proclaims, "Romans 10:4 Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes…" or "Romans 5:20
²⁰ Now the law came in to increase the trespass."

Although on the surface it appears that Orthodox Christianity is antinomian, the truth is that Christianity is the polar opposite of this concept. In fact, Christianity tightens the law to its fullest extent. This is true of its founder Jesus Christ who says:

"Matthew 5:17-18
¹⁷ "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸ For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished."

"Matthew 5:48
⁴⁸ You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

It is also true of Christianity's great interpreter Saint Paul who exclaims, "Romans 7:12 the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." It is in line with the Great Reformer Martin Luther who says, "We should understand 'Law' to mean nothing else than God's word and command, in which he directs us what to do and what not to do, and demands from us our obedience and 'work'" (Pless 115). Lastly, it is proclaimed up to the present in Orthodox Christianity (see Barth, Forde, Stott, Packer, Zahl, etc).

For Christianity the problem is not with the law, but rather with us. As Saint Paul says:

Romans 7:10-14
¹⁰ The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. ¹¹ For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. ¹² So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. ¹³ Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. ¹⁴ For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.

In other words, because of my sinful condition the law cannot engender what it demands. If the law says, "jump," I sit. If it says, "Run," I walk. And in the words of my old Professor Paul Zahl, "If it says 'Honor your father and mother,' I move… to Portland. If it says, 'do not covet' (Romans 7:7-8), I spend all day on the home shopping channel" (35).

Because of this the law functions not as a rule of life for Christians, but rather, "Romans 3:19-20
¹⁹ … that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. ²⁰ For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." In short, the law does not save; but rather exposes us and leaves us without excuse silent before the just judgment of God's wrath. We would be damned, if God had not made another way, but thankfully he has:

Romans 3:21-25
²¹ But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it- ²² the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴ and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

Through the law we see the grotesque and infinite ways we've fallen short and are brought to a point of complete exasperation we're like Saint Paul we scream, "Romans 7:24
²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" In this sense the law condemns, or order that I may take refuge in Christ (Augustine 218).

So rather than being antinomian, Christianity upholds the law to its fullest extent and in doing so forces us to look outside ourselves for deliverance/salvation (Zahl 35). On the other hand, Christianity that deserves to be called antinomian is that which lessens the severity of or does away with the law. To this kind of religion God says:

Jeremiah 6:14-15
¹⁴ They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace. ¹⁵ Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among those who fall; at the time that I punish them, they shall be overthrown," says the LORD.

More than this, when one abolishes the law, one eradicates our need Jesus Christ. Martin Luther writes:

Whoever abolishes the law simultaneously abolishes sin… For according to Romans 5:13, where there is no law there is no sin. And if there is no sin, then Christ died for nothing. Why should he die if there were no sin or law for which he must die? It is apparent from this that the devil's purpose in this fanaticism is not to remove the law but to remove Christ, the fulfiller of the law. (204 emphasis added)

In holding up the law to its fullest extent and offering the righteousness that comes through faith in Christ, orthodox Christianity avoids this. In eradicating God's clearly spoken law, the ELCA falls into this antinomianism.

Now that we've defined antinomianism, we shall look at legalism. In its most basic sense legalism is this: a belief that one earns God's favor or salvation through various good deeds. In legalism one makes and/or keeps oneself righteous through their own efforts. This belief than begets contempt for those who do not labor in the same way. Lastly, this then births lovelessness in that its self-advancing purposes squeeze out humility and compassion (Packer 175-176). Sadly, there have been countless examples of this throughout church history.

The great example of legalism in the Bible is the Pharisees. This religious sect was focused entirely on the externals of their actions; disregarding motives and purposes, and reducing life to mechanical rule-keeping (176). They believed that through their external adherence to the law, they would achieve God's favor. They believed that through their own efforts they would make themselves righteous. For this Jesus had no patience. In the gospel of Matthew he exclaims:

Matthew 23:27-28
²⁷ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. ²⁸ So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

The ironic thing is that although legalists think they are fulfilling the law, in fact they are one in the same with antinomianism. This is because in order to create the illusion of adherence to the law, they must lessen the severity of the law. This, as we have seen, is at its heart antinomianism and that's why Jesus calls Pharisaical legalism "lawlessness."

