Clarence Bauman, The Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for its Meaning (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1985).
Reflective Review by Brad Jersak
Introduction
In recent months I have been saturating myself in the Red Letters of my Bible. The words, the teachings, the sermons of Jesus have confronted me afresh with the hard truth that to a great degree, I do not actually believe what Christ believed or live according to the Way he prescribed. As I zoom in and focus on the Sermon on the Mount (and esp. the Beatitudes)—not merely as a code of conduct, but as a description of the Christian life—I find that the pursuit of such a life is in fact frowned upon as either impractical or even legalistic by many of our evangelical theologians and pastors.
Moreover, I’ve noticed that select teachings of the Apostle Paul are frequently used to sidestep or outright negate the teachings of Jesus in tragically ingenious ways. Meanwhile, I am increasingly convinced that Jesus’ invitation to follow him in the narrow way of the kingdom is not merely rhetorical but rather, demands a serious response from those who would confess him as Lord. Warnings about Paul’s frustration or Tolstoy’s madness notwithstanding, I’ve been lamenting evangelicalism’s radical departure from the actual teachings of Christ in favour of a theology about Christ that allows us to ignore him.
Bauman’s Diagnosis
In the course of my lament, along comes the late Clarence Bauman, an Anabaptist theologian whose book I will reflect on here. He wrote The Sermon on the Mount: The Modern Quest for its Meaning from the quietness of a mountain hermitage just north of Hope, BC in the years leading up to his passing. He also observed the church’s marginalization of “the Red Letters” and wrestled through this issue thoroughly. In his prolific but careful reading of how the great theologians since Tolstoy have interpreted Christ’s message, Bauman offers us clear and fair reviews, including many illustrative citations from each of their works. I believe that none of those he covered, from Schweitzer to Bonhoeffer to Thurneyson et al could have objected that he misrepresented them, even in the face of some of his scathing critique:
With astounding ingenuity Christendom developed an amazing variety of hermeneutical reasons why one could not or should not obey the commandments of Jesus. Though an analysis of these various views reveals profound elements of truth in each, most of them nevertheless appear to imply (1) that either Jesus did not mean what he said or did not say what he meant or (2) that what he said applied either to a different time than now or in a different way than then… (418)
All eloquence has been commanded to establish the infinite worth, eternal validity, and universal relevance of Jesus’ unfathomable precepts on the subtle supposition that his intention could never have been to legislate so deliberately, prescribe so pedantically, or demand so legalistically as to imply that the actual cases of prohibiting anger, lust, divorce, retaliation, and war should or could be taken literally… This sophistical comedy perpetuates itself in virtually a thousand commentaries whose function it is to explain by the arts of theological science why the plain words of Jesus mean the opposite of what they say. And this is called interpretation and passes for hermeneutical learning. (419-420)
This resonated deeply in a way that drove me back to the words of Christ. What if he meant what he said? What would “follow me” imply for me, for my family, for my church? Jesus seemed to truly believe in what he was saying and he seemed to recognize his disciples as those who heard his words and obeyed them… as if this were a real and required possibility. A merely forensic or positional righteousness is nowhere on his grid; he calls us to the Cross of lived righteousness—empowered by grace to walk with him and like him. Bauman argues that our failure to obey the Sermon on the Mount is no proof that it was not to be taken seriously. Instead, we should hear Christ anew, exhorting us to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Bauman’s contribution
As Bauman’s thought has done its work in my heart and mind, it’s obvious to me that he has gone well beyond reviewing 150 years of theology by his peers. He brings some important offerings to the table in his own right. I would like to reflect on four of them:
1. The call to take Jesus seriously contra the use and abuse of Paul to trump him.
Bauman’s survey of the modern quest to understand the Sermon shows us a history of theological erasure throughout the literature. He draws together summaries and quotations that illustrate this negation. Three examples suffice to make the point:
Eduard Thurneysen: Not only are unable to do what Jesus said, but we are not even invited to do what Jesus did. For those who nevertheless seek to follow Jesus is only a curse and despair. What matters is not our obedience but that of Christ who did everything "for" us... Even apparently obvious texts such as "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord' and do not what I tell you," imply that what Jesus demands is not "deeds" but only "the right confession" since whatever needed to be done Jesus did in his atoning work. (275)
Martin Luther: We are still sinners ‘even in the best life,' so let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world's standards in every sphere of life and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin. That was the heresy of the enthusiasts, the Anabaptists, and their kind. Let the Christ... not attempt to erect a new religion of the letter by endeavouring to live a life of obedience to the commandments of Jesus Christ! (252)
Carl Stange: [Christ's] teaching about the ideal... only serves to make plain the reprehensibility of the human condition... The meaning of the moral demand [i.e. Sermon on the Mount] is not that it gives us the power for the good but rather that it shows us our impotence for the good... when we say that we are sinners, we mean that we are fundamentally separated from the good and that no exertion of our will can overcome this condition... the Christian distinguishes himself from the non-Christian not in being free from all sin but in acknowledging his sin. (180)
Personally, I see Protestant exegesis since Luther and Calvin as reading the Gospel imperatives through the despairing lens of Roman 7. The revelation of early Romans ("there is none righteous, no not one") and the frustration of Romans 7, ("the good that I would, i do not"… as in "cannot") are treated as the fundamental condition of humanity even after we believe in the gospel. The alleged impossibility of obedience suggests that we read the Sermon on the Mount as rhetorical; it is a tutor of law that teaches us to despair of self-righteousness and look to the Saviour for mercy… rather than something to be obeyed. Thus, the commands of Christ are treated as pre-Cross Laws—Jesus is speaking while under the Old Covenant (?)—and are thus trumped by the Gospel of Grace which demands faith, not obedience. In fact, the call to obey Christ brings one under the charge of legalism in some circles.
Bauman’s response begins with a retreat to the words of Christ who explicitly addressed the issue, as if anticipating it. Jesus said:
Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?”
Matthew 7:24-27 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commandments.”
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
Jesus is not describing frenetic busyness or legalistic self-righteousness; he wants and commands love-led obedience. Far from being rooted in soul-strength, Bauman cites Joachim Jeremias who retorts:
The Sermon on the Mount is not a Law which leaves man to rely upon his own strength... but Gospel which brings man before the gift of God and challenges him really to make the inexpressible gift of God the basis for his life. The Sermon on the Mount is ‘lived faith.’ (295)
and
These sayings of Jesus delineate the lived faith. They say: You are forgiven; you are a child of God; you belong to his kingdom. The sun of righteousness has risen over your life. You no longer belong to yourself; rather, you belong to the city of God, the light of which shines in the darkness. Now you may also experience it: out of the thankfulness of a redeemed child of God a new life is growing. That is the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. (294)
This feels like someone who kept reading Romans into the promised empowerment of the Spirit in chapter eight. Christ does not live righteously instead of us; he lives the divine life of love in and through us. In this way, even Paul could exhort us to be imitators of Christ’s life, not just admirers of it or passive believers in it.
2. Continuity: Christ’s interpretation of the Law versus the abolition of the Law.
I need to spend more time meditating on Bauman’s presentation of the continuity of between Christ and Moses and specifically the Sinai Decalogue and the Sermon on the Mount. Until now, I held to a strong theology of discontinuity when it comes to Christ and the Law. I leaned heavily on verses that stress that the Old Covenant is replaced by a New Covenant:
- Romans 10:4 - “Christ is the end [telos! = fulfillment] of the Law.”
- Colossians 2:14 - “blotting out” and “taking away” the written code and “nailing it to the Cross.”
- Ephesians 2:15 – “repealing” or “abolishing” the law code / commandments / ordinances.
