Turns out vandals did some serious damage. Here's the story. It's really too bad that people can't watch a film without being so reactionary. It's sad that conversations about faith can't turn meaningful instead of threatening.
Tags:
10/31/2006
Jesus Camp moves
After the furor over Jesus Camp, Becky was forced to move the location from Devil's Lake.
Turns out vandals did some serious damage. Here's the story. It's really too bad that people can't watch a film without being so reactionary. It's sad that conversations about faith can't turn meaningful instead of threatening.
Turns out vandals did some serious damage. Here's the story. It's really too bad that people can't watch a film without being so reactionary. It's sad that conversations about faith can't turn meaningful instead of threatening.
Tinkering with Wordpress
I've been tinkering with a new Wordpress blog over the last week. I'm debating over whether to switch this whole blog over there. I invite your comments on Beta Blogger vs. Wordpress. Youtube no longer functions with the new blogger. I'm thinking of uploading .mp3 posts so as to audioblog to Wordpress. I think I can do that. Most of the hits I get here are anonymous and transient through the old Cornerstonemag.com site. You may have noticed that the Cornerstone Fest forum site is down and that all my articles on there are gone---I hope someday they'll reappear! My friend Jon over at BlueChristian is tinkering with a BlueChristian.com. If you're here for the Bonhoeffer blogging I'll be continuing that wherever I decide to land.
Tags:
10/26/2006
response to Mark Noll's "Where We Are and How We Got Here"
I finally got around to reading Mark Noll's article "Where We Are and How We Got Here." Responding point by point would take far too long but I want to critique two evangelical distinctives in the last fifty years.
1. The propagation of the gospel as a repository of Truth. Evangelicals have made Jesus accessible and relevant but in effect they've also made him an American concept. (Please somebody, prove that statement wrong! Assure me that evangelicals haven't and aren't doing it.)
Jesus is not a concept, he is a person. In his Christology lectures Bonhoeffer explains the difference framed as the "who" vs. the "how".
2. The willingness and then eagerness to spread the gospel through every available new medium of communication. Noll uses the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Kenneth Taylor (author of the paraphrased Living Bible translation) as prime examples of this. My question is an old one. Just because we can use every new medium should we? Now before you roll your eyes I'd like you to consider the points raised by Marshall McLuhan, Jacques Ellul, and Father Walter J. Ong in this regard. These men were hardly hateful of technology, but they were deeply aware of its' effects. In other words they cared about the tools. Alongside Billy Graham and Kenneth Taylor should be names of folks who studied the mediums themselves with an eye toward what might be compromised in the gospel presentation. I don't know that such evangelicals even exist. They must be somewhere. But who are they? Right along with that point comes a question about the Communicator and the medium. Why are big names the emphasis in Evangelicalism? Yes, you may remark that more people identify with personalities--that that's just the way of things. But when do the Big names become an ill intended effect themselves?
A case in point would be the big deal made over Bono's cussing some years ago. He made a point of saying "I'm no role model." The issue addressed the fact that Bono's actions communicated something other than his message. When Billy Graham got caught on tape in Nixon's office openly worrying about Jews there again the Communicator was critiqued. My point is that just like the medium communicates on its' own so the Communicator issues other messages than Jesus as well.
So here we're stuck with some realities about life and faith. We communicate as people through mediums. When people get popular their image becomes iconic and confused within the medium. Other unintended messages are sent than the gospel. The desire to follow Jesus and speak rightly of him are compromised. I'm not going to offer a simple solution here because there isn't one. Technique should be questioned. That's it.
1. The propagation of the gospel as a repository of Truth. Evangelicals have made Jesus accessible and relevant but in effect they've also made him an American concept. (Please somebody, prove that statement wrong! Assure me that evangelicals haven't and aren't doing it.)
Jesus is not a concept, he is a person. In his Christology lectures Bonhoeffer explains the difference framed as the "who" vs. the "how".
"In our daily language the question, "Who are you?" is very common. Nevertheless it is easily changed into the how question. Tell me how you are. Tell me how you are thinking. Then I can determine who you are. The question about the who is the most basic religious question. It is a question about another person, another being, another authority. It is a question about the love of one's neighbor. The question about transcendence and the question about existence is a question about the neighbor. It is a question about a person. That we are always asking how demonstrates our captivity to our own authority. If we were to ask, "Who are you?" we would be speaking the language of the obedient Adam. Instead we think according to the fallen Adam, asking how." (DBW 12:282-284)
2. The willingness and then eagerness to spread the gospel through every available new medium of communication. Noll uses the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Kenneth Taylor (author of the paraphrased Living Bible translation) as prime examples of this. My question is an old one. Just because we can use every new medium should we? Now before you roll your eyes I'd like you to consider the points raised by Marshall McLuhan, Jacques Ellul, and Father Walter J. Ong in this regard. These men were hardly hateful of technology, but they were deeply aware of its' effects. In other words they cared about the tools. Alongside Billy Graham and Kenneth Taylor should be names of folks who studied the mediums themselves with an eye toward what might be compromised in the gospel presentation. I don't know that such evangelicals even exist. They must be somewhere. But who are they? Right along with that point comes a question about the Communicator and the medium. Why are big names the emphasis in Evangelicalism? Yes, you may remark that more people identify with personalities--that that's just the way of things. But when do the Big names become an ill intended effect themselves?
A case in point would be the big deal made over Bono's cussing some years ago. He made a point of saying "I'm no role model." The issue addressed the fact that Bono's actions communicated something other than his message. When Billy Graham got caught on tape in Nixon's office openly worrying about Jews there again the Communicator was critiqued. My point is that just like the medium communicates on its' own so the Communicator issues other messages than Jesus as well.
So here we're stuck with some realities about life and faith. We communicate as people through mediums. When people get popular their image becomes iconic and confused within the medium. Other unintended messages are sent than the gospel. The desire to follow Jesus and speak rightly of him are compromised. I'm not going to offer a simple solution here because there isn't one. Technique should be questioned. That's it.
Tags:
10/25/2006
Bethge: Chapter Eight, London: 1933-1935
Blogging Bethge
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, Revised Edition, by Eberhard Bethge, Fortress Press, 2000.
Chapter Eight, London: 1933-1935 pg. 325-419
It is disheartening to find our 'theologian of community' standing alone. From all that I've observed blogging Bethge up to this point, it is clear that Dietrich Bonhoeffer's belief in God depends upon relationship between persons. For this reason the amount of angst he must have internalized around this time regarding his dogmatic resistance to the Aryan Clause must have been unbearable. His words to Karl Barth are telling:
If leaving Berlin for London was an evasion, Bethge assures us "This attempt at evasion, however, was completely unsuccessful." (327) Bonhoeffer couldn't "win even a week's respite from the turbulence in Berlin." He traveled every few weeks back to Berlin. His phone bill was so high that the local post office reduced it to a manageable size. Bethge gives us a wonderful picture of Bonhoeffer's parish ministry in London. He vividly describes where Dietrich lived, studied, worked, and played his Bechstein piano. The windows and doors never shut completely. He battle colds and flu. The house was overrun with mice. Even so, it sounds as though this house was busy with the joy of friends and relatives. The church youth met here to practice their nativity play, to sing, or sometimes just to listen to his large record collection.
Bonhoeffer's work in the parish, his sermons and discipling work, reflected his involvement in the church struggle. We are blessed to have his London sermons. (A Testament to Freedom, 213-252) In chapter eight Bethge carefully takes us through Bonhoeffer's work against the Reich Church government and the formation of his relationship with Archbishop George Bell. This chapter describes some of his most important ecumenical work. Far from retreating from the Church Struggle Bonhoeffer's position as an expat pastor in London allowed him to use his ecumenical connections to embarrass the German church before the eyes of the watching world. At different times I got the distinct feel that Bonhoeffer enjoyed being a jerk to the church authority, namely one Bishop Heckel.
Bethge sets the Barmen Declaration of May 1934 squarely within Bonhoeffer's ecumenical work. It gives it a totally different perspective. Bonhoeffer worked on a letter with Bishop Bell to be sent to the representatives of the Universal Council for Life and Work regarding the German Evangelical Church. Bonhoeffer had to make the differences clear between the Confessing Churches and the German Churches. The Ecumenical planners needed to know exactly who represented the Church in Germany. Bethge says,
With Bell's ecumenical support the opposition churches in German were fortified for their Barmen Synod on May 29. This is where Bonhoeffer's help lay for Barmen. Despite all his work he was misunderstood both by his friends in the Confessing Church and in the ecumenical world. His Confessing friends could not understand his emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount. Among his ecumenical friends he felt isolated for his emphasis on confession and opposition to heresy. He saw the needed connection between both of these worlds but was alone with that vision. (372)
I'd like to draw your attention to two articles on the Barmen Declaration and its' significance since 1934. Victoria Barnett, Church historian and author of For the Soul of the People: a history of the Confessing Church wrote an article for the Christian Century on the fiftieth anniversary of Barmen. This has to be the most important treatment I've read. Very indepth and insightful, giving Barmen's strengths and weaknesses for subsequent generations.
The second article is a lengthy revisiting by Ulrich Mauser for Theology Matters, a publication of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry. Dr. Mauser taught New Testament at Princeton T.S. but is a native German working with the original source material. His background info for Barmen is amazing. The Epilogue begins a dialogue with Barmen and specific PCUSA discussions concerning homosexuality.
Dietrich's work in London was effective. He got his church and others to turn to the Confessing church. Sadly this didn't stick after he left. There were financial considerations and Germany had them by the purse strings. In the end Bonhoeffer was called home to begin a preacher's seminary. He had been still working on plans to go to Ghandi in India. But his dedication to the Confessing churches took over.
In the end Bonhoeffer's course was not his own to take. His love for the Church was more important than his practical plans to teach Germans nonviolent resistance. Was this a godly choice? Was this God's will? We can't take Bonhoeffer out of his place in the church. Even in a church that in the end took the wrong course and left him stranded alone.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, Revised Edition, by Eberhard Bethge, Fortress Press, 2000.
Chapter Eight, London: 1933-1935 pg. 325-419
It is disheartening to find our 'theologian of community' standing alone. From all that I've observed blogging Bethge up to this point, it is clear that Dietrich Bonhoeffer's belief in God depends upon relationship between persons. For this reason the amount of angst he must have internalized around this time regarding his dogmatic resistance to the Aryan Clause must have been unbearable. His words to Karl Barth are telling:
"I feel that in some way I don't understand, I find myself in radical opposition to all my friends; I became increasingly isolated with my views of things, even though I was and remain personally close to these people. All this has frightened me and shaken my confidence so that I began to fear that dogmatism might be leading me astray---since there seemed no particular reason why my own view in these matters should be any better, any more right, than the views of many really capable pastors whom I sincerely respect---and so I thought it was about time to go into the wilderness for a spell. . . . It seems to me that at the moment it is more dangerous for me to make a gesture than to retreat into silence." (326)
If leaving Berlin for London was an evasion, Bethge assures us "This attempt at evasion, however, was completely unsuccessful." (327) Bonhoeffer couldn't "win even a week's respite from the turbulence in Berlin." He traveled every few weeks back to Berlin. His phone bill was so high that the local post office reduced it to a manageable size. Bethge gives us a wonderful picture of Bonhoeffer's parish ministry in London. He vividly describes where Dietrich lived, studied, worked, and played his Bechstein piano. The windows and doors never shut completely. He battle colds and flu. The house was overrun with mice. Even so, it sounds as though this house was busy with the joy of friends and relatives. The church youth met here to practice their nativity play, to sing, or sometimes just to listen to his large record collection.
