1. The New Yorker published a posthumous short story from David Foster Wallace this past week, “All That”. A touching look at childhood and the ‘religious impulse’, it is sort of a must-read. The ending is particularly moving.
2. An illuminating interview with friend/theologian Ashley Null over at VirtueOnline about a number of subjects, including the English Reformation, contemporary Anglicanism and modern American culture (trust me, it’s more interesting than it sounds…). His distinction between unconditional affirmation and unconditional love strikes me as pertinent to some of the recent discussions on this site re: love & faith (ht TB).
3. An interesting editorial from USA Today about the need for kinder, gentler – female – Atheists (ht JS).
4. In anticipation of the upcoming fourth season of Big Love (1/10/10) – one of our favorites here – HBO has posted “A Juniper Creek Christmas”, which has Roman Grant (the amazing Harry Dean Stanton) and company giving a few well-known carols their own unique perspective. For example, “We Three Kings” becomes – you guessed it – “We Three Wives”. Just don’t tell this guy (ht VH).
5. On a related cult-TV note, The A/V Club recently reminded me of what has to be the most Mbird-friendly Twin Peaks clip:
6. Finally, I am pleased to report that as of this week every post on this site (974 to be exact) has officially been tagged. You can browse via author or subject using the labels at the bottom of the sidebar. Enjoy!
COMMENTS
25 responses to “Another Week Ends: DFW, A. Null, female Atheists, Big Love and Twin Peaks”
Leave a Reply
null quotes phil 2:12-13
" Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. "
and then he says this means:
That Scripture makes clear that we are to be active in following Christ and serving others and the only way that is possible is if we remember and rely on Christ to be at work in us first to will and to do what is right….
What is our message: that rest for the soul, hope for present wholeness, vision and energy to make a difference in society today and assurance of dwelling in God's presence in the Age to come is found only in God's unconditional love made uniquely clear in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, our only Savior and Lord. "
Am i nitpicking to point out that following christ and serving our neigbor, present wholeness, making a diference in society, is all earthly kingdom outward righteousness stuff that a) IS indeed Gods will and work, but also b) requires a 'working out' because it is gotten out of our old adams and that of the pagans by the law and "work"? paul calls this mortification of the flesh. this man seems to call these works sanctification in a way that = faith+works=christian.
am I misunderstanding or lacking in charity of interpretation here? help me out. thnks!
xx
Frank, it's not so much Faith + works = Christian, but mathematically speaking it's more like this:
1. God's love = Faith = Christian
2. Faith -> love
as Null said: "for Cranmer grace produces gratitude, gratitude produces love, love (not shame, fear or duty) produces repentance, repentance then produces good works, and good works produces a better society."
part 1
rather Todd, this part is not what Null said but rather what null said cranmer said. "for Cranmer grace produces gratitude, gratitude produces love, love (not shame, fear or duty) produces repentance, repentance then produces good works, and good works produces a better society."
but what remains is still my comment about what Null actually spins this into.
Now as for what cranmer is quoted as saying… I would love to see the cite and the actual context by the way…I tried substituting other words the bible uses here. when I do that, the phrase doesn~t make alot of sense to me Todd. Let me know what I should try next…
here is how I parse what a Null claims Cranmers views are…
part 2
Grace
(the good news that Jesus died for our sins)
produces gratitude
(faith? But then the word ‘gratitude’ seems deficient as a substitute for the word ‘faith. Let’s assume that ‘faith’ is what is meant here, because that is the ONLY thing that separates Christian from non-christian, and it also happens to be the only thing the Bible says the Gospel produces, as in, if faith, then NOT works, if works then NOT faith.),
gratitude produces love
(love is the fulfillment of the law, it is the performance of outward works of righteousness, which we can only recognize for certain as being love/righteousness/God's Will how?
They conform to the 2nd table of the law, and therefore they are soley about mortification of the flesh or the purely horizontal love towards neighbor.
