I’m still reeling from Gil Kracke’s excellent breakout session at the recent Pensacola Mini-Conference, “Like A Rolling Stone: The Law of Inertia and Human Psychology.” If you haven’t listened to it, do yourself a favor. I can assure you that it will not disappoint!
One of Gil’s primary illustrations of incurvatus in se – St. Augustine’s conception of “man curved in on himself” – had to do with the Kanye West incident at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, in which Kanye showed himself to be the very height of self absorption, a kind of incurvatus in se run amok. In case you missed it, here’s the clip:
But what’s more telling, in terms of what we at Mockingbird tend to gravitate towards, is Kanye’s interview the very next night on Jay Leno’s show. Watch the video to see what happens:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYqYB1UpAQQ&w=600]
At the start of the interview, Kanye is clearly going through a series of talking points that are simply an attempt to shore up what was becoming a public relations nightmare for him. But then Leno asks Kanye the question about his recently deceased mother, and did you notice that everything changed in that moment?
Kanye is rendered speechless in that moment. You can see the tears starting to well up in his eyes. This is what true contrition looks like. Whether Leno realized it or not, he was doing the work of God in that moment, by reminding Kanye of someone in his life who had shown him unconditional love, the kind of love that is a reflection of what the Father’s love for us truly looks like, and the very thought of which in that moment went straight to the heart of the matter for Kanye West.
“What would your mother think?” Leno asks. This woman who had shown you unconditional love, and who taught you how you should behave, what would she think of what you did? Would she feel betrayed, as though all that she did for you and taught you didn’t mean anything to you?
At the 2009 Mockingbird Conference, Dr. Steven Paulson spoke at length about something called the office of the keys. The source of this theological concept comes from several points in the Gospel, but most notably from Mathew 16, when Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ, and Jesus tells him in verse 19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
So these are the two keys: the one that binds is called the Law, and the one that frees is called the Gospel. At its core, the Gospel is the forgiveness of sins through the atoning work of Christ, and as people who have been forgiven, we have been freed by the key of the Gospel and thereby been given the authority to use both of these keys in Christ’s name.
One of the things that we have to become familiar with in administering the office of the keys is when to use each key, because the two actually work together. Of course, we don’t often have to use the key of the Law, because of humanity’s bound wills and troubled consciences, which naturally lead people to bind themselves up with the Law all on their own. Usually that’s the condition in which we find people: locked in their prison cells, needing to be set free by the key that is the forgiveness of sins. But occasionally it’s necessary to use the key of the Law to bind up a person who is truly condemned by the Law but totally unaware, because of a conscience that is not at all troubled. Without such a use of the key of the Law that individual will never feel real contrition, and without such contrition none of us ever sees the need to be forgiven and by such forgiveness to be set free with the key of the Gospel.
That’s exactly what happened when Leno brought up Kanye’s mom. Here is this man, Kanye West, who is the pinnacle of self-absorption, a veritable poster boy for incurvatus in se, being brought low by the key that binds, the key of the Law. “What do you think your mother would think?” He’s absolutely stunned…a man who has probably had great difficulty ever keeping his mouth shut for any length of time in his whole life is in this moment rendered utterly speechless.
And you can see the true contrition start to well up in him at that moment. In the wonderful essay “Miserable Offenders”, C.S. Lewis makes reference to the fact that the Latin root for the word “contrition” means “to pulverize”. And that’s what happened to Kanye in that moment, and that’s exactly what is necessary before the Gospel, the love of God shown in his Christ, can do it’s work of forgiving us, and thereby truly set us free.
And so, as Gil put it, the “left hand of God” revealed itself in Leno’s words that night, and the key of the Law locked Kanye up so that he could experience true contrition, a pulverization of his heart, and can thereby be absolutely forgiven and completely set free.
COMMENTS
34 responses to “Kanye West Meets the Left Hand of God”
Leave a Reply
Powerful stuff, J! Such an incredible example – cuts right to the heart of the matter, as you say. And thank you Gil for bringing this to our attention.
This is such a great post!!!
That was amazing!