Bonhoeffer's work in the parish, his sermons and discipling work, reflected his involvement in the church struggle. We are blessed to have his London sermons. (A Testament to Freedom, 213-252) In chapter eight Bethge carefully takes us through Bonhoeffer's work against the Reich Church government and the formation of his relationship with Archbishop George Bell. This chapter describes some of his most important ecumenical work. Far from retreating from the Church Struggle Bonhoeffer's position as an expat pastor in London allowed him to use his ecumenical connections to embarrass the German church before the eyes of the watching world. At different times I got the distinct feel that Bonhoeffer enjoyed being a jerk to the church authority, namely one Bishop Heckel.
Bethge sets the Barmen Declaration of May 1934 squarely within Bonhoeffer's ecumenical work. It gives it a totally different perspective. Bonhoeffer worked on a letter with Bishop Bell to be sent to the representatives of the Universal Council for Life and Work regarding the German Evangelical Church. Bonhoeffer had to make the differences clear between the Confessing Churches and the German Churches. The Ecumenical planners needed to know exactly who represented the Church in Germany. Bethge says,
"the letter did spell out the essential grievances unequivocally: the Fuhrer principle, a violent regime, disciplinary measures, and racial discrimination "without precedent in the history of the Church . . . incompatible with the Christian principle."(370)
With Bell's ecumenical support the opposition churches in German were fortified for their Barmen Synod on May 29. This is where Bonhoeffer's help lay for Barmen. Despite all his work he was misunderstood both by his friends in the Confessing Church and in the ecumenical world. His Confessing friends could not understand his emphasis on the Sermon on the Mount. Among his ecumenical friends he felt isolated for his emphasis on confession and opposition to heresy. He saw the needed connection between both of these worlds but was alone with that vision. (372)
I'd like to draw your attention to two articles on the Barmen Declaration and its' significance since 1934. Victoria Barnett, Church historian and author of For the Soul of the People: a history of the Confessing Church wrote an article for the Christian Century on the fiftieth anniversary of Barmen. This has to be the most important treatment I've read. Very indepth and insightful, giving Barmen's strengths and weaknesses for subsequent generations.
The second article is a lengthy revisiting by Ulrich Mauser for Theology Matters, a publication of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry. Dr. Mauser taught New Testament at Princeton T.S. but is a native German working with the original source material. His background info for Barmen is amazing. The Epilogue begins a dialogue with Barmen and specific PCUSA discussions concerning homosexuality.
Dietrich's work in London was effective. He got his church and others to turn to the Confessing church. Sadly this didn't stick after he left. There were financial considerations and Germany had them by the purse strings. In the end Bonhoeffer was called home to begin a preacher's seminary. He had been still working on plans to go to Ghandi in India. But his dedication to the Confessing churches took over.
In the end Bonhoeffer's course was not his own to take. His love for the Church was more important than his practical plans to teach Germans nonviolent resistance. Was this a godly choice? Was this God's will? We can't take Bonhoeffer out of his place in the church. Even in a church that in the end took the wrong course and left him stranded alone.
Tags:
The most significant word of comparison
"It is becoming increasingly clear to me that what we're going to get is a big, popular, national church whose nature cannot any longer be reconciled with Christianity and that we must be prepared to enter upon entirely new paths which we will have to tread. The question really is: Germanism or Christianity? The sooner the conflict comes out into the open, the better. Nothing is more dangerous than concealing this."
--Dietrich Bonhoeffer's letter to his grandmother on August 20, 1933. (Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, Revised Edition, p. 302)
To me this is the most significant word of comparison between America now and Germany in 1933. Our question today is Americanism or Christianity? Bonhoeffer saw and maintained a clear difference. For America it's a lot more ambiguous as we do not have one officially recognized national church. Evangelicalism is being dubbed the national religion by the press by virtue of its' size and political prowess, and of course because of its seeming overwhelming affinity toward the Bush Administration.
In order to ask "Americanism or Christianity?" we have to move beyond the Bush Administration. We have to see it for what it is but not make the current Administration the line of demarcation. Even so, like Karl Barth after WWI, we have to wake up. Our government represents certain interests in the world that are diametrically opposed to Christian faith. And yet every President has to some degree represented himself (yes always a him!) as a man of Christian faith (usually Protestant, once a Catholic).
This little rant is inspired in part by my viewing the film "The Trials of Henry Kissinger" last night.:)
Tags:
10/24/2006
Conspiracy and Imprisonment review link
Craig Nessan's review of Conspiracy and Imprisonment (Volume 16 in the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works) is excellent. As you know I'm still plodding through Bethge. It'll be some time before I see this title. I think I read in the Dietrich Bonhoeffer English Language Society newsletter that the final books from this series will be out over the next two years. It's a beautiful time to be into Bonhoeffer.
text to audio blogs
If We Never Meet Again. . . .
Another wounded soldier passed recently. Not like the others. This time he fell on his own sword. This pains me, not unlike the others, but this time I can't help but be a bit angry. God knows that I myself have often looked down at myself in contempt, doubting that this sword of the Spirit really fit my arm. I doubted my strength. I doubted my shield of faith. I even laid down my armor to die. I don't know how I made it through except to say that at some point my despair didn't work anymore.
Wait, yes I do remember. I got reminded quickly that I was not alone. That this fight was not mine alone. That I was surrounded by other Christian soldiers all around. They surrounded me, picked me up, and pointed out that we needed each other. And I didn't want to die.
But this man isolated himself. He got alone long enough to end it. I don't want to judge a man who wasn't in his right mind. But for me, I feel that Ending It is an angry, selfish thing to do.
I've lost many friends in this life. I know that this will continue in my life because death is a part of life. I guess I'll never get used to it. I don't think I'm supposed to. Each loss takes its own small piece of me.
When I was about the age my son is now I befriended a man who hung out on our community's front porch. He was so kindly and full of life. But he was also always red faced. I learned over time that he didn't come inside because he was drunk. He always asked me about myself and what I was doing. He said I reminded him of his son and he always imagined that somehow we'd all meet someday.
Over time something I said to Jose really softened his heart. One day he was overcome with tears and said he really wanted to quit drinking and live his life. My dad gave the wonderful news when Jose gave his life to Jesus, joined our little community, and turned his life around. For six wonderful months I hung out with Jose and got to know him as a fresh faced, sober, intelligent and kind person. One day I got the news my friend, who had quite a temper, just stormed off one day and hitchhiked away from us. I saw him again in front of a Catholic Worker house one day. He was doing OK, drinking on and off, but trying to manage. And then one day we got a call that he had gotten drunk and been killed. I was there when we carried his coffin and laid it in our community's little paupers grave. Jose was finally laid to rest. I didn't understand why he had to struggle so but I was happy for the time I got to know him.
Later as an adult I made a friend named Gary. Gary rode the rails for a living. He fancied himself a professional hobo. Somehow he got tied into my circle of friends. Every night we talked and laughed and really enjoyed his company. He gave his life to Jesus and swore off alcohol. The last day I ever saw him was on a Sunday. Though he felt afraid and felt terribly out of place, he wore his best shirt and sat through a church service with us just to belong. In the parking lot afterwards he asked what I was doing the next day. I had all kinds of papers due and tests coming at school. "Oh" he said, "I just wish I knew where I could hang out. I get lonely and its hard to stay sober." I suggested he stay with my friend Richard but he couldn't go there because it was a shelter. Even with the cold coming on he needed to be outside. And that was it. After that he was gone.
After three days I found a notice from the police in a shelter stating that they'd found a homeless man who'd been beaten to death by the railroad tracks. They gave a number to call to identify him. I was so shocked. Though I'd had the experience with Jose, this time I felt personally responsible. If only I'd been with Gary this wouldn't have happened! I called the detective and gave him the info I had for Gary. Just before his death Gary had given us his address. At our little coffeehouse we held a memorial service for Gary. Somehow the Lord had seen fit to allow us to share his last days. We sent his ashes back to his family in Colorado. It didn't seem fair the way he went. It didn't seem dignified. But what is dignified about death?
The older I get the more I realize that death is a part of life. I struggle with saying goodbye as much as saying hello. I've had to say goodbye to too many friends. But this is life in abundance. This is what God has dealt with since he created life. The dust he used returns to dust.
I suppose my real struggle is with my responsibility. To love other persons and know them as I am loved and known. Am I ever really doing it right? The words, the touch, the look, the bodily presence, it never quite measures up with the memory, the thoughts of "what if I had only. . ."
As I understand faith, Obeying God is as much about acceptance as it is about action. Accepting things we can't control, like the actions of the other person and their eventual absence. The loving action involves a courage to do what I can. That action must involve the faith that God somehow uses my efforts.
Finally, let me say I do believe in heaven. I believe in reunion. The song "Will the Circle Be Unbroken?" speaks to that. I also believe in the family of believers across time. I am grateful for the connection I share with the thoughts and actions of believers who've been gone for many years. I believe I am a part of this Family across time and I'm grateful for that.
Part 2
When it came time for the prayer requests in the Baptist Church I used to attend I would tune out. Miss Hutchins has pnuemonia, Miss Doughty is a shut-in who asks that we remember her in prayer after a recent spill. Mrs. Smith has a son who is backslidden and on drugs. And on occasion I honestly thought to myself that the Church must be this place where the gospel is like a shalack meant to preserve us, but that over time it wears off. Prayers for healing, deliverance and salvation must be new coats of shalack that delay the inevitable. I used to think of the way the deacon called for prayer for the "Sickamongus" as though it were some flesh eating disease. In that church all the hymns were about victory living or getting saved. So when he spoke of the sickamongus he said it like we had to pray that it didn't infect our sense of victorious salvation. I also remember the "unspoken" prayer. Such and such has an unspoken prayer. What was that about? How was I supposed to not wonder what that unspoken prayer was? Did that person have AIDS or the gout? Were they secretly smoking? Come on give up the goods!
I don't have to think real hard as to why it is unspoken. Prayer requests too often cleverly disguise gossip.
I've never had to deal with real sickness. I was told that I was miraculously healed of a serious ear infection as a child. But since that time I can't think of a time I've needed prayer for serious bodily healing. For that reason maybe its self satisfaction and lack of empathy that makes me despise speaking of the sickamongus.
