When I wrote something last month about the Sacraments and the preaching being the thing that "makes us good," there were some objections. I was told that I do indeed need to try to be good.
It has crossed my mind that if we have to trrry to be good, that in itself seems to be evidence that we're not good. After all, when generosity or patience or kindness come easily and naturally, without our necessarily even being aware of it, that is goodness worked by the Holy Spirit as He sanctifies us. But if I don't want to be generous, am not being patient, and struggle to be kind, and if I have to try to make myself behave properly, the very need to try reveals my sinfulness.
Does this mean I should let bad behavior reign? No. Does my neighbor benefit from a particular deed when I try to be good and serve him, even though I'm having to make myself do it instead of doing it willingly and effortlessly? Of course he benefits. But I cannot believe that I am doing a "good work" before God if I have to muster up the gumption to try to do it. Trying means our eyes are on ourselves. In Matthew 25, the righteous ask their Lord, "When did we do these things?" They were unaware of their good works because, like the apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration, "they saw Jesus only."
Monday, February 12, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A former church we attended had a banner in the chancel that said Christ's Love Compels Us. Maybe so, but I sat there every week looking at that thing I grew to hate it. We were continually dismissed from communion with "go and serve." That banner became a real burden to me.
ReplyDeleteI think "Christ's Love Compels Us" is true, though. Those words could be said sweetly and matter-of-factly. It's true that His love captures our hearts and woos us and begins to change us and thus we respond in love, just tickled to be His people.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, I so understand how "Christ's Love Compels Us" usually sounds like a whip, beating us on to do something. Especially when you're dismissed from communion with "go and serve" instead of "go in peace."
I remember saying once in confession that something Pastor had said "compelled me" to go to confession. He got really upset. He was NOT "compelling" me or any other people, and he wanted to make sure I knew that! At first I was confused. But he heard "compelling" in a legalistic rule-oriented arm-twisting way -- not how I meant it. I meant "compelled" in the sense that I was caught up in the forgiveness he had spoken of in class, and yearned for more, especially more pointedly and more specifically. So when I said I was compelled to go to confession, it was more like my daughter being "compelled" to cook a birthday dinner for her fiance just because she just couldn't wait to do it, out of love for him. But Pastor's reaction made me realize that "compelled" is a word that we have to be real real careful about.
The word in the greek which is translated in 2 Corinthians 5 as "compels", is unfortunate. It is the greek work sunexo, which means to surround, contol, compel, et al. It literally means to draw a boundary around us. That is, as we live in the love of God in Christ, bounded by it, living in it, as it surrounds us, we find no need to live for our self. The love of God covers everything, cf Romans 8. (cf "If God gave his only son...is there anything else you need" (paraph. of Romans 8:31ff). The Love of God in Christ, keeps us, as it were, from seeking to serve self, for we are rich.
ReplyDeleteThis same idea, I believe, runs through the notion of the petition, "forgive us as we forgive". Aside from the fact that forgiveness cannot be conditional, the petition is really something we use to examine ourselves, and consider that when we refuse to forgive another, we are seeking, in some way to collect a debt from them. They owe us, they wronged us, and so now they are going to "pay me what you owe" (cf Matthew 18). When we live in the love of God, it surrounds, compels us, it informs and enables us to think beyond self, and getting for self, and rather, to begin to recognize the riches we have in Christ.
Just another note about this word compels/sunexo...what I think it a better way to understand it, is that as we live in the love of Christ, as it surrounds us, draws a boundary around us, we do not cross that boundary. When we do, we leave the love of Christ and seek to serve self. We cross this boundary where the self, and here we are back in a classic understanding of the term sin-turned in on self, lives and tries to survive. The Love of Christ is where we live and move....
ReplyDeleteThe King James Bible (Tyndale, really) gets it better: "The love of Christ constraineth us."
ReplyDeleteOh, Aaron, I think you're right. I didn't even recognize that the banner might've been a Bible verse. It just sounds so different that way.
ReplyDeleteDear Susan,
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with your points.
But I have been wondering if there are not different ways in which the word "trying" might be used in this sort of context, with different intentions.
It seems to me that the potential for self-righteousness that you describe is especially prevelant where a person is "trying" to do *good works* per se: their aim is to achieve something meritorious, and in the very attempt they are seeking a righteousness of their own.
But do we not rightly "try" to love and serve our neighbor, to the extent that our finite capabilities will permit us? If we had all abilities and all resources at our disposal, then I suppose there would be no "trying," but only "doing." Yet, that is not the situation. So, in love for our neighbor, we do the best we can -- and as we do so in faith, we do so without any thought of any meritorious "good work," because our focus is on our neighbor and his (or her) need. It has seemed to me that such an effort to help and serve our neighbor could be a different -- and appropriate -- way of "trying" to do good (though I warrant that, even then, we are not so un-self-conscious as true love would be).
I hope this is helpful. It's been on my mind for the past week, ever since I first saw your comments on this point.
In Christ,
Rev. Rick Stuckwisch
drstuckwisch@sbcglobal.net
Pr Stuckwisch, it seems to me that there is a place for "trying" in the kingdom of the left. I try to get dinner ready on time. I use the cruise control because it's the way I can try to keep my car's speed within the limits. I try to control the expression of my feelings over Maggie's math (at least in front of her).
