The Seriousness of Divine Mercy
From Thomas Merton:
“The Cross is the sign of contradiction — destroying the seriousness of the Law, of the Empire, of the armies. . . . But the magicians keep turning the cross to their own purposes. Yes, it is for them too a sign of contradiction: the awful blasphemy of the religious magician who makes the cross contradict mercy! This is of course the ultimate temptation of Christianity! To say that Christ has locked all the doors, has given one answer, settled everything and departed, leaving all life enclosed in the frightful consistency of a system outside of which there is seriousness and damnation, inside of which there is the intolerable flippancy of the saved — while nowhere is there any place left for the mystery of the freedom of divine mercy which alone is truly serious, and worthy of being taken seriously.”
Huh???
My sentiments as well.
Among other things, it’s a shot across the bow of those who, having discerned from the scriptures who’s “in” and who’s “out,” then conclude that the membrane between those two categories is impervious even to divine (but inexplicable) action.
Not that anyone around here has ever known anyone like that, of course.
qb
I had this discussion with my Jehovah Witness friends yesterday. I would like to think I was just as eloquent.
I wish I was this eloquent…nothing wrong with wishful thinking though.
Hey Mike, where can this quote from Merton be found?
This is a quote I would like to return to frequently – as a reminder of who I once was (theologically) and as a reminder of how often the extravagant love of God is disavowed by religious people in an attempt to satisfy their insatiable appetites for the “security of absolutes”.
Thanks for sharing it.
Thank you, Mike, for sharing such profound words from Merton.
There’s a local radio program around here that runs daily – Bible Answers. I listen in now and again just to be annoyed I suppose. The speaker regularly mentions things which are sinful, including: church weddings and funerals, and having a church service with communion in a nursing home. I’m not kidding. No Biblical authority for such activity, thus, it must be wrong in God’s eyes. We Christians can be scary folk.
Oh, wow, Kent F!!
Sounds as though this person could use a huge dose of Oswald Chambers who continually stresses – everything we do, say, and are must come from our intimate relationship with Jesus through the redemption of His Cross. It is through the Cross that all mercies and grace are poured into our lives, moment by moment and through that same redemptive Cross we then pass on grace and mercy to others in His name.
btw – I wonder if this person has considered that the first Communion was offered by Jesus in an upper room. Must we then search for an upper room in order to be correct in our ‘communion’? ~sigh~
Just wondering : can you not believe in absolutes and still be compassionate ? Because a person is trying to be sound in doctrine does that mean love is abolished? Jesus said He was the only way to God and yet was filled with compassion and love.
According to Matthew 12 the Pharisees were trying to be “sound in doctrine” and Jesus said they “condemned the innocent.”
When I read this I took it at a social level rather than an individual level. I think the truth represented here operates on both levels. Socially, so many believers in the cross of Christ consider America a “christian nation” while seeing no contradiction at all in aggressive “throw the book at ‘em” application of Law, aggressive expansion of the American political empire into other folks’ lands (“we are there to help ‘em”), and aggressive use of of our army to further our “national interests”, including the interest to keep our economy humming by securing all available sources of petroleum. In my own extended family the overwhelming perspective is one of walling off “our way of life” from all those in this country and other countries who are trying to storm our gates. Its us vs. them – we are in, they are out!
Please tell me this is not the same Ben P. that qb went to college with! Mercy.
qb
Why, qb? Are you afraid that your institution of higher learning actually taught you both to think for yourselves, rather than stamping out identical icons of the perfect-thinking pupil?
Why do people think that people holding the opposite view are mindless robots and people who think like they do are fine upstanding thinkers?
I had quit reading the comments for a long time, being tired of each position’s “I’m more Scriptural than you” mentality. I started back a couple of weeks and have read some good things but people lose their minds (and their grace) when talking about social issues.
Bah. This discussion has degenerated into something neither merciful nor divine.
No, Keith, nothing like that. It has nothing to do with what we were taught at Texas A&M; we both studied technical stuff, he in agriculture, qb in engineering. qb just happens to know that the Ben P. he went to school with was a properly raised conservative who had not an ounce of the American progressives’ self-loathing that the present Ben P. shows in his post. It would have taken something akin to a lobotomy to engender such a political transformation. Heaven forfend!
Cheerfully,
qb
Hi qb. It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance. No, I am not apostate to the fine learning available from the Ag Dept at Texas A&M. Actually, I would never fit into such non-progressive, right-leaning institution as A&M. Instead, I went to Harding! I am not a political “progressive” at all. As to whether I am “self-loathing”, it depends on what you mean. If you mean that I love my country but feel free to question some of the major policies of the various administrations, then I suppose I am … though I find the terminology misleading for such a definition. The truth is that I am actually arguing (with Merton, I hope) that the co-mingling of christianity and politics is the problem, not the solution. I am arguing against any particular religious or political party’s corner on the truth. And I am particurly arguing against a combination of christianity and politics that erects a fence and wants to fight – us vs them. I suppose it may increase the “seriousness” of the politics but (again, with Merton I hope) it dilutes the seriousness of the christian witness, in my opinion. I believe that basically the whole merger between the neocons and evangelicals is giant contradition and a marriage made somewhere other than heaven.
