from Issues, Etc. Journal - Fall 1998 - Vol. 3 No. 2--
Everyday in every way we are getting better and better. Really?
Theology is systematic. All the pieces are supposed to fit together. Within Protestantism there are two very distinct systems of theology. One is a Theology of Glory and the other is a Theology of the Cross. I believe that it is very important that we understand the differences between these two ways of thinking. In so doing, I believe we will arrive at the conclusion that these two systems cannot be mixed.
The Place of the Gospel
The Protestant theology of glory begins with a one-time trip to the Cross of Jesus Christ. The preaching of human sin and divine grace is only directed at the unbeliever in order to "get him saved." The person who gets saved can sing, "At the Cross, at the Cross where I first saw the light and the burden of my sin rolled away . . . and now I am happy all the day."
Very often, when discussing on Issues, Etc. the place of the Gospel in preaching and teaching, someone will call-in and say, "I've already been to the Cross. I've heard the Gospel. I'm saved." In other words, in the thinking of that person, the preaching of the Gospel is directed at unbelievers. Once unbelievers are saved the Gospel in no longer relevant.
The theology of the Cross is quite different. The preaching of sin and grace or Law and Gospel is not only intended to convert the unbelieving sinner but is intended to produce sanctification in the Christian. The preaching of the Law continues to convict the Christian of sin, leading to contrition, and the Gospel continues to produce faith in the atoning work of Jesus Christ.
The Definition of Repentance
A theology of glory defines repentance as a sinner being sorry for his sins and determining not to sin anymore. Repentance is the determination of the sinner to live a better life. Before being saved, the sinner is required to repent of all known sins. Incomplete repentance will cause a person to doubt whether or not they have really been saved.
Alternatively, the theology of the Cross defines repentance as contrition and faith rather than contrition and human determination. While the preaching of the Law will lead to contrition or sorrow over sin, the preaching of the Gospel will produce faith in the redemptive work of Christ Jesus.
Repentance is therefore not a singular act that precedes "getting saved" but defines the totality of the Christian life. The preaching of Law and Gospel produces repentance – sorrow over sin and faith in Christ Jesus.
Sanctification
A theology of glory separates the Christian life from the Gospel. Once you are saved you are given a list of do's and don'ts. More often than not, these are "evangelical house rules." If you continue to break the rules or backslide, the solution is the rededication of your life to God or, in some cases, the emotional determination to keep your promises. You wouldn't go back to the Cross again because you already did that when you got saved. Rather, you rededicate your life, because "once saved, is always saved."
The theology of the Cross never gets you past the Cross. The preaching of the Law is not intended to provide you with a list of do's and don'ts. Rather the preaching of the Law is intended to drive you back to the Cross through the hearing of the Gospel. As a result of the Gospel, your faith is strengthened. Out of faith, the good works defining the Christian life are produced.
Those who mix the theology of glory with the theology of the Cross may initially preach Law and Gospel but will end the sermon with Law, principles, or house rules. This is usually introduced with "May we" or "Let us." Such a sermon will cause you to go home, not rejoicing in forgiveness, but determined to live a better life.
Holiness
A theology of glory produces people who think they are better than other people. "Getting saved" moves you to a higher level. You are now a better person, a step above those who are not saved. You can think of yourself as a part of the "moral majority" as opposed to the "immoral minority." You share your testimony so that other people will get saved and be a good person just like you are.
The notion of getting saved as taking a higher step on the ladder of holiness begets other steps. Some teach that getting saved is merely the first experience, now you have to get sanctified. This is the "second work of grace." This second work removes your old sinful nature so that you are no longer a sinner.
You now add to your testimony your experience of perfect sanctification. You not only witness to unbelievers, but you tell other Christians who still refer to themselves as "sinners saved by grace" that you are no longer a sinner. You have taken the next step. They should do the same.
The Pentecostals (and Charismatics) add another step on the ladder of holiness. They promote a baptism in the Spirit with speaking in tongues which gives you spiritual power that you didn't have before. Former Southern Baptist pastor Charles Simpson said, "Before I got baptized in the Spirit I almost wore out my rededicator." In other words, now that he has received power, unlike other Baptists, he no longer has to rededicate his life.
There may be many more steps and experiences for you to take. The popular Charismatic showman Benny Hinn speaks of four or five different anointings awaiting you as you climb the ladder of holiness. The so-called revivals that have broken out in Toronto and Pensacola offer a wide variety of experiences from being "slain in the Spirit," to being "drunk in the Spirit," to simply standing in one spot and shaking your head back and forth. According to testimonies, these experiences will produce in you higher levels of spirituality and holiness as you move on to glory.