There's another reason. I've been exposed to so much real suffering in the world, that I can't help almost laughing at Miss Hitchen's flu. Oh you poor thing. Lebanese children are being bombed. But I'm sure the Lord cares more about your flu. You just happened to win the genetic lottery being born in Christian Missouri, God Bless You. That's a cold and heartless sentiment. And yes, truthfully, somehow God cares for everybody. Even so, I have always battled with what seems to be a religion of anesthesia that infected that church and many others I've been in.
Truthfully, I hate sickness because, when it is severe it points to death. I believe it is true that Jesus is victorious over death and that as his followers we are too. I believe in Jesus healing power. But its always been important to me to remember the grand Scheme. Sickness here is no more important than a child dying of dysentery in Africa. And yet TV tells us every night that any discomfort whatsoever is an afront to our humanity. That we are entitled to the best drug at any time. I can't help thinking that this wellness culture is an affront both to divine healing and universal concern. The trickle down we keep expecting from the West, the spillover of compassionate conservativism will come after our wealth is preserved from terror. Freedom for us seems to mean impoverishment and hell for hundreds of thousands of others.
Sickness and death seem to indicate a threat to the Church's work. Jesus went about healing all manner of sickness. He raised Lazerus from the dead. But then Jesus was crucified. He was beaten and mocked. The Powers that be made a show of him to display their power. When Jesus rose from the dead his victory over death was complete. His victory over the Powers was complete. But he lived it all. He lived the suffering, the temptation, the fear, and bore our shame and guilt. And he promised all of these things to us. "No student is better than his teacher." Take up your cross and follow me.
So if following Jesus is a promise of both joy and suffering, how does intercession and prayer help? If by that I mean that prayer makes us feel better, it is not a help. The consolation or ease we feel in praying the prayer comes and goes. The feeling itself is not the reason for prayer. We pray because we are told to. Because, as branches of the Vine, as members of the Body of Christ, prayer is the activity that sustains us. Not only does it sustain us, it is part of God's work in the world. Prayer is not meant to narrow our gaze but to broaden it.
I'm really no expert on prayer. If you want something substantial Irecommend Karl Barth's book on Prayer or Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Prayerbook of the Bible. More importantly are the Scriptures themselves as a model for prayer.
So what sicknesses and what deaths are important to God? All of them! The nightly news can make us feel completely detached from life as it is. We know more about floods and war and the economy than we do our own neighbors. But what do we really know about any of these? I have often prayed with a hand on someone's head: "Dear Lord you know this persons far better than I." And truthfully we never really know. While we want to pray intelligently, the fact is, prayer is resignation even as it is action. Surrender to the will of God. Surrender to His goodness. He commands us, Ask, Seek, Knock. Believe. And yet all of these are active resignations. In prayer I am saying "Dear God I am not You. I do not presume to know. I believe in Your goodness for this person. I ask from You."
I have said before and I will say it again with conviction that God's will is for Christians to take seriously the doctrine of the imago dei. That is the belief that every human being equally possesses the image of God. In Jesus final instructions to his disciples he said "Preach the gospel to all creation and make disciples." I can't help but believe that involves a deep abiding belief in the goodness of God and His desire that we preserve humanity and the earth. Sickness and death appear to be assaults on humanity and creation, but because of Christ's work they are taken up into God's trevail and activity. Instead of mortality and annhialation they point to God's New heaven and Earth. That takes a lot of faith and acceptance. But I want to be a part of that.
Given all these glorious affirmations, let me get painfully personal and come to the reason for both of these audio blogs. The truth is, I can't bear to see up on a blog in digital print what I'm about to say. My dear mother who gave me birth is facing a life threatening illness. Brain cancer. I don't know how to deal with that. I read from Ecclesiasticus this morning. Not a book I normally read. Chapter 2 verse 4-6. It reads:
"Accept whatever is brought upon you, and in changes that humble you be patient. For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation. Trust in him, and he will help you; make your ways straight, and hope in him."
That is my word for today. There are no easy answers when faced with the suffering and possible end of my mother's life. I face this not alone but with the rest of my family. I know that my father's pain in all this is much more severe. It is one thing to endure pain myself, it is quite another to accept it for my mother. Here are some helpful suggestions I've been receiving:
1. Remember that this is not about me, but about my mother. I accept the feelings of guilt, fear, pain and then I surrender it.
2. I want to be present for my mother in the miracle of life that I have with her today. Regular phone calls to connect are essential. When I am with her I will try to make the most of every encounter and share in a new way all that we have.
3. The future is in the future. Each day I'll let my fear of it go and reach out for the strength from God to face today.
4. I am not alone. What I feel I can see in the eyes of those I love. Their strength, their need, their hope, their celebration, is a gift to me. Sorrow is also a gift we share. My feelings alone are not more important than theirs. Our shared life gives me strength for when I'm alone. (Which with a wife and three young kids is not often!)
5. Christ is the center always. He is between me and all persons. Between me and each day. Between me and suffering. Between me and death. Jesus Christ is good. In Him, I and we are never alone.
Jesus is joy in suffering and death.
Another wounded soldier passed recently. Not like the others. This time he fell on his own sword. This pains me, not unlike the others, but this time I can't help but be a bit angry. God knows that I myself have often looked down at myself in contempt, doubting that this sword of the Spirit really fit my arm. I doubted my strength. I doubted my shield of faith. I even laid down my armor to die. I don't know how I made it through except to say that at some point my despair didn't work anymore.
Wait, yes I do remember. I got reminded quickly that I was not alone. That this fight was not mine alone. That I was surrounded by other Christian soldiers all around. They surrounded me, picked me up, and pointed out that we needed each other. And I didn't want to die.
But this man isolated himself. He got alone long enough to end it. I don't want to judge a man who wasn't in his right mind. But for me, I feel that Ending It is an angry, selfish thing to do.
I've lost many friends in this life. I know that this will continue in my life because death is a part of life. I guess I'll never get used to it. I don't think I'm supposed to. Each loss takes its own small piece of me.
When I was about the age my son is now I befriended a man who hung out on our community's front porch. He was so kindly and full of life. But he was also always red faced. I learned over time that he didn't come inside because he was drunk. He always asked me about myself and what I was doing. He said I reminded him of his son and he always imagined that somehow we'd all meet someday.
Over time something I said to Jose really softened his heart. One day he was overcome with tears and said he really wanted to quit drinking and live his life. My dad gave the wonderful news when Jose gave his life to Jesus, joined our little community, and turned his life around. For six wonderful months I hung out with Jose and got to know him as a fresh faced, sober, intelligent and kind person. One day I got the news my friend, who had quite a temper, just stormed off one day and hitchhiked away from us. I saw him again in front of a Catholic Worker house one day. He was doing OK, drinking on and off, but trying to manage. And then one day we got a call that he had gotten drunk and been killed. I was there when we carried his coffin and laid it in our community's little paupers grave. Jose was finally laid to rest. I didn't understand why he had to struggle so but I was happy for the time I got to know him.
Later as an adult I made a friend named Gary. Gary rode the rails for a living. He fancied himself a professional hobo. Somehow he got tied into my circle of friends. Every night we talked and laughed and really enjoyed his company. He gave his life to Jesus and swore off alcohol. The last day I ever saw him was on a Sunday. Though he felt afraid and felt terribly out of place, he wore his best shirt and sat through a church service with us just to belong. In the parking lot afterwards he asked what I was doing the next day. I had all kinds of papers due and tests coming at school. "Oh" he said, "I just wish I knew where I could hang out. I get lonely and its hard to stay sober." I suggested he stay with my friend Richard but he couldn't go there because it was a shelter. Even with the cold coming on he needed to be outside. And that was it. After that he was gone.
After three days I found a notice from the police in a shelter stating that they'd found a homeless man who'd been beaten to death by the railroad tracks. They gave a number to call to identify him. I was so shocked. Though I'd had the experience with Jose, this time I felt personally responsible. If only I'd been with Gary this wouldn't have happened! I called the detective and gave him the info I had for Gary. Just before his death Gary had given us his address. At our little coffeehouse we held a memorial service for Gary. Somehow the Lord had seen fit to allow us to share his last days. We sent his ashes back to his family in Colorado. It didn't seem fair the way he went. It didn't seem dignified. But what is dignified about death?
The older I get the more I realize that death is a part of life. I struggle with saying goodbye as much as saying hello. I've had to say goodbye to too many friends. But this is life in abundance. This is what God has dealt with since he created life. The dust he used returns to dust.
I suppose my real struggle is with my responsibility. To love other persons and know them as I am loved and known. Am I ever really doing it right? The words, the touch, the look, the bodily presence, it never quite measures up with the memory, the thoughts of "what if I had only. . ."
As I understand faith, Obeying God is as much about acceptance as it is about action. Accepting things we can't control, like the actions of the other person and their eventual absence. The loving action involves a courage to do what I can. That action must involve the faith that God somehow uses my efforts.
Finally, let me say I do believe in heaven. I believe in reunion. The song "Will the Circle Be Unbroken?" speaks to that. I also believe in the family of believers across time. I am grateful for the connection I share with the thoughts and actions of believers who've been gone for many years. I believe I am a part of this Family across time and I'm grateful for that.
Part 2
When it came time for the prayer requests in the Baptist Church I used to attend I would tune out. Miss Hutchins has pnuemonia, Miss Doughty is a shut-in who asks that we remember her in prayer after a recent spill. Mrs. Smith has a son who is backslidden and on drugs. And on occasion I honestly thought to myself that the Church must be this place where the gospel is like a shalack meant to preserve us, but that over time it wears off. Prayers for healing, deliverance and salvation must be new coats of shalack that delay the inevitable. I used to think of the way the deacon called for prayer for the "Sickamongus" as though it were some flesh eating disease. In that church all the hymns were about victory living or getting saved. So when he spoke of the sickamongus he said it like we had to pray that it didn't infect our sense of victorious salvation. I also remember the "unspoken" prayer. Such and such has an unspoken prayer. What was that about? How was I supposed to not wonder what that unspoken prayer was? Did that person have AIDS or the gout? Were they secretly smoking? Come on give up the goods!
I don't have to think real hard as to why it is unspoken. Prayer requests too often cleverly disguise gossip.
I've never had to deal with real sickness. I was told that I was miraculously healed of a serious ear infection as a child. But since that time I can't think of a time I've needed prayer for serious bodily healing. For that reason maybe its self satisfaction and lack of empathy that makes me despise speaking of the sickamongus.
There's another reason. I've been exposed to so much real suffering in the world, that I can't help almost laughing at Miss Hitchen's flu. Oh you poor thing. Lebanese children are being bombed. But I'm sure the Lord cares more about your flu. You just happened to win the genetic lottery being born in Christian Missouri, God Bless You. That's a cold and heartless sentiment. And yes, truthfully, somehow God cares for everybody. Even so, I have always battled with what seems to be a religion of anesthesia that infected that church and many others I've been in.
