“Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee and had provided for him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matthew 27: 55-56).
They were there, as they had been there throughout Jesus’ ministry. The names of most are lost to us, with the exception of two or three.
They had supported Jesus and the other, more celebrated, disciples: provided food, shelter, shared out of what they had, whether it was much or little. And when Jesus turned his face to go to Jerusalem, they followed him to that great city.
They saw the acclamation he received as he came down the Mount of Olives and heard much of the teaching he did in the week that followed (though not all, as they would not have been allowed into the men’s court of the temple).
They both provided for him and sat at his feet in the evenings at Bethany. One of them anointed his head with oil, letting her prophetic actions speak louder than words: This Jesus is the Messiah, the Anointed One, the true King of Israel.
That the other, more famous, disciples misunderstood her actions didn’t strike any of them as unusual. Besides, weren’t prophets always misunderstood in their own country?
Jesus knew what she meant; the women understood the meaning of his words and saw the truth on his face.
They were there, these women, these other disciples, to the end. Unnoticed during his arrest, his trial and his sentencing by Pilate, their presence is attested to in all of the Gospels at the Place of the Skull, that killing field for crucifixion.
They were watching, we are told, from a distance. And in that watching they become the witnesses that God would use to proclaim that this Jesus, the beloved Son of God, truly suffered and truly died.
He was fully human in his forsaken agony, but even as he cried out his desolation to his Father in heaven, he still was not totally alone. The women, his faithful followers, were there.
The Bible is full of strong women, women who do amazing things, who give of themselves and pour out their lives for their husbands, their children and their communities.
Judges and prophetesses, queens and princesses, widows and childless daughters-in-law, we note their stories and wonder how they could have borne so much.
Some names we know, as a few come out of the shadows when their stories intertwine with that of the major male players; but most are anonymous, or only recognized as the wife or daughter of this or that man.
But the strongest women of all, I believe, must be these women who are there when their Lord was crucified. It causes me to tremble; it should cause all of us to tremble at the quiet depth of strength these women possessed, watching that most agonizing of deaths.
The men whose names we know, famous as The Twelve, they had no stomach for this watching and waiting. But these mostly unnamed women knew how to attend to the dying.
Even when all they can do is be there, bearing witness so that the truth of the matter can be told and never forgotten; even when it seems that the only story to be told will be that of a dearly beloved Teacher who was cruelly sent to a death he did not deserve; even so, they fulfill the role to which God had called them.
They watch and pray with Jesus, not for one hour, but for a whole day, until he breathes his last. And when the darkness is rapidly encroaching upon them, they watch his precious body being laid hastily in a tomb.
It is the witness of these strong women that we honor every time we proclaim the Lord’s death and resurrection, every time we open the Bible to the story of the Passion. Because they were strong, steadfast and defiant of the forces of the Empire, they could go on to tell the story of what happened on that Friday we have come to call Good.
Their witness enabled the Passion story to be told, written and passed on through the generations and centuries.
They are the Christ-bearers to the nations, making disciples as the events that they witnessed are read and told, again and again. And while it is the men who are credited with being the evangelists, it is the witness of these strong women that makes it possible to have any story to tell.
Were you there when they crucified my Lord? Yes, these women say; yes, we were there.
We will tell you what we saw, on that day and three days later, when the stone was rolled away and the horror of that Friday was replaced with the surprising joy of meeting Jesus on the road.
Centuries later, we who read their witness must give thanks to God for these strong women. Truly, without them, we would have no gospel story at all.
Erma Wolf is an ordained pastor seeking a call to an ELCA parish. She is also part of the adjunct faculty for the Institute of Lutheran Theology.
Good article, I think your last sentence is a little over the top though. The apostle John is a pretty good story teller, and he was standing near by.
When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He said to His mother, "Woman, behold, your son!" John 19:26
The cross is essential for Christian witness. Women have certainly seen plenty of that, too, with all of the violence and discrimination they have suffered (and continue to suffer today). But isn't it even more impressive that it is to these same women that the risen Christ first appears? Mary is the first to witness to the risen Christ and proclaims the Good News to the disciples.
One growing concern in some parts of the church today is the replacement of Christ with Sophia so that the Trinity can be described entirely in feminine terms. And yet, this has happened due to a need for a feminist theology. Instead of Sophia, what kind of feminist theology can we build from the discipleship of the women at the cross and at the empty tomb?
Is that you Peter?
Christ Sophia? I thought Miss Wolf may have embellished a wee bit on the importance of these women, with regards to the gospel story being nonexistent without them. But I don't think she is part of the "Christ Sophia" worshipping crowd within the ELCA.
Hi davebob,
Yes, it is me. I think you misunderstood my question. I'm not suggesting Pr Wolf would confess Sophia as the Second Person of the Trinity. I'm saying that there is a need for feminist theology in the church. The easiest way to do that is to make God entirely female. That runs into problems, most especially with the incarnation, and risks losing the Gospel message. Instead of doing things that way, my question is if we can build a feminist theology based on the predominance of women at the cross, and more importantly, their central role at the empty tomb and in the story of the resurrection.
