Wednesday, January 20, 2021

The Veridic Gardens of Effie Leroux - Flagstaff, AZ.



So we're vacationing in Arizona for a week or so, and visiting the big spots: Wickenberg, Gilbert (not so big really but where my sister and her husband Tim live), Prescott (no, no … that's pronounced Preskit), then up to Flagstaff for a peek at the Grand Canyon  (just to see if I'm still afraid of heights … yup ... that never changes!)  Flagstaff is still a far-out hippie hang-out; see, even if you didn't see any hippies there you could tell that they inhabited Flagstaff at least at one point because of all the prominent public art.  It's all over the place there.  What's that? Well, we're not really sure exactly what is included in the category, but you can check it out here.  Anyway, I'm walking toward Leroux Street and there's this mural on the wall behind a Diablo Burger that catches my attention.  So I stroll up to take a closer look.  Mural

I'm kind of into checking it out in detail … deeply sucked in actually, looking pretty carefully at what's going on in the fantasy world of this mural -- and just then a guy walks out of Diablo Burger and I ask him if he knows who did this mural?  He said, "Sure. He's a friend of mine: Joe Sorren.  [If you're interested in seeing more of his work you can check it out here]. I've got some information on the mural -- do you want it?" "Yes I do."  According to Squidoo.com, one of Joe's best-known public art pieces is the 40-foot by 30-foot mural [actually, according to Joe, is 45'x'15'] at Heritage Square in Flagstaff, which he started in the spring of 1999 and completed in September 2000, after nine months of work.  Painted on the curved wall of a parking garage, the mural serves as a backdrop for what is now the Diablo Burger Restaurant. 

The mural wasn't pre-planned, it kind of came into existence as the work was being done, sort of as a 'puzzle' coming together. Joe described it as "Let's see what the wall wants to be today." The title was supposed to "somehow tie together the giant outdoor park scene and its figures." There were a few lame attempts to entitle it, like Ten Thousand Hoses from the City of Big-Headed People; and The Ants Don't Call Home Anymore; and still a favorite of Joe's that didn't win, Please, Just Some Gravy. Enter a friend, Matt Hall, who along with Joe brainstormed the title in about an hour. The next cross street in Flagstaff was Leroux Street, so that worked as a starting place. But you have to love the rest of the title: 'The Veridic Gardens.' The Free Dictionary suggests the Latin derivative veridicus means 'to say the truth,' as in 'verily, verily.' What seems most appropriate about the title is how the Free Dictionary relates the adjective veridicous to a psychological meaning: 

"of or relating to revelations in dreams, hallucinations, etc, that appear to be confirmed by subsequent events."

When the assistant editor for the Flagstaff paper wanted to do a story on the mural -- Matt wrote up some notes about it -- "a completely fictitious name/person Effie Leroux … an early 20th century philanthropist who created veridic [verity = truth] gardens, peaceful places for 'people to experience with all five senses the possibility of a fuller life." 

Joe then wrote up the details as if they were all facts. The big fictitious story about the mural got published in a booklet called The Veridic Gardens of Effie Leroux (of all things). What's really cool about the story line is that it fills in the details of Effie's fictitious life by detailing the various segments of the mural.

For instance -- this scene from the mural is interesting.   


This child is riding some kind of Salvador Dali inner tube contraption; note the wings on the child's back, and the giant hands holding the 'reins' of his plastic horse. Joe likes big hands in his artwork; the tiny feet and a small halo over his head. The entry in the book says of this section of the mural:

"Deidre brought her baby today. He's getting so big. He looks like his father, serious and sweet under a tangle of dark hair. I wheeled myself outside and watched as Deidre played with him in the water, making up a song as she did. "We live a garden life," she piped. "That's right, that's right, that's right." And the boy, my great-grandson, splashed, and I breathe in deep." The whole idea is magnificently fictitiously true.
It seems so clear to me now how one does not find truth or peace or god. One lives these things.
[Effie Leroux.  Diary entry: "July 21, 1950 (Oahu, Hawaii)": The Collected Diaries of Effie Leroux, Volume 16.




These two pictures from the mural were retrieved here.

Joe's other artistic endeavors include beings that are on the nightmare spectrum of creepily friendly. He's just downright awesome. You can read a more personalized article on Joe and his work in the AZ Daily Sun here.  If you find you'd like to explore more of his stuff, here's another sampling of the kind of art he does.
    


 


Friday, February 17, 2017

STOP CALLING FREE SPEECH DIVISIVE



Please do the world a favor. Stop calling free speech divisive. It is your political duty to speak freely. Free speech is, in fact, “indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” 


“Those who won our independence . . . believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.” — Lewis, Anthony (2007); Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: ‘A Biography of the First Amendment.’ 


It’s curious to me that people are tending to confuse those of us who speak out on social media against anarchism, destruction of property, bullying, looting, destruction and the hypocrisy of the political left, as politically divisive.  It seems that political correctness has tragically and permanently invaded the critical thinking process of most Americans.


It is astounding, really, how the Left has sent us into hiding simply on the grounds that their supposition that our freedom to speak openly leads to divisive and politically charged rhetoric. People are no longer able to stir up any passion within themselves to speak the truth in the face of deliberate fascist activities whose sole motives are to shut our freedoms down.


