By grace, through faith, yes. But what does that entail?

In short, we cannot say in an unqualified fashion that final salvation is by grace and by faith apart from embodied obedience, for this misunderstands the nature of both charis (“grace”) and pistis (“faith”) in antiquity and in Paul’s Letters. We must recognize the bankruptcy of our current selves, especially our self—centered indulgences and ambitions. Through participation in the Christ’s death and resurrection, we must die to our old selves with the Messiah and become new selves, and in so doing follow the road of obedient service that our Lord commands by enacting allegiance. For Paul “faith” recognizes we are utterly dead and totally undeserving of God’s grace, but the grasping of God’s life-from-the—dead grace demands a trajectory of loyal obedience.—Matthew Bates in Salvation by Allegiance Alone, 105

And what does the LORD require of you?

[E]vil was associated with demons rather than with other gods. The gods could be vengeful or malicious (e.g., Ishtar’s response to Gilgamesh’s rejection of her, Erra’s destructive behavior), but the gods were not generally characterized in that way. The gods were interested in justice being maintained in the human realm, but they were not necessarily committed to doing justice themselves. Even so, the retribution principle goes beyond a god doing justice, because it also involves how righteous and wicked behavior that merits the deity’s response is defined. For the gods of the ancient Near East, social order was important, but human ethical or moral goodness was not as highly valued by the deity as cultic conscientiousness.—Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, 2nd ed., page 286

<idle musing>
Pretty stark contrast to Micah 6:8: "He has shown you, O human, what is good. And what does LORD require of you, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your god." But, it would seem that many who even bother to think about a god and what that god might require of them haven't moved beyond the do ut des (I give in order that you give) principle. In other words, I can do whatever ethically, but if I tick the correct boxes by giving money to the right things, or saying the correct things, nothing bad can happen to me and the god(s) will be fine with me.

I think we see that behavior among some christians, whether on the right or left, who will accept the shortcomings (sins isn't too strong a word here) of their favored candidate—as long as they say the correct things and do certain ritual things that fulfill whatever unwritten or written laws govern the subcommunity to which they belong. Or at least that's the only way I can figure that a certain occupant of a white house in Washington, DC, can continue to be morally corrupt in every imaginable way and still maintain a support base among a large group of christians.
</idle musing>

Wrath? Yes!

The notion of the wrath of God is not a pleasant one. Indeed the modern consciousness resists it mightily. Jonathan Edward’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is cited often, but only for negative and antiquarian reasons, that is, an example of a time and a theology that are long gone. Again, however, a dismissal of this notion may be simplistic and reflective of a tendency to cut the moral nerve of our theology. The wrath of God is a metaphor, an anthropomorphic figure, to express the conviction that there is in the universe a moral connection, that the love and mercy of God are not apart from or understandable without the justice of God. Sin is not finally, and in the Bible never actually, an abstract notion. . . . It is a breakdown in the nature of relationship, a moral breach that always has consequences . . . It is not a divine appetite that confession seeks to satisfy, but a divine nature that is just and insists that the universe reflect that justice.— Patrick D. Miller, They Cried to the Lord: The Form and Theology of Biblical Prayer (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 247–48; cited in Standing in the Breach, page 239 (emphasis original)

The extent of grace

Many Christians think that grace basically means “Jesus saved me from my sins and now I get to go to heaven.” But grace is far bigger than that. ...

Some Christians think grace means God paid your entry fees and put you on the race course, but now it’s up to you to run the race. Other Christians think grace means that if you try really, really hard but complete only the 5k race, God will give you a marathoner’s medal anyway because he’s nice that way. Neither of those goes nearly far enough.

To run with the racing analogy, grace means you’re a quadriplegic who can’t afford a wheelchair, let alone the entry fee. Grace means that the only way you’ll get on the racetrack is if Jesus pays your fee and carries you onto the course. Grace means that the only way you’ll run the race is if Jesus carries you every step of the way. And grace means you’ll cross the finish line and receive the finisher’s crown solely because Jesus carried you across.

What’s your role in all this? Your biggest job is letting Jesus carry you through the race. Invariably, this proves too much for you and me, and we end up head butting Jesus until he lets us wallow in the mud of our sin.—Radically Normal, electronic edition

<idle musing>
That's a great analogy, but it sounds a bit too monergistic (God does everything, we are just passive). Mind you, it is all Christ empowering us and enabling us. But, we have to get out of the boat, to change the metaphor to when Peter walked on water. It was faith in Christ that allowed Peter to do it, but he had to take the step. Mind you, it was all Christ, all the time—or I should say faith in Christ—but Peter's legs didn't just move monergistically! He had to move them. And that is where it is soooo easy to have it morph into works. And that is what he's really trying to prevent here. But, we need to remember that our response is real and it counts. It is in a very real way synergistic (working together), but the initiative is always (and I can't emphasize that enough!) God, and the power to even respond is from God.

