On May 24, 1728, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, wrote:
In the evening, I went very unwillingly to a society in Aldersgate Street, where one was reading Luther’s Preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation; and an assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.
If Wesley 
were to read today’s news, then somewhere (or, more appropriately, somewhen:) he would be crying. In an article entitled Claremont Seminary Reaches beyond Christianity, the LA Times reports: In a bow to the growing diversity of America’s religious landscape, the Claremont School of Theology, a Christian institution with long ties to the Methodist Church, will add clerical training for Muslims and Jews to its curriculum this fall, to become, in a sense, the first truly multi-faith American seminary.
were to read today’s news, then somewhere (or, more appropriately, somewhen:) he would be crying. In an article entitled Claremont Seminary Reaches beyond Christianity, the LA Times reports: In a bow to the growing diversity of America’s religious landscape, the Claremont School of Theology, a Christian institution with long ties to the Methodist Church, will add clerical training for Muslims and Jews to its curriculum this fall, to become, in a sense, the first truly multi-faith American seminary.
In a similar article in USA Today, Rabbi Mel Gottlieb helpfully clarifies: “God is the God of all people, and we want to get back to the notion of treating people the way you’d want to be treated,”Gottlieb said. “That is the basic principle of all religions, instead of an entity that divides people and creates friction and acrimony.”
Where to begin? Well, from a purely sociological perspective, this and other movements attempting to increase awareness among the world’s “great religions” are wholeheartedly welcomed. People should continue to strive for that gold star we all coveted in kindergarten next to “gets along well with others.” 
However, from a theological perspective, there is a tragic irony that underlies this move; while we would affirm with Gottlieb that “God is the God of all people,” following Luther, “to seek God apart from Jesus Christ—that is the devil.” This is why we endeavor with the Apostle Paul, “to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified”(1 Cor. 2:2), because as much as we may want to believe that it “comes in peace,” outside of Jesus, this abstract god is, in fact, our enemy.
However, from a theological perspective, there is a tragic irony that underlies this move; while we would affirm with Gottlieb that “God is the God of all people,” following Luther, “to seek God apart from Jesus Christ—that is the devil.” This is why we endeavor with the Apostle Paul, “to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified”(1 Cor. 2:2), because as much as we may want to believe that it “comes in peace,” outside of Jesus, this abstract god is, in fact, our enemy. 
In his book, Martin Luther’s Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, Oswald Bayer explains: [outside of the Crucified One] God is at enmity with me as the dark, utterly distant and, at the same time, utterly close power—consuming, burning, oppressively near. God hides himself within that almighty power that works in life and death, love and hate, preserving life and removing life, fortune and misfortune, good and evil, in short, working everything in everyone, and we cannot extricate ourselves from having a relationship with him.”(4)
This is why projects like the one at Claremont, from a Christian perspective, are tragically misguided, because when we look for a“god of unity” outside of Jesus, then we find the Law—we come face to face with the holy, living, powerful God of wrath, justice and retribution. Despite the almost incessant mantra that “God is love,” no amount of PR on God’s behalf from these “theologians of love” can take the law away; the end of the law, and the recognition of the Love of God, comes only by faith in Christ (Rm. 10:4). Bayer explains:
God’s love is not something that is obvious in and of itself; it can be experienced and conceptualized only in the dynamic action of God to provide redemption, which tears the sinner away from judgment “as if though fire” (1 Cor. 3:15). His mercy and love is that which we have no right to claim; that which is completely secret and wondrous: that he turns to go the other way and repents (Hos. 11:8-9). God does this because we cannot; he turns back and takes his judgment away. That is the gospel.”(336)
Some 
may say that Claremont simply represents the logical end of the Methodist emphasis on morality, but I believe that John Wesley would want to distance himself as far as possible from the anti-Trinitarian heresy that is being perpetrated on these benighted students in California. I would like to believe that he would not critique this move firstly on ideological or even theological grounds, but on pastoral, because it is only in faith in Christ crucified that sinners are delivered from the hands of an angry God.
may say that Claremont simply represents the logical end of the Methodist emphasis on morality, but I believe that John Wesley would want to distance himself as far as possible from the anti-Trinitarian heresy that is being perpetrated on these benighted students in California. I would like to believe that he would not critique this move firstly on ideological or even theological grounds, but on pastoral, because it is only in faith in Christ crucified that sinners are delivered from the hands of an angry God. 
Sign up for the Mockingbird Newsletter
COMMENTS
20 responses to “god is Law”
Leave a Reply
This is great stuff, Jady.
Very bold and powerful. Unequivocating. Can't wait to see the discussion that unfolds!
Great post Jady. So so true.
Jady, The Bayer quotes are wonderful! Though, if I could add one thing, I'm not sure whether there is a direct line to be made between Claremont's actions and a better account of the Christian notion that God is love.
Rabbi Gottlieb finds a unity among religions in its ethical content "treat people the way you'd want to be treated," not so much on the exact identity of this God. Can you clarify a bit?
I love the Bayer quote – still, couldn't the same critique be directed at AA?
