%

on

Free From What, For Whom?

i : r 5 00S Kael Aa icy a Oe <2 ~

Romans 6 - 7: sclected
March 14, 1971
John M. Buchanan

This sermon is about an issue that can be set out by way of three very
simple illustrations. The first illustration is that famous, running, one-
liner from "Laugh-In", which advises America, "If it fcels good, do it."

The second illustration is its opposite, and comes from a television show on
Tuesday night, "All in the Family". A young couple is trying to explain how
they fecl justified in living together, without having been legally married.
They talk in eloquent terms about dedication and integrity and commitment and
love; to which Archie Bunker, hero of the show, responds: "Don't give me none
of that love stuff. This here's. Christian home." .

The third illustration is that St. Louis cab driver, a life long member
of one party, about to switch, who said, "... there are times when o man has
+o push his principles aside and do the right thing." [p. 13 Situation Ethics,
Fletcher |

The issue is in the relationship between those three different othical
positions, and there is probably no more important, nor disturbing issue in
front of the .merioan people today. For what it's worth, there was probably
no more important nor disturbing issue before the Christians in Rome in 54 A.D.
either.

Today, however, there is a deep and growing concern that somchow, as a
culture, we are being led down the prim-rose path to moral anarchy, open
license, vice and iniquity. There is real concern that the old, time-honored
standards of right and wrong have been discarded and tramped on, and dragged
through the mud and dirt, There is a concern about something called the
‘moral fiber" of our nation; and it is generally assumed that that fiber is
not nearly as sough as it was, say, 25 years ago. We are concerned about what
appears to be a total disregard for traditional standards of sexual behavior
before and in marriage. We worry about motion pietures and books and communes

and group marriages. It seems that in our generation the flood gates of

immorality have been opened and we're all about to be innundated. I say, “it
seems" because I remain pretty skeptical about the moral fiber argument. MNever-
theless, it is a major concern for us ~- and it is abundantly true, that regard-
less of what people are or are not doing, we are witnessing the challenging

of an old, accepted form of morality, and the redefinition of what is right,
good and acceptable.

The early Christians, of course, thought the very same thing. In the same
baciaie as us they lived through a time when traditional forms of morality were
challenged and redefined. For them, it was as a result of a new theological
idea ~ the idea of grace. ind the man most responsible for their dilomma was
St Paul. Paul was saying some unsettling things about a Christians' relation-
ship to the law — and a Christians' definition of rightness and wrongness.

They were upset. Paul scemed to be dangerously undercutting the moral structure
of society.

For several weeks we've been thinking about the idea of grace as it is
presented by Paul in his letter to the Romans. Grace, you will recall, is the
unmerited love of God, freely given in Jesus Christ. For Paul, the very
essence of the Gospel was the fact that God, on his own, had done everything
necessary for man's salvation: that no man could make himself worthy of that
gift: thot in Jesus Christ God had brought into human history a whole new
situation in which forgiveness, peace and reconciliation were now realities.

ile thought about ‘ia implications of that Gospel in terms of o story about
an emotionally sohicutind little girl. The girl had withdrawn into herself and
was suspicious and hostile toward everyone else. But one nurse, by consistant,
patient, unmerited love, broke through and established a relationship of
trust. The girl was set free from her bondage to self - she was savod by
grace.

We thought about how that assaults something deep down inside us; namely
our own pride - our presumption that we can actually build up a good record

with God by doing good things. We thought, about the serious difficulty we

\ >
>

havo accepting the fact that in Jesus Christ we are loved, safe and free:
and that our task is not so much to try to be Christians, as it is to live like
the saved, reconciled people we already are.

Well, one of the by-products of the theolosy of grace, appears to be
the license to do whatever you want. After all, if our salvation is assured:
if God, loves us in spite of what we are, why bother trying to be good?

When Paul says things like "we are set free from the law" - it seems as
if he's saying there are no longer any cesteictionn on sais behavior whatever.
Go and do whatever you want. Or in the words of "Laugh-In"; "If it feels
good, do it." .

The fact is that the carly Christians were very bothered by this. They
had spent a life-time trying to live according to all the rules and regulations
contained in the Jewish law. Now Paul was telling them that the law was dead.
Some of them, on the other hand, accepted Paul's theology of grace and pushed

j it to its logical conclusion.

If God's grace encompassed all of human sin, they reasoned, why not sin
some more, in order that grace may have a greater opportunity to operate.
Why not throw over all the rules? Why not be totally free?

These people even had a name: “antinomians" — against the law - against
all law: and they were quite serious in their position regarding proper
Christian behavior. They took absolutely literally, Paul's statements
about freedom from the law, and tricd to live in what amounted to a moral
vacuum. We can assume that there were, in their ranks, those who were looking
for an excuse to do what they wanted to do. But, by and large, it was a
serious proposition.

Paul sensed it ~ and tho danger it posed to the integrity of the Gospel.
He sensed that he was vulnerable at this point, and that he could be mis-
construed as an antinomian himself. So he joined the issue, head-on, in the
sixth and seventh chapters of the letter to the Romans. It's very heavy

going - and many New Testament Scholars conclude that Paul failed adequately

#

f

ree Cat eee da is a RS ae Sa

to explain himself — and that he was victimized by his own logic.

