Goober tries to help Opie at the shooting gallery.
Originally posted August 8, 2011, at A Front View Pew. Republished with permission of the author.
It’s probably sacrilegious to say around these parts, but I’m just not a big fan of the State Fair. I can almost hear the collective gasp, but the butter cow and whatever-on-a-stick don’t trip my trigger, so to speak.
But Opie Taylor sure thought he had a good reason to go the fair. In one of my favorite episodes of “The Andy Griffith Show,” Opie is on a mission to win a gift for his father.
The boy is pretty confident in his marksmanship, so he figures his best chance of success is at the shooting gallery. Yet, again and again he raises the rifle to his shoulder, takes careful aim but still misses the target.
What Opie doesn’t realize is the game has been rigged.
The rifle he has been given has a bent sight. No matter how straight he tries to shoot, he is not going to win the shiny electric razor that he thinks will make his dad happy.
After spending most of his allowance, he walks away shaking his head. Defeated, he says, “I can’t win.”
Paul and Opie
You can almost hear the same frustration in Paul’s voice, when he writes:
I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do (Romans 7:15, 18-19).
When I was Opie’s age, it seemed to me that God worked pretty much like that dishonest carnie.
By the time I was in my teens, I had reached the conclusion that no matter how hard I would try, I could never be good enough.
Sure, confessing sins (wait — did I remember them all?) to that voice behind the screen in that dark little room would get me a little closer to a spot in heaven, but it was just a tease, like those enormous stuffed animals at the fair.
As soon as I walked outside those church doors into the world, sin would be waiting for me, and God would be watching. It made me wonder why anyone would keep playing such a ridiculous game if there was no way to win.
Unfortunately, many of us carry at least some version of this shooting gallery theology with us into adulthood.
We still want to believe that if we’ll just shoot correctly, we’ll receive the reward we deserve. But there is always a problem.
As sincerely and as faithfully as we try to hit the mark, we are still shooting with a faulty gun. Our good works are influenced by selfish desires and so we are going to miss. We are unable to keep our focus from turning inward. Even if it’s only a little, the result is off.
In our confession we say, “We confess that we are captive to sin and cannot free ourselves.”
No matter how well we shoot, no matter how much we’ve practiced, no matter how bad the other shooters are, no matter which gun club we choose to be affiliated with, we are not going to win this game on our own.
Christ has already won
But wait! There is more to the story. The good news is we don’t need to play that game. Christ has already won the battle over sin, death and the devil. As the only one without sin, he was able to accomplish what no one else could, what we never can. And he has already done it for us. It’s a gift, not a game.
Let’s go back to the shooting gallery, where Opie’s father (Sheriff Andy Taylor) has caught wind of the shady goings-on.
It takes him no time at all to figure out the rifle’s flaw. Compensating for the bent sight by aiming slightly to the right, Andy proceeds to win everything off the shelves, much to the chagrin of the crooked carnies.
When Opie returns to try again, things have changed. Because this time he receives the “good” rifle, his shooting improves dramatically and he is successful in winning the razor.
It’s all about grace
It’s such a great story! What makes it even better, though, is the fact that Opie never asked his father to intervene on his behalf. In fact, he wasn’t even aware that it took place.
This is the amazing grace that we sing about.
I think what Paul describes here is how we are released from playing that fruitless game.
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh” (Romans 8:1-3).
Maybe I will go to the fair after all. You never know; I might just win something.
Find a link to Anita Nuetzman’s blog A Front Pew View at Lutheran Blogs.
Nice post.
As I read this blog, I was reminded of the early life of Luther, and what he and Anita Nuetzman have in common. Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount: "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Mt 5:48) Luther, like Anita, frequently entered into the Late-Medieval equivalent of what Ms. Nuetzman describes as "that dark little room," a confessional. In the early 1500s, as Germany emerged from the Middle Ages, there was widespread ignorance, not only among the laity, but also among the clergy. In the confessional, Brother Martin Luther received some very bad counsel. He was left in the dark. He did not understand. This is an historical fact; anyone can read about it in the many Luther biographies. Five hundred years have passed. Why not now just take a fresh, objective look at the facts?
Thankfully, Luther was enlightened by the Word of God, in Romans-- you are saved by grace through faith and not by works of the law. Five hundred years later, we are a church still in need of hearing and proclaiming this Gospel.
Peter: Here is where you miss the mark: A person is saved by Grace, but we become Saints through Faith as we co-operate with Grace. It is really very simple. (Actually, anyone can observe the process.)
In his comment of the blog, "Why brief counseling is better," Chemnitz makes the excellent point about the importance of Confession. Apparently Anita Nuetzman has disregarded this.
John, there are no 'buts' about it and there's nothing left for us to do. Being saved by grace is what makes us saints. To be sure, this side of the grave, the old self has not yet been permanently put to death, and it's better to speak of ourselves as sinner-saints, but the sainthood is one benefit of the promise God has made to us in Jesus' death and resurrection. Faith grasps this Promise, which is grace, but there's no co-operation. Gal 2:20-- it's a death of our old, sinful selves and a completely new creation born of the resurrection. There's a discontinuity here even bigger than the two different guns Opie uses.
