Barth: Anthropocentric?

A few weeks back, a Barth post of mine led to a good discussion in the comments.  This post is a sort of answer to that using Gustaf Wingren (20th C. Lutheran theologian) and Cornelius Van Til (20th C. Reformed theologian) to speak about one weakness found in Barth’s theology.  Basically, both Wingren and Van Til noted a glaring irony: Barth’s loud voice speaking of God was quite anthropocentric after all.

Wingren, for example, accused Barth of substituting revelation in place of justification and forgiveness.  Wingren said Barth overemphasized human knowledge instead of redemption from the guilt and corruption of sin.  Barth, Wingren noted, had a sort of Schleiermachian bent.  “It is strange that we must make this statement, but it is necessary: In Barth’s theology man is obviously the center.  The question about man’s knowledge is the axis around which the whole subject matter moves.”  (Sources: Wingren’s Theology in Conflict: Nygren, Barth, Bultmann p. 28-29; this is also mentioned in William Willimon, Conversations with Barth on Preaching, p.80 & 279.  Willimon, who loves Barth, even admitted this was “true,” since for Barth, “sin is mostly a form of unknowing” [ibid, 80].)

Van Til, independent of Wingren’s conclusion, wrote similarly.  Barth’s “theology is still nothing but an anthropology.”  Elsewhere he says that Barth’s ontology coalesces with this epistemology.  According to Barth, Van Til wrote, “all human beings who exist, that is, really exist in the Christ, and all human beings who have knowledge of anything at all have this knowledge because they are one with the process that is Christ and that is God.” (See Van Til’s New Modernism p. 375.)

After reading Barth for a few years now, I do believe these are legitimate concerns, but I’m still reading.  He has “tossed around” my furniture, but I’ve not yet crossed the 1,000 page mark so I best not comment too much.  When I cross the 1,000 page mark, perhaps I’ll have something to say (although one never knows with Barth!).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Why DID We Crucify Him?

 
I’m still thinking critically about the present-day view of Jesus, the view of which Deepak Chopra advocates by painting a rosy-cozy picture of a “third” Jesus.  Awhile back we saw Machen’s comments that were excellent and appropriate.  From a different “tradition,” here’s Bishop Willimon’s take on this whole thing.

“It is odd that we have made even Jesus into such a quivering mass of affirmation and oozing graciousness, considering how frequently, unguardedly, and gleefully Jesus told us that we were sinners.  Anyone who thinks that Jesus was into inclusiveness, self-affirmation, and open-minded, heart-happy acceptance has then got to figure out why we responded to him by nailing him on a cross.  He got there not for urging us to ‘consider the lilies’ but for calling us ‘whitewashed tombs’ and even worse.”

Right.  If Jesus just gave us some neat statements on realizing our potential, why in the world did we staple him to a tree while cackling like demons?  We need Jesus because he called sin sin and chased it to the cross to pay for it and take the damning curse from those who trust in him.  I don’t really care about my lack of self-actualization and low self-esteem.  My dark and depraved heart frightens me much more.

Qutoes from William Willimon, Sinning Like a Christian (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 8.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

To H in a Handbasket?

 Thomas Brooks, in Precious Remedies Against Satan’s Devices (1652), opened his discussion with these stout words:

“Christ, the Scripture, your own hearts, and Satan’s devices are the four prime things that should be first and most studied and searched…to discover the fullness of Christ, the emptiness of the creature, and the snares of the great deceiver.”

The book goes on to explore those themes in a way that is comforting and practical for Christian warfare, for sanctification (mortification and vivification).  Christ and Scripture are front and center, but we must also consider our waywardness and Satan’s tricks – this is the perspective from which Brooks writes.

In our cultural climate, however, it is much more popular for preachers and teachers to be culturally savvy and politically aware.  We’d rather hear conservative sermons about the bad stuff “out there,” about the crimes of the government, the wickedness of vampire movies, the illness of society, and so forth than the errors of our own hearts and the dark ways in which Satan attacks us.  Unfortunately, we’re usually only taught how to interact with the sins “out there,” how to hate them and reform society, but we’re left hanging on a limb when it comes to fighting our own dark hearts and Satan’s deadly arrows.  In fact, the focus might be so lopsided that we actually start to think that most of the darkness lies outside of us – in “society” rather than our own beings.