OMG!!! Peter,
Why are we denying the masculinity of God? Should men now curse women for not being able to bare children? Should men feel guilty for even thinking about procreating? Should men think lesser of women for being able to do things that men are unable to do? What is the order of God's creation? People of the ELCA...RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!!
Peter, I love debating with you, but I have to tell you, you and the ELCA's herchurch.org crowd are on a downward spiral. You will diversify yourselves out of existence.
lol davebob,
Are you really that threatened by God not being 100% masculine? Does gender even apply to a transcendent being? To answer your questions, no; see Matt 5:28; no, but we do; and orders of creation have nothing to do with any gender or gender role we assign to God.
Aside from all of that, though, this is about inculturation of the Gospel, which is making the Gospel promise intelligible to people of different places/cultures/etc. This is the crux of Galatians-- Paul is defending the Gospel as proclaimed to the Gentiles, even though circumcision is not required. Inculturation today is something even as simple as translating the Bible-- we don't require anyone to know Greek and Hebrew in order to be Christian, and a lot of missionary efforts go to putting the Bible in the common language. One challenge in that is finding appropriate words in the native language. Think of Native American culture, for example. Their word for God is basically 'Great Spirit'. Except that they have a very different conception of this Great Spirit than we do of God the Father. How then do you translate the Bible into a Native American tongue?
Similarly, the church takes on different forms in differnt times and places. Even staying within the Catholic church, try listening to a Latin American liberation theologian, an African Catholic, a North American Catholic and a European one.
While I don't deny that there is plenty of room to lose the Gospel when speaking in any culture, it still must be made intelligible in the words of that culture.
Which brings us to feminism. As men, you and I have not lived with the prejudice and sexism most of our female friends have had to deal with on a daily basis in our culture, institutions and way of life. Even in the ELCA, ordained women still face battles solely because they are female, as though that somehow prevents them from proclaiming the Gospel. To many women, a male God becomes the head of the institutionalized repression of women, bringing only death, and not life. Salvation by this God is understood as being put back in your lowly place and being made a slave forever. What is needed is salvation from this God, not salvation by this kind of God. In a lot of ways, we identify this Patriarchal Oppressor as our God, and people identify that as a false idol, and run from us and our so-called Christ. Identifying the First Person of the Trinity as female is thus helpful in communicating who God is to people oppressed by patriarchy. However, there are other problems that arise with trying to make God entirely female, especially in light of God's incarnation.
You probably don't see a need for feminist theology. That's fine... it's not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are a lot of women, though, for whom a feminist theology best conveys what we are trying to express in all of our creeds and confessions. I wonder if we can convey what we want to say by starting from the trust of the women at the cross and at the tomb instead of from needing to assign gender to God.
I don't know Peter,
I guess I just don't get it. So I'll leave it at that. It's no wonder why the ELCA, and other liberal churches are losing numbers, while the non-denominations, and conservative churches are gaining. It's just not the church your dad and mom used to go to any more.
Talk to you later
Interesting comments, even if the last few (dealing with feminist theology, the possible use of the Sophia-concept, and whether women can handle the way God has been spoken of in orthodox Christian liturgy and theology) seem to me a bit removed from what I had written.
What is interesting to speculate on (and speculation is as far as I think anyone can go) is what the written Gospels would look like without the witness of the women not only at the tomb but at the cross, and at many places where Jesus ministered before the time of his Passion. I think I get a bit of an idea of that sort of gospel when reading any number of recent writers, some scholarly and some more popular, especially someone like Crossan. The witness of the women at the crucifixion and the burial of Jesus vanishes completely. For me it is evidence that discounting the witness of women is not something that only happens in traditional Christian circles, but in "liberal" ones as well. When the women and their witness drops out, then the Gospel is changed, and in the hands of some becomes no gospel at all.
Did I overstate my case in the last few sentences? Perhaps a bit, but it was hyperbole for a purpose. There is a saying that 90 percent of life consists of just showing up. Well, these women disciples of Jesus showed up (and yes, so did the Beloved Disciple, but the women are attested to in all 4 Gospel accounts, and so I gave them a bit more credit for telling the story of what happened on that Friday). And on Easter, they show up again, out of love for him who had died. I know why Jesus appeared to them first, and gave them the commission to go and tell the others.
All the disciples, both male and female, are needed for the true gospel story to be told. The question still is, do we believe the women when they tell us what they saw?
Miss Wolf,
I don’t think it’s a crime to speculate on the facts, and the very strong circumstantial evidence relating to the contributions of women to the gospel story. I agree that these women had a very strong influence on the final product of the gospel story. And as you can see by my previous comments, I didn’t think you were part of the feminist theology, (herchurch.org) crowd. I even think that a good imagination, grounded in facts, and sound circumstantial evidence, should try to lift up people who would have otherwise gone unnoticed. I think you did a pretty fair job of that, and I think that’s a good cause.
But if we stray too far from fact when lifting up one particular class of people; good cause can start to look like agenda. And there is a lot of "agenda" in our church these days.
Looking forward to your next blog.