Bauman reopens that discussion, recalling Jesus’ statement—one that I confess troubles me as I lounge in the grace of Galatians 3:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20 KJV)
Bauman suggests that rather than replacing the law, Jesus is giving the definitive interpretation of the law, radicalizing it by internalizing it (as per Jeremiah 31-33)… taking it deeper and writing it on our hearts by his Spirit (whereas I had believed that he was completely replacing the Law with the Spirit as per my understanding of Gordon Fee in God’s Empowering Spirit). This signals a greater continuity between the Testaments with Christ as both mediator of the New Covenant AND interpreter of the Old. Rather than simply replacing Sinai, Bauman argues that the Sermon on the Mount fulfills Sinai’s intent:
The
pentateuchal motifs in Matthew present Jesus in a positive relation to
Moses. The parallels in setting and content between the Sermon on the
Mount and the Decalogue portray Jesus as the messianic fulfillment of
the Mosaic prototype. The ‘new Moses’ is not opposed to his forerunner
and his demands are not antithetical to the commandments from Sinai.
This Mosaic typology is meant to confirm the mountain teaching of Jesus
from the perspective of Sinai. Mosaic categories are transcended in
that the Messianic Torah reflects the personal authority of the Lord
Messiah (Matt. 7:24,28), whose call to faith is at once an invitation
to Nachfolge Christi
[to emulate Christ] and whose instruction in righteousness is training in imitatio Christi 
[to imitate Christ]”
(384).
On first reading, this seems right to me… the Holy Spirit was not sent as a replacement for the Law, but as the One who would write the Law on our hearts. The implications are huge to both my own theology and to my understanding of so many of Paul’s texts. In fact, this is exactly the point: the words of Christ ought to be our non-negotiable foundation. Our commitment to Jesus’ message should not budge, even if it means having to re-read the Epistles and develop new schemes for interpreting the Apostle Paul’s letters. Unfortunately, this is most troubling to those conservative evangelicals who become so thoroughly Pauline theologically that such basic Gospel themes as “entering the kingdom” become either expendable or reduced to sinners prayers or millennialist novels. The greatest Anabaptist contribution is that it put Christ back at the apex of revelation and his words as the final filter for the whole of Scripture. I.e. in the scheme of progressive revelation, Jesus gets the last word regardless of chronology… the rest is commentary.
Back to Matthew 5-7: additionally, Bauman believes that the righteousness that exceeds the Pharisees is not only internalizing the law or radicalizing it (extending murder to include hate or adultery to include lust); we also exceed the Pharisees by actually obeying. Period. He says that contra Romans 7, neither the commandments of Christ nor the OT Decalogue are impossible or too difficult to bear and obey. Deuteronomy 30 tells us that they are not beyond our reach; they are life to the soul. Psalm 119 tells us that obeying them is a delight, a wellspring of life, and a reliable guide to our path. Jesus’ commandments are a light yoke and an easy burden, asking us simply to live in love. Obedience is an act of love and worship, not an impracticable drudgery. True, loving obedience sometimes feels like a cross… but it’s a cross that the Lord has called us to take up as we follow him. Finally, we exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees when we obey from a heart of love rather than from sheer duty or in order to feed my ego or reputation.
3. The cost of discipleship in Bonheoffer’s journey.
With regard to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Bauman declares that “The Cost of Discipleship (1935-37) may prove to be the most provocative and controversial treatise on the subject in our time. The book… was inspired by the prophetic conviction that the dividing line between Hitler’s Reich Church and Christ’s Confessing Church lay not with confessional orthodoxy as such but with the Sermon on the Mount or, more precisely, ‘with a different understanding of the Sermon than the Reformation’s.’” (250) Bauman summarizes and cites Bonhoeffer’s great work as
an emphatic and outspoken protest against cheap grace, “the deadly enemy of our Church,” the denial of discipleship and, in turn, of the Incarnation. “The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been pain in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing.” The world finds in the Church a cheap covering for its sins. “Cheap grace means the justification of sin without justification of the sinner.” (252)
In defiance of cheap grace, Bonheoffer calls the Christian church to boldly and visibly follow the way of Christ. Following Jesus “is as visible to the world as a light in the darkness or a mountain rising from a plain. Flight into the invisible is a denial of the call.” In this context, Bonhoeffer goes on to apply the Sermon on the Mount to his own philosophy of nonviolence:
The only way to overcome evil is to let it run itself to a standstill because it does not find the resistance it is looking for. Resistance merely creates further evil and adds fuel to the flames. But, when evil meets no opposition and encounters no obstacle but only patient endurance, its sting is drawn, and at last it meets an opponent which is more than its match. Of course, this can only happen when the last ounce of resistance is abandoned, and the renunciation of revenge is complete. Then evil cannot find its mark, it can breed no further evil and is left barren… (261)
I’m not extremely well-read when it comes to Bonhoeffer’s theological journey, but I always wondered how someone who wrote The Cost of Discipleship with such a deep devotion to obeying Christ’s message of nonviolence could justify joining the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. It appeared to me a departure from the core of Jesus’ teaching that Bonhoeffer preached so fervently. How did he synchronize his faith and actions at that point? Was it a matter of interpretation or did he simply sell out?
