One of Mockingbird’s close friends, Aaron Zimmerman, just sent me a disturbing article about the dismissal of a professor at Wheaton College, a well-known Christian university out near Chicago. Apparently, the basis for the firing was the professor’s recent divorce from his wife. Here are some excerpts:
Kent Gramm, a full professor of English at Wheaton College, in Illinois, is amidst two painful separations.
He and his wife are divorcing. And, because he’s choosing not to discuss the terms of that first separation with his employers — to determine whether the divorce falls within what the college considers to be appropriate Scriptural parameters — he’s resigning from Wheaton in what he calls “a mutually agreed-upon separation. And the alternative of it would be to be fired.”
Wheaton’s policy states: “The college has uniformly emphasized the biblical expectation of marriage to be permanent, a picture of our relationship (the bride) to Christ (the bridegroom)” It states that while it does not consider divorce to be “an unpardonable sin…it takes seriously the high expectation set for those who love the Lord…”
The school provost, Stan Jones, explained: If an employee or applicant’s divorce falls outside the acceptable parameters for divorce listed in the policy – desertion or adultery on the part of the partner – a divorce is grounds for firing (or, not hiring). “The policy calls for us to try to make a compassionate, thoughtful evaluation of the circumstances, and we are then in a real bind if a person for whatever reason chooses not to discuss those circumstances,”
Gramm said, it didn’t seem appropriate, “to subject your personal life to the judgment of the college administrators.”
He continued, “I think the students can be given a false picture of what the proper Christian life should be. Whereas many of these students come from households that have been broken by divorce, and if they conform to the overall population, half of them themselves will be going through divorce. And if they are shown that God doesn’t abandon you if you are divorced and they’re shown that this is a part of life and that sometimes it can possibly be the right thing or the best thing, not necessarily the desirable thing, to do, then I think that might help them in their future lives.”
Gramm concluded that he believes the policy on divorce, while intended to ensure modeling of good Christian behavior, is not a good policy. “It’s a complex issue because when a person goes through something like this, getting cut off from their community does not seem like good Christian behavior.”
COMMENTS
64 responses to “The Law of Good Christian Behavior”
Leave a Reply
Great post. Hope it leads to some discussion.
I am curious whether anybody at Mockingbird sees this as having implications by analogy for the pastoral treatment of gay people inside the Christian church.
Just for the record: I am personally opposed to virtually all of what the gay/liberal lobby (now the regnant party at TEC) has been pushing for the last 5 years. I was opposed to Gene Robinson’s nomination and ordination; I am opposed to the push for gay wedding ceremonies inside the church.
The reason I am so opposed is because the push is based on the desire to change the content of the Law (which is holy and right and good and true); and even more because it is based on a failure to grasp the GOSPEL, which is the story of God loving and forgiving sinners as sinners. If gay people properly were grasped by the Gospel they would feel less of a panicky need to change the Law.
That said, I wonder whether MB readers might agree (or not) that the same pastoral response we need to give a broken straight man (who is planning to “live in sin” by divorce or worse still remarriage) might apply to gay couples who come to our parishes. The same kind of grace filled compassion for bound and broken sinners, the same “I will in no wise cast you out”, the same application of Romans 8:1, the same skepticism about the helpfulness of a “third use” of the Law, and so on.
I absolutely think that the Law levels the playing field. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus raises the Law to the highest point in order to show that we all fall short. He reveals that the demand is perfection and nothing short of it. “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt 5:48) No one sin is greater or worse than another because the result is always the same.
I fully agree with you on the fact that the agenda has been to excuse homosexuality from being a sin, and that is wrong. It is, however, understandable when you consider how the church has wrongly lifted up homosexuality as somehow worse than other sins. The church has unjustly met homosexuality with more law, and the result can be nothing different than complete rejection and even revolution. This reveals more about the church than homosexuals in my opinion.
The uncomfortable thing about the law for the church is that it says that no one is doing better than anyone else. The person that struggles with swearing or coveting their neighbors possessions is no better than the heroine addict or the pedophile. We are all in the same boat. We are all sinners and therefore sufferers.
So, in answer to your question, I think we approach every single person regardless of their particular sin exactly the same way and that is with the message of God’s unconditional love given through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. You are so right that we have not met broken people with the Gospel. This article is a perfect illustration of that fact.
WOW- it does dovetail. And yes, linking the blogs would be great. This is an amazing article. Thanks Sean!
Part of the problem has to do with how many contemporary Christians view the problem of sin and their understanding of repentence.
The common view is that sin is plural: sins, actions, or even thoughts. But nevertheless they are plural things that the person can (in this scheme) resolve not to do in the future. Maybe the person will later fall off the wagon, but God forgave him because he had the right “intention.” The problem with a gay couple, from this point of view, is that they are not exhibiting the right resolution: they are living in sin and not getting better, not even trying to get better.
This is by the way the view of almost all Christians, including people who identify themselves as evangelicals.
An alternative view, which almost no one really believes, is that the problem is “not at all with what we do but with who we are” (PZ). The problem is with sin as a singular state and from which we will not be delivered in this life.
The problem of divorce for straight Christians and of same sex attraction for gay Christians is actually a place where the two groups could actually meet, a place of compassion for one another and humility. Both are in contravention of the Law, and the prescription of the Law for those so bound is misery and terrible loneliness.
Wow, that is heavy John. You are absolutely right about the sins vs. sin issue. It is about our state before God under the Law rather than individual actions. It is not tit for tat as it is so often presented by contemporary Christianity. Jesus died and rose again to change our standing before God and free us from the “misery and terrible loneliness”.
Luther’s simul justus et piccator is vital for understanding our life now. We are simultaneously justified and sinners. St. Paul refers to the Corinthians as “sanctified” even though they clearly are still sinning from reading the rest of the letter because he knows that everything has been done already for them by Christ. Our justification and sanctification are all past tense. “It is finished.”
We have been changed, but we still deal with our sinful flesh that is in the throes of death. Romans 7 is key. We find ourselves with Paul in our inability to do what we know we want and ought to do. We have no choice but to cry out “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” The answer does not come from us attempting to correct our actions. We cannot. However, it comes from the same place Paul’s does: “Thanks be to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”
I hope and pray with you that through God’s grace we are able to see that we are in the same boat and need the same grace from the same Savior.
Thanks so much for your comments John. It’s really great to talk about this with you!
Thanks, Sean. I like listening to you too. A lot!
Here’s a post I made to John Zahl’s website a couple years ago. I am clearer there I think.
http://johncampoxford.blogspot.com/2006/03/from-out-of-blue-john-stamper.html
It would seem, though, that the appropriately Christian response to a sinful sexuality would be to struggle against rather than embrace it, would it not?
Dear Anonymous,
Interestingly enough just QUITE the opposite.
When did we begin to consider that our lives were our own? Didn’t this professor sign onto his job knowing the rules? Apart from discussions of Law and Gospel, doesn’t the Christian community have a call to maintain its witness in a certain way? What then is wrong with firing this professor, other than it offends our moral sensibilities. No one is saying that this individual will not be offered grace. We often get far too confused on these types of issues.
I think the professor’s response to the whole situation is right: it holds up a false idea of what the Christian life is. I think the Christian life is most accurately described in Romans 7. We are constant failures to live the way we know we should even after our conversion and even in Christian community with accountability.
It is not that the standards do not exist, they clearly do. St. Paul laments over not doing what he knows is good. Our lives are supposed to look like the fruit of the Spirit described in 1 Corinthians, but how often do they? Is Christian life (and life in general) about good people getting better or is it about people who cannot help themselves coping with their failures?
The concept of holding Christians to a certain standard becomes tricky because where do you draw the line? In this instance divorce is the problem area, but what about the all of the other faculty who have said something behind their co-worker’s back? What about the faculty member who got the speeding ticket last year? What about the faculty member whose daughter got pregnant as a teenager? My point is that every single person on the faculty at any school, Christian or secular, fails to meet up to the real standard of the law. To impose judgment upon certain failures is to ignore the true state of every person (as John has been pointing out in his comments).
This can mean that there is only one way to handle any disciplinary situation, and that is with grace and understanding.
The interesting things about this situation is that Professor Gramm is the one who resigned because he did know the policy going into it. He knew the penalty and decided not to share with the school anyway. His point is simply that the reason that the policy exists is flawed. It does not illustrate the Christian life because it does not offer unconditional grace as God does through the cross of His Son. Rather, it puts conditions on it. It says that he will receive grace if the situation falls into certain parameters. That is law.
Sorry, for being so long in my comments. I have a lot to say about this because I attended Grove City College which is kind of Wheaton’s lesser known alternative. It is a very Reformed Christian school and it has very similar policies, which I only witnessed hurting people rather than helping.
Thank you all for your comments! This is a great discussion.
I love how people use “the Biblical Teaching on Divorce” to drive people into exile, looking for the ‘adultery’ exception. They forget that the “Biblical teaching on sin” is that we’re all adulterers…
good point Dusty. The purpose of the rule should be restoration, not exile.
Hi Christopher,
I think you’re right, that Dusty has a good point.
You mention that: “The purpose of the rule should be restoration, not exile.” It’s common thought and makes a lot of sense, but I think Paul seems to think that, while the Law should function in a restorative capacity, it actually doesn’t. Along these lines, few passages come to mind:
Romans 3:20 — through the law we become conscious of sin.
Romans 4:15 — And where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13 — But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
Romans 5: 20 — The law was added so that the trespass might increase.
Romans 7: 7-10 — I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
Romans 7:13 — But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.
2 Cor 2:6, 7 — for the letter kills…7Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone…
Gal 3:21-24 — if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith.
Col 2:13-14 — He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us
1 Tim 1:8-9 — 8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious
If you managed to read through all those, I’m impressed. 🙂
As far as I can tell, it seems that Paul is suggesting that the “purpose of the rule” is not “restoration” at all. Instead, the purpose of Jesus is restoration, and the Law functions in such a way that it reveals human need for restoration. I think this idea has traditionally been referred to as “the great Pauline insight”.
Don’t know if those thoughts are helpful or not. I do know that Calvin suggests that the law can instruct (and not just convict, discourage, and inspire rebellion) Christians in a positive sense, but I am pretty cynical about such ideas. While I am not alone in my criticisms of Calvin’s “exhortative” understanding of the Law, I am definitely in the Christian minority. As a minister though, let me say that I personally am glad that God actually does straighten people out and that the sanctification of my congregation is not contingent upon me as a motivating force in their lives. You see, I think that too many Christians are apt to think of their relationship with God as though it resembles the relationship that exists between a teenager and a parent. To my way of the thinking, we are far better off comparing ourselves to infants. We need a life guard (because of what Paul illuminates about the Law), we don’t need a swim coach.
bioluminescently, -JAZ+
Those passages are extremely helpful JZ! Thanks.