I recently read a book entitled "Misquoting Jesus," written by a scholar who has been studying the oldest Biblical texts. There is a chapter in his book on how changes were made to the Bible in an effort to repress the ministry of women. Throughout history women have been abused and repressed. But remember the message in Mark, Chapter 10, the first shall be last, and the last shall be first in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Gees Rachael,
Have you not heard of any men being “abused and repressed”? It seems to me that all through history “people” have been abused and repressed. Not just women. People of every race, culture, religion, and sex have been enslaved by people of some other race, culture, religion, or sex. Has there never been a woman who abused a man before? I’ve got to tell you, there have been not just a few good men in this world who have laid their lives down to protect women and children. Remember, it was those big harry armed brutes who gently lowered the life boats into the water on the Titanic. I think some of those male chauvinist pigs just might be first in the kingdom of heaven. I may have lived a sheltered life, but it’s been my experience that men and women are abusing each other on a rather equal basis these days. Is it men that are getting better than they use to be, or are women getting worse? I’ll bet things are pretty much the way they have always been.
davebob,
How exactly does the abuse of a man by a woman justify men abusing women? Or is the argument that we shouldn't care about abuse or repression because it has happened to people in the past? Is this really a zero-sum game for you, where women can only be given dignity and equality if we label all men as "harry armed brutes" and "male chauvinist pigs"?
Let's back up a bit and talk briefly about feminism. Feminism is believing that men and women should be treated equally. That's it. No bra-burning required, nor any need to label all men as evil chauvinist pigs. It's also not about setting up a matriarchy to replace the patriarchy, though there are a lot of women who are really really angry because of the way they have been treated specifically by men because they are women. That anger isn't feminism. So, let's start at the base: are there any roles/professions/jobs/vocations/etc in which men and women should not be treated equally?
While all violence and abuse is to be condemned, there is one arena in which men commit just about all of the crimes, and the majority of those against women: rape. Can you empathize at all with anyone who's been raped? Even after the physical violence and violation and helplessness, and aside from the possibility of becoming pregnant, there's the shame, the blame, the ostracism as everyone calls you the slut, being told that you had it coming, that it couldn't possibly have been rape because you were wearing jeans, and quite possibly being expected to continue working alongside the man who did that to you as though nothing happened.
As a society, we have made good strides in recognizing women as people instead of property. That doesn't mean we're done.
To Rachel's point, there is evidence both for a strong role of women in the early church, and that role has been diminished, thanks in no small part to Tertullian. But instead of believing us, or Ehrman, look both to the NT and to the data from the first few centuries. In the NT, note all of the women paying for Paul's journeys and that Paul specifically recommends various women. And this in NT times. There's also the witness of the Acts of Paul and Thecla, which isn't Scripture, but does indicate the extent to which women were a driving force in the early church. Finally, there's the way in which Christianity was propagated in the Roman empire, part of which was that the women of a household converted, and then raised their kids Christian, even if the husband never converted.
Peter, you're back,
You take my sarcasm too seriously. My point is that I don't think it's helpful to suggest that women are the only recipients of poor treatment. And because its only women being abused, that only leaves men as the guilty party. I feel bad for all the evil that has taken place in the past. The truth of the matter is that women are in need of a savior just as much as men. No more, No less. We are all responsible for our own actions; not the actions of our ancestors, or our race, or our gender as a collective. To make a statement like "Throughout history women have been abused and repressed" and women will somehow be first in the Kingdom of heaven, is casting a very wide net. John the Baptist lost his head upon the request of a young woman. He was the greatest man to ever live according to Jesus. There is plenty of evil to go around. It was men and women going into the ovens in Germany. It was men and women being brought from Africa in slavery. But it was mainly men who were killed by Stalin, Mau, Pole pot, to the total of over 100,000,000 souls. Come on, It hasn't been a cake walk for men either.
davebob,
Sarcasm like that is one of the reasons why some people who have been badly hurt distrust Christian orthodoxy and look elsewhere for salvation. You're the only one who's said anything about only women being abused, or that they were only abused at the hands of men. Sarcasm is also a defense mechanism. Why all of this defense?
We are responsible for our own actions, but part of those is living as people of a specific race and gender with specific traditions in history. Collectively, we have the ability to discriminate and bring death. Are we going to do that, or at least try to build a just society? Can't we say that any violence against women is too much violence and that we want to reduce it? Bringing up violence against men in this case is as logically connected to violence against women as discussing the general problem of gun violence, or violence in Mexico. People are oppressed for reasons other than gender, meaning yes, plenty of men have been oppressed as well. That doesn't diminish the problems of sexism or violence against women. And why do we need to diminish the problem in the first place? Is it fear of failing to measure up? Past sins? Were you or someone close to you the victim or perpetrator of violence like this?
Interesting side note about John the Baptist. When saying John is the greatest of those born of women, Jesus also says that the least in the Kingdom of God is greater than John. That implies John isn't in the Kingdom of God.
I don't know whether a woman or a man is the first into the Kingdom of God, unless you're counting Jesus, who is first because He is God, and not a male. What does it matter? Why take umbrage that a woman might be the first into the Kingdom of God? For all we know, it could be a transgendered person, or someone of ambiguous gender. That person will be there because of Christ and not because of gender identity, though.
