Mark Galli strikes again. This is a man liberated.
Some quotes (savor this article as you might savor a medium-rare ribeye):
“There is in the soul of American evangelicals a feverish anxiety. If our faith in Christ does not lead to our moral uplift, we jumpstart a new spiritual formation regimen that promises to lift us. If the church is not making a difference in the world, we shame ourselves to become more socially relevant and evangelistically effective.”
“Contrary to our aspirations and assumptions, the Christian faith is not a bulleted list that equips us with principles to create the good life, let alone the best life now. Nor does it present us with an agenda, as some would have it, for making the world a better place. The core of the faith is good news. It is a revelation of the deeper realities that plague us (of which our anxiety about change is just a symptom) and the unveiling of an unshakable hope.” (ed. note: Are you kidding me?!)
“If grace is in any way, shape, or form a deal, a quid pro quo, a bargain, a contract, then we will always be obligated to do our part. It would then be our duty to do what God says. It would turn Christian ethics into another law, and therefore into another burden, into “Alienation: The Sequel.” God is not looking for people first and foremost to do or be good, to fulfill the law—in Christ he’s already fulfilled it (Matt. 5:17)! He’s looking for people who will love—love God and neighbor.”
“But love cannot be created by contract, no matter how righteous the clauses. If a “grace contract”—to speak absurdly—is to remain in force, God would do his part, and then we would be obligated to do ours, or vice versa. A contract is about mutual obligation. It has nothing to do with love. Only unconditional grace can transform a hardened heart into a grateful heart. Only a free gift can sabotage any notion of the quid pro quo. Only an utterly merciful act of love can fashion a new creation capable of love. As theologian Karl Barth puts it, “As the beloved of God, we have no alternative but to love him in return.”” (The editor has fainted)
“Now, this does not address the issue of why in this life we know grateful, purity-of-heart love only in fleeting moments (more of this in my next column). Still, it does suggest that the Christian life is not grounded in moral improvement—but in the reality that he who is forgiven much, loves much (Luke 7:47)—and that our first prayer is not a plea for changed behavior but “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me” (Ps. 51:10).”
Read the whole article here.
COMMENTS
34 responses to “Mark Galli is Cooking”
Leave a Reply
Perfect. Galli sees the problem with modern American evangelicalism, he sees that so many evangelicals are the victims of their own sincere efforts to do the right thing, he has sympathy for them in spite of their condemning comments about his previous article, and he has presented the gospel in the most compelling and beautiful way I have read in a long time. WOW, I think there may really be a God after all.
I absolutely love this guy's stuff! Thank for putting this up Browder.
Where did this guy come from? He's on a roll!
future Mbird conference speaker?
I second that emotion.
http://voiceofrevolution.askdrbrown.org/2009/07/04/apalling-grace-a-response-to-mark-gallis-the-scandal-of-the-public-evangelical/
When I went to read Galli's stuff, I found the above link in the comments on CT's site. I think the MBird crowd would do well to consider the torrent of scripture Brown lays down in his response to Galli. I haven't heard a good Lutheran answer to this sort of critique yet.
BTW, my posting of this link in no way means I endorse Brown or his website….but most of the scriptures he pulls out seem to rattle around in my head when I read stuff like Galli's.
Thanks, as always, for the provocative posts!
Try this link
Brown seems to misunderstand Galli in the same way that St. Paul's critics misunderstood his message that it is God's forgiveness of our moral failures that bears fruit in our lives, rather than our effort to create that fruit from the will to be holy. Holiness is a laudable goal, Galli does not dispute that, but, as Paul says, anything that is not done from love is not "holy", it is worthless, and Christian love comes as a pure gift from God,in His forgiveness of us through Christ, not as a result of our effort to get holy. The Christian life does take "effort" in a sense, but the motivation to put forth any "effort" always is the result of God's gift of forgiveness and grace and imputed righteousness. The "holiness" tradition Galli speaks of is the idea that, once the Christian "commits his life to Christ" then his job is to get busy trying to be perfect. In this tradition, the Cross and God's free gift fades into insignificance. "Repentance" becomes an endless cycle of "God, I screwed up, but now I'm really going to get it right, for the rest of my life, and this time I mean it and I've got this new program/book that is going to help." Christian "repentance" as the recognition of God's absolute holiness, my own sin and weakness, and faith in the righteousness and sacrificial death of Christ as my only hope is lost, for all practical purposes, in this "holiness tradition." None of the verses Brown cites supports this notion. There are many verses in the NT which speak of the need to be holy and that speak of things we as Christians should not do, etc., but they are all premised by the continuing life-giving message of the gospel news of God's free gift in the face of our moral failure.