Confession is important, but no more important than the prayer 'Lord, have mercy!' What's most important is not the Confession itself, but the Absolution-- that God does have mercy on us sinners. Certainly where we don't see a problem, we don't think we need a solution, but the hard truth of the Second Use of the Law is that we can't escape it, no matter how hard we try. If anything, that's the most terrifying aspect of the Law, where our hopes, dreams and false gods are cast down before our eyes and against our wills and we realize that we are completely helpless. First (structuring society) and even Third (finally executing sinners) Uses aren't anywhere near as terrible for us.
Don't we have to define "saved" to answer this? To be "saved",i.e., go-to-heaven-when-you-die, grace is sufficient and we don't have to "do" anything. To be "saved" from the fear of death and the power of sin is a "now" salvation and faith is necessary.
Or perhaps distinguish between salvation and discipleship.
John, discipleship is a practice if you take Jesus' teachings seriously. It means apprenticeship, following the leader, doing what Jesus called those who followed Him to do. I agree more with Dallas Willard in his book The Great Omission: Reclaiming Jesus's Essential Teachings on Discipleship who argues many have become Christian in name only and do not take seriously the notion that following Jesus means striving (through the help, urging, pulling, and pushing of the Holy Spirit) to become more and more like Him. One can call it sanctification if one likes, and I would argue such a title is in line with church tradition. However, Biblically, I think the more correct practice would be disicpleship.
Kevin
John,
Whereas;
We are saved by grace through faith;
Faith is grace in action;
Therefore; faith is responding to the knowledge of grace.
I think setting up a 'saved now' vs 'saved after death' is a false dichotomy. Both come with the territory, and the only appreciable difference is the totality to which the Old Adam or Eve is put to death. Faith receives both.
This is also why I'm leery of sanctification. It's not a process of 'getting better', it's daily drowning the Old Adam or Eve in the waters of Baptism. It's all or none each time. Every day I start as a sinner and every day I need Christ's saving grace. Tomorrow I won't be "less" of a sinner than I am today. Tomorrow I will rebel against God, and that brings condemnation. Tomorrow my only escape from death (salvation, if you will) will be Christ's death and resurrection, just like it is today and will be the day after. Faith receives this gift, but that trust-hope I call faith must be created anew in me daily. That faith will sustain me now, and it's my only hope when I stand before God the Judge.
Peter,
A normal byproduct of a long time practicing Christian is, the more tomorrows you have, the older, more mature, and stronger you get to resist temptation. Some sins hurt so bad that you learn very quickly to not be ever tempted by them again. This type of character improvement can improve our lives on earth, and surely can't hurt us in the next life. I am less of a sinner than I used to be.
John: I'm not too sure this post was heading that direction. I think it was making a very good illustration of grace. I don't think it was trying to get into the sanctification/discipleship vein. Perhaps that was coming later.
Mr. Tipps: Your comment to Peter is well said and what I was going to articulate myself. Thank you.
Kevin
I like how you make the distinction, John. It's helpful to me. And just to add a bit of definition to the mix, I personally like to speak of maturing in faith in regards to the Christian walk--not in the sense of physical maturation, but more the emotional kind.
TheHawg,
I agree so much that it is better if we can mature, and get strong in our faith, in order to fight off sin in the face of temptation; rather than wait until sin naturally loses its luster and influence in our lives because of age. I have to believe that it is at least somewhat more pleasing to the Lord to see one of His own fight off strong temptation and avoid sin by applying the very principals that the bible teaches, than for Him to see one of His own naturally shrug off temptation out of indifference. I think the Lord loves a good fight. I also think He is in our corner dressing our wounds for the next round.
davebob,
I disagree with your statement: "normal byproduct of a long time practicing Christian is, the more tomorrows you have, the older, more mature, and stronger you get to resist temptation." It's not limited to long-time practicing Christians, but includes anyone who takes morality seriously. Said another way, it's civil righteousness, which is righteousness under the Law. That means 4 things: Jesus isn't necessary for said morality, anyone (and many non-Christians do) strive for said morality, we'll fail in said morality, which means the only reward we can get from morality is here and now. Less of a sinner means absolutely nothing as far as God's judgement is concerned. Being less of a sinner is as meaningful as being less dead. That also means more/less of a sinner is irrelevant to trust in Christ, which is the only thing that makes us Christian.
Peter, you are correct in your assessment in regards to God's judgement towards us. It does not matter what we do in regards to such things. And trust in Christ is very, very important--although faith might be a better word. However, being a Christian is not simply trusting in Christ--it's following Him, being His apprentice, seeking to follow His commands--in a word: discipleship.
Now, granted, we do not seek to do such things out of a quest for reward. We do them out of gratitude for what Christ did for us. This is costly discipleship. I don't think you are into cheap grace, but if we do not seek to grow in our faith and seek to sin less, then I think we fall into that trap.