*whew*
*wiping brow*
qb
P.S. Ben P., your second post stakes claim to a centrism that your first post utterly disavows. qb will be thrilled to find out where you really stand. Carry on. qb
Typical emergent style mind tricks. The guy who wrote this piece must be the master religous magician. I only wish these people would come right out and say what they are so slyly trying to corrupt the minds of Gods sheep with today. I guess that is like a magician showing you how his trick is done though.
Do not be bewitched by this garbage Church of Jesus Christ. The gate is straight and the path is narrow. We must never close the gate and keep people out as the pharisees did but we also must never preach a false gospel that proclaims peace and safety to those outside of Christ when Gods just judgment is at their door.
Mark 16:15-16
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Jim,
Please Google Thomas Merton. His is not a contemporary voice.
And to everyone: In rereading my earlier remark, I recognize that my wording may communicate a smugness that I did not intend.
Please hear me say that it is not the absolutes that are at issue (though what we define as an absolute may be). Rather it is our shared human propensity of desiring security to the point of reducing relationship with God to reaching a “place of safety” outside the reaches of God’s wrath that is troubling. Then as Merton suggests with “safety”as our primary focus we limit our understanding of God’s saving action as a plan that we have figured out, applied to everyone and that disavows that God can act outside that plan . . . Are we really intent on making THAT claim?
K. Beck-
Emergents have been around a long time, well before the newest wave crept in unaware. His words are very similar to the usual ambigous rhetoric heard today.
You said:
“Rather it is our shared human propensity of desiring security to the point of reducing relationship with God to reaching a “place of safety” outside the reaches of God’s wrath that is troubling”
I do not find many professing Christians reducing God to such, but rather on the other end they all but deny this truth outright. We must run in different circles.
-Jim
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
-John 3:36 NKJV
The Pharisees were not involved in sound doctrine. All I mean by sound doctrine is healthy teaching. Jesus taught what was healthy and also domonstrated love and compassion. We can speak the truth in love and also have works of compassion. It is merciful to teach absolute truth.
Ray, qb is a proponent of “healthy teaching” or “sound doctrine” and agrees that the first is a fair rendering of the second. So we’ve got some common ground. qb would go further, perhaps, and assert that both concepts derive their content and meaning from something close to what we might call “God’s will.”
Now then. Would you care to provide for us a general framework for understanding which types of Scriptural affirmations, examples, polemics, etc., fall into the category of “absolute truth” and which do not? and how deeply into the categorical structure (i. e., levels of specificity, as in an outline, “II.C.3.xiv”) of “truth” you’re willing to apply the adjective “absolute” with comfortable certainty?
qb will go ahead and tip his rather unsteady hand: the notion of “absolute truth” is not without its pitfalls. It is at least *possible* that at least *some* truth is contingent, most especially those “truths” that fall within the domain of ethics…which is to say, of course, that all ethics are inescapably, perhaps even by definition, situational.
qb supposes that here is where you and he part ways, right?
qb
I am sure the Pharisees thought they were involved in sound doctrine and that their teaching was of the healthiest kind based on absolute truth.
If you are not willing to lose absolute truth, you will never know it.
QB ,
I understand your perspective. And I know some truth will always be debated. My concern is with the ecumenical attempts at saying every way is ok.One absolute that remains firm and without any compromise for me is the gospel. Jesus is the only way to God. And because of His being raised from the dead. If people are trying to find wiggle room with the gospel , then I strongly disagree. They can call me a legalist or whatever. Actually I have been accused of being a mossback legalist and a wild -eyed liberal. My loyalty is to the Lordship of Jesus and scripture. And yes, as I have already said , some will debate some issues until the Lord returns. I guess I could give you a list but some would argue that list. What I stated above , to me is the truth , that for me is without compromise. And I can still love people and do love them by stating Jesus is the only Savior.
Clint-
Am I suppose to believe that anyone who teaches and upholds sound doctrine is a pharisee based on your comment? The apostles also “thought they were involved in sound doctrine and that their teaching was of the healthiest kind based on absolute truth”. God bore witness to their teaching through signs and wonders. The New Testament is full of warnings to heed sound doctrine and avoid strange ones that will become worse and worse in the last days.
While your words make for fine coffee house poetry, an athiest could see they do not line up with the word of God. They are completely contrary to the truth of the word of God. Please read what happened when the Isrealites of Jeremiahs day were willing to lose absolute truth (Jeremiah 7:28-29). My sincerest prayer is that you will consider these things, if you do indeed claim to be in Christ. There are absolute truths taught in scripture that are profitable and essential to the people who make up the Church. We must be wise to seperate them from traditions of men and become like the pharisees, but without falling into the ditch on the other side of the road.