Some time ago now, in opposition to Milo Yiannopoulos’ scheduled speech on the UC-Berkeley campus, (he was never even allowed to speak), “violent left-wing protestors tore down barricades, lit fires, threw rocks, tore down light poles and threw Roman candles at the windows and breached the ground floor of the building” in protest against his mere presence on campus!! Police were called in to finally get the crowd under control.


If, in your lack of perception, you fail to see the seriousness of this ever increasing leftist agenda to silence free speech, which demonstrates virulent hatred at every opportunity, and you choose to say nothing anywhere against it for fear of being divisive or politically incorrect, please consider how obtuse your position is. 


Against all rational understanding possessed by political conservatives, the political left was demonstrating against someone who is closer to their own ideology than anyone on the political right: 


Yiannopoulos is an outspoken homosexual immigrant who is in a relationship with another (or possibly several) black homosexual(s); he is a Greek-born British journalist, author, entrepreneur, public speaker, and a technology editor for Breitbart News, a far-right news and opinion website based in the United States. It is insane that those on the political left were demonstrating against him simply because of his conservative views, including free speech!  You would think they’d show up in droves to approve of his lifestyle.


Kirsten Powers, once a Fox News contributor and USA Today columnist, says of the recent and growing tactics that amount to political bullying in the extreme, that the progressive Left’s persistent attempts to shut down free speech reeks of arrogance and essentially says “we will destroy you for having the nerve to think you can actually exercise your free speech rights.” 


Wake up people!  If your freedom to discuss your position (without the rancor, hostility, and the typical hateful names incessantly chosen by those on the political left, i.e., “Islamaphobe, racist, white supremacist, priviledged, intolerance,” ad infinitum … ) is getting shut down for fear of offending someone, it’s time to do a reality check. 


To those on the left, lying and dispelling misinformation, demonstrating for the purpose of destroying property and shutting down your Constitutional American privileges, is now fair game because the outcome is all that matters to them, not the means to the outcome. 


Their false claims of superior morality are foolish. The examples of their proclivity to engage at this level are myriad, and they have demonstrated this continuously since Trump’s election on every front conceivable, and all during Obama’s administration.  It is getting worse all the time. And now it’s time to abandon political correctness.


In order to even begin the discussion and stop the incessant hatred that the left espouses, we must recognize it, and confront the left with the reality of their basic untruthfulness and hypocrisy. Only then can any real hatred begin to be addressed and division stopped. Until that happens, the rioting, hatred and name calling will not stop.  Only in the confrontation of the blatant hypocrisy and falsehood will we have a chance of really being heard.  


Step up!! To say nothing for fear of “avoiding the confrontation because it might instigate more division,” is to be defeated by the hatred before the discussion about it can begin. 


To avoid the discussion and the confrontation up front means that in the mindset of the left, they have won, when in fact they have only increased the division and hostility.  



Wednesday, January 11, 2017

THE SID VICIOUS SPITTING SPECTACLE

Is rap the new punk?

When I go to the mall and I see middle-class white kids (MCWK) talking, smoking, tattooing, dressing, sagging, thinking (well, maybe not thinking ...), and attempting to mimic (start naming any rapper), I think: 


What is it about this whole 'rapper thing' that's appealing to the MCWK??  Why is their perception of the rap lifestyle so worthy of being glorified in their eyes? Then of course it doesn't take long to realize that's what we saw the MCWKs doing back in the 1980s; same problem then, different culture being emulated.


Rap reminds me of some wannabe societal drop-outs who seek to glorify themselves by pissing off whoever doesn't like rap. It's about trying to be 'King of the Mountain' in modern-day refuse dumps [where rats find different ways to steal each others trash]; it's about telling the story of being king where the only mountain to be king on is in a city that's mostly a refuse pile... and then coming up with lame lyrics to someone else's melody and changing the words to "Come on everybody, 'Let's Do This!'"  


Except, in a weird way, rappers are playing for keeps! I might add that in general, the 'King of the Refuse Pile' message of rap music (hip-hop -- whatever the current morph is), is remarkably appealing to the kids who are clueless about that culture.  And, I'm not sure what the attraction is to emulate a culture you are absolutely clueless about; except maybe to be the laughing stock of the culture you are emulating (in some strange karma world). 


Being attracted to a culture one is clueless about reminds me of a similar message handed out to a MCWK audience at the first (and last) punk concert I ever attended.  A rare moment in concert history, and indeed, one unlikely to be repeated.  What happened that night, (an annal in punk history), was truly a once-in-a-lifetime event, and the fact that no MCWK saw the absurdity in it all truly transcends its fascination for me. (For a better understanding of the punk culture read my post here).

   

Enter the Gang of Four, The Buzzcocks and a few other punk bands (that in terms of popularity were essentially 'go-nowheres').  There we were in Anaheim, California (late 1980’s?) at a nice indoor arena to review a punk concert.  The first 100 feet in front of the stage was the general-frenzy-pit-slamming-blood-bath-of-death-see-if-you-can-stay-alive area.  [I would have gone down but I didn't want to hurt any of the kids.  (Right!)].


Packed in front of the stage were myriads of MCWK ... AKA ‘teenagers.’  You know, “My daddy is President of P G and E; what does your daddy do?” “Oh, my daddy’s Vice Pres. of Continental Bank, etc.” All dressed up in their then MCWK clothes to see England's current touring punk band offerings.  