Kevin
Peter,
Being less of a sinner is exactly what Christ and all the NT writers instructed us to do after we are saved, apart from of our eternal condition. He surely doesn't want us to sin more, or even stay the same. It makes it difficult to "go forth and make disciples of the whole world" when we don't at least appear to be disciples in the first place. Christ employed the term "hypocrite", in the vilest sense, when chastising His own people who were supposed to be a guiding light to righteousness. I don't think Christ is now content with hypocritical behavior in His church now.
Here is an interesting tidbit from Luther's Smalcald Articles concerning sin, where he argues that scholastic theologians have been in error teaching "that the human being has a free will either to do good and reject evil or to reject good and do evil" So if I understand Luther correctly we are unable to willfully choose to sin or willfully choose not to sin. As he describes the human condition in his the Bondage of The Will. We are beasts of burden, where we go, and what we do depends upon who is riding us. So according to Luther we are no more or no less a sinner today as we were the day before, because according to Luther if we can become less sinful then "Christ died in vain." That being said, Luther also held firm that there was a relationship between faith and works, namely that where faith was so to would there be works. And a quote from the Solid Declaration on Free will "Although those born anew come even in this life to the point that they desire the good and delight in it and even do good deeds and grow in practice of them, this is not a product of our own will or power; but the Holy Spirit..." So what I take from this is that there is nothing we can do apart from God. Discipleship, Sanctification they are God's work in and us and through us. They are not something we build ourselves into, but something God builds us into. So what our confession does is to remind us of our complete dependence upon God.
jtburk: I believe you are onto something in that maturing in faith does not come from our direct decisions to stop sinning. I had a colleague who would challenge his confirmation students to stop sinning for 10 minutes. Most would take him up on his offer and then go lock themselves into a closet for 10 minutes. Things went well until that one thought entered in and broke the dam. Sin happens.
But, there are more than a few tools in the Christian's arsenal to indirectly assist in maturing in faith and becoming less of a sinner. Prayer, fasting, solitude, silence, study, intentional Bible reading, and other such disciplines are things we do to open ourselves up to God's processes. We do have the choice to enter into these things or not. We do have the choice on how much time we choose to spend with them. And, not only speaking from experience but from the vast experiences of the saints, it works! One can grow in discipleship.
As Dallas Willard says, "Grace is opposed to earning, not to effort!"
Jtburk,
If you take away “our” responsibility to choose good over evil, and place that responsibility on whoever is riding us, then all responsibility lies on the rider. If that rider is evil, we are bound to that evil without recourse, and without need to bear responsibility. And since we all do evil; all riders are at least at times, evil. Therefore, we cannot be helped by Christ, unless He changes the heart of the rider. All of this type of thinking clouds the central importance of what Christ has done for “us” (not some rider) on the cross. This goes to the age old argument; that since all men are sinful; and God created man; then God created evil.
“Neither do I condemn you, so go and sin no more” is the main emphasis of instruction in the New Testament. You literally find it in verse and chapter throughout the text. Were Jesus and the NT writers wasting their breath?
Is it true that Martin Luther said that we do not have Free Will? Luther said: "Although those born anew come even in this life to the point that they desire the good and delight in it and even do good deeds and grow in practice of them, this is not a product of our own will or power; but the Holy Spirit..." Does this mean that the Holy Spirit controls us, since we do not have Free Will? Are we like robots? -- And what is this about "earning" something? No one believes in that.
Luisa,
Yes, Luther held that we had free will in "things below" (ie what color shirt to wear, whether to walk down Main street or ride one's bike, etc), but not in "things above" (ie ability to not sin). The only way that can change is through Christ's saving action on the cross.
davey,
The "riders" Jtburk refers to leading one to evil are all of the false gods in our lives, whether it be Baal, wealth, power, status, ourselves, etc. We need that Rider who died on the cross for us to be driving us in order to be led from sin.
TheHawg,
Isn't this statement "Prayer, fasting, solitude, silence, study, intentional Bible reading, and other such disciplines are things we do to open ourselves up to God's processes." Pietist? I also disagree on doing what we do out of gratitude for Christ is costly grace. When it's done out of gratitude for Christ, we are glad to do it. It is as costly to us as listening to a friend's problems or changing our child's diaper. I've actually been thinking a lot about a line from an old Pat Benatar song: "With the power of conviction/There is no sacrifice".
The thing about increasing our faith is that we cannot do it anymore than we can order mulberry trees into the ocean.
davebob,
We don't make the disciples. God does. Good works can be a stumbling block to making disciples when they get lifted up as the Message. The Message isn't 'we've got a secret method for doing good works and improving your life'. The Message is 'you've ruined your life yet God is giving you a new life solely on behalf of the One who did not ruin His life."
Peter,
There are very few things that I know for sure in this life, but I do know for sure that I have the power and the ability to choose to sin or to choose not to sin. When I did prison ministry, needless to say, this was a very important teaching.
Peter: you use the term pietist in almost a derogatory fashion. Please allow me to remind you that we clergy have both and inner call (very pietist sounding) and an external call (an affirmation of the internal call by the external church). Pietism and dogmatism run hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other. The two are compatible and necessary in the church. And lest I need to remind you, many of those things I spoke of are commanded--not requested--by Jesus, Paul and others in Scripture.
