Tag: Disobedience

Consider the Cost

“‘Dear Lord God, I wish to preach in your honor. I wish to speak about you, glorify you, praise your name. Although I can’t do this well of myself, I pray that you may make it good.’”[1]

Introduction

American Evangelicalism and Western Christianity writ large, have done a huge disservice to Christianity broadly speaking. This morning I’m speaking not only as an observer of our socio-religio-political landscape, but as one who came to faith in it. It has been both my experience and observation that much of American Evangelicalism and Western Christianity conceives of the life of the disciple of Christ that is both comfortable, easy, and aligned to traditionalist conceptions promoted within society. The Jesus peddled therein reflects American Evangelicalism and its ideologies rather than the Jesus the gospel and epistle authors took pains to paint for us.

I remember—specifically—that my faith in and obedience to Jesus was going to make my life easier; that I would find myself in states of existential comfort and bliss. I’d be ushered into the spiritual realm, no longer afraid of where I’d end up in death while (intentionally) remaining indifferent (ignorant?) toward the issues of the world because why worry when Jesus is gonna come back and fix it all? Faith was to make me perpetually happy, nice, and too blessed to be stressed. My only two obligations were evangelism and obedience: I was to be a good Christian which meant telling people about Jesus and how great he’d made my life and obeying my authorities in all things which was God’s will. You might be burning in hell (temporally) or heading towards it (spiritually), and that was none of my business really because that was all your choice. My sins were forgiven and that’s all that really mattered, that was the goal of the gospel and of Jesus’s mission in the world. I was just lucky—blessed!!—enough to have decided to find Christ when I did!

But none of this was true. Like a sports car sold to someone suffering the malaise and banality of midlife, I was sold a saccharine Jesus, having little power and agency in the world because he was so conformed to it, embedded (buried?) in the ideas of yesteryear. Becoming Christian was going to solve all my problems; turns out, becoming Christian created more problems than it solved. Here’s why…

Luke 14:25-33

Luke tells us that Jesus addressed the many crowds that were coming together around him (these many crowds were composed of “neutral” people who may become disciples[2]), and he turned and said to them, “If someone comes to me and hates not their father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yet even their own soul, they are not able to be my disciple (v26). Luke’s emphasis here is implied: those following Jesus must know the cost of following.[3] The “cost of discipleship” is not only the burden of the disciples; it’s the burden of any/all someone/s coming to Jesus.[4] There is no way around the reality: to follow Jesus is to also participate in the mission of God in the world as Jesus does; obedience to God by faith and following Jesus necessarily means that they will be confronted with performing intentional acts of disobedience within their private.[5] In other words, it aint easy being Christian.[6] Not even family ties—a vital component of ancient Palestinian life—can get in the way; the follower of Christ must not even let family loyalty hinder them from pursuing God and God’s mission in the world.[7] (This is what the “hate” means in this verse; it is not about having a feeling of ill will or malevolence.) Not even loyalty to one’s own life/livelihood can get in the way of following Christ.[8]

Luke then tells us that Jesus said, Whoever does not carry the cross and comes after me that one is not able to be my disciple (v27). While we may think of this statement through the lens of Good Friday, it isn’t actually about “suffering”; it’s an equivalent thought to hating the family and oneself and broadens the scope of disobedience: it won’t be just private, it will be public and against the established authorities (ecclesiastical and political) who have power to punish you and take your life because of your disobedience.[9] In other words, the whole life of the follower of Christ will be exposed to the potential ramifications of following this man who is God. Everything is up for grabs.