One last note on legalism is that Christianity always falls into it when she loses sight of the cross of Christ. This is because as human beings our default setting is legalism and self-righteousness. We want to make ourselves right on our own terms without God, which is the essence of our sinful condition. The cross declares this an impossibility. As Luther says:

He who has not been brought low, reduced to nothing through the cross and suffering, takes credit for works and wisdom and does not give credit to God. (59)

Thus, when Christianity loses sight of the cross she falls into the illusion that she is righteous on her own terms and like the antinomians nullifies the cross of Christ (Galatians 2:20).

Along with falling into antinomianism, the ELCA has also drifted into legalism. In invalidating the law to make themselves right apart from God's judgment and justification they are like the Pharisees and countless legalists since. Because that is legalism in its simplest form: trying to make themselves right on their own terms apart from God.

With antinomianism and legalism properly defined, we must now beg the question of whether Saint Paul's is being ungraceful and legalistic in openly criticizing the ELCA for their decision. Well, as I hopefully showed above, in their theology the ELCA has fallen into both antinomianism and legalism. This being the case, the question of whether Saint Paul's is being legalistic and ungraceful must be answered with several questions. Was Jesus Christ being ungraceful and legalistic when he lambasted the Pharisees for their lawlessness? Was Jesus Christ being too strict when he said, "John 7:7
⁷ The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil"? Was the Apostle Paul being too stringent when concerning the legalists in Galatia he wrote, "Galatians 5:12
¹² I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!" or when regarding the antinomianism present in Corinth he exclaimed, "1 Corinthians 6:9-10 …neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God?" Lastly, was Martin Luther ungraceful and legalistic when he spoke up concerning the atrocities of the Catholic Church? Was he being narrow-minded when on trial he exclaimed:

I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen… Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. (Bainton 144 emphasis added)

You see, if we accuse Saint Paul's of legalism concerning its open criticism of and dissention from the ELCA we must also by the same logic accuse Jesus; the Apostle Paul; Martin Luther; and countless others of the same crime. It is not legalism to openly oppose untruth, rather it's our bound duty to:

1 Timothy 6:20-21 …guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge," ²¹ for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.

Of course if when defending and guarding the truth Saint Paul's begins to believe that in doing this she is somehow making herself more inherently righteous than others then she must be accused of legalism. If in this crisis Saint Paul's begins to berate homosexuals than she must be called ungraceful. Lastly, if Saint Paul's begins to focus on this topic at the expense of the "the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness…" than it must hear the words of Jesus, "Matthew 23:24
²⁴ You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" Thus far by the grace of God Saint Paul's has avoided this and to continue she must evermore remain on her knees at the foot of the cross.

The Proper Way Forward

So what is the best way to navigate these troubled waters? How does Saint Paul's avoid the pitfalls of both antinomianism and legalism? The only way forward is the road to the cross. Christianity that is birthed in Golgotha is neither antinomian nor legalistic, but rather it proclaims the law to its deadliest and fullest extent; while at the same time offering the world her one and only hope. This is because of the great paradox found in the cross: it judges and redeems. On the cross when he who knew no sin became sin, we ultimately see the full wickedness of our ways (2 Corinthians 5:12). We stand judged. Luther says it this way:

The real and true work of Christ's Passion is to make man conformable to Christ, so that man's conscience is tormented by his sins in like measure as Christ was pitiably tormented in body and soul by our sins… You must get this through your head and not doubt that you are the one who is torturing Christ, for you sins have surely wrought this… (Forde 7, 8)

By forgiving sins unilaterally and unconditionally for Christ sake, God at the same unmasks our sin and unfaith (Forde 31). Because of this any church that stands before the cross must proclaim the total weight of God's law and judgment against humanity. To do anything less is to diminish the power of the cross. This is why Saint Paul's must hold its ground against the antinomianism of the ELCA.

