A common complaint in the modern, industrialized world is that the church is boring – and Christianity along with it. Church is thought to be too sober and predictable to be of any interest. All that happens there is humdrum – the incessant asking for money and the tired singing of old songs about loving God and the neighbor.

People therefore have quit going to church in droves.[i] And those who remain have panicked – fearing that the church will die if something drastic is not done – and quickly at that. So many stupid, desperate measures are being tried. The church, for instance, has become a comedy hour in some places – promising a good belly laugh for all those who venture out on Sunday mornings and into the pews.[ii] Other places have offered innovative and entertaining music – rock and rap for the new, younger generations, in whose hands the future of the church is erroneously believed to dwell.[iii] Still others have turned the church into a social agency, dabbling in a dizzying array of political campaigns.[iv] All of these strategies, and more like them, have whittled away at Sunday morning boredom. And in many cases they have even succeeded – but at too great a cost.

All these efforts therefore are doomed because of the high price they pay for their successes. All of them send us down blind alleys – in spite of their many and varied successes. When we are convinced of this and dump them out-right, it doesn’t mean we’re left with boredom forever. No, there are other, better solutions. For from the beginning, the church has been dedicated to fight against boredom. And that struggle has been part of its essential identity. So from the beginning it has encouraged urgency, eagerness and zeal,[v] in its fight against mediocrity, idleness and lukewarmness.[vi] And these efforts have come by way of the word of God which is “sharper than any two-edged sword” (Hebrews 4:12; Jeremiah 23:29). When this divine word cuts us up – as one might well imagine – boredom then is out the door.

The church, however, doesn’t always utilize this solution of its own. It instead caves in and betrays its essential identity, heeding instead something like Othello’s command to “keep up your bright swords, for the dew will rust them.”[vii] By so doing, it welcomes boredom back in. And it does this without any struggle or shame. The avoidance of conflict, confrontation and contestation, is what’s behind all of this. We give up the cutting word because we’re always looking for the course of least resistance. And this results in deadening the church. Against this Martin Luther warned: “If the Gospel is not attacked it completely rusts and has no occasion or reason to make its power and influence manifest.”[viii] So when the church is boring it’s because a rusty Christianity has set in.

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) called this sort of Christianity one that has lost its spring or tension:

Ah, there is so much in the ordinary course of life that will lull a person to sleep, teach him to say “peace and no danger.” Therefore we go to God’s house to be awakened from sleep and to be pulled out of the spell. But when in turn there is at times so much in God’s house that will lull us to sleep! Even that which in itself is awakening – thoughts, reflections, ideas – can completely lose meaning through the force of habit and monotony, just as a spring can lose the tension by which alone it really is what it is.[ix]

These spring-loaded ideas come from God’s holy word. They awaken us by cutting us – “piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow,” that the “thoughts and intentions of the heart” might be uncovered (Hebrews 4:12).[x]

This cutting is therefore deep and dangerous. And it’s what makes Christianity “dangerous and difficult” [periculosum et asperum] – both traits being essential features of its very nature (LW 12:217-219, 394-395; 51:205). This word thereby humbles us “to the utmost,” as Luther says.[xi] It destroys all knowledge “that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.” It “breaks through and wounds. It takes away every ground of trust and ascribes redemption solely to the blood of Christ; it pricks and wounds the soul” (LW 12:216, 225). This work is so central to Christianity that Revelation 1:16 has a sword coming right out of the mouth of the resurrected Lord Jesus.

This pricking and wounding, cutting and awakening, all happens by way of “contrast and antithesis [per contentionem et antithesin],” according to Luther (LW 33:287). This push and pull of ideas – or working out of salvation “in fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:13) – is what keeps Christianity lively. It’s what enables Christians to take up “the good fight of faith” (1 Timothy 6:12). It’s what suppresses the boredom that’s always “couching at the door” of our churches (Genesis 4:7).

In order to be antithetical, we must always imagine the cynical, skeptical objections to any of our affirmations. So when we praise Christ, for instance, we must always remember those who want to say against us that “Jesus be cursed” (1 Corinthians 12:3). We can’t therefore forget this crucible of contest if Christianity is to be free of boredom. Christianity, after all, is a word of life that makes sense only in the struggle against death – and all death-dealing words and arguments against it. “In the absence of dying and death,” Luther writes, Christianity “can do nothing, and no one can become aware that it… is stronger than sin and death” (LW 30:126). So by sheltering Christianity from opposition, we hurt it more than help it.