Luke then tells us that Jesus provides a moment of reflection for those listening,[10] For who of you, willing to build a tower, does not (at all) after sitting down estimate the cost whether he has [enough] to complete [it]? So that, lest while he has laid his foundation and is not having power to finish, all those who gaze at it will begin to mock him, saying, `This person began to build and had not the power to finish.’ Or what king, going to come together in war against another king, will not (at all) after sitting down deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand troops to encounter the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? Now if he cannot, while the other is still far off, he sends a delegation asking for the terms of peace (vv28-32). The follower of Christ is not headed toward some sort of comfortable and pleasant and easy life; they must think about the cost, likely conflict and confrontation, and what the end will look like.[11] it’s not going to be easy, in fact, it will be hard; and “hard” may be the lightest way to say it. For those who follow Jesus—according to Luke—they will feel the anguish of the decision deep in their bones as their choice begins—at times—to feel unbearable, lonely, and profoundly demanding in terms of forgoing material glory and honor and forsaking the creature comforts of fitting in and following along, including family and friends.[12] According to Luke and Luke’s Jesus, the Christian will be the one who stands out and not because they are so righteous but because they are so hated by the kingdom of humanity. “Authentic discipleship”[13] will force the follower of Christ into a spotlight and will paint a target on their back not because of their obedience to traditionalist conceptions of society and religion but specifically because of their disobedience born from their new life in Christ[14] marked by new ways of being in the world[15] that grate against the status-quo.[16] Participating in God’s mission of the divine revolution of love, life, and liberation will do that; never forget that Good Friday was more than a spiritual event.[17]

Therefore, Luke tells us, that Jesus concluded this discourse with,Therefore, in this way, all of you who do not take leave of all the things that are at hand are not able to be my disciple (v33). This last bit isn’t a new command to sell things but, rather, to loosen one’s grip on all that they have. The disciple of Christ, the follower of the Way, the participant in God’s mission and divine revolution of love, life, and liberation in the world cannot have loyalties placed anywhere else; their only allegiance is to the reign of God, forfeiting their status and position in the kingdom of humanity.[18] For the disciple of Christ, this is not about being intentionally poor, friendless, and rejecting one’s family. Rather, it’s about holding on loose enough that when conformity to the status quo of the kingdom of humanity is demanded—publicly or privately—the disciple of Christ can let go and proceed on the way of the reign of God, to glory of God and the well-being of the neighbor.

Conclusion

The Christian life is hard; this has been the consistent theme of Luke’s presentation of Jesus these many weeks. It’s not easy. It’s not comfortable. It’s not the sure-fire way to be “successful,” popular, or famous. It will not allow you always to be nice to others, always fun to be around, or always good-vibes-only. It will not be the fool proof way toward material blessings in this world or to acquiring favor of the rich and powerful. To follow Christ means to be intractable when it comes to the kingdom of humanity’s tendency toward not only rejecting but violently attacking God’s reign in the world. Christians, according to Luke’s Jesus, cannot side with nation over Christ, cannot side with the status-quo over the laboring of God to bear something new into the world (stress on new, not a retreat to something old), cannot participate in the captivity of our neighbors over fighting for their liberation, cannot become familiar with indifference over feeling the risk and demand of love, and cannot advocate for death over life.

The Christian—the one who follows and is to be as Christ` in the world—is the one who finds themselves at the intersection and epicenter of the temporal and spiritual realms, with a will conformed to God’s will, hands and feet ready to bring God glory by bringing wellbeing to their neighbor, and an eye keen on spotting and a voice ready to call out the violence and destruction of the kingdom of humanity. It’s not about self-righteous, holier-than-thou, clean and pure, self-imposed glory and boasting; it’s about the radical love of God that is the revolutionary love of neighbor. And while I want to comfort you by reminding you that God is with you—for surely God is with you, Beloved—I can’t solely tell you that in good faith and with a good conscience because the Christian walk is hard and I must tell you that. The world would have me sooth you to sleep (back to sleep?), telling you sweet nothings that let you off the hook. But it’s my job to participate in the prophetic calling of God to wake you up. Luke’s Jesus doesn’t want sleepers, but those who can stay awake, call out the discrepancies between what is and could be, and who dare to step disobediently into the void to protect the love, life, and liberation of the neighbor from the aggressive overreach of authority (ecclesial and political). Beloved, this is what it looks like to follow God; consider wisely the cost of such discipleship.