And while I am on my Gospel High Horse, I might add the following from the Book of Common Prayer:
"AND, we beseech thee, give us that due sense of all thy mercies, that our hearts may be unfeignedly thankful; and that we show forth thy praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives, by giving up our selves to thy service, and by walking before thee in holiness and righteousness all our days; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen."
Now THAT is "holiness" in its proper gospel context.
Thanks so much, Michael. Both of your posts were immensely helpful to me.
It's crucial to note that the classical Anglican collects and liturgies presuppose that all our own attempts at repentence and contrition and gratitude and such will be "filthy rags."
They won't just be "not as holy as they could be, but good try! keep on trying harder!" — but they will typically be actively and sometimes monstrous sinning, via hypocrisy and self-congratulation (look how humble I am!).
In the example you gave the Anglican liturgist assumes that lying and hypocrisy and moral paralysis characterize us even in worship. He assumes that we are only FEIGNING gratitude.
Likewise the classical liturgies enable us to ask for TRUE repentence — and only AFTER the word of pardon is given to us.
(The woman who bathes the feet of Jesus with her tears is in microcosm what the classical liturgy was based on — it assumes that only AFTER our hearts our broken open by the word of forgiveness can we actually burst into true tears of sorrow and gratitude.)
Have you ever taken a look at THE RISE OF MORALISM by Fitz Alison? This is one of my favorite things by him. He helped me a lot with this.
SwampDawg–Fitz is one of my favorites. To do some name dropping, I have marched with him as a fellow Orangeman in Northern Ireland in celebration of the Glorious Twelfth!
Really busy today, so I can't say much other than this:
Martin Luther did not come to the realization that the Bible teaches justification by faith without reading it. He read (and translated… and exegeted… and taught, etc., etc., etc.) every word that Dr. Brown cited. And he forgot more about the Bible than Dr. Brown will ever know.
That's one of the great things about hitching your wagon to one of the few true geniuses of the history of the world. One who loved and venerated his Bible.
Drop away, Michael. 🙂
Was PZ marching with you as well? I know he's intensely Orange.
In RISE OF MORALISM, my favorite chapters are the ones on Jeremy Taylor. I love how the guy officially had this wildly Pelagian official theology — in public — but in his private prayers and in his work with troubled and conscience stricken parishioners completely reversed that and returned to the Gospel.
SwampDawg–Yes, PZ was there as well. Good times, indeed.
And that is a very interesting point you make about public vs. actual theology…. My own opinion is that Flannery O'Connor, if you read her letters, (published in "The Habit of Being") has a fantastic understanding of grace, although in her public life she was as straight in line with the official position of the RC Church as is possible to be. This is also true of some evangelicals who are all "law" when they preach or try to verbalize their position, but in their actual, real Christian life are full of grace. God is at work, even when we misinterpret how He works.
Michael, thanks for your posts. I take your points, but I'm not going to let you off so easy. I'm intrigued esp. by this line you wrote:
"The Christian life does take "effort" in a sense, but the motivation to put forth any "effort" always is the result of God's gift of forgiveness and grace and imputed righteousness."
I don't think I'm quibbling about where our motivation comes from. I don't want to put words in Brown's mouth, but I don't think he was quibbling about our motivation either.
Still, the scriptures Brown mentions can't be swept aside so easily. And dear Martin tried to sweep many of them aside because he couldn't square them with his theology of grace.
I'm all for putting the smack down on many evangelical notions of holiness, esp. when they bleed over into personal effort, but I think Galli's slipping into antinomianism (along with Luther) in order to counter-act the holiness infection he sees in the church.
I think we need to spend a lot more time wrestling with these scriptural passages that Brown quotes. They are not so easily dismissed.
Christopher–If you read some of my previous comments here, you will see that I am right there with you on not sweeping these scriptural passages aside with a flippant explanation that they are "descriptive, not prescriptive" or something of the sort. I am, after all, a nasty old Calvinist. I will plead guilty to almost anything except antinomianism.
My comment was not meant to be an exhaustive refutation of Brown, or to deal in detail with the Scripture he quotes. That would be for someone with a seminary education. (any takers out there?)
I do think that the basic structure of my argument serves to explain many, if not all, of the exhortation passages to which Brown refers. My position is that these passages presuppose that the motivation for and source of any "effort" to be holy is the fact that God has demonstrated His love for me in spite of my continued failure. Romans 12:1 is a fantastic hinge verse that mirrors perfectly the Prayer Book passage that I quoted. All the rest of Romans, and all Christian "holiness" is "in light of God's mercy." But this crucial condition is often ignored as we jump to the exhortation passages of Romans and turn them into a Christian "to do" list that leaves the first 11 chapters, and the gospel itself, in the dust. Now I am sure Brown would deny this, but what I have seen over many years of experience is that, as a practical matter for the individual believer struggling with trying to live life as a Christian, this is how it comes across. Either the poor soul is forced into self-delusion, or self-destruction, or apathy. In any event, the gospel doesn't turn out to be such "good news" after all.
