God has made a world in which what we do matters. True Christianity draws us to more human lives, enmeshed in earthly things, and hoping for the resurrection of it all.
There is a conflation drawn in these various traditions, that you have tapped into eloquently: a conflation which states that because our salvation is not contingent upon action, our actions must not matter. But, true salvation, I would argue, is an effect which will naturally emit its cause to the world. That is, that our salvation is not held hostage by action, and thus we will not act out of desperation to save ourselves. But, a part of being welcomed into salvation is that Christ has lavished His irresistible grace upon the sinner, and they will respond by falling in love with Christ. Love being not merely a feeling (though I think D.A. Carson lays out a convincing argument in his book “Love In Hard Places” that the affectionate side of love is still important), but also a manner in which one structures their life according to what they desire most. Those who are saved, who love God, will act out that love. Furthermore, we are called to make disciples of all nations. As you have pointed out through Bonhoeffer’s articulation of the penultimate.”If you don’t attend to the penultimate things, you may not even have the right or the opportunity to speak about the ultimate things.” I find myself pondering this sentiment often. I think of how often the life of following Christ involves delving into matters which appear, at first glance, trivial. Because in order to love people, we must meet them where they are, and where they are is often quite boring, or seemingly detached from things ultimate. But, the seemingly trivial has real implications. What is trivial to me, is life altering to someone else. That is, that in order to love people, we must take up what matters and affects them, because the gospel is transmitted through life together. And life together is often painful, sacrificial, boring, monotonous, and unpleasant.
Most of all, part of loving Christ is to love what He loves. He would not enter into our brokenness if He saw this world as trivial and futile. It is clear by His interest in salvation for people on this earth, that what is done here matters to Him. Because He exercised the salvation of the world, in the world, among people. And in the course of His life here He attended to their pain.
All of this rambling to say....I really enjoyed this post!
Thanks for this, Ian. Especially, "I think of how often the life of following Christ involves delving into matters which appear, at first glance, trivial," and the sentences following. That's it!
As someone currently undergoing conversion, I can't comment with knowledge on the theology, however, as I read the post, I kept thinking to myself: what about love?
I think of it this way: being concerned only with my salvation is simply another form of self-obsession. This is not authentic death to self. This is not real love of Christ. In loving Christ I give myself over to his will which is made most manifest in forbearance, in my willingness to suffer and hold the suffering of the world that I may love and move again and again and again as I fail toward love. The whole New Testament seems to me alive with calls to loving action as fruit of the spirit. Any turning away from love in nihilism, is not God's will but rather my own fear, self-concern, sloth, and resignation.
Anyway, that's one naive take -- though sometimes naivete is helpful :)
That was a fantastic article! The one thing I would say is that I do think that God is the ultimate source of meaning, and so without him eventually you lose all meaning. That being said, years ago, I went through a meaning crisis while embracing the Christian faith for many of these exact points.
A couple of points although I wholeheartedly agree with the essence of your essay.
Protestant/Evangelicalism, at least in recent centuries, has conflated justification with salvation and the terms of each. Justification provides the formal, juridical basis of salvation, but salvation is an ontological reality. The terms of Justification is ethical perfection in the fullest sense of that word, which is achieved through substitutionary atonement through Christ alone. But the terms of salvation is a faith, as defined by James, that survives unto the end. This faith does not have to be perfect, merely existing and scrutable. Practicably trusting in the merits of Christ's assertions, counsels, warnings, and promises are the instrumental means by which that salvation (perseverance) unto the end is achieved (Luke 6:46-49).
This latter point, much of Protestant/Evangelicalism seems to have missed, although it is implicit in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress. It is premised upon another doctrine which has been missed: the biblical or Hebrew comprehension of natural law (and moral realism). The existing understanding of natural law within Protestant circles is epistemological, moral law inscribed on the heart. Scriptures implicitly, yet incontrovertibly, rejects this understanding (Hebrews 8:8-10). For if in the New Covenant, that which is new and unique and unlike the covenant that came prior, law is inscribed, then it cannot have been inscribed before. Moreover, any honest and competent student of world history knows that the Protestant Doctrine (in Westminster and London Baptist confessions) is nonsense.