Truthfully, I hate sickness because, when it is severe it points to death. I believe it is true that Jesus is victorious over death and that as his followers we are too. I believe in Jesus healing power. But its always been important to me to remember the grand Scheme. Sickness here is no more important than a child dying of dysentery in Africa. And yet TV tells us every night that any discomfort whatsoever is an afront to our humanity. That we are entitled to the best drug at any time. I can't help thinking that this wellness culture is an affront both to divine healing and universal concern. The trickle down we keep expecting from the West, the spillover of compassionate conservativism will come after our wealth is preserved from terror. Freedom for us seems to mean impoverishment and hell for hundreds of thousands of others.
Sickness and death seem to indicate a threat to the Church's work. Jesus went about healing all manner of sickness. He raised Lazerus from the dead. But then Jesus was crucified. He was beaten and mocked. The Powers that be made a show of him to display their power. When Jesus rose from the dead his victory over death was complete. His victory over the Powers was complete. But he lived it all. He lived the suffering, the temptation, the fear, and bore our shame and guilt. And he promised all of these things to us. "No student is better than his teacher." Take up your cross and follow me.
So if following Jesus is a promise of both joy and suffering, how does intercession and prayer help? If by that I mean that prayer makes us feel better, it is not a help. The consolation or ease we feel in praying the prayer comes and goes. The feeling itself is not the reason for prayer. We pray because we are told to. Because, as branches of the Vine, as members of the Body of Christ, prayer is the activity that sustains us. Not only does it sustain us, it is part of God's work in the world. Prayer is not meant to narrow our gaze but to broaden it.
I'm really no expert on prayer. If you want something substantial Irecommend Karl Barth's book on Prayer or Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Prayerbook of the Bible. More importantly are the Scriptures themselves as a model for prayer.
So what sicknesses and what deaths are important to God? All of them! The nightly news can make us feel completely detached from life as it is. We know more about floods and war and the economy than we do our own neighbors. But what do we really know about any of these? I have often prayed with a hand on someone's head: "Dear Lord you know this persons far better than I." And truthfully we never really know. While we want to pray intelligently, the fact is, prayer is resignation even as it is action. Surrender to the will of God. Surrender to His goodness. He commands us, Ask, Seek, Knock. Believe. And yet all of these are active resignations. In prayer I am saying "Dear God I am not You. I do not presume to know. I believe in Your goodness for this person. I ask from You."
I have said before and I will say it again with conviction that God's will is for Christians to take seriously the doctrine of the imago dei. That is the belief that every human being equally possesses the image of God. In Jesus final instructions to his disciples he said "Preach the gospel to all creation and make disciples." I can't help but believe that involves a deep abiding belief in the goodness of God and His desire that we preserve humanity and the earth. Sickness and death appear to be assaults on humanity and creation, but because of Christ's work they are taken up into God's trevail and activity. Instead of mortality and annhialation they point to God's New heaven and Earth. That takes a lot of faith and acceptance. But I want to be a part of that.
Given all these glorious affirmations, let me get painfully personal and come to the reason for both of these audio blogs. The truth is, I can't bear to see up on a blog in digital print what I'm about to say. My dear mother who gave me birth is facing a life threatening illness. Brain cancer. I don't know how to deal with that. I read from Ecclesiasticus this morning. Not a book I normally read. Chapter 2 verse 4-6. It reads:
"Accept whatever is brought upon you, and in changes that humble you be patient. For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation. Trust in him, and he will help you; make your ways straight, and hope in him."
That is my word for today. There are no easy answers when faced with the suffering and possible end of my mother's life. I face this not alone but with the rest of my family. I know that my father's pain in all this is much more severe. It is one thing to endure pain myself, it is quite another to accept it for my mother. Here are some helpful suggestions I've been receiving:
1. Remember that this is not about me, but about my mother. I accept the feelings of guilt, fear, pain and then I surrender it.
2. I want to be present for my mother in the miracle of life that I have with her today. Regular phone calls to connect are essential. When I am with her I will try to make the most of every encounter and share in a new way all that we have.
3. The future is in the future. Each day I'll let my fear of it go and reach out for the strength from God to face today.
4. I am not alone. What I feel I can see in the eyes of those I love. Their strength, their need, their hope, their celebration, is a gift to me. Sorrow is also a gift we share. My feelings alone are not more important than theirs. Our shared life gives me strength for when I'm alone. (Which with a wife and three young kids is not often!)
5. Christ is the center always. He is between me and all persons. Between me and each day. Between me and suffering. Between me and death. Jesus Christ is good. In Him, I and we are never alone.
Jesus is joy in suffering and death.
10/23/2006
Part 2 "If we never meet again. . . ."
Here's the second part of my audio blog. This time it gets more personal.
Be prepared to turn the audio down. I really sort of yelled into the mic at this point.
speaking of death #2 - Part 2 "If we never meet again. . . ."
It gets personal. How do I face suffering in my family?
Link to download.
Be prepared to turn the audio down. I really sort of yelled into the mic at this point.
speaking of death #2 - Part 2 "If we never meet again. . . ."
It gets personal. How do I face suffering in my family?
Link to download.
Tags:
10/19/2006
Audio blog/podcast "If we never meet again. . . ."
If We Never Meet Again. . . .
reflections, and memories of losing friends to death
Download as an .mp3 or link to as podcast
reflections, and memories of losing friends to death
Download as an .mp3 or link to as podcast
Tags:
JPUSA movies
If you're interested in some videos of JPUSA life check this out from my friend Nathan Cameron:
Over the past few years, many people have expressed to me how they would like to be able to see and share some of our JPUSA movies with friends and family. Now due to video sharing website such as Google Video, YouTube, and MySpace this is now easier than ever. For starters you can view a few movies made by various members(and former members) at the DM MySpace page or click on these links.
Resurrection: This is a film that Mike Troxel made a few years ago for the Fest 4 Us
Our House: This is a film by Debbie Baumgartner.
Darrel at JPUSA: This is a film that Darrel and I made about what he does here at JPUSA.
So here are some tools you can use to show people a little bit more about who and what we are. Also If you feel inspired to video your take on community please do so. Everybody has a unique experience and you are the best person to convey that to others.
hereNathan Cameron
Lux in ferebris lucet, et fenebra eam non comprehenderunt. -J1:5-
PS: You can also look at some of the fun Fest 4 Us Movies of the past
10/17/2006
How?
Somebody explain to me how the President can be given the kind of authorization he just signed into law in the Military Commissions Act of 2006? I don't really want a long legal explanation beyond a simple description of what entitles this kind of new power. Permit me to think out loud. According to the Bill:
1. 9/11
2. President given power to declare war and govern military tribunals as commander in chief of armed forces.
3. "The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), held that the military commissions established by the Department of Defense under the President’s Military Order of November 13, 2001, were not consistent with certain aspects of United States domestic law.
The Congress may by law, and does by enactment of this statute, eliminate any deficiency of statutory authority to facilitate bringing terrorists with whom the United States is engaged in armed conflict to justice for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions."
So let me get this straight. We are attacked, congress gives the President power, and now the President's power is total when it relates to Terrorism. Once again, trust the President. He only has our best interests in mind. How are we sure? Because he's an American. Americans always do what is right. If desperate times call for desperate measures, how desperate can the measures get before the clear-thinking authorities are wrong?
1. 9/11
2. President given power to declare war and govern military tribunals as commander in chief of armed forces.
3. "The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), held that the military commissions established by the Department of Defense under the President’s Military Order of November 13, 2001, were not consistent with certain aspects of United States domestic law.
The Congress may by law, and does by enactment of this statute, eliminate any deficiency of statutory authority to facilitate bringing terrorists with whom the United States is engaged in armed conflict to justice for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions."
So let me get this straight. We are attacked, congress gives the President power, and now the President's power is total when it relates to Terrorism. Once again, trust the President. He only has our best interests in mind. How are we sure? Because he's an American. Americans always do what is right. If desperate times call for desperate measures, how desperate can the measures get before the clear-thinking authorities are wrong?
Tags:
10/16/2006
On second thought. . . .
I said I was having fun at Jim West's site. But then I read his next post on the same day on the Alms Statute of 1520:
This is cold and heartless at best. In sweeping generalizations, it sounds like is electing himself God and judging very unrighteously, thereby excusing himself from action in behalf of the poor. I'm not having fun anymore. Years ago I wrote an article for the New Life Zoa Free Paper in which I suggested that churches were defacto accusing many people of having commited the sin against the Holy Spirit simply by virtue of their being 'societal losers' ("lazy, alcoholics, drug abusers, and the like"). This is why Bill W. of AA had to stop meeting with the Oxford Group and instead form AA. Forget that Jesus ever said "The son of man came to seek and save that which was lost." Clearly (to some folks' way of thinking) he meant lost souls with a disposition toward being the elect. I'll never stop believing that Jesus is for losers, and in God's ability to change the people we'd least expect. Maybe even self-righteous church folk who don't need a suffering Servant!
([11/1/06] I did some editing to this post. I like Jim and keep frequenting his blog. I agree with Richard that this was (hopefully) tongue in cheek.)
Mutatis mutandis, if the Zurich legislation were active today, people who were poor because they were lazy, alcoholics, drug abusers, and the like would be left in their condition because it was self elected. On the other hand, if someone lost their house or job because of medical problems, disasters, etc., such would be permitted the reception of aid.
In the words of a famous song, “oh for the good old days…”
This is cold and heartless at best. In sweeping generalizations, it sounds like is electing himself God and judging very unrighteously, thereby excusing himself from action in behalf of the poor. I'm not having fun anymore. Years ago I wrote an article for the New Life Zoa Free Paper in which I suggested that churches were defacto accusing many people of having commited the sin against the Holy Spirit simply by virtue of their being 'societal losers' ("lazy, alcoholics, drug abusers, and the like"). This is why Bill W. of AA had to stop meeting with the Oxford Group and instead form AA. Forget that Jesus ever said "The son of man came to seek and save that which was lost." Clearly (to some folks' way of thinking) he meant lost souls with a disposition toward being the elect. I'll never stop believing that Jesus is for losers, and in God's ability to change the people we'd least expect. Maybe even self-righteous church folk who don't need a suffering Servant!
([11/1/06] I did some editing to this post. I like Jim and keep frequenting his blog. I agree with Richard that this was (hopefully) tongue in cheek.)
Tags:
church and the social setting
I'm having fun over at Dr. Jim West's discussion "Is the Social Gospel A Distraction?"
Sub Ratione Dei clued me in to this. Some great comments. Richard is right though, its quite parochial, though this is a very practical and pastoral issue. I say the Gospel involves the mandate to care for all people. Dr. John Stott is trying to broaden the concept of Evangelism, pointing out in an interview with Tim Stafford that we may understand it far too narrowly.
