There are two ways we can miss the
mark of righteousness before God, two ways the relationship can be destroyed. One is more or less obvious: outright sinfulness,
unrighteousness, lawlessness, self-indulgence, what the Bible would call
“worldliness”,,. In other words, we can just say to God, “No thanks, I don’t
want it, I’ll take my own chances.” The other is much less obvious and more subtle, one that morally
earnest people have much more trouble with: turning our back on the free gift
and saying in effect, “I do agree with what you demand, but I don’t want
charity. That’s too demeaning. So I prefer to do it myself. What you are
offering is too cheap. I prefer the law to grace, thank-you very much. That
seems safer to me.” What this means, of course, is
that secretly we find doing it ourselves more flattering to our self-esteem–the
current circumlocution for pride. The law, that is, even the law of God–”the
most salutary doctrine of life”– is used as a defense against the gift. Thus,
the more we “succeed”, the worse off we actually are. The relationship to the
giver of the free gift is broken…the Almighty God desires simply to be known as
the giver of the gift of absolute grace. To this we say “no”. Then the
relationship is destroyed just as surely as it was by our immorality. To borrow
the language of addiction, it is the addiction that destroys the relationship…One can be
addicted either to what is base or to what is high, either to lawlessness or
lawfulness. Theologically
there is not any difference since both break the relationship to God, the
giver. The law is not a remedy for sin. It does not cure sin. St. Paul
says it was given to make sin apparent, indeed to increase it. It doesn’t do
that necessarily by increasing immorality, although that can happen when
rebellion or the power of suggestion leads us to do just what the law is
against. But what the theologian of the cross sees clearly from the start is
that, even more perversely, the law multiplies sin precisely through our
morality, our misuse of the law and our “success” at it. It becomes a defense
against the gift. That is the very essence of sin: refusing the gift and
thereby setting what we do in the place of what God has done. There is something in us that is always suspicious of or rebels
against the gift. The defense that it is too cheap, easy, or morally dangerous
is already the protest of the Old Adam and Eve who fear–rightly!–that their
house is under radical attack. Since they are entrenched behind the very law of
God as their last and most pious defense, the attack must indeed be radical. It
is a battle to the death.
Gerhard Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross,
pg. 26-28
No comments:
Post a Comment