Great post, J. This post illustrates the role that the Law's "second use" plays in grace. It is a loving and positive role, in the final analysis, although penultimately negative in its effects. It is not in conflict with "unconditional love" when it is properly understood. (William Blake never understood) This is not to say that, humanly applied, a fraudulent form of "second use" is not often "used" as an excuse for what is really an attempt at behavior modification by means of raw Law, standing entirely alone, with a mighty big stick. That is the old "tough love" trick. God doesn't perform that trick. Never has, never will.
Great post Jeff!
Michael,
you wrote: This post illustrates the role that the Law's "second use" plays in grace. It is a loving and positive role, in the final analysis, although penultimately negative in its effects.
What should we tell the Amalakite babies? Can we really make out a "positive and loving" use of God's law in relation to this?
While nobody denies that the Law is "holy and good," the experience of that Law on sinful people is anything but. For us to say it is so, is almost always like the platitude, "this is all for the best."
It seems like articulating a "positive and loving" use of the Law is akin to telling someone that "this is for your own good," or "this hurts me more than it hurts you."—IF and when we believe that God is present in our suffering and pain, it is only by a gift of Faith, not of sight.
I certainly hope and pray that when my parishioners are going through such turmoil (life), they will believe that God is with them in their suffering, but telling them that this is the "loving and positive" action of God breaking them down to build them up is not going to work. Naturally, the statement "God is killing you," does not preach any better than, "God is killing you for your own good."
The only relationship between the Law and Gospel is that one kills and the other brings life. As the Apostle says, "The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. . ." Death can only be death when it is the end, not when it is the means to a further end.
Retrospection confesses that "all things work together for the good. . ."(Rm.8:28), but saying that is it so goes beyond a theology "of" the cross and into a theology "about." Not incidentally, this is why Forde entitled his book "On Being a theologian of the Cross," rather than, "A Theology of the Cross."
IMNSHO: there is no "loving and positive" role of the Law when confronting sinful humans–this is the attempt to "figure God out," that denies any real anfechtung, tentatio whatever you want to call it: real terror, doubt, fear, etc. . . This is Luther's assertion that humanity lives under and within the death God finds as well as the death He works (Bondage of the Will, 170)
At the very basic level, the belief that the Law is "ultimately loving but penultimately negative," has dramatic implications on the entire conception of one's theology. As Gerhard Ebeling put it (referencing Barth's aforementioned Gospel and Law):
It is a fundamentally different way of doing theology if one reasons from a standpoint where law and gospel form a self-evident unity rather than from a standpoint where this unity can be maintained only in the face of anxiety (Anfechtung). In these two instances, quite obviously, the concept of law will then be very differently defined" (Wort und Glaube, 281).
Anyway, I'm sure the law will drive you to respond to this post!:)
JDK, Thanks for the "tough love" grace bomb. God is love, no? God gave the Law, no ? God gave us His Law to kill us because He loves us or because He hates us? We read the Ten Commandments in church, if we do, in order to be crushed by God's hateful and spiteful wrath? Is God a schizo? I don't think so, because at the same time He gave Moses the Law, He gave him the Temple sacrificial worship that was intended to provide the graceful, though intentionally limited, atonement for sin that His Law had exposed. The exposing of sin, the diagnosis of the disease, is a function of God's love just as much as the treatment, which is pure forgiveness and grace. So, although law and gospel are sharply distinct and never to be confused, they are both part of God's love, because they are both from the God who IS love.
… and as for the Amalakite babies dig, I don't really think it is your job to justify God to the Amalakite babies or to anyone else, because you can't and I can't and no one else can. Isn't that what Job's friends tried to do?
I don't know why the God who is love had the Amalakite babies and everyone else killed, do you? But I do think that we have not heard God's last word on the Amalakite babies.
Michael, I have no idea what a "grace bomb" is, but I have always fancied myself as the bomb, so I'll take that in the loving and constructive way you intended it:)
suffice it to say, there is a lot to be said about what you have written and this may no be the forum…
The ideas you've raised are very much a part of the current theological debate and do not lend themselves to easy answers or solutions. Clearly, the way you have presented the two options can not stand as the only two ways—
at any rate, I still wonder how we explain God's love to the Amalakites?
Not a "dig" Michael—sorry if you heard it that way—interesting how reception can change
the meaning;-) and we've come full circle!
See you in April?
