Has Martin Marty read every book printed in his lifetime, or does it only seem that way? (I've heard stories.)
Fresh from "Sightings", the twice-weekly commentary from the Marty Center at the University of Chicago, Prof. Marty provides a short list of books to read if one wants to get a handle on the "church and state" brouhaha (and brouhaha hardly seems to capture the spirit of the current series of battles, does it?). You may read the posting here.
If you have any other suggestions, I'm open: Share them here.
I don't think that I've read any of the books in Marty's bulletin. But I intend to get John Witte's Relgion and the American Constitution. (See here.) I know two of his other books, and I doubt there is a better guy around with an understanding of the development of and the relationship between civil law and religious history. (Witte will be a presenter at the summer conference sponsored by the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology, "What is Marriage." Info is at the CCET website. Click on "Conferences.")
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Friday, April 29, 2005
"Downfall" -- the Movie, not the Apocalyse
I don't intend to get into the movie-review business. Every once is a while a great movie needs to be promoted, and this is an opportunity for me to do so.
Downfall is a movie that probably couldn't have been made in USAmerica -- and we are so much the poorer for it. Brad and I say that movie last night, and I am haunted by it still. It is one of the most impressive movies I have seen -- and keep in mind that I see at least one movie a week now.
This German movie concerns the last three days in the life of Adoph Hitler, during which time he was in a bunker in Berlin and at the end of which period he killed himself. It is based on the memoirs of two people (at least one of whom features prominently in the movie) who were there. Most of the movie time is set within the bunker (which neither Brad nor I remembered from our history was in Berlin). But it also includes scenes set outside the bunker in Berlin, showing the onslaught of the Russian forces and the responses by military, militia-like children, and civilians to the pending collapse of the Reich.
The movie communicated a sense of evil in ways that, e.g., Schindler's List only hinted at. It showed the madness that was Hitler, along with the complicity of supposedly sane people. And it portrayed "true believers" with such clarity as to chill my soul.
There were aspects of Kurasawa (one of my favorite directors) -- grand drama, world-collapsed-into-one-room shots, attention to detail -- with features Cecil B. DeMille might have envied. The tension never lets up. The actor who plays Hitler seems to have him bang on (when he's ranting in German, I can certainly recollect recordings of der Fuehrer. But it is, I think, Frau Goebbels who incarnates the evil at foot with the National Socialist movement -- with her absolute devotion to the cause and its "leader" and her ruthlessness and stoic cruelty.
There is some blood, but that's pretty contained -- especially given what it could have been. (On that Germans are apparently more reserved that some USAmerican directors.) But it spectacularly portrays the sense of apocalypse in a way that leaves the Left Behind books choking on its dust. It is "R" rated -- probably more for the intnse situation than for the violence (of which there is admittedly, plenty) or for the sex (of which there is -- in contrast to American movies-- virtually none).
This is a movie best appreciated on the big screen; don't wait for the DVD. It is filmed in such a way as to give the viewer a sense of the claustrophobic environs of the bunker (clever of the director to keep the low ceilings in most of the shots) and of the massiveness of the damage to the city.
This movie did as much as -- or more than -- anything else to help me appreciate the dilemma Bonhoeffer must have felt.
I commend the movie to you. Alas, peace may not be with you for some time after seeing it.
Downfall is a movie that probably couldn't have been made in USAmerica -- and we are so much the poorer for it. Brad and I say that movie last night, and I am haunted by it still. It is one of the most impressive movies I have seen -- and keep in mind that I see at least one movie a week now.
This German movie concerns the last three days in the life of Adoph Hitler, during which time he was in a bunker in Berlin and at the end of which period he killed himself. It is based on the memoirs of two people (at least one of whom features prominently in the movie) who were there. Most of the movie time is set within the bunker (which neither Brad nor I remembered from our history was in Berlin). But it also includes scenes set outside the bunker in Berlin, showing the onslaught of the Russian forces and the responses by military, militia-like children, and civilians to the pending collapse of the Reich.
The movie communicated a sense of evil in ways that, e.g., Schindler's List only hinted at. It showed the madness that was Hitler, along with the complicity of supposedly sane people. And it portrayed "true believers" with such clarity as to chill my soul.
There were aspects of Kurasawa (one of my favorite directors) -- grand drama, world-collapsed-into-one-room shots, attention to detail -- with features Cecil B. DeMille might have envied. The tension never lets up. The actor who plays Hitler seems to have him bang on (when he's ranting in German, I can certainly recollect recordings of der Fuehrer. But it is, I think, Frau Goebbels who incarnates the evil at foot with the National Socialist movement -- with her absolute devotion to the cause and its "leader" and her ruthlessness and stoic cruelty.
There is some blood, but that's pretty contained -- especially given what it could have been. (On that Germans are apparently more reserved that some USAmerican directors.) But it spectacularly portrays the sense of apocalypse in a way that leaves the Left Behind books choking on its dust. It is "R" rated -- probably more for the intnse situation than for the violence (of which there is admittedly, plenty) or for the sex (of which there is -- in contrast to American movies-- virtually none).
This is a movie best appreciated on the big screen; don't wait for the DVD. It is filmed in such a way as to give the viewer a sense of the claustrophobic environs of the bunker (clever of the director to keep the low ceilings in most of the shots) and of the massiveness of the damage to the city.
This movie did as much as -- or more than -- anything else to help me appreciate the dilemma Bonhoeffer must have felt.
I commend the movie to you. Alas, peace may not be with you for some time after seeing it.
Justice Sunday
I am still recovering from "Justice Sunday," when factions of the religious right-wing, in tandem with right-wing Republicans, attempted to paint all who disagree with them as anti-faith, as anti-Christian, as against God and America (because, of course, the two are joined at the hip). But I can't resist saying this much: They have gone too far. Brothers and Sisters in Christ, you are in error and you must repent.
In the few words that follow, I'm going to sound partisan. I regret that: I am not a Democrat, nor member of any other party, for that matter; I do not subscribe many of the platform planks of the Democratic Party; I consider the Democrats pathetically hopeless in their ability to frame their policies and even to govern. (I have long said that the Democrats are incapable of governing and the Republicans are unworthy to govern. My words are certainly proving true in recent years.)
To make a particular issue -- and especially this one -- a litmust test for one's faith (especially Christianity) is to practice paganism in the extreme.
The issue of the "right" for certain judicial nominees to get a vote in the Senate is a specious "right." The Republican spokespeople lead one to believe that filibustering judges is a new thing. Nonsense. The Republicans, with a slenderer minority that Democrats have today, filibustered the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Supreme Court justice (or was it Chief Justice?). They've used it when it serves them, they just don't like to live by the rules when the rules cut against them (witness the debacle in the House with respect to the Ethics rules).
The issue is not the "right" to a vote but the qualifications of the judicial nominees. I am a lawyer and theologically trained, so the intersection of these issues is important to me (hence, this blog). Many of the appeals court nominees (the so-called "nuclear 10") are bad judges: They do not follow the law or change precedent based on reasoned opinions. That is not the basis for a valid nomination to an appeals court.
Do those "conservative Christian" brothers and sister really want to grant some special benediction over the current Republican leadership in Congress? Keep in mind that this is a group that regularly distorts facts -- and, incidentally perhaps, is never called on the carpet for doing so. The Republicans claim, in addition to their claim of never filibustering a judicial candidate, that so many of President Bush's nominees are not getting a fair shake. In fact, the number is only ten, while more than 200 have been approved. His rate of getting candidates an "up or down" vote is only slightly different from the percentage allowed President Clinton (and in fact, more of Bush's candidates have been given a hearing and a vote to date than during all of President Clinton's tenure -- at least the way I read the numbers).