Your testimony will now focus on trying to convince other Christians that they should come to where you are and get baptized in the Spirit, speak in tongues, and seek these other experiences. Even though you don't say it, everyone knows that you think you are a better Christian, because you have taken the next step.
Living in a theology of the Cross never makes you any "better" than anyone else. Every day in every way you are not getting better and better. In fact, the preaching of Law and Gospel will not lead you to an awareness of your holiness, but rather to greater awareness of the depth of your sin. As a result, you will develop an ever-increasing faith in and appreciation for the redeeming work of Jesus Christ.
Your witness will focus upon the work of the Cross, not upon your experience of getting saved, sanctified, or becoming more spiritual. You have taken no step toward God or arrived at any higher level of holiness. You don't talk about your spirituality. You talk about the grace of God in Christ Jesus.
When dealing with these issues on the radio, I often encounter opposition. People will fight to defend their theology of glory. I often challenge them to share their testimony without ever talking about themselves. I have developed the pet phrase, "This thing called Christianity – it's not about you!"
Martin Luther accurately defined sin as man turning in on himself. While a theology of glory continues to turn you to yourself as you measure your growth in holiness against a plethora of spiritual experiences, the theology of the Cross turns you away from yourself. As a result of the conviction of the Law, you forsake your own good works and spiritual experiences and cling to the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ.
Which is Correct?
Any reading of the New Testament will demonstrate that the systematic theology of the Apostle Paul was a theology of the Cross. His focus was not upon his spirituality but upon the Cross of Christ. He boasted of his weaknesses. He referred to himself as the "chief of sinners" and a "wretched man." As far as he was concerned, his holiness and goodness was manure compared to the righteousness of Christ. For the Apostle, the dynamic of both justification and sanctification was "not I, but Christ."
The Reformation theology that characterizes both Lutheranism and traditional Calvinism is a theology of the Cross. There is no doubt that the theology of glory appeals to natural man. It is a theology of Adam. It is self-focused. It defines "popular Christianity." The reality is, it is not biblical Christianity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
JAZ, this is incredible. Who is this man???
-PCH
JAZ,
I hate to take issue on this topic again, but I wonder if the story of God's work in the world, in Christ, and through the Church is not quite a bit more complex than Don Matzat has been able, or willing, to articulate.
I think Matzat would be right to criticize the approach of evangelicals as being wrong-headed in prioritizing 'get'n saved' and 'liv'n right' - if that were actually what they were up to. I am not convinced.
But that aside, I think further thought should be given to Matzat's (artificial) opposition between seeing our selves in light of the cross, and rejoicing in the new life in Christ. Ought we not do both?
I think that Matzat would be wrong to assert that the Gospel of Christ (at least insofar as the NT is concerned) has simply to do with being saved from God's just wrath (as per Rom.1). He would be wrong to suggest that 'being saved' does not involve real transformation. The work of Christ is not simply a vicarious death which leaves our lives as they are, untouched. Rather, Christ's life, death, and resurrection change the human condition all the way down the line. Christ fills his Church with his own Spirit and incorporates us into the eternal, loving Trinitarian life of God. Witness Rom 8 "But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you...But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."
How does that square with our constant struggle to live and act rightly? Are we not always returning to the cross? Yes. But, the struggle of the 'Christian' is categorically different than it was before conversion. The nature of the struggle has changed. The Christian's wrestle with sin (i.e. living at the foot of the cross) is one of submitting to the reality of God's transforming presence by his Spirit. Before conversion one is simply dead (or at least is totally isolated from God and unable to affect a change in either oneself, or one's relation to God = dead). When Christ puts before us the choice between life and death he means it. There is a transformation. There is a struggle. But there is a transformation.
To characterize any theology that holds a high soteriology as a theology of Glory amounts to little more than name calling. It is insufficient, and Matzat ought to abandon those categories. Even the briefest encounter with Christian reflection reveals that they cannot capture the whole Christian theological spectrum.
Besides, by the logic of the theology of the cross, one would think that more time should be spent removing the plank from one's own eye, than the sliver from another's.
~BFC
For me, the ability to remove the plank from my eye, and, likewise, the ability to notice that it has been removed, is the issue. I believe things do improve, that people are transformed, just not that I can see much of it in myself, and, further, that any form of drawing attention to such transformation actually bares more fruit than, instead, continuing to notice the old Adam still kicking in me despite my transformation. This exact behavior is what I called repentance, albeit extremely de-mystified (a.k.a, returning to the foot of the cross).
