The Cost of Discipleship

“You are a sinner, anyway, and there is nothing you can do about it. Whether you are a monk or a man of the world, a religious man or a bad one, you can never escape the toils of the world or from sin. So put a bold face on it, and all the more because you can rely on the opus operatum of grace.”

The term “opus operatum of grace” is a form of jargon specific to theological discussion. It refers to the efficacy of sacraments or divine grace, not because of the individual’s worthiness but because of the act itself. Incorporating specialized terminology adds a layer of depth for those familiar with the concept, implying that divine grace is constant and reliable.

“The only man who has the right to say that he is justified by grace alone is the man who has left all to follow Christ. Such a man knows that the call to discipleship is a gift of grace, and that the call is inseparable from the grace. But those who try to use this grace as a dispensation from following Christ are simply deceiving themselves.”

The initial phrase, “The only man who has the right,” acts as an antecedent for subsequent discussions about who is qualified to claim grace. Parallelism enhances the clarity and impact of the message, particularly in the lines, “Such a man knows that the call to discipleship is a gift of grace, and that the call is inseparable from the grace.” By maintaining the parallel structure of “that the call,” the message underlines the interconnectedness of discipleship and grace.

“Christianity without the living Christ is inevitably Christianity without discipleship, and Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ.”

In employing chiasmus, the elements of “Christianity,” “living Christ,” and “discipleship” are first stated and then restated in a reverse order. This chiastic structure accentuates the interdependency between these elements; remove one, and the entire structure collapses.

“Only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes.”

The quote employs antithesis to accentuate the contrasting yet intertwined nature of “believes” and “obedient.” Antithesis is manifested in juxtaposing these two qualities to show that they are not just linked, but essential to each other, enforcing the idea that the absence of one inherently means the absence of the other. The quote’s brevity also lends itself to epigrammatic qualities—it captures a complex idea in a concise and impactful way, making the statement memorable and easily quotable. This contributes to the overall effectiveness in conveying a multi-faceted concept within the limits of a single sentence.

“For faith is only real when there is obedience, never without it, and faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience.”

The phrase “faith only becomes faith in the act of obedience” utilizes epanalepsis. The sentence emphasizes the transformative power of obedience by repeating the word “faith” at the beginning and the end of the phrase. Faith not just exists but “becomes” through obedience, underscoring the development or realization of faith through action.

“Even momentary desire is a barrier to the following of Jesus.”

The term “barrier” acts metaphorically in the sentence. It suggests an image of a physical obstacle that must be overcome, though the subject at hand is abstract—desire and spiritual or ethical commitment. By using “barrier” in this manner, the sentence effectively communicates the idea that “momentary desire” is not just a simple distraction but a substantial impediment to the spiritual or ethical goal of following Jesus.

“Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay.”

The structure is symmetrical, lending balance and emphasis to the idea of straightforward, unambiguous communication. By repeating the affirmatives and negatives (“Yea, yea; Nay, nay”), the sentence conveys a sense of moral or ethical imperative toward honesty and clarity in speech.

“The genuine work of love is always a hidden work. Take heed therefore that you know it not, for only so is it the goodness of God. If we want to know our own goodness or love, it has already ceased to be love.”

Paradox plays a central role here. The notion that “genuine work of love is always a hidden work” upends conventional wisdom, suggesting that true love operates in obscurity rather than being overt or showy. The phrase, “Take heed therefore that you know it not,” adds another layer to this paradox, stating that not only should love be hidden, but it should be hidden even from oneself. This adds complexity and depth to the initial paradox.

“The life of faith is nothing if not an unending struggle of the spirit with every available weapon against the flesh.”

Metaphor is at play, presenting faith as an “unending struggle of the spirit against the flesh.” This metaphor casts faith as a form of internal warfare, where “every available weapon” implies the variety and potentially exhaustive resources one needs to maintain a life of faith. The conflict here is eternal and demanding, involving one’s whole being—spirit and flesh. The sentence also uses a form of hyperbole in the word “unending,” emphasizing the ongoing, relentless nature of this struggle, suggesting it’s not just occasional or periodic but a constant feature in the life of faith.