Along with this the church must proclaim the redemptive element of the cross: i.e. the Gospel. The Gospel being that the God who is just and righteous in his judgment is also the one who loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son (Horton 81 & John 3:16). Saint Paul's must proclaim that, "1 John 4:10
¹⁰ In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." and, "Romans 5:8 God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Again, this is why Saint Paul's must take a stand against the antinomianism of the ELCA, because in lessening the sting of the law they are reducing our understanding of the love of God. This is because in understanding just how condemned and judged we are under the law, will we ever even begin to fathom just how much God loves us through his Son Jesus Christ. As I've said in another post:

In taking away the law, the ELCA nullifies Justification by Grace and turns it into a hallmark card rather than salvation. They are robbing those in same-gendered relationships from ever truly experiencing the grace of Christ. (Smith)

In short, our experience and understanding of Grace (God's one-way love toward humanity), will only be as strong as our understanding of how much we've fallen short.

In the end, the proper way forward depends on the proper balance of law and gospel, judgment and love, and lastly death and life. Sure this ministry may at times make us feel the sting of the law and seem un-inclusive, but without this sting we will never truly know what it means to be saved by grace.

Peace,

Shawn Smith

Augustine. Spirit and the Letter. Bainton, Roland. Here I Stand. Elert, Werner. Law and Gospel. Forde, Gerhard. On Being a Theologian of the Cross. & Justification by Faith: a matter of life and death. Horton, Michael. The Gospel-Driven Life. Luther, Martin. Heidelberg Disputation & Against the Antinomians. Packer, J.I.. Concise Theology. Pless, John. Handling the Word of Truth. Zahl, Paul. Grace in Practice.

    
 

    

Emil Brunner, the Holy Spirit, and Ministry: Part I of II

If I were to name one of my biggest blind spots in faith besides my uncanny ability to keep sinning and a persistent fear of death, I think my understanding and faith in God the Holy Spirit rank near the top. All my life I've struggled with this mysterious entity and what he means for my life in the here and now. There have been times where I've apprehended, or should I say was apprehended upon, by a greater understanding of the Holy Spirit and other times where I have restricted my belief in the Spirit's activity because of fear or an encounter with a crazy charismatic (Crazy charismatic is not an insult to anyone who considers him/herself a charismatic, but rather someone who is by all diagnostic principles is crazy. I consider myself comfortably charismatic). So like the tides in the ocean, there are times when I'm overflowing with a faith and knowledge in the Holy Ghost and there are other times where he seems so foreign to me that I don't know how to even acknowledge him in my life.

Thankfully I am not alone in this. Throughout church history there has been an effort to constrain the Holy Spirit's mysterious power and also times when he lets himself loose on the world. There have been places where the church has committed ungodly atrocities in the Spirit's name and there have been moments when the Spirit makes himself so real to a group of people that revival spreads like wildfire.

Lately my Jedi Master Tom Schaeffer and I have been reading and discussing a powerful book by Emil Brunner called "The Misunderstanding of The Church." In this work he examines the nature of the church, which he calls the Ecclesia, and shows that, "The New Testament Ecclesia, the fellowship of Jesus Christ, is a pure communion of persons and has nothing of the character of an institution about it" (17)… How he goes on to prove this is rather provocative and will lead you to rethink the whole nature of the church. One particularly astounding chapter in Brunner's book is "the Christian Fellowship and The Holy Spirit." It is in this chapter that all of my blind spots and protective measures against the mysterious power of the Holy Spirit are exposed and I'm left wondering how he might work in my life and my ministry if he were given free reign. Because of the way this chapter moved in my life and ministry, I wish to share it with you that it might do the same.

For Brunner, "the fellowship of Jesus lives under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; that is the secret of its life, of its communion, and of its power" (47). He writes:

"We ought to face the New Testament witness with sufficient candor to admit that in this "pneuma" (Spirit), which the Ecclesia was conscious of possessing, there lie forces of an extra-rational kind which are mostly lacking among us Christians of to-day." (48)

Brunner believes that words themselves are not sufficient to grasp the reality of the Holy Spirit, rather he is a reality which reveals itself apart from words. For this reason Brunner believes that the language of the psychology of the unconscious serves us well. He writes:

"In regard to the dynamism of human life, it is precisely this layer of the soul—only too often withdrawn from clear awareness—which is the decisive factor. Now the Holy Ghost is certainly not to be identified with the unconscious. The Holy Ghost is God: but the Ecclesia, in its experience of the Holy Spirit, experienced God as the One whose impact on human life penetrates these depths of the soul, touches these hidden energies, mobilizes and harnesses them in the service of His holy will. The Holy Ghost seizes the heart, not merely the nous: it pierces the heart until it reaches the depths of the unconscious and even the very physical constituents of personality." (48)

