I was commenting on a friend's blog about bonhoeffer's idea of cheap vs. costly grace, his original post can be read here, but I put so much effort into my reply, I decided to just post it.
Cheap grace sounds like an interesting concept, except that even the grace described as cheap is costing something, credibility, accountability, relevance...we've been paying for cheap grace for a long time, and in the end, I think we'll find it to be more costly than the other kind.
I think the point of Atonement is simple, the injustice of man cannot be atoned for by an unjust man (I know, a staggeringly original idea, quote me if you want).Is becoming a nurse going to turn things around? No, will years, or even decades, of selfless servitude affect the lives she destroyed? Hardly, and she may not know it yet, but she will realize it at some point, when all the weight of her guilt will return, unlightened by time or service.We can fight with all we have, giving everything, and we still won't be able to turn back the tidal wave of destruction caused by even one small lie, or seemingly insignificant selfish act.
It's like Joker said, "When the chips are down, these people will eat each other."
What he should have said afterwards is,
"Batman, the chips are down, and you won't be able to pull that guy's arm from the grip of that girl's jaws even if you tugged for your entire life"
We aren't just beyond saving, we're consuming each other as we speak. Atonement paints the same picture.
Sorry, I just go done reading World War Z, which is too awesome to even attempt to describe,
Go read it yesterday!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The funny thing is when you commented this on my blog, I thought why does he not blog this. (Is "blog" a verb?)
Anywho, I agree with you, but what I do believe is that, though man cannot atone for his injustices (the depravity stumps that) and only Christ can, Im sorry DID atone, we must be repentant to and, if possibly, reconciled to the person that recieved our injustice.
In the book Atonement, I believe there at the end there is a sad realization by the primary character that she could not atone for her sins by rewriting the ending or becoming a nurse, and what Ian McEwan does not have is there should be, that Briony turns to Christ for redemption and atonement.
And the fact is that no grace is paid for, only responded to. If we try to pay for it then it is not grace. Grace, though must be responded to. When you get a gift from your father it is to bring you joy, and in return you thank your father and even revere him, not to Cheapen the gift by trying to pay for it. God's grace gives us joy but more so it is for His glory, and we would cheapen it by trying to pay for it. I still have not wrapped my mind around this all to be honest, but there you are.
Dude I should take your lead and just post this comment!!!!
Love Melding the minds my friend.
And I love you.
Bryan
P.S. Sorry for the lousy grammar above just reread don't feel like editing
On and the title "In Response to Bryan" sounds so foreboding.
Look at that you have 3 comments on this we, all me, sorry buddy.
I know, I looked and thought, 3 comments, what controversy have I ignited...
thanks man, and yeah, we probably agreed more than disagreed there (we could end up like chuck swindoll/john macarthur or John Piper/NT Wright i.e. theologians who don't really disagree that much but their followers blow things out of proportion)
I call Piper
yeah, except like I said, they really don't disagree that much.
although it would have to be a no contest, we're on the same team.
still call piper
actually, even though they are on the same team, I'll take keller.
biatch.
going to the village to hear chandler tomorrow...
I think that calls for another...
biatch.
envy, i do. been listening to the luke sermons at work. greatness
Post a Comment