Has that just muddied the waters? I hope not.
</idle musing>

A safe savior

Too often, I think, we desire a Savior who, after assuring us of eternal lie, leaves us alone until our next crisis. We want Him to comfort us but never convict us; we desire Him to heal us but not inhabit us. We want the Holy Spirit to help us obtain the “American dream.” Yet what we have is a Holy Spirit who, instead, seeks to give us the dream of God: man living in the image of Christ (see Genesis 1:26).— This Day We Fight!, page 112 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
That's the final post from the book. As I've repeatedly said:
Disclaimer: This book is full of bad theology and American Exceptionalism. I don't recommend it at all! It was written shortly after 9/11/2001 and reflects the reigning sentiments of that time (when the church failed dramatically to stand up for peace and reconciliation, sadly).

That being said, as you can see, there is some gold among the dross : )
</idle musing>

Saved, but what for?

Far too many think because they have “prayed to receive Christ,” they are safe and secure. I don’t want to dispute the all-sufficiency of Christ or the importance of faith and God’s grace, but far too many today are trusting in a onetime decision but with no marks of discipleship. Yes, some emphasize works so much one has to think they are saved by what they do. We are saved by Christ, but Christ saves us into discipleship.— Sermon on the Mount, pages 264-265

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! Being afraid of works salvation (and desiring large numbers) has caused many to embrace an antinomian gospel (look it up!).

As Scot says, we are saved by grace, but we are saved in discipleship. Or, as Bonhoeffer said, "When Christ calls someone, he bids him come and die."

No cheap grace in the real gospel...
</idle musing>

Prophetic—over 50 years ago

I never could figure out why ministers feel they have to pat and paw over everybody to get them in, why they have to dilute and edit and modify and amend and trim down the gospel. It does not work this way. A trimmed-down, diluted, edited religion is not the religion Christ died to establish.—A.W. Tozer, Voice of a Prophet, pages 90–91

Morality and legalism

The model of Christ as a moral teacher cannot do justice to the disciple’s dependence upon God’s gracious and active call in Jesus because it has employed an objectified and objectifying model of God and of Christ. This model has reduced Christ to an object of reflection and his teachings to lifeless moral values, principles, or absolutes. This model, in not doing justice to Christ as the divine subject incarnate, reduces obedience to legalism and Christian freedom to self-grounded moral striving.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 140

Intellectual assent

“An idea about Christ, a doctrinal system, a general religious recognition of grace or forgiveness of sins does not require discipleship.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 139

<idle musing>
And that's how we got into this mess...
</idle musing>

It isn't legalism

One of Bonhoeffer’s most important insights in Discipleship is his definition of the nature and effects of Christ’s authority. His understanding of Christ’s authority will allow him to depict God’s subjectivity in the Christ narrative. It will allow him to appropriate Jesus’s commandments and obedience to them as theologically suitable. But Bonhoeffer’s particular model of Jesus’s authority will also enable him to bring together grace and obedience without succumbing to either legalism or antinomianism. Thus his model of Christ’s authority is the positive insight that his deconstruction of “cheap grace” anticipates.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, pages 136-127

<idle musing>
I've heard people accuse Bonhoeffer of being a legalist after reading The Cost of Discipleship. I agree with the authors of this book; Bonhoeffer navigates the tricky waters between legalism and antinomianism very skillfully. Would that more people were able to...
</idle musing>

Back log

Before I start excerpting from the next book, which is Diachrony in Biblical Hebrew, I think I should catch up on a backlog of posts from my draft folder. Some of these have been in there since May—that's before we moved! I kept adding them to the folder, thinking I would have time to post on them throughout the summer, but never did. Now that it is November, I've got a bit more time—at least for a week or two... So, for the next few days, watch for a real hodge-podge of stuff : )

First up, an excellent post from the nearly moribund blog Graceroots titled Grace is... Grace isn't... Not sure the table will come through correctly, but you can download the PDF here.
-->

Grace is not...                        Grace is...

a "method" for holy living

-the holy life of Jesus that indwells the believer

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! Take a look at the whole chart; it's well worth your time.
</idle musing>

To what extent Christian?

“When Christianity ceases to insist on a transformed nature, it no longer sees worldly indulgence and worldly love as sinful. And this being true, we must admit the antithesis as well. When we begin to feel at home in this world, when we begin to judge our comfort, our happiness, our wealth, our education, and our tastes by the same standards as this world's, we cease to be Christian.”—Love and Nonresistance, page 129

<idle musing>
All we have to do is look around us...there is no difference; the church has compromised to the point that it looks to politics to solve soul problems. How sad...the power of the Holy Spirit is replaced with the power of the ballot box and lobbyist. Prayer meetings are dying because people don't expect answers to prayer. "Pray about it" is used as a joke instead of a true admonition.
</idle musing>

Necessary, but not sufficient

“The message of repentance is evident throughout the section [Jeremiah 2-23], in the early phase anticipating the penitential response of the people but, as the section progresses, denouncing their lack of penitential response. The section is dominated by dialogue involving God, the people, and the prophet. The people’s cries are evident throughout, but cries that claim innocence are deemed inappropriate and cries that confess guilt are considered inadequate. Rather, in the first section (2:1–4:4) God calls through the prophet for a repentance that involves inner affections including shame and devotion, verbal expression including confession of sin, and practical action including turning from evil and turning to good.”—A Severe Mercy, page 245