As usual peter,
You have out done yourself again! No, I'm not a victim or perp, as I said in my previous post, I must have lived a sheltered life. All this stuff about transgendered, ambiguous gendered, transsexual, goddesses, John the Baptist not being of the kingdom of God, the gospel story being nonexistent without women.....is new to me. I guess I will have to find a Bible that has less Tertullian influence, and more Ehrman. Who knew?
Talk to you later Peter
davebob,
Tertullian was one of the early church fathers ~200 AD. Although he became a Montanist (like early church Pentacostals, though interestingly one of the leaders of Montanism claimed Christ appeared to her in female form), Tertullian's writings are the first witness to the Trinitarian formula.
Bart Ehrman is a current popular author whose books include Misquoting Jesus. He was raised Baptist or something like that, went on to pursue NT studies, learned the historical-critical method, and then lost his faith when that method undermined his biblicism and left nothing in its place. Suffering was the clincher for him.
As to reading the Bible, I recommend looking at every book therein from a Law/Promise angle. Where is God's word of condemnation? Where is God's promise of salvation?
Hey Peter,
You are too late. Being ignorant of both Tertullian and Ehrman, I googled both of them to become more informed. Thanks though.
As far as Law / Promise angle, what I have learned from reading the Bible puts me right smack dab in between being a antinomian and a legalist. I try as hard as I can to trust in Christ's forgiveness, but I still feel guilty for my sin. I feel if I ever start trusting in Christ's forgiveness too much I might lose respect for sin, and be less inclined to fight off temptation. I just can't help myself. I feel safest there.
Hi davebob,
Antinomian-legalism is a false dichotomy, becaues all points on that spectrum lead to condemnation, even if you try to sit in the middle. Whether or not you acknowledge the Law or strive to keep it, two things still happen: 1) we're condemned by it and 2) we don't get saved by it. In that sense, the Law is helpful only in showing us where we fall short. Righteousness under the Law does bring rewards, but they are earthly rewards-- when you're nice to others, they are more likely to be nice back to you, for example. So good works are to be commended-- and in theory you should be able to explain to an atheist why they're good-- but they don't get to the problem Christianity addresses. That problem is how to reconcile sinners, all of us who have rebelled against God and fail to measure up to His righteousness. Law is helpful here only as a diagnostic agent-- it reveals the need for salvation. It's also important to see Law in more than just Scripture; that feeling of guilt is the Law written on your heart.
Christ's forgiveness is not something you can trust "too much". It is a new creation, no longer bound to sin and death. God looks on it and says "good". The thing is that we live in the tension between sinner and saint. The Old Adam (or Eve) lives within us still, up until God puts the old creation to death. That's not the same tension as nomian-antinomian, nor does sin just leave the world because we now trust that Christ will forgive us our sins.
Hey Peter,
I understand the Bible and Christian theology, I am just unable to put it into perfect practice. I am very concerned about my sin, and very joyous I found Christ. I don't think antinomian-legalism is a false dichotomy. There are those who think as soon as you confess Jesus, you are free to sin without risk of losing salvation. And there are those who would have us try to work our way to heaven through keeping the law and doing good works. I think it is very important to keep the law and do good works, and I think it equally important to place my faith in Jesus for forgiveness. If I'm going to be in error, Its going to be on the side being afraid of a just God. Maybe I'm not smack dab in the middle; I must be one click on the legalist side.
davebob,
I don't think we're quite on the same page as regards Christian theology or even the Bible (such as the authorship of John's Gospel, for one). To be blunt, I think you have a legalist understanding of grace. You seem to be of the opinion that without the Law to restrain sin, we all just run amok doing all sorts of awful things. Which, so far as sin goes, is true. However, Christ takes away the sin. What need is there for the Law if the sin it restrains is gone? Could a sinner run amok without the Law inscribed in the land and in that person's heart? Certainly. But what about a saint? What use is the Law for one trusting in Christ? That's not saying the Law does not matter; it's saying that Christ is an entirely new way of doing business. It's also important to observe that in this life none of us fully trust Christ; our faith is weak and imperfect. But it's not our imperfect faith that saves us so much as the perfect object of our faith.
Hey Peter,
The law can not restrain sin. People, following the law written on their hearts, restrain from sin individually; and I would say for good reason. Why else would we need the law written on our hearts if we don’t need the law? To drive us to Christ who tells us “if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out”, then “go and sin no more”; but if you do sin, “I will take that sin away” (all paraphrasing of course). What’s not to understand Peter? Should we go on sinning so grace can abound? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? I would argue that if we continue to live in purposeful, unrepentant rebellion (breaking the law) against God, we are not dead to sin; we are alive to it and living in it, even if we do proclaim truth of Jesus.
I would ask you Peter, if we have a man that believes in the saving grace of Christ, but refuses to obey even the least of God’s laws. He knows he is sinning because he knows the law and is a biblical scholar, but believes he is dead to sin because he now knows Jesus; he is free to go on sinning guilt free. He cheats on his wife and beats her. He molests his own children. He steals money from charity. He won’t help his starving parents. He murders people. He takes the Lords name in vain, and makes a graven image of Him. And he does all of this completely free from guilt or remorse. And he doesn’t feel any guilt or remorse because he believes that Christ has taken sin from the world. He believes that nothing can separate him from the love of Christ, and Christ’s power to save him. Will he be saved?