As soon as they become about differentiating ourselves as Christian or take on a vertical dimension, then the works are about illegally immigrating into the heavenly kingdom yes? They then take on the character of Cain's offering rather than Abel's!),
love (not shame, fear or duty) produces repentence…
(huh? The law does all these things and that is not a bad thing.
But which fulfillment of the law are we talking about here? Are we talking about the GospeL: Christ~s fulfilling of the law for us?
If he said Love, aka God, what follows would be true: God with the Law produces contrition and with the Gospel the same Holy Spirit, aka Love, produces faith in Christ.
Repentence can mean contrition+faith or just contrition. Since this guy does not say ‘contrition and repentence’
lets assume he means the broader meaning yes? As in repentence=contrition+faith. Now if he had said inserted the single word ‘faith’ here as a substitute for the two works here used gratitude/love, things would be clearer up to now yes?)
produces repentance
(true repentance is sorrow or contrition over sin plus turning to Christ in faith that he has paid for that sin.
We know for sure that love, aka acts of righteousness that fulfill the law do NOT repentance produce.
So lets say in charity, that he is using words here like love in a new and novel way. Why would he want to do that? To what end? At this point I am not at all certain he is reflecting Cranmer faithfully…),
part III
Todd with Frank
repentance then produces good works
(outward righteousness, good works are ALL produced by the Holy Spirit in ALL men, in the same way, using carrot and stick of the law.
We only have ONE way to know if our works really ARE good works, ie earthly outward righteousness that does conform to God's Will, which not only pleases Him but also to which he attaches promises of earthly blessings…, with two tests 1) they are about only two things, mortification of the flesh or the horizontal serving of our neighbor and 2) we test that (1) is objectively doing those two things only and nothing but, by looking to see that they conform to the 2nd table of the 10 commandments within the context of our station in life, our various vocations.
I have seen it said that faith produces ‘fruit’ and yes, I have also seen the phrase ‘fruit of repentence’ which always seems to mean ‘fruit of faith’ for here it uses synectoche(sp?) to mean the faith part of repentence. And these all seem to be inner fruit.
Those works in society all seem to be produced by the law.
In 'society' we are talking about outward works yes?
Outward works of righteousness are all a wresting from the old adam of outward righteousness using the law, which harnesses fallen free will, will power and reason. Again faith is quite excluded here.),
and good works produces a better society
(ok. This IS true! however, This is God’s work using the law isn’t it? We call this vocation. No faith or Christianity is needed for God to do THIS work.
This is ALL earthly kingdom work, ie outward righteousness that has been promised earthly rewards and will perish with the earth.
Conclusion:
The clear implication here remains that Christian=faith PLUS outward works of righteousness.
This means to a terrified conscience that to qualify as a 'christian' there must be faith, plus there must be a visible tangible verifiable goodness we can point to that we produce for society.
I hope you agree that this would be a deadly deadly error, independent of whether this author has fallen into this trao or not.
What is there in any of this Todd , that would allow me in charity to escape what I see as the grammatically plain meaning of what is written here?
I fully grant that none of us escapes writing at times in a way where what we write can be understood in a way we do not intend.
But I am not seeing any escape at all from my understanding here. Help me out please!
The Lord’s Peace be with you Todd.
Again please let me know where I am not in charity separating wheat from chaff in this mans words and and am therefore lacking in generosity in my reading here.
faith -> love
parsed..
'faith 'is trust that Jesus has paid for MY sins generates acts (=outward works) that fulfill the law.
'love' is the fulfillment of the law.
Further, fulfillment of the law Jesus says is 1)love God, inner invisible faith and 2) to love our neighbor (outward acts of righteousness).
Part 2) does not require any faith at all. Free Wiil, willpower and reason harnessed by the Law are fully sufficient here.
A Null would seem to disagree with this proposition and claim that Cranmer would disagree as well.
You are seeming to say that faith generates or results in, but does not equal, fulfillment of the law, ie faith <> love.
Tell me more.