[1] LW 54:157-158; Table Talk 1590.

[2] Green, Luke, 564. “Often in the Lukan account, crowds are presented as pools of neutral person from whom Jesus might draw disciples, and this is clearly the case here.”

[3] Justo L. Gonzalez, Luke, Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible, eds. Amy Plantinga Pauw and William C. Placher (Louisville: WJK, 2010), 183. “…[Jesus] warns those who would follow him of the cost of discipleship.”

[4] Green, Luke, 565. “‘Disciples’ does not refer narrowly in this instance to a select group of Jesus’ followers but…to all who, following him, identify with his missions. Such persons are characterized, first, by their distancing themselves form the high cultural value placed on the family network, otherwise paramount in the world of Luke.”

[5] Gonzalez, Luke, 183. “Discipleship requires radical obedience. Love of family must not stand in the way.”

[6] Gonzalez, Luke, 183. “Now he turns to the crowds around him. It is not only Jerusalem and all it represents that should take heed of the danger of disobedience; it is also this entire crowd that travels with him. If Jerusalem must be disabused of the notion that it will be easy to be the people of God, now this crowd of followers is also disabused of the notion that it will be easy to be a disciple of Jesus.”

[7] Gonzalez, Luke, 183. “…to ‘hate’ the family does not mean to have evil sentiments for them, but rather to forsake them for the sake of the kingdom. A disciple of Jesus will not use supposed family responsibility to avoid obedience.”

[8] Green, Luke, 565. “…in this context, ‘hate’ is not primarily an affective quality but a disavowal of primary allegiance to one’s kind…Jesus underscores how discipleship relativizes one’s normal and highly valued loyalties to normal family and other social ties.”

[9] Gonzalez, Luke, 183. “And this is then paralleled by the saying about carrying the cross. Taken in context, this not just a call to sacrifice, as we often think. The cross is an instrument of legal punishment and torture. So to take up the cross is parallel to ‘hating’ the family. A disciple of Jesus must be ready to carry the burden not only of tensions in the family, but even of civil disobedience to the point of legal punishment.”

[10] Gonzalez, Luke, 183. “Pointing to this idea, Jesus uses two brief parables about counting the cost.”

[11] Gonzalez, Luke, 184. “Likewise, one should not become a follower of Jesus without considering the cost, the opposition, and the final outcome.”

[12] Green, Luke, 566. “What outcomes are proposed if resources prove to be deficient? In both cases, the repercussions are tragic—the one resulting in mockery, the other in surrender; hence, a premium is placed on the inadequacy of one’s resources. By extrapolation, then, Jesus insists that such assets as one’s network of kin, so important in Greco-Roman antiquity, are an insufficient foundation for assuring one’s status before God. Dependence on the resources available to a person apart from ‘hating’ family and ‘carrying the cross’ cannot but lead to a tragic outcome. What is required is thoroughgoing fidelity to God’s salvific aim, manifest in one’s identity as a disciple of Jesus.”

[13] Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 564. “As Jesus turns to address the crowds traveling with him, he lists allegiance to one’s family network and the shackles that constitute one’s possessions as impediments to authentic discipleship.”

[14] Green, Luke, 565. “As in 9:23, so here Jesus is calling for the reconstruction of one’s identity, not along ancestral lines or on the basis of sone’s social status, but within the new community oriented toward God’s purpose and characterized by faithfulness to the message of Jesus.”

[15] Green, Luke, 567. “This ‘leaving behind’ is cast in the present tense, demarcating this condition not simply as a potential for which disciples must be constantly ready, but as a characteristic feature of the disciples.”

[16] Green, Luke, 564. Luke “…reminds us that the new practices counseled by Jesus in vv 7-14 are not isolated behaviors but, from Luke’s perspective, must flow out of a transformed disposition, reflecting new commitments, attitudes, and allegiances. That is, the conversion that characterizes genuine disciples is itself generative, giving rise to new forms of behavior.”

