The stress must be laid upon the priority of God’s grace. Justification, acceptance of man by God, has its basis in the grace of God and hence grace must be the primary term all the time. The doctrine of justification by faith is not primarily concerned with faith, but with grace. The source and thus the resting point of justification is outside of ourselves. God in Jesus Christ is the source of faith and he is gracious quite apart from my attitude toward him. Thus the expression ‘by faith’ might be misleading. For faith has its source in grace. It derives from God. So we will go badly wrong if we should say ‘by my faith’ and not ‘by God’s grace’. Faith by its very nature directs us away from ourselves outward toward God the source of all good, and the fountain of all forgiveness. We would do better to use the preposition ‘through’ rather than ‘by’ in describing the experience of acceptance with God. We would then talk of justification through faith. For indeed the clause is an abbreviation of the longer and clearer one: Justification by Grace through faith. Faith is the instrument through which grace flows to man, the channel cut by the flow of that grace, so to speak. Thus faith is directed away from itself towards its source in God. So the preposition of instrumentality, in Greek dia, German durch, and English through is appropriately used to qualify ‘faith’. Not ‘by faith’ but ‘through faith’ is the correct way to speak. But if we understand that this is what the expression ‘by faith’ means then its familiarity need not mislead us.
If all is of God, we must insist upon the fact that faith is the instrumental reality. We must insist upon it so strongly that we modify the slogan, ‘justification by faith’, so as to correct a misinterpretation which would shift the centre of Christianity away from its source in Jesus Christ.
First, I want to thank Bob for laboring over this sermon and then sharing it on his blog. Bob shares some good insights here. Right off the bat, Bob hits on an excellent point. “The God who created the universe is a Covenant-Making God… We’re included in this covenant through our faith in Jesus.”
What a wonderful truth of Hope given here! According to 1 Peter, this promise has been extended to us through Christ our Lord… (1 Pet. 2:9). Bob’s final paragraph is a challenging and encouraging mouthful of truth. I’m grateful that Bob included this statement; “Jesus, who didn’t reject the Torah but embodied it in His life, death, and resurrection. In doing this, Jesus showed us how we could love God and love our neighbors.” By doing so, Bob has opened the door to allow me to develop an overriding concern.
Differing Foundations
Bob and I might share the same conclusion. But, I question if our foundations are not different. Foundations are established by whether we conclude that we are doing for our relationship with God or resting in the assurance that our relationship with God is a done deal. Since Bob starts with the covenant established through the Ten Commandments, let us begin there to laying out the standards, “the demanding and commanding.’’ God expects us to perform these rules and regulations. A standard, when changed, changes the character of God to one of not being so “demanding and commanding. I am thankful to Bob for also sharing that quote from Rabbi Barry Schwartz.
It makes the following commandments subjective to each person’s understanding of life and life experiences. Rather than that of a “demanding and commanding God,” it is a standard established by the “fully” in Exodus19:5-6, and elsewhere we find the word “all” (Deuteronomy 6:5, Ezekiel 14:6, 1Corinthians 10:31). In the tenth paragraph, Bob shares the following: “Besides, these rules aren’t all that burdensome. Yes, most of them start with the words “do not,” but they are straightforward. Do not make idols or misuse God’s name. Do not steal, commit adultery, or lie about your neighbor. As for the Sabbath, it reminds us to take a break from our labor. But as Rabbi Barry Schwartz reminds us, according to the Torah, “the demanding and commanding God is first and foremost the liberating God.”
Easy, Non-Taxing, Not Oppressive
In this paragraph, I find that Bob and I, might build that conclusion on different foundations while coming to the same conclusion. Let us begin with the first statement; “Besides, these rules aren’t all that burdensome.” I think it is necessary first to describe the word burdensome. Merriam- Webster defines burdensome as; “imposing or constituting a burden. That’s oppressive!” Google dictionary defines burdensome as; “difficult to carry out or fulfill; taxing.”
The standard we gave takes this definition a step further and provides us with a meaning of the word burdensome as posing impossibility. In Matthew five, Christ gives us a deeper understanding of these rules and regulations. The first thing we should note is that they were so straightforward and burdenless that He encouraged us to follow the example of the Pharisees whose righteousness He praised.
