In the South Park episode about anti-smoking zealotry called “Butt-Out,” Cartman ends up running from a homicidal Rob Reiner who needs him to die in order to prove that second hand smoke kills. This is a classic example of South Park’s brilliant reductio ad absurdum, and can’t be recommended more highly.
Sadly, I ran across an article entitled “The Chemist’s War” and was horrified to learn that, in this case, art was imitating life. In it, the author, Deborah Blum asks, “I never heard that the government poisoned people during Prohibition, did you?” Sigh, no. In what can only be read to be believed, she explains:
“Frustrated that people continued to consume so much alcohol even after it was banned, federal officials had decided to try a different kind of enforcement. They ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols manufactured in the United States, products regularly stolen by bootleggers and resold as drinkable spirits. The idea was to scare people into giving up illicit drinking. Instead, by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people.“
One of the more tragic aspects of this whole episode has to be the fact that the three deadliest days of government supported alcohol poisoning began on Christmas eve, 1926.
Now, clearly, few people today are championing the government’s action here, although if the UK is any indication, strong-armed, Big Brother paternalism–where Mozart is weaponized–is alive and well. And while the limits and responsibilities of the secular state make for interesting discussion, they are not our primary concern here. For our purposes, this historical episode is interesting because of the close connection between religious and secular appeals to “the greater good.”
One of the fundamental tenets of our project here is that this 
distinction between law and gospel is not an abstract theological exercise, but an everyday pastoral concern. Put in terms of the above story, we are more concerned with why you are drunk on Christmas eve than getting you to stop drinking. We believe that when the law and gospel are not clearly distinguished, then our reflections about God move from contemplation of his self-revelation on the Cross—his “one way love to sinners,”—and retreat back behind the cloud of his “glory,” or “holiness” or “the greater good.” When God is taken off of the Cross, then we can understand what he is doing much more readily, see more clearly the direction the world is heading in, and have much more to say about His will for your life. Along these lines, if that ultimate will requires us to poison you so that you’ll get the picture, then bottoms up.
There is another way of doing theology that does not start with God as Ultimate Power, Greatest Good or Fundamental Reality, but rather from the bottom up, as God the Son, who was “crucified under Pontius Pilate.” This is a theological stance that is less intellectually satisfying, but more existentially relevant, because we are not wrestling with with Ontological Proofs, Aquinas’ cosmogony or cosmology (as interesting as those are), but rather with the everyday implications of a God “who justifies the ungodly” (Rm. 4:5). With the Apostle Paul, we confess that, “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.(1 Cor. 13:12)” Until then, we’ll hold onto his “comfortable words,” to Timothy: “This is a true saying, and worthy of all men to be received, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” Thanks be to God.
COMMENTS
19 responses to “The Law of the Greater Good and Bottom’s Up Theology”
Leave a Reply
Clockwork Orange much?
YIKES.
Hot Fuzz! The town council intoning "The Greater Good" as they explain why they've killed hundreds of people: typographical errors, annoying laughs, terrible acting.
btw…is that REALLY true? 10,000 people? REALLY?
Jady, While I certainly do not agree with anyone who would lecture the suffering on the glories of God's beneficent and holy grand design, this post seems to be a bit of a theological cheap shot. If distinguishing law/gospel means that we must set at odds God's holiness and His love, and that this somehow is the only pastoral, caring approach to ministry, then I guess a legitimate question might be: Is it supposed to make me feel better to think that God the Son is sympathetically holding my hand while God the Father is busy trying to chop it off?
Nick. .
I wanted to put the hot fuzz clip up–it should be there now:)
Cliff!
I hope to see you in April!
The short answer to your question, Do you think that any theology that speaks of God's glory is a "theology of glory"? is no, because the Glory of God is certainly something we hope to uphold and affirm!
I love the KJV, Galatians 6:14 which states, But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. Ahh. . . the KJV was good enough for Jesus, good enough for me:)
Likewise, your usage of Luther's quote "it does him no good to recognize God in his glory and majesty, unless he recognizes him in the humility and shame of the cross."is right to the point.
I'd like to think that I sing the Gloria as wholeheartedly as anyone, but it comes after the confession and absolution. I think that is significant. . .
It seems to me that starting with "In the beginning, God. . ." from any other vantage point than Calvary threatens God's own self revelation in Jesus. This is not to say that we can't "begin w/Moses,(lk 24:27)" but (IMNSHO) this was only clear to the disciples when Jesus revealed it to them after his resurrection–far be it from me to start any other place than that:)
But I'm by far from any place of real satisfaction on this. . . thoughts?