[17] Green, Luke, 565-566. “…bearing the cross is used as a metaphor of discipleship—indeed, as a requirement for one’s identity as a disciple. Such persons would live as though they were condemned to death by crucifixion, oblivious to the pursuit of noble status, finding no interest in securing one’s future via securing obligations form others or by stockpiling possessions, free to identify with Jesus in his dishonorable suffering.”

[18] Green, Luke, 567. “As is generally the case in Luke, one’s basic commitments are manifest or symbolized in the disposition of ‘all one has.’ Accordingly, the distinctive property of disciples is the abandonment with which they put aside all competing securities in order that they might refashion their lives and identity according to eh norms of the kingdom of God.”

Posted on by laurenlarkin 0

Some Sölle

I recently read the short book Creative Disobedience by Dorothee Sölle. She was influenced by both Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Friedrich Gogarten. Her work is excellent, pastoral, tangible, accessible; dare I say she’s the best of both of these scholars. Also, considering my own work engages both Bonny and Fritz, it made sense to me to begin reading Sölle; seems she’s my older sister here in this odd theological family.

What I am providing here is not a book review; sadly, I’ve no time for a quality book review. Rather my aim is to provide some enticing quotes from the text, encouraging you, beloved reader, to go get it and read it and take it to heart. I will use bold to add emphasis to parts I want to stand out to you.

“Basically, however, in a completely authoritarian model of obedience one never asks the question ‘why.’ The world loses its significance and is degraded to being but the raw material used in practicing formal obedience. That which is done is uninteresting. When obedience concentrates itself completely on a higher and guiding ‘other,’ it becomes blind, that is, blind to the world. It hears the voice of its master in a very narrow and exclusive sense but it sees nothing. it accomplishes the act of obedience for its own sake, recognizing no additional significance.

“An attempt has been made to solve this dilemma by suggesting that the obedience requested and carried out is given freely. To be sure an obedience freely given does mean a displacement of the power relationship and allows the obedience subject to maintain a certain semblance of honor. But the problem of worldlessness and the lack of objective concerns inherent in such a person-oriented obedience is only sharpened. A critique of obedience cannot satisfy itself merely by maintaining that those who obediently submit choose to do so freely. Blindness toward the world and total irresponsibility are still lacking in this variant of the authoritarian model.

“An obedience that is blind to objective concerns and to the world, that merely listens to what it is told, has divest itself of all responsibility for what is commanded. Obedience and not what is to be done is the sole motivation.”

Creative Disobedience pp. 15-16

“But it is precisely spontaneity for which Jesus sets us free. That which he requires does not presuppose the order of the world; that order has yet to be established in the future. Insofar as the human must first discover what God’s will is, the future of the world remains open.

“In traditional usage one speaks rather descriptively of ‘fulfilling’ obedience. The picture is that of a container of form which must be filled. So too with obedience. A previously existing order is postulate that must be maintained, defended, or fulfilled. But Jesus did not conceive of the world according to a model of completed order, which person were merely required to maintain. The world he enter had not yet reached perfection. It was alterable, in fact, it awaited transformation. Schemes of order are in Jesus’ words utterly destroyed–great and small, scholar and child, riches and poverty, knowledge of the Law and ignorance. Jesus did everything in his power to relativize these orders and set free the person caught up in the se schemes. This process of liberation is called ‘Gospel.’ Out obedience then still be thought of as the Christian’s greatest glory?

