Bob Schaefer
Exercises in Biblical Theology
Paper 2

1. Briefly summarize an event, encounter, or moment you have participated in or witnessed in which different theological views came into contact.

This conversation occurred when I disagreed with a roommate (whom I will call “E.”) over the ethics of some action or another of his. Becoming defensive, he recalled a sin that I had admitted to him, suggesting that someone “who could do that” did not have the moral ground to criticize him.

2. Link words or actions of 2-3 key players in the event to one or more biblical theologies.

Obviously, E. did not enter this conversation thinking of any particular theology! His words initially came out of resentment and self-defense. But as our “discussion” progressed, he stood by his charge: I no longer held any moral authority to question his actions. He would have suggested Matthew 7.1 (“Judge not, that you may not be judged.”) and John 8.7 (“Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone.”) to support his position.

E. took these verses as an admonition from God against judging each other, as all of us are sinful, and he considered my questioning to be “judging” him. From E.’s perspective, he was only responsible to God for his actions, and only God could ultimately question them. He might have allowed me to do so as long as I was perceived to be “without sin.” But his emphases on God as lawgiver and human beings (particularly, in this case, me) as lawbreakers led him to write off my words as unfair (even ungodly!) attacks on him.

For my part, I also believed that human beings are equally under the condemnation of the law (Romans 3.22b-23: “For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…”). It was true that he and I were in the same boat before God. But I would have argued that that boat is larger than just the condemnation of the law: “[…all] are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (v. 24). Fallen-short-but-justified-by-grace—that’s the common bond I would have emphasized.

As ones who have been under the law, but have been redeemed through Christ’s love, I have felt it is appropriate to speak the truth in love to each other (Eph. 4.15) when it comes to shortcomings. There is a difference between this and casting a stone in judgment, which is not always understood. Though all things might be lawful for me in my new life in Christ, not all things are good (1 Cor. 10.23). God wants us to help each other to avoid those things that are not good, and that often involves a mutual “calling of each other” on those things.

God’s gift of grace cleanses sinners, and is given for sinners. And we can and must hold tight to the law as well, because it is God’s word and not our own. Its authority is within itself.

3. Interpret the event, encounter or moment as these theologies collided or connected, either by diagram or in 2-3 sentences.

This became a contest, because each of us had taken the issue personally. E. resented the criticism I had offered, and I was quickly wounded by his use of a shameful act that I had confessed to him in confidence as a way to undermine what I had to say. Separated from the conversation by many years, I no longer recall its exact outcome, but rather the rather intense passions provoked by it.

4. List your own words or actions as you responded at the time. Then claim what biblical theology was embodied in your response.

Since I was one of the parties involved, my own part in this event was described in Question 2.

5. Tell what your response should be now.

I still believe in the basic rightness of my case, but it is clear that I did not approach it in a helpful manner. If God is love (1 Jn. 4.8), and we are to speak the truth in love, that places a very high standard on our conduct toward one another. It means we need to speak to each other in the manner of God; that is, offering not only law, but—especially!—gospel in our speech.

In my zeal to offer my “point” to E., I spoke the truth, but without the love that is so essential to helpful truth-speaking.

Analysis of the event…

The issue here is an important one for Christians, but especially for those of us in professional, public ministry: What consequences can or should our personal sin hold for our public proclamation?

The governor of our state has frequently argued that his private actions have no bearing whatsoever on his ability to govern effectively, and are therefore none of anyone’s business but his own. He draws a bold line between his words and actions as a public officer and as a private citizen. Anything legal is also permissible and appropriate for Jesse Ventura, civilian at large.

Unfortunately, while this is a prevalent and sympathetic argument in a country that highly values the supposed “right to privacy” (which, despite the popular misconception, is nowhere to be found in the constitution, but is itself a judicial “penumbra” or “emanation”), Jesse’s argument fails to hold water. It is impossible to entirely separate the office from the officeholder, or the reputation of the office from that of the one holding it. If the officeholder acts egregiously, the office itself falls into disrepute.

While this is true, in the church, we also have the understanding that all people have acted and continue to act egregiously, and are in need of God’s grace. The officeholder does not ultimately act on his own authority, but on behalf of God. That is why the Church has held that the validity of the sacraments does not rest on the integrity of the minister performing them, but on the integrity of the promises that God has made in them.

In other words, a pastor is able to be (and will invariably be) a bold sinner, yet still proclaim God’s promises and administer the sacraments. At the same time, he is authorized and charged to speak not only the gospel but also the law on God’s behalf, even (and perhaps especially) when that law convicts him as well as his audience. The work is God’s entirely, and it is for the people of God that this work happens. The pastor proclaims in the name of God and it is in this proclamation that the thing happens (this is the nature of first-order discourse), but it always, always by God’s power and love and grace that the thing happens, and by no other.

This is a great comfort, but it does not entirely dismiss E.’s charge against me or mine against Jesse. The fact is that an audience’s ability to receive God’s words depends greatly on the vessel in which those words arrive. While the integrity of the pastor does not affect the truth of the message he brings, it may well affect his ability to be an effective bringer of that truth, and this is where I found myself with E.. Being aware of my sin, he was unable to hear what I spoke, regardless of what truth there might have been in them.

Because God is gracious and uses imperfect but forgiven people as his messengers, it is important for us to always extend a generous portion of grace ourselves toward those who strive to be God’s servants. Their sin, particularly confessed and absolved sin, ought not immediately discredit them. In fact, very little is more powerful in an evangelist than the personal experience of sin and the forgiveness of God. Though our inclination is only to trust those who appear 100% pure, perhaps we ought better to trust those who proclaim that they are in precisely the same boat as we are.

Personal integrity is a huge asset in public ministry, and it can greatly affect the outcome of our dialogs with others, especially those of a moral nature. I found this out the hard way with E., and was deeply pained that my failure had become a stumbling block to him. But the calling of God—whether to ordained ministry or simply to follow—ultimately comes only to sinners, and is achieved only by grace.

Ssite, contents, and design copyright © 2002-2006 Robert James Schaefer. All rights reserved.
Last updated Sunday, August 20, 2006.

Pages viewed since 9/13/04
Please sign / view my guest book!