"The Spirit operates with overwhelming, revolutionary, transforming results. It manifests itself in such a way as to leave one wondering why and how, and in such a way as to demolish the walls of partition separating individuals from each other. Its mode of operation is such that we find ourselves forced to adopt the terminology of mysticism on the one hand, of magic on the other, since that of logic and of theology is seen to be inadequate and inappropriate." (49)

Following this Brunner explicates three phenomena of the Spirit's work. First, is the fact that the Holy Spirit is the mysterious power that makes Christian fellowship possible. From disassociated individuals it creates a unity which forms a single body. The body, for Brunner, is not a metaphor; but rather, "an effective reality of a supra-logical kind, quasi-physical, and in any even essentially organic" (49).

The second mysterious work of the Holy Spirit is the way he assigns different tasks to the individuals who constitute the body. In the same way organs have their specific functions, the Holy Spirit equips individuals to perform special services within the body. He writes:

"One thing is supremely important: that all minister… There exist in the Ecclesia a universal duty and right of service, a universal readiness to serve and at the same time the greatest possible differentiation of functions. The metaphor of the organism illuminates on aspect of the reality; the dependence of all kinds of ministration on the one Lord reveals the other." (51)

For Brunner, this organic understanding of the Ecclesia is something entirely different from that of an organization or institution. In fact, it's the exact opposite. In some of his most challenging words he explains:

"It is the mystery of the Ecclesia as the fellowship of the Spirit that it has an articulate living order without being legally organized. When we who are so accustomed to the juridical organization of the Church ask how such a 'pneumatic' order is possible, the answer must be: it is no longer a simple possibility, but it was once possible thanks to the reality of whose dynamic power we can now entertain scarcely a vague surmise—the reality of the Holy Ghost." (51)

"The organization of the church and in particular its legal administration is a compensatory measure which it becomes necessary to adopt in times and places where the plenitude of the Spirit is lacking. Canon law is a substitute for the Spirit." (51)

Simply put, for Brunner the organization and institutionalization of the church and the organic work of the Holy Spirit are incompatible. Institution only exists where an awareness of the Spirit is lacking.

The third mysterious work of the Holy Spirit for Brunner is that he is the primary factor of the fellowship of Christ's missionary work. He writes, "Outsiders were attracted—the story of Pentecost already shows us this quite plainly—not primarily by what was said, but by the element of mystery—what happened simply" (51). Brunner believes that people drew near to the Christian community because they were irresistibly attracted by its supernatural power. In short, they wanted to share in its power (52). He writes:

"There is a sort of fascination which is exercised mostly without any reference to the Word, comparable rather to the attractive force of a magnet or the spread of an infectious disease. Without knowing how it happened, one is already a carrier of the infection." (52)

"Here the mighty energies of the Spirit are more important than any word, although these energies, in so far as they are those of the Holy Spirit, owe their origin to the Word of God." (52)

"The Word of God is truly and effectively in the Church as the word of the Holy Ghost, implying therefore a unity of 'logos' and dynamic energy which lies beyond all comprehension." (53)

From this summary of the Spirit's work Brunner next goes to show that the order of fellowship springing from the Holy Spirit was one of service which flowed from true faith and revealed itself in a new relationship to ones neighbor (54). For Brunner, this order is highly opposed to the hierarchical institutionalization of the church. In fact, it is the institution that destroys the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Brunner writes:

The delicate structure of the fellowship founded by Jesus, and anchored in the Holy Spirit, could not be replaced by an institutional organization without the whole character of the Ecclesia being fundamentally changed: the fellowship of Jesus Christ became the church. The apparent similarity between the official organization and the New Testament order of the Spirit shows upon closer inspection that at every point there has taken place a change in essential character." (54)

"Now there was dogma—without the dynamism of the Spirit-filled Word of God. Now there was faith, in the sense of correct, orthodox belief, but separated from love. Now there was community in the sense of a Church with offices, but no longer the solidarity of reciprocal service." (54)

Concluding Questions

So this is Brunner's powerful understanding of the Holy Spirit and the church. There's a lot here to agree and disagree with. Next week I'm going to share how this chapter has impacted my life and ministry, but for now I just want to leave you with some questions in the hopes of generating some discussion on this topic.