<idle musing>
Again, no transformation, no real repentance...
</idle musing>

Ouch

I don't follow television at all, so I don't even know the individual replying in the video, but I'm sure most of you do. Anyway, apparently Mr. Limbaugh last night asked what Jesus would take. Today this gentleman replied:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

<idle musing>
Ouch. I'm reminded of Bonhoeffer's Discipleship. We try to explain away what Jesus is saying, but we can't...why not just embrace it? The Holy Spirit is waiting and willing to take over!
</idle musing>

Good Friday

It seems appropriate that on Good Friday, there should be a post on the cross. So, perusing the blog world today, I found a very good one, by Roger Olson. Here's a snippet, but read the whole thing; he's riding a favorite hobby horse of my own...

I will take the risk of putting forth a theory here. It seems likely to me that whenever and wherever and to the extent that the objective view of the atonement (viz., that the death of Christ reconciled God to the world as much as the world to God) diminishes, the cross will diminish in importance for worship and piety. A subjective theory of the atonement will not do; it cannot sustain long term, profound commitment to the gospel of the death of Jesus Christ as our salvation.

Some contemporary Christians, including some evangelicals, worry that the preaching of the cross in any traditional sense (viz., objective) risks sanctioning child abuse. That seems to me to be utter nonsense because it completely ignores the Trinity in the background of objective atonement. No theologian defending objective atonement has ever regarded the atonement as anything other than God the Son’s voluntary suffering and death. Even Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory and the Puritans’ Penal Substitution Theories pictured it that way and NOT as God simply taking out his anger on an innocent person against his will.

On this Good Friday I call on evangelicals especially to return to their roots and rediscover the good news of the cross as God’s way of reconciling himself to a sinful, rebellious world as well as God’s way of drawing us to himself.

<idle musing>
Amen! I've mentioned before my experience with the loss of the cross. It truly is central to Christianity; without it, there is no atonement. Of course, we can't stop there; we need the resurrection too! But, you can't get to the resurrection without going to the cross first. And on that cross, you and I died with Christ that we might live with him. No cross, no resurrection. No resurrection, no deliverance from the power of sin—let me emphasize here that I'm talking about deliverance; not just forgiveness!
</idle musing>

Ethics? What are they?

Students cheating has become fairly common. There are programs that sniff out plagiarism in papers. But, what about the paid professional who writes papers for a living?

There is a long article in today's Chronicle of Higher Education by a paid ghost writer. It is very disheartening, but this paragraph especially so:

I do a lot of work for seminary students. I like seminary students. They seem so blissfully unaware of the inherent contradiction in paying somebody to help them cheat in courses that are largely about walking in the light of God and providing an ethical model for others to follow. I have been commissioned to write many a passionate condemnation of America's moral decay as exemplified by abortion, gay marriage, or the teaching of evolution. All in all, we may presume that clerical authorities see these as a greater threat than the plagiarism committed by the future frocked.

<idle musing>
Ethics! Who needs them, right? Come on people! It is because of this hypocrisy and inconsistency that Christianity is being scorned. What did Paul say in Romans? Oh, yeah, "On account of you my name is blasphemed among the Gentiles." As Nathan told David, "You are the man!" You can't claim to serve a holy God and not live a holy life.
</idle musing>

cheap grace

There have always been legitimate theological arguments about justification, as well as less noble but understandable interconfessional squabbles. But it may also be the case that there is another, more subtle (and thus more dangerous) theological reason for at least some aspects of the current situation regarding justification. To paraphrase Dietrich Bonhoeffer, parts of the Christian church have become enamored with cheap justification. Cheap justification is justification without justice, faith without love, declaration without transformation.—Inhabiting the Cruciform God, p. 41

<idle musing>
Just like cheap credit, cheap grace is alluring. But, in the long run, again, just like cheap credit, it will eat you alive. It isn't real and, so, it can't save or transform.
</idle musing>

Cheap grace and child rearing

“I just read an article that spoke about one of the parenting gurus who died a few years back. He was one of those psychiatrists who pioneered the movement that taught parents not to discipline their kids but to allow autonomy as kids make mistakes and decisions on their own (let them touch a candle so they learn what “hot” is…). Just let the children make mistakes—that’s the best way to learn! On his deathbed this doctor confessed that the social scientists were wrong, saying, “We’ve raised a generation of brats.” Much of the seeker sensitive, postmodern church is in danger of making the same mistake. We can raise a generation of spiritual brats, that do whatever they want and no one can tell them otherwise. People come to the altar singing “Just as I am” and leave just as they were—a church that teaches what to believe but not how to live. A church that is scared of spiritual disciplines like simplicity, fasting, solitude, and chastity will not produce very good disciples.”—Follow Me to Freedom: Leading As an Ordinary Radical by Shane Claiborne and John Perkins

<idle musing>
If there is no transformation, then I question whether there was a real understanding of what becoming a Christian meant. Intellectual assent without anything else isn't really believing, it is just cheap grace.
</idle musing>