Sub Ratione Dei clued me in to this. Some great comments. Richard is right though, its quite parochial, though this is a very practical and pastoral issue. I say the Gospel involves the mandate to care for all people. Dr. John Stott is trying to broaden the concept of Evangelism, pointing out in an interview with Tim Stafford that we may understand it far too narrowly.
My hope is that in the future, evangelical leaders will ensure that their social agenda includes such vital but controversial topics as halting climate change, eradicating poverty, abolishing armories of mass destruction, responding adequately to the AIDS pandemic, and asserting the human rights of women and children in all cultures. I hope our agenda does not remain too narrow.
Tags:
10/13/2006
protest and pop music
I caught Get Up! Stand Up! The Story of Pop and Protest on PBS last night. Really fascinating stuff. It was a history of protest and music in American history. I only wish the exploration in more recent years had been more indepth. It weighed heavy on the 60's but then by the '90s the protest side of the music seemed far less effectual. The point was made that the larger issues came out as the money rolled in (for LiveAid and We Are the World) but only served to raise simple awareness. It ends with Bono and the One project and the question "What can rock stars really accomplish?" That is perhaps this generations' question as it concerns music and political awareness. The show could have ventured another half hour into that topic.
Tags:
10/11/2006
Blogging Bonhoeffer: Chapter Seven "Berlin 1933"
Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography, Revised Edition, 2000. pg. 257-324
Chapter Seven "Berlin 1933"
Maybe the clearest sign that Eberhard Bethge moved from the general to the particular in tone is when he began marking the months. Whereas in previous chapters he splits the sections topically, based on duties or ideas. Here, in 1933 he moves from January to September chronicling every action in the church struggle between the Nazi German Christians and what comes to be known as the Confessing Church---the church that by returning to the Scriptures and their foundations, tried to theologically remove a vicious poison from the faith.
The events of 1933 are renowned. The speed with which Hitler moved from being president to becoming Reich Fuhrer, using the insecurity of the German situation to obtain complete control. Did it happen overnight? No, but in overt and subtle ways every aspect of life gradually moved into compliance with the political. Bethge notes the immediate changes that thrust Dietrich into uncertainty:
Yesterday I read "The Church and the Jewish Question." from No Rusty Swords, 217-225.
(Incidently, if you don't know of No Rusty Swords or the trilogy of books edited by Edwin Robertson from Bonhoeffer's Gessamelte Schriften, then I should let you know that they can still be had thirty years later for much cheaper than the authorized versions coming out! I see copies popping up on Abebooks.com and ebay from time to time. I recently got a copy of the second book, The Way to Freedom, for only $5.00! These are selections of the letters, lectures and notes from the German. If you want the papers first hand, this is the cheap way to go.)
Bethge (pg. 272-276) gives a lengthy treatment of this essay (prepared for a group of pastors who met at Gerhard Jacobi's house) but here is my own assessment:
Beginning with an approach to the state that almost seems to lower the church's gaze from the world, it soon becomes clear that Bonhoeffer has Christian action in the world very much as its' focus. He masterfully argues theologically for the Church's witness to the state, without itself becoming a political animal. Individual Christians will be political, but Bonhoeffer asks with what voice the Church itself should speak. In the case of Hitler, he reasoned that a Status Confessionis was in order. This would involve a prepared statement from an Evangelical Church Council. This wasn't to happen, and of course Bonhoeffer's struggle within the Church for its' stand concerning the jews was only beginning. Bethge says that "by August 1933 Bonhoeffer had concluded beyond all doubt that there would be no question of belonging to a church that excluded the Jews." (pg. 273)
>From May through to August, Bethge exhaustively details the Confessional Church fight to preserve independence from the State. Paster D. Friedrich von Bodelschwingh is elected national Bishop to counter the German Christians but Hitler makes Ludwig Muller his commissioner of affairs. By July 14 Muller pushed through the new German Protestant Church constitution. Bonhoeffer and Franz Hildebrandt worked hard to sway votes in the church election on July 23, though it was clear it was a losing battle. The story of their run-in with the Gestapo on pg. 295-6 is worthy of note. Word got around after that that Dietrich had been sent to a concentration camp! The office of the Young Reformation movement was invaded and leaflets were confiscated. At this time Bonhoeffer and Hans Jacobi actually drove to Gestapo headquarters to confront them! Some of their leaflets were returned.
On the day of the church elections, Bonhoeffer preached this sermon in the Trinity Church in Berlin.
Church Election Sermon
No Rusty Swords, Fontana, 1977
pg. 208-213
TEXT: Matt. 16:13-18
If it were left to us, we would rather avoid the decisions
which are now forced upon us; if it were left to us, we would
rather not allow ourselves to be caught up in this church
struggle; if it were left to us, we would rather not have to
insist upon the rightness of our cause and we would so
willingly avoid the terrible danger of exalting ourselves over
others; if it were left to us, we would retire today rather
than tomorrow into private life and leave all the struggle and
the pride to others. And yet-thank God-it has not been left to
us. Instead, in God's wisdom, everything is going exactly as we
would rather not have it go. We are called upon to make a
decision from which we cannot escape. We must be content,
wherever we are, to face the accusation of being
self-righteous, to be suspected of acting and speaking as
though we were proud and superior to others. Nothing shall be
made easy for us. We are confronted by a decision, and a
difference of opinion. 'For this reason, if we are honest with
ourselves, we will not try to disguise the true meaning of the
church election today. In the midst of the creakings and
groanings of a crumbling and tottering church structure, which
has been shaken to its very foundations, we hear in this text
the promise of the eternal church, against which the gates of
hell shall not prevail; of the church founded on a rock, Christ
has built and which he continues to build throughout all time.
Where is this church? Where do we find it? Where do we hear its
voice? Come all you who ask in seriousness, all you who are
abandoned and left alone, we will go back to the Holy
Scriptures, we will go and look for the church together. Those
who have ears to hear, let them hear.
Jesus went out into a deserted place with his disciples, close
to the edge of the pagan lands, and there he was alone with
them. This is the place where for the first time he promises
them the legacy of his church. Not in the midst of the people,
not at the visible peak of his popularity; but in a distant and
unfrequented spot, far from the orthodox scribes and pharisees,
far from the crowds who on Palm Sunday would cry out "Hosanna"
and on Good Friday, "Crucify him," he speaks to his disciples
of the mystery and the future of his church. He obviously
believed that this church could not be built in the first place on the scribes, the priests,
or the masses; but that only this tiny group of disciples, who
followed him, was called to this work. And clearly he did not
think that Jerusalem, the city of the Temple and the center of
the life of the people, was the right place for this, but he
goes out into the wilderness, where he could not hope that his
preaching would achieve any eternal, visible effectiveness. And
last of all he does not consider that any of the great feast
days would have been suitable time to speak of his church, but
rather he promises this church in the face of death,
immediately before he tells of his coming passion for the first
time. The church of the tiny flock, the church out in the
wilderness, the church in the face of death--something like
this must be meant.
Jesus himself puts the decisive question, for which the
disciples had been waiting: "Who do people say that the
Son of man is?" Answer: "Some say John the Baptist, others say
Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Opinions,
nothing but opinions; one could extend this list of opinions as
much as one wanted. . . some say you are a great man, some say
you are an idealist, some say you are a religious genius, some
say you are a great champion and hero, who will lead us to
victory and greatness. Opinions, more or less serious
opinions-- but Jesus does not want to build his church on
opinions. And so he addresses himself directly to his
disciples: "But who do you say that I am?" In this inevitable
confrontation with Christ there can be no "perhaps" or "some
say," no opinions but only silence or the answer which Peter
gives now: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living: God."
Here in the midst of human opinions and views, something quite
new suddenly becomes visible. Here God's name is named, here
the eternal is pronounced, here the mystery is recognized. Here
is no longer human opinion, but precisely the opposite, here is
divine revelation and confession of faith. "Blessed are you,
Simon Bar-jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are
Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."
What is the difference between Peter and the others? Is he
of such heroic nature that he towers over the others? He is
not. Is he endowed with such unheard-of strength of character?
He is not. Is he gifted with unshakable loyalty? He is not.
Peter is nothing, nothing but a person confessing his faith, a
person who has been confronted by Christ and who has recognized
Christ, and who now confesses his faith in him, and this
confessing Peter is called the rock on which Christ will build
his church.
Peter's church--that means the church of rock, the church of the
confession of Christ. Peter's church, that does not mean a
church of opinions and views, but the church of the revelation;
not a church in which what "people say" is talked about but the
church in which Peter's confession is made anew and passed on;
the church which has no other purpose in song, prayer,
preaching, and action than to pass on its confession of faith;
the church which is always founded on rock as long as it
remains within these limits, but which turns into a house built
on sand, which is blown away by the wind, as soon as it is
foolhardy enough to think that it may depart from or even for a
moment neglect this purpose.
But Peter's church-this is not something which one can say
with untroubled pride. Peter, the confessing, believing
disciple, Peter denied his Lord on the same night as Judas
betrayed him; in that night he stood at the fire and felt
ashamed when Jesus stood before the high priest; he is the man
of little faith, the timid man who sinks into the sea; Peter is
the disciple whom Jesus threatened: "Get thee behind me Satan";
it is he who later was again and again overcome by weakness,
who again and again denied and fell, a weak, vacillating man,
given over to the whim of the moment. Peter's church, that is
the church which shares these weaknesses, the church which
itself again and again denies and falls, the unfaithful,
fainthearted, timid church which again neglects its charge and
looks to the world and its opinions. Peter's church, that is
the church of all those who are ashamed of their Lord when they
should stand firm confessing him.
But Peter is also the man of whom we read: "He went- out and
wept bitterly." Of Judas, who also denied the Lord, we read:
"He went out and hanged himself." That is the difference. Peter
went out and wept bitterly. Peter's church is not only the
church which confesses its faith, nor only the church which
denies its Lord; it is the church which can still weep. "By the
waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we
remembered Zion" (Ps. 137:1). This is the church; for what does
this weeping mean other than that one has found the way back,
than that one is on the way home, than that one has become the
prodigal son who falls to his knees weeping before his father?
Peter's church is the church with that godly sadness which
leads to joy.
It does indeed seem very uncertain ground to build on,
doesn't it? And yet it is bedrock, for this Peter, this
trembling reed, is called by God, caught "by God, held by God.
"You are Peter," we all are Peter; not the Pope, as the 'Roman
Catholics would have it; not this person or that, but all of
us, who simply live from our confession of faith in Christ, as
the timid, faithless, fainthearted, and yet who live as people
sustained by God.
But it is not we who build. He builds the church. No human
being builds the church but Christ alone. Whoever intends to
build the church is surely well on the way to destroying it;
for he will build a temple to idols without wishing or knowing
it. We must confess-he builds. We must proclaim--he builds. We
must pray to him-that he may build. We do not know his plan.
