This week I wanted to join Derek Zoolander and ask the question, “Who am I?” By getting a little existential on you I hope to highlight one of, if not the, foundational building blocks for understanding the Christian Gospel which this blog continuously upholds. It is our anthropology.
Classically defined Anthropology means “the study of human beings.” It is the attempt to learn about and understand us. Often times on this blog we expand its use to reference one’s view of humanity, i.e. a high anthropology = people are good. However, we at Mockingbird hold that the Bible presents a disturbingly low anthropology in which humanity is completely sinful.
“Well, that’s very interesting, Sean. Thank you for that, but what’s the point?” The importance of one’s anthropology cannot be overstated. Our view of ourselves and others will inversely affect our view of Jesus Christ and His work for us. If we have too high a view of people, i.e. we think we are pretty good, and we just need a little bit of correction to get back on the straight and narrow path to improvement, then our view of Jesus and what He has done for us automatically sinks lower. If we did not need to be completely saved from death because of our complete sinfulness, then Jesus’ death was overkill, literally. All he had to do was instruct us and correct us, and help us up whenever we fall so that we could continue onward and upward. The cross becomes unnecessary when our anthropology gets too high.
The fact of the matter is we all start with a very high anthropology because we are sinful. We are born with pride that tells us, like Stuart Smalley, “I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.” This view continues on until we are confronted with the very real fact that we don’t cut it in some way. Life has an uncanny ability to hold up that mirror that reveals that we are a bunch of posers.
For every part of our life in which we may actually be excelling, there is a part in which we know we are failing. It reminds me of the movie The Devil Wears Prada when Anne Hathaway’s character is lamenting to a friend that her relationship with her boyfriend is on the rocks and her
personal life is in shambles. Her friend replies with something like, “Congratulations, you must be doing your job. Anytime things start to go well at work, your personal life implodes.” The point is that we are failing, and the knowledge of that failure begins to crush us.
However, no matter how bad things may get in our everyday, we are still pretty skilled at convincing ourselves that we can do better, that we’ll turn it around somehow. For this reason we never quite expect the Bible’s diagnosis of us. When confronted with the demand for perfection in the Bible (Matt. 5) we are simply decimated. Romans 3:12 leaves no wiggle room, “All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” In the face of this anthropology we know without a shadow of a doubt that we need nothing short of salvation. The cross is no longer extreme or some form of divine child abuse. Rather, it is the Good News that Jesus has suffered for us, so that we might be free. He has taken our low place in death and has lifted us up to life.
COMMENTS
11 responses to “"Who Am I?" – A Look at Anthropology”
Leave a Reply
Hi Sean-
Thanks for your post. It's always helpful to have some of these big words fleshed out.
I do have a question, however, and it's about your opening statement. You posit that a proper anthropology is not just one foundational block for understanding the Gospel, but the block. I was wondering if this is fair to say, or if this is even right to say.
If our identity is the proper start of understanding the Gospel, then it seems that we have given ourselves a certain importance/esteem that "a low anthropology" should prevent. It's as if we are saying: "The Gospel starts with us." I may be playing with semantics here, but I think the nuances here warrant some careful consideration.
When I read your post, I thought of John Calvin's thoughts on the subject (I feel like I'm taking a big risk here bringing him in!). On proper knowledge, he writes: "It is evident that man never attains to a true self-knowledge until he have previously contemplated the face of God, and come down after such contemplation to look into himself" (Institutes, I.2.ii).
In the Law-Gospel dynamic, would it be incorrect to say that the Law shows us God's character, thereby convicting us of who we are, and so it drives us to Christ?
Thoughts?
Cheers.
You're absolutely right Marc. Thanks for the clarification.
Hey Marc!
I think that the answer to your question depends on whose "Law Gospel dynamic" you're using!
I've recently been going back over the differences between Reformed and Lutheran thought on these questions–particularly over the "3rd Use" debate–and have some thoughts, and as always, welcome your comments/reflections. I'm sure we'll get it all figured out someday!
Anyway, some thoughts:
As has been clarified ad naseum) there are some significant differences between Calvin and Luther on this point, not necessarily on what the Gospel is or any of the Reformation solas, but rather their understanding of the nature of justified human existence–of their Christian anthropology.
The way I see it, they both would affirm with the Apostle that the Law is "holy, righteous and good" (cf. Romans 7:12), but would disagree about the purpose, use and end of that holy, righteous and good law.
For Calvin, the Law would be the revelation of God's character and, therefore, something to which we are being conformed –ie. sanctified–and, depending on who you talk to, this sanctification can take a variety of forms, but what they have in common is a belief that the Law is good and we are bad and when we get better we can begin, in some way, to follow the Law–In his commentary on Romans, Calvin writes: The point, however, holds good, that
the law is not injurious to us by its own nature, but because our
corruption provokes and draws upon us its curse.
This understanding is why Calvin can say that the primary role of the law is its pedagogical use for believers–his understanding of the 3rd and primary use of the law–again Calvin: ""Here
is the best instrument for [believers] to learn more thoroughly each day the nature of the Lord's will to which they aspire"Institutes, 2:7.12 (360-361)
Luther, on the other hand, believed that on account of the simul–the believer being at once both completely justified and sinful–that the Law was never "used" by the believer, but rather always brought death and judgment on the unbeliever–the one who existed simultaneously with the justified. According to Luther: Those who are to be justified … are disciplined by the theological use of the Law for a time; for it does not last forever, as the civic use does, but it looks forward to the coming of faith, and when Christ comes, it is finished. From this it is abundantly clear that all the passages in which Paul treats the spiritual use of the Law must be understood about those who are to be justified, not about those who have already been justified. For, as has been said often enough, these latter are far above and beyond any Law. (Lectures on Galatians, LW 26:344; WA 40 L528.11-16)
Romans 10:4 states that "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes," for Luther, that meant that for the believer, there is no Law and will never be again; however, to the unbeliever–the one that exists simultaneously within the same believer–the Law remains what it always was meant to be, again Paul, "a ministry of death."
