I woke up this morning thinking about God. I usually wake up thinking about God. Sometimes it is a simple consciousness, like the silent singing of Jesus loves me, this I know. On other occasions it rises to lofty heights like the comparisons, or contrasts, from among the ideas of theologians I have read or heard. This morning it was both. The little chorus was followed very rapidly with thoughts stimulated by my recent readings in the writings of Emil Brunner. Brunner, Karl Barth and others were driven to Scripture following the horrors of World War I, and founded the school of theology known as Neo-orthodoxy – or new orthodoxy, quite controversial theology.
They were genuinely put-off by what they believed were failures in modern life, and the loss of effective Christian faith before World War I, and following it. World War II strengthened their resolve. During my formal education, the great controversial discussions about theology in the evangelical context were often related to neo-orthodoxy. My disappointment more than a half century later is that we did not adequately discuss, even debate, the positive concepts of these theologians, and others, but tended to focus on what were perceived to be errors in their concepts. Even greater is my disappointment that there has been a dumbing down of congregations in my lifetime so that really substantive sermons and lessons about God and man are somewhat muted in the church. We sometimes have little more than sound-bytes. A twenty minutes sermonette from daily life is the high point. Communities of believers do their thing in an hour of sometimes strident music, and a modest homily sometimes wrapped in banality and good feelings. It has resulted in the turning off of many persons relative to the church.
One afternoon in 1947 I heard Emil Brunner deliver a lecture on sin. I can say, well over a half century later, that it was the greatest sermon, or lecture, that I ever heard on the subject. He knew what he was talking about, and the listeners sensed it to their bones, brains and emotions. It stimulated me to a greater hunger for biblical truth, the discovery of what a subject meant in all, or nearly all, of its parts, as revealed in Scripture. My recent readings have accented Brunner’s thoughts about faith, hope and love. His concept of love goes deeper than most understand to be love. So do his concepts of faith and hope. He held that faith is the admission of God and his work in history; love is the evidence of God working in man in the present; and, hope is the inner certainty of what God will do in the future. All three should exist together, but love (currency), said the Apostle Paul, is the dominant one. It is likely that we can add to our understanding by noting that all grows out of God’s love nature. Why other than love would God care? In an eternal present, the factor of universal desire is love. To be satisfied with our relationship with God, as we pass through life, we need a firm hold on faith, hope and love, related to Jesus Christ. They point to the positives, as life victory. Brunner noted that Christianity is the only experience that triumphs over sin, and extols God in the holiness of his love. That deserves full attention and careful study for life assimilation. What could be more important for faith and hope? We are awed that man can have faith, hope and love as gifts from God. During an age when persons seem to be trudging down the hill to a concentration camp, persons of vibrant biblical faith wonder, what happened? Who took away the light, the warmth, the joy, the utter belief that in Christ, all will be well? He alerted those who believe that there would be difficulty along the way, but retirement benefits are nearly beyond comprehension. One of the reasons love is accented above all else, as Brunner intimates, is that it has currency. We have God’s love today. *Mark W. Lee, Sr. — 2016, 2020