'We cannot see whether he is building or pulling down. It may
be that the times which by human standards are times of
collapse are for him the great times of construction. It may be
that from a human point of view great times for the church are
actually times of demolition. It is a great comfort which
Christ gives to his church: you confess, preach, bear witness
to me, and I alone will build where it pleases me. Do not
meddle in what is my province. Do what is given to you to do
well and you have done enough. But do it well. Pay no heed to
views and opinions, don't ask for judgments,
don't always be calculating what will happen, don't always be
on the lookout for another refuge! Let the church remain the
church! But church, confess, confess, confess! Christ alone is
your Lord, from his grace alone can you live as you are. Christ
builds.
And the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. Death,
the greatest heir of everything that has existence, here meets
its end. Close by the precipice of the valley of death, the
church is founded, the church which confesses Christ as its
life. The church possesses eternal life just where death seeks
to take hold of it; and death seeks to take hold of it
precisely because it possesses life. The Confessing Church is
the eternal church because Christ protects it. Its eternity is
not visible in this world. It is unhindered by the world. The
waves pass right over it and sometimes it seems to be
completely covered and lost. But the victory is its because
Christ its Lord is by its side and he has overcome the world of
death. Do not ask whether you can see the victory; believe in
the victory and it is yours.
In huge capital letters our text is etched into the dome of
the great church of St. Peter's, the papal church in Rome.
Proudly this church points to its eternity, to its visible
victory over the world, across the centuries. Such splendor,
which even our Lord did not desire or bear, is denied to us.
And yet a splendor which is immeasurably greater than this
splendor in the world, is assured to us. Whether the band of
believers is great or small, low or high, weak or strong, if it
confesses Christ the victory is assured to them, in eternity.
Fear not, little flock, for it is my Father's pleasure to give
you the kingdom. Where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them. The city of God is built
on a sure foundation. Amen.
This sermon reveals a lot about Bonhoeffer's ecclesiology. The Church is home to the confession. And this is what I believe. No matter how confusing it may appear, and I have American Evangelicalism in mind, the true Church that is overlooked in our triumphant speech, the suffering Church of confession, is victorious in Christ. This Jesus may be of no real use to politicians in this election season. He doesn't fit into the usual agendas that win votes. He is too weak for Republicans or Democrats. But He is victorious in our confession.
After the July 23 election defeat Bonhoeffer left for London. His visit there presented the opportunity to take a pastorate, but he wasn't sure this was the right thing to do. In August came the Bethel Confession. Much is written about this work and it remains one of the most important Church confessions in modern history. Bonhoeffer felt very spent around this time. He felt alone and helpless toward what the church in Berlin had become. This surely influenced his decision for the pastorate in London, though it was only to last nine months, with much of that time traveling back and forth to Germany.
Chapter Seven "Berlin 1933"
Maybe the clearest sign that Eberhard Bethge moved from the general to the particular in tone is when he began marking the months. Whereas in previous chapters he splits the sections topically, based on duties or ideas. Here, in 1933 he moves from January to September chronicling every action in the church struggle between the Nazi German Christians and what comes to be known as the Confessing Church---the church that by returning to the Scriptures and their foundations, tried to theologically remove a vicious poison from the faith.
The events of 1933 are renowned. The speed with which Hitler moved from being president to becoming Reich Fuhrer, using the insecurity of the German situation to obtain complete control. Did it happen overnight? No, but in overt and subtle ways every aspect of life gradually moved into compliance with the political. Bethge notes the immediate changes that thrust Dietrich into uncertainty:
The political turning point on 30 January 1933 would force Bonhoeffer's life onto a different course. It did not require a reorientation of his personal convictions or theology, but it became increasingly clear that academic discussion must give way to action. It was imperative to relinquish the shelter and privilege of the academic rostrum, as well as the protected "rights and duties of the ministry," if the power of weakness were to be credible. (Bethge, 258)That "power of weakness" is key here. Here is where Bonhoeffer's theologia crucis, his important Christology lectures, demanded satisfaction. If God, as Dietrich says, is present where we encounter the other, then who but the Jew--the victim of Germany's Other-ing--shows us the true face of Christ? This thought developed throughout this period and later, but the important point is that Bonhoeffer committed himself to this task.
Up to now the young lecturer and preacher had not been involved in decisions concerning greater church issues. He had no voice, nor indeed had he desire any. Now at the age of twenty-seven, he found himself among those whose names had suddenly become prominent. (Ibid.)First is Bonhoeffer's radio address which is cut off, then is the Berlin ecumenical meeting of the World Alliance and the Universal Christian Council for Life and Work. After the Reichstag burned, Hitler declared his emergency decrees. Then Dietrich's father was called on to psychologically analyze the young suspect, Marinus van der Lubbe. The Bonhoeffer family is thrust right into Germany's fate. The Reichstag Fire Edict was later used to close Finkenwalde. On April first came the boycott of Jewish businesses. By April 7 Aryan legislation was enacted. Bethge writes that "Bonhoeffer was among the very few who sat down and worked through its possible consequences, from both a political and an ecclesiastical standpoint." (Bethge, 272)
Yesterday I read "The Church and the Jewish Question." from No Rusty Swords, 217-225.
(Incidently, if you don't know of No Rusty Swords or the trilogy of books edited by Edwin Robertson from Bonhoeffer's Gessamelte Schriften, then I should let you know that they can still be had thirty years later for much cheaper than the authorized versions coming out! I see copies popping up on Abebooks.com and ebay from time to time. I recently got a copy of the second book, The Way to Freedom, for only $5.00! These are selections of the letters, lectures and notes from the German. If you want the papers first hand, this is the cheap way to go.)
Bethge (pg. 272-276) gives a lengthy treatment of this essay (prepared for a group of pastors who met at Gerhard Jacobi's house) but here is my own assessment:
Beginning with an approach to the state that almost seems to lower the church's gaze from the world, it soon becomes clear that Bonhoeffer has Christian action in the world very much as its' focus. He masterfully argues theologically for the Church's witness to the state, without itself becoming a political animal. Individual Christians will be political, but Bonhoeffer asks with what voice the Church itself should speak. In the case of Hitler, he reasoned that a Status Confessionis was in order. This would involve a prepared statement from an Evangelical Church Council. This wasn't to happen, and of course Bonhoeffer's struggle within the Church for its' stand concerning the jews was only beginning. Bethge says that "by August 1933 Bonhoeffer had concluded beyond all doubt that there would be no question of belonging to a church that excluded the Jews." (pg. 273)
>From May through to August, Bethge exhaustively details the Confessional Church fight to preserve independence from the State. Paster D. Friedrich von Bodelschwingh is elected national Bishop to counter the German Christians but Hitler makes Ludwig Muller his commissioner of affairs. By July 14 Muller pushed through the new German Protestant Church constitution. Bonhoeffer and Franz Hildebrandt worked hard to sway votes in the church election on July 23, though it was clear it was a losing battle. The story of their run-in with the Gestapo on pg. 295-6 is worthy of note. Word got around after that that Dietrich had been sent to a concentration camp! The office of the Young Reformation movement was invaded and leaflets were confiscated. At this time Bonhoeffer and Hans Jacobi actually drove to Gestapo headquarters to confront them! Some of their leaflets were returned.
On the day of the church elections, Bonhoeffer preached this sermon in the Trinity Church in Berlin.
Church Election Sermon
No Rusty Swords, Fontana, 1977
pg. 208-213
TEXT: Matt. 16:13-18
If it were left to us, we would rather avoid the decisions
which are now forced upon us; if it were left to us, we would
rather not allow ourselves to be caught up in this church
struggle; if it were left to us, we would rather not have to
insist upon the rightness of our cause and we would so
willingly avoid the terrible danger of exalting ourselves over
others; if it were left to us, we would retire today rather
than tomorrow into private life and leave all the struggle and
the pride to others. And yet-thank God-it has not been left to
us. Instead, in God's wisdom, everything is going exactly as we
would rather not have it go. We are called upon to make a
decision from which we cannot escape. We must be content,
wherever we are, to face the accusation of being
self-righteous, to be suspected of acting and speaking as
though we were proud and superior to others. Nothing shall be
made easy for us. We are confronted by a decision, and a
difference of opinion. 'For this reason, if we are honest with
ourselves, we will not try to disguise the true meaning of the
church election today. In the midst of the creakings and
groanings of a crumbling and tottering church structure, which
has been shaken to its very foundations, we hear in this text
the promise of the eternal church, against which the gates of
hell shall not prevail; of the church founded on a rock, Christ
has built and which he continues to build throughout all time.
Where is this church? Where do we find it? Where do we hear its
voice? Come all you who ask in seriousness, all you who are
abandoned and left alone, we will go back to the Holy
Scriptures, we will go and look for the church together. Those
who have ears to hear, let them hear.
Jesus went out into a deserted place with his disciples, close
to the edge of the pagan lands, and there he was alone with
them. This is the place where for the first time he promises
them the legacy of his church. Not in the midst of the people,
not at the visible peak of his popularity; but in a distant and
unfrequented spot, far from the orthodox scribes and pharisees,
far from the crowds who on Palm Sunday would cry out "Hosanna"
and on Good Friday, "Crucify him," he speaks to his disciples
of the mystery and the future of his church. He obviously
believed that this church could not be built in the first place on the scribes, the priests,
or the masses; but that only this tiny group of disciples, who
followed him, was called to this work. And clearly he did not
think that Jerusalem, the city of the Temple and the center of
the life of the people, was the right place for this, but he
goes out into the wilderness, where he could not hope that his
preaching would achieve any eternal, visible effectiveness. And
last of all he does not consider that any of the great feast
days would have been suitable time to speak of his church, but
rather he promises this church in the face of death,
immediately before he tells of his coming passion for the first
time. The church of the tiny flock, the church out in the
wilderness, the church in the face of death--something like
this must be meant.
Jesus himself puts the decisive question, for which the
disciples had been waiting: "Who do people say that the
Son of man is?" Answer: "Some say John the Baptist, others say
Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Opinions,
nothing but opinions; one could extend this list of opinions as
much as one wanted. . . some say you are a great man, some say
you are an idealist, some say you are a religious genius, some
say you are a great champion and hero, who will lead us to
victory and greatness. Opinions, more or less serious
opinions-- but Jesus does not want to build his church on
opinions. And so he addresses himself directly to his
disciples: "But who do you say that I am?" In this inevitable
confrontation with Christ there can be no "perhaps" or "some
say," no opinions but only silence or the answer which Peter
gives now: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living: God."
Here in the midst of human opinions and views, something quite
new suddenly becomes visible. Here God's name is named, here
the eternal is pronounced, here the mystery is recognized. Here
is no longer human opinion, but precisely the opposite, here is
divine revelation and confession of faith. "Blessed are you,
Simon Bar-jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are
Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."
What is the difference between Peter and the others? Is he
of such heroic nature that he towers over the others? He is
not. Is he endowed with such unheard-of strength of character?