Do those conservative btothers and sisters want to rish the tax-emempt status of their congregations and/or denominations for the sake of climbing into ship with one political party?
And I won't even phrase this as a question: It is simply outrageous to claim that, because you are a "Christian," and thereby supposedly have a corner on "the Truth," unless I agree with you on certain issues having to do with national politics, I am not.
It is clear that some of our "conservative Christian" brothers and sisters (ironically, I count myself a conservative Christian) are interested in this issue only because they want to use any way possible to get what they want -- judges who will give them what they want: no more abortions, no gay marriages, (secularized) Ten Commandments in courtrooms, control over feeding tubes, a Christian nation. And they want this quite irrespective of the effect their getting it will have on the future of law in this country.
Now I firmly believe that there is little evidence that the judiciary is "liberal" in this country. After all, the Supreme Court, the court of last resort, is so conservative -- and activist, but that's another story -- that it traduced established law to anoint George W. Bush president the first time around. But even if it could be shown to be, do we want the judicial branch of government -- at any level -- involved in official interpretations of the Fifth Commandment? Can anyone seriously argue for making America a "Christian nation"? (Yes, I heard some of the Christian preachers say it, but I can't believe that they were arguing rationally. Do they hear what that says?)
In the few words that follow, I'm going to sound partisan. I regret that: I am not a Democrat, nor member of any other party, for that matter; I do not subscribe many of the platform planks of the Democratic Party; I consider the Democrats pathetically hopeless in their ability to frame their policies and even to govern. (I have long said that the Democrats are incapable of governing and the Republicans are unworthy to govern. My words are certainly proving true in recent years.)
To make a particular issue -- and especially this one -- a litmust test for one's faith (especially Christianity) is to practice paganism in the extreme.
The issue of the "right" for certain judicial nominees to get a vote in the Senate is a specious "right." The Republican spokespeople lead one to believe that filibustering judges is a new thing. Nonsense. The Republicans, with a slenderer minority that Democrats have today, filibustered the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Supreme Court justice (or was it Chief Justice?). They've used it when it serves them, they just don't like to live by the rules when the rules cut against them (witness the debacle in the House with respect to the Ethics rules).
The issue is not the "right" to a vote but the qualifications of the judicial nominees. I am a lawyer and theologically trained, so the intersection of these issues is important to me (hence, this blog). Many of the appeals court nominees (the so-called "nuclear 10") are bad judges: They do not follow the law or change precedent based on reasoned opinions. That is not the basis for a valid nomination to an appeals court.
Do those "conservative Christian" brothers and sister really want to grant some special benediction over the current Republican leadership in Congress? Keep in mind that this is a group that regularly distorts facts -- and, incidentally perhaps, is never called on the carpet for doing so. The Republicans claim, in addition to their claim of never filibustering a judicial candidate, that so many of President Bush's nominees are not getting a fair shake. In fact, the number is only ten, while more than 200 have been approved. His rate of getting candidates an "up or down" vote is only slightly different from the percentage allowed President Clinton (and in fact, more of Bush's candidates have been given a hearing and a vote to date than during all of President Clinton's tenure -- at least the way I read the numbers).
Do those conservative btothers and sisters want to rish the tax-emempt status of their congregations and/or denominations for the sake of climbing into ship with one political party?
And I won't even phrase this as a question: It is simply outrageous to claim that, because you are a "Christian," and thereby supposedly have a corner on "the Truth," unless I agree with you on certain issues having to do with national politics, I am not.
It is clear that some of our "conservative Christian" brothers and sisters (ironically, I count myself a conservative Christian) are interested in this issue only because they want to use any way possible to get what they want -- judges who will give them what they want: no more abortions, no gay marriages, (secularized) Ten Commandments in courtrooms, control over feeding tubes, a Christian nation. And they want this quite irrespective of the effect their getting it will have on the future of law in this country.
Now I firmly believe that there is little evidence that the judiciary is "liberal" in this country. After all, the Supreme Court, the court of last resort, is so conservative -- and activist, but that's another story -- that it traduced established law to anoint George W. Bush president the first time around. But even if it could be shown to be, do we want the judicial branch of government -- at any level -- involved in official interpretations of the Fifth Commandment? Can anyone seriously argue for making America a "Christian nation"? (Yes, I heard some of the Christian preachers say it, but I can't believe that they were arguing rationally. Do they hear what that says?)
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Prophecy
Passover Thoughts
Abraham Joshua Heschel
We are all Pharaohs or slaves of Pharaohs. It is sad to be a slave of a Pharaoh. It is horrible to be a Pharaoh. Daily we should take account and ask: What have I done today to alleviate the anguish, to mitigate the evil, to prevent humiliation? Let there be a grain of prophet in every person!
That is from today's Bruderhof e-mail, "Weekly Dig." To it, I can only say "Amen."
Rabbi Heschel, of most sincerely blessed memory, was the author of one/two (it depends on the edition) of the three or four books that have made the greatest impression on me. His work The Prophets is simply majesterial. It changed my life.
I read him first in religion classes in college -- Concordia College, Moorhead, MN, to be exact. Whether it was the context (nice, safe, conservative, pietist school) or the professor (sincere, demanding, supportive) or the political era (Vietnam, need I say more), I was inexorably drawn to Heschel's portrait of the prophetic life, message, and destiny. The books continue to influence my thinking about all manner of theological issues, from biblical interpretation to liturgical theology.
From Heschel, I learned that prophecy, in the Biblical sense, is not fortunetelling or peering into the future. It is "speaking for" -- bringing a message from the LORD. That makes a whole lot of difference for how one understands what's being spoken. It helps, in the days of Left Behind and other off-kilter apocalypticism, sanely to parse the Scriptures for the truth -- rather than for the proof texts for one's idiosycratic political (and even venal) orientation.
From Heschel I learned that the people of God is one people -- not a conglomeration of individuals who happen to hang around together because they are alike. (That's the practical ecclesiology of 95% of pew-Lutherans and pastors, I'm convinced.) The good suffer with the bad. The suffering is related to a lack of faith -- faith, not as mind-stuff, but faith as living in the saved condition in a way that is true to the saved condition. Beautiful Amos, with his masterful opening rhetoric. Hosea, with his whore-wife and his proclamation of the seductive LORD. Isaiah, with his saving suffering servant of the LORD -- not just a prediction of Jesus, but an insight into why Jesus' suffering was salvific.
From Heschel, I learned (without being able to articulate it at the time) that the work of the people of God is not to "win souls" or to achieve their own salvation. It is to live as God's instrument for overcoming sin in the world. (This conforms very nicely to Tom Wright's discussion of Paul's theology in What Paul Really Said, which The Thinklings are reading right now.) It is other-directed (i.e., God-directed) and other-focussed (i.e., toward the world.) To fulfill that "mission," Israel was called to live a life free of sin -- of the things that made life hell. So, she was expected to practice justice, to safeguard the undefended, to care for those of little means. There is, in the prophets, I think a definite sense that God's salvation involves a preferential option for the poor. And when that is forgotten, exile is the discipline.
All of that is, of course, not just relevant for the Christian Church, but directly instructive. We are not among that people of God. The same stuff -- promise and caution -- attends to us. We are not handly Enlightenment masses of autonomy who happen to get along for our own well-being and comfort. We are one people: Check the second reading from last Sunday's mass: "One you were no people; now you are God's people" from Peter. We are not our own; our lives are not our own; our everyday decisions are not own own.