Kierkegaard builds on Luther’s antitheses with his dialectical method. It seeks to present Christianity as composed of “infinite wrestling”:[xii]

To endeavor to work directly is to work or to endeavor directly in immediate connection with a factually given state of things. The dialectical method is the reverse: in working also to work against oneself,… which is “the earnestness,” like the pressure on the plow that determines the depth of the furrow, whereas the direct endeavor is a glossing-over, which is finished more rapidly and also is much, much more rewarding – that is, it is worldliness and homogeneity (KW 22:9).

Kierkegaard’s dialectical method therefore helps us dig down into any Christian claim, that it might rightly be seen as opposing us. This isn’t very rewarding in worldly terms. It slows everything down. It pits us against the world and ourselves – making us contrarian and heterogeneous. It gives Christianity a bite –making it salty, if not downright brackish (Matthew 5:13; LW 31:35):

The existential dialectic bears qua dialectic the stamp of its origin as a philosophical term in the dramatic dialogue. It is, namely, a mutual confrontation of opposites in their logically developed consequences.[xiii]

This confrontation of opposites throws us into a cauldron where we rightly belong –the “great battle in the human heart.”[xiv] This is the war (Romans 7:23) wherein spirit and flesh (Galatians 5:17) “struggle with one another… as long as we live” (LW 35:377). Ignoring this battle falsifies Christianity and leaves the church a silly and boring place. It misses the profound truth that Christians “thrive best” when opposed (LW 45:347). Blinded by our penchant for conflict-avoidance, we lose our way and sell our “birthright” (Genesis 25:29-34).

But how does this conquering of boredom in the church actually happen by way of God’s cutting word? One way to see this at work is in sermons on John 14.1-6. Over the years I’ve heard at least two boring sermons on this text – one by Pastor Prestbye ( Kent Lutheran Church , Kent , WA) on July 19, 2003, and another by Pastor Richardson (St. Malachi Anglican Church, Hillsborough , Northern Ireland ) on April 20, 2008. In both these cases, the dialectical method wasn’t used and Luther’s antitheses were missing. In both sermons this was done by letting one Christian claim, from this text, stand by itself – namely, that Christ will return to take us back with him into heaven (John 14:3). This is a great promise, but it’s boring when it stands alone – sailing past us unopposed by any contest, debate or challenges. It just stands there all alone, for us to bask in – and in this serene process, we get bored with it. It’s too placid. It doesn’t grip us. Because of this undialectical approach, we’re even led to believe that this claim is intrinsically unimportant because it isn’t worthy of any struggle. As Luther once put it, the devil is only interested in gobbling up the plump sheep – those positions and people that are full of God’s holy words (LW 30:135). The skinny ones – the unimportant ones – he leaves to languish on their own. By letting this text slide by uncontested, we leave the impression it’s a skinny one, when in fact it’s a fat one.

            A dialectical approach, however, turns this impression around. It butts this claim about Jesus taking us to heaven (John 14:3), with the other one, in the same passage, about having first to prepare a place for us in heaven before we can go (John 14:2). But notice how this butting of Bible verses against each other slows everything down. Matters become complicated. Some won’t like this detour – due to this Biblical complication – because they can’t follow it. They can’t see where it’s headed and so it seems a waste. Furthermore it won’t let them make short shrift of the Bible verses. But neither will the details in John 14:1-6 itself. Those details require of us to pause and ponder – whether we like it or not. They’re in control – not us (Isaiah 55:11). This is the first way in which this text turns against us – ruining the original sweetness of the claim that Jesus will return and quickly whisk us off to heaven – without any complications.

But this is just the beginning. This abutting of the two claims also forces us to ask why heaven needs to be prepared in the first place – before Jesus can take us away. This question immediately puzzles us. Why does heaven need to be prepared before we can enter it? What’s wrong with it as it is? And what does it take to get it ready for us? How is it actually prepared for us? With these challenges and questions, we are all of a sudden thrown down into the depths of this text – fearing that we might be falling into some theological black hole – with no hope of escape. No wonder then that many turn tail and run – and precisely at this point. They can’t stand the heat, so they get out of the kitchen.