And yes, grace is costly. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is the most famous Lutheran who articulated such things, but let me remove myself from academic pursuits and tell you a glimpse of my personal story. I received my call to the ordained ministry right out of high school. As such, I turned down a full ride scholarship to the school of engineering at Texas A&M university. Attending Texas Lutheran in Seguin and pursuing my call cost me the opportunity to follow a career with much more monetary rewards. It cost me status in a world that values science much more than faith. Do I regret the cost? No.
Further, Peter, when changing diapers or listening to a friend, there is cost. When changing diapers, you are liable to get poop on your hands. You are liable to get peed on. As one whose last child was just potty trained, I know this all too well. Do I regret it? No. Did I enjoy getting poop on me or getting peed on? Well, let's just say it wasn't at the top of my list of things I liked. And as one who spends copious amounts of time listening to people share their problems and worries, let me also say, indeed there is a cost. One's emotions are drained. One's love for people leads to frustration and anger, even toward God for His seeming absence in folks' lives. I don't regret walking with people through these suffering times, but there is a huge toll that one pays--unless one is completely detatched. Again, there is a cost to discipleship. One that I hope folks are willing to consider, especially when they consider what it cost God in the first place.
And as for ordering Mulberry trees into the ocean, I think I trust Jesus' words a little more that if our faith is substantial enough, we could tell it to get up and go, and it would. Of course, I don't think I am quite there yet, so I, like the father who brought his son to Jesus to be exorcised cry out, "Lord, increase my faith!!"
TheHawg:
Thank you for your beautiful post. I was very moved by it. I think you clarified what it is to be a true Christian; to truly follow Christ.
I am still concerned, however, by the teaching of Luther, and I would like your view. As I understand it, Luther said we do not have free will, and that God guides us with the Holy Spirit. To me, that does not sound right. I know the devil acts in that way. Then, it seems to me, that Luther tries to paper it over by saying that this is how we are totally dependent on God. I believe that God created us with perfectly free will, and then helps us follow Him with His Grace. I would like to know what you think.
Peter,
No, you are misrepresenting what jtBurk insinuated. He was clearly stating the case that the “riders” are forcing us, against our will, to sin; not leading us, or temping us, like you are countering here.
“Baal, wealth, power, status, ourselves” are not riders that drive us to sin against our will. They are temptations that we can choose to avoid or not. Scripture clearly exposes these temptations as destructive not only to our lives on earth, but also our eternal condition as well. And neither is Christ a rider that forces people to obey, against their will.
When you totally remove man’s responsibility for his own sin, you are in essence, making God responsible for making us this way. This is the basic argument for universalism.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." Matt 11:29-30
Can’t you feel the persuading nature of Christ? He beckons from afar while we are still in our sin. He coaxes us do His will out of the love and honor we have for Him. He reminds us daily of His work on the cross and for His sake, and the sake of our fellow man, we try not to do evil, but to do good.
And I agree with TheHawg; you seem hair triggered to label behaviors like piety, self-control, decency, humility, generosity, godliness etc… as dirty works, which play no part in the lives of a Christian. You seem to insinuate that there is such a danger that good works could be a stumbling block to the “unenlightened” pilgrim, that they should not attempt such endeavors without first consulting enlightened folks like you to make sure their motives are pure.
Luisa: I'm going to have to go back and read a few things of Luther before giving an answer. It's been a while since I've read and need to rehash some of it. I would offer these words of comfort however: Luther was known to be wrong a time or two. :-)
The greatest heresy facing us these days is the old Pharisee heresy; that through our works we become right with God. Even if we know that in theory God has to do it first, in practice we act and treat it as though we're doing it ourselves. To Luisa's contention that we can choose to sin or not to sin, the problem is that we can't choose to not sin. If you doubt me, try it. See how well that works. If you can do it, you don't need Jesus.
One part that really concerns me is the statement: "if our faith is substantial enough, we could tell [a mulberry tree] to get up and go, and it would." We're never going to get there no matter how hard we try or how dutifully we try to obey God's commands and when we set it up that we must, we're setting ourselves up to fail. The only route is to trust what God has done in Jesus' death and resurrection and let that trust lead us (or let Christ be our "rider" in the earlier terminology). The outward evidence of that faith is tremendously varied, but it isn't just doing the Law (which is the common interpretation of Third Use)-- Galatians makes that very clear.
There's nothing wrong (and much to be commended) with "self-control, decency, humility, generosity, etc", but they're not restricted to Christians. They have nothing to do with trusting Christ. If there is some kind of 'faith meter' out there that needs to get filled through our life, it gets completely filled by Baptism. And every time we try to empty that faith meter, we can get it fully refilled by returning to Christ. However long we live, we continue to empty the meter and need to get it refilled. It doesn't matter if it's half-empty or three-quarters empty or all empty-- it still requires filling that only Jesus can do. And being proud or wanting one's meter to be half-full or three-quarters-full instead of empty misses the point. It has to be completely full. In fact, that's God's Promise in Baptism: our 'faith meter' will not be emptied no matter how rotten we are. Certainly there will be other consequences-- prison, family and friends turning away, etc for being rotten-- but those are not final consequences.