That said, even if paying any sort of attention to this transformation is rightly helpful, I don't do it. I can't do it, and have tried to want to do it. I'm the kind of human who gets snow-balled by the tragedy every time, and there is always a tragedy by my inaccurate assessment of the way things seem to be unfolding in life. Give me one-hundred good things goin' on in my life, and just one slightly lousy circumstance or development, and guess what...the lousy one consumes me, even though it shouldnt. I am not all sin, but all of me is tinged, and, similarly, my life is not all lousy, but always seemingly infected in a way that calls the gosh darn shots. Would that it weren't so! You see, my estimation of my life is always wrong and inaccurate. Meanwhile, I'm sure, as are you, that some kind of transformation must be occuring in my life, my focus is just not on that area. That's all I mean when I suggest that the experience is not one of seeming sanctification. As Forde puts it, "Sanctification is God's hidden work". That is why my calling is to others, and not to myself, and to the extent that I am bound to myself still, repentance is just the thing. But even one's penetance cannot take priority over another's concerns, be they glimmer or gloom. Have you heard of the woman who came to the door, saying: "Can you come back in 30 minutes? I'm meditating." That is the wrong approach.
Also, I think the righteousness is always Christ's and it lies in our hidden-ness in Him, not His hidden-ness in us. You wrote that we should/"ought (to)" both see ourselves in light of the cross, and also rejoice in the new life in Christ. I agree that we ought to, but I don't do anything as I ought. We just don't, though we should. As R. Rosenbladt opens some prayers, "Father, we come to you not as we ought, but as we are able." At that divided place in each life, there is a Savior to be found, for now and forever, but he, like one of those face-huggers, goes only right for the throat, for the wound, or toward the pain, as does a physician. If He were to turn right (positively), instead of towards the left (the prodigal part, which is the direction that true, sacrificial love requires) I would not be able to "Believe in the Good News" that presupposes repentance (Matt 21:32, Mark 1:15).
So, what I'm really saying is that I don't relate to the Christian life you describe, the one that seems "different". For me, the difference is the Gospel, not my relationship to it. Before, it was something I did not have, and, in its absense, I could not ever fully collapse, because I was the only savior I had. With the Good News came the realization that I was free to be weak, and to admit just that. Being able to do that is indeed something I crave, and that's what I call going to foot of the cross, where myself as my own enemy can indeed be confessed and responded to by God's intervention (a.k.a., Jesus). Still "sinner in need of savior" is the formula, just as it was, if not moreso, when it first grabbed me at moment one. Here's the really crazy part -- and I don't know if this is a Lutheran understanding, or just my own reflection -- the significance of the resurrection points to the validity of the cross where my sins were born, that it was not some failed attempt to cover my life, but that it was in fact a total success. To live is Christ, to die is gain. I look forward to the second half indeed!
As far as the line between Glory and Cross, I agree, it's not perfect, but it is illuminating and a helpful Christian hermeneutic to consider. Too few have never heard of the distinction. I put the essay up for that reason. But it doesn't sit all well with me either. The Holy Spirit, largely in light of my charismatic leanings, confounds much of my ability to figure it out. I find switching the word Glory for Strength, and Cross for Weakness helps a bit (which is a thought I stole from my Pop's new book). Weakness and Strength really does seem a helpful lens through which to view one's life. Gerhard Forde is the master on this one, and I would rather refer to his writings on this than any of my own. His probing insights into the implications of such a theology for the human life are mind-blowing. I'll post one of my favorite foot-notes from his "On Being a Theologian of the Cross" soon. Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I think we (you and I) agree more than you do with Matzat, which is fine by me, as I don't know the guy,... but I do know you, and I likey!
John,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think I also experience things the way you describe. I am such a sinner. I am incapable of change. Damn.
I guess, very briefly, that I believe the bible describes my present situation in more accurate ways than I experience it. So, the primary data for describing the Christian life is Christ revealed in the scripture and the church. I guess I feel called to believe in a reality that I do not experience - sometimes fully, sometimes at all - that I live in Christ, and therefore he lives in me.
I want to be simul justus et picante, but am always just peccator.
Thank you for your testimony. I find myself there too. In the end we both agree on the necessity of admitting we are powerless over our sin - that our lives have become unmanageable - and that only a power greater than ourselves (Christ) can restore us to sanity and life.
Frank
Post a Comment