But if we put on the brakes and linger longer over this text, some light will surely dawn (John 1:5). Consider, for instance, that heaven needs preparing because it won’t allow the likes of us to enter into it. Now that is another strike against us – and it’s upsetting. This says we can’t get into heaven because we are unredeemed sinners and that makes us unwelcome because, as such, we offend God. So heaven isn’t ready for us because we aren’t ready for it. God’s light came into the world (John 8:12) and we “loved darkness” instead (John 3:19). So God is offended because we rejected his majestic, saving light (John 1.10-11, 3:32). Consequently his wrath settles in over us (John 3:36; 12:48). So rather than heaven opening up before us, all that we have is “the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29). This is because we have become “slaves to sin,” have made the devil our father, and are now “walking in darkness” (John 8:34, 44, 12). This closes heaven for us. All that’s left now is the “food which perishes,” which sucks life and vibrancy out of us (John 6:27, 53). We are without any “abundance” (John 10:10).

Given this horrible predicament, how shall we be restored? Are we but destined to hell, forever and ever? Well, not if somehow sin can be eradicated since that’s what’s keeping us out of heaven. Now precisely at this point we have hope, because this is exactly what Christ Jesus does, being the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, 36). And he eradicates sin by laying down his life as a sacrifice on the cross (John 10:11, 15, 17; 15:13). By so doing he moves the Father to mercy (John 10:17; 11:50; 14:6, 21; 18:14, 1 John 2:1-2; LW 51:277). He does this by being a sacrifice for sin himself (1 John 4:10). As such he is punished in our place. Whoever therefore believes in Jesus and entrusts their lives to his care and keeping, are blessed and may then – finally –  enter joyfully into heaven (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 11:25). So we cannot depend on our sinful selves to save us, but must actually “hate” ourselves in order to be saved (John 12:25; 15:5). This puts our salvation in God’s hands (John 6:44; 15:16). So even though we still sin, it is not held against us because Jesus’ sacrifice removes the need for sinners to be punished, since Jesus already has been punished in our place. That’s why Jesus says on the cross, at his last breath, “It is finished” (John 19:30; and my “Consummatum Est,” Logia, Reformation 2002). What is finished is everlasting punishment in hell for those who believe in him. Christ’s sacrifice has put an end to any need for that. Punishment is finished for believers – not ever to be feared again.

So when Jesus goes to prepare a place for us in heaven (John 14:2), he does what we can’t do for ourselves. By his death, and only by his death, he moves God to mercy and, as a result, he now welcomes all sinners who believe in his dear Son into heaven. These are the only ones he will take with him when he returns (John 14:3). Nothing else can help us in this way (John 5:44; 12:42-43).

Now these harrowing thoughts about sin and helplessness, punishment and wrath, suffering and sacrifice, must be butted up against John 14:3 if the church is to be saved from boredom. Popular music, entertainment fanfares and political campaigns can’t do any of this for us. Only the cutting word of Hebrews 4:12 can fire up the church and rid it of boredom – especially when John 14:1-6 is being preached.

Once this has happened, however, all is not sweetness and light. Faith and jubilation can still be blocked. Critics – as has happened for generations – can still say Christianity is intellectually foolish (1 Corinthians 1:18) and morally foul (2 Corinthians 2:15-16) – even though it isn’t any longer boring. So ridding boredom from the church doesn’t, by itself, open up a smooth, clear path to belief as well. No, problems for faith persist. At this point, then, all we can say is blessed are those who take no offense (see Matthew 11:6; John 6:60-61 and my “Christ as a Sign of Contradiction,” Pro Ecclesia, Fall 1997, and “Our Serpent of Salvation,” Word & World, Fall 2001). Try though we may, the abrasiveness of Christianity remains, even after the boredom has been removed. So the abiding truth is this:

We… preach the foolishness of the Gospel, which reveals another righteousness, namely, that because of Christ, the propitiator, we are accounted righteous when we believe that for Christ’s sake God is gracious to us. We know how repulsive [abhorreat] this teaching is to the judgment of reason and law and that the teaching of the law about love is more plausible (BC 139).

Wayward and Harmful Teaching

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sizing Up the Lutheran Women Today Bible Study

By Pastor Marshall        

ELCA magazine, Lutheran Women Today, each year provides a monthly Bible study. For 2006-2007 it’s on suffering and is written by Terry and Faith Fretheim. There are so many bad mistakes in it that it deserves comment so that a warning (see 1 Timothy 1.19) may be sounded (see 1 Corinthians 14.8; 2 Peter 2.1). Copies of this LWT Bible study are available through the church office if you haven’t seen it.