One hagiagrapher has said of Rabbi Heschel, "He walked on a higher plane than most of us." I'm not sure I agree -- I certainly don't agree with the suggestion (not intended by the writer) that he was somehow "above the fray." I think he was deeper into the stuff of life than most. That same writer said, "Some people are like commas in the text of Jewish life; Heschel was an exclamation point.) Amen.
All this from this simple reminder, provided by the Bruherhof -- who themselves embody the very witness that Heschel wrote of so beautifully.
Heschel's feast day in my calendar is 23 December, the day of his death (in 1972 -- the year I began seminary training). I invite you to light a candle in his honor that day.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Consumerism is sin
William T. Cavanaugh teaches theology at the University of St. Thomas in Saint Paul. He is brilliant, young, serious Roman Catholic, and very committed to living the Christian life -- by which I mean the life God intends his people to live. He would be considered a "liberal" by most people -- but it is not liberal in the classic sense. He lives his faith, though.
Bill has just published a very short article in Sojourners Magazine (May, 2005) which deals with "consumerism" and its implications. He distinguishes consumerism from avarice or greed, seeing it as a "permutation": "Consumerism is not so much about having more as it is about having something else." It is a spiritual disease that results from detachment from the "things" we need and use to live. As USAmerican consumers, we are detached from the means of production (Q: does he echo a marxian complaint about alienation here?) with the result that we "commodify" everything -- making even our own lives items to be bought and sold. With the addition of marketing, we are constantly on the make for something new. Pleasure is in the shopping, not in the acquiring.
The article is helpful for getting a handle on the problems of consuming in this society. We are guilty of greed and acquisitiveness, but even our desire for something new (whether we wish to acquire lots of it or not) reflects a sinfulness in our fundamental condition. Bill names the condition, describes its roots, demonstrates why it is wrong (because it contradicts God's creational intent for the earth), and suggests ways of fighting the sin.
Try reading the article here. Because I subscribe to Sojourners, I have no trouble accessing the article. I'm not sure whether it is quite so easy if you do not (though it sounds like it is). If you have difficulty, try here, and follow the links.)
I also recommend Bill's books: Eucharist and Torture is an important work that I have recommended before. His new one, Theopolitical Imagination, looks really great, but I'll have to wait to review it until the copy I have ordered comes in. (Its subtitle is alluring: "Christian Practices of Space and Time." I'll bet there's lots about the Eucharist in it -- as there is in the article here.)
I think the entire complex of issues for USAmericans involving money, possessions, and related issues (like self-protection) is in critical need of attention in the Church. It's easy to denounce greed -- though harder to do so when you actually define it, I think. And doesn't it come off sounding moralistic to ask, "Do you really need a new car, just because the design has changed?" And how about the whole issue of "storing up for ourselves treasures on earth" in the form of massive retirement accounts (don't I wish!), life insurance, church foundations and development offices?
But those are issues of Gospel. In fact, name me an issue that is not!
This article is a place to begin
Bill has just published a very short article in Sojourners Magazine (May, 2005) which deals with "consumerism" and its implications. He distinguishes consumerism from avarice or greed, seeing it as a "permutation": "Consumerism is not so much about having more as it is about having something else." It is a spiritual disease that results from detachment from the "things" we need and use to live. As USAmerican consumers, we are detached from the means of production (Q: does he echo a marxian complaint about alienation here?) with the result that we "commodify" everything -- making even our own lives items to be bought and sold. With the addition of marketing, we are constantly on the make for something new. Pleasure is in the shopping, not in the acquiring.
The article is helpful for getting a handle on the problems of consuming in this society. We are guilty of greed and acquisitiveness, but even our desire for something new (whether we wish to acquire lots of it or not) reflects a sinfulness in our fundamental condition. Bill names the condition, describes its roots, demonstrates why it is wrong (because it contradicts God's creational intent for the earth), and suggests ways of fighting the sin.
Try reading the article here. Because I subscribe to Sojourners, I have no trouble accessing the article. I'm not sure whether it is quite so easy if you do not (though it sounds like it is). If you have difficulty, try here, and follow the links.)
I also recommend Bill's books: Eucharist and Torture is an important work that I have recommended before. His new one, Theopolitical Imagination, looks really great, but I'll have to wait to review it until the copy I have ordered comes in. (Its subtitle is alluring: "Christian Practices of Space and Time." I'll bet there's lots about the Eucharist in it -- as there is in the article here.)
I think the entire complex of issues for USAmericans involving money, possessions, and related issues (like self-protection) is in critical need of attention in the Church. It's easy to denounce greed -- though harder to do so when you actually define it, I think. And doesn't it come off sounding moralistic to ask, "Do you really need a new car, just because the design has changed?" And how about the whole issue of "storing up for ourselves treasures on earth" in the form of massive retirement accounts (don't I wish!), life insurance, church foundations and development offices?
But those are issues of Gospel. In fact, name me an issue that is not!
This article is a place to begin
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Benedict XVI
His Holiness, Benedict XVI, has been crowned. The catholic Church has a new Roman Catholic pope. I encourage you all to pray for him -- together with all the popes, patriarchs, bishops, metropolitans, superintendents, presidents, and others with leadership responsibility and authority in the Church.
I have been reading sporadically in the works of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for a few years, and I never fail to love the experience. He is a profoundly intelligent man who exudes humility before God and in the service of God's Church. He writes beautifully (or at least, he translates really well).
I also know of his reputation as the "Rottweiler" of the Vatican. (Why not Dobermann Pinscher? Because of the alliteration of Rottweiler and Ratzinger?) And I don't know what to make of that. He was, frankly, a liberal during the Second Vatican Council, and he has now spoken of his desire further to implement the reforms of the Council. But one reads his criticism of some of the directions the Vatican II reforms have taken, and one may legitimately wonder where he would direct the Church. (Well, we may not have to wonder for long.)
I think his expressed attitude toward intra-Christian dialog and reconciliation has been problematic. Despite his commitment to Church union, one gets the impression that it must be on the Vatican's terms -- and that's not really dialog, is it? But any non-Catholic who has ever met him speaks of his warmth, generosity, openness, and interest in what they have to say.
Drat! We must contend with another complex person bearing the title "Pope."
Admission: This the sixth pope in my lifetime. (I go back to Pius XII.) John XXIII (of most blessed memory) is my romantic favorite. Paul VI (of blessed memory) is way underrated.
I was studying liturgy and patristics as St. John University, Collegeville, with Godfrey Diekmann and Gabrielle Winkler (when you've studied with the best, it's OK to drop names!) when Paul VI died. I was among that Benedictine community for that mourning, for the joy at the crowing of John Paul I, the death of John Paul I, and the crowing of John Paul II (of great surprise). So all the talk of my friends and acquaintances who have "only know John Paul II as pope" makes me feel very old.
I have never before known the man crowned. But because I have followed Ratzinger's writings, I know his picture well,and it's discombobulating to see "Cardinal Ratzinger" presiding or preaching as Benedict XVI. It doesn't seem quite in sync.
God's blessing on him and may God bless his Church through the manifold talents and faith of his servant Benedict.
I have been reading sporadically in the works of the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for a few years, and I never fail to love the experience. He is a profoundly intelligent man who exudes humility before God and in the service of God's Church. He writes beautifully (or at least, he translates really well).