The Gang of Four come out and start playing through a few songs.  After a few minutes, you can tell the lead singer is somewhat distracted, but what from?  After a while you realize (from back in the seats when the lights are at the right angle) what is distracting him.  MCWKs in front of the stage are spitting huge honkers of snot and saliva at the lead singer.  You can see it sort of flying through the colored lights at him.  And I'm wondering, "Oh ...hey this looks like fun.  Boy I wish I was up there on stage partaking of this fantasy.  I wonder ... how long is this nonsense going to be tolerated?" 


After 10 minutes of this saliva frenzy, in a fit of absolute rage, the lead singer stops playing guitar and singing and curses at the top of his lungs into the microphone.  The rest of the group stops playing.  The lead singer is incredulous about it now.  All the front row MCWKs stop spitting as they stare in awestruck-wonder: Wow ... is it that they can't figure out why he's not into getting spit on? 


"What?  We can't participate?"  they're undoubtedly thinking? “Doesn't he know about Sid Vicious?"  "Isn't this a punk show?"  "Isn't spitting what punk is all about?"  And beautifully, poetically, majestically, the singer's rage building to a beautiful, artful, momentous rainbow of intellectual light, about to crescendo before their MCWK eyes ... (eyes that will never meet punk reality)! The guy slowly, painstakingly, meticulously goes into this acrid biting commentary about how stupid these MCWKs are because they've obviously missed everything about the "spitting" spectacle that made Sid so infamous because ... they can't get it.

 

Imagine: having to stop your punk show only to launch into a badly needed verbal spanking about the history of punk expectoration for a bunch of clueless teenagers … trying to help them to 'get it' in the middle of a song in the middle of a punk concert, in the middle of Middle Class Anaheim.  


"Sid and the guys are trapped by their circumstances see," he tries explaining, "bound to follow their father's empty and meaningless life of working in the coal mines in England because there's nothing else anyone can do there because there's no way out except to work in the mines." (Sort of like trying to be King of the Refuse Mountain in downtown Detroit in a weird kind of other-universe Twilight Zone way). 


"There's no other work.  There's no money.  You can't move away.  Poor isn't the adjective they use to describe their circumstances .... desolate is.  There's no hope for change.  It's always been the same.  It's one of those 'We're all gonna die, and we all know it it's pointless' scenarios, see? … it’s the pathetic wasted lives syndrome." 


He goes on.  "If your dad works in the coal mines, and you are his son, you are born to die in the coal mines.  Should you live long enough and actually survive the hellish work in the mines, you'll die slowly and painfully from lung cancer for sure." 


Only then does he unleash his poignant commentary about the spitting. “And so, you freaking sh%*heads, the spitting thing, is a commentary on the degrading environment and circumstances that desolate punks can't get away from.  Spitting is merely a self-prophesying commentary about the tragic life we are stuck in.  Spitting represents our deplorable situation.  It helps ease the total desperation.  And seeing as how none of you fu*king idiots are in that situation, why are you brainless snobs spitting?  WHY?  You couldn't be more 

clueless! You have every opportunity for success and wealth handed to you from the day you were born.  You couldn’t begin to get a freaking clue about the spitting!" 


And as he walks off the stage shaking his head in absolute disgust, the band follows him and they’re completely done dealing with the spitting spectacle.  (I can just see the headlines now in the London Times: "Punk artist walks off stage mid-concert during first world tour only to return to kick teen in the teeth for spitting on him!").  And I'm watching this with my friend and I'm asking him, "Did you just see what happened up there?” And he's saying, "Wow!  That was amazing."  And I said, "Can you believe what he just said?"  And he said, "It's too much satire on a pathetic situation.  Do you think they'll get it?"


A few minutes later The Buzzcocks come on stage and start  playing, and right away, you could see the honkers of snot flying through the colored lights at the lead singer.  


And tomorrow when I go to the mall, they're gonna be there all dressed up like rap stars too! And it's just gonna be another day when another valuable life lesson goes down the tubes ... ignored by all.  Uh--hu



Sid Vicious Image credit: http://duffmckaganissexy.blogspot.com/



Friday, March 21, 2014

POSERS AND A HISTORY OF PUNK EXPECTORATION



            The issue of authenticity has been an important aspect of true punk subculture, and none hold posers in higher disdain than punk rockers, whose every goal is to live an anti-establishment non-conformist, in-your-face, sometimes even violent, lifestyle in opposition to established norms. Among punk rockers, the pejorative term "poser" has been applied to those who associate only superficially with the openly rebellious punk lifestyle. Posers adopt the superficial stylistic and fashionable attributes of punk life, like Mohawk haircuts, leather jackets, sneakers, torn clothing, chains and jewelry, while not sharing or understanding any of the real underlying values or philosophy behind punk music.[1]  

            Punk musicians mostly grew up impoverished with limited resources.  Sporting few musical toys and gadgets, they were thoroughly into "out of the box" experimenting with musical sound, melody and intonation, using only the basic instrumentation available to them. Punkers are essentially disinterested in the commercial success of glam rockers and the like, seeking instead an individuality which would promote their political and anti-social views at any cost.  