JZ, scriptural points taken, but I don’t think it’s always helpful to read everything through the bifocals of law and gospel. I was sort of approaching the problem from the standpoint of mission. But it would take me far too long to explain on a blog during finals week…
Hi guys,
Sean, Kim and I found your blog today and we were very encouraged!
In terms of this discussion, I think it is helpful to distinguish between Luther’s first and second use of the Law. I agree with john zahl that the 3rd use is fishy. The 1st use is to keep order in society. I my job working as a counselor at a drug rehab for adult men, there has to be order in the program and this is what the first use of the law does. However, I thank God that many people are hypocrites, becuase that is the only reason the 1st use works. It functions on the basis of fear of punishment or love of reward. How does this principle apply to this college situation?
Well, when you move into the 2nd use, the thelogical use, this only produces judgment, wrath and exposes sin. The problem is that it is very difficult to practically apply the 1st use without collpasing back into the judgment and condemnation mode of the 2nd use. The 1st use has should have no condemnation or judgment attached to it. As I heard Paul Zahl say once, no Teenager evers expresses their hatred for their father becuase he put baby gates at teh top of the stairs (1st use) but he does get upset becuase his father judged him.
My task at thh drug rehab is to keep order while at the same time be full of pure grace. A very difficult task indeed. How does this apply to the college situation, I have no idea.
It seems clear in Luther’s thought that we cannot earn salvation by activity, but we can loose it by inactivity. (cf Phil 2:12)
Traditional language of third use implies that we have become new creations capable of cooperation with God.
What if we are talking not about cooperation, but about non-hindering?
If we are simul iustus ET PECCATOR, doesn’t the peccator continue to need cajoling and exhorting and compulsion, lest it wallow in sin and thereby forfeit the faith that God has given?
Hi Jeff. If what you are saying is that Christians continue to need the Law as “second use” (i.e., as it convicts) in order to return to the enabling word of the Gospel, then I completely agree with you. That’s why the formula is “Law then Gospel” ad infinitum, and never just Gospel, which would be like serving food to people that don’t have mouths. -JAZ+
Christopher, I would love to hear what you have to say about mission whenever you get the chance. I do have to say that I think it is appropriate to read the entire Bible through the lens of Law and Gospel. I think Law and Gospel inform our mission as well. The Law exposes every person’s dire state of sin and the Gospel provides the antidote.
In college I was taught by some very strong Reformed Presbyterian theologians that my “witness” really hinged upon my ability to keep the law. It was never presented in those terms, but the idea was that I needed to live better in order to win people. It would send the wrong message to non-believers if they saw me drinking or heard me swearing, etc. It was important for me to be a model of “good Christian behavior” to them.
At first, this seems to make sense, but I do not think it takes into account the way people really are. My witness is not that you need to live the right way, but that because you cannot live the right way Jesus came to save you. The reality of the Law, as presented by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, lets us know that every person we encounter is suffering in some way because of their sin. My ability to abstain from certain behaviors is not going to help them, but the message of God’s unconditional love in the midst of pain and failure is.
I think that is what Professor Gramm is pointing to in this article. The fact that God accepts him and loves him in the midst of his failed marriage witnesses to the fact that God is all powerful to save. It points to the fact that Jesus has paid the price for failures like Gramm and me so that we would not be ostracized, but so that we would be welcomed home like the prodigal son. That is the witness. People will know us by our love for one another. I think that refers to forgiveness and grace for one another. I think mercy and forgiveness are what makes Christianity different from the world because the world is bent toward judgment and hatred. God breaks in with love through His Son.
I think this brings clarity to the fact that God works through our failures. His strength is made perfect in our weakness.
What do you think? I’d love to get your thoughts.
David! So glad you found the blog. Thanks for your comment. I totally agree with Luther’s 1st and 2nd use of the Law.
I still think that even when given the law in order to protect us and provide order we rebel. It’s like that Seinfeld episode when Elaine is dining in a restaurant and the waitress brings her plate to her and says, “Be careful, the plate is very hot.” Elaine touches the plate right away and burns her finger.
I can imagine your job is extremely trying. I still think the thing that makes the difference to the people you work with is probably going to be your love for them. You and I know that they will probably break the rules at times even when they are there for their protection, and the grace that is extended to them in those moments and the love that they know you have for them will probably be the thing that makes them want to get healthy.
That’s been my experience anyway.
As someone who currently attends Wheaton college (albeit as a grad student) I am well aware of the controversy this has caused around the campus. However, one thing every student and faculty member is keenly aware of before any class is taken or taught, is the community covenant that everyone is required to entered into. It varies between undergrad students, grad, and faculty, but the premise centers on the mutual edification for Wheaton as a whole in the pursuit of “Christ and His Kingdom.” NO one is saying that the professor has fallen out of grace or faith through this divorce, what they are saying, however, is that regardless of the factors divorce is always a result of adultery on some level, whether it be emotional or physical. The professor had the opportunity to disclose the details, which he chose not to do, and that very well may have been the correct decision. Yet, this event cannot be correctly understood in anything but the context of a Christian community. Where as a leader and teacher he is taking on the role of a shepherd and just as divorce is devastating in the secular world, it is equally if not more devastating within a Christian context. What is not being said is that there are unrealistic standards within the Christian walk that are imposed upon people in a draconian fashion. But as a shepherd within a community, matters as devastating as this cannot be kept to oneself privately apart from the community. There is a level of responsibility that God clearly calls all teachers to, which must not be neglected, that is only enhanced in the setting of a Christian education. Again, what is not being said is that this professor is being chastised for sin, but that in a community covenant one cannot keep such distressing matter private. If this were to allowed, the natural progression would take the level of personal privacy to extremes that are can cause much more devastation to a community than this issue. If professors were allowed to do as they pleased in their private lives, what then is there to regulate or hold Christian teachers to a higher standard than the secular world? That would contradict the entire premise of a Christian community covenant, the issue is not as black and white as a law gospel dichotomy which unfortunately greatly reduces the matter. It is about the role of a shepherd within a Christian community keeping his private life as his private life while wanting to model the opposite for the sheep he has been entrusted to within the classroom.
This is in no way meant as a scathing attack upon the professor’s actions, as we all fall short. However, again, the issue is not on his sin but his unwillingness to disclose the issue to his brothers and sisters within his Christian community. An issue that has fews parallels within the secular world and applying grace to sinners within the church…It is about a professor maintaining his leadership role within a mutually edifying community.
Sorry so long by the way 🙂
Hi Seth, hope you’re doing well! I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one.
I appreciate the clarification from someone there on the ground, that it is seen as a matter of transparency within Christian community, rather than a matter of grace/ faith/ justification in the larger sense. I am worried, however, about your point that “There is a level of responsibility that God clearly calls all teachers to,” which involves “a higher standard than the secular world.” The idea that Christian leaders/ teachers should be held to a higher moral standard than Christians who are not in leadership positions, on the condition of being stripped of their ministry, was emphatically rejected by orthodox Christianity in the late 4th century as the heresy of Donatism.
The question, of course, is what one then makes of 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and 4:12 (“set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity,” etc.). There are adequate answers to the 1 Timothy problem, though (which it might be fun to discuss over email?).
Basically, I agree that it is good, in theory and in general, for their to be transparency between Christians, including over private matters, but there is a very big theological difference between affirming that that is a good thing, and legislating it as a requirement, with the very real consequence of being fired if one fails to meet the requirement. The church was right to reject Donatism, and I do not see how this sort of Christian community covenant situation is not a classic example of Donatism.
I’m with Simeon here. To hold a Christian “Teacher” or “leader” to some higher standard than the average Christian is to assume that that person has a greater ability to help himself, which, after all isn’t what the Christian message is all about. If Peter didn’t get the boot after he denied his Lord, yea, thrice, then where do we get off on this idea of punishment for sinners?
Secondly, the standard set by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount leaves us all wanting. How many of the professors at Wheaton have had an adulterous thought? How many have become angry with their brother? The answer is “all”. The only recourse is to fire the entire faculty and staff at Wheaton, or, to forgive them.
Seth, Mike and Simeon. I think we need Luther’s framework of “The Two Kinds of Righteousness” to think about situations such as this. Or the other framework would be the 1st and 2nd uses of the law. There is a righteousness that avails before man and one that avails before God. Here is a good quote from paragraph 16 of Luther’s Two Kinds of Righteuosness.
“[16] But you say, “Is it not permissible to chasten evil man? Is it not proper to punish sin? Who is not obliged to defend righteousness? To do otherwise would give occasion for lawlessness.” I answer: A single solution to this problem cannot be given. Therefore one must distinguish among men. For men can be classified either as public or private individuals. The things which have been said do not pertain at all to public individuals, that is to those who have been placed in a responsible office by God. It is their necessary function to punish and judge evil men, to vindicate and defend the oppressed, because it is not they but God who does this. They are his servants in this very matter, as the Apostle shows at some length in Rom. 13:4, “He does not bear the sword in vain, etc.” But this must be understood as pertaining to the cases of other men, not to one’s own. For no man acts in God’s place for the sake of himself and his own things, but for the sake of others. If, however, a public official has a case of his own, let him ask for someone other than himself to be God’s representative, for in that case he is not a judge, but one of the parties. But on these matters let others speak at other times, for it is too broad a subject to cover now.
The whole text can be found at http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html
Hey Simeon, Hope all is well. Great to hear from you!
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. However, there does seem to be a bit of confusion on this issue.
The professor is NOT being fired simply because of this divorce. It is as you put, the matter of transparency within a Christian community. While I will be the first to agree that this is very unfortunate and maybe even quite unfair. The issue of transparency within the community is of utmost importance.
If private matters were to stay as private matters, what is there to prevent actions of much greater destruction from occurring amongst the faculty? Issues could no longer be regulated because both professors and students could hind under the cloak of their privacy within their extra-curricular activities. What basis would there then be to prevent professors who engage in destructive behaviors from having sway over the sheep to which they have been entrusted? This is the primary basis for what makes Wheaton separate as a transparent Christian community from the secular world. For as Christians we are called to be different as the salt of the earth.
As Mr. Burton stated, we all fall short, but this issue does not assume that Christian teachers and leaders have a higher ability to help themselves. But as being further matured in Christ, no longer being weaned on milk alone but solid food, their instruction is to be an example for those less mature in the faith. A sentiment that Paul very clearly articulated in 1st Timothy. If the matters would have been disclosed the professor would certainly still be employed by the school and this would not be an issue at all. It is not a matter of this man’s perceived loss of righteousness or need for the administration to show grace because they too sin. For the administrators in handling this situation have shown they are very well aware that they are not perfect nor will they ever be. But what must be kept in focus is that the matter of contention here is not that he is getting the divorce but that he has chosen not to disclose the details, not to the public but to the faculty. Thus cutting himself off from his community as it is seen with his employer and making his private issues his alone.