“Jesus knows only one possibility: simple surrender and obedience, not interpreting it or applying it, but doing and obeying it.”

The sentence employs a form of antithesis, setting up a contrast between the complex activities of “interpreting” and “applying” and the straightforward actions of “doing and obeying.” This antithesis emphasizes the purity and simplicity of Jesus’s approach to obedience and surrender, as opposed to the more cerebral and potentially equivocating acts of interpretation and application.

“The only proper response to this word which Jesus brings with him from eternity is simply to do it.”

This sentence relies heavily on the device of emphasis for its impact, accentuating the term “simply” and the phrase “to do it” as the essence of the proper response to Jesus’s teachings. The word “only” operates to underscore the exclusivity of the proper response, suggesting there’s no alternative that would suffice. The phrase “from eternity” also elevates the origin and authority of Jesus’s word, making it appear as an unalterable, timeless truth that demands a straightforward response.

“From the human point of view everything looks hopeless, but Jesus sees things with different eyes. Instead of the people maltreated, wretched and poor, he sees the ripe harvest field of God.”

This passage employs juxtaposition and contrast to highlight the difference between human and divine perspectives. The word “but” serves as a pivot, turning the reader’s attention from a bleak “human point of view” to a hopeful, divine outlook. The use of metaphor in describing humanity not as “maltreated, wretched and poor” but as “the ripe harvest field of God” transforms the perspective completely. This metaphor serves not just to paint a picture but to imbue the human condition with purpose and potential, turning despair into opportunity.

“No power in the world could have united these men for a common task, save the call of Jesus.”

This statement employs hyperbole in the phrase “No power in the world,” emphasizing the unique and unparalleled influence of the “call of Jesus.” By suggesting that nothing else could have achieved this unity, the statement elevates the divine call to a position of supreme power and significance.

“Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”

This statement employs metaphor and simile to impart wisdom through vivid imagery. The phrase “sheep in the midst of wolves” uses metaphor to represent vulnerability and danger, underscoring the stark contrast between the innocent, or naive, and the predatory. In the injunction to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves,” simile is deployed to present a balanced approach for navigating life’s challenges. Serpents are traditionally symbols of cunning or wisdom, while doves are associated with innocence and purity. The juxtaposition of these symbols illustrates the dual nature of the ideal approach: cautious intelligence paired with non-malevolence.

“He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”

The statement employs paradox to provoke deeper thought and challenge conventional understanding of the concept of “life.” At face value, “finding” life would generally be considered a positive, as would “losing” it be a negative. Yet, the paradox upends this straightforward interpretation by suggesting that the search for one’s life leads to its loss, and conversely, that losing it in devotion to a higher cause can result in its discovery.

“He who offers a cup of cold water to the weakest and poorest who bears no honourable name has ministered to Christ himself, and Jesus Christ will be his reward.”

The statement employs metaphor and hyperbole to emphasize the significance of seemingly small acts of kindness. Offering “a cup of cold water” serves as a metaphor for simple, humble acts of charity. This metaphor is then amplified through hyperbole when it is claimed that such an act is akin to ministering to Christ himself. The hyperbolic comparison magnifies the importance of the action, elevating it from mundane to divine and imbuing everyday acts of compassion with a sense of sacred duty.

“To the question—where today do we hear the call of Jesus to discipleship, there is no other answer than this: Hear the Word, receive the Sacrament; in it hear him himself, and you will hear his call.”

This statement utilizes a rhetorical question and direct address to channel the focus of the discussion toward a specific answer. “To the question—where today do we hear the call of Jesus to discipleship” is a rhetorical question aimed not at eliciting a response but framing the forthcoming point. This focus directs attention to the subsequent proclamation: “Hear the Word, receive the Sacrament; in it hear him himself, and you will hear his call.” This answer, set up by the rhetorical question, seeks to be definitive, leaving no room for alternative interpretations. By framing the answer in this way, the statement asserts the exclusivity and supremacy of its own theological viewpoint.