As for your second point: My point is what constitutes "the greater good," for governments–and the power they have to enforce that–is different than how the church should operate.
Not because we want anything less than the good, but because our definition of what the good is, is often very different. The good for a state may very well be to outlaw chewing gum, regulate marriage and/or poison drunks–but the church operates in an ethical world that can only behold God's glory–the good–by beginning with forgiveness and mercy. Naturally, these two concepts imply transgression–no trespass, no forgiveness–but is our role rightly to order the kingdom of this world or proclaim the forgiveness of sins?
It has been my observation that the line between God's "glory," and human projections of temporal kingdoms (whether on the left or right) often seem to obscure the "scandal of the cross."
I guess I'm not arguing for preaching one to the exclusion of the other, but that one–the cross–should inform the other and not vice versa.
So that's where I am at the moment–:)
Hope to see you in April—always love your comments and thoughts!
Jady
well, I was wondering where you were Michael:)
You asked: Is it supposed to make me feel better to think that God the Son is sympathetically holding my hand while God the Father is busy trying to chop it off?
I don't understand how you got that from my post, because this is the very position that we're seeking to avoid. If we start with God's glory, then the temptation is to see the cross as the means to the end of upholding said Glory. In which case, Jesus would be holding your hand while trying to get his dad to put down the knife.
If, on the other hand (which was my point) we begin with Jesus as the revelation of God the father (in good, robust trinitarian fashion) –then the questions of wrath, holiness, transgression, etc. . are not diminished, but they are put in perspective of the Cross, because Jesus is not some sort of kinder, gentler, hippie God. . .
Anyway, this certainly wasn't an intentional cheap shot, but my intention was to get some (unfinished) thoughts out there and spark discussion–mission accomplished:)
"talk" to you soon:)
Jady, The reason I see this post as a cheap shot is the following:
"When God is taken off of the Cross, then we can understand what he is doing much more readily, see more clearly the direction the world is heading in, and have much more to say about His will for your life. Along these lines, if that ultimate will requires us to poison you so that you'll get the picture, then bottoms up."
Particularly in the last sentence, you are clearly attempting to draw a parallel between those who, you claim, "take God off the cross" (presumably, by talking about His ultimate good purposes) with the government poisoning people "for the greater good." Frankly, "cheap shot" is putting it mildly.
Oh Michael. . how I feel for the poor jurys you face:) haha. .
I rather liked my clever "bottoms up" line:) But now I see that opinions differ!
I wasn't really saying that we should be afraid of being poisoned in the name of God by those who "take God off the cross," –but stranger things have happened.
For the sake of argument: is it that far out of the realm of speculation that in the name of "God's will," people would be subjected to any manner of injustices?
My point is that when we take our eyes off Calvary–"where mercy and justice meet,"–then there can be (and often has been) a disregard for individual people at the expense of "the will of God." This is (however distantly) analogous to the prohibition poisoning of drunks for "the greater good." One is theological, one is not.
This is the way I see it. The "glory of God," detached from the Cross is why suicide bombers exist and abortion doctors are shot—the "glory of God" shown on Calvary is why we allow ourselves to be blown up.
Jady, I think that we can at the same time affirm the Cross and affirm God's ultimate good purpose for us in all things. Isn't this what Paul does in Romans, where he writes eloquently about the Cross, and also writes, as an encouragement, to those under his care : "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."
(Romans 8:28) Is Paul slipping into "glory" theology? Are we to throw Paul under the bus with the other "theologians of glory" because he wrote this? I am not that worried about suicide bombers, but I am getting a little paranoid of the Theologians of the Cross Purity Police.
Michael,
I don't know how my post has been interpreted as a screed against a "theology of Glory," but there you have it.
Regarding my understanding of the relationship between "glory" (in all of its various interpretations) and the Cross, my response to Cliff was as good as I have right now.
At any rate, don't worry, you shouldn't expect any retribution from the "Theologians of the Cross Purity Police," . . .yet:) haha! just kidding; seriously, no poisoned industrial alcohol here.
much love to you,
Jady
Jady, I understood your comments to Cliff to be saying that if we start with God's holiness or "glory", rather than with the suffering God on the cross, then we somehow are getting things backwards as far as understanding God. The problem with this is that Jesus did not BEGIN his minsitry on the cross. He began by affirming in the strongest possible terms God's holiness. (as in the Sermon on the Mount)
You are right to stress that this affirmation of God's holiness is not an end in itself, but rather points to our absolute need for the Cross, and to the Cross as our source of comfort. What seems unfair to me about the post is that you seems to equate an affirmation of God's holiness somehow with "taking God off the cross" or with poisoning people, or, as you have said, blowing people up, in the name of God. I just don't think that is fair, but maybe I have completely misunderstood your point.