If you answer yes, you are antinomian. If you answer no, welcome aboard Peter, you have some legalistic qualities about you.
I would argue that before one can acknowledge the need for a savior, one has to feel the need for a savior. The only feelings that make us have a need for Christ are feelings like guilt, shame and remorse. Why, because we know we have broken God’s law. Guilt, shame and remorse bring us to repentance and to the foot of the cross. Even though we have been saved, we still don’t like to feel guilt, shame and remorse, so we try to follow God's law. And in trying not to sin, it just so happens, we are pleasing God. So if trying to follow the law makes me a legalist, we are not on the same page.
Hi davebob,
The First Use of the Law is to restrain sin in ordering society. That Law restrains sinners all the time, when they get thrown in prison, fined, killed and otherwise punished. Yes, guilt is part of that restraint as well, but not the only one.
Second Use of the Law is to drive us to Christ. That is the Law telling us that we have failed to earn righteousness, and our efforts at such turning out as dust. The Second Use leaves no out, no way for us to win a positive judgment from God, except for Christ alone and only.
Your example is fundamentally flawed, in the sense of speculating on what the color red must sound like, or 'can a good tree bear bad fruit?'. Trust in Christ is not head-knowledge, like knowing that the US is trillions in debt, or knowing that Obama is the president. Trust in Christ receives the new creation that God makes within us. That new creation is good. In every sense of the term. It's not only understood as a lack of guilt, but guilt is no longer needed. To address your example, he couldn't do all of those things you say as a result of trusting Christ.
Guilt, shame and remorse are not the only feelings that drive people to need Christ. Famine, murder, injustice, poverty, and others also drive people to Christ. See especially liberation theologies (and feminist theologies). Anything and everything that crushes us down to where we can only cry 'Lord, have mercy!' is Second Use of the Law. Nor do I think it goes guilt->repentance->cross->forgiveness. That's still works-righteousness in that it suggests our repentance is necessary for the other things (cross/forgiveness) to occur. I believe repentance is one of the outcomes of the forgiveness God grants to us on Christ's behalf. It is that healing event that ends our rebellion against God and sets us back on the narrow path. It is only from that vantage that we can really be repentant.
Also, we don't please God by trying not to sin. That's back to being saved by the Law-- that we make God happy by not sinning or by attempting to not sin. If we're playing the 'trying not to sin' game, we're under the Law, and judged by the Law, which comes up 'guilty'. We please God by trusting the Christ that God has sent us.
Third Use of the Law is the first two uses of the Law lived out again and again in the life of the Christian, including that final use we don't survive. It's still not a pleasing-God game, even though the Law remains present in our life, Christian or not.
Hey Peter,
Laws have never restrained sin, punishment for breaking the law does. Laws without consequences or punishment get broken more often.
I didn't say he did all those things as a result of knowing Christ, I said he is confident in his salvation, and thus doesn't feel guilt or remorse because he knows Christ and knows there will be no punishment in the afterlife. So I'll take it by your dodging the question that you say he will be saved.
We do please God by trying not to sin. And we anger God by sinning. If we could have gone without sin, God wouldn't have had to send his only child to die for us. That's why we get punished for sinning; Because it makes God angry, and if we don't sin, it is like sweet music to God ears.
We do have to work for our salvation by acknowledging Christ as Lord, admit we are sinners, ask for forgiveness, and repent of your sin, ask the Lord to come in to your life.
I not only think we are on same page, we are in different books.
Hi davebob,
Luther writes that all of our own good works and attempts at righteousness are as dirty rags where God is concerned. Don't forget Luke 17:9-10; not sinning is the expectation, the bare minimum... not the good deed that we do over and above what we should have done. Yes, sinning does put us under God's wrath, and that's why we have the Law. As I've been using it, Law is a pretty packed term. It's not just the list of 'do's and don't's', but also God's enforcement of the Law, which we see borne out in the consequences of our actions. The curse of the Law of which Paul speaks is not just feeling a little guilty over stepping out of line, but the life-breaking and death-dealing systems we are stuck with and in as a result of our own doing.
To your example, I was not trying to dodge the question because it made be uncomfortable, but it is a nonsensical question. It's not possible to simultaneously trust Christ and commit atrocities. I believe that he could commit atrocities, and then turn to Christ, that he could be a Christian, turn away from Christ, commit atrocities and later return to Christ. Turning to Christ is not just head knowledge, or a formulaic recitation of 'Jesus saves me'; it's a trust in Christ's life-giving death and resurrection that changes our lives. Repentance is one word to describe the encounter with Christ, as is Regeneration or renewal, but all of these words are not actions that we must elect to do so much as descriptions of what happens when we encounter Jesus.
Hey Peter,
Words like repent are actions (or works) that we all must do BEFORE we encounter the kingdom of God. Not descriptions of what happens when we encounter Jesus, like you said in your last sentence. John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter and Paul, below, are all TELLING people to DO THESE THINGS, and THEN you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Repentance and believing are requirements to salvation. And I believe repentance and believing must never end or you are not of God.