In any case he begins with a strong, personal disclaimer. "What are we
to say, then? Shall we persist in sin, so that there may be all the more
grace? No, no!" The King James version translates "God forbid!" which catches
Paul's outrage at so preposterous a suggestion. Later in chapter six, he
raises the issue again: “What, then? Are we to sin, because we are not under
law but under grace?" For him, the answer is perfectly clear: “of course
not!"

In his own life Paul ebeareny had no difficulty vobolvie the difference
between grace and law. To the end he remained a faithful Jew, a Pharisec, in
fact, obedicnt to the law. Yet, at the same time, gloriously aware of this
freedom given to him in Jesus Christ. But the more he talked about it the
deeper he got into what looks like the antinomian position. Ultimately, .
there scoms to be no role whatever for the law in the thought of Paul. It
is fulfilled in Christ: dead - in Christ. It has no authority - in reality
for the Christian, The now life in Christ will be lived out of some other
context. That is where his logic leads us - even if he, himself, did not
live in this manner, and even if he tries to back away from the antinominn
position with strong dence:

Yot-it is Liston at this point that I feel the unfairness of squeez-—
ing Paul into a theological box. He was more than a theologian. He was a
man — a man who felt and experienced as well as thought theologically: a
man who had discovered his freedom in Christ - but also retained his old
loyalty to the law.

I expect oll of us are a little like that. I+ isn't always fair to
insist that we be entirely rational, or always consistant. I+ is possible
for us to know something intellectually, and yet emotionally to have oxper-
iences and feelings that deny our knowledge. I+ is possible to live under

grace and the law - perhaps even necessary.

_,

: ania a: AMEN Vina is ve oe Cth ca aia

oN

In any case, in pursuing his theology of grace Paul says very little
about the ethical demands God places upon his children. He does not ignore
this aspect of the faith - but his emphasis is definitely on the side of
grace. The perceptive Christian will see this, and understand it, and add
to it the ecrecativs provided in the life of Jesus himself. For Jesus, God
was a God of grace and justice: a God who freely gave — but also placed
strenuous demands on his children. In Christian faith we are always dealing
with God's gift and our responsibilities as recepionts of his gift. We can
discuss the nature of those responsibilities. We can disagree about what God
demands of us. But to suggest that he demands nothing is cither sheer non—
sense or moral laziness -— or perhaps both.

Now, let's bring it up to date. It is a bit presumptuous, of course, to
attempt to say something relevant about Christian morality in a fow minutes.

It is evon more presumptuous to tack it on to a sermon - as if all the pieces
will now fall into place. They will not. We are left with some rather per=
plexing questions. But we can, I believe, apply our knowledge of what's
happening in the pages of the New Testament to one situation and come out
with ~ at least - a framework for asking ethical questions, and a mothod for
arriving at a personally satisfying answer.

I think that process begins when we recognize that Paul is trying to %
deal with two extemes - two widely different approaches to morality, nei ther
one of which is very helpful to the Christian. They are lawlessness, or
antinomianism, on the one hand, and legalism on the other hand. I think the
process continues as we recognize that the same two extremes present them—
sclves today.

Lawlessness takes the form of anarchy ~- free love, free speech, life
on the basis of my own desires and needs alone. In a sense, this extreme
is exactly what "Laugh-In" presents, tongue-in-cheek; or that Playboy

magazine peddles in a subtle and sophisticated manner.

7"

*

robs
Legalism comes to us in the form of an irchie Bunker, dismissing love and
insisting that a Christian home means following the rules: or in the paranoid
wailing for "Law and Order". To adherents of both positions from Renie Davis
to Spiro Agnew, the concept of Grace is incomprehensible: to one it is only
an opportunity for irresponsibility: to the other, it is the enemy.

Somewhere in the middle is the Christian position. Somewhere between
the two extremes is a morally responsible freedom. I've been helped by the
insights contributed by the psychological disciplines - which tell us that
there is probably is no such thing as absolute freedom. Emil Brunner said it
well: "Freedom in general is an illusion, something impossible. The only
choice before man is whom he wants to wt never whether he wishes to be
obedient. [p. 54 The Letter to the Romans]

“Itve beon helped by an insight from my own experience, that when a sticky
moral question is asked, our first inclination is to retreat to the rule
book, and thereby avoid a difficult personal decision.

Somewhere between absolute freedom —- which really means slavery to self -
and bondage to a rigid legalism, is the Christian ethic. In Jesus Christ we
have been set free from the law — that is, from the frantic accumlation of
legally defined good-works in order to win our salvation. We don't have to

worry about that anymore. We are free - because our salvation has been given

to use

But in receiving this gift, in really receiving it, embracing it, rejoic-—

ing in it, a man takes on himself a moral responsibility far greater than
anything contained in a law. Sudaeniy he is confronted with the task of
living like the child of God he is. Suddenly he is romponeibte for his
brother - and his own life, in a way impossible under logalism.

Suddenly he is free from legal restrictions, for life in commmion with

God and man. One theologian put it this way: "The life of the Christian is

| Snap ere of a great ie 4 lite that ‘ie “moral = eo ae = Ei
"As Loving wod helping id Rosking snd semving.” which 1 out att = 8

“ ‘Bternal ney tae BAe it ja pos casy to live in the freedom you,

Fa

ners given. ile wu. pour ee a somtine wo wuld prafor t © wat

\