            For many punk musicians music served as a platform to articulate their dissatisfaction more than an avenue to demonstrate their musical talents.  Many punk musicians were not musically trained because they believed training discouraged creativity, which they preferred over performance accuracy. Also, punk music seemed to welcome spontaneity in the studio and on stage, leading to frequent errors and disharmony. Careful observation and critical listening then were naturally given a back seat to simply trusting one's ideas and freedom of expression "in the moment." 

            All of punk music was influenced by an outright desire of the musicians to break away from the corruption of professionalism, phoniness, and the stylish pretense of the rich and proper. As one writer suggested, the effect of punk music was a blatant “giving the middle finger to the established rulers of society” by breaking away from the social behavior of civility and authority with an in-your-face rejection of their lifestyle: this was the purpose of punk music in a nutshell.  One web site put it this way: "In London, punk was about openly rebelling against a very entrenched class system. The brighter, bolder, and more shocking the clothing, the more of a disturbance it made, the better.”  Examples of punk-in-your-face fashion extremes abound; some bolder examples included T-shirts from a store called SEX (where Sid Vicious and the Sex Pistols name originated) with designs "that incorporated the notorious serial killer known as the Cambridge Rapist; Mickey and Minnie Mouse having sex; cowboys [exposing themselves]; and a portrait of Queen Elizabeth [pierced] with a safety pin through her lip. These T-shirts and the styles that they spawned were meant to shock and disturb—and they were definitely successful.”[2]

            The next time you’re in a mall, take a moment to check out the talking, tattooing, piercing and fashion … the posing of middle-class white kids (MCWK) … and ask yourself a question: What is it about this whole 'poser' scene that appeals to the middle class white kid? What is it about the lifestyle of musicians that compels young people to mimic their fashion, customs, language, attitudes and feelings, while missing the real underlying values that they strive to articulate? In light of how clueless young people usually are about the people they've come to idolize, why do they try so hard to imitate only the superficial about them?

            My one and only lesson in punk culture was birthed in Anaheim, California in the early 1980’s, at a nice indoor arena. To describe that night as a rare moment in concert history and indeed, one unlikely to be repeated ever again in the annals of punk lore, would be an understatement.  But the fact that few in attendance that night saw the poignant absurdity in what transpired truly transcends the evening’s fascination for me.  Packed in ecstatic anticipation in front of the stage were myriads of MCWK ... Some of Southern California’s wealthiest ‘teenagers.’  You'd recognize the type immediately: “My daddy is President of PG&E; what does your daddy do?” “Oh, my daddy’s Vice Pres. of Continental Bank, etc.” All decked out in their theatrical and flamboyant poser-punk clothes to worship England's current punk band offerings.

            That night featured the Gang of Four, the Clash and the Buzzcocks, and a few other punk bands whose names I can’t recall. From where I was sitting, the first forty feet in front of the stage had been relegated as the general-frenzy-pit-slamming-see-if-you-can-stay-alive mosh-pit area.  [I would have gone down there but I didn't want to hurt any of the kids].

            Enter the opening British post-punk band The Gang of Four, who come out and start playing through a few songs. You can tell Andy Gill (lead singer) is somewhat distracted, but about what?  After a while I realized that (from the safe seats, when the lights are at the right angle), MCWK in front of the stage are spitting huge honkers of snot and saliva projectiles at him. You can see it sort of spraying through the colored lights at him.  And I'm wondering, "How long is this nonsense going to be tolerated?" After 10 minutes of this saliva spewing frenzy, in a fit of absolute rage, the singer stops singing and curses at the top of his lungs into the microphone. The rest of the group slams on its musical brakes.

            The lead singer is incredulous about it; he looks like he might blow a gasket. (I can just see the headlines in the London Times: "Punk artist kicks Anaheim-teen in the teeth for spitting on him during first US tour!").  For a moment, all the front row MCWK stop spitting as they stare in awestruck-wonder at the singer, and I realized: They can't figure out why he's not into getting spit on!  "What? We can't participate," they're undoubtedly thinking? “Doesn't he know about Sid Vicious? Isn't this a punk show? Isn't spitting what punk is all about?"

            And beautifully, poetically, majestically, the singer's rage begins to build to a beautiful, artful, momentous rainbow of intellectual light; a light of reason longing to crescendo before their very eyes, eyes that will only be blinded by it.  Slowly, painstakingly, meticulously, the singer goes into this acrid, biting commentary about how these kids have obviously missed everything about the "spitting" spectacle that made Sid so infamous.  They get what is superfluous about punk music, but nothing more, because they can't get it.  Imagine the irony: having to stop your punk show only to launch into a verbal spanking about the history of punk expectoration; trying to help them to 'get it' in the middle of a song in the middle of a punk concert in the middle of a punk band tour in the middle of MCWK Anaheim, California.

            "Sid and the guys feel trapped by their circumstances see," he tries explaining, "bound to follow their father's empty and meaningless lives of selling out to the drudgery of work in England because there's nothing else anyone can do there because there's no way out except to do what everyone else does. There's no money. You can't move away. Poor isn't the adjective they use to describe their circumstances; desolate is. There's no hope for change.  It's always been the same. It's one of those utterly degrading scenarios, see?” Only then does he unleash his poignant commentary about the spitting. “And so, you posers, the spitting thing, is a commentary on the degrading environment and circumstances that desolate punks can't get away from. Spitting is merely a self-prophesying commentary about the tragic life we’re stuck in. Spitting represents our deplorable situation. It helps ease the total desperation of living a pointless life.”