            The September 2006 Lesson. It begins saying “suffering is a fact of life” – even though it isn’t “evenly distributed among people.” But this platitude gets us off on the wrong foot. Suffering rather comes from being kicked out of paradise (see Genesis 3.23-24). We weren’t made to suffer and die (Genesis 3.3, 19, 22; 5.5). So when creation is restored at the end (Romans 8.22-23), all suffering and death will be gone (1 Corinthians 15.26; Hebrews 2.14; Revelation 21.4). All of these profound truths are missing from or denied by this study. They are replaced by the banality that suffering’s all around us. If Martin Luther had been followed on this matter (e.g. Luther’s Works 13.92-94), none of these mistakes would have been made.

            Next it rules out that all suffering is caused by sin. This is because the abused and poor do nothing to deserve their pain. But this is a wooden view of sin – tied unjustifiably to specific infractions. The Bible knows of a deeper sin that covers everyone. On this deeper view all have gone astray (Isaiah 53.6) and none is righteous (Romans 3.10, 23). Everyone therefore deserves punishment (Luke 13.2-3) – young and old, strong and weak, rich and poor alike. Sinners shouldn’t be surprised when they suffer.

            This study also rules out God’s absence as a cause for suffering. It says God is present in every situation of life. But this unjustifiably denies God’s fierce withdrawal (Ezekiel 8.6; Romans 1.24; 2 Thessalonians 1.9). It also defies Mary’s words in John 11.23, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

            The October 2006 Lesson. It begins saying that in our relationship to God we have something “important to do and say, the results of which make a difference to God.” But God isn’t tied to our contributions. Our life with him isn’t always tied to a conditional relationship as in the covenant with Moses (see Leviticus 26.1-46). This is not the case with Noah (see Genesis 8.21) nor with predestination (Romans 9.16-18). And even when a contribution is noted, we’re told it counts for nothing (1 Corinthians 3.7)! Before God we are but a mist (Psalm 39.5; 103.14); we are nothing (2 Corinthians 12.11; James 4.14).

            It also supposes that Psalm 8.5 is saying that we are a little lower than God and full of honor and glory. But Hebrews 2.5-9 says this applies to Jesus. He’s the one filled with glory and honor and who was a little lower than God because he emptied himself to suffer and die for the sins of the world (Philippians 2.7; Romans 8.3; 2 Corinthians 5.21). So this study denies that Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. It denies that we should read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. If it had let the New Testament lead the way, it would’ve followed Hebrews 2 in explaining Psalm 8. It would’ve celebrated that the New Testament is our “guide and instructor” for the entire Bible (LW 35.123). That this study hasn’t is reason to question it seriously.

               This study also says we’re free to say new things about God because “God outdistances all our language, and none of our images for God is fully adequate.” But this study doesn’t follow this principle far enough. They should’ve said the same for our moral and metaphysical principles too. They should’ve said God is beyond them too. But the Fretheims lost their nerve at the key point. They would rather stand in judgment over the morality and ontology of the God of the Bible. Pray that the Fretheims may one day courageously give up their cherished liberal, enlightened moral and metaphysical principles too. May they also grow to love the Bible’s language too.

               This study also says God shares power with us knowing full well we may make poor use of it. But God goes on anyway – even to the point of weakening himself by so doing. This study then denies that “whatever God wills,” he gets. It says “God does not always get” what he wants. But this misunderstands our shared power and the misuse of it. None of that goes against God’s will. When we fail it’s because he allowed it to happen. So too with those times when we thwart God’s plans. The truth is that “all power belongs to God” (Psalm 62.11) and that he does “whatever he pleases” (Psalm 115.3). Whatever we manage to do is not by the power of our own arm (Deuteronomy 8.17)! So if all hell breaks loose on earth it is because God willed it (Revelation 12.12; 1 John 5.19). This study emphatically dismisses the power God has in the Bible!