It did not quite happen that way, as Christ cranked up the requirements (Matthew 5:17-48). As He finishes laying out His explanation of the Mosaic Law, He sums everything up with two words, “BE PERFECT.” If all that was needed to maintain these rules and regulations was external obedience, then the Pharisees had it nailed down.
Just Don’t Externally Commit
Nonetheless, while praising their external obedience, Christ said that their outward obedience was merely paint covering the fact that their heart and the motivation behind the obedience itself possessed no life (Matthew 23:27-28.). Pointing to the fact that mere external obedience was not enough, something more was required. Perhaps, therefore the Torah quotes Moses as saying that God wants all our heart and mind. (Deuteronomy 6:5).
It implies that God wants everything that is us, our very essence, including down to our deepest desire. Perhaps, therefore Rabbi Schwartz defined God as “demanding and commanding.” Giving us quite possibly a contradiction with Bob’s “isn’t burdensome.”
Paul also elaborates on the Law’s burden, as he tells us that the Law accuses and kills (2 Corinthians 3:6; Romans 2:15). Suppose we are to believe that the Law is easy to carry out and fulfill its demands. In that case, we must also accept that our ability to do so would also allow us to maintain rightness with God and maintain our relationship with God. Yet, Paul’s very words and life testimony tell us something else (Romans 7).
Life Says Wait A Minute
Paul also tells us that the Law always produces the opposite of what it intended (Romans 7:10). He further exposes that these “rules and regulations” were never meant to sustain our relationship with God or any covenant (Galatians 2:14-21). The burden of the cross also supports the impossibility of these commands. We like to take the cross’s beauty and highlight what it accomplished, but the cross’s brutality is just as significant as it supports these Laws’ burdens.
Finally, from the fall to Noah, to David, to the old testament prophets and continuing throughout the New Testament, we find one consistent truth; a truth that has remained pervasively consistent throughout the history of humanity, including our own lives. Christ showed absolutely no hesitation in believing that we will always break these commandments. He was not just convinced we would continuously break them; He was an optimistic pessimist about our ability ever to keep one to the standard God “demanded and commanded.”
Heart Issues
This is time to look at another part of Bob’s statement.” Yes, most of them start with the words “do not,” but they’re pretty straightforward.” The first issue with this statement is the keeping of these commandments. Like Christ and the Apostle John noted about keeping them that it was not just external obedience, but a heart deep motivation issue of the heart (See Matthew 16:19; 1John 1:15).
The second issue with the statement is that there is an opposite do for every do not; and vice-versa. Pointing to the truth that the things we omit or fail to do are as much a failure to keep these commandments as those things we commit. We call these sins of omission.
In other words, it is not enough to cuss someone out who just cut you off in traffic. The thought or desire should not have entered in our desires or minds (1John 1:15). In, the fact you should have blessed the other driver by praying for them (Matthew 5:44). So, right there, in the heat of the moment, your deepest desire should be to follow the example of Christ and to glorify God by praying for the idiot who cut you off.
This points that the truth found within the first Law is the confirmation that it is not enough to morally and willfully choose to do or not do these things, but we must desire to want to do or not do these things. Everything that is us, our very core, down to deepest desires, must want to do. Let’s take a look at a couple of these Laws. So, let’s look at a couple of these Laws.
“Don’t make idols.”
An idol is anything you trust to make life right, easier, better, find solace in, or give you pleasure apart from God. Since the fall, our chief idol has been self, ‘Me, me, and me.’ I deserve, I am entitled to, or there is this, I am offended. Whenever I find my value, worth, significance, and identity in something other than Christ, I will make it an idol. After all, the heart wants what the heart wants.
Is pleasure or comfort the key to life? You may have an idol. Do you need everything to fit, be in order, work out the way you think it should for life to be right? Maybe you are worshipping the idol of control? Always working to please others, fear their disapproval or displeasure, the idol of approval may be tugging at your heart.
That must have morning coffee, wine for dinner, binge TV program, gardening moment, exercise burn, or anything else that is needed to give you that burst, calming, soothing, relaxing moment or that enables you to cope may be an addiction. All addictions are signals that our hearts and affections are leaning toward other lovers. Not all idols are bad things. Tim Keller calls an idol a counterfeit god: “A counterfeit god is anything so essential to your life that, should you lose it, your life would feel hardly worth living.”