Bauman’s appraisal is invaluable on this count. He tracks Bonhoeffer’s path from Germany, where the destiny of his people loomed large in his thoughts, to a broader vision of the Kingdom of God in this world (in the years when he left Germany and wrote The Cost of Discipleship), and back to his nationalist call upon returning to Germany, which led him to conclude that for the sake of the nation, Hitler must die. Bauman lays out the chronology of this philosophical trek beautifully with summaries in Bonhoeffer’s own words. This radical swing back and forth can be traced in Bonhoeffer’s own words:
Early nationalist Bonhoeffer: God has given me my mother, my Volk. What I have I have thanks to this Volk. What I am I am through my Volk. Thus, what I have should belong to my Volk. This is a divine order, for God created the Volker… Every Volk has a call of God within it to make history… God calls the Volk to manliness, to battle and to victory… for God himself is eternally young and strong and triumphant… Should not such a Volk be allowed to follow this call, even when it disregards the life of other Volker?... I will raise the weapon in the awful knowledge of doing something atrocious but being unable to do anything else… Yet love for my Volk will sanctify murder, will sanctify war. (265)
Pacifist ecumenical Bonhoeffer (in New York): It must never more happen that a Christian people fights against a Christian people, brother against brother, since both have one Father. (266)
(in Denmark): Which of us can say he knows what it might mean for the world if one nation should beet the aggressor, not with weapons in hand, but praying, defenseless, and for that very reason protected by ‘a bulwark never failing’? (266)
Bonhoeffer back in Germany: Bauman summarizes – In his subsequent Ethics (1940-43), Bonhoeffer denounced “arbitrary” killing as unlawful destruction of innocent life but maintained “the killing in war is not arbitrary killing” and therefore not unlawful. He even assumed as self-evident that there is nothing arbitrary about “the killing of civilians in war, so long as it is not directly intended but is only an unfortunate consequence of a measure which is necessary on military grounds.” (268)
Bonhoeffer on tyrannicide (the plot to assassinate Hitler): Bauman summarizes – Bonhoeffer saw Jesus “as one who acts responsibly in the historical existence of men” and thereby “becomes guilty.” Generalizing from his own awareness of being “lost in guilt’s dark maze,” Bonhoeffer contends that “every man who acts responsibly becomes guilty.” He regarded Jesus as “my conscience,” who “for the sake of God and men” became “a breaker of the law” by violating the Sabbath, forsaking his parents, and eating with sinners.” Thus, “He became guilty,” and so, Bonhoeffer reasoned, “He sets conscience free and especially when man enters into the fellowship of human guilt.” The inference appears to be that, in breaking the ceremonial law (by healing someone), Jesus freed Bonhoeffer’s conscience to break the moral law (by assassinating Hitler). Consequently, as Jesus remained innocent though he “became guilty,” so for the conspirators “there is a kind of relative freedom from sin,” for they, like Jesus, acted ‘responsibly,’ thereby demonstrating their “real innocence.” (270)
I know what it is to move sharply from one ethical or
theological position to another over the course of ten years. But is
also important to know how and why this shift occurred, especially in someone as influential as a Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer himself clues us in to his how and why in the era when he agonized about returning to Germany from
Identifying wholly with the destiny of one’s people or nation is indeed a powerful urge… a kind of nationalism that frequently calls one to overwrite the ultimate sacrifice of “taking up one’s cross and following Christ” with the alternative commitment to kill and die for one’s people, whether in cross-border wars or, more frequently, civil war and violent revolution. For the window of time in which Bonhoeffer wrote The Cost of Discipleship, he seemed to have a clarity that the two callings could not co-exist. Bauman’s work helps us place that period in the wider context of Bonhoeffer’s journey.