The Hebrew/biblical doctrine of natural law is that it is out there, like gravity, whether we know it or not. Natural Law is ontological and discerned through its consequentialist repercussions ("works of the law" Romans 2:14), just like the laws of gravity. We are judged only upon the basis of the subset of laws that we know, largely through natural epistemological means in places not familiar with Scriptures.
I think your problem in accepting this truth is your firm commitment to the Westminster Confession. But I do not see how can successfully by a natural theologian and relevant in this age without this correction.
Finally, Paul never appealed to the Greek audience through law, but through the truth of God. You can test that out. Unlike the Jews and Romans, the Greeks did not subscribe to the intrinsic validity and merit of the laws. (Yes, on the philosophical fringes, some were looking for an intrinsic basis.) The validity of law was premised upon the lawful and hierarchical authority which promulgated the laws (legal positivism). It is the reason why Paul could make a moral/legal argument in the Epistle to the Romans. As to the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul could make a covenantal argument because the province of Galatia is in the heartland of the old Hittite kingdom and empire, who were known for their suzerain covenants or treaties. As a historical rule of thumb, ideas have a habit of enduring in the same locale for hundreds and thousands of years.
Hey John - sorry I didn't respond to your very thoughtful comments previously. They coincided with an out-of-town trip.
On natural law, I appreciate the ontological emphasis. I'm not sure how whether it excludes the epistemological. For example, Aquinas and the Thomists strongly emphasize that the natural law includes almost everything about how God created the world; the motion of objects is subject to the natural law, all of nature is - in theologian Steven Long's words - *theonomic*. At the same time, Protestantism did place an emphasis on moral knowledge, conscience, etc., in its use of natural law - though people like Richard Hooker strongly retained the ontological emphasis, I believe. The Protestant epistemological sense of natural law may come to a head in Kant's ethics. But I also see it in the first chapter of Lewis's Mere Christianity. We all have an inchoate sense of morality, Jonathan Haidt's modules of moral thought, leading us to accuse others and excuse ourselves, etc.
But I think it's correct to emphasize the extent to which we need to look outside ourselves ("empiricism," in my sense) to see the natural law. I see Louise Perry's Case Against the Sexual Revolution as an example. People need to see the worldly consequences of living otherwise in order to have their consciences pricked and to return to what (I would argue) they already know inchoately.
That all humanity has a faculty of judgment, which includes a faculty for ethical judgment, is not in dispute. The question is whether that faculty in the natural man has been filled with moral content (or even a bootstrap of moral content which seems to be where NNL is going). Those, subscribing to natural law on an epistemological basis, get into trouble defending themselves against the anthropologists and the historians, and increasingly the sociologists.
Without the Law there is no Grace. The many nations with the American experiment in particular seem to have totally abandoned the Law. It doesn’t take a rare gift of prophecy or more than basic understanding of history to see that judgement is needed.
JPeterson and others revealed that many who have been dispossessed of the Law do thirst for it.
Modern Judaism is not “the first half of Christianity.” That’s American evangelical crock. The religion of Judaism interprets the Torah completely differently and believes in the authority of the Talmud.
Yes, people thirst for the law! I meant the turn of phrase about Judaism and the first half to simply refer to the true teaching of the Old Testament, theologically "the Law." But I would say that modern Judaism still acquaints people with the moral obligations of the natural law, however imperfectly.
Yes, what we do matters. But sometimes we get so upset trying to correct the system that we end up violating other laws. If I could correct the system, or others could without compromising their other beliefs, I’d encourage it. But I’ve never seen it done.