I also know of his reputation as the "Rottweiler" of the Vatican. (Why not Dobermann Pinscher? Because of the alliteration of Rottweiler and Ratzinger?) And I don't know what to make of that. He was, frankly, a liberal during the Second Vatican Council, and he has now spoken of his desire further to implement the reforms of the Council. But one reads his criticism of some of the directions the Vatican II reforms have taken, and one may legitimately wonder where he would direct the Church. (Well, we may not have to wonder for long.)
I think his expressed attitude toward intra-Christian dialog and reconciliation has been problematic. Despite his commitment to Church union, one gets the impression that it must be on the Vatican's terms -- and that's not really dialog, is it? But any non-Catholic who has ever met him speaks of his warmth, generosity, openness, and interest in what they have to say.
Drat! We must contend with another complex person bearing the title "Pope."
Admission: This the sixth pope in my lifetime. (I go back to Pius XII.) John XXIII (of most blessed memory) is my romantic favorite. Paul VI (of blessed memory) is way underrated.
I was studying liturgy and patristics as St. John University, Collegeville, with Godfrey Diekmann and Gabrielle Winkler (when you've studied with the best, it's OK to drop names!) when Paul VI died. I was among that Benedictine community for that mourning, for the joy at the crowing of John Paul I, the death of John Paul I, and the crowing of John Paul II (of great surprise). So all the talk of my friends and acquaintances who have "only know John Paul II as pope" makes me feel very old.
I have never before known the man crowned. But because I have followed Ratzinger's writings, I know his picture well,and it's discombobulating to see "Cardinal Ratzinger" presiding or preaching as Benedict XVI. It doesn't seem quite in sync.
God's blessing on him and may God bless his Church through the manifold talents and faith of his servant Benedict.
A Little Bonhoeffer
I have just finished a six-week course on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. (It was offered by Luther Seminary's Lay School of Theology, which offers a wonderful array of -- inexpensive -- courses for those of us within driving distance of the Sem who are either disinclined or uninterested in a more formal way of continuing our theology education.) While the course was not completely satisfying to me (I think I'm the point of wanting a tutorial rather than a class), it gave me new insights and information -- and it left me with one huge question: What would (Lutheran) theology be like today if Bonhoeffer had lived through World War II? (I know that seeks pure speculation, but perhaps it's a way of continuing to mourn his loss.)
So far as I have been able to learn, Bonhoeffer never did get an "ecclesiology" into print in a form that we ordinary folks can grasp. (Sanctorum Communio, I am told, is virtually impenetrable by any by the philosophically sophisticated -- among whom I am not.) His understanding of the Church, however, is foundational to his theology, and I'd like to see some dissertations on that -- teased out from his more accessible works. Discipleship should be required reading by all Lutheran seminarians -- and discussions should not be led by pietists! Letters and Papers from Prison, arguably his most familiar book, is also arguably his worst (one friend makes that point) and leads to more confusion, I think, than insight on many points (viz., e.g., "religionless Christianity").
The existential realism of his thought is perhaps the most impressive aspect of his writing for me. That we take the ministry and words and example of Jesus into our every hour (not seeking to diminish them or to explain them away or to "grace" away their requirements) seems so correct -- and seems so to jibe with the cry of many who are on "spiritual quests." (It is no accident that so many people are converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, given their seriousness about mystery, order, transcendence, and the like.)
I'm not to the point of wanting to buy the new authoritative edition of Ethics until it is released in paperback (and I can afford it), but in reading some short passages from it, I have been struck by what a great corrective Bonhoeffer provides to contemporary Lutheranism (a fact which doesn't leave me untroubled -- how many double and triple negatives can I get into one phrase, I wonder). He dislikes so-called "classical Lutheran" talk about the orders of creation because of the tendency inherent in such a classification to isolate the orders from one another and to place them in hierarchy -- neither which is legitimate, per Bonhoeffer. He speaks, instead of "mandates" -- four of them, which I can't quite bring to mind right now. These mandates are "tasks" written into the structure of life and all of them are sort of interdependent: So, for example, family life is a mandate. Government, another mandate, exists in order to preserve order in the world, which helps assure (inter alia) the well-being of the other mandates. If, as was the case under Nazi rule, children are encouraged to "rat out" their parents, thus destroying family cohesion, government has traduced its task and faithful people are required to correct or overthrow that government.
I very much prefer that reading of the "two kingdoms" to what we often get. (I intend soon to undertake a study of the "two kingdoms" teaching of the Reformation, so while I don't encourage you to hold your breath, I do encourage you to check in once in a while to help me stay on track.) The subservience of either government or church to the other does not seem to jibe with either the scriptural evidence or the experience of history. While they have different spheres of operation, I think you might say, they are sisters -- complementary -- in the stewardship of the creation. (I'll let y'all comment on the implications of that for the current USAmerican political situation.)
Obviously, I don't know what I'm talking about here, so I'll break off abruptly until I can speak with more salience. (I confess that my brain is still mushy from too much glorious Mexican sun -- not to mention Corona and margueritas! I apologize for the failure of continuity in this post.)
One thing that remains very much a question for me is that of Bonhoeffer's pacifism. He very clearly advocates such a principled stance with respect to violence. But his involvement in the Abwehr plot really complicates any straightforward explication of his views, I think. At this point, I'm inclined to think that Bonhoeffer was not a "principled pacifist" (to quote Gary Simpson of Luther Sem, who strongly disagrees with such a posture) who refuses to use or to consider violence in any situation. (Clearly he didn't live that way, and Bonhoeffer was not one to separate his thought and writing from the way he lived his life.) But I think it's too easy to dismiss his views as allowing violence in extreme cases.
I wonder whether Bonhoeffer did not fear losing his soul by his involvement in the Abwehr plot but thought it necessary to sacrifice himself (body and soul) for the sake of overcoming the blatant evil that was Hitler and National Socialism. It would be very good Lutheranism for him to "sin boldly" -- to act in a way even clearly contrary to the will of God for the sake of the Gospel. (Such stuff as Jesus' "violation" of the Sabbath, his associating with outcasts, and the like model such action.) But the point is not to justify such sinning; sinning cannot be justified. (I just realized that that is a paraphrase of a point in Discipleship! This stuff may be working itself into my subconscious!) The point is that the correct life may have to be abandoned in certain circumstances in order to be true to the Gospel.
That would mean that we preach, teach, model, and extol non-violence, even pacifism -- not as a "principle," but as the way Jesus lived and, consequently, as the way we live. We also recognize that there may be times when to live that is either impossible or immoral in a certain circumstance. Contrary to Joe Fletcher, Bonhoeffer was not a situational ethics proponent, though. Life is contingent, lived out in a most real, concrete context. That is not to deny any of the demands of Jesus. They are not "ideals" or "idealistic" or "reserved for heaven" or anything of the sort. (Discipleship makes that very clear. See also Stassen and Gushee on the Sermon on the Mount, here.) We do not make war; we do not cheat our neighbors; we provide aid to the needy. But there are occasions imaginable in which we will not always fulfill or be true to the gospel. So on occasion we may fight back or kill.
That exception doesn't become the new standard (which it has in the so-called "just war" thinking of modern times). It remains an exception, a sin, a failure of the intentions of God. That exception is a risk of salvation. But it may nevertheless be necessary.