“As for the Sabbath, it reminds us to take a break from our labor.”
Now, this one sounds easy right, do not do anything on Sunday. There is a reason the first commandment is thou shall not have any other God’s. If you cannot keep the first one, you will fail at all the others. There is a reason James said if you break one, you break them all (James 2:10). Self is the biggest idol we have; self-sufficiency and dependence result in our inability to rest from our labor. Our identity, value, worth, and significance are tied to proving that we are valuable contributors to the community and society.
We should do that, but OUR identity, value, worth, and significance should only be found in Christ. When it is not, we will not know the heart and emotional rest. The biggest addiction the idol of self has is self-righteousness.
When we are laboring to be seen as having the right stuff, and enough exhaustion and busyness will be our default, not rest. It is not that work is bad; God established work. The failure is found in our motivation that keeps us from fully knowing emotional, spiritual, and physical rest from proving and establishing. When we struggle to believe we are loved unconditionally and entirely by God, rest will always escape us. When accomplishment drives us, performance will be the lover that always needs more.
“All day long we hear loud voices that demand ‘Prove you are worth something; do something relevant, spectacular, or powerful, then you will earn the love you so desire.’” -Henri Nouwen
We are all do-it-yourselfers, as we try to prove ourselves capable. We all want a sense of belonging and knowing we are loved. If we do not find these things in Christ, we will falsely believe that it is up to us to prove we are worthy of belonging and loved. Escaping us even on the Sabbath will be emotional and spiritual rest as we continue in our labors to belong and be loved.
Deep And Wide
Each commandment is far more profound than anything that should be labeled straightforward. They were meant to be burdensome and impossible so that they would continually push the Israelites towards God. If they had been easy to do, then their addiction to self-righteousness would have feasted on their ability to do them over others, just like ours.
Instead, they were meant to draw hearts away from the idol of self. They were given an impossibility factor to draw souls to hear again and again of the incredible rescue. Creating within them and us a greater thirst to hear of God’s love for us, continually and serving as reminders that just as the wilderness was not the home of the Israelites, this is not our home.
Our Journey Of Freedom
Not living from knowing that God has established the relationship, we have been set free and are deeply loved and treasured is the first sin. The sin makes it impossible to be obedient in the “commanding and demanding” God requires. The Law given was more than just a set of simplified “rules and regulations.” They were meant to reveal us, to show need, and to point us who are faithless, selfish, and weak to the God who is faithfully pursuing hearts. In this regard, the “commanding and demanding” God establishes the covenant based on Himself and then reveals the way out of the imprisonment they had known in Egypt.
The loving, graceful God was giving not restrictions but invitations to the life of freedom. As we learn to live not for the establishment of a covenant or relationship with God, but in the secure knowledge that through Christ it has been established is when we realize the freedom found in Christ’s words that His burden is light (Matthew 11:30). We discover what the Apostle John meant when He said that God’s Laws are not burdensome. He pointed out that they bring freedom as they establish the boundaries of slavery and freedom (1John 5:3). When living from belonging and being known, these impossibile laws become guides towards Bob’s conclusion in this post.
“Christianity is not a religion; it is the announcement of the end of religion. Religion consists of all the things (believing, behaving, worshiping, and sacrificing) the human race has ever thought it had to do to get right with God. About those things, Christianity has only two comments to make. The first is that none of them ever had the least chance of doing the trick: the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins (see the Epistle to the Hebrews), and no effort of ours to keep the Law of God can ever succeed (see the Epistle to the Romans). The second is that everything religion tried (and failed) to do has been perfectly done, once and for all, by Jesus in his death and resurrection.”
This article is presented as the first entry in our series Discussing the Law in Scripture. To see responses or to learn how you can respond, please read that page. You will find responses in the comments, but they will be organized there.
For most of us, the word “law”is not a happy word. I have never heard anyone say, “It’s the law” in a friendly tone of voice. But let’s explore the issue against the backdrop of a practical modern example, “required” seat belts and I’ll start with some questions: When did you first start buckling up? What made you do it? Or maybe you are one of the few remaining renegades who insists on a life of unfettered freedom….