A few random observations–I don't think there's a greater scene in film of weaponized music than Wagner in Apocalypse Now. Ironically it's the only time I can STAND Wagner. 🙂
The thing that makes the "Butt-Out" scene so amazing in South Park is the jump cut after the line "And then you can be cool. Just. Like. Us." hacking and coughing with "Quick, give me another one!"
Because of the churches I've been at in the last fifteen years I can't help but immediately associate the "law of the greater good" with the courtship fad in evangelicalism.
"There is another way of doing theology that does not start with God as Ultimate Power, Greatest Good or Fundamental Reality, but rather from the bottom up, as God the Son, who was "crucified under Pontius Pilate." "
Amen. The Holy Gospel IS simply the incarnate Jesus and being connected to Him most intimately through our baptisms.
Someone once told me that i could insert my own name wherever the name of Jesus appear in the NT.
It is that intimate.
clifford scharz
"but now in these later times God has spoken to us by his son." … In Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form" … "he who has seen me has seen the father."… " [the old testament] is fully and only a testmony to my Person"… "These things are written that you might know Christ".
Run your questions about Glory through the Blessed Incarnation and the Cross. example:
"Jesus in his incarnation is a perfect illustration of the full understanding of the wisdom, power, and glory of God."
"Jesus on the cross is a perfect illustration of what is to be fully understood by the wisdom,power and glory of God."
"If I start with Christ crucified, resolving to know nothing else, am I a theologian of Glory?"
"the point of the entire bible is to…"?
"the point of salvation is to…?"
Contrast the theology of Glory to the theology of the cross.
Penny for your thoughts!
There is a book by Gene Edward Veith that deals with exactly the issues that michael and cliff helpfully bring up.
"The Spirituality of the Cross: The Way of the First Evangelicals (Paperback)"
You can find it here:
http://www.amazon.com/Spirituality-Cross-Way-First-Evangelicals/dp/0570053218
Jady: I hear cliff and michael thinking you are making a choice between TOG and TOTC. Or insisting on making The Cross the First Thing.
Are you saying instead that The Cross is The Entire Point of scripture and all other doctrines should be seen as supporting cast and context for this one doctrine pastorally and sytematically?
so it is not either/or, but rather both and? and Cross is the hub with everything pointing to it as spokes of a wheel?
Or am I getting you wrong here or missing something?
it seems that holiness primarily defined by Luther in terms of God's "otherness", or who God is within his own Glory. For Luther, this God of otherness is of no use to us, what has been made known is a God of the cross.
Luther does transition this distinction to polemic against just about everything. For Luther the God of the cross is known chiefly for his mercy, and not for HIS wrath. The God of the cross is for his own glory and against our "glory" projects of moralistic self justification.
But it does not follow that wrath and glory are antithetical to God's person (God is the same yesterday, today and forever), but rather Glory and wrath have a new significance for humanity in light of the cross (2 cor. 5:21, gal. 6:14).
Hey Frank,
Long time no see–I hope you are well!
You asked: Are you saying instead that The Cross is The Entire Point of scripture and all other doctrines should be seen as supporting cast and context for this one doctrine pastorally and sytematically?
yes. I wrote as much to Cliff:
I guess I'm not arguing for preaching one to the exclusion of the other, but that one–the cross–should inform the other and not vice versa.
Anyway, I could probably have been a little less polemical–not as clearly either/or but both/and– but then where would be the cyberfun in that?
Cliff: "It's a sympathetic biopic of Joel Osteen and we'll play Triumph of the Will during coffee hour." Hilarious. Almost fell off my chair!
Hey Cliff—
I can't tell you how much I appreciate "talking" with you–yet another reason we wish we lived in NYC!
I think that your concerns about anthropocentric theology are valid and certainly something that I wrestle with all the time—
In retrospect, I should have removed "glory," from the list—but this has been a helpful clarification (and reminder to be more clear:)
As for Anglicans beginning with the nature of God—my only point is that we can not separate that nature from the one revealed on the Cross–so wherever our theological speculation leads, it must be tethered there. This certainly does not invalidate discussions of wrath, glory, holiness, sin, redemption, hope, etc. . but helps to frame it in a truly trinitarian (and thus 39Article'esque) way. . .
Ok, I too am signing off on this post—I think that we had some interesting interactions and will certainly expect more in the upcoming posts—always a pleasure:)
Much love,
jady