To address the point about costs, there can be costs, but not automatically. To take the diaper changing example, I don't count getting my hands dirty as a cost. It isn't to me in most circumstances. Will I wash my hands afterwards? Yes. Could we create a situation where it would become a cost? Certiainly. Does that mean it's always a cost? No. Listening is the same way. It can become draining, but that doesn't mean it must. Maybe it would be easier to use an example of different tastes. When my wife and I get salad in a restaurant, I give her my tomatoes and she gives me her onion. The only 'cost' to me is my tomatoes, and even when the salads don't come with onion, my wife is still getting the tomatoes. Since I don't like tomatoes, this is not something that is a cost to me.
To go back to Bonhoeffer, instead of Cost of Discipleship, perhaps we should examine Ethics. That book starts with identifying knowledge of good and evil as original sin. If you can identify a work as good or evil, you're relying on your knowledge of good and evil and hence sinning.
Peter: I would disagree that legalism is the most prominent heresy of the day within the church. I personally would argue gnosticism, but that is a separate discussion entirely.
However, I would then argue the biggest challenge of the church is one of integrity.
This Sunday, Jesus calls those who follow Him to come and die. Die to themselves. Lose their life, and in so losing it, they will save it.
Grace states we do not save ourselves by doing such a thing.
I agree. Partially because no one wants to die to themselves. No one wants to take up the cross. No one really wants to follow Jesus because it's just too blasted hard.
And so, many cop out and cry, "GRACE!!!" And continue doing whatever they please.
Paul had something to say about such behavior in the book of Romans, by far his most mature theology. Even exceeding Galatians in its date and understanding and dare I say quality. 1 Corinthians is chalk full of admonitions of how a Christian is called to live including this wonderful little snippet, "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." And even Paul urges his readers to "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus..."
Now, as I said, today, the greatest challenge facing the church is one of integrity. Many who are unchurched or dechurched have read the Bible or at least portions of it. They have read how Scripture calls us into discipleship, and they see a very poor representation of that disicpleship. And many turn away because they see a lack of integrity.
"Just because all things are lawful doesn't mean they are beneficial," a wise man once spoke.
Which comes back to the cost of discipleship. As followers of Jesus who are saved by grace and who know all things are lawful, we must discern which are beneficial. And where is the best place to find that: Jesus. Plain and simple. Giving up our will to seek His.
And your example of the tomatoes in the salad is almost laughable. Of course, giving up the tomatoes is easy for you and costs you nothing because you apparently don't like them. Jesus doesn't call us to the easy task of giving up the stuff we don't like. He calls us to give up the stuff we like. Next time, give your salad to the person outside who doesn't have money to pay for food. That's discipleship. Otherwise, you're just practicing cheap grace.
Peter,
You defeat your own premise. How is it possible under your understanding that we could never choose on our own to do what is right “to LET Christ be our rider”? And again “we can get it fully refilled by returning to Christ”. Letting Christ or returning to Christ requires a conscious decision on our part. You make a circular argument that is impossible to solve without some form of personal responsibility on our part. You can’t have it both ways. Either God does it all and we are not responsible, or we are responsible, and God saves us at His own pleasure. It can’t be God is responsible, and we are found guilty for it.
So let me see if I have this right;
“If you can identify a work as good or evil, you're relying on your knowledge of good and evil and hence sinning”.
So we are sinning to even try to identify a work as good or evil? How can it be a sin to know what sin is? In fact, your very statement is identifying sin; is it not? How do you know its sinning, unless you know what sin is Peter? Didn’t you just basically commit a sin by pointing out how sinful it is to think we know what sin is? Are you not relying on your own knowledge of good and evil to boldly make a statement like that?
Interesting discussion, TheHawg and Peter. I hope you don't mind if I chime in. In general, I agree with TheHawg that the biggest "challenge" (actually, I am sort of old-school, and I prefer the word "problem." These days, a small problem is an "issue," and a big problem is a "challenge." I think there is more integrity in simple language.)... the biggest challenge... is integrity!
Peter wrote: "To Luisa's contention that we can choose to sin or not to sin, the problem is that we can't choose to not sin. If you doubt me, try it. See how well that works. If you can do it, you don't need Jesus."
Peter, I think you are confusing temptation and sin. Also, TheHawg goes there with this example: "I had a colleague who would challenge his confirmation students to stop sinning for 10 minutes. Most would take him up on his offer and then go lock themselves into a closet for 10 minutes. Things went well until that one thought entered in and broke the dam. Sin happens."
When these poor students locked themselves in a closet, and when they had a bad thought, the thought was a temptation -- not a sin. (Dwelling on it would be a sin.) In this Sunday's Gospel, Peter presents Jesus with the temptation to dodge the suffering his ministry will inevitably bring. Did Jesus sin because this thought went into his brain? Of course not. He rejected the temptation.