Matthew 3:2 “Repent for the kingdom is near”
Mark 1:15 “The kingdom is near”. Repent and believe the good news
Mathew 4:17 “From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near.”
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 20:21 I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.
It is possible to simultaneously trust Christ and commit atrocities. People have committed atrocities in the name of Christ. Christians make mistakes all the time; BAD ONES. They then REPENT, ask for forgiveness, and try not to sin again. That's not works.
That’s why I mentioned remorse and guilt in my example. If a sinner goes on living in purposeful, unrepentant sin, I don’t believe he was saved in the first place, and therefore the answer is no, he won’t be saved.
That’s why people are afraid when the church, and not the Bible, starts declaring what is sin and what is not sin. If people stop repenting of a particular sin because someone told them that God is now blessing this action, it might turn out badly.
It's bad works that condemn us to Hell; and good works can’t get us out. The only time good works is not pleasing to God is when they are done to achieve salvation without Christ. Then they are as filthy rags.
davebob,
We all go on living in purposeful, unrepentant sin. Can you make it even one day without violating one of the 10 Commandments? Will there ever be a point in your life when you can say 'finally got the 8th Commandment down', or 'finally got the 4th Commandment down'? In fact, if you really had enough remorse and guilt for all of your sins in the first place, you'd be suicidal. Or is there a valuation of how much remorse is enough remorse?
Another problem this creates is unknowing sin. If you have to know exactly what your sins are in order to repent of them, failing to know your sins condemns you to Hell, and then there is a sin (failing to know your sins) that can prevent your salvation. On the other hand, if you confess 'sins known and unknown' (like we do now in the ELW), you're covered! In which case, it doesn't really matter what the church thinks is a sin. And the church has been really wrong already on some really big ones (Gentiles and slavery to name two). If the whole point of Jesus' death and resurrection is that us humans have screwed up the righteousness business so God has come to bail us out, don't you think God is going to bail out especially those people who have been misled by so-called Christians?
As to salvation, there is one thing necessary, and that is faith in God's promise. That faith certainly brings about repentance, and carries certain convictions about the nature of God, but it is faith. For examples:
John 4:5-26, the Samaritan woman never confesses any sins to Jesus, nor does she come asking to be forgiven for living with a man who isn't her husband.
Mark 7:24-30, no mention of any need for the Syrophoenician woman's daughter to repent. In fact, the daughter is healed because of the woman's faith, which also doesn't involve a repentance on her part.
John 8:1-11, the woman caught in adultery never repents prior to forgiveness by Christ. Jesus asks if anyone is left to accuse her, then tells her that he doesn't either, and then sends her out and says 'sin no more'.
I don't think I'm conveying everything I mean to when I talk about trusting Christ. It's not just wearing the label and saying 'I'm a Christian' and going to church and stuff. It's being a child of God.
Most importantly, the problem with setting up repentance and believing as works that must be done to gain God's salvation is that it runs contrary to the Augsburg Confession. Instead of salvation being via Jesus' death and resurrection alone and only, it becomes through Jesus' death and resurrection only when we first repent.
Hey Peter,
I don't know any Christians who live in purposeful, unrepentant sin. Or non Christians for that matter.
No, I can't make it through one day, that's why I ask for forgiveness, and repent. But I do refrain from sin all the time. I have become tempted, but at the last moment turned (repented). And my Guilt and remorse diminishes greatly after I confess. This keeps me from suicide.
If you do not know you have sinned, you are not guilty. You cannot confess to that which you don't know.
You need only tell your heavenly father you have sinned. I don't think he requires a detailed list of what He already knows.
No, I don't think God is in the business of bailing people out. He is in the business of saving people who realize they are sinners and are in desperate need of a savior. They seek him because of guilt and remorse. God wants to forgive them their sins when they ask for forgiveness, repent, and put their faith in God's son. He promises to always forgive them their sins when they do this.
You don't know what the Samaritan woman confessed to before she died; which is when you officially have too if you want to be saved.
The Syrophoenician woman's daughter may have not been saved in the end. Healing and salvation are two different things.
Again, the woman caught in adultery may not have been saved. There is no record of all of the people Jesus had interactions with after Jesus spoke to them. I strongly suspect they became believers, asked for forgiveness, and repented of their sins and were saved.
We are not saved by repentance. We are save by grace alone, through faith in Christ. Before we can put our faith in anything for salvation, we need to come to the conclusion that we are sinners, and in need of Christ. We seek a savior not because we are happy. It's because we are guilty and feel remorse.
I really don't think I'm being legalistic here Peter. This is not a Gospel for rocket scientist, but it is a little more than some man, or woman as some think, died on a cross a long time ago and we are all saved because of it.
It does make me feel better though seeing other people you are talking with explaining their legalism too. Don't you feel guilt and remorse, ask for forgiveness, and repent?
Hi davebob,
To press the issue of "Christians living in purposeful, unrepentent sin", what about an unmarried couple of either gender living together and having sex on a regular basis? And if this isn't unrepentent sin, why do many in the church act as though this is?