I certainly concede that to say this is an unfortunate issue would be a gross understatement. He is a very popular professor on campus and no one is happy to see him go. However, the only way for a Christian community of this sort to properly function is to have a boundary where transparency must be enforced, it is none the less very unfortunate
Hi Seth,
I guess the problem I ultimately have with this scenario is that this sort of action, the action taken against Prof. Gramm, is an action of judgement. I’m not sure that there is a group of “mature” Christians anywhere on earth that are not capable of doing just what the good professor did. Thus, there is not a group of people, or an individual, who is worthy to stand in judgement of him. I turn again to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. He saw no distinction between the thoughts in a man’s heart and his outward actions. There are NO innocents. No Christians, no pagans, no one who isn’t guilty. How can we possibly be serious about our Christian faith if we allow ourselves to judge others, knowing that we, ourselves, are guilty of the same sins, inwardly, which in the eyes of the Judge, are no different than the outward sins that”they” may commit.
Furthermore, I’m not so interested in the interpretation of I Timothy that some would use as an excuse to hold others to a greater standard, as I am in the words of Christ himself who forbade this kind of hypocrisy.
Finally, as far as I am concerned, transparency is, at best, secondary to the mesage of the Cross. And, if the two conflict,subordinate to it.
Seth,
So glad to hear from you! Hope you are doing well.
I just want to clarify that the article reveals that Prof. Gramm is resigning because he knew that his unwillingness to share would result in his being fired. He is taking the action here not the school. He clearly states that he did not think it appropriate “to subject your personal life to the judgment of the college administrators”.
I have to agree with him and Mike here. I have already stated many of my reasons for disagreeing with the school policy, but there a couple more that your comments bring up. The idea that the faculty has a responsibility to protect the students from being “swayed” by the destructive behaviors assumes that the students themselves are somehow in a state of purity. The implication is that they will be worsened by the sin of the faculty. This is a much higher anthropology than Jesus presents in the Sermon on the Mount and than Paul presents in Romans 3. The students are not neutral. They are already completely corrupted in their own sin. The faculty cannot make the situation any worse.
The flip side is true as well. The students do not need the faculty’s example to follow, they already have the perfect example of Christ. The Law demands perfection, so to ask anything less of the students is itself misleading. My point is that is never a matter of what we are supposed to do. We all know. It was presented in the Law and “the Law is written on our hearts”. The issue is that we cannot follow it. No one can protect us from our own destructive behavior let alone that of others. So, I think this idea of responsibility to the students is on shaky ground in light of the biblical understanding of humanity’s problem with sin.
Also, I think the policy is casuistic in that the administrators will excuse the divorce if it falls within certain parameters. That seems to be lowering the standard of the law once again. The deed is already done. Prof. Gramm has already failed to keep the law in regards to his marriage. All that is left then for the administration to do is to forgive him. To delve into the details and add further pain and embarrassment to the man seems cruel. How is that helping him?
Gramm does not seem to be endorsing divorce. He recognizes that it is wrong, but he also recognizes that it is reality on this earth sometimes. He knows the pain that it can cause, and it seems to have inspired true compassion for the students who will most likely encounter it as well during their lives. They may not have it in their family, but they will have a friend who does, and Gramm wants them to know that forgiveness and love are what a person in that situation needs from his community.
There is no point to deliberate over the exact details especially before other sinful people. Gramm knows that he has failed before the perfect standard of the law. The administration’s judgment at this point is irrelevant. Even if they were to say that he does fall within the acceptable parameters for the school’s policy that does not heal his broken marriage. That does not excuse him before the law. He still has to live in the pain, and he still has to deal with the guilt. He stands before a righteous God as a sinner. God is the only Judge, and because of the Cross of Christ God looks upon him and says, “There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” What should the role of the Christian community be in this situation? Should more meaningless judgment be passed by those who have no place to judge? “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”
I think Paul describes Christian community in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, “Now if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure – not to put it too severely – to all of you. For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.”
I guess I am hoping that we will not try to separate the theological concepts from reality. School policies and theological positions mean nothing unless they take into account the way things really are. I think that is why I continually bring it back to Gramm’s story and to how Jesus explains the Law and humanity under it. True Christian community must take into account the truly low anthropology of Jesus as well as the evidence in every single person’s life experience.
I love talking about this with all of you! I find all the comments so helpful to the discussion.
Without imputation, we’re all back to having to play the always-dissappointing and ever romantic infusion game… I would like to meet one of these, how do you say, “mature Christians”?
As a side note, I have a friend who attended the same college, and got suspended because she was in her bedroom trying to break up with a boy. Apparently there’s a rule that you can’t have a member of the opposite sex in your bedroom with the door closed without “supervision”. Needless to say, my friend broke up with the boy, got suspended, then decided to move off campus completely where none of the requirements of transparency had any effect. I just thought that was hilarious how under those rules, she would’ve had to break up with someone with the door wide open. I wouldn’t want to have to do that!!
I agree with Seth. It seems that you guys are so fixated on the law/gospel that you can’t ultimately give any space for the church to make judgments. . .but clearly, in the NT, the church makes many judgments.
Just to stir the pot, I offer you the lectionary reading for today:
Ephesians 4:17-32
“[17] Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord: you must no longer
live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds. [18] They
are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God
because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. [19] They have lost
all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness,
greedy to practice every kind of impurity. [20] That is not the way
you learned Christ! [21] For surely you have heard about him and
were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus. [22] You were taught to put
away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by
its lusts, [23] and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds,
[24] and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to
the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.
[25] So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth
to our neighbors, for we are members of one another. [26] Be angry
but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, [27] and
do not make room for the devil. [28] Thieves must give up stealing;
rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as
to have something to share with the needy. [29] Let no evil talk come
out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there
is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear.
[30] And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you
were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. [31] Put away
from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and
slander, together with all malice, [32] and be kind to one another,
tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has
forgiven you.”
The reason I’m talking about mission is because I want to talk about vocation. The Christian, as redeemed member of a new community, has a new vocation in the world. This vocation entails putting aside old ways of dealing with things (read: my private matters are my own), to embrace new ways of dealing with things (my actions to others have consequences and need to be shared in the community).
This has nothing to do with Donatism. These ways of being in the world as a Christian apply to every Christian. Moreover, they have nothing to do with our salvation, or the imputation of Christs righteousness, but everything to do with our witness to one another and to the world.
As I said before, the purpose of judgment (I would say exhortation) in the community is for restoration and witness.
We confuse ourselves when we listen too much to Luther on this because he was so fixated on salvation and “how” a person gets saved that he really couldn’t see his way clear to thinking about the fact that the church has a vocation.
These are tough issues, esp. for us reformed folk, but I think they’re important to address. May I suggest that we all read 1 Peter again as well?
one more clarification: I don’t mean to say that Luther didn’t emphasize the vocation of the church as preaching the gospel, I merely meant to point out that he tended to jettison the living that corresponds to that preached witness because of his fixation on salvific matters and “the gracious god.”
I agree that our theology or paradigm for understanding the Bible needs to make sense on the ground. I would also agree that Jesus’ death and rising again for us sinners–for me–means that his forgiveness trumps judgment (or the requirement of disclosure and being judged for not doing so). I can speak from personal experience.
As a child of a leader in Christian ministries, I can lend another reason why Professor Gramm is resisting disclosure. It is incredibly meaningful for a parent to put his family first and protect them from the judgment of his ministry focus—yes judgment. The reasons why the divorce is happening might implicate other people in his family or relationships—perhaps even other faculty! Could this not be seen as an act of charity for all those nearest and dearest to him? How is that not loving? I know if I were his child right now I would be very grateful for his stand.
I also think that legislating disclosure makes for a very unsafe environment not only for the perpetrator but also for the listeners. What if I were to ask all of those reading this blog to tell me what they privately thought and did and said this week?
Kate,
I couldn’t help but think something similar myself.
What if his wife was unfaithful and he could save his job by saying that, but expose her nakedness in the process?
Christopher,
I go to PTSEM, too! Bruce and I argue about vocation and whether its just a round-about way of reintroducing law. He says no because he’s so Bartian neo-orthodox that law doesn’t really matter. I say yes because I was raised an evangelical Christian.
Adolf Koberle once wrote that the entirity of the law’s curse could be summed up like this: The demand is absolute, but the content is ambiguous.
My orthodox Jewish roommate had to have me turn on the lights for him in college. He explained that the Torah forbids lighting a fire on the Sabbath, and the earliest rabbis misunderstood electrical current and believed they were lighting tiny fires at the wallswitch.
Of course that’s second use, but we always approach the vocational expectations you’re calling third use as laws in the same manner.
I’m gay, for instance. Am I allowed to marry and start a family? Well, the Torah doesn’t apply to me, so in that sense, yes. But Paul writes a list of people who are going to Hell, and among that list he cites the “man-bedders” and the “soft ones.” Now “shall not inherit eternal life” is a fairly absolute statement, but the ambiguity of the terms “man-bedders” and the “soft” makes the law more of a curse than it might otherwise be. Why? Because a rough equivalent for “homosexuals” did exist in Greek, and Paul didn’t use it. Is that because he was being euphamistic, as the conservatives would say, or because he’s drawing a distinction between men who keep little boys as sexual slaves (a common Roman practice!) and god-fearing homosexuals? I have no idea.
Post-structuralism sheds so much light onto this problem: W.C. Fields was once asked, “What do you think of clubs for young people?” He replied, “Well, only if a good talking to doesn’t straighten them out first.” The joke rests in the fact that “club” has an ambiguous meaning being exploited here.
The problem with the law is that the joke isn’t funny–its our lives. So be it the laws of the Old Testament or the exhortations of the New, any conscientious effort to fulfill the Law ultimately leads to navel-gazing.
Focusing on the law at any time under any guise also forfeits faith in the Spirit. The Letter kills but the Spirit restores. Koberle also said we crave an external law so that we can point to something outside of ourselves to take the blame for us: “I only did it because Hammurabi’s Code told me to.” Well, we’ve been given something outside of ourselves to point to.
And that gives us a Spirit that leads us into all Truth.
Should there be transparency? Do we have vocation? Are we the hands and feet of Christ on earth? Of course.
I love the song Johnny Cash wrote for June Carter: Walk the Line.
“To make you mine, I walk the line”? No…
“In order to keep you mine, I walk the line”? No…
“Because you expect me to, I walk to line”? No…
“Because you’re mine, I walk the line.” Descriptive sanctification at work.