There is a conflation drawn in these various traditions, that you have tapped into eloquently: a conflation which states that because our salvation is not contingent upon action, our actions must not matter. But, true salvation, I would argue, is an effect which will naturally emit its cause to the world. That is, that our salvation is not held hostage by action, and thus we will not act out of desperation to save ourselves. But, a part of being welcomed into salvation is that Christ has lavished His irresistible grace upon the sinner, and they will respond by falling in love with Christ. Love being not merely a feeling (though I think D.A. Carson lays out a convincing argument in his book “Love In Hard Places” that the affectionate side of love is still important), but also a manner in which one structures their life according to what they desire most. Those who are saved, who love God, will act out that love. Furthermore, we are called to make disciples of all nations. As you have pointed out through Bonhoeffer’s articulation of the penultimate.”If you don’t attend to the penultimate things, you may not even have the right or the opportunity to speak about the ultimate things.” I find myself pondering this sentiment often. I think of how often the life of following Christ involves delving into matters which appear, at first glance, trivial. Because in order to love people, we must meet them where they are, and where they are is often quite boring, or seemingly detached from things ultimate. But, the seemingly trivial has real implications. What is trivial to me, is life altering to someone else. That is, that in order to love people, we must take up what matters and affects them, because the gospel is transmitted through life together. And life together is often painful, sacrificial, boring, monotonous, and unpleasant.
Most of all, part of loving Christ is to love what He loves. He would not enter into our brokenness if He saw this world as trivial and futile. It is clear by His interest in salvation for people on this earth, that what is done here matters to Him. Because He exercised the salvation of the world, in the world, among people. And in the course of His life here He attended to their pain.
All of this rambling to say....I really enjoyed this post!
Thanks for this, Ian. Especially, "I think of how often the life of following Christ involves delving into matters which appear, at first glance, trivial," and the sentences following. That's it!
As someone currently undergoing conversion, I can't comment with knowledge on the theology, however, as I read the post, I kept thinking to myself: what about love?
I think of it this way: being concerned only with my salvation is simply another form of self-obsession. This is not authentic death to self. This is not real love of Christ. In loving Christ I give myself over to his will which is made most manifest in forbearance, in my willingness to suffer and hold the suffering of the world that I may love and move again and again and again as I fail toward love. The whole New Testament seems to me alive with calls to loving action as fruit of the spirit. Any turning away from love in nihilism, is not God's will but rather my own fear, self-concern, sloth, and resignation.
Anyway, that's one naive take -- though sometimes naivete is helpful :)
Thank you Joel.
“God gave us the gift of life; it is up to us to give ourselves the gift of living well.” —Voltaire
Interesting article.
That was a fantastic article! The one thing I would say is that I do think that God is the ultimate source of meaning, and so without him eventually you lose all meaning. That being said, years ago, I went through a meaning crisis while embracing the Christian faith for many of these exact points.
A couple of points although I wholeheartedly agree with the essence of your essay.
Protestant/Evangelicalism, at least in recent centuries, has conflated justification with salvation and the terms of each. Justification provides the formal, juridical basis of salvation, but salvation is an ontological reality. The terms of Justification is ethical perfection in the fullest sense of that word, which is achieved through substitutionary atonement through Christ alone. But the terms of salvation is a faith, as defined by James, that survives unto the end. This faith does not have to be perfect, merely existing and scrutable. Practicably trusting in the merits of Christ's assertions, counsels, warnings, and promises are the instrumental means by which that salvation (perseverance) unto the end is achieved (Luke 6:46-49).
This latter point, much of Protestant/Evangelicalism seems to have missed, although it is implicit in John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress. It is premised upon another doctrine which has been missed: the biblical or Hebrew comprehension of natural law (and moral realism). The existing understanding of natural law within Protestant circles is epistemological, moral law inscribed on the heart. Scriptures implicitly, yet incontrovertibly, rejects this understanding (Hebrews 8:8-10). For if in the New Covenant, that which is new and unique and unlike the covenant that came prior, law is inscribed, then it cannot have been inscribed before. Moreover, any honest and competent student of world history knows that the Protestant Doctrine (in Westminster and London Baptist confessions) is nonsense.