ReplyDeleteWhen I originally brought this up, my point was that "trying" doesn't make me better. What actually IS effective in "making me better" is knowing my sin, confessing it, and being forgiven. When I hear (for example, from fundamentalist friends) that I should try to be good, the focus is on my trying. "C'mon, Susan, you should be paying attention to your efforts at patience. Try harder to be patient." But you know what? I never got more patient, no matter how hard I tried. In fact, I got less patient. But when I go to Pastor and admit how impatient I am, how certain things about homeschooling frustrate me, then he absolves me. He speaks God's comfort to me who am impatient, and preaches to me about God's patience with sinners like me. And that does something to change me, to vivify faith, to increase love (and patience!) for the neighbor. That Gospel puts my focus on Christ and His forgiveness, and on my neighbor and his need. I'm not "trying" anymore, but focusing on the other person.
I guess I just don't see how a person can "try" to do something without paying a lot of attention to his/her efforts. If I try to jog every day, I have to concentrate on making myself go out and do it. If I try to plan meals each week, I am focusing on my efforts to gather the ideas and put together menus. If somebody on the track team has to try to go a little higher in a high-jump, or a little further in a broad-jump, he has to be paying attention to his efforts, his style, his power, and what he does to tweak those efforts to "try harder."
It just seems to me that "trying" means I have to be looking at myself instead of at my neighbor's need.
Fair enough. I'm not a fan of "trying" language, either. But I'm not sure that those who speak this way are all (or always) intending the same sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with you that the fountain and source of good works is the Gospel, which doesn't urge us to do (or even to try to do) anything, but gives us everything in Christ Jesus, by and through and with the forgiveness of sins.
I also agree that the best remedy for my own horrific lack of love and the fruits of faith -- along with my impatience and ill temper -- is to confess my sin and cling to the word of forgiveness that saves me from myself and my sin.
For all of that, however, my neighbor and I live in the world, and I can't parse the kingdom of the left from the kingdom of the right in the bump and grind of daily life. What is more, as a finite, flawed and frail creature, myself, I can't help and serve my neighbor to the extent that Christ in me would. So I'm left with what some would call "trying." It doesn't make me any better, nor does it obtain for me any righteousness before God. Christ be praised that He is my righteousness, which lacks nothing and cannot be accused of anything. But my efforts to help, feeble and fleeting though they be (sadly enough), may indeed make some difference for my neighbor.
All I'm suggesting, really, is that Christians may sometimes speak of "trying," though it isn't the best or most salutary way of speaking -- it may even be quite trying at times! -- because they recognize that we poor, miserable sinners are so prone to laziness and selfishness and lovelessness. My own old Adam is perverse enough, I know, to use the Gospel as an excuse for not loving my neighbor. This should not be so. It is a sin to be confessed and absolved, and repentant faith will bear the fruits of the Spirit for my neighbor.
But as I remain, not only a finite creature, but a poor, miserable sinner to boot, it does seem to me that -- for my neighbor's sake, and also to spite the devil -- I ought to "try" doing those very things that the devil, the world, and my own sinful flesh do not want me to do. No righteousness to be gained or self-improvement to be had, but even if my preening old Adam is in danger of twisting his arm while patting me on the back, my neighbor may also be fed and clothed and sheltered in ways that he might not otherwise.
Oh, well, it's silly of me to perpetuate this, in light of the fact that I basically agree with you. But the discussion has got me thinking . . . and I'm trying to contribute something helpful ;-)
In Christ,
Pastor Rick Stuckwisch
drstuckwisch@sbcglobal.net
I know myself well enough to know that I'm in much more danger from pharisaism and pietism than I am from hedonism. Not everybody is like that, but I am for sure.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, I remember Pastor saying that he doesn't care as much that we are good, as he cares that we know we are not good.
I'm also wondering why some of us are averse to letting go of the "trying" language. What would happen if pastors didn't tell us to "try" to be good? What if the pastors preached about the sinfulness of impatience, and called us to repentance for it, but didn't go the next step to tell us to make sure to try to be more patient? Would we be any less patient if the pastor condemned our impatience without telling us to try to be better?
Dear Susan,
ReplyDeleteI don't know who these pastors are that you are wondering and worrying about. It is as hard to respond to your comments as it is to respond to Dr. Marquart's symposium paper of a few years ago.
As I've said, I don't care for this "trying" language, either, and I certainly don't employ this kind of talk in my preaching. But I have tried to suggest a measure of some charity for those who do fall into this kind of language, on the assumption that perhaps they are addressing a legitimate concern, only doing so in a way that is clumsy and misleading.
I don't disagree with your premise and position. But I guess I don't really know what it is, exactly, that you are responding to. It may be that your "pharisee," as you say, is pretty determined to prove that you are correct, and that those who speak of "trying" are wrong. And perhaps the "piestist" in you is shocked that those others are not trying hard enough to understand your point. I'm poking a bit -- and I trust you know it is with care and concern for you, my friend -- because it sure does seem, ironically, that you are trying very hard to make a case for not trying.
And that's all the more I'll say on the matter, as I don't wish to defend this "trying" language; I agree with your point; and, since this is your blog, you ought to have the last word on the subject.
In Christ,
Pastor Rick Stuckwisch
drstuckwisch@sbcglobal.net
Pr Stuckwisch wrote --
ReplyDelete>>But I have tried to suggest a measure of some charity for those who do fall into this kind of language,<<
As I said in my original post on this topic, I'm not saying that those who talk about their own "trying to be good" are necessarily wrong. I'm just saying that I don't want them enjoining it upon me because I have found that, for me, it causes me to become a navel-gazer and not look to Jesus for my holiness.
Charity toward those who choose to use different terminology than I do? Of course!! Charity toward those who suggest that I'm too hung up on the absolution and that I should spend more effort trying to be good? That's where I have to agree with Paul in 2 Cor 11:20-21a.
>>as I don't wish to defend this "trying" language<<
For me, there is a huge difference between my "desiring to be good" and "trying to be good."