Jeff,
On a side note, the irony behind the song “I Walk the Line”, is that the song wasn’t written for June carter, it was written For Cash’s first and at the time current wife. So, I guess you could say that it was written with “good intentions”. But, we know what happened…
Geez. . you stop reading the blog for a few days and it blows up:)
I think that the fundamental problem here is that the implication of Wheaton, as a whole, is that somehow (seeming) control over outward expression is better for “Christian witness” than honesty. Bonnie’s comment was so insightful, and I also have friends who “observe” the rules of Wheaton (or Baylor, or wherever) within a 50 mile radius. . . as if that were the point! I think Wheaton is a paradoxical mix of affirming original sin while at the same time erecting as many horizontal checks as to make it virtually non-existent–until someone goes and gets a divorce.
BUT, I do think that the college, even with its flawed behavioral statements and all, has a point in firing Dr.Grahm, because he knew all of this before he got caught up in it. Debating the validity and helpfulness, and actually the Christianity of the policy is one thing, but given the situation, I think that Luther’s “Two kinds of Righteousness” is helpful.
There are horizontal laws, and they are misused by both Christians and non-Christian insitutions, but they stand nevertheless. The problem with Wheaton, and many Churches for that matter, is a misunderstanding of whether outward compliance can be seen as the fruit of inward acceptance.
I think that the real question here is not whether Dr. Gramm’s dismissal/retirement was legitimate–because it certainly was under the “laws” of Wheaton–but whether an institution can claim to, through “laws,” to embody some sort of “redeemed community.”
Clearly, as can be seen throughout church history–and Wheaton is yet another tarnished shining city–that when one’s Christian anthropology is too high, disillusionment and eventual outward hypocrisy are the only results.
Great thread, everybody. Woo-hoo!
Jady, when do we get the promised series on the NPP? I have been looking daily!
John! its coming soon:)
I don’t have much more to say than what I’ve already said except to say that my original responses were given not in response to the hypothetical “what ifs” of Kate and Jeff, but in response to the original post-all other things being neutral. I certainly wouldn’t want to be pushed to say there aren’t exceptions to every rule, but that’s something for the community, and the professor, to work through together. Quitting and firing without dialogue are not appropriate on either side.
Jeff, introduce yourself to me and let’s talk.
Hello I am new to this conversation based on the recommendation of a friend. I have read through the comments to this post and feel quite conflicted. I agree that we should take a very low view of human nature, but should we not have a very high view of God’s redemptive power. Should we not expect transformation when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in our hearts? Is the power of the fall in us, even as Christians, so strong that God’s Spirit is unable to transform our lifestyle? I do not think so.
Paul didn’t slip up and kill more Christians after he met Christ on the road to Damascus. He certainly sinned, but there was a great and noticeable change as those who had been afraid of him later welcomed him as a brother. Apparently, both the church and God had a pretty high standard of honesty and disclosure for Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) Paul seems to give very clear and high qualifications for elders and deacons in the church and doesn’t see this in conflict with the Gospel.
(1 Timothy 3:1-13).
“It is Finished” is certainly the hope of every believer. Christ has accomplished our redemption by dealing with both our sinful nature and the power of individual sins over us. Now we can actually “put to death the deeds of our body BY THE SPIRIT.” Our call is to continual repentance. The issue with this professor or any Christian who is removed from a Christian office because of sin is not putting their acceptance before God in jeopardy. However, God disciplines those He loves and that is often through the natural consequences of our sinful choices. Thankfully, we never get the full extent of what we actually deserve. However, sometimes grace means not allowing someone to continue in a present course that will hurt them and others. Paul thought it fit that John Mark be dismissed from their missionary work for a time, but later acknowledged that God had restored John Mark and saw him as a useful fellow worker in the Kingdom.
It is also dangerous to speculate details of why the professor refused to disclose the details of his divorce, i.e. to protect his family. Whatever his private reasons, he made the decision being aware of the consequences and resigned as a result. Being kept from his office at Wheaton doesn’t mean he is also banned from Christ’s Kingdom. It doesn’t mean he can’t be accepted at his local church. It doesn’t even mean he won’t get another teaching job. It just means that for a time he won’t be teaching English at Wheaton.
It is not wrong for Christian institutions to have behavioral requirements for their leadership. It doesn’t mean you are unforgiving if you enact disciplinary measures. Every loving parent knows this. Our sympathy and prayers should be with this man and his family. May God turn this painful ordeal into full restoration for this man and his family for the Glory of Christ and the Gospel
Caleb! So nice to have you on the blog! You say, “It is not wrong for Christian institutions to have behavioral requirements for their leadership”. Biblically speaking, is this different than the requirement to ‘be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is perfect’? And how do we then, become perfect? Yes, it’s true, Paul didn’t continue killing Christians after he became one, but I don’t think it was because of a ‘behavioral requirement’ that was set in place. I think it was because he had died to the requirement and it was Christ who was living in him.
Not sure if this thread is still running here, but I thought I’d throw in an idea.
One thing that struck me from the Mockingbird conference was Paul Zahl’s affirmation that the purpose of life is to be destroyed. Woof!
I think what that means is, we don’t meet the standards in our lives, and that failure kills us. Then we’re ready to be Saved (rather than just encouraged, coached, infused).
In this same vein, it is very clear that our actions have consequences. This is undeniable. If I kill someone, I’ll go to jail. If I continually cheat on my wife, my marriage will fall apart. If I steal from my job, I’ll get fired.
What Paul Zahl’s comment illuminated for me was that all this is part of God’s destruction in our lives… so that we can be resurrected. God doesn’t save us right before the axe falls, he waits till we’ve been dead for three days. And boy is that hard to hear. I really don’t want my marriage to fail, but I can’t say there aren’t temptations. So, I’m scared of ruining my relationship with my wife, but that fear alone is not going to give me the ability to not do something stupid. Only dying to myself, and having God resurrect me will save my relationship with my wife. Unfortunately, that dying to myself may involve a divorce, and getting fired from my job, consequences which are the result of my actions.
None of this however, trumps the extension of grace. In fact it is all the work that prepares us for God’s grace… which really is something amazing.
So the professor got fired because he broke a rule (not being transparent with the faculty), and he probably should be fired for breaking the rule. (Just as a faculty member who kills someone will be fired and go to jail… the natural consequences of their actions).
But all of that is actually part of God working in his life, even though it looks a lot like dying from the outside.
It would be great for us as Christians to be able to speak grace to fellow sinners. It would be great for the Professor to be totally forgiven and not fired, and sometimes God will do that.
But what seems to be going on here is a lot of destruction. But from God’s point of view, that is in fact “the purpose of life”.
Maybe I’m slightly off here, or misreading Paul Zahl’s comment, but I add this wrinkle to the discussion, because the idea sort of worries me… my goodness, I don’t want to have to “die” (get fired, get a divorce, become an addict)- can’t I just be saved?
FYI: from WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121063668040286739.html
Peter,
Thank you so much! What you are saying is so important. We absolutely believe in death and resurrection as primary to God’s work and our life experience. I could not agree more with that aspect of your comment.
I have no problem with Professor Gramm being fired for breaking rules that he knew existed. He resigned because he knew he broke the rules. The problem for me is that Wheaton says that these rules are for the purpose of preserving Christian community. I cannot agree with that. In my opinion, it conflicts with the very core of Christian community, which you lay out, and that is that we are all failures and objects of God’s grace. How can judging a person in their sin be consistent with Christian community?
This is not to say that God does not work through our sin. I am sure you are right and God is using this event in Prof. Gramm’s life in a powerful way. I am worried, however, about Wheaton and its students that believe what they are doing is in fact Christian.
Here is a recent interview of Wheaton President Dr. Duane Liftin- Think it can help inform some of the conversation. As it still seems the matter of contention is centered on professor Gramm’s divorce, which it is not actually. In fact, there are presently several faculty members who are or were divorced. The issue of contention is that of transparency within a Christian community that currently stands above this issue of divorce, anyway here is the interview-
Dr. Litfin, does Wheaton College terminate an employee who gets a divorce?
No, the College employs dozens of people who have experienced divorce, both before or during their employment. They serve here happily and enthusiastically.
Then what is the current incident about?
Wheaton College is a living/learning/serving community designed around our Community Covenant. Built into that Community Covenant is the issue of accountability. In joining the Wheaton community, in the spirit of the biblical injunction to “Submit yourselves one to another out of reverence for Christ,” all of us make ourselves accountable back to this community (see Preface to the right) for the historic Christian standards spelled out in our covenant.
Are members of the Wheaton community required to sign this Covenant?
No one is ever coerced into being a part of this community. It is our responsibility to keep who we are clear, explicit, and public, and we work very hard at that. We don’t want anyone to be surprised by it. Then, only those join this community who freely choose to do so. They see what the College community is, including the mutual accountability membership entails, and they voluntarily decide to make themselves a part of it. Their signing of our covenant is thus an act of their own volition. If they don’t like it, they don’t affirm it. If they do like it, they join in. But it’s their choice. No one is ever pressured to join. Furthermore, any member who wishes to opt out of their membership and the accountability it entails is free to do so, at any time. Wheaton College is a purely voluntary association of those who have chosen to live accountably to the biblical standards spelled out in our Community Covenant.
The College’s Community Covenant touches on many aspects of one’s private life. What right does the College have to engage a person’s private life?
First, the public/private distinction is not very useful if the subject is biblical standards for Christian living. Those godly standards, as an examination of Wheaton’s Community Covenant will demonstrate, transcend any such distinction. But second, the only “right” the College community has to engage a person’s private life is the “right” that person grants it. If a person does not wish to live accountably in such a covenanted community — accountable not only for their public selves but also for elements of their private selves — they either do not join or they withdraw themselves from that community. This is their right and privilege at every moment. But if they do belong, inherent in their belonging is their willingness to be accountable back to that community and its agreed upon standards.
Why should divorce be an issue for such a community?
Perhaps the better question is, on what grounds would it be exempted? Jesus is the one who portrays divorce as potentially a serious moral issue, not the College. He does not say divorce is always a moral failing, but nor can we conclude from his teaching that it is never a moral failing. It depends upon the circumstances. Divorce often entails grave moral failure, even, according to Jesus, adultery. If Wheaton College exists, as our ancient motto has it, “For Christ and his Kingdom,” we do not have the luxury of avoiding the implications of our Lord’s instruction merely because they make us uncomfortable or some people do not understand or applaud them.
Are you saying that divorce is some sort of unforgivable sin that cuts us off from God?
Clearly not. One’s divorce may or may not be sinful, depending upon the circumstances, and even when there is sin involved, it is no more unforgivable than any other sin. The College’s approach to divorce takes all this into consideration. Our approach is nuanced, redemptive, and compassionate, as any number of divorced persons on this campus will affirm.
