Singing and Sulking

This is from a lecture by Dr. Christine Mangala Frost, a venerable resource person at the Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies at Cambridge, UK. She is referring to the poetry of the hymns in the divine liturgy.

In poetry, “faith” is standing happily among the angels and singing – whether in or out of harmony is irrelevant – but to sing, and not to fuss about it all being unseen. And not to have faith would then mean to stand among the angels (because one cannot escape that) and to sulk. It’s your choice. Are we going to sing or are we going to sulk?

All this raises a question beyond that of singing or sulking: Do you have a sense of “standing among the angels” when you are praying the liturgy? As Dr. Frost says, “it’s unavoidable.” And it’s one of the beautiful aspects of Orthodoxy.


What’s a Recovering Libertarian?

At a recent family reunion, sitting over pizza at a Pizza Ranch – one of the great Iowa institutions where politicians come to meet Iowans before the Presidential Caucuses to explain their political views and aspirations – my niece asked me to explain my political leanings. (1) What is Communitarianism? (2) How does it differ from Libertarianism? and (3) Why do you call yourself a “recovering Libertarian”? (That’s in my Facebook profile). Those are difficult questions because both movements are rather amorphous and the simple definitions don’t explain anything.

  • Libertarians, for instance, include people primarily interested in small government (my thing, if you’re curious) as well as people primarily interested in the decriminalization of drugs or a whole variety of other activities. It’s an extremely big tent.
  • Communitarianism, similarly, covers a lot of ground. It’s primarily a Roman Catholic movement promoted by groups such as the Chesterton Society; but it also includes back-to-nature localists, grown up hippies who want to live off the land, and anti-urbanists.

How does one succinctly compare and contrast two such disparate movements? (Especially when distracted by “Cactus Bread”!)

A while ago another relative handed me a CD with a set of lectures by (Notre Dame professor) Thomas F. X. Noble, on the history of the papacy. I’m Orthodox, so (he thought) I would obviously be interested in these lectures. Well, not so much, but one ought to be polite, so I listened anyway. Actually, they turned out to be pretty darn good.

It’s too bad I hadn’t listened to the lecture about John Paul II before sitting down to pizza with my niece. That lecture cut to the heart of why I consider myself a recovering Libertarian (and a practicing Communitarian, even though I’m not Roman Catholic).

I am a small government sort of guy because I think that local institutions are better suited to doing many of the tasks that the U.S. Federal government has co-oped for itself. That was my attraction to Libertarianism. What I came to realize is that Libertarians were radically individualistic and in that sense were not the inheritors of Jeffersonian classical liberalism. In spite of the rhetoric, they were far more interested in the absence of government than its structure. More Nietzschean than Lockean, the Libertarians were committed to a personal autonomy that is not very compatible with Christianity.

With this background I turn to the lectures by Thomas Noble:

John Paul II castigated aggressive individualism and acquisitiveness. He wasn’t opposed to wealth or capitalism per se, … What he was really critiquing was the modern secular tendency to place the isolated individual on a pedestal; to take that individual out of all social connection and all social responsibility. ‘It’s all about me, isn’t it?’ ‘Well,’ John Paul said, ‘no it’s not actually,’

I became Libertarian because I thought that the Libertarian Party and Libertarianism in general was about reining in American federal messianism, the government gone mad with power, under the control of the two major political parties bent on growing the influence of government at home and abroad. What I discovered is that what Libertarians were actually about was placing “the isolated individual on a pedestal,” as well as the “removing of all social connection and responsibility.”

Communitarianism, on the other hand, recognized that the local community, with all of its rootedness in place and people, was the foundation of political culture. Liberty is not an attribute of an individual (unless you equate liberty with solipsism), it is an attribute rooted in a community. Liberty does not define me, it defines my relation to those around me.

With that distinction in mind, let me continue the quote from Thomas Noble;

[John Paul II] was seeking a more authentic kind of community. Not the kind of community that’s forced by Soviet collectivization, but the kind of community that is formed by people thinking in the right kind of way joining together for the right reasons.

Following the line of Leo XIII and Pius XI in defending property and defending a living wage, he is harkening back to the notion that the rich have moral obligations to share with the poor.

Talking to the American youth at one of the youth rallies, John Paul II said,

The great gift Americans have is freedom, and freedom is the opportunity to do what is right, which confers on [us] the obligation to do what is right. Freedom gives us, not the liberty to do whatever we want but the obligation to do what is right.

I have always liked John Paul II. But in the past I’ve always focused on his critique of the “culture of death,” which I believe was one of his greatest gifts to the Western world. Until listening to Thomas Noble I had not realized JPII was such a staunch defender of subsidiarity specifically and Communitarianism in general.