    What did you agree or disagree with Brunner's understanding of the Spirit?

    What would your life, relationships, and ministry look like if you were to follow Brunner's theology to its logical outcomes?

    In your own ministry, whether that's pastoral or volunteer, how might things change given Brunner's description of the Spirit's work?

    Lastly, how would your church have to change, given Brunner's belief that institution squelches the Spirit's work?

 

Labor with Mike Yaconelli

For those who regularly read my blog (Jay being the only one I think), sorry it's been so long since my last post. Who knew having a baby would not only be a time suck, but also a destroyer of any reflective thinking. So with this in mind, today I'm just going to offer you a quote.

When little Isaiah was born I brought one of my favorite books with me to the hospital thinking it might act as comfort food during a rather stressful time (Don't worry, I didn't read it well she was in labor). Well, the book succeeded. I think it's always cool when you read a book for the second or third time how different things stick out. This time a particular quote about faith really moved me. So without further a due here is Mike Yaconelli's description of childlike faith:

It is hard to ask for help. Childlike faith is not for people who need a little help; it is for people who are desperate, who are at the end of their rope. Faith is for those who are not too proud to wave their arms and admit they are drowning.

Faith is not religious positive thinking. It's not a motivational course, a pep talk, an exercise in positive self-imaging. Faith is for the helpless. It is a humiliation, out of which humility is birthed. We do not come to faith to find the extra punch we need to make it over the hill. We come to faith because we are exhausted, weakened, ready to give up. Faith is more than giving up. It is giving in. (161)

These paragraphs really spoke to my soul in the hospital. Although some would disagree, labor is also hard on a guy (especially if he has panic disorder and hospitals tend to set him off). Watching your wife in such pain, the fear of the unknown, etc… Not only this, it's experiencing a life change that you have no former reference point for. It's a scary thing and at the end of the day you have a 7 pound 8 ounce milk drinking machine to contend with.

This quote just reminded me of the fact that faith was for me at that point in time. I didn't have to have my stuff together; rather the fact that I was completely helpless made me a perfect candidate for faith.

Well that's all I got for today.

Peace,

Shawn

PS: Oh yeah, here's the little man…

No Law, No Gospel: Some Thoughts on the ELCA’s Decision

Hi my name is Shawn and I'm a sinner in complete need of a Savior. How do I know this? Well, two reasons. First, I have this nagging existential guilt that presents itself in the oddest of ways. Unless alleviated it robs me of any sense of wellbeing and really twists my insides into a knot. As Freud says, guilt is the, "most important problem in the evolution of culture" (Fitzsimmons 11). This guilt is a universal problem that we need release from.

The second reason I know I'm a sinner is from the Law of God. When I place myself before the standard of a Perfect Almighty Creator I'm left speechless by how much I've fallen short. When I come face to face with the law of God I discover that according to God's standard I'm a murderer whose committed adultery in his heart, and worshiped other gods on many occasions. Again if this is not alleviated I'm dead.

This is where I'm at without Jesus Christ. I am branded a sinner by my conscious, the never ending implied laws of the world and the unbendable Law of God. I have no way out. As the Apostle Paul says, "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" Thankfully this is where Jesus Christ comes into the picture. This is the Gospel. After crying out for deliverance Paul declares,

    Romans 7:25
²⁵ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Romans 8:1-3 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. ² For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. ³ For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.

What I've just described above is the theology of "Law and Gospel." It's what Luther described as, "The highest art in Christendom, one that every person who values the name Christian ought to recognize, know and possess." In short, it is this: the Law is nothing else than God's unbending word and command that demands complete fulfillment from the bottom of the heart. The Law labels me as a condemned sinner in need of a Savior. On the other hand the Gospel bids us merely to accept the offer of grace, forgiveness of sins, the Holy Spirit, and eternal life that was provided for us through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Together Law and Gospel are two words and two ministries that God uses to bring us back to himself. Law flattens and kill me and the Gospel revives me or as the Apostle Paul states:

Galatians 2:19-20
¹⁹ For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. ²⁰ It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Because of their unique relationship the Gospel is not "good news" without the law. In other words, no law=no Gospel. Lutheran theologian John Pless states it this way, "Only where the Law has crushed sinners does the Gospel do its gracious work of healing the broken-hearted" (44).