So may one "justifiably" be a soldier? The early church said, "no," and I think that is the correct answer. For one thing, to become a soldier is to commit oneself to an authority different from or at least in tandem with Christ -- the "state" or the command structure. (That is why military chaplaincy practiced by commissioned officers is such a travesty -- and works so little good, from the overall impressions at the VA.) To commit to violence is, in the overall schema, to doubt the promises of God and to set out to thwart his purposes. (Somewhere in Discipleship, Bonhoeffer muses that no one has ever tried to meet warlike aggression with suffering-servant humility. He suggests that it might be faithful to try.) The Church must stand against it resolutely.
But that is not to say that there might not be circumstances (and this, as I understand it, was the original point of "just war" thinking) when the use of force is lamentably considered to be necessary and is (not "may be") undertaken. It is, however, to understand that such circumstances are not a part of our ordinary proclamation.
At base, and here I'll stop this bleating that has gone on much longer than I intended, it is as Bonhoeffer said: The call of Christ leads to death (the death of self as perceived over-against Christ). If the Gospel is true, and God has won the final victory over the powers of evil, then it is either all true or false. If true, then we ignore it at our peril.
I want to get into my wife's new craze: She has been taught by my teacher-from-afar, Stanley Hauerwas, to say that ethical reflection beings not with "what would Jesus do?" or "what should we do?" but with "Who is Jesus and as a consequence who are we?" I think that's bang-on (although I'm a little jealous at how quickly she apprehended the point). But that's another day.
So far as I have been able to learn, Bonhoeffer never did get an "ecclesiology" into print in a form that we ordinary folks can grasp. (Sanctorum Communio, I am told, is virtually impenetrable by any by the philosophically sophisticated -- among whom I am not.) His understanding of the Church, however, is foundational to his theology, and I'd like to see some dissertations on that -- teased out from his more accessible works. Discipleship should be required reading by all Lutheran seminarians -- and discussions should not be led by pietists! Letters and Papers from Prison, arguably his most familiar book, is also arguably his worst (one friend makes that point) and leads to more confusion, I think, than insight on many points (viz., e.g., "religionless Christianity").
The existential realism of his thought is perhaps the most impressive aspect of his writing for me. That we take the ministry and words and example of Jesus into our every hour (not seeking to diminish them or to explain them away or to "grace" away their requirements) seems so correct -- and seems so to jibe with the cry of many who are on "spiritual quests." (It is no accident that so many people are converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, given their seriousness about mystery, order, transcendence, and the like.)
I'm not to the point of wanting to buy the new authoritative edition of Ethics until it is released in paperback (and I can afford it), but in reading some short passages from it, I have been struck by what a great corrective Bonhoeffer provides to contemporary Lutheranism (a fact which doesn't leave me untroubled -- how many double and triple negatives can I get into one phrase, I wonder). He dislikes so-called "classical Lutheran" talk about the orders of creation because of the tendency inherent in such a classification to isolate the orders from one another and to place them in hierarchy -- neither which is legitimate, per Bonhoeffer. He speaks, instead of "mandates" -- four of them, which I can't quite bring to mind right now. These mandates are "tasks" written into the structure of life and all of them are sort of interdependent: So, for example, family life is a mandate. Government, another mandate, exists in order to preserve order in the world, which helps assure (inter alia) the well-being of the other mandates. If, as was the case under Nazi rule, children are encouraged to "rat out" their parents, thus destroying family cohesion, government has traduced its task and faithful people are required to correct or overthrow that government.
I very much prefer that reading of the "two kingdoms" to what we often get. (I intend soon to undertake a study of the "two kingdoms" teaching of the Reformation, so while I don't encourage you to hold your breath, I do encourage you to check in once in a while to help me stay on track.) The subservience of either government or church to the other does not seem to jibe with either the scriptural evidence or the experience of history. While they have different spheres of operation, I think you might say, they are sisters -- complementary -- in the stewardship of the creation. (I'll let y'all comment on the implications of that for the current USAmerican political situation.)
Obviously, I don't know what I'm talking about here, so I'll break off abruptly until I can speak with more salience. (I confess that my brain is still mushy from too much glorious Mexican sun -- not to mention Corona and margueritas! I apologize for the failure of continuity in this post.)
One thing that remains very much a question for me is that of Bonhoeffer's pacifism. He very clearly advocates such a principled stance with respect to violence. But his involvement in the Abwehr plot really complicates any straightforward explication of his views, I think. At this point, I'm inclined to think that Bonhoeffer was not a "principled pacifist" (to quote Gary Simpson of Luther Sem, who strongly disagrees with such a posture) who refuses to use or to consider violence in any situation. (Clearly he didn't live that way, and Bonhoeffer was not one to separate his thought and writing from the way he lived his life.) But I think it's too easy to dismiss his views as allowing violence in extreme cases.
I wonder whether Bonhoeffer did not fear losing his soul by his involvement in the Abwehr plot but thought it necessary to sacrifice himself (body and soul) for the sake of overcoming the blatant evil that was Hitler and National Socialism. It would be very good Lutheranism for him to "sin boldly" -- to act in a way even clearly contrary to the will of God for the sake of the Gospel. (Such stuff as Jesus' "violation" of the Sabbath, his associating with outcasts, and the like model such action.) But the point is not to justify such sinning; sinning cannot be justified. (I just realized that that is a paraphrase of a point in Discipleship! This stuff may be working itself into my subconscious!) The point is that the correct life may have to be abandoned in certain circumstances in order to be true to the Gospel.
That would mean that we preach, teach, model, and extol non-violence, even pacifism -- not as a "principle," but as the way Jesus lived and, consequently, as the way we live. We also recognize that there may be times when to live that is either impossible or immoral in a certain circumstance. Contrary to Joe Fletcher, Bonhoeffer was not a situational ethics proponent, though. Life is contingent, lived out in a most real, concrete context. That is not to deny any of the demands of Jesus. They are not "ideals" or "idealistic" or "reserved for heaven" or anything of the sort. (Discipleship makes that very clear. See also Stassen and Gushee on the Sermon on the Mount, here.) We do not make war; we do not cheat our neighbors; we provide aid to the needy. But there are occasions imaginable in which we will not always fulfill or be true to the gospel. So on occasion we may fight back or kill.
That exception doesn't become the new standard (which it has in the so-called "just war" thinking of modern times). It remains an exception, a sin, a failure of the intentions of God. That exception is a risk of salvation. But it may nevertheless be necessary.
So may one "justifiably" be a soldier? The early church said, "no," and I think that is the correct answer. For one thing, to become a soldier is to commit oneself to an authority different from or at least in tandem with Christ -- the "state" or the command structure. (That is why military chaplaincy practiced by commissioned officers is such a travesty -- and works so little good, from the overall impressions at the VA.) To commit to violence is, in the overall schema, to doubt the promises of God and to set out to thwart his purposes. (Somewhere in Discipleship, Bonhoeffer muses that no one has ever tried to meet warlike aggression with suffering-servant humility. He suggests that it might be faithful to try.) The Church must stand against it resolutely.
But that is not to say that there might not be circumstances (and this, as I understand it, was the original point of "just war" thinking) when the use of force is lamentably considered to be necessary and is (not "may be") undertaken. It is, however, to understand that such circumstances are not a part of our ordinary proclamation.
At base, and here I'll stop this bleating that has gone on much longer than I intended, it is as Bonhoeffer said: The call of Christ leads to death (the death of self as perceived over-against Christ). If the Gospel is true, and God has won the final victory over the powers of evil, then it is either all true or false. If true, then we ignore it at our peril.
