Skip to main content

Costly Grace

     One of my heroes is Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  A martyr if there ever was one, Bonhoeffer was killed by the Nazis only weeks before Hitler committed suicide.  A Lutheran minister and theologian in the "Neo-Orthodox" tradition, he wrote several books on theology and living a Christian life.  His most well-known book, "The Cost of Discipleship", also happens to be his best.
     In the book, he discusses the differences between what he calls "costly grace" and what he calls "cheap grace."  Most believers—or most followers of the major religions that base their religion on "faith"—live by what Bonhoeffer calls cheap grace.
     But cheap grace is not the way to go.  Cheap grace is the road to hell, the path that forever keeps you from Nirvana.  If you reach the fork in the road, cheap grace is not the path least taken.
     If you want to live a life of Divine Fullness, a life of egolessness (if we are to use Buddhist terminology), then you must live by costly grace.
     Costly grace is the royal road to enlightenment, the Kingdom of Heaven buried in the field that Christ spoke of, but that no one seems to know how to find.
     And now you are probably wondering: Just what is costly grace?
     Bonhoeffer used Martin Luther as his example par excellence of just what defines costly grace.  Now, I must say that Luther gets a bad rap sometimes in our post post-modern religious world.  Often, Luther is seen as someone who traded one form of mythical sky-god religion for another form of mythical sky-god religion.  But when Luther is seen through the lens of Bonhoeffer, he shines through in the form that he most assuredly was when he declared justification through grace by faith.
     You see, Bonhoeffer understood Luther as very few have since the Protestant reformation.  He got Luther.  And that very well could be the problem nowadays: the religious of today just don't get what Luther was all about.
     Enough from me.  Let's hear the words of Bonhoeffer:
     "Yet the outcome of the Reformation was the victory, not of Luther's perception of grace in all its purity and costliness, but of the vigilant religious instinct of man for the place where grace is to be obtained at the cheapest price.  All that was needed was a subtle and almost imperceptible change of emphasis, and the damage was done.  Luther had taught that man cannot stand before God, however religious his works and ways may be, because at the bottom he is always seeking his own interests.  In the depth of his misery, Luther had grasped by faith the free and unconditional forgiveness of all his sins.  That experience had taught him that this grace had cost him his very life, and must continue to cost him that same price day by day.  So far from dispensing him from discipleship, this grace only made him a more earnest disciple.  When he spoke of grace, Luther always implied as a corollary that it cost him his own life, the life which was now for the first time subjected to the absolute obedience of Christ.  Only so could he speak of grace.  Luther had said that grace alone can save; his followers took up his doctrine and repeated it word for word.  But they left out its invariable corollary, the obligation of discipleship. "
     So here we reach the point I am trying to make: Faith as a means of salvation—such as in Protestantism—or as a means of enlightenment—such as in Pure Land Buddhism—must come at the end of the path, not at the beginning.  It must be an answer to a sum, not the start of the mathematical formulation.
     When you have sat in meditation for months—maybe even years—counting your breath or recalling an image of Christ or the Buddha; or when you have spent years following ascetic practices such as fasting or daily recitation of a mantra, only then can you realize that you of your own self can do nothing.  Only at the end can you say, as Jesus did, "Why do you call me good?  There is none good but God."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Classic Bodybuilding: Don Howorth's Massive Delt Training

Before we get started on this "Classic Bodybuilding" piece, one word of note:  If you really  pay attention to this blog, then you will notice that in the "sub-header" at the top of the page, I have added "Ageless Bodybuilding" as one of the subjects that will be discussed.  This is for a decided reason... I have been developing a system of training that I have been using on myself and a few "older" lifters that occasionally train with me, but still follow my training program that I have them using even when they are training at a commercial gym instead of my "garage gym".  This system is for those of you who are 40+ such as myself, but it may be even more effective for those of you 50 and older.  In fact, of my two occasional training partners, one of them is 51, and the other is 55. I wouldn't be so arrogant as to call this ageless bodybuilding system  revolutionary, but I can say that it is radically different from most syste

Old School Arm Training Secrets: John McWilliams's Arm Training Routine

Old-School Arm Training Secrets: John McWilliams’s Arm Routine      My most popular posts here at Integral Strength typically fall into two categories: old-school bodybuilding programs or serious strength and power routines.      With that in mind, I thought I would do a series of articles on various old-school lifters and bodybuilders (the two overlapped once-upon-a-time), and on various old-school methods for training different bodyparts or lifts.   Thus, this first entry is on old-school arm training, but others will be on old-school chest, shoulders, back, legs, squats, bench presses, overhead presses, power cleans, etc.   And for this first entry, I decided upon an old-school bodybuilder cum powerlifter that many of you may never have heard of: John McWilliams. McWilliams's back double-biceps pose.  He was impressive even in his 40s.      When I first came across an article about McWilliams (written by Gene Mozee) in the early ‘90s, I had certainly neve

Old Time Mass Tactics: One-Exercise-Per-Bodypart Training

     Starting with the current post, I thought I would do a mini-series on how the "old-time" bodybuilders used to train.  In doing so, I also thought I would start with what I consider the greatest of the old-time mass tactics:  one-exercise-per-bodypart training.      When I first began to lift weights seriously (which was sometime in my high-school years; I'm 35 now, so you do the math), the bodybuilders that I loved were the ones that—even then—were considered the "old-timers."  I remember seeing pictures of Freddy Ortiz, Don Howorth (above), and Marvin Eder; I was amazed by their look.  For one, they definitely looked strong (which they were), but they also had excellent size, shape, and symmetry—small waists, large calves, boulder-sized shoulders; the whole "x-frame" look.  But—and I think this is what I still love about them—they didn't appear to be cardboard cutouts of one another.  They all had different "looks."  They were