            “And seeing as how none of you are in that situation, why are you spitting? WHY? You couldn't be more clueless! You have every opportunity for success and wealth handed to you from the day you were born. You couldn’t begin to get a freaking clue about the spitting!" And as he walks off the stage shaking his head in absolute disgust, the band follows him and they’re completely done dealing with the spitting spectacle. A few minutes later The Buzzcocks come on stage and start playing, and right away, you could see the honkers of snot flying through the colored lights at the lead singer. And it's just another day in poser heaven.


[1] WIKIPEDIA. ‘Punk Subculture.’June 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_subculture  March 15, 2014.

[2] James Harris. “29 Things You Didn’t Know About Punk Style.” COMPLEX STYLE. May 6, 2013. http://www.complex.com/style/2013/04/29-things-you-didnt-know-about-punk-style/mclaren-westwood-infamous-t-shirts  March 15, 2014.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

The Sermon on the Mount: Law or Gospel?


You've heard the expression, "The devil is in the details?" When people say this they mean that small things in plans and schemes that are often overlooked can cause serious problems later on. Some have suggested that this idiomatic phrase was derived from the supposed original statement that "God is in the detail." The truth in either idiom is the same however: details, sometimes even small ones, are important! It's the small details of something which can often muddle or confuse someone's judgment about something very important.

This is especially true in theology I think. When it comes to interpreting the Bible in preparation for preaching, unfortunately, I've discovered that the failure to be attentive to seemingly small details in a passage can derail an entire sermon. Clearly, even missing the detail of a single verse in your sermon could have a drastic outcome in the perception by the congregation of your interpretation not only on the passage you are preaching from, but on your entire take on the Gospel!

I recently heard a sermon where the pastor interpreted Matthew 5:48 in such a way that it suggested that he was at least confused about whether the Sermon on the Mount as a whole was to be understood as being in reference to the Law or the Gospel. This confusion occurs frequently enough I suppose, but it is alarming none the less because it means that as a church body we generally do not have any foundation regarding the necessity of clarifying this distinction between Law and Gospel.


Fleshing out the Necessity of Making this Distinction


We live in a day when few professing Christians bother to seek to understand either the law or the gospel as they were intended to be understood, much less their relationship to each other.

This distinction that the theologians of old were convinced needed to be clarified in preaching was that the Law condemns, threatens, and brings no good will to men; and the Gospel gives life where the Law brings death. This must be communicated clearly in a sermon otherwise the hearer fails to find the wrath and condemnation of the Law, which is intended to drive him to Christ; nor do they find the mercy and grace in the Gospel. If the Sermon on the Mount is an exposition of the seriousness and inescapability of the condemnation of God's law, then it must not be suggested that anyone can be perfectly obedient to it as it requires; or that Christ was suggesting that anyone could obey it as it was intended to be obeyed when He said in Matthew 5:48, "Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

Just as God is perfect, just, good, unchanging, etc., the same is true of His law -- it is a perfect, unchanging expression of His character.  There is a universal application of God's law too.  It refers to all people, of all nations and all ages.   
Jeremiah 6:19; Romans 3:19; Leviticus 24:22; Psalm 47:2-9. 

Another aspect of the law is its universality.  There isn't more than one standard for obedience.  The law that was revealed to Moses is Christ's law.  It didn't originate with Moses. It was God's law revealed to him:
God's law (Jeremiah 31:33) =
the law of Christ (Matthew 5:17) =
the law of Moses (10 Commandments Deuteronomy 4:13)


John Murray said

"The law is the moral perfection of God coming to expression for the regulation of life and conduct."

In The Life of St. Paul, James Stalker writes

The law has no creative power to make the carnal spiritual. It cannot change an unrighteous heart into a righteous one. The purpose of the law is rather to aggravate the evil; it multiplies offenses. It is fully able to describe the sins of human nature, but rather than serving as a roadmap to avoid them, the Law turns into the temptation to sin.

The whole history before Christ could aptly be described as God allowing time to prove that fallen man could never reach righteousness by his own efforts, and when He had demonstrated that man’s righteousness was a complete failure – He brought in His secret weapon: The righteousness of God.

This is Christianity. This was the sum of Christ and His mission – the conferring upon man as a free gift, of that which is indispensable to his blessedness, but which he himself had failed to obtain by the keeping of the law. It is a divine act; it is grace; and man obtains it only by acknowledging that he has failed himself to attain it and by accepting it from God; it is got by faith only. It is “the righteousness of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon them that believe.”  The law was no part of salvation. It belonged entirely to the preliminary demonstration of man’s failure .

Martin Luther said that the law ought never to be preached apart from the Gospel, and the Gospel ought never to be preached apart from the law.