He is not. Is he gifted with unshakable loyalty? He is not.
Peter is nothing, nothing but a person confessing his faith, a
person who has been confronted by Christ and who has recognized
Christ, and who now confesses his faith in him, and this
confessing Peter is called the rock on which Christ will build
his church.
Peter's church--that means the church of rock, the church of the
confession of Christ. Peter's church, that does not mean a
church of opinions and views, but the church of the revelation;
not a church in which what "people say" is talked about but the
church in which Peter's confession is made anew and passed on;
the church which has no other purpose in song, prayer,
preaching, and action than to pass on its confession of faith;
the church which is always founded on rock as long as it
remains within these limits, but which turns into a house built
on sand, which is blown away by the wind, as soon as it is
foolhardy enough to think that it may depart from or even for a
moment neglect this purpose.
But Peter's church-this is not something which one can say
with untroubled pride. Peter, the confessing, believing
disciple, Peter denied his Lord on the same night as Judas
betrayed him; in that night he stood at the fire and felt
ashamed when Jesus stood before the high priest; he is the man
of little faith, the timid man who sinks into the sea; Peter is
the disciple whom Jesus threatened: "Get thee behind me Satan";
it is he who later was again and again overcome by weakness,
who again and again denied and fell, a weak, vacillating man,
given over to the whim of the moment. Peter's church, that is
the church which shares these weaknesses, the church which
itself again and again denies and falls, the unfaithful,
fainthearted, timid church which again neglects its charge and
looks to the world and its opinions. Peter's church, that is
the church of all those who are ashamed of their Lord when they
should stand firm confessing him.
But Peter is also the man of whom we read: "He went- out and
wept bitterly." Of Judas, who also denied the Lord, we read:
"He went out and hanged himself." That is the difference. Peter
went out and wept bitterly. Peter's church is not only the
church which confesses its faith, nor only the church which
denies its Lord; it is the church which can still weep. "By the
waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we
remembered Zion" (Ps. 137:1). This is the church; for what does
this weeping mean other than that one has found the way back,
than that one is on the way home, than that one has become the
prodigal son who falls to his knees weeping before his father?
Peter's church is the church with that godly sadness which
leads to joy.
It does indeed seem very uncertain ground to build on,
doesn't it? And yet it is bedrock, for this Peter, this
trembling reed, is called by God, caught "by God, held by God.
"You are Peter," we all are Peter; not the Pope, as the 'Roman
Catholics would have it; not this person or that, but all of
us, who simply live from our confession of faith in Christ, as
the timid, faithless, fainthearted, and yet who live as people
sustained by God.
But it is not we who build. He builds the church. No human
being builds the church but Christ alone. Whoever intends to
build the church is surely well on the way to destroying it;
for he will build a temple to idols without wishing or knowing
it. We must confess-he builds. We must proclaim--he builds. We
must pray to him-that he may build. We do not know his plan.
'We cannot see whether he is building or pulling down. It may
be that the times which by human standards are times of
collapse are for him the great times of construction. It may be
that from a human point of view great times for the church are
actually times of demolition. It is a great comfort which
Christ gives to his church: you confess, preach, bear witness
to me, and I alone will build where it pleases me. Do not
meddle in what is my province. Do what is given to you to do
well and you have done enough. But do it well. Pay no heed to
views and opinions, don't ask for judgments,
don't always be calculating what will happen, don't always be
on the lookout for another refuge! Let the church remain the
church! But church, confess, confess, confess! Christ alone is
your Lord, from his grace alone can you live as you are. Christ
builds.
And the gates of hell shall not prevail against you. Death,
the greatest heir of everything that has existence, here meets
its end. Close by the precipice of the valley of death, the
church is founded, the church which confesses Christ as its
life. The church possesses eternal life just where death seeks
to take hold of it; and death seeks to take hold of it
precisely because it possesses life. The Confessing Church is
the eternal church because Christ protects it. Its eternity is
not visible in this world. It is unhindered by the world. The
waves pass right over it and sometimes it seems to be
completely covered and lost. But the victory is its because
Christ its Lord is by its side and he has overcome the world of
death. Do not ask whether you can see the victory; believe in
the victory and it is yours.
In huge capital letters our text is etched into the dome of
the great church of St. Peter's, the papal church in Rome.
Proudly this church points to its eternity, to its visible
victory over the world, across the centuries. Such splendor,
which even our Lord did not desire or bear, is denied to us.
And yet a splendor which is immeasurably greater than this
splendor in the world, is assured to us. Whether the band of
believers is great or small, low or high, weak or strong, if it
confesses Christ the victory is assured to them, in eternity.
Fear not, little flock, for it is my Father's pleasure to give
you the kingdom. Where two or three are gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them. The city of God is built
on a sure foundation. Amen.
This sermon reveals a lot about Bonhoeffer's ecclesiology. The Church is home to the confession. And this is what I believe. No matter how confusing it may appear, and I have American Evangelicalism in mind, the true Church that is overlooked in our triumphant speech, the suffering Church of confession, is victorious in Christ. This Jesus may be of no real use to politicians in this election season. He doesn't fit into the usual agendas that win votes. He is too weak for Republicans or Democrats. But He is victorious in our confession.
After the July 23 election defeat Bonhoeffer left for London. His visit there presented the opportunity to take a pastorate, but he wasn't sure this was the right thing to do. In August came the Bethel Confession. Much is written about this work and it remains one of the most important Church confessions in modern history. Bonhoeffer felt very spent around this time. He felt alone and helpless toward what the church in Berlin had become. This surely influenced his decision for the pastorate in London, though it was only to last nine months, with much of that time traveling back and forth to Germany.
Tags:
10/10/2006
Israeli/Palestinian peacemaking: protecting olive crops at harvest
The Times
October 09, 2006
Rabbi leads defence of Palestinian olive groves
From Ian MacKinnon in Huwara, West Bank
The olives are stunted, the trees in poor condition. At the top of a ladder, stripping fruit from high branches, the Palestinian farmer Omar Karni is in his element, working his way up a dusty olive grove that has been in his family for generations. For the first time in four years, the family has been able to harvest the crop. Last time Mr Karni tried, radical Jewish settlers set fire to the tinder-dry land and beat him as he fled. “I’m so happy to be here,” he said, stretching to reach a branch in the relentless sun. “This is my land and if I can’t come here to farm it I feel incomplete. I must do this to keep the land in my family.”
Mr Karni, 58, a Muslim, can go about his business without threat largely because of a rabbi who has co-ordinated with the Israeli Army and police to be on the spot to provide protection. Rabbi Arik Ascherman peers through binoculars towards the Har Berakha settlement near Nablus, in the West Bank, for signs of trouble. Heavily armed Israeli police patrol through the trees and an army Humvee squats across the dirt track to deter unwanted visitors. Rabbi Ascherman, co-director of Rabbis for Human Rights, will spend the six-week olive season rising at dawn with other volunteers to put his life on the line to protect Palestinian farmers from armed Jewish settlers.
Without the Jewish cleric, the farmers would be fired upon or beaten, their harvest stolen and ancient trees — some dating from Roman times — felled with chainsaws. “This whole issue of trying to prevent the olive harvest is the ongoing struggle to get Palestinians off the land,” the rabbi said. “But if we Jews are to survive in this land we must restore hope by being here to break down the stereotypes the Palestinians have of Israelis. This is the best single thing I can do to protect my two children.” The rabbi and his fellow volunteers — some Israeli, some foreign — will help to harvest and to police groves in 30 West Bank villages that sit cheek-by-jowl with Jewish settlements and have become flashpoints. Last year attacks rose sharply at harvest-time, with feelings running high over Israel’s pullout from the Gaza Strip. Thousands of olive trees were cut down, others damaged, crops stolen, and several Palestinian farmers suffered serious injury at the hands of settler mobs.
Gamilah Biso, an Arabic-speaking Jewish volunteer who was brought up in Damascus, realises that her presence and that of her colleagues is vital to ensure that the olives can be harvested from the West Bank’s ten million trees to produce the 36,000 tonnes of olive oil. That accounts for one fifth of Palestinian agriculture. “If we weren’t here the farmer and his family just wouldn’t be able to come,” Ms Biso said, deftly stripping the green olives from the branches. “It would be too easy for the settlers to shoot them.” Victory in a two-year court case brought by the rabbis and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel may help to ease tensions. It has guaranteed the farmers access to their land and obliged the army to protect that right.
The Army recently drove away settlers who had come to steal the olives from Mr Karni’s land — yet subsequently barred the family from their 12-acre grove because they had arrived before the agreed schedule. Mr Karni’s early appearance was driven by the desperation of current Palestinian circumstances. The harvest now offers a vital economic lifeline. “We came to raise money for the Ramadan celebrations,” he said. “No one has any stable work these days. So the harvest has become very, very important to survive. We await the harvest like we await the rain.” Tags:
10/06/2006
Another look at the "Desperate Kind of Faithful" story
Luke 7: 36-50; Matt 26:6-13; Mark 14: 3-9; John 12:2-11
I'm looking again at the quote below the title of my blog, "A Desperate Kind of Faithful".
By way of explanation, I have in truth done the hermeneutically unthinkable and have combined two stories into one narrative, mixing and matching characters to form an idea. There are two foot anointing stories in the gospels. One at the pharisee Simon's party (Lk 7:36-50) and the other at the home of Mary and Martha in Bethany.
I said, "This humiliating, messy, desperate attempt at kindness is my kind of story. It illustrates the only kind of faith that fits me." And as I think about it I realize it actually fits someone who I often think about quite negatively. The truth of the matter is that I'm more often the Pharisee Simon or (the money man Judas in ) in this story. I complain about the finances. I'm perturbed about someone who interrupts things, gets in Jesus way, spends lavishly on feet that will get dirty again, and makes a scene. I'd like to think I'm the woman, but I fear I'm often Simon. I judge in an instant actions which I can hardly interpret because I'm not a part of the intimate action, and I, unlike Jesus, know neither the motives nor the semblance involved. This person I'm thinking about is more active with their loving action than with their words. He trips over his tongue, the words come out all wrong, he sounds angry, misguided, repellent. But in action he is the quickest to clean up a spill. He wants to know just where to help and how. He works behind the scenes doing many things I know nothing about. I only truly know my brothers and sisters here in community through Jesus Christ.
I'm not telling who this person is I'm thinking about. Its not you so don't ask.
I'm looking again at the quote below the title of my blog, "A Desperate Kind of Faithful".
By way of explanation, I have in truth done the hermeneutically unthinkable and have combined two stories into one narrative, mixing and matching characters to form an idea. There are two foot anointing stories in the gospels. One at the pharisee Simon's party (Lk 7:36-50) and the other at the home of Mary and Martha in Bethany.
