the theologian is the enemy of theology

Currently I’m taking a class on Dietrich Bonhoeffer for my master’s degree. Bonhoeffer lived in the early 20^th century in Germany and was part of the resistance movement against Adolf Hitler. He conspired with other believers to assassinate Hitler. He also wrote a lot of books. One of them was Ethics, in which he uses the Sermon on the Mount to argue that Christ is the foundation of all Christian ethics. This seems pretty straight forward, right? Check out this sentence:

The decision between the clearly known good and the clearly known evil excludes human knowledge itself from the decision; it transposes the ethical into the struggle between the knowledge, which is already oriented towards the good, and the will, which still offers resistance, and it thereby fails to bring about that authentic decision in which the whole man, complete with his knowledge and his will, seeks and finds the good in the equivocal complexity of a historical situation solely through the venture of the deed.[1]

That is a single sentence, and I’ve read it a few times and I’m still not sure what it means. Granted, Bonhoeffer wrote in German, and this is a translation, but even if you separate it into two sentences, I doubt it would be less confusing. What is “clearly known good” or “clearly known evil”? Clearly known by conscience? If we know good and evil clearly, how is knowledge excluded? How is knowledge “oriented towards the good”? Why does the will offer resistance?

Placing the quote in context doesn’t help either:

The absolute criterion of a good which is a good in itself, assuming that a notion of this kind can be conceived in the first place without an inherent contradiction, makes good into a dead law, a Moloch to which all life and all liberty are sacrificed, and which fails to even impose a genuine obligation, simply because it is a metaphysical and self-contained construction which bears no essential relation to life itself.[2]

I have no idea. I don’t have the time to find an idea. There’s the problem. Maybe if you’re a seminary student, or a preacher, or a professional theologian who is paid to study this and make sense of it, maybe then you will invest the time and energy to find whatever golden nuggets of truth lie buried deep in the bowels of this single sentence. Maybe, but me? No way. I have a job and I have children and I have bills to pay and another job and a second course I’m taking to complete my degree and I don’t have the will or the strength to bury myself into this single, aggravating, obfuscating, abstract piece of horrible prose. I just want to learn and I don’t believe it should be this difficult. Obviously, learning takes effort, but many men have written on the same themes without this sort of profoundly infuriating and confusing word pile.

You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Apart from Me, you can do nothing.

Love one another, even as I have loved you.

It’s not hard to speak clearly and concisely. Theologian, do you want non-theologians to read what you write? Do you want anyone to learn anything or do you want your theology to stay confined in your own little echo chamber? Write better. Thanks. 

---

[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1949), page 212.

[2] Ibid.

anti-social media

the year was 1990 and i was graduating from foothill high school in bakersfield, california. i was going to work at my father's refinery over the summer. he didn't own the refinery; that was just where he worked. his company (again not his), Texaco, had given me a scholarship that would pay for just about all of my college education. they had also offered me a summer job.

i graduated near the top of my class and like anyone who does this, i had high expectations for myself. i was going to be a computer engineer. in 1990, that was pretty lofty. my mom was a teacher and my dad never finished college. but i got sidetracked.

first i married. then i finished school. then we had children. then i became a teacher. i loved teaching. then everything unraveled as i lost my sanity to a pornography addiction. career gone. new career. other career gone. marriage dead. i moved into my parents' extra room and shared custody with my ex-wife and watched her move on as i attempted first a master's degree in math (failed) then a master's in english (less failed but still failed).

in 2010, i was 38 years old, separated, unemployed, had cashed out three separate retirement accounts just to survive and not place undue burden on my parents, failed at two separate careers, failed at a master's degree in math (yet to fail an english master's), trying to escape the hold of the pornography, desperately alone, sitting on the floor of my new bedroom that i shared with my two boys when they visited me at my parents' house, weeping almost uncontrollably.

the good news is that i rarely feel suicidal anymore. i attend a recovery group as often as my schedule allows or my attitude will accept (increasingly more, thank God). i am still divorced and i am still single. though i want a relationship, the thought terrifies me. i have been destructive and i have been destroyed. i do not want either again. i do not trust myself and i trust others less. i have a part-time job teaching at a vocational college, sometimes i drive for lyft, and i edit classic out-of-print public domain books that i sell on amazon for a little bit of retirement cash. i am a bit lonely but less so. i am not lonely/angry like i was during the marriage. trust comes slowly.

social media doesn't help. social media is the illusion of social interaction. on social media, we only allow others to see what we want them to see. most of us put our best facade forward, and we avoid those who do not. who needs drama? but drama is what makes us human. drama is how we relate to each other. drama is how we know we are genuinely human and not obscene plastically perfect caricatures of humanity. but drama on social media is uncomfortable, embarrassing, shameful. drama should be private and excessive drama should be avoided. in real life, we resolve drama as much as possible with those we love. these resolutions strengthen our connections.