Willimon says it much better than I can.  It is easy to “lament the evil that is large, systemic, political,  natural, and cosmic.  Keep sin large, global, universal.  Talk about the evil done to us by those wicked institutions, these unjust systems of economic distribution.  Surely part of the popularity of the Left Behind books is that they posit the threat of evil out there, somewhere, in some vast cosmic conspiracy.  Jesus, the one better represented in the New Testament than in the Left Behind books, might tell us that we don’t need to look that far to discover the source of most of the bad that afflicts us” (Sinning Like a Christian, p. 15).

Brooks’ Precious Remedies is is a heavy and serious antidote to this lopsidedness of seeing sin “out there.”  It won’t help us be culture warriors or political pundits or give us the ability to make crass and “twitterable” statements about big government.  But it does something much better: teach us from Scripture to flee and fight our sin and Satan’s devices while resting in the sufficiency of the cross.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Luther Latin Quote of the Day

 

 

 

 

Pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo.  (Martin Luther)

Amen!  Boenhoffer’s commentary on that phrase is darkly humorous and true: “You are a sinner anyway, and there is nothing you can do about it!” Speaking of Luther, I really need to get Wingren’s Luther on Vocation. 

shane lems

sunnyside, wa

Prideful Perverse Enjoyment

Pride is a killer.  It is tough to see, tough to own up to, and tough to repent of because it is ever so subtle.  You can repent of anger outbursts, sexual stumbles, and lack of zeal because those are usually easy to spot in your own life.   Pride, however, is a killer because it is camouflaged. In Bridges terms, the sin of “moral superiority and self-righteousness is so easy to fall into today, when society as a whole is openly committing or condoning such flagrant sins as immorality, easy divorce, a homosexual lifestyle, abortion, drunkeness, drug use, avarice, and other flagrant and scandalous sins.”

“Because we don’t commit those sins, we tend to feel morally superior and look with a certain amount of disdain or contempt on those who do.  …I venture that of all the subtle sins we will address in this book, the pride of moral superiority may be the most common, second only to the sin of ungodliness.  But though it is so prevalent among us, it is difficult to recognize because we all practice it to some degree.  In fact, we seem to get a perverse enjoyment out of discussing how awful society around us is becoming.  When we engage in this kind of thinking or conversation, we are guilty of the pride of moral superiority.”

How can we fight against this?  First, Bridges said, by praying for an attitude “of humility based on the truth that ‘there but for the grace of God go I.’”  “Rather than feeling morally superior to those who practice the flagrant sins we condemn, we ought to feel deeply grateful that God by his grace has kept us from, or perhaps rescued us from, such a lifestyle.”  Second, we can guard against pride “by identifying ourselves before God with the sinful society we live in.”  In other words, we are part of the cultural mess we’re in!  We can pray that God would not only give us an attitude of humility, but also the grace and wisdom to see our own pride in every corner of our heart to fight it with the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. 6.17).

Quotes taken from Jerry Bridges, Respectable Sins (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 2007), chapter 11.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

(Still) Sinning Like a Christian

Willimon speaks well on sin in this book, Sinning Like a Christian (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005).  The introduction is great – as is the rest of the book.  In the intro, he says that we Christian sinners understand sin: “it is to sit lightly on our meager moral triumphs, knowing that they are tinged with more than a touch of sin, and at the same time to be gentle with our neighbor’s failures, not expecting too much from people like us” (p. 12).  Later in the intro Willimon notes with Scott Peck that if you really want to see sin, genuine evil, you need to start by looking in the church: it is the nature of evil to “hide among the good” (p. 14).  What Willimon is saying here, I believe, is that we Christians have the standard for what is truly evil, and that standard tell us that it is not simply out there, but in here, in us.  It is easy to go on a moral crusade against abortion or homosexuality, but at the start and end of the day the chief place the Christian has to face sin is inside her/his heart.

When you hear the word “sin” or “evil” as a Christian, you don’t start by pointing to something in the world, but yourself.  That’s what Willimon means by “sinning like a Christian;” he also agrees with Luther – simil iustus et peccator.

Here’s one blurb on pride.