I suspect I’ve had a sense for many years, which I’ve not been able to put into words, that Communitarianism was the correct political posture. It insists that governance (whether church or state) be carried out by the most local authority possible, thus shrinking and limiting national bureaucracy. At the same time it insists that institutions and community bonds are not bad, but are actually necessary to our well being because we were not created autonomous individuals. (That sense of autonomy is a result of the fracturing of sin. Read C.S. Lewis’ book, The Great Divorce, to see a great picture of autonomy gone horribly wrong.)

But being (1) an American and (2) a Protestant with that one-two punch of autonomy and private responsibility that they both celebrate, I had no framework in which to formulate a political philosophy that reflected my sensibilities. Not surprisingly, the church, with it’s long history of struggling for the truth against all manner of cultures and societies, had a long established political philosophy that was actually far more Christian than culture-bound.

That being said, I’m still an American and that Protestant mindset runs deep in my being, in spite of the fact that I left Protestantism behind almost two decades ago. That’s why I self-identify as a “Recovering Libertarian.”

Grace, Effort, and the Majesty of God

What is the glory and majesty of God? One of my favorite pictures of that glory is in Ps 93:1. “The Lord is king, he is robed in majesty.” Majesty is also a fearsome concept. Consider Job, for instance, “Will not his majesty terrify you, and the dread of him fall upon you?” Or Ex. 20:19 (the people telling Moses to talk to God): “You speak to God. Do not let him speak to us or we will die.”

In the Old Testament, glory and majesty are overwhelming and fearful realities. As the author of the letter to the Hebrews says in 12:29. “our God is a consuming fire.” And while that image never goes away (Hebrews is in the New Testament after all) a new image of majesty is offered up which transforms the old image. Take the Christ hymn in Phil. 2, for instance. Christ Jesus,

who in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking for form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross.

This process of being robed in human form, of being robed as a slave is why the Father highly exalted him (or, we might say, robed him in majesty) in the next verse. The New Testament sense of majesty is very upside down. True greatness is found in service (literally, “slavery” to others). Weakness is the greatest strength. Humility is among the virtues.

This redefined sense of majesty is carried all the way to the end of the New Testament. The Eternal Ruler of the Apocalypse is not a great king, he’s a dead baby sheep who has been given life once again.

Once this theme is acknowledged, Jesus’ teaching begins to make sense: His followers will be persecuted and will die. The great are the least among us. There’s even a passiveness to his politics: Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s. We can safely assume that Jesus understood full well the evil and injustice of the Roman empire, but he didn’t come to fight evil and injustice, he came into the world to be treated like a slave and ultimately to be crucified (the most humiliating form of death).

There’s a profound irony in all this. The Great King over all is a loser. His kingdom is for losers.

Of course those words have huge emotional impact in our society. We can destroy a child’s self-esteem with those words. Those words can start a gang war and lead to drive-by shootings and endless recriminations. In our society being a loser is not a good thing, it’s a humiliating thing.

Losers. … Luke 17:33

But what do losers get? If we can lose our self-will … If we can lose any success we’ve had … If we can lose the accolades of others because we’re so smart, so athletic, so beautiful, so rich … If we can lose our life, there will then be a void which God will be free to fill with divine life, if we give God permission.

And that’s one of the tricks about understanding the magisterial humility of God. Being humble, God isn’t going to pump divine life into us whether we want it or not, he’ll only fill a void and never force something else out of the way to make way for his goodness.

Ah, and it’s at this precise intersection between divine humility and human loss that the true and profound meaning of human effort in relation to divine grace begins to make a world Kingdom of sense. I have built into me a sense of self-preservation. Empower that natural sense of self-preservation with my sinful nature and I find that I have an overwhelming urge to succeed, to look good, to be liked … And my first task as a Christian is to “empty myself” of all those “self” things so that the quiet and humble God can pour his “self,” his Holy Spirit, into the emptiness.

That self-emptying requires effort. But just as God’s actual sense of majesty is ridiculously upside down, and just as God’s Kingdom is ridiculously upside down, so my effort is ridiculously upside down. I’m not striving to be a winner; I’m striving to be a loser. And to the extent that I can lose my self-will, pride, accomplishment, and the admiration of others, the divine life will come rushing in like a torrent.

Once we get this, then that particular both/and of the New Testament begins to make a great deal of sense. The works of the law will only lead to death. But works are absolutely necessary to life.