Liza, As I said, I don't think it is our job to "explain", i.e. justify, God. God is God. I am not God. Job understood that at the end.
Tha was me—sorry:)
Jady
Michael. . .
I'm sure this won't be the last word–and God knows we've been to this rodeo before, as they say. . .
but I'm not sure how an often-stated, and (as clear as I can make it) disagreement with you regarding the role and function of the Law can be misunderstood and heard as being dismissive or throwing in some sort of dig. I have no interest in "theogression" (to coin a phrase), but the endless roundabout we're on will never be settled, because we're working with different starting points.
As far as I can tell, the ways we differ fall along (although not completely) the lines as sketched out by the disagreement between Elert and Barth. Neither denied the role and function or necessity of the Law, and neither denied that they were distinct from one another.
Barth, as any good Reformed pastor would, saw the Law as leading to and working as a gracious "loving and positive" role in the ordo salutis (although he wouldn't use that term, I don't think–sorry, not a Barth scholar:)
Elert, on the other hand, believed that positing a "use" of the Law as anything other than death, the idea of lex semper accusat was as far as we could go.
Obviously, people have lived in this tension well before these two and will continue to live with this disagreement well after we've finished our project here.
So, whatever the case, it is clear that there will be no "winning the day" in this conversation, since the two schools of Barth and Elert exist to this day–distinct from one another.
Of course you and I aren't Barth and Elert–but it's unlikely that we'll reconcile our views about this. Like they were, we are coming at this from two different places.
Thanks, as always, for your comments and insights. Hope to see you in April.
Jady, The Law does bring death, but death is not the antithesis of love. If is were, then we should, along with Forde, reject the substitutionary atonement. Maybe we should reject it, after all, Barth believed in it.
Michael and jady,
I really hope both you guys are coming to NYC. It will definately make for some spirited conversation!
Jeff
Jeff– Sorry, I'm way too poor to make that spiritual date 🙂
Michael,
I'm poor, too. You've got my contact info…give me a shout and I'll tell you how I do it!
Jeff
Jeff–Thanks so much. I will contact you and see what I can do. If I were half as nice as you, Jady would be a happy camper 🙂
Seriously. . . I'm sure you could qualify for the "Seminarian Discount":)
That is a butt kicker of a clip! Thanks for sharing. Grace and peace to Kanye West.
Jady and Michael,
I'm not sure that I understand the nuances of your discussion, but I was reading Hebrews 12 this morning and this passage popped out at me as something worth sharing here, especially verse 11:
7Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
This post is beyond well researched and well-written – -it is amazing – -and the stuff of Amazing Grace.
Thank you for sharing insights from the Mockingbird Conference and for inviting those of us who aren't in the main 'Mockingbird flock' to 'sing along' with the 'office of the two keys.' Incredible insight. All of it points to 'It is for FREEDOM that Christ has set us free. . .' (Gal. 5), which will only produce the fruits of the Spirit, not the angst and issues (the issues of Kanye West's life) listed prior to the fruits.
Keep singing, Mockingbirds!
I'd like to read a response to Trevor's post. It always spices things up when you throw a little Scripture into the discussion!
Colton, The quote from Hebrews that Trevor has supplied is one aspect of what I am talking about.
"You can't conceive, my child, nor I nor anyone, the appalling strangeness of the mercy of God."–Graham Greene
I am struck by the distinction between the theology about the cross, and the theology of the cross: telling someone that God means his suffering for good is theology "about" the cross. That being so, then theology "of" the cross must be suffering alongside your friend, period. And when I've been the receiver of this gentle comfort I have found it to be at least an intimation that suffering will somehow turn into love, received and returned, though I won't listen to anyone tell me that.
Robin, "mourn with those who mourn"–that is all any of us can do…
Haha. . .Colton, way to let sleeping dogs lie;-)
Good point, it IS always necessary to check what we are saying with the scriptures, but you and I both know that the same verses can mean different things depending on your controlling hermeneutic grid (cf. Exile, salvation-history, two-covenants, Moroni, Thetans, etc).
According to this week's lectionary reading, even the devil quoted scripture (Luke 4:10) in defense of his position, so we should strive to be, at least, as biblically grounded as he:)
Trevor's (very appropriate) quote highlights these hermeneutic complexities and the necessity for sustained theological reflection for all of us. Because none of this lends itself very well to easy answers, and the bible seems to speak very contradictorily on many issues.