A wise person once taught me, and I often passed this on to the inmates at McNeil: We are like a person sitting on the bank of a river, watching boats go by. If a boat stops, we can choose to get on it and look around... or not. So it is with thoughts and temptations. We all know the story of Samson and Delilah. Little by little, Samson gave into small temptations, until finally he ended up in big sin.
Peter's theology of Grace is based on Luther, but just try telling a drug dealer behind bars to close his eyes real tight and have lots of faith -- then he won't feel like selling drugs any more when he gets out! Sorry, it doesn't work. To deter recitivism, besides the basics of Faith, Hope and Charity, a person must have self-discipline and self-control, and this comes from lots of penance in the penitentiary!
As for Peter's view that Knowledge of Good and Evil IS original sin... well, I can't believe Bonhoeffer actually wrote that. Knowledge is a good thing. Adam and Eve sinned by disobedience -- and disobedience to God is a lack of integrity, I believe.
Luisa: I personally didn't want to get into an argument with Peter about what the original sin was, but since you brought it up, I will pass on what makes most sense to me.
The original sin was not knowledge but the desire to be like God--and not in a healthy way. Of course, we are challenged to become like God in Scripture, but not in the desire to control and have all knowledge ourselves. As humans, our perspective is far too limited to call an event inherently evil or inherently good. There are many deeds done in the name of good which turn out evil, and there are many evil deeds that are done which bring about a lot of good. Only God has the wisdom and discernment to know such things fully, and it was our folly to think we could somehow become all knowing, all powerful, like Him.
Thank you, "TheHawg." I understand what you are saying, and I believe it, too. I was just trying to emphasize one aspect of the issue. I would only slightly disagree with you in this -- I think we can discern, in a limited but practical, every-day way, between good and evil. I think you have a wonderful understanding of the Christian Faith!
Luisa: I don't think we disagree. That's why I intentionally used the phrase "know such things fully." A much wiser man used the phrase "see in a mirror dimly." We can catch bits and parts, and we hope for the day we will be able to see fully. :-) And thank you also for your compliment, although, perhaps, undeserved. I have a long, long way to go when it comes to understanding and implementing the faith we share.
TheHawg,
I think Romans makes my point just as well. Paul does gives lists of 'good behavior'/'bad behavior', in his letters, but those are descriptive, not prescriptive. The problem, though, is more endemic than you want to admit. You say that "many cop out and cry GRACE". I say that everyone "cops out". None of us stand by our works, and that means that our works are never going to be good enough. Your comment about "mind of Christ" gets to part of what I'm trying to convey. Any works that we do come from our hearts, which hang on things that lead to rot, and thus we are under judgment from God. It is Jesus' saving death and resurrection that frees us from this judgment (not because of our 'potential' or works or anything else) and our hearts are cleansed in hanging on Jesus. From those clean hearts, we venture works, trusting in Christ. This side of the grave, we are stuck in the middle, so to speak... or sinner-saints to use Luther's parlance. That doesn't change until God destroys the sinner within us. Sinner is our terminal condition, and nothing we can do will change that.
Integrity is just another way of saying that we don't have enough Law. We're never going to have enough Law. That's part of what being sinners means. There are certainly benefits to striving to fulfill the Law, but making us right or more right with God is not one of them. Thinking that striving to fulfill the Law is discipleship is contrary to the Gospel, in that it is a return to the yoke of slavery.
I still disagree that discipleship is costly, but the reason I was trying to illustrate is because with the mind of Christ, we do not reckon such things as cost. Paul identifies himself in his letters as a "slave of Jesus Christ". He doesn't have a choice in the matter. There is nothing else he could be doing because there is nothing else that he wants to be doing more.
Luisa and davey,
Here is the beginning of Bonhoeffer's Ethics:
"The knowledge of good and evil seems to be the aim of all ethical reflection. ...Already in the possibility of the knowledge of good and evil, Christian ethics discerns a falling away from the origin. Man at his origin knows only one thing: God. It is only in the unity of his knowledge of God that he knows of other men, of things and of himself. He knows all things only in God, and God in all things. The knowledge of good and evil shows that he is no longer at one with this origin. ... Only against God can man know good and evil."
He also points out Gen 3:22, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
As to davey's point that I am shown to be a sinner by my knowledge of good and evil, he is quite correct. I am a sinner and much as I might want it otherwise, I will never cease being a sinner until God kills me.
So to our responsibility... God is an electing God. God alone decides who is saved and who is not, and this decision has nothing to do with our actions. So why do we care? Because God has elected us, and that salvation is not just 'go to heaven when you die', but it is a life-changing event here and now. Until the sinner within is fully put to death, we will fall back into sin and need that Grace again and again. There is a 100% recidivism rate on sin this side of the grave. No matter how much self-control, you will sin again. Part of the problem is that I think we get the sin-sinner relationship messed up. Werner Elert defines sin thusly: "Sin is what a sinner does".