I don’t remember when or why I started buckling up. Typically I’m fairly obedient in practical matters – I only rebel when someone tells me I have to do something. Initially I buckled up faithfully when I was driving, but less faithfully when I was a passenger. But since the winter of 1963 I wear a seat belt all the time for in 1963 I was a passenger without one and popped my head through the windshield. I can still rub the scar on my forehead and feel it in the middle of my scalp. It’s a convincing argument in favor of seat belts.
But if seat belts are such a benefit, why doesn’t everyone wear them? Of course they restrict our freedoms and of course they’re uncomfortable. And yes, one can even cite examples of accidents where it was more dangerous to wear a seat belt than to be without. Still, the evidence in favor of seat belts is overwhelming.
So our elected officials have decided to help us wear seat belts. The first efforts were gentle: buckles in the shape of hearts with a “loving” message: “Buckle up – we love you!”
Didn’t work. Here’s a harder line: “Buckle up! It’s the law.” Stronger words, but still not much muscle. Sometimes the hard rhetoric was softened just a bit: “Buckle up! It’s our law.”
But only when it turned expensive – “Click it or ticket!” – did the habit begin to catch on. When I checked the fines a few years ago, in Washington State, where I live, the fine was $101 for riding without a seat belt. Next door in Oregon it only cost $94. But in both states the authorities issue tickets with no qualms of conscience. Still, I am amazed at how often the report of a fatal accident includes the line: “The driver was not wearing a seat belt.”
Now let’s bring God into the picture. Should God be concerned about such things as seat belts? Why not, if God, like John, wants us to “prosper and be in health” (3 John 2)?
So God sets about the task of helping us protect ourselves and others. In short, to make us be good. Well, make is a bit strong. Encourage? Entice? Coax?
You see the problem. Paul lays it out – his dilemma, ours, and God’s: “What would you prefer? Am I to come to you with a stick, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?” (1 Cor. 4:21).
But now let’s come to the role of law in education. Does “law” help people think? In typical evangelical theology, law is an instrument of condemnation and points to the need of grace. But that doesn’t really help us see law as good news or to see law as a catalyst for exploratory thinking.
So let’s look at two Old Testament passages that paint a more balanced view of law. Both are from the book of Deuteronomy. In the first one (Deut. 4:5-8), Moses celebrates law as “good news.” So good, in fact, that Israel’s neighbors are said to admire it! After urging Israel to observe the God-given law, Moses argues that their obedience “ will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people.’” Then Moses enthusiastically adds a punch line: “For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him? And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?” (NRSV)
In short, even Israel’s pagan neighbors recognized the great value of Israel’s laws. And in Moses’ commentary after the second giving of the law (Deut. 5:22-33), he rounds out his argument by noting two additional and related factors: the role of fear, and the purpose of law.
After describing Israel’s terror at the divine voice out of the fire, Moses quotes their urgent words: “Look, the Lord our God has shown us his glory and greatness, and we have heard his voice out of the fire. Today we have seen that God may speak to someone and the person may still live. So now why should we die? For this great fire will consume us; if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any longer, we shall die. For who is there of all flesh that has heard the voice of the living God speaking out of fire, as we have, and remained alive?”
Their proposal? A mediator! “Go near, you yourself, and hear all that the Lord our God will say. Then tell us everything that the Lord our God tells you, and we will listen and do it.”
Moses then describes God’s reaction to their request, underscoring the importance of God’s use of raw fear: “The Lord heard your words when you spoke to me, and the Lord said to me: ‘I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; they are right in all that they have spoken. If only they had such a mind as this, to fear me and to keep all my commandments always, so that it might go well with them and with their children forever!’”
God grants their request to make Moses a mediator. Moses then urges once more an understanding of the purpose of law: “You must therefore be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn to the right or to the left. You must follow exactly the path that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you are to possess.”
According to Moses, obedience to law is not linked to eternal salvation, but to the good life here on earth. And he wasn’t squeamish about God’s use of fear to help them obey and live. In our “secular” age in the here and now, we understand the principle very well – without any appeal to God. If a youngster is at risk from a moving vehicle, the parent scares the kid half to death. It’s a life and death matter.