“I detect that we need new words to describe the revolutionary nature of all relationships begun in Christ. At the very least it is problematic whether we can even continue to consider that which Jesus wanted under the term obedience.“

Creative Disobedience pp. 27-28

“A society is imagined in which it is no longer necessary to deny someone people their own subjectivity. Such an inhuman demand destroys the person on whom it is made. Those who require such a degree of self-sacrifice, or include it in their life plan, lose their freedom. He who makes use of another person as a means of achieving his own ends not only humiliates that person but also degrades himself. To treat another person as if she were a thing is to become a thing oneself, a servant to the functioning of the very ‘thing’ being manipulated. By demanding sacrifice, such a person destroys his own freedom. As the one in control he becomes the one controlled. In alienating others from that which they wish to be and can become, he alienates himself. Because he concentrates on domination, on employing others as means to his own ends, he loses all the other possibilities open to him. For example, he no longer pays attention to anything that does not fit his purpose. He loses the ability to enjoy ling because he must constantly reinforce his life by accomplishments. The relationship between people is so interdependent that it is impossible for one person to prosper at the expense of another. In the long run such exploitation proves detrimental to both.”

Creative Disobedience pp. 34-35

“The stronger a person’s self-identity–that which we have previously referred to as his or her being a subject–the easier partial renunciation becomes. in borderline situations the expression ‘partial renunciation’ can be applied to the runcination of one’s own life for the sake of the other. However, even then it is impossible for such a person to relinquish his or her identity for the sake of the other. And so one could formulate the thesis: The greater one’s realization of selfhood the greater one’s ability for true renunciation. The more successful one is at living the easier it is for him or her to let go of life.“

Creative Disobedience p. 39

“A person can, during the course of his lifetime, become more imaginative, or, on the other hand, he can give u more and more of his phantasy. He then becomes progressively poorer in his style of living and ever more fixed in that which he refers to as his life-experience or his understanding of people. This growing impoverishment of life takes pleasure in assuming the appearance of maturity, in feigning a full awareness of reality.“

Creative Disobedience p. 51

“Jesus made people whole without asking for thanks. He fulfilled people’s wishes without requesting their validity. He allowed phantasy full reign without bowing to propriety. he took seriously the religious requirements such as fasting, the breaking of bread, and thanksgiving, but he was also able to put them all aside. He was at ease with friend and foe alike. The conventional classification of people in artificial groupings could be suspended at any time.

“He never brought new virtues and duties. It was fulfillment he offered to those with whom he dealt, a certain sense of wholeness, of well-being, which made virtue and its practice possible. He did not fulfill duties; instead he changed the situation of those whom he met. His phantasy began with the situations but always went far beyond them.”

Creative Disobedience pp. 52-53

“The liberated human being is so strongly aware of him or herself as a self-determining subject that partial denials become possible. The expression ‘partial denial’ may seen inappropriate when it is applied to Jesus, but I use it in order to underscore the fact that a person can never deny his own identity simply at the will of another. In this sense Jesus too never denied his own identity. It is more appropriate to say that his death was the final substantiation of his identity, of the unheard of assertion ‘I am the life.'”

Creative Disobedience p. 58

“It appeared to be forgotten that for Jesus ‘God’ meant liberation, the unchaining of all powers which lie imprisoned in each of us, powers with which we too can perform miracles which are no less significant than those we are told Jesus himself performed. The feeling of possessing a full life, the fulfillment of Jesus, was lost. It was as if one wished to promise people something more and greater than the fulfillment of Jesus–a participation in divine life which is realized only after death. With the help of this beyond, this still to come, fulfillment was defamed, and the transformation of this earth in view of the possibilities for fulfillment remained subordinate.

“We still secretly feared that the realization of selfhood could only be achieved at the cost of others, suspected that it was the robbery of others, because we viewed the earth itself and the projected possibilities for fulfillment as constant and immovable. If instead the world is seen as moving toward a goal, if God is experiences as active in history and not merely posited as resting beyond nature, as eternally being, then the possibilities for fulfillment are multiplied. Then phantasy ceases to be a thing for children and poets–that which Christian history has made of it. The person is once again given the courage to say ‘I,’ without, in so doing, taking anything from anyone else.“

Creative Disobedience pp. 64-65

Posted on by laurenlarkin 2

Hearing unto Life

Romans 5:12-19 (Sermon)

On Ash Wednesday, Rev. Kennedy and I placed ashes on foreheads and whispered the words: “Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” The alb became our sackcloth, the stole a millstone, and our words reminders that the wage and curse of sin is death. We anointed fragile and vulnerable people not with the oil of life, but with the ash of death.

