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

Marvin Eder’s Mass-Building Methods

  The Many and Varied Mass-Building Methods of Power Bodybuilding’s G.O.A.T. Eder as he appeared in my article "Full Body Workouts" for IronMan  magazine.      In many ways, the essay you are now reading is the one that has had the “longest time coming.”  I have no clue why it has taken me this long to write an article specifically on Marvin Eder, especially considering the fact that I have long considered him the greatest bodybuilder cum strength athlete of all friggin’ time .  In fact, over 20 years ago, I wrote this in the pages of IronMan magazine: In my opinion, the greatest all-around bodybuilder, powerlifter and strength athlete ever to walk the planet, Eder had 19-inch arms at a bodyweight of 198. He could bench 510, squat 550 for 10 reps and do a barbell press with 365. He was reported to have achieved the amazing feat of cranking out 1,000 dips in only 17 minutes. Imagine doing a dip a second for 17 minutes. As Gene Mozee once put ...

My Son’s High-Volume, High-Frequency Training

High-Volume, High-Frequency Training and Realistic Muscle-Building for the Natural Bodybuilder      This article, I will admit, is in many ways nothing more than an excuse to show off my youngest son Garrett’s physique as seen above.  But since I have a good feeling that he has exactly the kind of body that most men would love to acquire, I also want to discuss his training philosophy and some lessons that you can learn from it.      First, however, let’s discuss the 3 training variables of volume, frequency, and intensity.  If you’re familiar with my point-of-view, you can skip ahead to the next paragraph.  If you’re not, then pay attention!  In order to get results out of resistance training, no matter your goals, you must properly balance and manipulate the 3 training variables of volume, frequency, and intensity.  Two of the variables need to be high (or one high and the other moderate) and the remaining v...

Singles

Some Thoughts on Single-Rep Training for Strength, Power, and Muscle Size       “Many dinosaurs do heavy singles.  Why?  Because they have discovered that for many men, singles build more muscle and strength than sets of multiple repetitions.  Yeah, I KNOW that singles are contrary to modern wisdom and conventional training protocols.  I KNOW that all of the modern experts say that single reps are dangerous and non-productive.  I KNOW that all of the modern ‘champs’ say to train with light weights and concentrate on ‘feeling’ the muscles.  I KNOW that everyone at the House of Chrome and Ferns never does a single rep on anything.  And I KNOW that we have all kinds of wonderful ‘scientific’ training systems that regard heavy singles as worthless, dangerous, insane, and ridiculously old fashioned.      “The experts are WRONG when they say singles don’t work.  For many men, singles build muscle and st...