               The November 2006 Lesson. It begins saying that “God is, of course, at work for good in all suffering, whatever the reason.” But this is not so. It only is so for those who believe “in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8.28, 39). For those outside the household of faith there is sheer torment awaiting (Luke 16.23, 28). This “torture” is so bad, people suffering from of it will wish to die to escape it, but won’t be allowed to (Revelation 9.5-6). This burning misery is unending (Matthew 3.12; Mark 9.48). This is terrible even though just. This is nothing but wrath (John 3.36; Romans 2.5)! It’s easy to see why the Fretheims would skip this testimony – especially if they have loved ones they believe are in jeopardy. But such partiality sadly has no place in these divine matters (Acts 10.34)! God’s tough word stands even if we are offended by it!

(reprinted from The Messenger, November 2006)

            The December 2006 Lesson. It begins saying “suffering as a consequence of our sin does not happen because God pulls some kind of trigger when someone sins. Rather…. God sees to the connection between sin and consequence…. God does not produce… a penalty and impose it on the situation.” So we suffer from our sins because of the moral order of life – not because God is punishing us.

            But this theory denies too much of the Bible to be true. In Numbers 16.30-32, God does “something new” and causes an earthquake to swallow up the wicked. That earthquake doesn’t follow from their sin like emphysema does from smoking. And so for the Flood. Because of their violence, God drowns humans worldwide in a flood – but the waters of the flood aren’t triggered by their violence (Genesis 6.11; 7.21). Wars, maybe, would have been intrinsically linked to their sin of violence, but God instead chose to kill them by drowning.

            So why does this study put forth such an unbiblical idea? Could it be because it rejects the teaching that it’s a “fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10.31)? Can it not stomach Matthew 10.28 that God not only can kill us but also send us to hell?

            The January/February 2007 Lesson. It ends saying that in the book of Job we learn that “religion will outlast any eventuality” if we would only “serve God without thought of the carrot or the stick.” And this is possible if we simply deny and reject “the principle of reward and punishment.”

            But this isn’t what the book of Job teaches! Rejecting the principle of reward and punishment can only come from blind guides (Matthew 23.16)!

            Job tells us the truth. He says that if we are “false to God above,” then we deserve to be “punished by the judges” (Job 31.28). Job doesn’t deny this system of retribution, or reward and punishment, as this study shamefully claims. Job simply denies that he’s been false to God. “I am… a just and blameless man,” he insists (Job 12.4).

            And so Job follows Exodus 20.5-6 which says that God punishes those who hate him, but loves those who obey him. How could this study have missed this chestnut? And John 5.29 follows Job’s example saying, “those who have done good come forth to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” And Romans 2.6-8 follows suit saying, “to those who by patience and well-doing seek for glory, God will give eternal life; but to those who obey wickedness, there will be fury and wrath.” No reward and punishment? What a crazy Bible study! These verses show how far off base this study actually is!

            This study also claims that “Job’s lament-full reactions were an appropriate way for him to respond” to his severe suffering and torment. But this too is a silly idea. If that were the case, then why does Job repent at the end? What is he sorry for if not his whining? “I have uttered what I did not understand,” he confesses, “therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42.3, 6)! But all this study can say is there’s a scholarly dispute over Job’s remorse and that, at the most, he “sounds as if” he’s repenting! Is this why God has withheld the truth of his Word from the scholars, from the “wise and understanding” (Matthew 11.25)? So once again we see that all this LWT study provides is the work of blind guides (Matthew 23.16)!

            So the judgment on Job is a split decision. Martin Luther (1483-1546) knew this a long time ago – something that this study has shamefully shirked. And it’s supposed to be a Lutheran study? In the book of Job, Luther writes, “God decides that Job, by speaking against God in his suffering, has spoken wrongly, but that in contending against his friends about his innocence before the suffering came, Job has spoken the truth” (Luther’s Works 35:252). So Luther isn’t baffled over why Job repents at the end. It is because he sinfully spoke against God after his suffering began.

            All this study can say about Job’s wrongful speech is that it authorizes us – can you believe it? – to “question… even God” when we have to suffer what we don’t like! But how can we question God whose ways are so far superior to ours (Isaiah 55.9)!? What basis could we possibly have for correcting God? Nowhere in this study is this obvious concern addressed.

            And finally this study also says that the “testing of Job’s faithfulness… is not for Job’s sake…. Job is simply a pawn in a heavenly dispute.” Really? Then why does Job say that when God “has tried me, I shall come forth like gold” (Job 23.10)? Isn’t this because the same truth in Romans 5.3-4 is evident here, namely, that “suffering produces endurance, and endurance character”? No wonder, then, that Christians praise Job for his “steadfastness” (James 5.11) – a verse missing from this study. (Can you imagine why a putatively Christian Bible study wouldn’t include this verse?)