But shifting to the context of education, we must reckon with two additional factors: How does one move from fear to love, and how does one allow for the exploratory factor in a system that was originally motivated by fear?
In the first instance, love cannot be commanded. But 1 John 5:18 affirms a wonderful promise: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love” (NRSV). And the new covenant promises in Jeremiah 31 moves in the direction of affirming that same non-coercive ideal: “No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31:34, NRSV).
The question remains, however: How does one from fear to love? If we look at our human world for examples, we could argue that it is experience is what enables the change. When we observe that the “lover” has only our best interests in mind, fear gradually vanishes.
But in the context of education, how does one come to the point where full exploration is encouraged, with no fear of authoritarian infringement on our freedom? Indeed, the goal is to establish a model within which both Scripture and the natural world may be fully explored – and not just allowed but enthusiastically encouraged?
Certainly the New Testament affirmation that “perfect love casts out fear” is crucial. But more surprising, perhaps is the role played by God’s skeptical friends in the Old Testament: Job, Abraham, Moses, and Habakkuk. Job boldly declared: “He destroys both the blameless and the wicked” (Job 9:22, NRSV), and over the potential destruction of Sodom, Abraham confronted God over that very point: “Far be it from you to . . . to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25, NRSV).
Moses was perhaps the most successful of all God’s critics, for when God declared that he would destroy the idolatrous Israelites and make of Moses a great nation, Moses recoiled immediately: “‘O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, “It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth”? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people. . . .’” And the Lord changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people” (Exod. 32:11-14, NRSV).
Habakkuk is equally blunt: “Destruction and violence are before me; strife and contention arise. So the law becomes slack and justice never prevails. The wicked surround the righteous – therefore judgment comes forth perverted” (Hab. 1:3-4, NRSV).
In short, God himself has published in Scripture all these complaints about seeming flaws in God’s administration of the affairs on earth. Should we not take these seriously in developing our models for education? We may ask all our questions – we must ask all our questions.
One remarkable sidelight relative to education is suggested by the memory text for this week’s lesson in the official study guide: Deuteronomy 6:5: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (NKJV). All three of the New Testament parallels for this passage add the word “mind,” a word missing from Deuteronomy: “all your mind” (Matt. 22:37), “all your mind” (Mark 12:30), “all your mind” (Luke 10:27). The mind is central in the New Testament passages. That’s worth pondering.
One other corrective to the typical evangelical view of law as primarily an instrument of condemnation, is hiding in plain side in both testaments. It is the idea of “grace before law.” While typical evangelical theology sees law as condemning and grace as saving, one can argue from a “motivational” perspective that grace comes before law. Consider Israel’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Did they deserve deliverance? No. Yet God delivered them “by grace,” touching their hearts so that at Mt. Sinai they could appreciate the law, in all its thunderous glory.
The New Testament parallel is in Romans 5, with a three-fold emphasis: 1) “For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. . . . 2) But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. . . . 3) While we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son. . . .” (Rom. 5:6-10, NRSV).
In sum, grace is God’s wonderful gift – and so is his law. Indeed, as noted above, Jeremiah 31: 33-34 tells of a time when God’s law becomes so much a part of us that we are unaware of its presence.
For better or for worse, I have been blessed/cursed with a rebel soul. I hate to be told what to do. God’s promise is that someday I will live in a kingdom where nobody will tell anybody what to do because the law is written on the heart.
Yet the idea of law as good news, as a liberating guide to life, which is so exciting and helpful for me, does not have that same effect on everyone. So the New Testament shows us how God has developed two different ways, two different paths to God’s kingdom. Both ideas are biblical, but are not greeted with equal enthusiasm by all believers. Indeed, some believers are wholehearted supporters of one view while viewing the other perspective with suspicion, even hostility. And that’s true of both extremes. The ideal, I believe, is for each of us to find the nourishment that meets the needs of our soul – while praying for the gift of God’s Spirit to understand the other perspective. Why snatch away from a fellow believer that which nurtures that believer’s soul?
Now when describing the two views, I try to use explanations that are as neutral as possible, explanations that avoid offending those who do not yet understand one view or the other. Unfortunately, the best explanations involve words of many syllables. But in what follows, I mix simple words with pictures in order to get the point across.