“As frail, mortal, vulnerable creatures, we react to our vulnerability in futile ways, one of them being our pride.  There is something incredibly pitiful about modern, twenty-first century North American people telling ourselves that our greatest need is for more self-esteem, more self-confidence, more self-assurance – pitifully revealing how little esteem, confidence, or assurance that we have in ourselves.  Of course, from a Christian point of view, that’s the problem – ourselves” (p. 46).

This is a fascinating book well worth reading, even if you’re not all the way on board with everything Willimon writes.  In reading it, you’ll learn something quite sinful about sin, your sin.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Heart of Conflict

In The Peacemaking Pastor, Alfred Poirier gives pastors and church leaders a great resource for dealing with conflict in a church.  While Sande’s book The Peacemaker is aimed at personal conflict, Poirier’s is more for the pastor/elder to read as a guide for handling conflict when it arises (it is a great resource for training elders and deacons as well – we’ve used it in the church I pastor).  The two books overlap somewhat, but not too much to make one superfluous or unneeded.

Poirier gives the reader a great biblical and theological basis for all sorts of arbitration and reconciliation situations that come up in the church.  He repeatedly reminds the reader of the gospel of free grace, God’s amazing forgiveness, and how the church lives in light of this grace.  The following quote is one example of how Poirier talks theologically about the source of conflict in the church.

“We typically answer the why of conflict with a who.  ‘Why is there a conflict?’, we ask.  And immediately we point to a who – our children, our spouse, or another brother or sister in Christ.  We blame our boss, our pastor, or our colleague at work.”

“But James (4.1) says conflict starts not with him nor with her, but with us – me.  My desires cause conflict.  And my desires can break a marriage.  They are set over and against my wife’s desires, so I wage war with her to get what I want.  The source of conflict, then, is not something I lack or need but rather something I want – my desires.  We are not empty cups needing to be filled.  We are cups overflowing with pride, ambition, conceit, and selfish desires.  In the same way, our hearts are not empty and passive, but full and active, brimming over and spilling out.  In brief, conflicts erupt in our homes and in our marriages [and in our churches] because there are [sinful] desires in our hearts” (p. 51-2).

In other words, one of the first things to do when a conflict or possible conflict arises is get the log out (Matt 7.5).  We are so quick to blame others and justify ourselves that we cannot even see that many times we start the conflict because of our selfishness and pride.   As Poirier goes on to note, many times these sinful desires in our heart distort our perception of what is going on (p. 57).    Amen.  If we consider our own sinfulness before God’s perfect law, we would more quickly forgive others when they sin against us because we realize what deep gospel forgiveness really means: 70 times 7!  By God’s grace, this results in an atmosphere of peace and unity in a church.  Those who know they have sinned much will not only be forgiven much, but will forgive others much (Col. 3.13).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Horton on Hearing Something Outside of Ourselves

Horton’s new one, People and Place, is not just about word, sacraments, and church.  It is has many implications for homiletics, for preachers of the gospel.

“In our day, the market promises to give us all the resources necessary for… self transformation, yet, far from autonomy, this only makes us slaves of the choices that the market gives us.  To the extent that the Bible facilitates these transformations, it is God’s Word, according to a view of inspiration that is essentially Romantic in character.  Where modern atheism from Fueuerbach to Freud argued that religion is essentially a projection of the self and its felt needs, much of contemporary church practice actually seems implicitly to embrace this perspective instead of recognizing it as a devastating critique.”

“It is precisely the aim of the sacramental Word to pull us out of ourselves – our pious experience, works, history, solemn pronouncements, hopes and fears – and to fasten our hearing gaze (the mixed metaphor is intentional) on the Savior who is outside of us (Heb. 12.2).  Since the essence of sin is being curved in on ourselves, turning to the familiar ‘god within,’ even in the name of pious introspection or spirituality, can only finally lead to the discovery of the God of wrath, not the God of grace.”

What does this “drawing outside of ourselves” mean?  “First, we are drawn out of ourselves to God and his grace in Christ.  Second, we are drawn out of our isolated experience to the covenant community; and finally, we are liberated from spiritual, moral, and emotional narcissism to love and serve our neighbor in the world” (89-91).