(reprinted from The Messenger, February 2007)

 I          

            The March 2007 Lesson. It begins saying that one of the reasons we may think God isn’t present in our lives is because we think of him as a king and “royalty tend to live in remote palaces, removed from ordinary people’s daily life.” Rather than thinking of God as our king we should instead think of him as medicine “working on the body from the inside.” Or we should think of God as a seamstress who “puts all the patches of the quilt that is you and me together.” However there’s a big problem with this. And that is that the Bible says God is our king! “The Lord reigns,” it declares, “let the people tremble!... Mighty King,… you have established justice…. You were a forgiving God to the people, but an avenger of their wrongdoings” (Psalm 99). And even Christ reigns (Acts 17.7; 1 Corinthians 15.25) in his very own kingdom (Colossians 1.13). So we call him “King of kings and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6.15; Revelation 17.14; 19.16)! But such a regal God is apparently too demanding for this study. They prefer a wimp – a bottle of pills or a thin darning needle – to the One whose voice thunders “like the sound of many waters,” and from whose mouth issues forth “a sharp two-edged sword” (Revelation 1.15-16). But that’s what the Bible says, not the other!

            Next this study says that God does not first enter “into time and history” in Jesus Christ. No, it says, for the Old Testament is “all about the pre-Jesus presence of God.” This is an unbelievable statement coming from a Christian Bible study! There’s no such thing as a “pre-Jesus presence of God” for the church! When would that have been? At creation? No, that couldn’t be, for in Jesus Christ “all things were created, in heaven and one earth” (Colossians 1.16; John 1.3). This is the meaning of the Holy Trinity, one God in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Searching for some sort of pre-Jesus presence of God is a clear dead-end. The Biblical God is by nature Trinitarian, period. That’s the Christian creed. This study also says that without Christ one may still be able to receive the “unconditional love” of God. But we know that “grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1.17). Without him the wrath of God is all we have coming. Otherwise Jesus isn’t the only savior (1 Timothy 2.5). Jews may not read the Bible this way, but Christians surely must.

            Next this study claims that “God is at home in this world, not off in some special God world.” But that is too cozy. God fights for truth in this world (Nehemiah 4.20; 1 John 3.8), but to say he’s at home here is to domesticate the Almighty Lord (Revelation 1.8). The world after all is a suspect place. It’s in the power of the evil one (1 John 5.19; Luke 4.5). The devil even is “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4.4). So friendship with the world is “enmity with God” (James 4.4; Romans 12.2). No wonder, then, that we must not “love the world” (1 John 2.15). Thank God, then, that this world is “passing away” (1 Corinthians 7.31; 1 John 2.17). Therefore it is right that we die “to the world” (Galatians 6.14; 1 John 5.4). All these truths are missing from this study.

            Next it says “we can resist God’s work in our lives, and so things may go… terribly wrong,” so much so, in fact, that they “fly in the face of the will of God,” thereby stopping it from happening. (Next month this study will flatly say that we can so obstruct God’s will “that it does not get done”!) In the face of this failure, all God can do is let his tears be “the first to flow.” But Psalm 115.3 says, “God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases.” So if we resist God’s will, it is because he lets it happen. “Not one sparrow,” after all, “will fall to the ground without your Father’s will” (Matthew 10.29). This study is clearly barking up the wrong tree by denying God’s all-powerful will!

            This study also says that God’s wrath can and will burn hot against those who “forget the underprivileged.” But what about those who forsake God for idols? When God killed Herod (Acts 12.21-23) is wasn’t because he rejected the poor. It was because he feigned the voice of a god and tried to hog the true God’s glory. Such punishment of blasphemy is missing from this study. Is that because it cuts too close to the bone? Furthermore the declared divine wrath is later mitigated in this study. Later it says that “God is present even in the most heinous of situations, struggling to transform those moments into good.” But couldn’t he also be there to cause these situations to punish us and then leave it at that? Isn’t that just what he in fact did to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5.1-11? Isn’t that even what Jesus will do with the chaff (Matthew 3.12)?