But living life "in light of God's mercy" is what makes the Christian life possible over the long haul. It is the continuing love and forgiveness of God that produces real love in me, not the success of my efforts at personal holiness. Far from sweeping any of the passages aside, I embrace each and every one, but I do not read them in such a way that the gospel is ignored or diminished. I think when it is read properly, even James presupposes the gospel as the source of the "action" it exhorts. I do not read the Sermon on the Mount in isolation from the Cross, nor do I read any of these verses apart from the gospel message. If that is antinomianism, then maybe I AM an antinomian after all 🙂
Antinomianism is a red-hearing all the time, every time. If what Luther, and St. Paul before him, believed the Bible was saying about the Law is true, then there is no amount of psychological gymnastics that could ever free a person from the effects and devastation that the Law brings.
People may wish that the Law weren't real, which is exactly what one is doing, I believe, when they defend their ability to fulfill it, but, as Drake so aptly pointed out in his post today, reality will always win out. Those same people who claim to be antinomians, as well as those who say that they can fulfill the Law will come up against the brick wall that is the cross. It is a declaration that transcends time saying that we are dead in our sins (which we only know because of the Law, thank you St. Paul!) without the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our behalf.
The Law exposes us and leaves us rotting in our graves. But the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ raises us up to new life.
To loosely quote Steven Paulson at the Mbird Conference: The Law forfeited its right to rule when it accused and condemned the Innocent Man as guilty. That was the unpardonable sin, and so the Law has been replaced by the new covenant that is given to us through the cross. We have it through faith in Jesus Christ who alone has set us free.
"The Law forfeited its right to rule when it accused and condemned the Innocent Man as guilty. That was the unpardonable sin, and so the Law has been replaced by the new covenant that is given to us through the cross."
I want to be very clear that I do not buy any of the above quote. It is not supported by any of Scripture of which I am aware. St. Paul says that the law is "Holy and Good" and that it's holy and good commands were and are defeated by our sinful natures. Even the Law's condemnation is "good" because it drives us to seek refuge in the Cross. God is the author of the Law, and God is not against Himself. Nowhere does Paul say, or suggest or imply that the Law committed the unpardonable sin! That may be the theology of William Blake, who saw the God of the OT with His "Law" as Satan, but it is not the God of the Bible!
I apologize, Steven Paulson did not say that at our conference. He wrote it for one of his entries in the full edition of the Two Words devotional.
Here it is in its context:
"But at the right time, God’s only Son was born to redeem those “who were under the law” (Galatians 4:5). How did he do this? He brought the law to an end by removing its rights. In other words, he fought with the law, and the law won. But when the law won against its own Lord as it did at the cross, calling Christ a sinner and the greatest of sinners, it no longer has rights to accuse and curse sinners. The law was found in this dramatic moment of Christ’s death on the cross to be unjust, committing the sin against the Holy Spirit which cannot be forgiven, and so it loses its jurisdiction, its power, its rights and so its authority. Christ’s victory is to lose all, willingly, on the cross though he was innocent and sinless he became sin for us (2 Cor. 5).
How does Christ’s victory become mine? Raised from the dead, he now is Lord of a new kingdom where there is no law. Christ peoples this new kingdom with sinners whom he simply forgives. He chases the law out of our consciences and puts his own promise there: I am pleased with you. So faith stops listening to the law and listens only to Christ. By this promise Christ gives birth to faith in us who had lost faith, or better yet, put it in the wrong things. Faith is our victory because Christ ceases to be a law-giver like Moses and becomes truly a redeemer who speaks the new word of forgiveness while we are yet ungodly."
I can only say that I do not see any support in Scripture for this claim. I have never read anything in Luther that remotely supports this claim. As I said before, this theology has much more in common with William Blake than it does with any of the Reformers, Lutheran or Calvinist. I hope and pray that Mockingbird is not going down this path, because the message of grace that is proclaimed here is so important, and too important to be choked out by these heretical views.
While I understand your point, I have a very difficult time with calling Steven Paulson a heretic.
Christopher – before you call Luther an antinomian, you might want to read this: "Against the Antinomians" http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html
He, in fact, had a higher and more rigorous view of the Law than any other theologian. Diminishing to eliminating the Law for the purposes of sanctification is not antinomianism. It is unfortunate that this word has been redefined and thrown around without thinking.
You may disagree with what Luther is saying and what we are saying; but antinomian, we are not. Disinterested in Aristotelian ethics, yes. Antinomian, no.
Michael- Heretics? You may disagree with Paulson (a Forde student) but heretics? You can't just leave that out there and not show where the heresy is. I understand you might be frustrated with goings-on in TEC, but heresy is not a word you throw around so lightly.