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Law, Our Comfortable Sins, and the Liturgy

Earlier, I posted a bit on Jerry Bridges’ book, Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2007). Since then, I’ve finished reading it, and still confidently recommend it. As a reminder, he uses Scripture to point out and expose some sins that we’re used to, that we grow comfortable with, or as the title says, sins that we tolerate. Such daily attitudes of ours like anger, discontentment, worry, selfishness, envy, and so on, Bridges explains, are sins we must deal with. (Warning: you’d probably rather have a root canal than read certain sections of this book! Learning about sins you love hurts.) As Bridges usually does, he constantly reminds the reader of the gospel and forgiveness, along with the Spirit’s power and need for prayer in Christian growth.

I’ve found it helpful to incorporate these things into the liturgy of the church I pastor. Usually, following the biblical pattern, we hear God’s law, confess/repent of our sins in prayer and song, and then I remind the people of grace, forgiveness, and mercy in Jesus Christ (the gospel). Sometimes I use one or all of the ten commandments for the law, other times I use Jesus’ summary of the law in Matthew 22. However, since reading Bridges’ book, I’ve been using the law in a very particular way, to expose these sins that we tolerate.

Example: We can quite easily deflect general commands: do not murder (6th Commandment), but it is impossible (if we’re honest with ourselves!) to deflect specific commands: put away all anger (Col. 3.8). As Bridges states it, “In facing up to our anger, we need to realize that no one else causes us to be angry. Someone else’s words or actions may become the occasion of our anger, but the cause lies deep within us – usually our pride, or selfishness, or desire to control. The cause always lies within our hearts” (p. 123-4). Our anger displays our sinful pride (we are angry at people who attack our character); our anger displays our selfishness (we get angry when things don’t go our way); our anger displays our sinful attitude towards God (our anger makes us forget that God is sovereign over intimate details of our lives).

To put it bluntly, when we’re angry with our kids, or angry with the other accountant in the office, or angry because we had a bad day, we are sinning. We need to acknowledge this sin and confess it to God, running to Christ for forgiveness and mercy.

I’ll end with Bridges’ conclusion of his chapter on anger. “I believe that many Christians live in denial about their anger. They consciously experience the flare-up of negative thoughts and emotions toward someone who has displeased them, but they do not identify this as anger, especially as sinful anger. They focus on the other person’s wrongdoing and justify their own reaction. They do not see their sin. Consequently, their anger is ‘acceptable’ to them. They sense no need to deal with it” (p. 128). Indeed, we need the law’s reminder, do not be angry, to open our eyes to see sin and our need for deliverance.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Your Respectable Sins

Jerry Bridges has a track record of writing good, solid, gospel-centered and Christian-life focused books. I trust many readers of this blog have benefited from at least one of his books. I’m in the middle of one of his latest, Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 2007). I knew right away I would not be able to set it down:

“The motivation for this book stems from a growing conviction that those of us whom I call conservative evangelicals may have become so preoccupied with some of the major sins of society around us that we have lost sight of the need to deal with our own more ‘refined’ or subtle sins” (p. 9). He continues, saying that we Christians usually think of sin as something out there; “we can readily identify sin in the immoral or unethical conduct of people in society at large.” But we often fail to see it in our own lives, in our own hearts. “In effect, we, like society at large, live in denial of our own sin” (p. 16).

Further: its easy for us to speak out against abortion, homosexuality, murder, or fraud, “while virtually ignoring our own sins of gossip, pride, envy, bitterness, and lust, or even our lack of those gracious qualities that Paul calls the fruits of the Spirit” (p. 19).

Since we may – at least on the outside – live at a higher moral standard than most of the society, it is easy to begin to “feel good about ourselves and to assume that God feels that way also” (p. 24). Our sins then become acceptable, respectable, or way too subtle to notice. “The acceptable sins are subtle in the sense that they decieve us into thinking they are not so bad, or not thinking of them as sins, or even worse, not thinking about them at all!” (p. 25).

Bridges goes on in this book to talk about the gospel, the Spirit’s work in us, and then specifically with sin: ungodliness, anxiety, frustration, discontentment, unthankfulness, pride, selfishness, lack of self-control, impatience, irritability, anger, judgmentalism, envy, jealousy, worldliness, and sins of the tongue. I’ll post once or twice more on this excellent book in the upcoming weeks.

shane lems

sunnyside wa