I want to get into my wife's new craze: She has been taught by my teacher-from-afar, Stanley Hauerwas, to say that ethical reflection beings not with "what would Jesus do?" or "what should we do?" but with "Who is Jesus and as a consequence who are we?" I think that's bang-on (although I'm a little jealous at how quickly she apprehended the point). But that's another day.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
A Reintroduction and an Apology
I have not gone away -- although I did go away to Mexico for a week. It was a fabulous week, but I won't go into details here, lest some of the brothers and/or sisters be tempted to the sin of envy.
Before I left and after I returned, I was/am sick -- some sort of sinusitis and/or inner-ear issue, I guess. So I have not been able to think very clearly. I have had the good sense not to try to raise any issues during my period of distraction and dibilitation.
I am on the mend, and I intend to post again soon. I have missed the interchange! So I am personally motivated to try to evoke some more wisdom from y'all.
For today, however, I offer only this, which I think is great plenty for us to ponder. I have copped it from the Bruderhof's "Daily Dig." Ponder and enjoy!
Before I left and after I returned, I was/am sick -- some sort of sinusitis and/or inner-ear issue, I guess. So I have not been able to think very clearly. I have had the good sense not to try to raise any issues during my period of distraction and dibilitation.
I am on the mend, and I intend to post again soon. I have missed the interchange! So I am personally motivated to try to evoke some more wisdom from y'all.
For today, however, I offer only this, which I think is great plenty for us to ponder. I have copped it from the Bruderhof's "Daily Dig." Ponder and enjoy!
To Jesus in the Spring
Jane Tyson Clement
Oh, break the chrysalis of doubt! Create a tumult in our hearts!
Plough up the clods of thick despair
And split the buds of ignorance,
And cleanse the winter-heavy air.
Drive us to seek what we have lost,
Until the flame of faith again
Has seared us with Thy Pentecost.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
On Matters Liturgical
Today is Maundy Thursday (how can it be maundy if it's Thursday?), and it has been over a month since my last conf... oops, since I have posted here. That's not for want of something to comment on -- good grief! To cite only one example: If I had spent as much time blogging as I have spent time in conversation (and argument) about the Theresa Schiavo horror, I'd have exceed the capacity of whatever server provides for this thing.
One of the things that have occupied me lately was preparing to "teach" a 90-minute class at Augusburg College on "liturgical spirituality." A friend teaches courses on spirituality -- Brad Holt, who has just released the second edition of his book, Thirsty for God: A Brief History of Christian Spirituality, which you can check out here. Since liturgy is my first love in theology, for a myriad of reasons, that was a real kick. I was required to summarize what I mean by "liturgical," to outline the strengths of a liturgical worship "style," and to show how that carries over into a set of personal spiritual and devotional practices. My friend Daniel noted that I probably didn't even notes for that, and I responded that I had to script the blessed thing or I never would have gotten to the point. (I'm not the world's most organized thinker, and I am easily distracted.)
So that took me away from blogging for a time.
I'm also studying Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I can't get around to saying what I find so wonderful about his book Discipleship, although if you check out the blog for the group of us who meet regularly for theological discussion, you'll see some of my thoughts, and also some really fine commentary from people who live a little too far away to drive into South Minneapolis for the discussions. In addition, I am taking a five-week course at Luther Sem on Bonhoeffer's life and theology.
And, of course it's now Holy Week. I always try to clean my spiritual house during Holy Week, taking on a more serious discipline that I practice during the rest of the year.
The upshot is that I'll be back soon with some questions. I find it really necessary to get a better handle on the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms. I'm not sure I can subscribe that the way it is usually presented. It seems way too dualistic either for my taste or for my understanding of Luther. But that latter problem may be the result of reading too much Hauerwas and evangelical Christians.
For now, and with some blushing, I wish you a Blessed Pasch by posting a Great Thanksgiving (Eucharistic Prayer) that I composed a few years ago for use at the Easter Vigil of my parish, Mount Olive. I am honored that it was used last year again and has been requested for this year's.
I'm not satisfied with it, so every year a tinker with it, but I have not altered much of consequence -- perhaps this year I'll get around to a serious edit.
Anyway, if you have comments either good or bad, about what works or what doesn't and could be improved, I'd welcome them. (If it looks weird, I apologize. The text didn't import as smoothly as I hoped: I composed it in sense lines with lots of indents, and that all disappeared, and strange little commands that I didn't want appeared in their place.)
always and everywhere to glorify you, Lord God Almighty,
and to glory in your endless mercy.
you spoke into silence
and called into being
all that exits.
into darkness, you cast light;
out of barrenness you brought forth fruit and fertility;
and out of the dust of your earth
you brought forth sons and daughters
to have and to hold,
to love and to lead,
asking only that we take our place
among your mighty creatures
as the crown of your creation.
When humanity rebelled and sought to go our own way,
you patiently disciplined us
and recalled us to our rightful place
in communion with you
and in service to your creation.
You raised up Israel,
sign and witness of your gracious intent.
Despite our dull eyes, dead ears, and disloyal hearts,
you continually called to us
by prophets and preachers,
in signs and wonders,
through exile and restoration.
At last, in the fullness of times,
you incarnated your Son in our flesh
and set him in our midst
to seek and to save all who are lost,
to speak and to show your love,
to promise and to plant your final kingdom.
It was He,
Jesus,
born of Mary and cared for by Joseph,
pointed to by John,
and followed by The Twelve,
who taught and fed multitudes,
received sinners and lepers,
healed the sick and raised the dead,
and opened his arms to suffering and death --
all in order to defeat death
and to put an end to sin.
gave thanks,
broke it, and
gave it to his disciples,
saying,
“Take and eat.
This is my body, given for you."
In the same way, after supper,
he took the cup,
gave thanks,
and gave it to his disciples,
saying,
"Drink of this, all of you.
This is the cup of salvation,
my blood of the new and everlasting covenant,
given for you and for all
for the forgiveness of sins.
Now, as often as we eat of this bread and drink of this cup,
we proclaim your salvation in Him
until He comes.
to claim us as his people,
to establish your eternal reign,
and to share with us the feast that will not end.
to make and to enable us to see
this bread and cup
as the Body of your Christ and the cup of his salvation,
to unite all your people in faith and purpose,
and to make of us
a sacrament of your salvation in our time and place.
Amen. Come, Holy Spirit.
Look upon us with favor,
and at the last day,
raise us
to join the Virgin Mary
and Mary the first witness to the Resurrection,
the Apostles and prophets,
patriarchs and martyrs,
that we may then perfectly,
as we now imperfectly,
join their eternal hymn of praise.
All honor, glory, power, and dominion
are yours, Almighty Father,
through your blessed Son,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
now and to all the ages.
One of the things that have occupied me lately was preparing to "teach" a 90-minute class at Augusburg College on "liturgical spirituality." A friend teaches courses on spirituality -- Brad Holt, who has just released the second edition of his book, Thirsty for God: A Brief History of Christian Spirituality, which you can check out here. Since liturgy is my first love in theology, for a myriad of reasons, that was a real kick. I was required to summarize what I mean by "liturgical," to outline the strengths of a liturgical worship "style," and to show how that carries over into a set of personal spiritual and devotional practices. My friend Daniel noted that I probably didn't even notes for that, and I responded that I had to script the blessed thing or I never would have gotten to the point. (I'm not the world's most organized thinker, and I am easily distracted.)
So that took me away from blogging for a time.
I'm also studying Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I can't get around to saying what I find so wonderful about his book Discipleship, although if you check out the blog for the group of us who meet regularly for theological discussion, you'll see some of my thoughts, and also some really fine commentary from people who live a little too far away to drive into South Minneapolis for the discussions. In addition, I am taking a five-week course at Luther Sem on Bonhoeffer's life and theology.
