Romans 7:14-20

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Romans 7:14-20, NIV

I've been studying the book of Romans the past few months and have been reading through John R.W. Stott's The Message of Romans. One of my favorite passages from Romans is 7:14-20 (above). However, I found myself disagree with Stott's view of this passage.

Stott states that since the person Paul refers to in this passage is still a slave to sin, unable to do what is good, that this person is only "half-saved": they love the law, but they lack the Holy Spirit. They are regenerate, but still under the Law.

First, since Paul here is writing in first person, I've always assumed that Paul is speaking of his own struggles, not telling the struggles of someone else through the first person. In fact, up until this point, Paul has easily described other's arguments without using the first person narrative. So I'm not sure why it's assumed that now he's still expressing the view of a third party, only using the first person.

Second, this passage has always brought great comfort to me. I always interpreted it as a Christian (this being Paul himself) who still faces the daily struggle of sin: yes, I want to do good, to follow Christ, but I still mess up. However, Stott throws this out, stating that the person Paul is describing isn't a mature Christian, indwelt by the Holy Spirit. He seems to imply that mature Christians don't struggle with, or become ensnared in, sin.

I agree, what's described isn't "normative" Christian life: we aren't slaves to sin in the sense that we have no power to reject and act contrary to our sin nature. However, we still retain a sin nature, and we can easily fall prey to our sinful desires that are part of our being human. While Christian life isn't marked by a constant struggle, there is a struggle present.

I'm not a "professional" Bible scholar, so maybe my interpretation is the faulty one, not Stott's. I just have trouble wrapping my head around the idea of being regenerated, but still under the law, and the term "half-saved" simply makes me twitch.

on reading "The Gospel According to Starbucks"

So I picked up The Gospel According to Starbucks today. It had been sitting in a stack of to-read books that my husband and I keep piled high in the bedroom. One of my husband's friends let him borrow it, but I'm getting around to reading it first.

So far, I've only read the first chapter. And I'm trying to keep an open, unbiased mind. Which is hard, since I'm not particularly a fan of Starbucks. In fact, I've only actually been in a Starbucks once, and that only because I had a gift certificate. I prefer to sit at my table at home and sip on fresh brewed coffee with plenty of sugar and milk; if I do go out for coffee, I actually like the coffee served at Booksamillion. Hopefully I won't get stoned for saying that.

I noticed that Sweet quoted Jesus as saying "The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." Not remembering having read that before, I checked his end note and found he was citing Luke 16:8 from the KJV. I'm trying to develop the habit that no matter what I read, that I always "double check" the author when they say they are quoting Scripture...by going to the *gasp!* the Bible itself. Since I don't actually own a KJV Bible, I looked up the verse on Blueletterbible.org, and indeed, Luke 16:8 does say "The children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light"....in the second half of the verse. Sweet ignores the very crucial "for" placed right before that sentence. The "for" is actually the transition word from the parable that Jesus was teaching...which happens to be titled "The Unrighteous Steward".

And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods. And he called him, and said unto him, How is it that I hear this of thee? give an account of thy stewardship; for thou mayest be no longer steward. Then the steward said within himself, What shall I do? for my lord taketh away from me the stewardship: I cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed. I am resolved what to do, that, when I am put out of the stewardship, they may receive me into their houses. So he called every one of his lord's debtors [unto him], and said unto the first, How much owest thou unto my lord? And he said, An hundred measures of oil. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and sit down quickly, and write fifty. Then said he to another, And how much owest thou? And he said, An hundred measures of wheat. And he said unto him, Take thy bill, and write fourscore. And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. Luke 16:1-9

Considering that Sweet was using the phrase to justify that the church needs to learn from the world (since the world is wiser than the church according to this verse), I'm not sure if this is the best verse to pick, at least not if you are going to read the rest of the Scriptures surrounding the text and not just pick the text up out of its context and make an application. After all, "we do not create meaning out of text; rather, we seek to find the meaning that is already there" (Duvall and Hays, Grasping God's Word).

Sweet also seems to be taking the position of "doctrine is bad for us" which is becoming more and more common, particularly in the emergent church. He states that "Intellectual arguments over doctrine and theology are fine for divinity school, but they lose impact at the level of daily life experience." However, Wendy Horger Alsup's book Practical Theology for Women is all about how doctrine and theology ought to affect our daily lives. She writes "So we study theology that we may know God and be enlightened to the benefits of our relationship with him." Furthermore, this concept of "doctrine is evil/bad" is almost becoming a doctrine itself. A doctrine is "a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government" and "something that is taught; teachings collectively" (dictionary.com). And many people, particularly those involved with the emergent church, are regularly teaching/asserting that doctrine has become almost the bane of our faith. However, by teaching this idea and being in agreement, it sort of becomes a doctrine in and of itself, and even more so, a doctrine that is common to the emergent church. But I may be only be making a generalization; after all, I have read very few emergent books/literature, though I do plan on reading more.

Still, this is, after all, only chapter one, and maybe it's a little too early to jump on the guy regarding his hermeneutics (a fancy word for the study/interpretation/application of the Bible). And it's also a bit of a jump to affirmatively assert what he is trying assert (in regards to any particular doctrine); I have no idea what direction he is going to take in the rest of the book. However, The Gospel According to Starbucks has gotten me started thinking...and that's always a good thing.