So what's this have to do with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's (ELCA) decision this past week? In case you're unaware, the ELCA made the decision this week to support both monogamous same sex relationships and allow those who are in such relationships to serve as ordained leaders in the church. Here's the resolution in their own words:

Resolution 1: "RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long, monogamous, same-gender relationships"

Resolution 2: "RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church."

One of my issues with these proposals, besides the obvious disregard for the authority of Scripture, is the fact that in doing this the ELCA may be robbing those who are in same-gendered relationships the opportunity to know the grace, forgiveness, and comfort of the Gospel.

Let me explain. The Law of God declares homosexuality to be a sin (Leviticus 18:22, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, & others). So just as the law declares me to be an adulterer because of my lusts, a murderer because of my anger, and an idolater because of the way I stray; the law would convict one who is homosexual of his/her sin. The sin of homosexuality is no better or no worse than my countless sinful acts, but like all sin it misses mark. Like all sin it is a bondage that we need release from (Subsequently choice is not the matter here. We are all in bondage to sin. Just how one does not "choose" to be homosexual, I did not "choose" to struggle with lust. It's a bondage I need release from. It's the law that make us conscious of our bondage to sin).

So in essence, because the ELCA lessens the sting of the law for those who practice same-gender relationships, they are in affect pushing them away from the saving Gospel of Christ. The "grace" they are wishing to offer in these resolutions is in fact opposite of grace because it pushes one away from the only true Grace that the world has ever known. Lutheran theologian Pless says it this way:

Without the prior work of the Law, the Gospel itself is perverted as it is reduced to nice words about God with sentimental appeal but completely void of forgiveness of sins. (Italics Mine 43)

Or as Luther himself says, "Who could know what and why Christ suffered for us without knowing what sin or the law is?"

The ironic thing in all of this is that in passing this resolution the presiding Bishop of the ELCA believes they are building, "on the key Lutheran principles of Justification by Grace…" But, in taking away the law, the ELCA nullifies Justification by Grace and turns it into a hallmark card rather than salvation. They are robbing those in same-gendered relationships from ever truly experiencing the grace of Christ. As Luther states:

They cannot be humble who do not recognize they are damnable whose sin smells to high heaven. Sin is recognized only through the law… Such preaching concerning sin is preparation for grace, or it is rather the recognition of sin and faith in such preaching. Yearning for grace wells up when recognition of sin has risen. (Italics Mine)

In short, No Law, No Gospel…

Peace,

Shawn Smith

Werner Elert: Law and Gospel

Allison FitzSimons: Guilt, Anger, & God

Martin Luther: The Distinction Between Law and Gospel (A Sermon), The Heidelberg Disputation, the Preface to Romans & Smalcald Articles.

John Pless: Handling the Word of Truth

Some thoughts on local stores, Walmart, and Megachurches.

This is sort of an unorganized little rant, but it's just something that's been happening again and again and I just sort of felt the need to vent a bit.

Everyone knows the plight of the local store since Walmart has exploded. The local store cannot compete with Walmart's prices, selection, and 24 hour convenience and eventually closes.

I used to work for one of the big churches in Pittsburgh PA. There's nothing wrong with that. It was an awesome place, doing the work of the Kingdom in drastic ways.

Now I work for a smaller church in Maumee Oh. Not a small church by any means of the imagination, just smaller than my old church. One of the most discouraging things about ministry in this setting has been the constant critiquing of our ministry with that of the larger churches in town.

In the Toledo region Ceder Creek is one of those churches. Averaging 8,ooo per Sunday at their multiple locations, Ceder Creek (which follows the Willow Creek model) seeks to reach the unchurched.

The question is, are these churches actually reaching the unchurched, or are they really just grabbing people from other churches? The Leadership Network/Hartford Institute for Religion did a study on 12 Megachurches nationwide asking the members where they had gone to church (if any) before they started going to their megachurch. Here's the stats:

4% Have attended the Megachurch most of their lives
6% Had never attended any church (unchurched)
28% Came from another church far away
44% Came from another local church

Another interesting stat is that 80-90% of Maumee is unchurched. Yet megachurches like Cedar Creek, The Church on Strayer, etc... are continuing to grow, but the number of unchurhced never changes. Along with this, churches like mine continue to shrink. Are these megachurches reaching the unchurched or are they pulling a Walmart and slowly closing down the local church?