The sermon carried a glimmer of hope, yet I was taken by the deep tenor of the service. Life eclipsed by death. The moment driven home when I placed ashes on the foreheads of my own children. My hands, my voice, my body–which gestated, nurtured, sustained, warmed, comforted and consoled my babies–delivered their sentence: death. Woven through the reminder of return to dust was the maternal apology that from this I cannot protect them. The great reaper knocks on every single door and collects.

Just as through this one person sin entered the cosmos and through [this] sin death, and in this way death spread into all humanity, on the basis of one all sinned. (Rom 5:12)

In Romans, Paul marries together sin and death in such a way that (grammatically) to tear one from the other would be to destroy both. The presence of death is evidence of the presence of sin.[1] That we die is, for Paul, evidence that something has gone terribly wrong. How has this come to be?

To answer, Paul, in vv. 13-14, yanks Adam out of Genesis 3 and makes him stand trial. Paul makes it clear it is not the Law that caused sin. (As if we could just get rid of the law to get rid of sin, if we did would only eliminate the exposure of sin.[2]) That there is death, which existed before the giving of the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai, there is sin because death is before the Law was.[3] For Paul, before there is the Law there is death, before death there is Adam and with him the “sin.” Before the manifestation of the “sin,” there is the problem.

What is this “problem that thrust all of humanity into the cold, boney arms of death?[4] It’s not an issue of will, it’s an issue of hearing.

The language Paul employs talking about the “sin” of Adam sounds more like mis-stepping and slipping[5] than willful disobedience. It’s aiming but missing the mark. It’s trying to walk but falling down. It’s being well intentioned and making a huge mistake. You can love and cause pain.

In v.19 things get interesting. It’s here we get the first reference to “disobedience” and “obedience.” Again, the words chosen for the discussion are built from the concept of hearing.[6] And herein lies the problem that precedes the “sin”: hearing wrongly v. hearing rightly. (Shema O, Israel the core of Jewish liturgy and would have been coursing through Paul’s veins.) Paul creates a scene where Adam misheard and (thus) mis-stepped.

Going back to Gen 3, to the intellectual cage match between Eve and the serpent, something revelatory occurs. When tempted with the “forbidden” fruit, Eve without hesitation tells the serpent, “‘We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, “You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die,”’” (Gen 3:2-3). Do you hear the problem? Eve misquotes the prohibition to the serpent.

In Genesis 2:15-17, Adam is created out of dust and is inspired by God’s breath. Then he’s brought into the garden to work and have dominion over it. “And the Lord God commanded the man, ‘You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die,’” (Gen 2:15-17). Who received the prohibition? Adam.  According to the narrative fluidity of the two chapters, who relayed it to Eve? Adam. What was the problem resulting in the situation at the tree? Not the ingesting of the fruit, that’s the wage (the fruit) of “sin” which partook of death. The problem: someone misheard.

Adam was spoken to first. And then Eve. One of them or both of them misheard. Did they love God? We can assume they did. Did they want to do poorly? No. They intended well and mis-stepped because the fundamental problem of humanity is hardness of heart resulting in a stiff neck preventing the hearing of hearing,[7] hearing so deeply that you do (Shema). We can be God-inspired, God-breathed creations, placed in paradise, and still have massive hearing problems.

Martin Luther explains that part of the original sin we are born into is not only a lack of uprightness in the entire (inner and outer) person, but a “nausea toward the good.”[8] Why is the idea of good, of God, so loathsome? Because it’s an issue of hearing. I hear God as a threat to me because I mishear. That God is and reigns comes to me as threat: threat to myself, my will, my reason, my perception of what is good, etc. The proclamation that God is is flat out offensive to me; it means I am not the queen I think I am.