But because divorce is a very difficult situation, one which affects a great many people, you will only antagonize these people by making an issue of it. Why don’t you just relegate divorce to the person’s private life and ignore it?
Because the real issue is not our divorce policy. The real issue is the kind of community we aspire to be. To decide that the College community has no stake in the issue of a member’s divorce is to decide that the College has no stake in any moral dimension of a member’s private life, which is to void our community’s effort to live together according to our Community Covenant. What would be the implications for Wheaton if this were to stand? To claim that one’s divorce is no more than one’s private business is to take a position which, if applied to all, would terminate Wheaton’s ability to be the kind of community it has been for almost a century and a half.
But it’s only one person. Why not make an exception?
If one member of the community decides that his or her private life is not the community’s business, he or she is free to do so. Anyone can opt out of Wheaton’s covenant community at any time. And this is understandable; membership in this kind of a community is not everyone’s cup of tea. But what I must not do is insist that I want to remain a member, but without the accountability that membership entails. Such a conflicted stance won’t work. To opt out of one’s accountability is by definition to opt out of one’s membership; to choose membership is inherently to express a willingness to live accountably. To confuse this reality would have the effect of vitiating one of the core defining features of the College. We would not be making an “exception”; we would be dooming Wheaton’s ability to fulfill its own aspirations.
Unfortunately, this situation just makes the College look narrow and judgmental to a watching world. Isn’t there anything you can do to avoid that?
We can try to live out our allegiance to Jesus Christ with integrity, grace, and truth, and then seek to explain ourselves as best we can. But in the end, it’s possible that our explaining will have only limited success. Some of the biblical standards spelled out in our Community Covenant no longer have much resonance in our secularized culture. Moreover, there exists little understanding of or sympathy towards the kind of covenanted Christian community Wheaton College aspires to be. The corporate implications of living as a Christian are largely lost on our obsessively individualistic generation. Still, if they can get past the public distortions and see the issues for what they are, many, even in the broader community, are still able to understand and support what we are trying to do. At least, that’s our hope.
Thanks Seth.
This interview helps to clarify the school’s position. The desire for a certain kind of community is completely understandable.
That said, the issue is not Gramm’s divorce per se. Accountability is the issue. I agree with Dr. Liftin on this point. However, I do not think accountability is possible between people. Accountability is another form of law because it assumes that the person being held accountable can change their behavior. At least that is my understanding of the goal of accountability – to help one another avoid falling into sin. I have a fundamentally different view of human ability. I do not believe people are able to do anything except sin because their heart is corrupt to the core.
I believe this is why God gave the law and why Jesus elevates it to the highest point; it is to expose our sinful state. As Dr. Mattes said at the conference, “People have a hard time accepting that God would tell us something knowing that we could never do it.” But that’s exactly what He did, and Jesus did it too. The perfect life was continually held up to drive us to our knees. It was not to be some kind of cruel divine joke, rather it was to point us to the one and only solution to our desperate problem: the death and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ. Our new life as Christians is entirely dependent on Him and His righteousness. “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20
So the disagreement here has been about the implications of the school policy regarding the law and the human condition.
As I said in an earlier comment, I went to a very similar school, and I really enjoyed most of it. I know Wheaton, Grove City College and schools like them are trying to remain true to their beliefs, and I applaud them for that. I also applaud the school for being so open about their policy and for keeping it totally voluntary.
Thank you Seth for helping all of us understand more of the situation on the ground at Wheaton. I really hope things are going well for you there.
Hi all. Sorry to be so late to the conversation. I’m both a former Wheaton student and a current TESM student, so I feel like I might stand at an appropriate axis to comment.
Three things in brief.
1) I hate to start out with ‘judgment,’ but I fear the progression works best logically. I must say, I am surprised how many of the thoughts from the L/G side display a profound confusion over 1st and 3rd uses of the law. The first use of the law does in fact constrain evil, and it is partially for that reason that it is called ‘holy, righteous, and good.’ This use is commended for that reason. Whether or not that constraining actually makes me better (3rd use) or more right before God is an entirely separate affair.
2) If this is a case, one should ask, what is the purpose (telos) of a university? It is true that ‘goods’ are universal. It is also true that the (totality of our) corruption by sin is universal, and correspondingly, that divine grace is needed for any (all) goods (holy spirit ‘fruit,’ if you will, or ‘spontaneous acts of love’ all the more). But these facts of universality do not undermine the relationship of the ethical to the teleological, or else, the relevance of a subject’s identity to its ‘characterisitic activity’ (‘ergon’). This is particularly true if a society (like WC) is the ‘subject.’ If we are going to speak coherently about ‘the good,’ ‘the true,’ and ‘the beautiful’ for a place like Wheaton College, then we will need to be able to offer a cogent account of what the ‘telos’ of the university is (or should be).
3) My hope is that whatever we will say about ‘virtue’ and the university, particularly a Christian university, it will culminate in speech about ‘forgiveness.’ Sean is right to bring talk of forgiveness into harmony with talk of ‘grace’ and ‘love.’ Kate is also right to say that this sort of forgiveness trumps judgment. I like how Virgil (the great Latin poet and contemporary of our Lord) put it: ‘Amor vincit omnia.’
The problem, however, is this. The way Grahm and others talk about forgiveness seems to betray a belief that forgiveness is nothing more than a sort of ‘laissez-faire’ nihilism. In other words, it seems to say that forgiveness is what you have when you ‘wipe the slate clean,’ or when you ‘clear the ledger.’ This sort of talk sounds much more like ‘Jay Livingston’ (‘que cera, cera’) than Virgil.
A final thought in closing. In my humble opinion, the caricature presented by some on this blog that Wheaton College is a nest legalistic fundamentalists – who only keep the rules of the college within 50 miles of the university or who enjoy slapping young girls on the wrist for attempting privacy for their intimate, interpersonal moments – is unhelpful. I languished under the strictures of rules I thought were a bit harsh for years, and agree that many of the rules are strange. That said, ‘ad hominem’ attacks are not helpful, and generally, will not fully indicative. My experience going to Wheaton for two degrees, living in a university town (Charlottesville) for two years, and now attending an evangelical seminary, has given me a profound respect for how thoughtfully and prayerfully Wheaton has structured and lived out its ‘vision’ (its ‘telos’). But whether I or jdk or Bonnie’s friend have it right, let’s keep that sort of rhetoric out of the debate.
Hope this is at all helpful.
ever yours, nl
Thanks Nate.
I just want to say that I think Bonnie and Jady were trying to keep this discussion grounded in real life with their comments. I think it is exceedingly important to keep all of what we discuss on this blog firmly in tact with reality. Whether it be Gramm’s current situation or a friend’s experience with the same rules, it is helpful to engage with how real people are affected by these concepts. Otherwise, everything is theoretical and useless.
It is very easy to discuss all of this in the abstract, but it is downright uncomfortable at times to really see and feel the real life implications of what we believe. Theology has no purpose if it does not match up with reality.
Sean–thanks for a swift response.
First let me say that I have a great deal of respect for Jady, both from my interactions with him and from how highly he is spoken of by his friends (O that I had his pastoral giftedness!). He was also well missed by the Kneelers this season (as were you). I don’t know Bonnie, but please know that I’m not assuming any viciousness in either of their comments.
That said, Litfin is also right to use language like ‘public distortions’ to describe how Wheaton is viewed by outsiders. You are absolutely right to say that our theology must be grounded in reality. This is, in fact, why ‘ad hominems’ are not appropriate. They distort reality (‘public distortions’). They tell you that because they have pointed to individual, marginally related examples about dorm policy or inconsistent covenantal adherence that you have a right to caricaturize the school, and in turn, apply that caricaturization to another (different) situation. This is to do the opposite of basing your theology on ‘reality.’ It is to base your theology on prejudice. Or, if you want, it is to base your theology on judgment.
As I’m sure you know (and I’m sorry if this is redundant), what tends to happen when such attacks are applied is that those now on the defense respond in kind. In other words, they will start to rally up counter examples about how gracious Wheaton is, or else, how similar critiques could be applied to situations we (I) know at Yale, or Pitt, or the community college down the road. Once this happens, the conversation has (always) lost its way (becomes ‘unhelpful’).
Or, to state the point more simply, we could say this. It is very easy to discuss Wheaton College as a detached (abstract?) critic, but it is downright uncomfortable at times to really see and feel the real life implications of what we believe upon how believe. In other words, it is downright uncomfortable to ask ourselves if our prejudices match up with reality, or else, if our assumptions about Wheaton might not leading us to our form of reverse judgmentalism.
Wheaton has the reputation (‘public distortion’) of being legalistic and at least quasi-fundamentalist. It is held by many (close friends of mine) who participate in this blog. In my opinion, Wheaton does have some strange rules, and has applied them in strange ways at times. I have actually been the object of this. That said, I think the broad analysis (judgment) is a gross caricature, and I actually disagree that the Kent Gramm crisis is one of those instances. And further, unless we challenge this prejudice by asking…
1) Are we condemning Wheaton for a 1st use of the law by rhetoric that should be applied against the 3rd use?
2) Is what we are saying broadly (by this) about law and gospel applied relevantly to what university is and is for?
3) Does the idea of ‘forgiveness’ have a positive sense (beyond Rom. 8.1 into Rom. 8.2-39), and if so, how is (should) that to be embodied re: question #2?
…then we will probably (inevitably) end up with the same sort of conclusions we came in with.
A counter example may help you see where I am coming from. The vast majority of people out there think that the Law/Gospel paradigm is antinomian. It is not true. The paradigm has a very high view of the law. However, it would be quite easy for me to print out some of the statements from this blog (the ones that confuse 1st and 3rd use) and walk them across the street to TESM and use them as anecdotal evidence against the paradigm. I could say, ‘See! It is not just against the 3rd use, but is against the whole thing!’ Trust me, there would be (far too many) ears for this (similar things actually happen all the time up here). People would hear this rhetoric, and they would feel confirmed in their prejudice. In fact, it would probably (secretly) help them feel self-justified in having pushed out PZ. But to do this will be to have gotten the Law/Paradigm exactly wrong, and moreover, to have done the furthest thing from grounding my theology on reality.
Hope this makes sense. I’d love to know your thoughts on 1-3.
cheers, nl
Hi Nate,
Your comments have been very helpful in my thinking about this. You are quite right to bring up the issue of the 1st, or civil, use of the Law in this case, and also the question of what we conceive a university to be– what it’s nature and its purpose are.
With those factors in mind, the immediate question is: is WC (or any other Christian college, just using WC as the current example) a secular institution or a “church” institution, in the Reformation sense? Most universities in the world are undeniably secular institutions. If we are viewing WC as a secular institution only, then you are correct that this divorce/ transparency thing falls into the 1st use category, end of discussion.