on social media we pretend. we miss the little details: the smiles, the playful sarcasm, the honesty (if honesty is there at all). i am not the person i am on social media. on social media i am a clown or a raging political/theological world changer (or i think i am). mostly just a clown.

on social media everyone pretends. the few who may not be pretending may not need to pretend that their life is perfect, because it is. who even knows? this is the other side of the madness. social media invites comparison and comparison breeds envy of the worst kind.

i should be more
i should be different
i should be rich
i should be with her
i should be famous
i should be everything i am not

at least it does for someone like me: insecure, unstable, unsure of my purpose on this planet, of why God bothered to create me at all. but He did create me, and He created me for a reason. my life is the beginning of this reason. all of the failure, all of the pain, all of the insanity--He uses these to shape my soul. who knows why? i do not, but He does. the reality is that i should be more and God will make me more. He has already begun to, but not because of what i see here or there with this person or that person, but because God has made me to be me.

Silken Self

From prayer that asks that I may be
Sheltered from winds that beat on Thee,
From fearing when I should aspire,
From faltering when I should climb higher,
From silken self, O Captain free
Thy soldier who would follow Thee.

From subtle love of softening things,
From easy choices, weakenings,
Not thus are spirits fortified,
Not this way went the Crucified,
From all that dims Thy Calvary,
O Lamb of God, deliver me.

Give me the love that leads the way,
The faith that nothing can dismay,
The hope no disappointments tire,
The passion that will burn like fire,
Let me not sink to be a clod,
Make me Thy fuel, Flame of God.

Silken Self
Amy Carmichael

Pinnock and Scripture

Before I go any further in to this travesty of theology, I want to explore some things Pinnock has said in this book and in his pneumatological treatise, Flame of Love.

In Flame of Love, Pinnock immediately declares that he appreciates Jurgen Moltmann's attempt to "recover a more experiential basis for the doctrine of the Spirit."[1] Later in his introduction he says that in his book “we will be dipping into the testimony of Scripture and into insights from the ecumenical church”[2]. “We have to be sensitive to things that are only spiritual discerned,” he says. To complete his turn away from Scripture, Pinnock concludes his introduction by saying, “This book is not really a biblical study but moves beyond exegesis to historical and theological reflection…Exegesis alone cannot provide the full perspective required by the church. There has to be a wider sweep of investigation that takes into account other dimensions—historical, theological, philosophical, cultural, and mystical”[3].

Pinnock makes similar statements in The Grace of God and the Will of Man. “Here is a meaty debate… and in it both sides can appeal to rich scriptural, logical, and experiential data,” he opines.[4] He admits that whole chapters of his book result from “rational speculation.”[5] In the chapter that recounts his autobiographical pilgrimage he says, “I had known experientially all along in my walk with the Lord, that there is a profound mutuality in our dealings with God.”[6]

Calvinists do not rely on experiential data for good reason. We are fallible, flawed, impure. We assume too much of ourselves. We give ourselves too much credit. The God of the Universe is the God of the Universe. To presume that our base, limited capacity could ever possibly come to correct conclusions apart or distinct from divine revelation, as revealed in enduring and tested Scripture, betrays a staggering height of arrogance. Experiential data does not inform theology. Certainly it does not correct clear, unequivocal declarations of Scripture. If “insights from the ecumenical church” differ from or contradict what Scripture plainly says, they must be tossed out. The Church is flawed because we are the church. There is no consensus of historical minds within the Church that God gives authority to. In this world, He has given authority to his word, to his Son, and nothing else. We should suspect any data that is based primarily or exclusively on personal or even corporate experience. We are prone to failure, bias, and the deception of an enemy whose capacity and ability far exceeds our own.

Of Scripture Paul said, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3.16). Of men he said, “Fools” (Romans 1.14, 22; 2.20; 1 Corinthians 1.20,27; Galatians 3.1,3). Of Scripture Peter said, “No prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God’ (2 Peter 1.21). Of men Peter said, “Lustful. Ignorant. Newborn babies. Disobedient” (1 Peter 1.14; 2.2; 3.1). We do not seek God apart from Scripture. We do not conclude who he is or who we want him to be apart from Scripture.

---

[1] Clark Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), page 10.

[2] Ibid, 13.

[3] Ibid, 17.

[4] Clark Pinnock, The Grace of God and the Will of Man. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1989), x.

[5] Ibid, xiii.

[6] Ibid, 19

Jeremiah

From The Kingdom of God, John Bright, 1953, Abingdon Books

Jeremiah had confronted the awful realization that God and the plain moral right of the matter were no longer on the side of his country. God has parted company with the Kingdom of Judah and wars against that kingdom. To take this course cost Jeremiah a terrific struggle. Here we see a soul at war with itself and with God; so much so that Jeremiah did not hesitate to hurl at his God the bluntest accusations of unfairness. It is quite clear that denouncing his people gave him not the least pleasure. He reminded God that he had never wanted the job of prophet anyhow. The butt of jeers, he lashed out at God in well-nigh blasphemous language, charging that God had "seduced" him, and he had let himself be taken in; he had struggled against his destiny, but God had simply overpowered him. Was that not a great victory for so mighty a God! Ostracized and lonely, he felt like a man suffering from an incurable wound. His spiritual resources were at an end. Yet he could not quit, try as he might; the compulsion of the divine Word was upon him:

And if I say, "I will not mention him, not speak any more in his name," then there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones; and I wear myself out trying to hold it in, but I can't!