Thus, when the law comes, it exposes my predicament, plight, and problem. In the Law’s ability to expose, I blame it for my predicament; ignorance is bliss. Had the law never come, I’d not know I was stuck. But now in seeing that I’m stuck, I’m angry, and I blame the law for my stuckness, which I was before the law came. But I blame wrongly because I hear wrongly.[9]

This is the original sin that we are born into. We are not evil and horrible, willfully bent on disobedience and destruction. Rather, we’ve genetically inherited poor hearing and this results in disobedience, missing the mark, and mis-stepping, and thus into death. To hear wrongly is to die; to hear rightly is to live. We need to be caused to hear rightly. The great Shema O, Israel[10] goes forth, but who has ears to hear so deeply that they hit the mark, step rightly, to walk and not slip?

Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. It is he who hears rightly, steps rightly, hits the mark and walks without slipping. He is God incarnate, the word made flesh[11] who proclaims the word of God, obeys the word of God, and performs the word of God he hears. Jesus proclaims the reign of God, he lives the reign of God, he is the reign of God. This is the one who is baptized by John in the river Jordan and hears God proclaim him as God’s divine son. This is also the one who has heard the word of God so well he will defeat the attacks of the evil one, being successful where Israel wasn’t. Shema O, Israel.

Just as we who are born of flesh are born into Adam’s imperfect hearing resulting in disobedience and death, we are reborn by hearing through the giving of ears to hear in the proclamation of Christ Crucified. In this encounter with God in the event of faith (hearing), we are brought through death and are recreated into Christ’s perfect hearing resulting in obedience.[12]

When God acts on behalf of God’s people, God doesn’t merely contend with “disobedience” (that’s what we do). God contends with the problem by giving the free gift of new, circumcised[13] hearts and spirits which lead to obedience.[14] God gives the free gift of the grace of and righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, making the unrighteous righteous. It is the grace of Christ that eclipses the sin of Adam;[15] it is the life of Christ that drowns out the death of Adam; it is the perfect hearing of Christ that resurrects all who are stuck in the death of the mishearing of Adam.[16] It is the supernova of Christmas and Easter that engulfs and swallows the sting of death.

It is Christ, the righteous one, who heals those who are lame, declares clean those who are unclean, gives sight to those who can’t see and hearing to those who can’t hear. It is Christ who is the free gift of God’s grace and righteousness.[17] It is Christ who speaks to those condemned to death as criminals with his pronouncement of acquittal and restores them to life. This is the substance of the church’s witness to the world in her speech and sacraments. In hearing rightly, we speak to and act rightly in the world. In hearing rightly, we are brought to the font and table, witnessing to our identification with Christ in his death and resurrection. And there we are anointed not with ash but with oil, sealed as Christ’s own and into his obedience, fed by Christ’s hand, hearing the comfort of the divine whisper, “This is my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.”[18]

 

 

 

[1] Luther LW 25. 298. “…if death comes by sin and if without sin there would be no death, then sin is in all of us. Thus it is not personal sin that he is talking about here. Otherwise it would be false to say that death had entered by sin, but rather we ought to say that it came by the will of God.”

[2] Luther LW 25. 303. “And thus it is not understood to mean that sin existed until the Law came and then ceased to exist, but that sin received an understanding of itself which it did not possess before. And the words of the apostle clearly indicate this interpretation: ‘But sin was not counted where there was no law,’ as if to say that through the Law, which it had preceded, sin was not abolished but imputed.”

[3] Luther LW 25. 298. “…sin was in the world before the Law was given, etc. (v. 13). Actual sin also was in the world before Moses, and it was imputed, because it was also punished by men; but original sin was unknown until Moses revealed it in Gen. 3.”