The problem, however, is that the line between the secular and the spiritual, between the civil and the spiritual, is not very clear here. Specifically, Wheaton seems to see itself, whether explicitly or implicitly (you would know better than I), as at least in part responsible a) for the spiritual life of its students, and b) its witness as an institution in the wider world.
If the former is not the case, or is not meant to be the case, fair enough– imposing behavioral norms can as easily be a “civil” affair as a “theological” one. However, the justification for the system of rules governing various aspects of behavior appears in this case to have to do with a perceived status of the institution as a “covenantal community.” Again, maybe it is a secular covenant in some sense, but I think that is unlikely. All of which to say, if the college claims authority for the spiritual welfare of its students (or its faculty) it has moved out of 1st use territory because it is serving at least part of a function whose proper province is the “church.”
As for b) , the same would seem to apply: if the “telos” of the university is closely connected to an idea of witness to the world around, that too seems to fall more into the spiritual than the civil category. So, if these two points are correct, the behavior-related rules in question are 3rd use after all, not 1st use. Again, you can have a Christian university which does not step beyond the “civil” category, but I am not sure that Wheaton is one– would be very interested in your take on that question.
All that to say, thinking about your comments, I come to the conclusion that a university que university cannot see itself as a Christian covenant community, in the sense of having a Christian ministry to its students and to the world outside without endorsing the 3rd use of the Law, which in this case is to say the idea that spiritual good can be brought about directly through regulating ethical behavior rather than indirectly, through destroying in order to make alive.
At the same time, the line between 1st and 3rd use has always been pretty confusing, especially after a 20th century that had so many examples of the institutions intended to restrain evil creating far more of it than they restrained.
Finally, there would be an interesting flip-side to this: is a seminary, or other institution that sees itself first and foremost as serving a ministerial/ spiritual function, really more of a “church” than a civil institution, in the sense implied in the Reformation division between the civil and the spiritual worlds? If so, what implications might that have?
My question then is, am I right that a university that sees itself also as a ministry has crossed out of 1st use territory? Can an institution that is formally not a church actually be one materially?
Nate,
Thank you so much for your explanation. I see your point very clearly.
Simeon,
Your response is wonderful. You have eloquently made the point that I have tried, but clearly failed to make. I could not have said it better (and perhaps not at all:))!
You guys have really brought this discussion to the core issues. Praise God!
(this is way too long…sorry! 🙂
Simeon-Thanks for engaging me there. I think you are getting at the heart of the question.
I think the answer is ‘no.’ This will get us into murkier waters (I think), but let me attempt something like a response. Two reasons in particular.
1) I don’t think I can grant the sacred/secular distinction. This is not because I think WC is a secular institution, but because I think the ‘saeculum’ (the ‘secular’) of modern** political theory is an unreal reality, or even, an anti-reality. Let me offer a guy who may brings our two worlds – Cambridge and Charlottesville (UVA) – together in support here. Of the ‘secular’ in modernity, John Milbank writes that it “is actually constituted in its secularity by ‘heresy’ in relation to orthodox Christianity, or else, a rejection of Christianity that is more ‘neo-pagan’ than simply anti-religious.” (Theology and Social Theory, 3)
Two things here by derivation. First, I don’t think that ends the discussion. We live in a context where the distinction between the secular/sacred is pretty live, and thus your narrative point about the muddiness of 1st and 3rd use in the 20th century. WC has to live out its precarious witness in this context, and thus clearly has a foot in the realm of civil authority. The covenant Gramm signs is a legally binding agreement. If he were to fight the rule, get dismissed, and then legally challenge the dismissal, the (civil) law would not be on his side. Yet secondly, I think my question is bigger than this. My frustration about Gramm’s rhetoric is not that he doesn’t take the 1st use of the law seriously enough, but that his language about forgiveness (grace, love, etc) is unintelligible (hence my question #3). Maybe the next point will help.
2) The university is actually a really helpful case study for our difficulty here. You have said that most universities in the world are undeniably secular institutions. I get what you are saying, but even allowing this is true, I would have to disagree on the broader point. I might do better pointing you to an essay by Stanley Hauerwas – ‘Truth and Honor’ – which deals with your exact question (in regards to Christian universities, no less), but let me try and take my own stab at it. As I’m sure you know – since you go to one – the first universities were ‘cathedral schools,’ or essentially seminaries. The institution has grown or changed over time, but in essence, the university seems to have as its basic ‘end/telos’ (or beginning too, reaching back into the classical setting) the “training of people in the virtues.” This is, for example, what distinguishes the university from the ‘vocational schools’ you see adds for on TV all the time. Incidentally, Gramm is implicitly acknowledging this by his concern that Wheaton is giving students the wrong sort of training on how to deal with a life that will inevitably include tragedy and heartbreak.
Words like ‘virtue’ and ‘training’ will probably drudge up all kinds of negative, visceral reactions, as if it were a moralistic word, but I mean it in the more classical or MacIntyrean sense. Perhaps more generically, I mean by it the ‘capacities (behaviors?) necessary to live holistic lives.’ This distinction should make two things clear. First, the regulation of behavior toward ‘the good’ (true, beautiful, etc) belies the sacred/secular distinction. Even if the distinction is allowed, the secular, as well as the sacred, has this goal in mind. Second, this is not the third use of the law. The Aristotelian virtues, for example, were not intended as a means of making people more holy and pleasing before God – were not tools for sanctification – but rather, as a means of making them more able to live out their vocation. And the first use actually (I think) does this.
A final question may be helpful to round this out, namely, what does a specifically Christian vocation look like, and thus, what should specifically Christian education look like? I think (personally) that Paul’s best definition of it comes in 2 Corinthians 5, where he names it as ‘ministry of reconciliation.’ It is a vocation, in other words, of breaking down dividing walls of hostility (Eph. 2.13), bringing together those who were once ‘far off’ (Acts 2.39), of preaching peace and forgiveness, particularly the ‘forgiveness of sin,’ (‘God made him who knew no sin…’; 2 Cor. 5.21) through the creative power (‘Therefore if anyone is in Christ…’ 2 Cor. 5.17) of Christ’s loving death and resurrection. If Wheaton College is to be an authentically Christian university, it must train students to be ‘virtuous’ in this way.
So the question that remains is, how can university training best express and (Lord willing) effect these virtues? I don’t think law (1st use) is detached from this (see above), but if I could offer one answer, I would say that it can only do so if it is (itself) a vehicle of forgiveness (grace, love, etc).
Which brings me back to #3 above, that my frustration about Gramm’s rhetoric is not that it doesn’t take the 1st use of the law seriously enough, but that his language about forgiveness (grace, love, etc) is unintelligible. Any thoughts on that?
**Don’t forget that Luther/Calvin (et al) envisioned the head of the political state (E.g. Prince Frederick the Wise) as the head of the church. This way of thinking about ‘civil’ authorities is a far cry from how we thinking about the ‘secular’ in modernity.
Nate,
You have clearly put a lot of mental sweat into this;) You bring up a lot of very strong points. I would like to talk about your original third point on forgiveness. I am not sure exactly what you mean when you say that Gramm’s unintelligible with his discussion on forgiveness.
You say that it implies “forgiveness is what you have when you wipe the slate clean or when you clear the ledger”. I may not be “hearing” you, but my understanding of forgiveness is that the slate is indeed wiped clean. My sins are removed from me “as far as the east is to the west”. My sin has been nailed to the cross with Christ, and therefore is dealt with and forgotten by God. All He sees is the righteousness of Christ. The slate is eternally clean.
It does not mean that there are not consequences on this earth that I must deal with. If this is what you are referring to, then I agree. Prof. Gramm is certainly dealing with the consequences of his sin in this situation. However, forgiveness is unconditional in nature. It is not something that can be earned through penance, but it is something that is received as a gift. If it were not so, we would all be in a world of trouble.
I do not think Gramm is trying to avoid the consequences of his sin here. I think he is actually accepting them by resigning. It seems his beef is that the school’s policy is inherently hypocritical in the sense that it’s implied goal is to have maintain “good Christian behavior”. Seth’s comment containing the interview of the President backs up this understanding in my opinion. He says the policy is for the purpose of accountability. Accountability is usually intended to (supposedly) avert or correct sinful behavior; to “keep one on the straight and narrow” if you will. If that is what the school is doing then I have to agree with the professor.
I have to say that I disagree when you say that the “The Aristotelian virtues, for example, were not intended as a means of making people more holy and pleasing before God – were not tools for sanctification – but rather, as a means of making them more able to live out their vocation. And the first use actually (I think) does this.” I find this a dangerously slippery slope because it appeals to my ability. The discussion of virtues for the sake of my vocation still gives my flesh breathing room to try to improve and succeed on its own merit. I understand that you are trying to say that I study hard in school in order to get a good job and perform at a high level on that job, but if that mentality is true in my work place, then isn’t it true in other areas of my life? If I can work hard at getting better in my vocational life, then can’t I work hard at getting better in my spiritual life?
I am thinking about what PZ used to say about how something is either true in every situation or it is not. I think that we respond the same way to all forms of law, we rebel. The speed limit is for my safety yet I speed. The law against murder is certainly beneficial in a civil sense, but I still hate my brother, and people actually still murder people. This is not to say that I do not have a high view of the law, I do. I am in full agreement with Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. It is to say that I have a terribly low view of humanity. I am sure that the folks at Trinity would still use this to accuse me of anti-nomism, but what I am saying here is that the law has no transformative power in any sense. The law is purely descriptive.
This is where I have to agree with Dr. Mark Mattes, who recently said that he finds the discussion of the different uses of the law unhelpful. It clouds the discussion and distracts from the first principles. The law is good, but has no power to bring about that which it demands. Humans cannot obey the law because of their sinful state.
Seth-Thanks again for a thoughtful response. Let me try to clarify a bit.
To do so, I’m going to turn to a quote by Simon Gathercole, who I believe is now with Simeon at Cambridge. The first sentence is the tail end of a paragraph in which Gathercole defends exactly what you bring up in this past post. The Gospel does mean a ‘wiping the slate,’ a ‘clearing of the ledger,’ and so forth. This is profoundly true. But then, in the next paragraph, he goes on to explain why those who think of the Gospel in only (he uses the word ‘merely’) those terms have actually created the context where for counter-visions (ala NPP) have flourished. This is from page 224 of ‘Justification in Perspective’ (ed. Bruce McCormack).
“Despite numerous attempts by a wide variety of very different interpreters to avoid the fact, Paul seems here to be defining the reckoning of righteousness as forgiveness of wrongs, covering sins, and not reckoning sin.