The human spirit is not made to endure such tension. The end of it is despair unparalleled, despair which outruns all words and yet for which Jeremiah found words surpassingly moving. Jeremiah did not want to live.

Within there was a boiling tempest; but without there was an impregnable "wall of bronze". Within was all manner of fear and despair; without was a man who, so far as we know, never gave back so much as an inch! Here, indeed, we learn what faith really is: not that smug faith which is untroubled by questions because it has never asked any; but that true faith which has asked all the questions and received very few answers, yet has heard the command, "Gird up your loins! Do your duty! Remember your calling! Cast yourself forward upon God!"

In this connection, Jeremiah refutes the popular modern notion that the goal of religion is a "complete person", freed of its fears, its doubts, and its frustrations. Certainly Jeremiah was no complete person. It is doubtful if to the end of his tortured existence he ever knew the meaning of the word "peace". We have no evidence that his internal struggle was ever ended. The feeling cannot be escaped that if Jeremiah had been complete, it would have been at the cost of ceasing to be Jeremiah! A man at peace simply could not be a Jeremiah. Spiritual health is good; mental assurance is good. But the summons of faith is neither to a complete person nor to the laying by of all questions, but to the dedication of personality--with all its fears and questions--to its duty and destiny under God.

Introduction to Works of Arthur Pink Volume 1

I grew up reading scripture. I had—have—this ancient New International Version New Testament, published in 1975. The subtitle is “Illustrated Children’s Edition with Memory Margin”. This New Testament measures 6 and a half, by 9 and an eighth, by 1 and a quarter inches. I estimate the font to be about 14 pt. Maybe I was partially blind when I was a child. By New Testament standards, this book is very large. Not sure where I was going with this. I also had a complete bible. This other bible was a children’s edition sprinkled throughout with pictures of various events. That thing is lost forever.

I’m guessing I learned to read about the same time as most other children. The Bible being one of the first books I possessed, that was what I read. One of the earliest stories I remember reading was “David and Goliath”.

Like many of the stories in scripture, we find in this story much that inspires us. David tended sheep. He was young, probably in his early teens. He was handsome. He was brave, even perhaps a little obnoxious. The details and the conflict between David and his older brother lend to the credulity of the story. David went to the frontlines of the battle between the Israelites and the Philistines and brought food to the soldiers. There, he heard the challenge of the Philistines’ gigantic champion, Goliath, as he defied the armies of God, and God himself. “Who does this guy think he is?”, David asked. We all know how the story ends. David executes an unconscious Goliath with his own sword. That is how the story of David and Goliath ends. The future king of Israel, the ancestor God chose through which he would send the Savior of Mankind—David the Shepherd executed an unconscious man without trial or pretense of any kind.

“But this was war,” you object. Exactly right. The gory, violent details give the story credulity. Unlike the gory, obscenely perverse details of the Grimms’ fairy tales, the details in scripture match the overarching narrative. In war, the victor executes the defeated.

Scripture contains many details that we choose to ignore, or that we forget, or that we decline to emphasize with equal weight as the “inspirational” details:

Men are depraved. Jeremiah 17.9

God controls what we think and desire. Proverbs 21.1

God hates certain groups of people. Psalm 5.5; Proverbs 6.16-19.

God hates certain individuals. Malachi 1.3; Romans 9.13

God destines some to eternal destruction. Romans 9.22; 1 Peter 2.8

Why do we expect the Creator of the Universe to be eternally benign, inoffensive, and ever-pleasant? Do we know any human beings like this? If we do, do we honestly trust that this is who they are?

Arthur Pink refused to ignore any single part of scripture that he found unpleasant. The Sovereignty of God describes a God who rules all, every detail of all of creation, every action, every event, every decision of every man, woman, and child. The sovereignty of God must be our starting point for all of scripture, for all of theology. Without it, there is no scripture. If God is not sovereign, then his word has no meaning. How can he keep his promises? How can we trust him? Why even bother to worship him, if anything we decide can thwart whatever he decides? If our measly and minuscule intentions, these things we do daily by happenstance or stupidity or ignorance, can ruin the plans of the God of the universe, what is the point of God? What meaning is there in anything we do or say or believe? But if God is sovereign, then everything has meaning. Every failure, every thought, every intention that enters our heart has a purpose, and the purpose is not our purpose, but God’s. If God is sovereign, then he can be trusted, and his word can be proclaimed without fear and without compromise.