            The April 2007 Lesson. This study repeats the same mistakes made in the previous month regarding the kingship of God and his unassailable power and will. But it goes on to say that in prayer “God is not the only one with something important to say.” But that is surprising given that we are always to pray to God that his will, not ours, be done (Matthew 6.10; 26.39). It’s also odd because we don’t know how to pray as we should, and so God knows what we need before we even ask for it (Matthew 6.8; Romans 8.26-27; Ephesians 3.20). That makes what we have to say in prayer pretty paltry indeed. Why does this study skip over these well-know verses? But it insists that in prayer “God experiences the wonder that is you.” A wonderful you? Come on! How are we then part of that “evil and adulterous generations” that deserves nothing but the sign of Jonah (Matthew 12.39)? This study says our prayers can give God “new ingredients with which to work,” such as “insights” into our situation. But it then self-contradictorily takes this back by saying that these matters “are not new to God,” but still “important” for him. Well in just what way? This simply doesn’t add up.

            This study also says that we “have the power to make God less welcome” in our lives, by giving him “less room in which to work.” But it also says that “God is ever unsurpassed in creating… openings in our lives, even when the doors seem to be closed.” One thinks of the conversion of Paul in Acts 9.1-22, for instance. So in what way, then, is there less room in our lives if God gets what he wants by dint of his miraculous ingenuity? This also doesn’t add up.

            Finally this study says that the people of God “are not in the hands of an iron fate or a predetermined order.” It is not at all clear how this claim fits with Romans 8.29 that “those whom God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son.” And the same can be said for Ephesians 1.5 that God “destined us in love to be his children through Jesus Christ, according to his will.” These verses affirm predestination, contrary to what this study says! So Romans 9.16-18 says that these matters don’t “depend… upon our will or exertion,” but only upon God’s mercy or wrath. This study seem to be afraid to discuss these verses along with their cognates. Therefore – sad to say – we once again see light turning into darkness (Luke 11.35) in this study.

(reprinted from The Messenger, April 2007)

         The May 2007 Lesson. It begins saying that Christian suffering can be chosen, good and fulfilling [or “rewarding,” Deuteronomy 15.10], rather than just a consequence of sin and creaturely limitations. In this case we suffer because of our “daily willingness, even eagerness, to enter into the suffering of others” in order to help them. In this case we suffer on purpose because that’s what it takes to help the needy. Our suffering comes in our sacrificing of our time and wealth to feed the hungry, house the homeless, clothe the naked, heal the sick and rescue the abused. But this admonition is left unexplored in this study, and so it isn’t of much help.

         For instance, it just asks, without any discussion, if we “give liberally and ungrudgingly every time” we’re panhandled. Martin Luther, however, provides help with this matter – help that’s missing from this Lutheran Bible study. Inspired by 2 Thessalonians 3.10, Luther says the flesh of our neighbor must be nurtured, but only in such a way that it’s not permitted to “become wanton” – just as with our own flesh. It too must be curbed. So we must “not approve of the hoboes who run hither and yon and suck us dry and go after our property without lifting a finger.” Instead we should help only those who try their best to “bear the burden of work” (Luther’s Works 17.287). This is a fuller analysis of our obligation to the poor which also reflects the “whole counsel” of the Holy Scriptures (Acts 20.27) – something this study doesn’t come close to doing.

         Then there’s also the matter of being rewarded for our benevolent labors. Nothing is said in this study on how this can boomerang on us. It just quotes Deuteronomy 15.10 regarding blessings for our good deeds and leaves the matter hanging. But this verse raises the long-standing fear over works righteousness (Romans 3.21-26). This, you will surely remember, is when we help out to feather our own nests – or at least in order to feel better about ourselves. This danger is not discussed in this lesson, so nothing is said on how to fight against it either. Nevertheless, a place to begin would be to contemplate Philippians 2.3 about others being better than ourselves, and Luke 14.26 about hating ourselves. These verses are of course missing from this study.

         Next it says we also suffer for the message we bring from God. But again this is left unexplored. Why are we hated for bringing God’s good word? Have we presented it the wrong way or is it inherently offensive? If the latter is the case, how is it so? The short answer to this is that God’s good word includes the condemnation of what we’re naturally inclined to do and enjoy (Romans 13. 14, 11.22). Having those dreams crushed enrages us, for we love the darkness (John 3.19). So to declare God’s condemnations will put us where Elijah (1 Kings 19.1-33), Amos (7.12-13), Jeremiah (38.6), Jesus (Mark 15.9-15), Stephen (Acts 6.13, 7.58) and Paul (Acts 21.30-34) were – that is, in a terrible mess.