I believe it's the ladder. In youth ministry there is an expectation that I have to compete with these churches. I can't! I do not have the resources, money, full worship band, youth sanctuary, etc. to pull that off. My Senior Pastor often feels the same pressure. I've had countless youth and adults come up to me asking, "why can't we do this like Cedar Creek, why can't we have the cool youth room set up, etc..."

My point in this rant is this: is this really what the church is suppose to be doing? What is happening in Toledo is mirrored across every city in America. Instead of sharing the Gospel and preaching Christ Crucified, we as the church are looking more like Walmart and the nameless local stores that are closing down. It feels more like a competition than the Kingdom of God (read Acts). I for one have had enough.

I would love to know what you think?

Shawn

PS: Sorry for the angry tone here...

Predestination Part VI of VI: “Zahl’s View”

If you were to take Martin Luther's "Bondage of the Will," marinate it in Sci-Fi imagery, mix it together with Tyler Perry movies, and sprinkle it with Lord of the Rings references you would end up with Paul Zahl's understanding of predestination. Although this is the case, I think Zahl (former dean of Trinity School for Ministry & Recently Retired Rector of All Saints Church) would argue that he doesn't want to offer any theology of Predestination; but rather a Theology of Everyday life. He writes:

    This theology of everyday life takes its first breath from the irrepressible words, "Help me!" (103)

    A theology of everyday life depends on the un-free will. If the will is free then we do not need someone to save us. (104)

Often when the subject of the un-free will comes up, people jump ahead of my claim. They think I am talking about predestination. They think I mean Pavlov and little dogs with bells and shocks. They think I am trying to corner them into some kind of idea that makes people into puppets. To this I say, "You're ahead of the game. I am talking about one thing, and one thing only: how people actually act and whether they are under compulsion in certain situations. Please don't talk to me about puppets until you have answered me about addicts" (104)

In short, any understanding Zahl gives concerning predestination is earthed in the compulsive experiences that we all have. It begins from the ground up. It is earthed in the observable fact that we often can't change ourselves, let alone save ourselves. Thus, unlike Augustine and Calvin, Zahl does not talk about conceptual predestination, but rather the mere fact that, "Human beings are not as free to act as they like to think they are" (104). Simply put, Zahl deals with the un-free will and how it relates to everyday life.

For Zahl the doctrine of the un-free will is a biblical and descriptive approach to life that for him reveals one of the most plain and hidden facts of the human world. It is plain because of experience and it is hidden because no one wishes to see it.

To build his case Zahl looks at everyday areas of compulsion that humans experience. He writes, "Think about anger. Anger can be triggered by a single word, a contemptuous gesture. People have killed each other over a single contemptuous gesture. Anger is often compulsive" (105). He next turns to look at the addict. He writes:

Addiction needs help, complete help. You have to start by putting yourself in the wrong and acknowledging that your life is out of control. (105)

    The minute you begin to think they have the power they disappoint you. (106)

From addictions Zahl goes on to look at our battles with weight, mourning, depression, and worry. He then shows how all of these compulsive examples from our everyday life really confirm what Scripture already illustrates through such examples as Romans 7, Jesus coming to save sinners, and Isaiah's suffering servant.

Where the genius of Zahl's understanding of the un-free will comes into play is when he extrapolates the natural outcomes of whether one embraces free will or the un-free will. He writes, "If you believe in people's free will, you will always judge them when they "choose" wrongly" (108)… He believes that this is most poignantly seen in various sorts of Christianity encountered in the world. He writes:

Forms of Christianity that stress free will create refugees. They get into the business of judging, and especially of judging Christians. (109)

If you were to interview the millions of people who feel they left Christianity although they were brought up in it, you would find that one two-syllable word, "judgment," tops the list… (109)

It is judgment that drives people away from Christianity. Ironically, it is judgment—the absence of it—which drew people toward Jesus Christ. (109)

Again for Zahl, the idea that drives this judgment is free will, i.e. people could just change if they wanted too. To illustrate this Zahl points to the Parable of the Pharisee and the Penitent tax collector that reads:

Luke 18:10-14
¹⁰ "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ¹¹ The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ¹² I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' ¹³ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' ¹⁴ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."

