Wednesday, January 17, 2007 AD
Like a hammer
The thing about the sermon on the mount is, just when you think you've managed to rationalise your way past the Lord's more troublesome injunctions, you run slap into a sheer rock face like this:
But that general hazy sense of the sermon on the mount as "great moral teaching", practical guidance for the Good Life, soon disappears once you start to attend to what Jesus is actually saying.
Take a look at that quote above. Do you live by that? Do you refuse to resist an evildoer, turn the other cheek, give a plaintiff more than they are suing you for, give to everyone (or anyone?) who begs from you or asks to borrow from you? Do you even want to? Can you even begin to contemplate what the effects would be of living like that even for one single day, what a wreck that would make of your lifestyle?
Passages like this show us two things. First, that part of the purpose of the sermon on the mount is to pound into oblivion any notion we might have that are capable of living by its teachings. If we're honest with ourselves and with the sermon's contents, we don't even want to. It exposes that all we can do in this life is to "sin boldly".
But this leads on to the second point, which is that the sermon on the mount exposes our lack of belief in grace. We may say we believe that "God saves sinners", but we don't mean real sinners who commit real sins. We need to listen again to what Luther tells Melanchthon in his infamous "sin boldly" letter:
As Michael Spencer pointed out a couple of days ago, this is why so much of the church is so ambivalent (at best) towards the celebrated "plagarizer (sic), theological liberal [and] adulterer", Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As Michael put it:
Perhaps it's appropriate that Martin Luther King's name includes that of Martin Luther: another real sinner with real sins, who polarises opinion so strongly precisely because we find it so difficult to conceive of "proper sinners" being the means by which the grace and power of God work among us. So either his sins or his achievements must be downplayed, according to taste.
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.Many people seem to have a general feeling of benevolent warmth towards the sermon on the mount. You know the sort of thing: "I'm not the sort to go to church, but I do try to live by the sermon on the mount." Most Christians, likewise, would probably regard the sermon on the mount as the template to which we should aspire in our own lives.
Matthew 5:38-42
But that general hazy sense of the sermon on the mount as "great moral teaching", practical guidance for the Good Life, soon disappears once you start to attend to what Jesus is actually saying.
Take a look at that quote above. Do you live by that? Do you refuse to resist an evildoer, turn the other cheek, give a plaintiff more than they are suing you for, give to everyone (or anyone?) who begs from you or asks to borrow from you? Do you even want to? Can you even begin to contemplate what the effects would be of living like that even for one single day, what a wreck that would make of your lifestyle?
Passages like this show us two things. First, that part of the purpose of the sermon on the mount is to pound into oblivion any notion we might have that are capable of living by its teachings. If we're honest with ourselves and with the sermon's contents, we don't even want to. It exposes that all we can do in this life is to "sin boldly".
But this leads on to the second point, which is that the sermon on the mount exposes our lack of belief in grace. We may say we believe that "God saves sinners", but we don't mean real sinners who commit real sins. We need to listen again to what Luther tells Melanchthon in his infamous "sin boldly" letter:
If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world.We find this a hard lesson to take. Yes, God will have mercy on me, a sinner. But that's because I'm a special kind of sinner. I'm the sort of sinner who only commits the sort of sins that Christians commit, not the sort who commits real sins like everyone else commits.
As Michael Spencer pointed out a couple of days ago, this is why so much of the church is so ambivalent (at best) towards the celebrated "plagarizer (sic), theological liberal [and] adulterer", Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. As Michael put it:
Here’s one time we can tell the culture to look at a flawed person and see the grace and power of God, and we won’t.Is this because we are simply dealing appropriately with proper concerns about Dr King? Or is it because, when it comes down to it, we don't feel comfortable with the idea of the grace and power of God being manifested through a flawed person - and a properly flawed person at that, a real sinner with real and terrible sins, not just "OK for Christians" sins. (Please note I am not taking a position one way or the other here on the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against Dr King.)
Perhaps it's appropriate that Martin Luther King's name includes that of Martin Luther: another real sinner with real sins, who polarises opinion so strongly precisely because we find it so difficult to conceive of "proper sinners" being the means by which the grace and power of God work among us. So either his sins or his achievements must be downplayed, according to taste.