And, of course it's now Holy Week. I always try to clean my spiritual house during Holy Week, taking on a more serious discipline that I practice during the rest of the year.
The upshot is that I'll be back soon with some questions. I find it really necessary to get a better handle on the Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms. I'm not sure I can subscribe that the way it is usually presented. It seems way too dualistic either for my taste or for my understanding of Luther. But that latter problem may be the result of reading too much Hauerwas and evangelical Christians.
For now, and with some blushing, I wish you a Blessed Pasch by posting a Great Thanksgiving (Eucharistic Prayer) that I composed a few years ago for use at the Easter Vigil of my parish, Mount Olive. I am honored that it was used last year again and has been requested for this year's.
I'm not satisfied with it, so every year a tinker with it, but I have not altered much of consequence -- perhaps this year I'll get around to a serious edit.
Anyway, if you have comments either good or bad, about what works or what doesn't and could be improved, I'd welcome them. (If it looks weird, I apologize. The text didn't import as smoothly as I hoped: I composed it in sense lines with lots of indents, and that all disappeared, and strange little commands that I didn't want appeared in their place.)
A GREAT THANKSGIVING
always and everywhere to glorify you, Lord God Almighty,
and to glory in your endless mercy.
you spoke into silence
and called into being
all that exits.
into darkness, you cast light;
out of barrenness you brought forth fruit and fertility;
and out of the dust of your earth
you brought forth sons and daughters
to have and to hold,
to love and to lead,
asking only that we take our place
among your mighty creatures
as the crown of your creation.
When humanity rebelled and sought to go our own way,
you patiently disciplined us
and recalled us to our rightful place
in communion with you
and in service to your creation.
You raised up Israel,
sign and witness of your gracious intent.
Despite our dull eyes, dead ears, and disloyal hearts,
you continually called to us
by prophets and preachers,
in signs and wonders,
through exile and restoration.
At last, in the fullness of times,
you incarnated your Son in our flesh
and set him in our midst
to seek and to save all who are lost,
to speak and to show your love,
to promise and to plant your final kingdom.
It was He,
Jesus,
born of Mary and cared for by Joseph,
pointed to by John,
and followed by The Twelve,
who taught and fed multitudes,
received sinners and lepers,
healed the sick and raised the dead,
and opened his arms to suffering and death --
all in order to defeat death
and to put an end to sin.
whom you raised from death
to vindicate your love
to empty hell,
and to gather a holy people.
And it was He,
who on the night of his betrayal to death,
established this Holy Meal
to be for us
the institution, the guarantee, and the evidence
of your wondrous salvation:
gave thanks,
broke it, and
gave it to his disciples,
saying,
“Take and eat.
This is my body, given for you."
In the same way, after supper,
he took the cup,
gave thanks,
and gave it to his disciples,
saying,
"Drink of this, all of you.
This is the cup of salvation,
my blood of the new and everlasting covenant,
given for you and for all
for the forgiveness of sins.
Now, as often as we eat of this bread and drink of this cup,
we proclaim your salvation in Him
until He comes.
Christ is risen.
Christ will come again.
to claim us as his people,
to establish your eternal reign,
and to share with us the feast that will not end.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
to make and to enable us to see
this bread and cup
as the Body of your Christ and the cup of his salvation,
to unite all your people in faith and purpose,
and to make of us
a sacrament of your salvation in our time and place.
Amen. Come, Holy Spirit.
Look upon us with favor,
and at the last day,
raise us
to join the Virgin Mary
and Mary the first witness to the Resurrection,
the Apostles and prophets,
patriarchs and martyrs,
that we may then perfectly,
as we now imperfectly,
join their eternal hymn of praise.
All honor, glory, power, and dominion
are yours, Almighty Father,
through your blessed Son,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
now and to all the ages.
Amen.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Lenten politics
I retrieved this from the Sojourners newsletter:
I can't help but wonder whether the Episcopal rector who frequently looks up to see the President of the United States among his flock has been able to get this idea across to his "member."
Now after that glancing blow: Is it appropriate for religious -- bishops, pastors, laypeople -- to call on the civil orders to organize themselves or to develop policies and projects in ways that the religious think are consistent with the gospel?
I want to post on that question -- especially about the controversy that inspired it -- in a day or so. But I put it out here to get you thinking.
Grace and Peace.
"[Lenten] fasting is also needed in politics - a fasting that allows those who hold power to purify their intentions and their individual or national egoisms. A fasting that allows leaders to see and understand not only that they are mandated to serve and save but also that all human beings, in all nations, are also created and loved by God."(Source: Zenit )
- Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem Michel Sabbah
I can't help but wonder whether the Episcopal rector who frequently looks up to see the President of the United States among his flock has been able to get this idea across to his "member."
Now after that glancing blow: Is it appropriate for religious -- bishops, pastors, laypeople -- to call on the civil orders to organize themselves or to develop policies and projects in ways that the religious think are consistent with the gospel?
I want to post on that question -- especially about the controversy that inspired it -- in a day or so. But I put it out here to get you thinking.
Grace and Peace.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Language, Religion, and Politics
Partisan alert! In this my true colors show through, with no effort to "be fair." In what follows, keep in mind that I do not consider myself a "liberal." I am progressive (after my maternal grandfather's example), with no party affiliation (contrary to his example). I think, however one characterizes herself or himself, that careful consideration of the language one employs and the tone of one's arguments make an enormous difference. I am Christian, a follower of The Word who became flesh -- and as such, I must take words seriously. And that's what this rant is about.
I have many friends and many people I admire who confuse me because, while they are able to get theology right, they come to the wrong conclusions (I think) on a goodly number of pressing social issues. For example, I have been involved in a dispute over public schools, co-ed education, and taxation. These are matters about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, I guess ( :) ), but it often happens that in the middle of the conversation, one of my disputants will throw in a castigation of "liberals." "Liberals," it appears are responsible for all the social ills facing us -- bleeding heart acceptance of an educational system that is "unaccountable" (trust me: you don't want to get me started on that one!); liberals are responsible for high rates of taxation that breed a culture of entitlement (only let's overlook Enron and Tyco, et. al.; they are not emblematic of anything); and similar arguments. Throw out the "l" word (no: not "Lutheran") and you don't need to say anymore. This seems true not just of political discourse but of religious-ethical conversation, too.
Read First Things, Touchstone, and others among the theological journals and talk to the majority of neo-orthodox theologians of almost any stripe, and you get the same kind of lumping, easy-target language. Go into any chain bookstore and you'll see cover after cover detailing "how liberals hate America" and "how liberals have ruined America" and how liberals "can't think"and you can't "talk" to them. In the Church, liberals, it seems, have ruined the mass, denied it of reverence, traduced the Church's traditions, hate God -- or at least, the true God -- and left the cap off the toothpaste tube (oops, sorry, that's my own complaint) . Liberals control all media (that's one I really have trouble finding evidence for!), so it's desperately hard for the conservatives to get their message out. It's clear that such a "conservative" or "neo-conservative" or something movement is riding high. (I intend to read What's the Matter with Kansas? to help me understand how "they've" gotten there.)