"If any man be not a murderer, an adulterer, a thief and outwardly refrain from sin, he will swear that he is righteous and presume on his good works and merits.  Such a one God cannot otherwise mollify and humble, that he may acknowledge his misery and his damnation but by the law; for that is the hammer of death and the thundering of hell and the lightening of God's wrath to beat to powder obstinate and senseless hypocrites."
[Grace in Galatians, Rev. George Bishop, 1912, p. 52]

William Perkins explains how confusion stems from a failure to distinguish whether or not a passage is speaking about the Law or the Gospel:

The basic principle in application is to know whether the passage is a statement of the law or of the gospel. For when the Word is preached, the law and the gospel operate differently. The law exposes the disease of sin, and as a side-effect, stimulates and stirs it up. But it provides no remedy for it…. A statement of the law indicates the need for a perfect inherent righteousness, of eternal life given through the works of the law, of the sins which are contrary to the law and of the curse that is due them….

By contrast, a statement of the gospel speaks of Christ and his benefits, and of faith being fruitful in good works.… The Law is, therefore, first in order of teaching; then comes the gospel. [William Perkins, The Art of Prophesying (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1996), 54.]

Theodore Beza said the same:

We divide this Word into two principal parts or kinds: the one is called the ‘Law,’ the other the ‘Gospel.’ For all the rest can be gathered under the one or other of these two headings… "'The Law'" is written by nature in our hearts," while "What we call the Gospel (Good News) is a doctrine which is not at all in us by nature, but which is revealed from Heaven (Mt. 16:17; John 1:13)." "The Law leads us to Christ in the Gospel by condemning us and causing us to despair of our own 'righteousness.' Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel," Beza wrote, "is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity." [Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, trans. by James Clark (Focus Christian Ministries Trust, 1992), 40-1. Published first at Geneva in 1558 as the Confession de foi du chretien].

Calvin also discussed this issue, showing us why we needed to understand which one was being brought forth in God's revelation:

...[For] the law cannot do anything else than to accuse and blame all to a man, to convict, and, as it were, apprehend them; in fine, to condemn them in God's judgment: that God alone may justify, that all flesh may keep silence before him." [Calvin, 2.7.5 -1536 Institutes, tr. by F. L. Battles (Eerdmans, 1975), 30-1; cf. 1559 Institutes 2.11.10].

"Thus," Calvin observes, "Rome could only see the Gospel as that which enables believers to become righteous by obedience and that which is 'a compensation for their lack,' not realizing that the Law requires perfection, not approximation.” [Calvin, 1559 Institutes 3.14.13, italics mine].

Therefore, the Gospel is the message, the salvation-bringing proclamation concerning Christ that he was sent by God the Father...to procure eternal life. The Law is contained in precepts, it threatens, it burdens, it promises no goodwill. The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. Let whoever therefore is desirous of having a plain and honest understanding of the Gospel, test everything by the above descriptions of the Law and the Gospel. Those who do not follow this method of treatment will never be adequately versed in the Philosophy of Christ. [Battles edition of 1536 edition, op. cit., 365. Delivered by Nicolas Cop on his assumption of the rectorship of the University of Paris; there is a wide consensus among Calvin scholars that Calvin was the author].

Ursinus, primary author of the Heidelberg Catechism, said that

the Law-Gospel distinction has "comprehended the sum and substance of the sacred Scriptures," are "the chief and general divisions of the Holy Scriptures, and comprise the entire doctrine comprehended therein." [Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (Presbyterian and Reformed, from Second American Edition, 1852), p. 2.]

Louis Berkoff stated that this distinction is not merely to be understood as being in either one or the other of the testaments either:

The Churches of the Reformation from the very beginning distinguished between the law and the gospel as the two parts of the Word of God as a means of grace. This distinction was not understood to be identical with that between the Old and the New Testament, but was regarded as a distinction that applies to both Testaments. There is law and gospel in the Old Testament, and there is law and gospel in the New. The law comprises everything in Scripture which is a revelation of God’s will in the form of command or prohibition, while the gospel embraces everything, whether it be in the Old Testament or in the New, that pertains to the work of reconciliation and that proclaims the seeking and redeeming love of God in Christ Jesus.

Let me conclude this section with some observances that the Rev. George Bishop makes in his commentary on Galatians regarding the purpose of the law:

 = The law has its place, (if a man uses it lawfully -- i.e., according to its proper design and intention) although it cannot save or help to save any man…

= The law serves the necessary purpose of showing what sin is, and the impossibility of fallen man's obedience.  It was added … in order to bring sin to light and [severely and well-deservedly] condemn it.

= …the harder [man] works for salvation, the more surely he damns himself.  The law then comes in like a hammer and knocks this snake on its head … the law smites the doer of the law for righteousness whether it be doing in whole or in part.

= The law locks the door on the sinner; Christ unlocks the door and sets it wide open. 

= This is how a man becomes a child of God -- not by keeping the law, nor by trying to keep it, but by simply believing on Christ. (pgs. 49-55)

Though the Reformers were most careful to clarify and make this distinction in their preaching, this is by no means critical only if one is interested in Scripture from a Reformed perspective. This does add credence to the argument however, that in general, Reformed theologians are more careful in their understanding of theology with respect to a systematic approach to the Bible. Making this distinction is hard work, and can be easily overlooked by beginner theologians, more so by beginning Christians.

The Verse  in Question


Why is Christ's first recorded sermon characterized by Law and not by grace? Why are the themes of God's mercy, lovingkindness, longsuffering, compassion and grace absent from the Sermon on the Mount?  Why isn't there even a thread of explanation of grace?