I just realized that in my haste to work out the differences between Calvin and Luther on their understanding of the Law I left your specific question unanswered.
You said: would it be incorrect to say that the Law shows us God's character, thereby convicting us of who we are, and so it drives us to Christ?
I don't think that anyone who reads Galatians would disagree that the Law leads to Christ; however, the question is whether or not the Law is a manifestation of God's character.
The question I'm stumbling through at the moment is this:
Is God, at the end of the day, mainly concerned with his own Holiness? Is he pure Holiness–the highest good–absolute perfection–for whom Jesus' death was a necessary prerequisite for anyone looking to get close to him?
Or is there something else (not necessarily contrary to that, but perhaps in addition?) going on beyond morality and our lack thereof? Is sin/death/law not about being unclean or even unworthy or about God's holiness and our unholiness is it about us being dead and needing to be brought to life?
I don't want to get bogged down in semantics either, and I'm not exactly sure where my point is or what the distinction is. . but its nice to work it out and circle around the answer. . I'm sure its there somewhere! I'm wading into all of this im momment. . . any thoughts would be appreciated!
Jady, you said:
"For Calvin, the Law would be the revelation of God's character and, therefore, something to which we are being conformed –ie. sanctified–"
Why would that view of the Law necessarily segue into Calvin's view of sanctification? I noticed the "therefore". Would Luther not say it is the revelation of God's character?
Just curious if I need to watch that language.
well, there is a lot of debate about that. . no question there is a relationship between the Law and Holiness, but whether it is connected intrinsically to the outworking of God's Eternal Holiness (ie. Character) or whether its an active tool of his wrath which is temporal and specifically directed towards killing this side of redemption, well that's something else entirely, I think.
To be sure, sin and death are the results of the fall and God's judgment on Sin, but what does that have to do with the Law? According to the Apostle Paul, there seems to have been sin and death before the revelation of the Law to Moses, but since there was no written Law (it is argued) there was no way of knowing in a specific way why it was that the world was the way it was (sort of like Marie Curie wondering why her hair must have started falling out).
So, was the Law given so that we would know how great God was or so that we would know why, in fact, we were in the middle of the "sickness unto death"?
It may seem like semantics, and I admit that I'm still working out some of these ideas, but I am not comfortable with the idea that somehow Luther and Calvin can be reconciled, particularly when it comes to preaching, because Calvin clearly preaches (and believes that it is THE most important aspect of a sermon) Law-Gospel-Law to the converted.
Now, pragmatically, I have no problem appreciating the insights and wisdom of the Reformed teaching and am happy to fight along side John Piper against the New Perspective as anyone, but, as we've pointed out, there is a different pastoral approach that is grounded on a Christian "simul" Anthropology To be sure, this is easier to have and to preach and talk about in theory than in practice, and many, many Reformed people are terribly more Gracious and pastoral that I; nevertheless, there is a fundamental theological difference that is at play, and that's what (obviously) gets me into the discussion.
There is a great article on this in an old Lutheran Quarterly called: "Luther & Calvin on Preaching to the Human Condition
by DAVID J. LOSE"
He argues that:
Once again, while Luther and Calvin largely agree upon the
character of the Christian life, they disagree over the nature of the believer to the extent that they ultimately address two distinctly different audiences. According to Calvin, the unregenerate can hear only the law, which acts as a restraint upon, and goad to, the wicked conscience. Once broken by the law, however, those predestined to grace receive God's justification and Spirit and joyfully take possession not only of the good news of the gospel but also of the law as a divine gift and tool. Hence, Calvin directs his
preaching to justified believers. The chief function of the Word,
in fact, is to educate the elect in godliness: "God will have his
people to be edified; and He [has] appointed His Word for that
purpose."
Luther, however, directs his preaching to another kind of audience altogether. For though he also preaches to an assembly of
justified Christians, he addresses them first as sinners because,
though they have been justified by grace through faith and stand
before God as fully righteous, they also live with each other ac-
cording to their original sinful nature. Hence, the Christian life—
and therefore the church's proclamation—is one of constant movement through death to new life.
The issue, again, is one of continuity. Because Calvin perceives a basic continuity between the person before and after regeneration, he applies the law equally to both, though he expects that it
will only achieve its principal use in the life of the believer.85 Sim-
ilarly, precisely because Luther asserts that there is no discernible continuity between the sinner and the righteous believer, he stresses that absolutely nothing of the former's existence pertains
to the latter, for the believer lives by grace alone.Thus, Luther believes that to address the believer as justified believer with the law is to misuse the law and undermine and threaten the gospel
promise.
Very helpful. Thanks. I understand a lot better.
Would it be safe to say of those Lutherans who are against the definition of the Law as the revelation of God's holiness that they believe the Gospel is the revelation of God's holiness?
hmmm. . hard to say, I haven't heard anyone articulate it that way (but I could be mistaken:)
I'll send you a copy of that article, see what you think.
Don't worry. If that's wrong, you can just tell me 🙂
This has been enlightening. I really appreciate your (Jady's) vast information dump on the divergence between Luther and Calvin, esp. in re Law and Preaching. While I still find great value in some of the things Calvin wrote about and think he brings something to the table (primarily, his Doctrine of the Knowledge of God that Marc references in his comment), I am excited to have a better understanding of why I don't stand with him on all points.
…**sigh of relief**…
I'm still a Lutheran/Anglican.
Also, thanks for your question Browder, that was one that I had while I was reading.
Great discussion!