Also, I think your assertion that ignorance protects you from sin is incorrect. On one hand, if ignorance of what you do exonerated you, the church should teach that everything is permitted. It also misses the negative consequences that come from actions done in ignorance, or even those ostensibly intended to help people. Good trees do not bear bad fruit.
The only "condition" we have on God's grace is that we trust the Promise, and that's because promises don't work if they're not trusted. It is as simple as Jesus' death on the cross and subsequent resurrection by God being enough for everyone's salvation. If you trust that Gospel Promise, you are a Christian. Indeed, this is what the Reformers taught in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article IV. See especially 4:1 "men obtain remission of sins not because of their own merits, but freely for Christ's sake, through faith in Christ."
and 4:36-37
"it was very foolish for the adversaries to write that men who are under eternal wrath merit the remission of sins by an act of love, which springs from their mind since it is impossible to love God, unless the remission of sins be apprehended first by faith. For the heart, truly feeling that God is angry, cannot love God, unless He be shown to have been reconciled. As long as He terrifies us, and seems to cast us into eternal death, human nature is not able to take courage, so as to love a wrathful, judging, and punishing God [poor, weak nature must lose heart and courage, and must tremble before such great wrath, which so fearfully terrifies and punishes, and can never feel a spark of love before God Himself comforts]. It is easy for idle men to feign such dreams concerning love, as, that a person guilty of mortal sin can love God above all things, because they do not feel what the wrath or judgment of God is. But in agony of conscience and in conflicts [with Satan] conscience experiences the emptiness of these philosophical speculations."
Healing and salvation are the same thing in the Gospels. In Luke, especially, the same Greek verb, "soozein" gets translated sometimes as healing and sometimes as saving. For example, see Luke 8:12, 36, 50 and 13:23; 19:10. In 8:36 and 50, it's healing; the others it's saving.
This is also why there are contexts where salvation is needed even when there isn't as much guilt and remorse going around. Whereever people cry out for help, salvation is needed. I agree that the Law afflicts us and pushes us to our need for a savior, but that Law is not just spoken through words, but also through deeds. Consider Luther's writings about the Turks-- he said that the rod of God's wrath was behind them, punishing Europe for its sins.
As to whether or not I feel guilt over sinning? Sometimes. A lot of times I think I'm right and that I haven't done anything wrong, and fight all suggestions otherwise. Wanting to be right doesn't make me right, though, and usually I ask God for mercy and to create a new heart within me that lets God be right. Other times I thank God for already having created new life within me. If God has to wait for me to do something, though, I'll be lost in the end, because I cannot do it. Even faith in Christ is a gift from God.
Hey Peter,
This horse has been beaten to death. We are not changing each others minds on anything. I am a law - gospel kind of guy. When I spread the word by evangelizing to non believers it will always include instruction on believing Christ is Lord, admission to sin, asking and accepting forgiveness, repentance from sin, baptism, gathering in worship, living holy lives, fasting, praying, and tithing…etc. All of these works are pleasing to God, and are very important not only for our lives here on earth, but to our salvation, and the salvation of others. These are the things scriptures tell us to do. I will not diminish there importance by telling people they don’t need to be doers of the word, they just need to know of Christ death.
Hi davebob,
I know you want to hold up Law/Gospel theology, but I don't think that's what you're doing. This last most especially is reveals that you leave no room for the Gospel to work-- it's all works and things we must do, and not about what Jesus has done for us.
As I see it, it's been about 2000 years of beating that horse to death, and this is just the most recent dialogue in that tradition. The Scriptures of Jesus' day commanded no working on the Sabbath, and purity, commands that Jesus completely violated (see esp the coming Gospel lesson). The whole point of Galatians is that one doesn't have to become a Jew (ie observe the Law) in order to be a Christian. This is also at the heart of the Reformers' stand: that works play no part in pleasing God or our salvation.
Hey Peter,
You say (“it’s all works and things we must do”) like the works I mentioned are filthy and meaningless. They are not; they are all forms of worship that ALL of the OT and NT writers, and God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) instructed us to do. Not to gain salvation, but because of salvation.
You continue to mention Luther to defend your position on "works are filthy rags", when in reality, Luther would turn over in his grave to hear some of your positions. People of your ilk have taken the "fear of a just God" and turned it into a "come one, come all, no need to leave your sin at the door, bring it with you, enjoy it because Christian are free, WE ARE FREE!"
Look around you Peter. Evil is on the rise. God's work, our hands is not just helping the poor, it means fighting off this evil. We do this by standing up for what is good and right. And we know what is good and right by what the law tell us. And when we stop following the law in our own hearts and lives, society breaks down and evil takes its place. No Peter, the law, and all of the so called "works and things we must do", you know, those dirty rags, are essential. Maybe not as much for our own salvation, as to the people who haven't come to Christ yet. They need to see what the difference between good and evil is. We are losing this battle. There is not much difference between what our culture calls "Christians" than what society calls non religious people. In fact, some atheist are much more "moral" than many in today's church. You would probably say "So, we are all going to heaven anyway, who care how we get there , Mohamed, Buddha,Sophia, no God, whatever, it's all good".