We would do well to see the impact of Bonhoeffer’s nationalism on his theology and how it affected his response to Christ’s message--particularly as this applies to the chaos of a new century, the demands of modern patriotism, and the “Christian” endorsements for the global war on terror. In other words, which Bonhoeffer will we hear and heed?
4. Confronting the powers short of anarchy.
Finally, Bauman briefly presents us with a Christ-modeled way of dealing with “the powers” or institutions of the world. Like Christ, the church is called to walk the fine prophetic line between anarchy (overthrowing or negating institutions) and institutionalism (which always tends towards dehumanizing people). He contends that institutions such as government, legal systems, schools, hospitals, churches, etc. are a good and necessary reality in this present age. Christ and his followers recognize the role of the institution in an ordered society.
However, much as we see in Brueggemann’s Prophetic Imagination, Bauman recognizes that such institutions are often part of the dominant world system and, by nature, tend to become machines that reduce people into numbers and supplant the role of God in our lives. Rather than “buying in” to the system, OR seeking to overtake it by Christianizing it, we bring a “minority report” that acts as the voice of the institutions’ conscience—a thorn in the flesh of institutions wherever they become abusive.
But why not simply Christianize the institutions? If we, the church, can just get control of the US Senate, of the majority of seats in the House of Parliament, of the school boards and hospital boards… won’t everything be peachy? Won’t the Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven? As Tony Campolo put it during an interview on the Colbert Report, when the church tries to become king [my words], it’s kind of like mixing ice-cream and manure [Campolo’s words]. You still have pretty good manure in the end, but it sure ruins the ice-cream. I.e. As in the days of Constantine, so it is now: when church and empire conspire, it is the church that gets co-opted and deformed. Better rather to be the prophet who holds the king accountable: God’s Nathan to the government’s David.
CONCLUSION
Having pondered Bauman’s thesis for several months, my conclusion is that we need to double-check what Jesus actually taught and believed. We need to ask ourselves if we as a church believe what he believed and teach what he taught: whether we do; whether we can; whether we want to. Having asked myself and my congregation those questions, we have concluded that in great part, we have all too often opted for a theology about Christ while neglecting to hear and do what he says. And so we’ve gone back to the “drawing board” to hear the Lord--the Jesus of the Gospels-- afresh, laying down our self-protective filters as best we can to hear both the tenderness AND the sting in his words. And wherever we’ve wandered off the Way he prescribed, we’re listening for the voice of the Good Shepherd to call us back. I think this is what Bauman intended. I think this is what Christ intended.
bj
Dear Brad: I teach a class each Sunday morning called "Doin Life With Jesus." This has forced me to stay in the red letter truths although I may expand to RT Kendall's work on the parables. I have found a call to purity, holiness and a new rest in Him. I have also found not everyone is interested in what I am sharing each Sunday. I guess it just seems impossible for us to live up to meaning doing life with Jesus as He would today.
I have been provoked this week by Heb. 5:8-9 "though He was Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. And having been perfected (completed) He became author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him."
I beleive this relates to all that you are saying in that Jesus obeyed His Father, He was lead to live the laws given to Moses but with the heart of the Father. Obedience always comes with some sort of cost and most of us are not willing to pay this price. Perfection and or our completion in this race is through suffering then we can come to glory. Heb. 2:10b "to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings."
It is not easy to live the red letter truths but we MUST.
Thank you for probing the deep clear waters.
Larry
Posted by: Larry Clark | June 12, 2006 at 04:15 AM