For the kids locking themselves in the closet, I'd give each one of those a 'sinned' sentence right away. "Go and sell all that you have, and give the proceeds to the poor" is not just a guideline. Even still, "looking on a woman with lust" as sin means that sin is not restricted to actions but even to feelings. If anything, my point is that sin comes from the darkness within us, that we are already defiled and need to be made clean by Jesus. We don't have a free enough will to change that.
Peter: It seems we simply have different views of Man and God. Fundamentally, I believe that man was created good, he fell, but he can become good again. I believe we are all called to become great saints. I have a major problem with your "electing God" verbiage. So let's just leave it at that. P.S. Thanks for correcting my spelling of "recidivism" -- I'm a phonetic speller -- should have used spell-check for that one!
Peter: I think I finally understand where you are coming from, and it was actually revealed in your election comments.
I do not know if your background includes any Reformed teachings or not, but your articulation of God being the God who elects who is saved and who is not comes from that tradition and not from Lutheran understanding. This was one of the secondary breaking points between that tradition and ours; the first of course being the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Communion.
Lutheran thought has understood that God predestines all to salvation. However, we do have free will to reject it. Just as we have the free will to reject doing good works when we are called upon to do so.
And as for Paul, if I can find one verse which Paul prescribes good works, then your argument falls flat, does it not?
How about this one:
Romans 12:9, "Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good;"
That's a prescription of how a believer is called to live. Paul uses the imperative in Greek here. That's just the first example in that chapter. Want me to go on?
Verse 10, "love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor."
Again, the use of the imperative. Prescripton, not description.
And the clencher: Romans 13, "Let us then lay aside the works of darkness and put on the armor of light; 13let us live honorably as in the day, not in reveling and drunkenness, not in debauchery and licentiousness, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires."
Paul basically says, "Do this, not that." "Choose this, not that." We have the free will to do so.
Luther's Bondage of the Will seems to argue against you here. In fact, the free will argument is the one put forward by Erasmus. The problem with believing that we have the free will to reject Jesus is that we do so. All of us, even Peter and the other disciples, fall away from him and reject him. This Sunday our lectionary will be Peter betraying Jesus yet again. That's how we use our free will. That's why our world is so messed up.
This is precisely the miracle that God works on the cross. There God bears our rejection and still reconciles us unto Him. He forgives the worst we have to offer. This is what the Gospel means. It's not about right action, or about being religious. It's about receiving God's Promise to forgive sins, to be a forgiven sinner and relying on that alone and only for one's justification. Certainly from that trust good things happen. Love, forgiveness, but these are fruits, not the tree itself. Muslims, atheists, Hindus, just about everyone can recognize most of the fruits as good and pursue them for their own sake. But the fruits aren't the tree.
As to your examples, I stand corrected. Paul does make prescriptive statements in Romans and elsewhere. However, that's Law. Not Law in that it's optional, but Law in that it orders society and condemns us sinners. That doesn't get us any more saved. Nor is it anything we've never heard elsewhere. 'love your neighbor' is OT and in other cultures as well. The law to love is not the Gospel, though Paul gives a hint in the last passage you cite: 'put on the Lord Jesus Christ' This is our only hope out of sin and it is through this power that we can love and live.
Peter: I am not a theologian -- I simply cannot wrap my brain around: "The problem with believing that we have the free will to reject Jesus is that we do so."
You cannot possibly be saying that just because people do bad things with their free will, we should not believe that we have free will. That is not what you are saying, is it?
Peter, you wrote: "The law to love is not the Gospel, though Paul gives a hint...."
At a very important point in his life, Jesus says: "I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another." (John 13:34)
Peter, TheHawg:
I think I am finally starting to understand. Peter says we "put on the Lord Jesus Christ." Luther says Christ rides us like a man riding a donkey.
The Hawg wrote: "Peter: I would disagree that legalism is the most prominent heresy of the day within the church. I personally would argue gnosticism...."
It seems to me that we are talking about Gnosticism -- here it becomes a kind of "channeling" of Christ, instead of loving obedience to Him.
Luisa,
What I'm saying is that we don't have free will because it is impossible to avoid sinning. It may sound more palatable to say that our will is perhaps "captivated" by various idols. I am not saying that we are not active participants in what we do. My point is more along the lines of Paul: "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing." (Romans 7:19). We can't avoid sinning... no amount of perfect knowledge or even knowing what the right thing to do is.
Yes, Jesus does give us a command to love one another. In fact, he says that the sum of the Law is 'love your enemies'. That's Law, which is by definition, not Gospel. Doing the Law doesn't get you any closer to Christ. Christ comes to us and does for us what we cannot do under the Law.
Gnosticism tends to be both needing secret knowledge and a dualism between what is on earth and what is in the spirit. I reject both-- faith, not knowledge (least of all knowledge of good and evil!) is what receives God's Gospel promise. In the incarnation, we also see that God redeems the creation that is here on earth, in the here and now. It's not 'channeling' Christ so much as proclaiming Christ and revealing His presence here and now.
Ah-ha! Here is where you and I disagree! Luther said: "Sin boldly!" Why not practice virtue boldly?! We have free will! We all -- men and women -- can... choose!