Many in the church are seeing these cracks in society today. They see a Godless socialism and "works" by the government replacing the responsibility of "good" individuals in the church "working" to help out our neighbors. Christians and others, who used to rely on the church when times got hard, are turning to our atheistic government as their "Christ for salvation". The church is not only voluntarily acquiescing this responsibility, it is encouraging people to go there instead of to the loving arms of the Christian community.
We need "works" in Christendom like never before!
davebob,
I'm not saying all works are meaningless, nor that they have no value. I'm saying that they are not a prerequisite to being a Chrsitian, which is a really good thing, because we're all lost if they are. But we must remember Romans 3, that Christ's righetousness is APART from the law. I do agree that good works follow from being saved, though it is crucial to keep that order intact. Also, those good works do not arise as a response to any demand of the law, but as one result of trust in Christ.
If you still remain in sin, you're not free. But the purpose of Christians is to proclaim the Good News to those in sin that they might be healed. So church is the one place sinners most ought to be.
I don't think evil is "on the rise". It's about the same as it's always been, though some groups in some places have more protections than they may have had 50, 100, or 1000 years ago. I think you should check out Bonhoeffer's Ethics, regarding knowing good and evil. The problem isn't that non-Christians don't know good and evil, it's that we all do. And in knowing evil, we are in rebellion against God. See Gen 3-- desiring knowledge of good and evil is original sin. What sets us apart from atheists, etc isn't moral action, but trust in Christ. We carry Christ's light to the nations.
While I won't disagree with your diagnosis of idolizing our government, I don't think you go quite far enough. Because the government is not salvation, and it leaves us still unjustified before God, and we'll end up quite dead. Nor will doing enough "works" fix the problem-- Christ crucified and risen is the only route out.
Hey Peter,
You draw Luther like a gun loaded with Augsburg confessions, and shoot down any position that even hints at suggesting that Christians should be obedient to God by doing good works. You claim to have no problem with good works or the law, but your positions still remain very hostile to any argument that suggests we do them. It must be very hard for you to make your case against good works while dancing around with phrases like "the purpose of Christians is to proclaim" and "church is the one place sinners most ought to be". "Most ought"?, really? This to me sound like you are struggling not to say Christians should do good works. After all, once people accept Christ, there is no "purpose" for them to proclaim Christ. They can go about their way, eating, drinking, and being merry, because their already saved. And why must they "most ought" to be in church? It does them no good. Why would you even hint that people "most ought" to do these things unless there was good reason?
Hi davebob,
That's because obedience to God is not doing good works, but trusting His Messiah. As Luther explains, it there are two kinds of righteousness, which correspond to Law and Gospel. Good works fall under the former-- still good, but in a creation-preserving way. Not in a saving way, or even directly related to being saved. As you stated a few posts back, there are plenty of non-Christians who outdo Christians in this arena. The problem is that it isn't enough.
Christ's righteousness is completely apart from all of that. The only 'you gotta' is trust God's promise that it's freely given on behalf of Christ's death and resurrection alone and only. I say that sinners ought to be in church because that is where they are able to get connected to Christ, and hence saved. They don't get saved by entering a church building, but they do need a Christ-connection, which comes through Word and Sacrament. Proclaiming Christ in Word and Sacrament is the ministry through which the Holy Spirit works to connect us sinners to Christ, and is ultimately what church is about.
I agree with you in that proclaiming Christ does not yield a reward for those already saved by Christ, but the problem is that rewards and punishments are both legal systems*. We don't proclaim Christ because we'll get saved more, or because we can only be saved if we proclaim Christ to a certain number of people, but we do it because we've been saved and we want to, we're driven to, we can't think of anything else to do. In trusting Christ for forgiveness, we're giving up the entire system of rewards and punishments. There is no reward, there is no punishment, only the cross, and the resurrection that defeats death forever. Maybe an analogy that explains what I'm tryiing to say is that of a poor man saving for retirement. The poor man, who labors under the Law called economics, earns money when he is financially good, and loses money when he is financially evil. In this analogy, he earns/loses money through works, and he's trying to make enough money to retire (aka salvation). Lutheran theology says that he can't possibly earn enough money to retire-- he's not going to earn much and he's going to squander what little he does have making poor financial decisions. Even if he made mostly good financial decisions, he'd still come up short. In Christ, we have a wealthy donor giving up his entire estate that we might have a retirement plan we can't raid. Our financial decisions no longer matter in terms of our retirement. But now that we're free of saving for retirement, we can also introduce others to that wealthy donor, that they can get the same deal we did. And if we knew that wealthy donor was looking for people, wouldn't we put him in touch with anyone we even half-way liked? It's not out of guilt, or that we'll lose our own retirements, but a free gift given out of love.
*plus you're thinking of salvation in chronological time, instead of kairological time. Chronological time is that there is a defined date, before which we are sinners, and after which we are not. This is not the time frame on which God operates. Instead, it is kairological time, coming from the Greek time word "kairos", which means "the appointed hour" or "the correct time", or the "fullness of time". It's also the time-word Jesus uses when he says things like "my hour has not yet come". The kairological time cuts across chronological time like a knife; we are continually on the edge of the knife between not believing in Christ and salvation through Christ. I think the Lutheran jargon that matches this idea is sinner-saint.