On which point:
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/what-does-an-alcoholicaddict-need/
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/what-does-an-alcoholicaddict-need/#comment-21433
Jady, how you can possibly hold your position while simultaneously quoting "His mercy and love is that which we have no right to claim"?
I find it preposterous, to be honest. And elitist.
Anyone else?
Jesus is not bound by the Christian context. He is the first and the last, that which precedes history and never fades away, "A high-priest forever in the order of Melchizedek". "To know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified," is a spiritual reality, which precedes any didactic claim. How can you judge the hearts of those at Claremont School of Theology based on an LA Times article?!
Haha. . I should probably answer these questions in the order they were received, not wanting to open myself to any more charges of being elitist 😉
Todd,
You're right when you say: Rabbi Gottlieb finds a unity among religions in its ethical content "treat people the way you'd want to be treated," not so much on the exact identity of this God.
The problem is not with what is broadly defined as "religious studies"–these departments have been perpetuating the worship of Kant's God for years. The issue I have is with the seminary training active clerics together in a similar setting, this, which has been noted, is a step beyond recognizing religious diversity and a move towards sanctioned pluralism. The Rabbi's observation actually supports my point, namely, that "god" (broadly defined) can be identified with some sort of generalized moral code.
Now, could you get all of that from the quotes I pulled from the articles, no–but they, like in a terrible sermon, were a good platform for my final point:)
Dear Chris,
We have a lot of respect for the anthropological and spiritual insights of AA. Its understanding of the bound will, in particular, is virtually unparalleled inside or outside of the church. I wouldn't be comfortable, though, with the idea that it is a stand alone substitute for the Gospel.
However, when pared with the message of the Cross, it can be a devastating diagnostic that is an essential part of the Gospel proclamation.
Anyway, these are only my initial thoughts–I have not done the same thinking on this issue as others, so please take my comments with a grain of salt:)
Trevor,
I could see how you might disagree with my position, but I fail to see how it is elitist. Exclusive? Maybe. Dogmatic? Sure. But elitist? I don't see it. Please explain.
But your other critiques are more interesting, so let me see what I can do.
You wrote: Jady, how you can possibly hold your position while simultaneously quoting "His mercy and love is that which we have no right to claim"?
I can only take this to mean that you are saying that because we have no right to his mercy that somehow we are also unable to clearly point out what it is and what it is not.
A right to something and an awareness of it are not the same thing. For instance, I'm not be entitled to the grace that I have received, but that does not mean that I am not aware from whom/where it comes.
You said:
Jesus is not bound by the Christian context.
Well, this is certainly a statement that, if true, has a lot of martyrs feeling pretty silly right about now. Pitting Jesus vs. the "Christian context" is not a move I'm familiar with. My point was that Jesus IS the "Christian Context."
"god," understood and worshiped outside of a Trinitarian formulation may be worship, but it is not Christian. I don't think I'm way off base here.
Anyway, there may be no way for us to reconcile our differences on this point. But,I may be wrong!
Finally, How can you judge the hearts of those at Claremont School of Theology based on an LA Times article?
Well, that was not really the point. Only the Shadow knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men:)
I just wonder, Jady, if this is not an answer to serious prayer from within Claremont. We don't know their hearts or what's going on there between them and God. When you disdain it through this blog, it strikes me as doctrinal elitism. The high point of that is the sentence where you say their project is "tragically misguided". How can you possibly know that? Romans 8:28 states "And we have known that to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose."
We share the same hope, but maybe we have different definitions of what/who Christ is:
"the end of the law, and the recognition of the Love of God, comes only by faith in Christ (Rm. 10:4). Bayer explains:
God’s love is not something that is obvious in and of itself; it can be experienced and conceptualized only in the dynamic action of God to provide redemption, which tears the sinner away from judgment 'as if though fire' (1 Cor. 3:15)".
What do you make of Bayer quoting 1 Corinthians? In your opinion, is that the fire of Spirit?
Thanks for going there with me 🙂
Hey Trev,
You said: I just wonder, Jady, if this is not an answer to serious prayer from within Claremont. We don't know their hearts or what's going on there between them and God. When you disdain it through this blog, it strikes me as doctrinal elitism.
You're right, I have no idea what is going on at Claremont, but they represent a supposedly "new" idea (but which is actually an old, old, old idea) that is important to point out from a Christian theological perspective. If you reread the post, I'm not sure there is even much about Claremont except as representative of a larger, general move away from the Trinity within "interfaith" dialogues.
You ask:
project is "tragically misguided". How can you possibly know that? Romans 8:28 states "And we have known that to those loving God all things do work together for good, to those who are called according to purpose."
Well, I think I answered that. Worship of god, generally conceived, is not worship of the God who justifies the Ungodly. It is worship of the god who will repay everyone according to his/her deeds. The irony is that when Claremont, or anyone else for that matter, hopes to somehow lessen the law–which in this case is what's known as the "scandal of particularity"; the uniqueness of Jesus—they are actually removing any hope they have for reaching a true end of the law.
Your quote from Romans is appropriate only when read in light of Christ–
You said: We share the same hope, but maybe we have different definitions of what/who Christ is:
Ha! This seems pretty clear:)
You continue:
What do you make of Bayer quoting 1 Corinthians? In your opinion, is that the fire of Spirit?