I understood that only Christ has fulfilled the law? That He did so for me is what constitutes faith, but faith goes deeper still, it means realizing the love of Christ for one's own needy, fearful self. This the birth of love, and becomes the mainspring for loving my neighbor.
I have never known will power to be sufficient for fulfilling the law. Outward acts of righteousness may be done from a dedication to duty, a desire to fulfill the law, but if one's heart is not behind them, a heart overflowing with the love of Christ, the love that calls me by name and knows me and has mercy for me, without a heart full of these then the way I treat my neighbor may be somewhat helpful to him but it isn't love, and it leads to all sorts of bad stuff in me.
The Holy Spirit enables us to search our own hearts, and gives us to see the self interest and striving mixed into all our loving deeds, yet also to see His mercy towards us, and thus filled with such mercy and lovingkindness, the love of Christ pours from us.
robin anderson
If I understand you correctly Robin, you are suggesting to us this:
Without faith in christ, it is impossible for anyone to truly serve their neighbor.
You therefore are rejecting my opposite proposition, which I will restate:
Fallen free will, will power and reason are fully sufficient to perform ALL outward acts of righteouness. No faith at all is needed for this. Period.
The ONLY think free will cannot do is have faith that Jesus died for YOU.
am I understanding you right here?
Robin- you have stated it wonderfully!
Frank- Null speaks with an unveiled clairity. He has defined his words with impeccable precision. So to understand Null, it would be best to not substitute other words for his words. Doing so imports a foreign definition onto Null's usage of the words. It would be better to understand how Null uses and defines his terminology. He is a trusted preacher of justification by faith and does not mean what you think he means.
Frank, without claiming to speak for Dr. Null, I would recommend his book: Thomas Cranmer's Doctrine of Repentance: Renewing the Power to Love which can be found on Amazon here:
http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmers-Doctrine-Repentance-Renewing/dp/0199210004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260684281&sr=8-1
Although it may not answer all your questions, it should help you see where he is coming from.
Thanks also, Robin and Todd.
Todd
Call me dense, that may certainly be the case. I am not seeing where he anywhere defines his terms. help me out there. He uses words like repentance etc in new ways that have a different content than when they are used in the bible.
can you show me how he does not mean what I think he means: I am just trying to use rules of grammar and the normal definitions of the words he is using to get at what he is saying. what else would I do. could you please point out to me specific texts where I am not being generous in trying to get at his meaning todd?
dear brother todd… please note that when i say 'substitute words' i mean to use what the scripture itself says are exact synonyms to the words hull is using. for example 'love' we are told IS the fulfillment of the law. it is outward acts if righteousness for ones neighbor. this method of evaluating someones writings seems suspect to you dear brother? why?
Frank, I do not mean to be condescending. If I have done this, please forgive me. What I mean to say is that a word can have a multitude of meanings and usages depending upon the contexts, syntax etc. For example, while Paul rightly speaks of love as the fulfillment of the law, John also speaks of love with regard to justification (1 John 3:16) as well as the description of God's very being/identity (1 John 4:8). This is the key confusion. Love is not simply the fulfillment of the law, but it is also the Gospel, as understood by John. Null says this when he says "unconditional love is at the very heart of the gospel."
Good Grief!
joshua corrigan
i live in brasil so unfortunately amazon is not an option.
i have every confidence that what you are saying is true Todd. Let me charitably accept your invitation to believe that his other writings are better. Unfortunately theologian Null has not shown me his good stuff here!
i tried my best to read what he wrote generously, but I could not see a way to read THIS in a way that looks orthodox. sorry.
the lords peace be with you todd and all!
todd
"This is the key confusion. Love is not simply the fulfillment of the law, but it is also the Gospel, as understood by John. Null says this when he says "unconditional love is at the very heart of the gospel."
naw. this is a common confusion of law and gospel. The Lutheran confessions offer a helpful suggestion to untie this logomachian 'knot':
read "God's Will' wherever you see the words 'law' or 'love' (which is the fulfullment of the law). This will grant alot of clarity and not set things in opposition unnecessarily dear brother.