Bachman-Turner Overdrive was, to a certain extent, the sound track of my youth, so I can’t help but close this essay with the brilliant Randy Bachman. Of course this isn’t what he meant at all, but the thing about poetry is that a good poem can have multiple legitimate meanings. (Okay, I admit that calling B.T.O. lyrics “poetry” is a bit of a stretch, but stick with me for a minute, boys and girls.)

It’s the work that we avoid / And we’re all self-employed / We love to work at nothing all day. // And we be Taking care of business (every day) / Taking care of business (every way). [italics added]

How can we avoid work and at the same time “work all day”? By working at “nothing,” rather than working at something, so that my “nothingness” can become the divine fullness within me? That’s takin’ care of business, every day, takin’ care of business in every way.

And if you do that, well then, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

Grace and Effort

So what is the relationship between divine grace and human effort? Let’s start by imagining me as the quarterback of the Washington Redskins instead of Robert Griffin III … or not. It doesn’t matter how much strength training, how much coaching, and how many years of practice I had, I could never be a NFL quarterback, much less a quarterback like RG3. He is gifted with a certain body type and a certain set of talents that makes him who he is. Me? Not so much.

Excellence at that level is, from one perspective, pure gift: RG3, LeBron James, and Stephen Hawking are uniquely gifted. No one else could do what they do. That’s the “grace” side.

But their success was not inevitable and that’s the “effort” side. There was no guarantee that Hawking would become a brilliant physicist or that James would become so dominant on the basketball court. While they are uniquely gifted, what we see is the result or training, repetition, suffering, effort, etc.

There is also a flip side to these observations. There are probably young men out there who are every bit as gifted as RG3, but who did not have the discipline to do what he did through the years to develop that sort of excellence. Even though certain people are gifted (or graced) with remarkable native talent which is a necessity to excel, excellence still requires a great deal of work. It’s not either/or, it’s both grace and work.

This offers a limited but helpful analogy to the various, seemingly contradictory strands related to salvation in the New Testament. We must recognize that salvation is pure gift (ie, divine grace) while acknowledging, at the same time, that it is hard work. The young and brash apostle Paul created a seemingly uncrossable divide between faith and “the works of the law” in Galatians. To be fair to the young apostle, he did say that naked faith was not enough: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith made effective by means of love” (Gal. 5:6).

My folks were very involved with the Navigators, a Christian parachurch organization that promotes discipleship among believers. There are a host of such organizations (Navs, Campus Crusade, InterVarsity, Youth with a Mission, L’Abri, etc.) which are a Protestant analog to the monastic movements of the Roman and Eastern churches. Common among all of them is the understanding that there can be more to the Christian life, but it requires great effort, great discipline, and great dedication to achieve it. I suppose some might find it ironic that the Navs, as committed as they are to sever Christian discipline, have an historic affinity with the Presbyterian Church and Reformed theology. Scripture memorization, small group accountability, prayer, meditation, and study, in no way contradict their commitment to the pure grace of salvation.

This perspective on Christian commitment above and beyond just going to worship on Sunday morning ought to remind us of RG3, Kareem Abdul Jabar, Serena Williams, Leo Messi, etc. Athleticism, after all, is one of the best analogies we have for the Christian life. Even Paul was fond of it. “I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; but I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified” (1 Cor. 9:26f).

Salvation is free, but so is the exercise trail in South Sioux City; fervently believing in it and driving out to it on Sunday morning won’t get me fit. I have to embrace and exercise the gift if I ever hope to have, not just life, but life abundantly (Jn. 10:10). This is why it is important, critical even, to affirm that salvation is hard. Not in a burdensome way, but in a 5k run or RAGRBRAI sort of way.

The Apostle Paul on Costly Grace

Bonhoeffer (in the previous post) was certainly passionate about costly grace. But isn’t that at odds with the idea of “salvation by faith alone” (a phrase many folk assume the Apostle Paul said)? Three points on that: (1) Paul never said it; it’s actually a post-Reformation era formula in response to Erasmus and is a bit of an outlier in Pauline thought. (2) The Reformed doctrine of salvation by grace through faith is not the same thing as Bonhoeffer’s “cheap grace,” although it can devolve into that in the hands of fallen humans who are looking for an easy route to the Kingdom. (3) In fact nowhere in the Bible does it say that salvation is by “faith alone.” That phrase is used only once in scripture by James who says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (Jas 2:24).

We often cherry pick Paul’s statements about salvation by grace through faith. I in no way want to diminish what he says about grace and faith. The purpose of this essay is to remind us that Paul says some other things as well.