Because you need to know that God requires absolute perfect obedience to His law, and that you are utterly incapable of accomplishing that before you can ever understand the extent and the need for His grace.

The passage in question was Matthew 5:17-48.  The verse in question is Matthew 5:48: "Therefore, you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." In the context of the entire passage of the Sermon, should this verse be understood as Jesus speaking about the absolute condemnation inherent in the Law?  Or should it be understood as explaining the grace of the Gospel?

Charles Erdman, in his Commentary on Matthew, wrote

"The Sermon sets forth the fundamental laws of the Kingdom … and it fills the heart of the hearer with bewilderment and despair.  It reveals a divine ideal and a perfect standard of conduct by which all men are condemned as sinful and to which men can attain only by divine help … Its theme is the righteousness which the King requires.

A little homework about how many modern scholars interpret the Sermon on the Mount shows that most don't see any reference to the Gospel in it at all! Though Bill Bright's conclusions and perspectives are Dispensational leaning, I do believe the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ has addressed the interpretational problem correctly by noting that the Sermon on the Mount is devoid of grace!

“It could not be that Christ was addressing the Christian Church in the Sermon on the Mount ... There is nothing about the Holy Spirit, our position in Christ, [or] redemption through the blood of Christ in this sermon ... As a way of salvation it is useless.... It is legal, not gracious in character, and is full of judgments and threats (Matthew 5:22-29).  It offers no salvation to any man.  The non-Christian world, which so admires this sermon, is condemned to hell by it.  As a way of sanctification it is useless.... the motive is fear, not love.... The way of grace is not here.”

I would contend that his comment that 'As a way of salvation it is useless' is perhaps shortsighted. It might be better to say that without a proper grasp of the severity of the law as it is expressed in the Sermon on the Mount, there can be no sense of one's need to run to Christ for salvation. So the Sermon in itself is useless to save, unless it is seen as the catalyst for man to see his complete failure to observe the perfect requirements of the law and seek salvation in Christ alone. This is why it is critical to keep a proper perspective on the intent of the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount.

It appears that the Pharisees Jesus was referring to were thinking that the Law wasn't that hard to keep. All you had to do was not commit adultery, for instance, and you had kept that aspect of the law. But Christ shows us clearly that the intent of the law was much more serious. Its intent was to show you that you couldn't keep it! If you had lustful thoughts in your heart for a woman, you had already committed adultery with her. It wasn't about whether or not you could get close to keeping the law either, and yet still be righteous.

The purpose of Christ’s comments about the Law in the Sermon on the Mount is to show us our inability to keep the Law perfectly, with the intention of having us flee to the mercy of Christ as Savior. For a pastor to conclude his sermon on this passage by suggesting that Christ's last comment in this section (5:48) was a plea for us to radically obey the Law, by saying, “In what way should we imitate God? Radical obedience to the law and loving others," clearly suggests that he missed making this important distinction.

The issue that Jesus was demonstrating in his discussion of the law in the Sermon on the Mount was that it is impossible to keep the law, regardless if you were attempting to keep it in a Pharisaical way, or as a believer. This is why I am suggesting that Jesus' remark "You shall be perfect just as your heavenly Father in heaven is perfect" is not a command for us be more obedient, but rather, the final nail in our coffin of self righteousness delineating our condemnation that the law presents.

Jesus concluded this section of the Sermon with the words "Therefore, you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect." The pastor said that verse meant, "Do what God does; act like God acts; live like God lives; imitate his character – Be like your Father." In other words, he was suggesting that Jesus was commanding that the hearer actually be perfect in his actions as God is perfect!  Now if that were possible, one certainly would not need Christ or the mercy found in Him alone.

I believe Jesus was actually driving a nail into anyone's self-righteous coffin with this statement! He is actually saying that the Law demands complete perfection -- and therefore, it is absolutely impossible for anyone to fulfill it by any human effort! If this is what Jesus meant, one can only wonder why the pastor would have said it means "Do what God does; act like God acts; live like God lives; imitate his character – Be like your Father." This interpretation, it seems, is simply a moralistic platitude.

Granted, it isn't often that we hear pastors in evangelical churches make statements like this. An ex-Mormon who heard this sermon was deeply troubled by this pastor's take on this verse -- and rightly so. Taken at its face value, she thought his statement was about as close to Mormon doctrine as one can get. After all, Mormon doctrine would interpret this verse just like this based on their understanding of theology!

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)

"Christ [Was] Not Begotten of [the] Holy Ghost ...Christ was begotten of God. He was not born without the aid of Man, and that Man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, by Joseph Fielding Smith, 1954, 1:18).

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

Some Mormons may disagree with a few of the points listed on this page, but all of what is stated here is from Mormon authors in good standing with the Mormon church.


Now please understand that I am not suggesting that this pastor intentionally meant to teach a doctrine anything like the Mormon doctrine of man becoming God. It just so happened, that his interpretation at this point was virtually identical to Mormon doctrine. What I am saying is that his presentation was unclear enough to suggest that he at least inadvertently misrepresented Matthew's intent with his interpretation because of his failure to make the distinction between the Law and the Gospel. Hence, the importance of clearly defining how we understand the law/gospel distinction in our sermons. For an ex-Mormon to walk away from this sermon not knowing what the pastor intended to mean is at least poor communication.