The reason for the difficulty that interpreters have with this idea stems, it seems, from understanding forgiveness in too minimalistic terms.** It is sometimes regarded merely as wiping the slate clean, which leaves us at zero – where we have no record of sin against us but no positive righteousness either. Paul, however, combines forgiveness with blessedness and justification (Rom. 4:6-8) and also with reconciliation and justification (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Forgiveness appears, then, not merely as a clearing of the account; it has (and here there is a thoroughly Pauline mixing of metaphors) relational contours as well. Justification is not a forgiveness in the sense of the forgiveness of a debt in abstraction from a relationship (e.g., a waiver of a debt to a bank). Rather, it is forgiveness of a personal wrong (disobedience and offense against God’s glory), such that forgiveness of the personal wrong means restoration of the relationship. And restoration of the relationship is tantamount to talking of divine acceptance.”
** This is the start of what I mean by ‘unintelligible.’
I’ll say too much if I try to do anything other than interpret Gathercole here. I think his point is first to affirm the centrality of the Pauline declaration that ‘there is therefore no condemnation.’ That is the Gospel. But it is also to say that the Gospel as Paul preached it doesn’t stop there (Rom. 8.1 begets Rom. 8.2-29). If it did, we would have no condemnation but also no grace (or an ‘unintelligible’ grace). We would have nothing (‘nihil’).
Thus, Gathercole says that we must put our talk of ‘no condemnation’ into the same relational contours that Paul does. These are the same contours communicated in language like ‘accountability’ or ‘submit to others’ (re: your back and forth with Seth) If we are bent toward legal metaphors, these phrases will sound like measures for penalties and penance, but I think Litfin’s use is much more biblically (relationally) grounded.
On the other hand, while Gramm’s use of ‘forgiveness’ – that seems to suggest that the college needs to back off from his ‘personal life’ and just ‘let it go’ – may have some connection to forgiveness as ‘no condemnation,’ it is unintelligible in this positive sense, in light of the full (relational) character of the gospel. Forgiveness does not just mean ‘no condemnation.’ Forgiveness on its (love’s) terms can never be ‘merely’ a default mode, a sort of desacralized remainder. It must interrupt the chaos and the hatred of a world gone awry with the reconciling power of the gospel. Otherwise, when sin is wiped away, all we will have is nothing.
Incidentally, this is also why marriage is so important, and in turn, why divorce is so heinous. Marriage is a narrative symbol (reenactment) of the reconciled (gospel) life (Cf. Eph. 5.22-33). Divorce, on the other hand, is an attack on that forgiveness. Thus, to ask for forgiveness while declaring himself ‘right’ (and even suggesting it was the ‘best’ thing to do), and likewise suggesting that WC’s commitment to married life ‘is not good Christian behavior’ is incoherent. This has nothing to do with forgiveness. It is anti-forgiveness.
I’ll refer you to one more article by Hauerwas, this time called ‘Peacemaking.’ Both this one and the one I mentioned above can be found in the ‘Hauerwas Reader.’ It’s his take on Matthew 18:15-22, where Jesus talks about this idea of ‘excommunication.’ I think he does a brilliant job with it, and I’ll leave an excerpt to close.
“That is why we must and can confront one another as sinners, because we understand ourselves to share with the other our having been forgiven. We thus share a common history of forgiveness and repentance which makes our willingness to confront one another a process of peace rather than simply another way to continue conflict. That is why those who refuse to listen must be treated as a Gentile or a tax collector, for they are acting like those who have not learned that they have been forgiven…the very basis of this community as a community of peacemaking. That is why they must be excluded: they must learn that they are not peacemakers in so far as they refuse to live as the forgiven.”
I’m greatly enjoying this conversation.
ever, nl
Also, as an aside, in defense of my use of Aristotle, I don’t think I am appealing to ‘my own ability.’ Quite the opposite, I am appealing to a sort of deterministic behaviorism. Gestalt psychology showed that you could manipulate speech response through shock therapy. Law (1st use) works like this too, I think, and your ‘speed limit’ analogy is actually a good example of this (PZ uses it in ‘Grace In Practice,’ and I agree with him that the speed limit in Ohio River Blvd is too slow!). When I was 16, I got a reckless driving ticket for going 85 in a 35 racing a teammate to football practice. I have never done that since. Moreover, I am, generally speaking, a more conscientious driver. That said, I don’t think I am a ‘holier’ person (driver) for it. I don’t drive slower out of concern for my neighbor. I don’t ‘delight’ in the speed limit on 65. More often, I’m hitting my steering wheel and cursing red lights (etc). Worse still, during times in my life when I have tried to obey the speed limit, I used my law-adherence to feel self-righteous and better than those who disobeyed. Worst of all, it hasn’t stopped me from breaking it altogether (I usually drive about 5 mph over). The point is that the law restrained me (1st use), and that this served to make me a more responsible citizen. But it did not make me more ‘holy, righteous, pleasing (etc)’ to God (3rd use).
I think this is usually what was behind Jesus’ statements to the Pharisees. People can behave in accordance with the law. The vast majority of times they do. The law, in fact, engenders this (1st use). Indeed, the Pharisees actually went above and beyond. But what the law cannot do is engender the loving response (3rd use) that Jesus said was ‘the greatest commandment,’ and more, was the true fulfillment of the whole law.
Nate,
Thank you for the explanation. I found it helpful. I do agree that forgiveness cannot and is not detached from God’s love. It is in fact because of God’s grace/love that we are forgiven, so I completely agree that we are not left with nothing. We are held in His grace because of the forgiveness that He has made possible through the cross of Jesus.
I would hope that because we have all shared in this forgiveness we would be able to be reconciled to our brother and sister. This would be ideal. Unfortunately, I have witnessed the exact opposite many times in the various Christian communities with which I have been involved. I do think that this is where PZ’s position that “the truth in love never works” makes a whole lot of sense. No matter what we know about forgiveness and no matter how a person tries to present it, when anyone approaches another with a word of judgment or correction the audience will react negatively. I am not saying this is right or justified. In fact, I would completely agree that it is wrong and sinful. BUT it is the way we sinners interact with law in any form.
Love on the other hand prompts a positive response. When there is no condition people feel safe and accepted. In that place of unconditional acceptance more often than not that person will most likely confess the very sin in question and ask for forgiveness. I say all of this from personal experience. When my wife tells me of an area in which I have sinned in our relationship my instant reaction is to begin forming a defense in my mind. I must be justified! My defensiveness often continues until the Holy Spirit convicts me on a heart level. Then, and only then, do I actually apologize and ask for forgiveness.
There have been many times however, when my wife will not point out my failures as a husband, and it always inspires me to ask for her forgiveness without any prompting. Initially, it comes at great cost to her because she is the loser in the situation. She is the one who is wronged and yet she forgives. I deserve to be called out. I deserve to be corrected, but instead I am given love and forgiveness.
This is simply a description of how I think judgment and love work in real life. In no way am I saying that this is anything that my wife and I do out of our own effort. I believe that it is only the Holy Spirit that moves us to love the other in midst of our sin. It is only grace that moves us to forgive one another at all.
So, I guess what I am saying is that I agree with Hauerwas that Jesus did indeed lay out the way we should reconcile, but I do not think that we can do it. I also agree with one of Simeon’s earlier comments that a transparent community is ideal, but it is nothing that we can mandate. It is “the right way” but we are unable to do it even as people who have shared in forgiveness. It becomes a law to us. The only hope for us to ever actually be in this type of relationship is to trust that the Holy Spirit will do the convicting in our brother and sister, and that He will move them to apologize. You may disagree with this, which is completely fine.
In my opinion Gramm is not implying that the school is wrong in their defense of marriage. I also do not think that he is saying that divorce is good. Clearly, he recognizes that divorce causes pain and suffering (he is the one going through it). However, he also recognizes that marriages fail all the time because they are made up of people. Of course the desirable thing would be to remain married for life as the vows proclaim, but we fail at it for various reasons. In this situation Gramm does not feel free to disclose those reasons to the school and as a result he resigned. He honored the school’s policy, but it does not mean that he has to agree with the school’s reasons for the policy as Christian. I personally do not either.
I really do not have much more to say than what i have said already in earlier comments. The school’s policy is presenting Christian forgiveness in a conditional way. Gramm sinned by getting a divorce. The deed is done. The details are not relevant because there is no acceptable parameter for sin. Sin is never “the right thing” to do, so I do take issue with his language there, but the reality is that no one ever does the right thing.
I still think that Gramm’s point is a good one, and that is that God does not abandon you when you sin (in this case get divorced). He does not require anything of you because He has already done everything required. I have to say that I do not think the school’s policy points to this fundamental truth, i.e. the Gospel, but Gramm does.
Sean-thanks again for another sterling response. Well done.
Let me leave some final closing from my end, that I’ll (however) try to state from the other end.
First, I actually fully agree with PZ’s pastoral point about judgment and love. My disagreement stems from the 1:1 correspondence of those terms with ‘law’ (judgment) and ‘gospel’ (love). I actually think this distinction is crucial, as the anecdotal (and correspondingly heuristic) power of PZ’s message almost always has to do with the former set of terms (judgment/love). In other words, it sort of sneaks the L/G hermeneutic in on false grounds, as most everyone that adheres to the hermeneutic responds more emotively to it along the lines of judgment/love. For in fact, truth be told, almost all of us can point to a time (at least once) when an imperative was heard as grace, and moreover, worked as love in our lives. What kills is judgment. What creates is love. This means something very important for law and grace. But this is not to talk about law and grace exactly.
But that said, a large part of why I disagree with Gramm comes from my agreement with PZ. Hopefully I can make this clear in my next points.
Second, I take PZ’s declaration that ‘love births goodness’ as an important, and far too often missed point by ‘L/Gers.’ I think this is profoundly true. Love is generative. Love creates life.
You said that it is “he Holy Spirit that moves us to love the other in midst of our sin.” I think this is true. You also said that “the only hope for us…is to trust that the Holy Spirit will do the convicting in our brother and sister, and that He will move them to apologize.” I think this is also true. I think these points are similar to what PZ said. The Holy Spirit acts through love, not judgment, to birth goodness.
However, I think these points actually belie this one: “the reality is that no one ever does the right thing.” It may be right to say that nobody does the right thing on their own volition and that even when they do the right thing they do so imperfectly. It is the Spirit who moves. Moroever, even as he moves, he does so only propleptically. That said, unless we want to undermine the integrity of what love does in birthing goodness, we must also be able to speak authentically about the way God’s (the Holy Spirit) agents “do the right (good) thing.” If we can’t, then we are left again with nihilsm. And as we have said, nihilism and new creation are opposites.
Finally, this means that part of Christian witness includes articulating what ‘the good’ is. As I said above, what is distinctive about specifically Christian witness is that its virtues that are not those to do with warmaking or politics (as with Aristotle), but with forgiveness. Put different, this is to say that part of Christian witness includes articulating what ‘the cross’ is.