In fact, Fitz Allison (author of The Cruelty of Heresy) thinks Steven Paulson is wonderful.
Just to add a little more context to Paulson's thinking we should remember Jesus' words on the cross when he cries out, "My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?" This is a moment when God does in fact seem to turn against His only Son who took our place. Jesus was the only truly forsaken man.
If God was against us through the accusation of the Law and Jesus came down to take our place of condemnation, doesn't that mean that somehow the Law was against Jesus?
It reminds me of something that Mark Mattes said at our first Mbird conference: "God is so for you as your Defender, that He is against Himself as your Accuser."
Help me work this out.
I did not call Paulson a "heretic"; I said that the notion that the Law was replaced because "IT" committed the "unpardonable sin" was a heretical view of what happened at the Cross. I do not throw the word "heretical" around lightly. I believe that Forde, and Paulson as his student, reject the concept of the substitutionary atonement, as that has been understood and expressed by all of the Reformers, and, in my view, the authors of Scripture. They then have to come up with some alternative interpretation for what happened at the Cross, which is this bazaar, convoluted "unpardonable sin" idea. Paulson and Forde have some good things to say, but this view that the Law committed the unpardonable sin, and was therefore displaced, is horrible, horrible theology. Show me in the Bible or in Luther where that is taught, and I will gladly retract the accusation. But first, run that one by Fitz, and if he thinks it is orthodox theology, I will eat my Orangeman's sash.
Here:
http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html
I give up. Can someone post the link?
That should be "bizaarre", not bazaar, in my last post, or maybe it should be both, since that is the kind of bizarre idea one might pick up at a bazaar.
To address what is orthodoxy and what is not, do you believe the Eastern Orthodox are orthodox? They don't hold to our understanding of substitutionary atonement. Neither does Rome, for that matter. This doesn't mean they aren't orthodox. It means their view of the atonement is not ours. And they both blatantly engage in casuistry and weave Aristotle in with Christianity.
I will have to let Paulson and Forde explain what they mean by that statement about the Law and the unpardonable sin.
I will say that your charge of heresy in that particular case is the first charge of heresy that I have heard in that regard. From Calvinists, Wesleyans, or anybody.
Many different theologians wrote essays in Forde's honor after his death. Fitz Allison and John Rodgers are two of them. Avery Dulles is another. None of these men would, to my knowledge, associate themselves with heterodoxy of any kind. Sinclair Fergueson, the PCA minister, gladly wrote an essay alongside Forde in a book on sanctification and a heterodox position on the Law or atonement was never mentioned.
Disagreeing with his view is quite another matter.
Fitz may not agree with their view of atonement (and he might) but I sincerely doubt that he would call it heterodox. I'll ask him next time I speak with him.
David, if you don't like the word "heretical" then I retract it. But the important thing, and the thing I don't retract, is that this is terrible theology. It is not the teaching of Scripture or the Reformers. I like much of what Forde has written, but his and Paulson's views on the atonement are way off base, in my view. And this is a very, very important issue that has far reaching implications for how one views the whole of the Bible.
Now, that I'm fine with. Absolutely understandable.
You might like James Denney's book The Death of Christ. PZ recommended it to me and it is as true to what you and I believe about the atonement as it could possibly be. You might have already read it.
David, Thanks for the suggestion. I have not read the book, but I'll check it out.
I love this whole conversation and that it has been done with such grace and give and take.
I read Forde's article on the Atonement in the book _A More Radical Gospel_ and I found it really problematic. I'll agree with MIchael and say that it was not in line with substitutionary atonement and seemed to be at odds with Jesus' own self-understanding of his death and that of scripture. Nevertheless, his ideas were provocative and interesting, and certainly Forde was a Gospel preacher and Jesus-lover.
So I'll just keep thinking it over.
One small note. I recall Paulson saying something like substitutionary atonement isn't incorrect but it doesn't deal with all that scripture has to say about the Atonement. In particular, a purly substitutionary atonement does not deal with the idea that Christ "became sin" (2 Cor 5:21). It addresses the punishment for sin but not the sin itself.
This is just my shaky recollection of some words from Dr Paulson. Matt McC may have a better recollection than mine.
I am not sure if I buy it either but I am open to it.
Christ "became sin" when he took on our sin and gave himself as our substitute. This is totally embraced by the substitutionary atonement doctrine, and is all over the NT. Because it is at the core of who God is, of course the substituionary atonement as a theological doctrine cannot exhaustively explain the Cross to us, just as the Creeds do not exhaustively explain God. This does not mean, however, that we should use that lack of exhaustiveness to introduce alternative explanations that are completely void of Scriptural basis, as I obviously believe this "unpardonable sin of the Law" idea to be. And with that said, I will shut up.