I said, "This humiliating, messy, desperate attempt at kindness is my kind of story. It illustrates the only kind of faith that fits me." And as I think about it I realize it actually fits someone who I often think about quite negatively. The truth of the matter is that I'm more often the Pharisee Simon or (the money man Judas in ) in this story. I complain about the finances. I'm perturbed about someone who interrupts things, gets in Jesus way, spends lavishly on feet that will get dirty again, and makes a scene. I'd like to think I'm the woman, but I fear I'm often Simon. I judge in an instant actions which I can hardly interpret because I'm not a part of the intimate action, and I, unlike Jesus, know neither the motives nor the semblance involved. This person I'm thinking about is more active with their loving action than with their words. He trips over his tongue, the words come out all wrong, he sounds angry, misguided, repellent. But in action he is the quickest to clean up a spill. He wants to know just where to help and how. He works behind the scenes doing many things I know nothing about. I only truly know my brothers and sisters here in community through Jesus Christ.
I'm not telling who this person is I'm thinking about. Its not you so don't ask.
Tags:
Another Pentecostal documentary, a new study, and more religion and politics
Three things that are interrelated. Last night I saw the 2001 movie documentary "Hell House."
It may still be airing on the Sundance channel and in reruns of This American Life. Michael and I set it up in the dining room here and many other young folks came in and out. A young lady sat on my left who had never before been exposed to a Pentecostal worship service. You may remember that I recently review Jesus Camp.
The Hell House experience is similar to Jesus Camp, but provocative in different ways. Jesus Camp is a much more politically prescient and provocative experience. The subjects of Jesus Camp are harder to watch than Hell House because they are little children. With Hell House, an AoG church attracts thousands of people into a Halloween experience that's really all about sin, culture, and a final invitation for conversion. In Jesus Camp we follow a number of families around in their subculture and then watch their Christian camp experience. Its interesting that I feel like more action is going on in Jesus Camp even though its much more internalized. Hell House is a church reaching out, Jesus Camp is really the day to day (albeit intense) workings of a church subculture among its own kids.
In other news, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has just released a 10 country 233 page survey of Pentecostalism. Bible Belt Blogger calls it "Everything you wanted to know about Pentecostalism." I just have to say that you can read up all you want on Pentecostals and still miss the fact that it is a uniquely lived experience. From the outside looking in, it could appear downright Shamanistic. Having spent a good deal of time in Assembly of God churches I would warn that that appearance is severly misleading. AoG services can be just as boring, maybe more than elsewhere at times.
Always remember too that members inside are as capable of self-criticism as the most vitriolic outside scoffer. A church worship scene from Hell House last night brought back memories of the style of preaching that smacks more of a pep rally than sermon. But I also remember the opposition to this style among professors in my AoG college. I learned well the lesson in my Pnuematology course: "The Holy Spirit's work always points to Christ. Anything other than that is really not Him." I remember that professor asking and really listening to our different youth group "horror" stories. Illicit use of the Holy Spirit's name for personal ego or monetary gain. One woman with tears recounted how she sought in vain the gift of Tongues and was made to feel sinful and unspiritual for not having recieved it in a certain time-frame. My professor expressed his sorrow and assured her that was not AoG teaching but hurtful error.
Finally, Walter Russell Mead's article God's Country? in Foreign Affairs is worthy of attention. He seems very interested in what Evangelicals can contribute to foreign policy. He writes:
It may still be airing on the Sundance channel and in reruns of This American Life. Michael and I set it up in the dining room here and many other young folks came in and out. A young lady sat on my left who had never before been exposed to a Pentecostal worship service. You may remember that I recently review Jesus Camp.
The Hell House experience is similar to Jesus Camp, but provocative in different ways. Jesus Camp is a much more politically prescient and provocative experience. The subjects of Jesus Camp are harder to watch than Hell House because they are little children. With Hell House, an AoG church attracts thousands of people into a Halloween experience that's really all about sin, culture, and a final invitation for conversion. In Jesus Camp we follow a number of families around in their subculture and then watch their Christian camp experience. Its interesting that I feel like more action is going on in Jesus Camp even though its much more internalized. Hell House is a church reaching out, Jesus Camp is really the day to day (albeit intense) workings of a church subculture among its own kids.
In other news, the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has just released a 10 country 233 page survey of Pentecostalism. Bible Belt Blogger calls it "Everything you wanted to know about Pentecostalism." I just have to say that you can read up all you want on Pentecostals and still miss the fact that it is a uniquely lived experience. From the outside looking in, it could appear downright Shamanistic. Having spent a good deal of time in Assembly of God churches I would warn that that appearance is severly misleading. AoG services can be just as boring, maybe more than elsewhere at times.
Always remember too that members inside are as capable of self-criticism as the most vitriolic outside scoffer. A church worship scene from Hell House last night brought back memories of the style of preaching that smacks more of a pep rally than sermon. But I also remember the opposition to this style among professors in my AoG college. I learned well the lesson in my Pnuematology course: "The Holy Spirit's work always points to Christ. Anything other than that is really not Him." I remember that professor asking and really listening to our different youth group "horror" stories. Illicit use of the Holy Spirit's name for personal ego or monetary gain. One woman with tears recounted how she sought in vain the gift of Tongues and was made to feel sinful and unspiritual for not having recieved it in a certain time-frame. My professor expressed his sorrow and assured her that was not AoG teaching but hurtful error.
Finally, Walter Russell Mead's article God's Country? in Foreign Affairs is worthy of attention. He seems very interested in what Evangelicals can contribute to foreign policy. He writes:
"Evangelicals are likely to focus more on U.S. exceptionalism than liberals would like, and they are likely to care more about the morality of U.S. foreign policy than most realists prefer. But evangelical power is here to stay for the foreseeable future, and those concerned about U.S. foreign policy would do well to reach out."Well this will make somebody happy. It would be very difficult for me to sit at a table with Richard Land with an open ear toward most anything he has to say on foreign policy or the environment. I went over all this with Ron Sider last year.
Tags:
10/05/2006
Life under Military Occupation
I finally have the first video from my 2003 journey to Israel and Palestine uploaded on military occupation. Dr. Elias Rishmawi of Beit Sahour is a wonderful resource. There's more to come from this interview.
Tags:
10/03/2006
Eberhard Bethge on American fundamentalism
For those who like straight lines, Halden Doerge has blogged a scene from John deGruchy's Daring, Trusting, Spirit where the Bethges visit Jerry Falwell's church. The experience reminded Eberhard Bethge of Germany in 1933.
Tags:
10/01/2006
Jesus Camp
I saw the movie "Jesus Camp" on Friday night. In it the camp director, Becky Fischer, mentions some websites that describe Palestinians training their children as terrorists. Her Christian Zionist sympathies are in rare form. The film is a provocative experience. Watching it was reliving a lot of really bad spiritual experiences from my own youth. From the website I noticed that it was screened in Springfield Missouri (aka. "Jesus Land"). That's intense. I would not agree with Ted Haggard who said the film was hateful. (Of course he's agin it. He's in it!) I would say that it is incendiary, but no more so than GodStuff on the Daily Show. Charismatic Evangelicals should have the experience of viewing themselves through the eyes of their critics, especially when their "B.S. button" is apparently broken. We need the reminder that we have no special patent on the words "Thus saith the Lord" and that indeed we fall under the usual judgment every time we presume to speak for God.
The hullabaloo on youtube over kids praying to GWB is a misinterpretation. That particular scene in the film is provocative, but it's also clear when you see the whole clip that the kids are not praying to Bush. They are pronouncing a blessing on him and praying for him. But the trailer edit is quick enough to give a wrong impression. Even so the use of the Christian flag, the US flag, and the words spoken are enough that I'd consider it blasphemous. Another scene that I found worse in a way was when the kids are given ceramic cups with the word "government" on them and told to smash them in the name of the Lord. Somehow that's not anarchist, but prophetic in nature. But I'm sure the whole thing is not meant to be analyzed in great detail. We're supposed to be in the Spirit and not use our brains.
Therein lies the true escape hatch for all that goes on in the Jesus Camp services. These are ecstatic spiritual moments which the viewer must share in order to rightly interpret. The scenes are shocking because we're not in the "Spirit." Unbelievers have no right to judge. I can see and feel the reasoning in this. When I'm speaking in tongues I don't care to have a camera on me. I wouldn't care to have a camera follow my seven year old daughter around. When Rachael is speaking about dead churches or people who don't know Jesus you have to take it at face value. This is a child speaking of her experience, of things she's been told, of the way she percieves life. At age seven your world is pretty small. Things are very simple and that's ok.
On the other hand, when a mom says "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who love Jesus and those who don't" I can honestly say this woman is willfully choosing a small world that, though said to be out of love for Jesus, is blissfully ignorant of His work in the world. When she teaches her son to be ignorant of evolution and American history she is doing him a dis-service.
These are the kind of hard issues in the film. See it if you can. Rich Tatum, former webmaster for the General Council of the Assemblies of God, has a review of Jesus Camp up on the Christianity Today website. I think he's being very hopeful about a mainstream Pentecostal position, but unless things have changed a whooooole lot in Springfield since I lived there--the AoG is still very anti-left.
The hullabaloo on youtube over kids praying to GWB is a misinterpretation. That particular scene in the film is provocative, but it's also clear when you see the whole clip that the kids are not praying to Bush. They are pronouncing a blessing on him and praying for him. But the trailer edit is quick enough to give a wrong impression. Even so the use of the Christian flag, the US flag, and the words spoken are enough that I'd consider it blasphemous. Another scene that I found worse in a way was when the kids are given ceramic cups with the word "government" on them and told to smash them in the name of the Lord. Somehow that's not anarchist, but prophetic in nature. But I'm sure the whole thing is not meant to be analyzed in great detail. We're supposed to be in the Spirit and not use our brains.
Therein lies the true escape hatch for all that goes on in the Jesus Camp services. These are ecstatic spiritual moments which the viewer must share in order to rightly interpret. The scenes are shocking because we're not in the "Spirit." Unbelievers have no right to judge. I can see and feel the reasoning in this. When I'm speaking in tongues I don't care to have a camera on me. I wouldn't care to have a camera follow my seven year old daughter around. When Rachael is speaking about dead churches or people who don't know Jesus you have to take it at face value. This is a child speaking of her experience, of things she's been told, of the way she percieves life. At age seven your world is pretty small. Things are very simple and that's ok.
On the other hand, when a mom says "There are two kinds of people in the world, those who love Jesus and those who don't" I can honestly say this woman is willfully choosing a small world that, though said to be out of love for Jesus, is blissfully ignorant of His work in the world. When she teaches her son to be ignorant of evolution and American history she is doing him a dis-service.
These are the kind of hard issues in the film. See it if you can. Rich Tatum, former webmaster for the General Council of the Assemblies of God, has a review of Jesus Camp up on the Christianity Today website. I think he's being very hopeful about a mainstream Pentecostal position, but unless things have changed a whooooole lot in Springfield since I lived there--the AoG is still very anti-left.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