“Baptism is not an offer made by man to God, but an offer made by Christ to man. It is grounded solely on the will of Jesus Christ, as expressed in his gracious call. Baptism is essentially passive—being baptized, suffering the call of Christ.”

The statement employs contrast, delineating the difference between commonly held perceptions of baptism and what the sacrament truly represents. This contrast disrupts preconceived notions and invites reconsideration of the act’s meaning. For instance, by stating, “Baptism is not an offer made by man to God, but an offer made by Christ to man,” the text challenges the common view that baptism is an act of dedication on the part of the individual, asserting instead that it is an act of grace originating from Christ.

“The Church is one man; it is the Body of Christ. But it is also many, a fellowship of members.”

The statement employs paradox and metaphor to encapsulate the complex nature of the Church. By declaring, “The Church is one man; it is the Body of Christ,” a metaphor equates the Church with a singular entity—specifically the ‘Body of Christ.’ This metaphor underlines the unity and cohesiveness that should ideally characterize the Church. However, the subsequent clause “But it is also many, a fellowship of members” introduces a paradox that complicates this initial metaphor. The paradox captures the tension between unity and diversity within the Church. While the metaphor of the ‘Body of Christ’ suggests an indivisible whole, the idea of “a fellowship of members” speaks to plurality and individuality.

“The temple is the place where the gracious presence of God condescends to dwell among men, and also the place where God receives his people.”

The statement employs metonymy to elucidate the nature and function of the temple. In describing the temple as “the place where the gracious presence of God condescends to dwell among men,” metonymy is used to stand for the more abstract concept of divine presence. The term “gracious presence of God” imbues the physical space with qualities of mercy and benevolence, thereby elevating it from a mere structure to a holy locus.

“A truth, a doctrine, or a religion need no space for themselves. They are disembodied entities. They are heard, learnt and apprehended, and that is all. But the incarnate Son of God needs not only ears or hearts, but living men who will follow him.”

The statement utilizes contrast and metaphor to underline the difference between abstract concepts like “truth, doctrine, or religion” and the “incarnate Son of God.” By describing the former as “disembodied entities,” the phrase creates an image of abstract, intangible notions that exist independently of physical space. They are presented as static, something “heard, learnt, and apprehended,” implying a passive form of engagement. In sharp opposition, the “incarnate Son of God” is presented as requiring active, tangible participation. The word “incarnate” itself is impactful, emphasizing the physical embodiment of divine qualities. The metaphor of “ears or hearts” against “living men” further intensifies this contrast, implying that mere intellectual or emotional engagement is insufficient; corporeal action is needed.

“Let the Christian remain in the world, not because of the good gifts of creation, nor because of his responsibility for the course of the world, but for the sake of the Body of the incarnate Christ and for the sake of the Church. Let him remain in the world to engage in frontal assault on it, and let him live the life of his secular calling in order to show himself as a stranger in this world all the more.”

The statement uses metaphor and paradox to explore the Christian’s intricate role in the world. The military metaphor “frontal assault” suggests an active, urgent role for Christians, emphasizing direct engagement with challenges. However, this is contrasted by the paradox that Christians should also be “strangers” in the world, advocating for both involvement and spiritual detachment. The repeated phrase “Let him remain in the world” underscores this dual role, emphasizing a commitment to both worldly transformation and eternal spiritual values.

“THE ECCLESIA Christi, the disciple community, has been torn from the clutches of the world. Of course, it still has to live in the world, but it is made into one body, with its own sphere of sovereignty, and its own claim to living space.”

The statement uses metaphor and antithesis to depict the Ecclesia Christi’s complex relationship with the world. The metaphor “torn from the clutches of the world” suggests a forceful liberation, casting the world as a predatory force. Antithesis comes into play with the idea that while this community must “live in the world,” it is also separate, forming “one body” with its own sovereignty. These devices highlight the tension between participating in the world and maintaining a distinct, spiritual identity.