Deep Thought o' the Day

"God is not as easily offended as we are."
-jdt

Think on these things.

Tension **

I am left with a dialectic. Not a Marxist socio-political dialectic - as if I even know what that is - nor the so-called dialectic of those who would balance two opposing philosophies. I am left with a more Bonhoefferian dialectic - a tension between two seemingly opposite theologies that leaves just one course of action.

Jesus said, "If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out...if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter the kingdom maimed and blind than to be cast out in the darkness as a whole man."

When we read this, we are left with a problem of compliance. "Jesus hardly expects us to sacrifice an eye or the right hand. Surely, He cannot be serious." We are left in a quandary by this strange command.

Luckily for us, Paul bails us out when he says, "self-abasement is of no value against ungodliness" - meaning the left eye can certainly do what the right once did and the left hand can surely sin in the same manner as the now-disenfranchised right hand. And so with Paul, Jesus' mountain-top decree can largely be ignored.

But one doctrine emerges from this Christo-Pauline tension...a doctrine of obedience. Because a serious Christian cannot ignore the teaching of Christ. He cannot say that by "hand" or by "eye" he meant something totally different. So he must obey, that is, he must not lust.*

This summary is nothing short of a murder of Bonhoeffer's theology. So, having gone so far as murder, I have no shame in continuing to abuse it further. :) There seems to be a certain, similar dialectic in view of our justification. It works like this:

Baptism is of no value to the non-believer, of no value to the man of lawlessness nor the man of religion who lives without faith. It is of value only to the faithful and only to the obedient.

But dialectically speaking, we know the act itself cannot justify the participant and yet the participant finds justification in the act. Likewise, those who seek to be justified by means of the act find themselves unjustified. And conversely, those who seek justification apart from act (that is, obedience) find themselves lacking. If mere baptism were able to justify the world then the whole world could be saved. Alas, faith is prerequisite.

There are other tensions:

Our acts of obedience are not our confidence before God but we would agree that a disobedient man cannot stand before the Lord.

Sometimes I think that in our various theologies we find our hands tied. It shouldn't be this way - is this not the true meaning of "for freedom He has set us free?" Are we required by Paul to call the unbaptized believers "Christians" (for justification's sake) or are we bound by Peter to call only the baptized disciples "Christians" - so that those who have not been immersed are seen to be in grave danger?

Can we say that justification, sanctification and salvation are all inseparably linked and then separate them categorically from each other and from faith and obedience?

We must be careful and wise to speak the whole counsel of Scripture (or even the "whole council" - we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses) in regards to faith, obedience, justification, sanctification, Spirit and salvation. And I know that is our intent. And though I know baptism cannot justify, nor faith, nor obedience, I also know that I am justified through faith. If I can be justified through something that is my own and yet a gift, I can certainly be justified through participation in something that is not my own but rather a work rooted in eternity - a work prepared beforehand for me to walk in.

The baptism dialectic (I don't know what else to call it) exists for two purposes: to demonstrate the Grace of God and to push men to obedience in baptism. If our theology does not encourage, even demand baptism then it has resolved or removed the godly tension - to the detriment of obedience. If our theology demands baptism, as the Judaizers demanded circumcision (Galatians 5), then the dialectic has been removed and the grace of God forgotten.

I invite anyone to help me express this more clearly.

*From Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer

**This is partly in response to what jmt wrote yesterday and partly in response to sk and partly in response to the ramblings and preamblings of c.lewis and because, somehow, I agree with everyone.

Connect Four

I'm not much "feeling it" on the Theology front, so I thought I would brag a little on my chicas. For Christmas, I bought the girls a Chinese version of Connect Four (called appropriately "Four in a Row"). It sat idle for a month a two as Barbie's new boyfriend, the Prince from Beauty and the Beast took playtime precedence.

However, in the last few weeks, Connect Four has been the game of choice. As soon as I walk in the house from work, its "Daddy! Daddy! Do you want to play Four in a Row?" Whenever a guest comes over, the kids bombard them with requests to play. As soon as the unknowing soul gives in to a game or two, the girls quickly ask, "Best out of 5, ok?"

The thing is, they win. Just the other day, I dropped 3 games in a row to Jalen. The average person will sit down on the carpet and play them like children. If you play them like they're just kids...you are going to lose. What's really funny is when the adults begin to play serious...and still lose. "One more game", they say. Finally after a few tries they get their victory. But Jalen and Azeria understand the concept of "majority" all too well. They know who's won the most at any given period and they are not afraid to let you know.

I still manage to win the "majority" of the games...let's say...4 out of 7. But when I dance around after a victory and point at them and ask, "Who's your Daddy?" they roll their eyes and say, "But Daddy, we're only kids. You are supposed to win."

Smart alecs.

Campbell's Soup

I had read somewhere that Alexander Campbell was actually a heretic. Marq posted this excerpt from some of his writings. Campbell actually went so far as to say that there are Christians in other denominations...and some other heretical statements that I tend to agree with.

Life Together

Maybe I am just emotional these days. In truth, I wish I was more so. Like everyone, I long for deep, lasting fellowship. I am not satisfied with the status quo, the endlessly mundane, the isolation and the apathy that fills what I call "fellowship." I want more. At times, I find myself bitter at my situation, finding fault, pointing fingers and self-absorbing. With heavy sighs, I consider the diaspora of my good brothers - each in his own State or in another country. We have been scattered.

However, among that scattered there is a true and incessant longing for that righteous fellowship that is found in the arms of loving brothers. I recently picked up and read "Life Together." As your faith allows, please pull this book from your shelves and re-read the "Community" section. Its simply beautiful- the "grace of God in the visible community."

Herman's New Tick

The other day, I was studying Matthew 12: 1-8

12:1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him: 4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? 5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? 6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

I ventured this question to those who were studying with me: "How did Jesus know that David did not sin through the eating of the Bread of the Presence?"

If you read the account of David's eating in 1 Samuel 21, there is no mention of sin or sinlessness on his part. Certainly some of his other involvements might be suspect at this point but not the eating. To further confuse the issue, Jesus admits that "it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him but only for the priests."

From the context, we would gather that Jesus' antagonists were unable to offer rebuttal to Jesus' interpretation of the 1 Samuel event. Of course, as Jesus freaks, we would also conclude that Jesus was indeed correct in his interpretation.
So the question remains, "How does Jesus know that David did not sin in doing what was 'unlawful'?"

The only thing I can gather is that Jesus saw David's need as surpassing in priority the requirements of the Law or that since the historian did not explicitly condemn David, that He also saw David as innocent in this matter.

And on top of this, Jesus takes his interpretation of an otherwise obscure passage and applies it to his disciples.

What kind of "hermeneutic" is Jesus using? One where the intention of the Law subordinates the Letter of the Law?