Luisa,
Mark 2:15-17. It won't hurt to practice virtue all you want, but it won't make you healthy. The only one who can do that is the Physician.
The danger of the church making 'practice virtue' as the message is Luke 18:9-14. The message is 'God has had mercy on you for Christ's sake'
Peter:
I don't know if you have kids or not, but would you tell your child: "Johnny, just get a "B" or "C" on the test -- don't even try for an "A." If you get an "A," you might become proud, like a Pharisee"? No, of course not. Jesus, Our Lord, is the same. He says: "Be ye perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)
Really, the larger question is about how we enter the next life. I believe I will go in just as I am now -- the quality of my soul will not magically change the minute I die. Then what? I had my chance here to become all that God wants me to be -- with the help of His Grace, obviously.
Luisa,
Two Christian questions are 'would I stop loving my child if they got a B or C?' and 'is my straight-A student better/valued more/loved more than students who get B's and C's?'. Christianity isn't about whether you get an A or not. Christianity is trusting the promise that Jesus' A+ will count for us, even though we earned D's and F's. Would I as a parent use the Law to encourage my child to earn an A? Absolutely, but that has nothing to do with being a Christian.
The problem with your larger question is that it is not Good News. If you have to 'Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect', you're going to Hell. You can't be all that God wants you to be. That's what being a sinner is all about. It's missing the mark. In that sense, the shooting analogy in the OP works especially well.
As to the state of your soul when you die, see John 3:1-21. Or the metaphors about new wine in old wineskins and the like. Grace is not a patch-job on our souls. There is death and new life. The work done in us at Baptism is the creation of new life. The old sinful self dies when God finally kills us, but it is this new life that will live on. So your soul won't 'magically change' so much as face destruction. The old wineskins are cast away; our concern is with the new wineskins. This side of the grave, we go from being sinners to sinner-saints in Baptism, and death is the death of the Old Adam and Eve, that sinner that lives within and is each of us. We will enter eternal life as saints. That's also why we don't need to be afraid of death-- that is God's justice for us, and thanks to Christ, we know that isn't the final Word for us.
To TheHawg:
I address my question to you because it seems to me that you are the person on this blog who most closely represents the spirit and letter of Lutheranism.
You are correct to point out that Peter holds Calvinist (Reformed) views. Since I am not an expert, I checked Wikipedia, "Calvinism": Calvinism is seen as bi-covenantal, reflecting the early Reformation distinction between Law and Gospel... Calvinism stresses the total depravity or total inability of humanity's ethical nature against a backdrop of the sovereign grace of God in salvation. It teaches that fallen people are morally and spiritually unable to follow God or escape their condemnation before him...
"Total depravity": This doctrine, also called "total inability", asserts that as a consequence of the fall of man into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin ..."Unconditional election": This doctrine asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone. (end of Wikipedia quote)
My question, however, concerns Luther and the ELCA. Luther apparently taught in The Bondage of the Will that we have limited free will, at best. You correctly pointed out that Erasmus disagreed with this. Two years ago, the ELCA allowed openly homosexual clergy. Many people I have spoken with have told me this is because the ELCA leadership believes that gays are "born that way" -- they cannot change. Is this not in effect a Calvinist view? There is no scientific proof that people are born gay -- it is a BELIEF. The Catholic Church and many Evangelicals hold that homosexuality is a "disorder" -- for lack of a better word -- and that people can, with the Grace of God, change. Is this not the real issue -- the elephant in the living room?
I would like to know your view.
Luisa: I personally do not believe that the issue of homosexual ordination or otherwise is the elephant in this issue. That would be another discussion entirely. This one, I believe boils down to our ability to choose in some circumstances to follow the Law.
If Luther was indeed right and we are at the same time saint and sinner, then we are indeed at the same time capable of doing both good and evil. There are times when we do produce good fruit. There are times when we produce bad fruit. There's not much we can change about our nature in this regard. In such matters our free will is limited.
However, in choosing how we live out that nature in our action is up for dispute. In the above example of the student, I am raising my children in the same manner my parents raised me. I'll love my children regardless of what grades they make--as God loves us no matter what grade we make. The class is graded on a curve as Peter aptly points out. Yet, when it comes to learning, when it comes to taking the class, I do have a choice of how much effort I decide to put into it. I can realize I am going to get an F and put no effort into anything--because why bother trying if the outcome is already determined, or I can seek to delve into the subject and learn as much as I can despite my inablity to grasp it all.
Put in another fashion, as an athlete, more than a few times I came out on the short end of the stick. More than a few times I went up against athletes who were stronger, faster, and more agile than me. The outcome was already predetermined. But I gave my best effort regardless of what the outcome would be.
As I quoted Dallas Willard earlier, "Grace is opposed to earning, not to effort." Some seem to indicate that our effort isn't even worth it, but I disagree.
It is time to continue this discussion offsite.
Also, when commenting please remember the LivingLutheran.com community policy, which you can find at: http://www.livinglutheran.com/community-policy.html Keep in mind that posts that do not conform to these guidelines will be deleted.
Thank you for your interest in LivingLutheran.com.