         Another example of this suffering is in Isaiah. This includes the famous verses from Isaiah 53 about the suffering servant of the Lord. This study says that “Christians often associate the suffering servant with Jesus (see Matthew 8:17; Acts 8:32-33; 1 Peter 2:24-25).” But not always. One could also draw a connection to “an unknown prophet, the people of Israel , a faithful remnant, or all of the above.” For Lutherans, however, this selectivity and ambiguity won’t work. Those verses from Matthew, Acts and 1 Peter are non-negotiable! For indeed, every Good Friday we read Isaiah 53 and are emphatic that it’s about Jesus. There’s no ambiguity there! And Luther argued the same in his 1544 treatise on Isaiah 53 (see Marc Lienhard, Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ, 1982). God punished Jesus in our place because Isaiah 53 says so. The church leans on these verses for its declaration that Christ is our “substitute” (LW 22:167, “Ich trit an deine stat”). That’s why Isaiah is called the fifth evangelist (see John F. A. Sawyer, The Fifth Gospel: Isaiah in the History of Christianity, 1996). We can’t be vague about this without making “a shipwreck” of our faith (1 Timothy 1.19).

            As a result of this obfuscation, this study also skirts why Jesus had to suffer for our sins. He did so to pay for then, the Scriptures say. By so doing Jesus shielded us from the wrath of God (John 3.36; Romans 5.9). And so Luther rightly asks, “Why else did he die”? (LW 52:253) – implying that there’s no other adequate explanation. This study notes the importance of what “Jesus’… death is all about,” but never says what that actually is. As Lutherans are supposed to confess, “Only Christ, the mediator, can be pitted against God’s wrath and judgment” [The Book of Concord, ed. T. Tappert (1959) p. 136]. This standard teaching is completely missing from this study. Why do you suppose that is? And why do you suppose it’s been excluded in such a coy fashion?

            Next this study says that suffering is God’s “most fundamental” and “chief way” to exercise his power in the world. This means God doesn’t primarily use “coercive power” – which would be to force things through on his own, in one fell swoop. But this is a silly position to hold since God does force things through – and significant things at that! – and he does so all on his own! He killed Herod all by himself (Acts 12.23). He didn’t need one of us to drive a spike through his head as he did with Sisera (Judges 4.21). And God also killed Ananias and Sapphira all by himself (Acts 5.3-10). He brought light into the world all by himself (Genesis 1.3). He caused the rain to flood the earth all by himself (Genesis 7.4). He raised Jesus from the dead all by himself (2 Corinthians 4.14). He calmed the sea all by himself (Mark 4.39). And he gives us faith all by himself (1 Corinthians 3.5-7; Ephesians 2.8; Romans 9.16 – Romans 10.14-17 notwithstanding!). To assert the contrary – that God needs us to get things done in the world through some slow, weak, painful means (contra Psalm 50.12-13) – is to fall off a theological cliff into the never-never land of secular modernity!

            This study also says that God never “becomes bitter, callous, or burned out in finding a way into the future,…. His saving will never wavers.” But this violates Romans 1.24 where God simply “gives up” on the wicked. It also violates Matthew 25.41 where God curses the wicked with eternal fire. And it violates 2 Thessalonians 1.9 where the wicked are excluded from God’s presence forever. This study ignores these alarming Bible verses because, in its foolishness, it only wants a watered down God to exist. Shame on it for this blasphemy! Can you believe it says that suffering and evil never have “the last word about our lives”?! How about “wrath and fury” in Romans 2.8? How about “this place of torment” in Luke 16.28? Or “the door was shut” in Matthew 25.10? Or the weeping and gnashing of teeth in “the outer darkness” of Matthew 25.30? What about these Bible verses? Are they chopped liver?

            And so this study ends as it began – in utter darkness. Lord have mercy on the ELCA for promoting and celebrating a study that peddles and tampers with God’s Word (2 Corinthians 2.17, 4.2). Pray for the repentance of its authors and all us who have swallowed it hook, line and sinker! Yes, O Lord, in your goodness, have mercy on us all.

(reprinted from The Messenger, May 2007)