The Hebrew/biblical doctrine of natural law is that it is out there, like gravity, whether we know it or not. Natural Law is ontological and discerned through its consequentialist repercussions ("works of the law" Romans 2:14), just like the laws of gravity. We are judged only upon the basis of the subset of laws that we know, largely through natural epistemological means in places not familiar with Scriptures.
I think your problem in accepting this truth is your firm commitment to the Westminster Confession. But I do not see how can successfully by a natural theologian and relevant in this age without this correction.
Finally, Paul never appealed to the Greek audience through law, but through the truth of God. You can test that out. Unlike the Jews and Romans, the Greeks did not subscribe to the intrinsic validity and merit of the laws. (Yes, on the philosophical fringes, some were looking for an intrinsic basis.) The validity of law was premised upon the lawful and hierarchical authority which promulgated the laws (legal positivism). It is the reason why Paul could make a moral/legal argument in the Epistle to the Romans. As to the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul could make a covenantal argument because the province of Galatia is in the heartland of the old Hittite kingdom and empire, who were known for their suzerain covenants or treaties. As a historical rule of thumb, ideas have a habit of enduring in the same locale for hundreds and thousands of years.
Hey John - sorry I didn't respond to your very thoughtful comments previously. They coincided with an out-of-town trip.
On natural law, I appreciate the ontological emphasis. I'm not sure how whether it excludes the epistemological. For example, Aquinas and the Thomists strongly emphasize that the natural law includes almost everything about how God created the world; the motion of objects is subject to the natural law, all of nature is - in theologian Steven Long's words - *theonomic*. At the same time, Protestantism did place an emphasis on moral knowledge, conscience, etc., in its use of natural law - though people like Richard Hooker strongly retained the ontological emphasis, I believe. The Protestant epistemological sense of natural law may come to a head in Kant's ethics. But I also see it in the first chapter of Lewis's Mere Christianity. We all have an inchoate sense of morality, Jonathan Haidt's modules of moral thought, leading us to accuse others and excuse ourselves, etc.
But I think it's correct to emphasize the extent to which we need to look outside ourselves ("empiricism," in my sense) to see the natural law. I see Louise Perry's Case Against the Sexual Revolution as an example. People need to see the worldly consequences of living otherwise in order to have their consciences pricked and to return to what (I would argue) they already know inchoately.
That all humanity has a faculty of judgment, which includes a faculty for ethical judgment, is not in dispute. The question is whether that faculty in the natural man has been filled with moral content (or even a bootstrap of moral content which seems to be where NNL is going). Those, subscribing to natural law on an epistemological basis, get into trouble defending themselves against the anthropologists and the historians, and increasingly the sociologists.
Wonderful, much-needed essay. I’ve had this idea but struggled to put it into words. Thank you!
Without the Law there is no Grace. The many nations with the American experiment in particular seem to have totally abandoned the Law. It doesn’t take a rare gift of prophecy or more than basic understanding of history to see that judgement is needed.
JPeterson and others revealed that many who have been dispossessed of the Law do thirst for it.
Modern Judaism is not “the first half of Christianity.” That’s American evangelical crock. The religion of Judaism interprets the Torah completely differently and believes in the authority of the Talmud.
Yes, people thirst for the law! I meant the turn of phrase about Judaism and the first half to simply refer to the true teaching of the Old Testament, theologically "the Law." But I would say that modern Judaism still acquaints people with the moral obligations of the natural law, however imperfectly.
Yes, what we do matters. But sometimes we get so upset trying to correct the system that we end up violating other laws. If I could correct the system, or others could without compromising their other beliefs, I’d encourage it. But I’ve never seen it done.
I'm tempted to write the literary equivalent of "Get a room" - Get a Substack, sir! You're a highly talented writer!