Hi ________,
Just read the article. I agree I would not start with Jefferson [as being the authority on Christian doctrine] although that is probably where many of Sullivan’s cynical subscribers start. Jefferson was a higher critic of the scripture and this is precisely the example of what Seminexwas all about. It is interesting that this author says he believes in the Resurrection and the Incarnation but on the other hands promotes the idea of not confessing these doctrines. A bit irrational. But there are many Roman Catholic theologians that embrace Higher Criticism and what your left with is moralism absent the vicarious atonement.
He does have a valid critique of Protestantism which I would label American Evangelicalism or Calvinism. Both Calvinism and Roman Catholicism confuse the kingdoms of the left and of the right and therefore church and state. So they both have this weakness of wanting to take over the world and create a utopia. Sorry, no utopia, until Christ returns!
Notice how the forgiveness of sins and the vicarious atonement for sins was entirely absent from his proposed reform of Christianity. I guess that got tossed out on the dung heap. Instead, according to Sullivan, Christianity is about doing what Christ and St. Francis of Assi, did. Sell all your goods and live an ascetic celibate lifestyle. Oops already married? Have kids? Employed for financial gain in the world? Too bad you don’t qualify for being a Christian. Ridiculous!
Jesus as example for us to follow does not save us or make us righteous before God although it can make us righteous before our fellow man. What is the point of Jesus death and resurrection if it does not forgive sins?
I am not against a Christian discipline, to me Sullivan makes an appealing statement. “Or you can simply observe what those around him testified to: something special, unique, mysterious, holy. To reduce one’s life to essentials, to ask merely for daily bread, forgiveness of others, and denial of self is, in many ways, a form of madness. It is also a form of liberation. It lets go of complexity and focuses on simplicity. Francis did not found an order designed to think or control. He insisted on the simplicity of manual labor, prayer, and the sacraments. That was enough for him.”
Not a bad description of Christian discipline, however without understanding the difference between law and gospel these disciplines gain you nothing and lead one much faster down the path of perdition as you become more confident in your works being the cause of your righteousness before God (coram Deo). Sullivan is promoting becoming a do it yourself Pharisee.
Christian discipline can be observed even if you are not a monk or nun. It is not complex it as simple as using the Treasury of Daily Prayer and attending Divine Services. It can be done in the vocations God has given us to serve our neighbor, as children, parents, workers etc…. But the Roman Catholics seem to have no concept of the doctrine of vocation. As we Lutheran’s understand it, the secular life is the sacred life we have received lived out for the benefit of our neighbor or righteousness before man (coram hominibus). Even the government has a place in its use of the sword to suppress evil.
Pastor
_______________
(In response to a question about the meaning of Thesis 4 of the Heidelberg Disputation of 1518: "Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil they are nevertheless really eternal merits.")
A great example is today. “Good” Friday. The suffering and crucifixion of the Son of God. Certainly that would qualify as an example of Thesis 4. But I would even think the sacraments; baptism and the eating and drinking of Christ’s body and blood, manna, and confessing sins. How about God’s requirement that the Pastor be a man? You as a Christian have grown accustomed to these things as being good. These things require the denial of self to be received and appreciated.
But how does the unbeliever see them? As stupid, bigoted, ugly and evil. Yet they serve to bring us into eternal life. Nothing else has such a promise attached to it. Even baptized Christians have fallen away from receiving these things. So they must not be all that desirable to the flesh. Some still come to church and receive these things and come away saying they got nothing out of the service. They complain, “How can a church grow that uses the liturgy and administers the sacraments according to Christ’s institution? No, we need all sorts of programs, big screens, entertaining worship, lay participation, and large crowds to grow the church or they may complain in a more liberal setting why spend all this money on the church what about the poor or we need social activism?” Are you sort of getting the picture? The focus changes from what Christ is doing to what we need to be doing or we wish to dictate the terms on how we are being served.
But the deeper problem is that we tend toward a theology of glory rather than being theologians of the cross. The theology of glory says that you have something good in you, some god in you that does good. And that means you have something you can offer and should offer the father god. Being a theologian of the cross means that when you see the cross you know that it was your sins that put the Son of God there. You have nothing to bring. You are beggar holding an empty sack crying out, “Lord have mercy!” And God answers that prayer and fills your sack, which is your faith, with mercy and forgiveness. As the cross put Jesus to death it puts, the self, the ego to death in us so that He may create something new! So do you know what we need to do? Die with Jesus!
Theologians of glory also believe we have a free will but being a theologian of the cross means believing that our will is captive, held in bondage, to either the Adversary or Christ. Glory theologians are active while cross theologians are passive in their relationship to the Father. Christians rely entirely on Christ for their righteousness before God.
I do have another book you can read by Gerhard O. Forde “On being a theologian of the cross”, Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518. Eerdmans Publishing 1997 ISBN 0-8028-4345-x
Pastor
No comments:
Post a Comment