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Instead, keeping God’s commands is what counts.” (1 Cor. 7:19)

To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God’s law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law.” (1 Cor. 9:21)

I subdue my body and make it my slave, so that after preaching to others I myself will not be disqualified.” (1 Cor. 9:27)

I wrote for this reason: to test you and to know whether you are obedient in everything.” (2 Cor. 2:9)

Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.” (2 Cor. 7:1)

We are ready to punish every disobedience when your obedience is complete.” (2 Cor. 10:6)

Live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one ind for the faith of the gospel.” (Phil 1:27)

Therefore, my beloved, just have you have always obeyed me, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Phil. 2:12)

Not that I have already obtained this [salvation] or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.” (Phil 3:12)

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in god’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” (Rom. 2:13)

You have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.” (Rom. 6:17-18)

For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law – indeed it cannot.” (Rom 8:7)

Bonhoeffer on Cheap and Costly Grace

Dietrich Bonhoeffer begins The Cost of Discipleship with a rant.

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting to-day for costly grace.

Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks’ wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church’s inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing. Since the cost was infinite, the possibilities of using and spending it are infinite. What would grace be if it were not cheap?

In case you find the first paragraph to be ambiguous ;), I will finish this post with the opening sentences of the many of the remaining paragraphs in the chapter. In his succinct style they function like outline bullet points:

Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system … an intellectual assent.

Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner.

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. [ital. in original.]

Life is Hard

Life is hard. By this I don’t mean to say it’s full of drudgery (although it can be) or that it is beyond our means to cope (although it can be). “Hard,” in the opening sentence ought not carry a negative connotation. Basketball, when played seriously, is hard. It requires a great deal of sweat and aches and pains in order to get into shape. It requires the tedium of repetitive activities (shooting free throws, foots work, hand work, etc.) so that those parts of the game become smooth and natural. It requires a great deal of discipline. And yet, when the bodies of professional basketball players begin to break down, they are loathe to retire from the game when they should.

The same can be said for any other sport. The same can be said for musicians, for visual artists, for bakers of bread, and makers of beer and sausages, and all the other necessities of life. Excellence, in any field, requires great discipline and discipline is hard.

And yet something about the discipline that leads to excellence is highly rewarding. It’s fun, or if it isn’t fun in the moment, it’s fulfilling. This is what I mean when I say that “hard” does not carry a negative connotation. Rather the difficulty and challenge leads to rewards that far exceed the difficulty itself.

For some people life isn’t hard, and for those unlucky few, life is hardest of all. Here my mind turns to football. In my own community we had a star football player that was recruited to be a star Division I player and was, barring injury, almost certainly on his way to being a star in the pros. Being a natural and gifted athlete he never had to work very hard at any sport until he arrived in Iowa City. He never cultivated the discipline for the effort that faced him. He washed out, felt sorry for himself, got in trouble with the law, and is, for the moment, a rather lost soul.

We can broaden Jesus’ statement, that it’s harder for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, into a principle of life. For anyone who is so rich (in wealth, in athleticism, in brains, in beauty, in social grace) that they are not required to cultivate the discipline of a life well lived, their lives will somehow be diminished. It’s not just that life is hard. It’s that life ought to be hard. We humans are created in such a way that we need the discipline in order to become all that we can be. (And excuse the triviality, but the U.S. Army motto is the Army motto precisely because it’s true.)

If this is the case – if life is hard – then it would be surprising, shocking even, if salvation were not hard also, for salvation is not only part of life, it is life itself.


I am fascinated by the response to spy scandal. For the most part I’m neither surprised nor upset by it, although I admit I find the trends ominous. I wrote much more extensively about this a year ago, found here. What interests me in the current flap is our focus on the government as the potential abuser of power rather than big business.

It seems we Americans are hard-wired to distrust the government and give everyone else a pass. From where did the NSA get the data? Google, Facebook, the phone companies, etc. Who is better than anyone else at analyzing meta data? Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, etc. Oh yeah, and don’t forget HyVee and their “innocuous” little loyalty cards. I suspect the NSA are actually a bunch of pikers compared to the geeks out in Mountain View.

The kids in Redmond and Mountain view even have their own airports, their own fleet of planes. Who knows, they probably have their own collection of drones to take out bad internet citizens who block cookies on their browsers and send emails in all caps.

Well, maybe not.

Social networking” (from the server side) is simply a euphemism for figuring out exactly what you’re doing, where, and what you want while you’re doing it, so that the those who are paying attention can connect us with someone who wants to sell us something.

Privacy is dead. The NSA are a bunch of pikers. And has the best deals on the planet tailored to your most secret desires.