God's Will in christ: Christ having fulfilled the Law by living it and not only by dying to it, is not only at the very heart of the Gospel Todd.
I will match you and raise you one: that IS the Gospel. Nothing else is. HIS keeping of the law. His love.
further, our inward invisible faith in this is the ONLY thing that separates you and me from a non christian. our expressions of love towards our neigbor are FULLY excluded here from what makes us christian. this is the pastoral concern here Todd. we must not make 'christian' into something we can determine visibly and so acquire an ability to separate sheep from goat or worse, to trust in something visible to know we are citizens of the heavenly kingdom.
this writer clearly is making 'christian' into something visible. show me i am wrong here, and we have no issue at all!
We are discussing now, the very hairsplitting and nitpicking point that split Luther from Rome.
my hat is off to you for floating Nulls article.
todd
this writer clearly is making being 'christian' into something visible in the form of acts of love.
show me i am wrong here, and we have no issue at all!
I would be THRILLED to have you show me that this is NOT true. I have shown in detail where and how I think this understanding is, very unfortunately, wholly inescapable. I sincerely wish I could see otherwise.
I am fully, in charity, willing to accept the proposition that in Nulls other writings this is not true. But unfortunately I only have this writing before me to evaluate his views.
This is my only 'dog in the fight' here Todd. please forgive me if I have not been totally clear on this.
ok… now we're getting somewhere!
Frank, Null himself argues against any attempt to make an outward standard to judge one's faith or make an outward standard of what is a Christian. He says, "Whenever you use Christianity to prove you look like God and better than other people you have lost hold of the cross and the insights of the English Reformation. The heart of the Anglican Reformation is not what we do for God but what God has done for us. It is not about earning God's love but sharing the love he has so graciously given us."
Now, Null's (and 1 John's) use of love is not associated with the perfect fulfillment of the law, but as a description of Jesus' death/resurrection. In fact, John sees Jesus' death/resurrection as the definition of love itself. He says: "(1 John 4:10) This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
I understand that faith is the only thing that distinguishes Christians and non-Christians, but I would also say that this faith may (may is the KEY word here) also effect love toward others. Paul speaks of "faith working through love" (Gal 5.6). John too links faith- arising from God's act of love in Christ, and our love, saying "We love because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19). God's love is the effectual cause of our love. this is what Null means when he says "we get the cart before the horse. We emphasize the work that we should do, without recognizing whatever we do is the fruit of God working in us. (Phil 2: 12-13) That Scripture makes clear that we are to be active in following Christ and serving others and the only way that is possible is if we remember and rely [faith!] on Christ to be at work in us first to will and to do what is right."
todd.
it is always nice to get somewhere eh?
"The heart of the Anglican Reformation is not what we do for God but what God has done for us."
ok…
'It is not about earning God's love but sharing the love he has so graciously given us."
so christianity is characterized as sharing the love god has given us then?
"Now, Null's (and 1 John's) use of love is not associated with the perfect fulfillment of the law, but as a description of Jesus' death/resurrection. In fact, John sees Jesus' death/resurrection as the definition of love itself. He says: "(1 John 4:10) This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
How is this about anything OTHER than a perfect fulfillment of the law. again think God's Will when you read "Law". My point hre: there are not two wills of God or two Laws. there is only one right?
part II todd with frank"I understand that faith is the only thing that distinguishes Christians and non-Christians,"
ok. this needs no qualification does it? it is an absolute statement. usually what comes after the 'but' is all telling. you feel a need to qualify. why is that?
"BUT I would also say that this faith may (may is the KEY word here) also effect love toward others."
no say this stronger! love towards neighbor MUST automatically follow faith, like light follows sun. may is not strong enough here Todd! what I am saying will make no sense if you miss this part of it. it is vitally important.