[4] Luther LW 25. 299. “Note how at the same time it is true that only one man sinned, that only one sin was committed, that only one person was disobedient, and yet because of him many were made sinners and disobedient.”

[5] Α῾μαρτα´νω: I miss the mark, I sinned, I made a mistake. η῾ παρα´βασις: the going aside, deviation, overstepping. το` παρα´πτωμα: the trespass, false step, lapse, slip, sin.

[6] Η῾ παρακοη´: the hearing amiss, by implication disobedience; imperfect hearing. η῾ υ῾πακοη´: obedience, submissiveness, compliance.

[7] Deuteronomy 30:6ff

[8] Luther LW 25. 299. What is original sin, “Second, however, according to the apostle and the simplicity of meaning in Christ Jesus, it is not only a lack of a certain quality in the will, nor even only a lack of light in the mind or of power in the memory, but particularly it is a lack of uprightness and of the power of all the faculties both of body and soul and of the whole inner and outer man. On top of all this, it is propensity toward evil. It is a nausea toward the good, a loathing of light and wisdom, and a delight in error and darkness, a flight from and an abomination of all good works, a pursuit of evil…”

[9] Luther LW 25. 307. “And this is true, so that the meaning is: the Law came and without any fault on the part of the Law or in the intentions of the Lawgiver, it happened that it came for the increasing of sin, and this happened because of the weakness of our sinful desire, which was unable to fulfill the Law.”

[10] Deuteronomy 6.

[11] John 1

[12] Luther LW 25. 305. Luther makes reference later to 1 Corinthians 15:22.

[13] Deuteronomy 30:6

[14] Ezekiel 36:24-27, Jeremiah 31:31-34

[15] Luther LW 25. 306. “This gift is ‘by the grace of that one Man,’ that is, by the personal merit and grace of Christ, by which He was pleasing to God, so that He might give this gift to us. This phrase ‘by the grace of that one Man’ should be understood of the personal grace of Christ, corresponding to the personal sin of Adam which belonged to him, but the ‘gift’ is the very righteousness which has been given to us.”

[16] Luther LW 25. 306. “Thus also original sin is a gift (if I may use the term) in the sin of the one man Adam. But ‘the grace of God’ and ‘the gift’ are the same thing, namely, the very righteousness which is freely given to us through Christ. And He adds this grace because it is customary to give a gift to one’s friends. But this gift is given even to His enemies out of His mercy, because they were not worthy of this gift unless they were made worthy and accounted as such by the mercy and grace of God.”

[17] Luther LW 25. 305-6. “The apostle joins together grace and the gift, as if they were different, but he does so in order that he may clearly demonstrate the type of the One who was to come which he has mentioned, namely, that although we are justified by God and receive His grace, yet we do not receive it by our own merit, but it is His gift, which the Father gave to Christ to give to men, according to the statement in Eph. 4:8, ‘When He ascended on high. He led a host of captives, and He gave gifts to men.’”

[18] These final few thoughts in this paragraph are influenced by the profound work of Dr. W. Travis McMaken in his book, The Sign of the Gospel: Toward an Evangelical Doctrine of Infant Baptism after Karl Barth Emerging Scholars Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2013. It was difficult to find one quotation to demonstrate how I was influenced—the entire book is a masterpiece. However, for the sake of space, I think this gets at the thrust of it: “The objective-subjective character of baptism as a mode of the church’s gospel proclamation confronts those baptized with the demands of the gospel thereby proclaimed. As mode of the church’s gospel proclamation, baptism confronts those baptized with the message that they were baptized in Jesus Christ’s baptism, died in his death, and were raised in his resurrection. This baptismal proclamation calls those that it confronts to, as Paul puts it, “walk in newness of life” (Rom. 6:4). Such an exhortation requires neither a baptismal transfer of grace nor a baptismal ratification of personal commitment; rather, it flows from the objective-subjective and holistically particular installation of the church’s gospel proclamation within the history of those baptized.”233-34.

Posted on by laurenlarkin 0