I’ll start with the view that I grew up with, but which didn’t really work for me. It pictured Jesus pleading his blood to the father on my behalf. One could say that the cross is pointed heavenward and the demands of the law. I felt that if Jesus had to plead with the Father on my behalf, God must be reluctant to accept me. If Jesus talked long enough and hard enough, the Father would finally reluctantly agree to let me in the back door. That’s a distorted view to be sure, but that’s how I felt. That view we can call the “objective atonement,” a view of the cross that sees an objective standard in heaven that somehow has to be satisfied by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Romans 8 is a good source for that view.
The other view sees the cross pointed earthward, toward the human heart. No price is demanded; Jesus simply teaches us that God gave everything to save us. This view can be called the “subjective atonement.” I discovered it from John 14-17 and it transformed my view of God. In John 14-17, we hear Jesus telling the disciples that if they have seen him, they have seen the father (John 14:8). In other words, Jesus is God in human flesh. God didn’t just send someone else to earth, God himself took human flesh and came to show us what God is like.
I made that discovery while I was at the seminary and I remember excitedly telling my colleague Jon Dybdahl, “Guess what, Jon! Jesus is God!” He already knew that. I was just slow on the uptake.
Since then, I have gone back to Romans 8. Indeed, I have memorized it, seeking to understand those who find the objective atonement so helpful. Put another way, I was wanting to be blessed in the same way that others have been blessed by that chapter. And the light has begun to shine, for which I am very grateful.
Some of you will find Romans 8 more helpful, the cross pointed heavenward to the demands of the law. Others will be blessed by John 14-17, the cross pointed earthward to the needs of the human heart. By God’s grace, you will find what nurtures your soul best.
Danger, Danger Will Robison they’re going to preach verse-by-verse this morning.
Now, before I get started let me say that some of
my favorite teachers are expositors and I love good expository preaching, but
often it is nothing more than instructions on how to be better, have a better
life or change without creating lasting change. Imagine tomorrow that you
stumble on a five-page letter I wrote my wife Becky, but rather than starting
at the beginning of the letter you start on page 3. On page three you see
me discussing things with Becky that I’ve been discussing with her for some
time.
You see me giving instructions on things that
need to be done, need to be addressed and need to be taken care of. You see me
encouraging her to take certain steps, take certain actions and follow up on
certain things. Now, if you read the letter you might think; “WOW, Pat sure is
bossy.” You might ask, “Where is the love in this letter?” Not realizing that
you have started in the middle of the letter, missing the first two and a half
pages in which I proclaim my affection, adulation, and love for Becky. If you
had started in the beginning, you would have seen a love so rich you would have
seen that the instructions you read on page three were to protect that loving
relationship in order that others could see how much love existed between Becky
and me.
There would have been no question in your mind of
where the love was or where the affection in my letter was. No longer would you
see those instructions as something Becky had to do to earn my love, maintain
our relationship or make me happy but you would now see them as a guide to
ensure that our love could be experienced in its fullness and depth of
sweetness. You may even desire to be in such a loving relationship yourself.
Yet, because you read my letter out of context,
apart from the loving message in the beginning, all that is seen is law and
instructions on how Becky was to conduct her life, what her actions should be
and what she should do. Rather than seeing Becky as a treasured jewel, loved
beyond measure and that which I desire more than my very life, you may walk
away feeling that if Becky doesn’t act certain ways, perform the way I want her
to my love for her will not be as rich and I will be strongly displeased with
her. Rather than seeing that these instructions and directions are there
because I love her you may see them as a measuring stick for me as to determine
how much I think Becky loves me.
In the halls of Christendom can be heard those
reading page 3 of my letter to Becky without beginning at the beginning of the
letter, for example, as they expound on a passage like 1 Peter 4:7-10
uncovering truths, instructions and directions found in this passage.
Nonetheless, just as with those who are found reading page three of my letter
these truths leave their listeners with the feeling that there are indeed
things they can do to improve their lives, be happier, find within themselves
the answers to maintaining their relationship with God and ensure that God’s
love flows freely.
Yet, just as the reader who did not start at the
beginning of my letter but page three read my letter out of context so does the
expositor who begins in 1 Peter 4:7-10 without reminding their listeners of the
gospel truths found 1 Peter 1:1-6. Not only do they take the passage out of
context, but the expositor has also failed to meet the need. They surely have
given most of their listeners what they want but not what they need.