Here the Pharisee gives himself credit for the "smart choices" he had made in his life whereas the tax collector recognized his complete dependence on the grace of God in light of his overwhelming sins and bondage. Zahl writes:

For the tax collector, God's grace was one-way love, not a two-way operation that relied on his effort. For the Pharisee, it was semi-Palagianism all the way. And there was no compassion on the part of the Pharisee, none at all. There was self-congratulation and contempt. (111)

They (Pharisees) are Frankenstein's Monster of the "free will" (112)

This all leads Zahl to conclude that, "'Free will' creates judgment creates rejection creates flight" (110). Now, on the other end belief in the un-free will, "creates sympathy creates mercy creates comfort creates change" (110). This is because:

The moment you understand that people are not as free as they think they are, especially in sectors of compulsion, you are able to have compassion for them. You begin to "try a little tenderness." Instead of judging them for doing wrong when they should be doing right, you start developing some sympathy. (105, 106)

The relation of the un-free will to compassion is that the un-free will enables compassion. (109)

For Zahl this compassion is having mercy on people who cannot help themselves (108). It's having the mercy of God who "when we were helpless" sent, "Christ to die for the ungodly" (Romans 5:6). And lastly it's having the mercy of Christ who, "Luke 19:10 came to seek and to save the lost."

My Own Thoughts on Zahl's View

As you've probably noticed if you've read any of my blogs, Zahl has had a tremendous influence on my life and ministry. Upon entering seminary his understanding of grace blew me out of the water and led me to a greater appreciation of God's one-way love.

This said, his understanding of the un-free will was a sort of turning point for me as well. By the time I had entered seminary I had been engaged in inner city ministry for about 7 years. During that time I had encountered seemingly meaningless violence, abandoned children, grotesque addictions, broken promises, and strange religion. All of this, depending on my mood, either led me to a place of judgment, complacency, hopelessness, or hurt. This was particularly true during my time in Atlanta. Seeing lives that never changed, addictions that couldn't be conquered, and children who were closely following the violent paths of their elders led me to this open ended question: "What do we do? Who will deliver us from this tragic situation?"

A good portion of this issue was settled upon encountering Zahl's teachings. Through his understanding of the un-free will I was not only able to acknowledge the areas of compulsion in these people's lives, I was also led to acknowledge those areas in my own life and in acknowledging this I was led to a greater understanding of our need for a Savior in every aspect of our lives. Along with this, I was led to a greater understanding of the importance and power of the Holy Spirit in all this mess. It is God's work through us and his work only that brings forth change. As Zahl himself writes:

    It is the Holy Spirit who brings Christ to life. He takes the "old, old story" and applies it to you point of need. (129)

A theology of grace in practice depends on the Holy Spirit of God. The heavy lifting in all human relationships comes from grace… The results of this lifting, however, depend on the Holy Spirit. (129)

Having offered to someone the one-way love of grace, the only thing you can do is pray to the Holy Spirit to take it from there. (130)

Without the Holy Spirit, we have nothing in the now. With the Holy Spirit, we can love the one-way direction of grace and trust the result. (130)

For me Zahl's interpretation of our un-free condition is a proper-pessimism which gives way to an extravagant-optimism when seen in the light of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit's work.

In closing, the reason why I chose to look at Zahl is that he really earths the conversation we've been having over the past couple months. Sure, predestination is a rather heady subject, but there are outcomes to each option. Zahl looks at the extreme consequences of embracing free will and shows some of the beneficial outcomes for believing that we are not as free as we think we are. As I hinted at before, his conclusion have led me to cling to the cross and the Holy Spirit's guidance in every situation whether personal or in ministry. As the Apostle Paul says,

Romans 7:24-25
²⁴ Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? ²⁵ Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Peace,

Shawn

Zahl, Paul. "Grace in Practice"

Other works by Zahl:

"Who Will Deliver Us," "A Short Systematic Theology," "The First Christian," "The Christianity Primer: 2000 Years of Amazing Grace," and several others.

For his sermons go to All Saint's website