"(Phil 2: 12-13) That Scripture makes clear that we are to be active in following Christ and serving others and the only way that is possible is if we remember and rely [faith!] on Christ to be at work in us first to will and to do what is right."
Um. I covered this in my very first post here. I have not changed my mind. and… 😉 what I said apparently did not impress!
Just because it is the Holy Spirit doing it in us does not mean it is about faith or requires faith ok?
The HS uses law as well to provoke outward righteousness, also and especially in christians yes? no faith is necessary here Todd. we call this mortification of the flesh not sanctification or even fruit of sanctification. how can we tell? we can tell that something is about only law whenever we see that word "work". work+christian always = 'mortification of the flesh.' it never ever equals 'sanctication' or faith or reborn will or new man. fruit of sanctifcation happens automatically and spontaneously.
why does this nit matter? so that do not read scriptures or the reformers thinking that where scripture tells us to get to work and subdue the flesh so we can be usefull in outward works, that we do not think this activity is ANY different than what pagans do. it is not what makes us christian. it IS god's will. it IS something the holy spirit evokes out of pagans and the old adam using the law.
the just shall live by faith. ALONE.
outward righteousness has no vertical element or it is no true outward righteousness. it is then idolatry. work righteousness. outward righteousness is only about works of love to neighbor and mortification of the flesh. only.
todd
important point.
we, as christians, are free to let outward righteousness be only about our neighbor and mortification of the flesh in a way pagans are not. how is this?
we do not need our works to please God. we know in christ that God is already please and that ALL our outward works are forgiven.
in theory.
in practice our life looks more like this(luther):
"4. The reason for this is, that man’s understanding cannot get beyond this external piety of works, and cannot comprehend the righteousness of faith; but, the greater and more skillful this understanding is, the more it confines itself to works and rests upon them. It is not possible for man in times of temptation and distress, when his conscience smites him, to cease from groping around for works on which to stand and rest. Then we seek and enumerate the many good deeds, which we would like to do, or have done, and because we find none, the heart begins to doubt and despair. This weakness adheres so firmly to our nature, that even those who have faith and recognize the grace of God, or the forgiveness of sins, cannot overcome it with all their efforts and exertions, and must daily contend against it. In short it is entirely beyond human knowledge and understanding, ability and power, to ascend above this earthly righteousness, and to transfer oneself into this article of faith; and although one hears much about it and is conversant with it, there continues nevertheless the old delusion and inborn corruption which would bring its own works before God and make them the foundation of salvation. Such is the case, I say, with those who are Christians and fight against this workrighteousness; others, critics and inexperienced souls are even lost in it.
15. Therefore this doctrine, that our piety before God consists entirely in the forgiveness of sins, must be rightly comprehended and firmly maintained. We must therefore get beyond ourselves and ascend higher than our reason, which keeps us in conflict with ourselves and which reminds us both of sin and good works; and we must soar so high as to see neither sin nor good works, but be rooted and grounded in this article and see and know nothing besides. Therefore let grace or forgiveness be pitted not only against sin, but also against good works, and let all human righteousness and holiness be excluded.
Thus there are in man two conflicting powers: Externally in this life he is to be pious, do good works, and the like. But if he aims beyond this life and wishes to deal with God, he must know that here neither his sin nor his piety avails anything. And though he may feel his sins which disturb his conscience, and although the law demands good works, he will not listen nor give heed to them, but will boldly reply; If I have sin, Christ has forgiveness; yea, I am seated on a throne to which sin cannot attain.
tod
"…we are to be active in following Christ and serving others and the ONLY way that is POSSIBLE is if we remember and rely [faith!] on Christ to be at work in us first to will and to do what is right."
so you are saying that faith is an absolute requirement to do outward righteousness. to love, which is to serve others. so pagans cannot love and serve others, or cant do it as well? or … well… what?
I do not see the passages you quote making this rather radical assertion. I hope you can see my problem here.
Todd. sorry I spelled your name wrong…
Hey Frank, Sorry I haven't gotten back to you. It's a busy time of year!