good works

Okay, so tossing some Latin into the title post isn't the most catchy thing in the world, after all, outside of theology and language freaks, who really cares about Latin anyway? But this past weekend I had a rather interesting thought (or at least an interesting to me thought) that ends up with a Latin phrase so, here we go ...

For those of us in the Lutheran world, we regularly use the phrase, Simul Iustus et Peccator, which literally means, "At Once Justified and Sinner", but is typically rendered, "Simultaneously Sinner and Saint". The basic idea is that we, as people, based upon our own merits and actions are always, in this life, sinners. However, because of the work of Christ on the cross and the grace he gives through the faith he provides, those of us who trust in him are also forgiven and therefore saints.

Well, while I was at a dress rehearsal for this seasons, "Up With People", and I was watching all those obnoxiously happy folks running around all over the place doing all kinds of good and encouraging people to do all kinds of good, I began to analyze them theologically (note, I already admitted that I'm a theology geek).

The thing I noticed was that, their being good had no "place" in the Simul Iustus et Peccator framework. After all, if we're all sinners in this life and depend on God to be saints, then all of their "do-gooding" has no value. At the same time, as we see the works that they accomplish, and we see the lines of communication opened, and as we see people of all tribes, nations, and tongues singing together (yes, the Revelation imagery is intentional), we can see that they're doing something that gives us a glimpse of heaven hear on earth, or as we've talked about on the fshbwl, they're undoing the effects of sin. So, where does something like "Up With People" fit?

Well, since the Latin phrase that we have only works when dealing with our being right before God, I think it's time we added a second Latin phrase that is useful when talking about our being right before our neighbor (this would fit in with moral atheists and where all religions are the same). So, my suggestion: Simul Deus et Satanas or "Simultaneously Satan and God"

But since this post is getting long, I'll explain my reasoning tomorrow.

Last week I ran across this article, an interview with Tim Keller, in Christianity Today. This week in my blog I decided to look at the questions he was asked, pull a quote from his answers, and share some thoughts.

Q: Are the doubts that believers face the same as the doubts that unbelievers face?

A: I do think a lot of Christians — because they don't understand the grace narrative — get out into the world and find it very tough to navigate. I think it's because they don't understand the gospel, not because they can't answer all the theological questions.

This comment really summarizes two of my posts last week on the first and second levels of religions, and how at a certain level, all religions are the same (which is what most Americans see according to the recent Pew study), but, at a second level, Christianity is radically different. That second level is the gospel and if people don't get they Gospel, then the uniqueness of Christianity is lost and, honestly, we're no different than anyone else.

Of course, the real challenge with this is that the Gospel is completely contrary to our sinful human nature, because our natural desire is to contribute something to the faith equation, be it good works, choosing God, or whatever else. In the end, because we add these pieces on to what God does, we end up with an understanding of the Gospel that is lacking and, as a result, we regularly find ourselves in places of doubt.

For the Christian then, the key to overcoming doubt and finding ourselves capable of navigating the world, is to come to understand the fullness of the Gospel. For me, the book that really helped in this struggle was Martin Luther's, "Bondage of the Will" (you can read it for free here).

So, how much Gospel is in your understanding of the Gospel?

In my previous post I argued that, at one level, all religions are the same in their attempt to fill a fundamental human need and in providing similar guidelines for how to live your life. This is what most people see on the surface of all religions and, therefore, from what they see, all religions look the same.

At this point, Christians might attempt to argue that they are different than this because they don't believe in a works righteousness, but that they need Jesus and grace. But, at the same time, when they talk about Jesus, they talk about making a decision, or making him Lord of their life, or going through certain rites or rituals, or some other thing that they have done that sets them up for grace.

Consider this in light of a comment a friend of mine made a while back. Basically, he argued that the Muslim doesn't deny a need for grace, rather, they believe that it is through the five pillars of Islam that they receive grace. We make a decision, they pray. We have certain rites at church, they fast. Once again, at that level, all religions are the same, it's just a question of what you do to get what you need from God.

This is where classic Christian teaching, something we find very little of in popular Christianity, comes into play. Whether it's God going to Abraham, the nation of Israel, or us as individuals, at its root, Christianity says that while there is plenty we can do to maintain right relationships with our neighbor (the level where it's all the same), it is impossible for us to do anything that will give us a right relationship with God (the second level), which is why we need God to come to us (without us doing anything to prompt God's coming). From what I've seen this is what makes Christianity, at least classic Christianity, different from other religions.

Note: I also address this in the closing section of the elemental life.