For example, were I to put up this verse from Hebrews 10:
26 For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
It portrays the "loving father" of chapter 12 in a much more vindictive light, not to mention bringing into question any sense of assurance those of us who deliberately sin may have. This is not to say that God is not a loving father, but again, I think that this is a confession of faith, not a self-evident truism.
If we are to take Jesus' own question to God, Why have you forsaken me?” as non-rhetorical, then we have to take seriously the tragic, fearful and tortuous plight of humanity under sin, and the role of the Law in that desperate situation—1 Cor. 15:56: the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law—
I certainly do not have all of this worked out, but I do think that saying "ultimately everything is God's loving will" falls to the same temptation we've all been beset by to "be like God–knowing good from evil.". . . as you can imagine, more to come!
When we lay everything at the feet of the "loving father" who is disciplining us, we must first be children by Faith; however, in order to be a child by faith one must be born again (Jn 3) This process is more painful than "this is all for your good" is going to sustain.
The answer to the Psalmist, who asked God to justify himself with "How Long?," is the same as that to the disciples asking about the tower of Siloam, and is the same as to us asking "what about the Amalakites?" : repent and believe.
And there is more–clearly, I have too much time on my hands!
This belief does not come as a result of being told that "this is all for the best," or "don't you know that God is loving you through all of this?," as if we could somehow see that the experience of the world under the curse of the law "is not in conflict with "unconditional love" when it is properly understood.
Now, one may say that "Of course we only see this retrospectively." BUT, if we believe that we KNOW how and what God is using for his purposes, then we run the risk of developing a gnostic approach to all suffering. Jesus did not wink on his way to the cross; people do not "know" that the cancer they have, or the suicide of their son is for their own good; we cannot tell them that. As Luther was fond of saying, and wrote in the Bondage of the Will, ““the highest degree of faith is to believe that He is merciful, though he saves so few and damns so many; to believe that he is just, though of His own will He makes us perforce proper subject for damnation . . .”) p.101 (Packer and Johnson trans. . . )
Again, from our lectionary reading from this past week, Romans 10, states: 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
There is no "proper understanding," of how God is working, but there is faith in the Gospel, and that faith believes—often despite life to the contrary, that he is working all things together for the good—
Anyway, I’ve been working up a series on Lent here on the last words of Jesus, so I’m (appropriately for the season) fixated on the darkness. I love the opportunity to “discuss” things with you all as this is sort of like a postmodern peer-review journal. . .
Love to you all,
Jady
I hope at this point everyone has had a chance to listen to Gil's talk from the Mini-Conference.
In fact, I think Gil's original presentation speaks to much of what has been discussed here in the comments!
Jady, I knew you were itching to give that "other" quote from Hebrews 🙂 Divide and conquer!
Of course, this is a very hard to understand passage, but the section you quote cannot mean "if you sin after faith in Christ, it's over, buddy", because, earlier in the same book, the author says "I write this to you so that you will not sin, but if you DO sin, you have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous…"
Also, I hope you and Robin understand that I am not advocating providing someone in the midst of suffering with some facile lecture on how a loving God does all things for their good. I have never said or even remotely suggested that.
Thanks Jady, for your brief mention of Thetans as a possible controlling hermenutic grid.
Seminaries would be a lot more fun if our grid, at least some of the time, was Xenu oriented.
Jady, My bad, I think my "you have an advocate with the Father" quote was from 1 John, not Hebrews, but that is the limitations of trying to practice law and ague with preachers at the same time 🙂
I will add this from the gospel of John and then shut up:
"Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. 21:18 Most assuredly I tell you [Peter], when you were young, you dressed yourself, and walked where you wanted to. But when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you, and carry you where you don't want to go."
21:19 Now he said this, signifying by what kind of death he [Peter] would glorify God."
Talk about pastoral insensitivity!
@StamDawg: LOL
@JDK: Thanks man. Great stuff. I'll have to chew on that for a while.
haha. . love you guys!
This is fun.
Hope to see you all in April–With the "Rodfather," it promises to be epic:)