And yes, to talk about the cross we will need to talk about suffering and dying. This must always take precedence, must always ‘come first.’ But it is also to talk about resurrection. It is also to talk about ‘new life.’ It is to talk about the generative power of ‘new creation.’ In other words, it is to talk about ‘love birthing goodness.’
Gramm sort of sniffs at suffering and dying in his comments, but the way he sets it up in opposition to new life makes his talk incoherent. It makes it, as we have said, an anti-forgiveness. We cannot collapse death into resurrection. Good Friday is not Easter Sunday, and is in one sense far removed. But we can likewise never take resurrected life away from death. If we do, we will have something far different from Christianity. In fact, Paul seems to think we will have lost Christianity all together. (Cf. 1 Cor. 15.14)
The guy who gets this really right is Martin Luther, and in particular, particularly in his dictum ‘simul justus et peccator.’ It is (in one sense) a legal metaphor (to be sure), but I think Luther intended the relational contours that Gathercole talks about, but that we end up distorting in him by using a post-Kantian foil. This side of Christ’s return, we will ever remain sinful. But all the same, our being reconciled to God is exactly (in itself) the stopping of judgment’s mouth. And that restoration of that relationship by the power of the Holy Spirit is what (really does) effect ‘spontaneous works of love’ (‘fruits of the spirit’).
But this is, again, why marriage is so important. Marriage is not, in the first place, a symbolic reenactment of what God does for us in Christ because married people are really good at loving each other. Paul seems to hope for this (Cf. Eph. 5.22-33), but not because of our own goodness (he has by that point, after all, already come through Eph. 2.1). It is, in the first place, the same sort of legal fiction as our ‘justification.’ Human partners are bound by marriage not to leave each other when things go awry just as God does not leave the sinner because of his sinfulness. You’ll remember I said above that I agree Wheaton has some strange and overly harsh rules, but that the marriage/divorce one is not one of them. This is why.
Let me put it is your language one last time. What Graham did is the opposite of how I think of PZ’s “the truth in love never works.” Graham is being realistic. He is telling the truth. He is saying that marriage is hard and that what was happening in his was not good. He was saying that people are really different and most of the time when they try to come together for life they end up hating each other because of how bad they respectively are. Gramm is right to say this. This is absolutely true.
In contrast is something else PZ once said: “Never tell the truth. Always lie, because lying is the essence of Christianity.” His point, for clarification, is that ‘creative naming’ alone has the power to change. Thus, when the sinner who is still just is sinful is called righteous, though unrighteous, love births goodness. Marriage is this sort of creative naming. It is to say that two hopelessly foreign people who were ‘once far off are now one flesh.’ Of course it is not true. But the act of calling it true is what makes it true. Creative naming has the power to change.
Divorce, in contrast, is a sort of ‘truthful naming.’ It calls it like it is. And this is, if you want, what Wheaton College witnesses to by having a policy for marriage and against divorce. It is not to cast judgment. It is not “law.” It is saying that the gospel that we must preach must be the gospel that turns that world upside down. It can be no other Gospel. There is no other gospel.
And this is, frankly, no different than what you are doing on this blog by keeping a firm commitment to the fact that ‘judgment kills love, and that love births goodness.’ You are saying that the Gospel looks like this, and nothing else…that it cannot look like anything else. Wheaton’s witness may seem harsher because somebody loses their job over it. But it is not. It only means they are staying on point. It only means that they cannot say one thing with their mouths and another thing with their actions. For to do that would be ‘unintelligible.’
Too much again. Thanks to all (any) who got through it.
ever, nl
Dear Nate,
Great to “see” you on here, and great comments.
As far as the specifics with Gramm go, I completely agree with you. His appeal to the Gospel was, in my opinion, actually a denial of the hope and lived-in-reconciliation that it affords us. . .
I have only one question: Is there a way to enforce/regulate/quantify the behaviors of a “Christian community” without ultimately having adherence to those standards become ersatz gods?
It seems that the issue is not whether there exists a real “telos,” but whether we have any conception of what it looks like.
what do you think?
Jady
These are (two) really good questions. Thanks for asking them.
I also love the word choice: ‘ersatz.’ Well done.
Regarding the first – whether there is anyway to enforce / regulate / quantify the behaviors of a “Christian community” without ultimately having adherence to those standards become ersatz gods – I think the answer is ‘yes.’ The answer, I think, lies in what Eric Auerbach called ‘Mimesis.’ His approach (crudely a ‘narrative’ approach) is at the heart of what I think is the best work being done in Christian ethics today (including Hauerwas). Chicago’s William Schweiker chronicles this quite nicely in his ‘Mimetic Hermeneutics.’ He also shows elsewhere how valuable this is in providing normative ethical reflections ‘In the Time of Many Worlds.’ I will ultimately disagree with some of Schweiker’s conclusions, but his application of the methodology shows it to be as timely as it is crucial.
A value of a ‘mimetic’ approach to ethics – if we take PZ’s pastoral point re: judgment/love for granted – is that it is primarily (and again crudely) ‘descriptive’ rather than ‘prescriptive.’ This evident in the way Schweiker (following guys like Richard Niebuhr, Barth, Weber, Hans Kung, and Karl-Otto Apel) distinguishes his ethics from the Kantian and post-Kantian variety by the word ‘responsibility.’ In other words, a value of ‘mimesis’ in ethics is that it allows the moral agent to (symbolically) enter into the story, so that ‘you must not’ language can be heard as ‘you are no longer.’ This is the heart of what I think the early church was doing in compiling stories of Jesus into ‘gospels,’ but no less so what Paul was doing in his letters (here I am thinking of Richard Hays’ dissertation on the narrative substructures in Gal 2 and 3).
Incidentally, Wheaton actually admitted this about four years ago. Many outsiders don’t know this, but their removal of the ban on dancing was part of a broader revision, of which the ‘community covenant’ was the result. Its express intent was to move away from ‘standards’ per se toward a community identifying with the good, and if you will, symbolically.
Regarding the second – whether we have any conception of what the ‘telos’ looks like – I think it’s clear from the above that ‘we do,’ isn’t it? It is not a comprehensive and perfect conception, but we can say at least it is (appropriately) a discursive and a (again) symbolic conception. This means that the ‘telos’ (as in MacIntyre) will be derived phenomenologically (in his words, ‘socially’), but (ala Oliver O’Donovan) the Christian witness is also that the noumenal has taken up space in the phenomenal, so that our socially derived symbolic retellings will tell of that as well. In the teachings of Jesus, this space is called ‘the kingdom of God.’ In the Pauline epistles, it is called ‘new creation.’ But as we might expect, the best ‘language’ we have for this is located in neither of their teachings, but in what Jesus is doing in the whole life of incarnation, in living and dying and rising again. The ‘telos,’ in other words, is resurrection.
Which gives us another answer to your first question. How do we enforce / regulate / quantify the behaviors of a “Christian community”? Through the central (symbolic, narrative) practices of the church, namely, baptism, the eucharist, and the proclamation of the Gospel. In that talk, we are back at Matthew 18 and Hauerwas, and I hope have a better sense (context) for why the church must be clear enough in her (symbolic) language to send some away. Maybe not, but maybe.
Finally, I’ve been getting my haircuts from Jamie at Martin’s in Sewickley, and every time I am in there she asks me how you all are. You should drop me a message on facebook so I have something cogent to say next time =)
ever yours, nl
Nate,
I’m glad to see that your taste in books is matched by your taste in salons:)
I have been interested in the concept of “mimetic desire” since getting (a little) into Rene Girard. The concept of “mimetic participation” seems to be pretty well attested to, and it certainly corresponds to a belief in the bound will; however, I still think that attempts to quantify the “telos” in specific ways leads to a deification of a particular socio-political, economic, or ecclesiological position.
I’m comfortable with the incredibly vague, but powerful, message that the “telos” towards which we are headed is “new life,” or “resurrection.” But, what do these things look like? Reducing third-world debt? Possibly. Not (break)dancing? Definitely:) etc.and so forth.
My point is not that Christian ethics are non-existent or unattainable; rather, that any attempt to universalize them in any specific way, other than the general ways that are set out in the Bible, has more to do with the (age old) problem of eisegesis than any new revelation on an old problem.
Anyway, I’ve not read enough Hauwerwas, and I’ve just ordered his reader. . . so maybe I’ll be converted!
_jady
It’s true. I have great hair 🙂
I’m glad you are reading Girard. I’m also (again) impressed.
I do think the ambiguity is powerful. I also think that narrative is part of what keeps us (or our standards) in our place (especially when it is the Biblical narrative, which is itself the universal), and likewise avoids ‘eisegesis.’ It keeps us (them) “in character,” so to speak. This way of doing ethics is not as comfortable as clearly defined categorical imperatives, or even classical teleology, but no less identity (or telos) forming for that reason (and thus, no less ‘ergon’ or behavior forming either). In fact, given what resurrection does in bringing together the created order and the eschatological freedom implied by the pentecostal gift (as argued by Oliver O’Donovan in “Resurrection and Moral Order”), it is uniquely suited for this.
Your follow up questions – what does Resurrection as ‘telos’ have to say about break dancing and third world debt? – are as good as your initial questions. Well done again. O’Donovan (who I actually prefer to Hauerwas – Hauerwas himself spends seven weeks on O’Donovan in his Anglican Christian Ethics class at Duke) has been taken to task precisely for not answering those sorts of question (though more so the latter than the former :). The guy who is answering those critics is Michael Banner. In particular, his work applies O’Donovan’s methodology to “Contemporary Moral Problems.” Justyn Terry directed me to that book, and I think it is quite good.
Here’s something (as I have said) that it clearly applies to, though: marriage.
O, and no need to think about converting to Hauerwas. As I’ve said, I think PZ’s dialectic of ‘judgment killing love and love birthing goodness’ will take you to the same place – that is, once the incongruency of those terms with ‘law and grace’ gets reconditioned and straightened out 🙂
Great convo. Also, John Donne is one of my Anglican heroes. Holy Sonnet XIV was on my office door at Christ Church.
cheers, nl
Dude,
Michael Banner is awesome. I particularly think his treatment of sexuality is inspired; its much better than Hayes’ “NT Ethics.” Maybe there’s a chance you could go study with him? I don’t know what his situation is like, but his book is as good as it gets (IMHO).
Its nice to see you thinking along these lines. . . keep up the good work! We need more “Gospel ethicists” (whatever that is, remains to be seen:)
Tell Jamie hi for us, and keep me updated on your trip to das Vaterland!
fondly,
Jady
He is on the top of my list for guys I’d love to study with. That would be a dream! Plus, if Simeon is still around then he could keep me straight on 1st and 3rd uses 🙂
Well done indeed.
yours, nl
We’ll be here in Cambridge for 2-3 more years, so hurry up and come! 🙂