On any given Sunday morning in the great lecture
halls can be found the Samaritan woman at the well. She has come back to the
well to draw from the well the same polluted water she has drawn before. Water
that is polluted from the words “do more, it’s up to you,” “try harder,” “change
this and step it up.” The water she is drawing can never sustain her, will
always leave her thirsting for more and having to return to the same polluted
well. Life is not happy, she knows that life is not as it should be, she’s
searching for something that will bring her what she so desperately longs for,
to be loved, to matter and to be significant.
Along with the Samaritan woman can be found the
daylong laborers who have labored tirelessly doing all that they thought was
right. Yet, they now see others who have not labored as they have and are now
secretly crying out unfair. They are unhappy that their lives don’t seem to be
as easy as those who appear to have labored less. They are in search of that
which will enable them to make their labor easier. They want better
instructions for next week so that they will not feel so drained, so tired, so
worn out from laboring so tirelessly.
Along with the Samaritan woman and the daylong laborers
is found the self-righteous brother. They have seen their brothers and sisters
who showed very little love to the father, who didn’t act the way a son should
obtain blessings, their inheritance, their reward, life as they wanted and now,
they feel unloved. They feel they have lived life as they should, done all the
right things, said all the right things and yet life is not working as they
feel it should.
Not only is life not working as it should, but
they also find those who call themselves brothers and sisters getting more,
though not living as they should. They are found questioning the Father’s love
for them, wondering why the Father feels so distant and why it feels that the
Father’s love is not flowing freely towards them.
If they have come to the hall to listen to the
great orator expound on the truths of 1 Peter 4:7-10 then the Samaritan woman
may find herself getting instructions on how to have a better marriage, how to
have better communication, how to be a better mate, how to draw water from the
polluted well better or how to even change the well they are drawing from to a
different well. The daylong laborer will find what they came for, as well. They
will surely find instructions on how to improve their labors, how to change
their work habits, how to invest their money so that they do not have to work
as hard or retire early and how to work differently. The self-righteous better
will indeed find; “how-to” steps on maintaining their relationship with the
Father, improving their relationship with the father, removing the restrictions
on the relationship with the Father so that love flows freely and how to please
the Father so that the Father smiles on them with more favor.
The expositor though who only reads from page
three of my letter or 1 Peter 4:7-10 has taken truths out of context and thus
will do more harm than good. As they leave their listeners with hope in their
ability to change, be different, do better and step up their game. Their
listeners remain self-reliant, self-sufficient and feeling it lies within them
to make life work, easier and maintain their relationship with the Father. They
have not dispensed the water that quenches the thirst of the Samaritan woman
that causes her to leave stating, “never has such a man told me such things.”
Surely others have dispensed the same or similar
advice that will tell her how to have a happier marriage and make life work.
The daylong laborer has been told how to make his labors easier, no doubt. And
the self-righteous brother has been given how-to steps in having a closer walk
with the Father, right?
This begs the question will giving them more of
what they have heard really change their life or meet what they really need? If
the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again, while
expecting different results then why do we think that hearing hints and shades
of the same instructions and directions just packaged differently really will
create change in us? Do we really believe that found within those who simply
expound on truths that allow us to keep looking within will enable us to
experience rest from our labors and increase our knowledge of the love of the
Father?
It is the failure, fault, and weakness of the
expositor who gives no thought to the fact that his listeners are made up of
the Samaritan woman, the daylong laborer, and the self-righteous brother. Thus
giving them nothing more than that which they want, rather what they need. What
they want is answers, instructions, and change that will enable them to make
life easier, happier and better. What they need is to be broken of such
efforts, to reminded over, over and over again that life is found outside of
them.
In order to give this, the expositor must
recognize that what their listeners really are in search of is to be loved,
significant and to know they matter. The expositor is only able to meet these
needs when he begins at the beginning, not the middle. When before going to 1
Peter 4:7-10 he keeps his exposition grounded in the gospel found in 1 Peter 1:1-6.