We do not abandon truth to find it as you said, rather we simply embrace it. That truth is exclusively in Jesus Christ and His Gospel.
-Jim
Ray B., I agree
Ray B., qb’s not asking for a list, but rather a “general framework.” In other words, not WHAT precisely you believe to be those truths that are “absolute,” but rather HOW you reason your way to those conclusions. What are the attributes of certain propositions that make them absolutely true rather than merely contingently true? Are those attributes universally accessible to everyone?
There may be people on earth who claim all ways are of equal merit – “ok,” to use your term – but they are not the majority here on Mike’s blog, not by a long shot. So qb might be forgiven for wondering why you’re using such large-caliber weaponry in this instance, especially if (as it appears) you’re shooting without a scope.
FWIW, qb happens to believe also that Jesus is who he said he was and that his way is unique among “ways.” But that is a far cry from maintaining that all truths – even most of the truths that come into play as we learn to live Jesus’ way – are absolute.
qb
qb perhaps should unpack a bit. In our men’s Bible study this morning, we (n=3) were dealing with the textual differences between Mark 10 and Matthew 5 with respect to the “unchastity” exception, and I spent the rest of the day, off and on, pondering the very question I posed to the guys: how do you know (cf. the SBL-NRSV’s footnotes on the matter) which one is actually Jesus’ own position, how did you reach that conclusion, and how much pastoral weight are you willing to put on it when your friend, the battered wife, asks you for counsel?
It wasn’t a question of divorce _per se_, it was a matter of how we reach our doctrinal “truths” and how “absolute” they are. If a truth is absolute in the starkest, most unyielding sense, shouldn’t I be unwaveringly certain that I can and should place all my weight on it?
Does it not seem probable that if a truth is absolute, and if it is accessible to all humans, then it must also be self-evident, which is to say, it need not be pieced together by human reasoning? Here’s why:
The very act of reasoning with Scripture – the hardliners call it “necessary inference” – renders the conclusion contingent. That is, to get to a conclusion, we begin with premises; so the conclusion is only true (other than by sheer luck) if the premises are true (and coherent, and independent) and if the logic is sound. Put another way, truths we discover by reason are *derivative* truths. How a derivative truth can also be absolute is quite a mystery, to say the least…or perhaps it’s better to say, how we can be sure that a derivative truth is also absolute is a mystery.
That suggests strongly to qb that the range of humanly-accessible truths that can plausibly be called “absolute” is pretty small. In the aggregate they form the only set from which we can draw non-contingent premises to support our moral, ethical, and other forms of reasoning.
In a related vein, at the Renovare conference in San Antonio this past June, that insufferable heretic Dr. Dallas Willard put it this way: “what is [fundamental] reality? God and his kingdom.” Beyond that, and absent divine revelation that is equally accessible to all of us, we seem to be inevitably wandering in the land of the contingent.
And if that is true, we would do well to use our terms a bit more modestly, starting with terms like “absolute.”
qb
QB ,
You have a remarkable way with words. If ” absolute” bothers you , ok. I will then state it this way. Within the pages of scripture I find truth. The truth that sets , anyone who will believe and obey it , free and blessed. That is probably not a deep of enough answer , but about the best my feeble mind can give.
Ray, if between the lines of your post you mean to imply that qb is being insufferably stodgy, pompous, or tedious, or perhaps that qb is swatting a fly with a bludgeon, I guess I can only appeal to this well-worn canard: words mean things.
We religious folk are particularly guilty of playing fast and loosely with highly consequential words. “Absolute” is one of them, and in the eyes of those we seek to win for Christ, our systemic abuse of such heavily freighted words is rather likely to be apparent evidence of – indeed, objectively symptomatic of – our movement’s failure to be serious about assembling and professing a *coherent* faith, logically and otherwise. Pagans are not idiots, but we seem to act and speak as if they were.
That highlights one of the great things Eugene Peterson has urged upon us in his most recent series of books, culminating thus far in _Tell it Slant_: we who claim to be students of Jesus can and must learn to use words as he did, carefully, artfully, and comprehensibly. And *credibly*.
Thus, to your most recent post, qb can only say: amen to that.
qb
QB ,
No , I did not think anything you wrote was pompous . You have a way with words I do not and I am afraid I could never say to you what I meant. My whole point when this discussion comes up is the way in which those who advocate being tolerent and loving seem to come apart and become very intolerent anytime doctrine is mentioned. A Christian can advocate healthy teaching, sound doctrine , and also be a person greatly involved in many good works of compassion. Personally I believe doctrine becomes the foundation for good works. And , yes , as I have said in many posts , the perfect example of Jesus. My concern is why cannot we have both. Healthy teaching and compassionate love for the hurting. And for me, maybe not for some , the scripture is filled to overflowing with absolute truth. Absolute truth that should compel us to serve people who are crying out for mercy.