What about Obedience?


Part of the distinction we are talking about also means that we are not suggesting that the Law has no significance in the life of the Christian believer any longer either. It is critical to remember that even Christian so called 'obedience' to the law is sinful and imperfect. It is not that the Law should now be ignored (antinomianism), or that it should become our means of salvation (legalism), but rather that it becomes the Christian's guide to understanding the will of God.

… the unparalleled tendency of the historic Reformed faith [is] to ground its adherents in the vast and glorious freedom of the Gospel, and always in such a way as not to minimize a life of practical holiness, but rather to excite and encourage true piety and devotion [due to the grace received in the Gospel] http://www.reformedbooks.net/review_lawgospel.php.

Michael Horton wrote that

we often hear calls to "live the Gospel," and yet, nowhere in Scripture are we called to "live the Gospel." Instead, we are told to believe the Gospel and obey the Law, receiving God's favor from the one and God's guidance from the other. The Gospel--or Good News--is not that God will help us achieve his favor with his help, but that someone else lived the Law in our place and fulfilled all righteousness [The Law & the Gospel, Michael S. Horton, Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 1996].

Horton further clarifies the need to be most careful in our explanation:

Does that mean that the Word of God does not command our obedience or that such obedience is optional? Certainly not! But it does mean that obedience must not be confused with the Gospel. Our best obedience is corrupted, so how could that be good news? The Gospel is that Christ was crucified for our sins and was raised for our justification. The Gospel produces new life, new experiences, and a new obedience, but too often we confuse the fruit or effects with the Gospel itself.

While the Law must be preached as divine instruction for the Christian life, it must never be used to shake believers from the confidence that Christ is their "righteousness, holiness and redemption" (1 Cor. 1:30). In fact Calvin took this thought even farther by writing that

The logical consequence of [the] doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is that never, not even after the remission of our sins, are we really righteous. On the contrary, we have noted that the sanctification which accompanies justification, or at least begins with it, enables us to become precisely more and more aware of our sin [Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of his Religious Thought, translated by Philip Mairet, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1950), 258-259].

Calvin says the same thing here as well:

For, inasmuch as these two things are very different, we must rightly and conscientiously distinguish them. The whole life of Christians ought to be a sort of practice of godliness, for we have been called to sanctification. Here it is the function of the law, by warning men of their duty, to arouse them to a zeal for holiness and innocence. But where consciences are worried how to render God favorable, what they will reply, and with what assurance they will stand should they be called to his judgment, there we are not to reckon what the law requires, but Christ alone, who surpasses all perfection of the law, must be set forth as [our] righteousness. [Calvin, Institutes, 3.11.18]

The believer goes to the Law and loves that Law for its divine wisdom, for it reveals the will of the One to whom we are now reconciled by the Gospel. But the believer cannot find pardon, mercy, victory, or even the power to obey it, by going to the Law itself any more after his conversion than before. It is still always the Law that commands and the Gospel that gives. This is why every sermon must be carefully crafted on this foundational distinction.

 Jesus was putting the final nail in the coffin of our doom with this statement in 5:48 by meaning that all of us are subjected to the death, condemnation and misery inherent in the severity of God's law, which he just articulated in the Sermon on the Mount in 5:17-48.  Didn't Jesus mean that thinking we have somehow kept the Ten Commandments means that there can be no escaping His judgment?

The pastor's comment then that “The intent of the law is to bring life,” at the close of the sermon, clearly reveals a failure to understand this distinction between gospel and law. In 2 Corinthians 3:7 it is clarified that the Ten Commandments are the ministry of death, not life, as this pastor said.

This particular exposition of Second Corinthians 3:2-18 clarifies this.

"The law is literal, it rests on written documents … and what is spiritual is the Gospel…. The Apostle says he is drawing a parallel … between the law of Moses and the Gospel of Christ. The former 'kills,' inasmuch as it denounces death without hope on all who disobey it; … the spiritual system of the Gospel brings life and immortality to light, and affords the means of salvation, it imparts life, new life, by the Holy Spirit… [Law and grace] are contrasted as to their tendency: that of the Law was punishment: that of the Gospel was reformation, rather than punishment; salvation rather than condemnation." [Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, The Greek Testament with Notes, vol. ii, 186].

In summary then we must note what the failure to clearly make this distinction implies:

“The law and the gospel are the principal parts of divine revelation; or rather they are the center, sum, and substance of all the other parts of it. Every passage of sacred Scripture is either law or gospel, or is capable of being referred either to the one or to the other . . . If then a man cannot distinguish aright between the law and the gospel, he cannot rightly understand so much as a single article of divine truth. If he does not have spiritual and just apprehensions of the holy law, he cannot have spiritual and transforming discoveries of the glorious gospel; and, on the other hand, if his view of the gospel is erroneous, his notions of the law cannot be right.” —John Colquhoun


There is an excellent book on this topic called A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, John Colquhoun, ed. Rev. Don Kistler (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1999) that is well worth the time to read.

The Veridic Gardens of Effie Leroux - Flagstaff, AZ.

So we're vacationing in Arizona for a week or so, and visiting the big spots: Wickenberg, Gilbert (not so big really but where ...