No matter how many
times they have started at the beginning of the letter. Only here will
the Samaritan woman be awakened to a life-changing love and desire instructions
not to gain but to give. The daylong laborer will no longer seek to labor for
life but labor because they have found life. And the self-righteous brother is
able to see how deeply His Father loves not because they have earned or
entitled to it, but because it is a one-way love that comes from the Father and
flows freely.
The following video is a sermon preached by Pat Badstibner, president of World Prayr, Inc. He was preaching at The Mill Church in South Carolina. Pat and his team are responsible for the book Walking in God’s Grace.
Last night I had the privilege of chatting with Harvey Brown, Jr., author of the book Forgiveness: Finding Freedom from Your Past in the Topical Line Drives series.
One of the key lines, which I paraphrase, was when Harvey said that if a pastor truly preached grace and forgiveness every week from the pulpit he would be called a heretic.
I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.
Paul is the theologian of grace. God’s grace transformed his life, turning him from persecutor to proclaimer, and assuring him that he was a new creation, despite his past behavior. Over the years, many who see themselves as Pauline theologically believe that God does everything and that we do nothing. Left to our own devices, we are lost, completely self-centered, and without virtue. We can claim nothing of our own but must attribute every good work to God. An example of this occurred when I congratulated a seminarian on her fine sermon. Her immediate response was, “It wasn’t me. It was all God.” I was tempted to say, “I thought I saw you preaching, not God.” And, I wondered how she would respond if her sermon was roundly criticized. Would she have given glory to God or cast herself entirely on God’s mercy, confessing her own sinfulness and inability to do anything apart from God’s grace?
I believe that Paul is the apostle of creativity as well as grace. In Philippians 2:12-13, Paul sounds much more Wesleyan, almost a process theologian, and not the more passive Lutheran or Calvinist he’s often made out to be. “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure” or, as I paraphrase these words, “Work out your salvation with awe and excitement, for God is moving energetically in your life, inspiring you to follow and embody God’s vision.”
Philippians 2:12-13 suggests a dynamic call and response. God calls us with possibilities, aiming us in each moment toward beauty and taking us from individualistic self-interest to world loyalty. God’s grace is prior but aims us toward creativity and freedom. God wants us to do more rather than less, and places the future of our planet primarily in our hands, though undergirded by divine possibility.
There is a divine-human dance of call and response. God is in the business of inspiring us to be more than we could have asked or imagined of ourselves. God seeks maximal creativity and freedom congruent with the well-being of creation.
God wants us to be active and is happy for us to be proud of our achievements in the same way as a parent wants her or his child to build on the upbringing he or she has received and go places the parent has not imagined. The world God is creating moment by moment is not a zero sum universe in which human achievement takes away from God’s power. It is an open system in which the more that we do positively, the more God is able to do in the universe. When we are faithful, we open up new possibilities for divine action in the world.
Grace is always prior, but our responses invite God to make new responses. Grace liberates, inspires, and activates new freedoms. We are more in line with grace when we become graceful creators ourselves. Accordingly, we can positively say about a sermon or any other achievement, “I’m proud that my sermon made a difference. God and I were working on this together, and we both deserve credit.” And we can imagine God in the congregation saying, “Atta boy, Atta girl, you did well. You have blessing to do more!”
Yes, God is working in all things. Yes, God wants us to affirm the fruits of our labors, giving thanks for grace, and making a commitment to do more for God’s glory and the well-being of the world. (For more on this theme, see Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God and Philippians: A Participatory Study Guide)
[slideshow_deploy id=’2461′]
Click on any picture for more information or to order
When I first got onto Twitter a few months ago I met a wonderful man of God, Patrick Badstibner, founder of World Prayr (on Twitter). At the time, World Prayr was mostly forwarding prayer requests via Twitter, so of course I followed and soon we became more acquainted and I got involved with World Prayr as well.
I’m pleased to be able to present this blog post, the first in a series of monthly posts by Pat, to our Energion Publications family. We will be presenting a number of other guest posts over the next few months, so keep your eyes open, subscribe to our RSS feed, or come back frequently.
And check the World Prayr organization and the World Prayr devotional blog as well. You’ll find a dynamic and growing group of Christians who are practicing the second great command, to love their neighbors as themselves, and thereby practicing the first command as well. (more…)