Well, far be it from me to speak for Bayer, and I recommend the book wholeheartedly, but a few thoughts.
The entire "Corinthian correspondence" is an attempt to correct a non-Christological understanding of who the Spirit is, so it is fitting that we are using that verse in our discussion.
Bayer writes, it can be experienced and conceptualized only in the dynamic action of God to provide redemption, which tears the sinner away from judgment 'as if though fire'
This can only happen in the death to life action of the preaching/hearing and redemption that comes through faith in Christ crucified, not in god in general. Bayer is saying explicitly that the "hidden god" of the golden rule cannot save you from judgment–only faith in Jesus.
Now, this is not a mere assent to propositions, but a true wrestling with and continual dying to our ideas about how much better it would be if God had come in a different way to different people, etc. In no small way, I think, coming to grips with a God who has not revealed himself to all through their own “religious traditions,” but has become incarnate in a Jewish carpenter is one of the most difficult claims to swallow; nevertheless, there you have it and it will continue to seem easier to get rid of this "elitist" God—to crucify him, if you will— in favor of a more populist God, but therein lies the tragic irony.
The god we want is the god of the law, the god we need is only revealed in Jesus, but we continue to him in favor of our "unknown god," because that one makes for much easier cocktail party conversation!
Finally, I would be interested in what you think the "Spirit" is, but biblically speaking, the role of the Spirit–as God–is to witness to Jesus alone as the mediator and savior of the world. There is no Spirit apart from He who testifies that "Jesus is Lord," (1 Cor. 12:1-2)
This is why, not incidentally, the Trinity has always been one of the few non-negotiable Christian dogmas. When we are not tethered to Jesus and him crucified as the only image of God–then we are tempted to swing either back into a vague monotheism and, (at best) and affirm the God of the Law–the god of "love your neighbor," but most people affirm the god of "non-negotiable retribution."
OR, we swing the other way towards god as Spirit and end up standing on the top of mountains with tinfoil hats (so to speak)
In all of this it is important to remember that this is not a dogmatic statement about the way that God is working through other peoples and places, that he will bring the world to himself is a daily prayer; however, there is a difference between what we can hope for and what we have been given to proclaim. The actions at Claremont have weakened their proclamation of the God who was "raised for our justification," and that is, in my opinion, a tragedy.
Anyway, no worries about "going there," it is always a pleasure to "talk" with you!
Much love,
Jady
JDk,
What an amazing post and your responses are incredible. I used them for my daily devotion.
Jady,
You're getting at somewhat of what I was wondering. Rabbi Gottleib's quote actually does support your point about pluralism. Though, I'm still a little uncertain that there's a direct line between the "God of unity"… which is ethical…. and the "God of love." The second does not necessarily follow the first.
Maybe this isn't so much a critique of your post, but of the self-contridiction of religious pluralism that wants to affirm universal ethics (the naked God) and a God of love. For me, the "God of love" of current pluralism sounds strikingly similar to the Christian God (though apart from its Christological foundation). How this "God of love" becomes the pluralistic God of Buddha and Allah is a mystery to me!
Jady – I feel like I've had this discuss before, though not with you. such a discussion is much better suited for a porch and some bourbon.
Following I John and Eberhard Jungel, I feel as though there is a strong mandate to be able to speak about God whose being is love and justification as an act of love. It's true that there can be a conflation of terms between profane usage of the word and the Biblical usage, but that shouldn't prohibit the terminology altogether, rather this further reinforces the need to allow for a Christologically defined concept of love (though "self-sacrifice, self-denial, even forgiveness" are pretty close). I do not believe that we relate to God on the basis of our love, but the reverse is true- we are saved by God on the basis of His love toward us, as understood by his death on the cross for us. This is a love that has no imparative/ethical overtones. I think in this part we are generally agreed?
I think that we are generally agreed with most everything, but it sounds like you are apprehensive that speaking of God as love because it is liguistically ambiguous. I do think that "we love (others?) because He first loved us" and don't necessarily understand why you would disagree with this statement.
As far as I can tell, the puralistic usage of the term "God is love" is wholly derived from a Christian understanding of God. Where it has gone wrong is that by taking away the cross, the concept of love is one of a benevolent disposition and acceptance- close to the real thing, but missing out that God's love is an action (not disposition) which is extended to his enemies!
Your answers to the blogger's questions are so clear on the objective truth's of what our faith is in. THank you for that.
Todd,
You wrote: Where it has gone wrong is that by taking away the cross, the concept of love is one of a benevolent disposition and acceptance- close to the real thing, but missing out that God's love is an action (not disposition) which is extended to his enemies!
Exactly my point!
Jady, always glad to agree, especially when it comes to the message of God's love through the cross transferring judgment! 🙂
I really liked your message at 2013 conference. What do you think of the Kilcrease project? I agree with him about the problems with Forde’s view of the atonement. Yes, Forde also says that antinomianism is not possible, but I think that a wrong view of the atonement leads to that which is both legalist and antinomian at the same time?
http://jackkilcrease.blogspot.com/2013/03/book-published-self-donation-of-god.html