And one of the darlings of the movement is Ann Coulter. She's a former newswoman, apparently. And she's got to be one of the fastest typists on the right. Yesterday in Barnes and Noble, I saw three hardcover works in one section, face out, bearing her name. She helps set the tone and the agenda, with a vitriol toward "liberals" that is almost indecent. In her mind "liberals" are traitors, have no right to participate in public discourse, and represent all that she personally (at least in print) deplores. (Shakespeare was so good with one-liners: "Methinks she doth protest too much" may apply here?)
Here's the latest from the doyenne of thoughtful prose. She was commenting on Jeff Gannon debacle. He's the prostitute, on the Texas GOP payroll, who for years was given a press pass to White House press conferences, planted to ask "softball" questions when the going got rough for President Bush or his pressman. He got that press pass under a false name and despite having no legitimate press credentials. But apparently no conservatives, who would have sought a special prosecutor had such a think happened six years ago, think it any big matter. (Apparently, either it was agreed that gay prostitutes in the press room are OK even if gay partners are not OK or it doesn't matter that the FBI screeners -- the same ones who will not clear Maureen Dowd of the New York Times for a pass -- were so incompetent.)
Well, of course, Ann Coulter couldn't restrain herself from commenting. Here's what she said, in dismissing Gannon-gate: "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. " There's insight into conservative values and thoughtfulness for you.
Helen Thomas has been a journalist for 60 years. She has covered every president from Kennedy on. She has always been careful, respectful, rarely (but occasionally) confrontational, and highly respected and esteemed among professional journalists. Yet that "old Arab" is of lower quality than the Right's male escort, according to Ann Coulter. Racism, slander, shamelessness -- Coulter gets away with it.
And she gets away with it not just among her fellow-travelers, but in the population at large. Except for the American Progress Action Fund and the Minneapolis StarTribune (which reported the APAF's item detailing this outrage), no medium has covered it (at least as I've been able to discover). And that's a scary prospect.
Helen Thomas is Lebanese, I understand. By Coulter's shorthand, that makes her an "Arab" and, automatically, an incipient terrorist suspect. And we all know that -- and shrug. And we Christians -- and Jews -- shrug even though it is an egregious example of bearing false witness and killing (for it incites hatred, which can lead to murder) and probably coveting (because, apparently, Coulter couldn't make it in real journalism). And we Christians -- and Jews -- shrug even though represents exactly the kind of racial vilification that helped "keep Jews in their place" for centuries. (Imagine if someone were to refer to Norman Podhoretz as "that old Jew" or Daniel Pipes as "that cruel Jew"!) And we Christians shrug even though we claim that the Good News overcomes racial, ethnic, genetic, gender and all other divisions.
Words can kill. But words can also make alive. In the absence of an active "loyal opposition" to this "right-wing" cant, it may be incumbent on church people to confirm the right's worst characterization and to stand up for those who are vilified, to call racism where it appears, to discredit smarmy intendre (double or not).
I could discredit left-wing excesses (and probably just as easily as spotting those from the right). I don't condone them. But my sense is that the left has less influence in capturing language and, thereby, thought than has the right wing. For that reason, I jump in on their side.
Besides, it's simply utterly ugly form to slur a really decent, hard-working, capable little old lady. (And if that doesn't prove that I'm above being "politically correct," nothing will.)
I have many friends and many people I admire who confuse me because, while they are able to get theology right, they come to the wrong conclusions (I think) on a goodly number of pressing social issues. For example, I have been involved in a dispute over public schools, co-ed education, and taxation. These are matters about which reasonable people can reasonably disagree, I guess ( :) ), but it often happens that in the middle of the conversation, one of my disputants will throw in a castigation of "liberals." "Liberals," it appears are responsible for all the social ills facing us -- bleeding heart acceptance of an educational system that is "unaccountable" (trust me: you don't want to get me started on that one!); liberals are responsible for high rates of taxation that breed a culture of entitlement (only let's overlook Enron and Tyco, et. al.; they are not emblematic of anything); and similar arguments. Throw out the "l" word (no: not "Lutheran") and you don't need to say anymore. This seems true not just of political discourse but of religious-ethical conversation, too.
Read First Things, Touchstone, and others among the theological journals and talk to the majority of neo-orthodox theologians of almost any stripe, and you get the same kind of lumping, easy-target language. Go into any chain bookstore and you'll see cover after cover detailing "how liberals hate America" and "how liberals have ruined America" and how liberals "can't think"and you can't "talk" to them. In the Church, liberals, it seems, have ruined the mass, denied it of reverence, traduced the Church's traditions, hate God -- or at least, the true God -- and left the cap off the toothpaste tube (oops, sorry, that's my own complaint) . Liberals control all media (that's one I really have trouble finding evidence for!), so it's desperately hard for the conservatives to get their message out. It's clear that such a "conservative" or "neo-conservative" or something movement is riding high. (I intend to read What's the Matter with Kansas? to help me understand how "they've" gotten there.)
And one of the darlings of the movement is Ann Coulter. She's a former newswoman, apparently. And she's got to be one of the fastest typists on the right. Yesterday in Barnes and Noble, I saw three hardcover works in one section, face out, bearing her name. She helps set the tone and the agenda, with a vitriol toward "liberals" that is almost indecent. In her mind "liberals" are traitors, have no right to participate in public discourse, and represent all that she personally (at least in print) deplores. (Shakespeare was so good with one-liners: "Methinks she doth protest too much" may apply here?)
Here's the latest from the doyenne of thoughtful prose. She was commenting on Jeff Gannon debacle. He's the prostitute, on the Texas GOP payroll, who for years was given a press pass to White House press conferences, planted to ask "softball" questions when the going got rough for President Bush or his pressman. He got that press pass under a false name and despite having no legitimate press credentials. But apparently no conservatives, who would have sought a special prosecutor had such a think happened six years ago, think it any big matter. (Apparently, either it was agreed that gay prostitutes in the press room are OK even if gay partners are not OK or it doesn't matter that the FBI screeners -- the same ones who will not clear Maureen Dowd of the New York Times for a pass -- were so incompetent.)
Well, of course, Ann Coulter couldn't restrain herself from commenting. Here's what she said, in dismissing Gannon-gate: "Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the president. " There's insight into conservative values and thoughtfulness for you.
Helen Thomas has been a journalist for 60 years. She has covered every president from Kennedy on. She has always been careful, respectful, rarely (but occasionally) confrontational, and highly respected and esteemed among professional journalists. Yet that "old Arab" is of lower quality than the Right's male escort, according to Ann Coulter. Racism, slander, shamelessness -- Coulter gets away with it.
And she gets away with it not just among her fellow-travelers, but in the population at large. Except for the American Progress Action Fund and the Minneapolis StarTribune (which reported the APAF's item detailing this outrage), no medium has covered it (at least as I've been able to discover). And that's a scary prospect.
Helen Thomas is Lebanese, I understand. By Coulter's shorthand, that makes her an "Arab" and, automatically, an incipient terrorist suspect. And we all know that -- and shrug. And we Christians -- and Jews -- shrug even though it is an egregious example of bearing false witness and killing (for it incites hatred, which can lead to murder) and probably coveting (because, apparently, Coulter couldn't make it in real journalism). And we Christians -- and Jews -- shrug even though represents exactly the kind of racial vilification that helped "keep Jews in their place" for centuries. (Imagine if someone were to refer to Norman Podhoretz as "that old Jew" or Daniel Pipes as "that cruel Jew"!) And we Christians shrug even though we claim that the Good News overcomes racial, ethnic, genetic, gender and all other divisions.
Words can kill. But words can also make alive. In the absence of an active "loyal opposition" to this "right-wing" cant, it may be incumbent on church people to confirm the right's worst characterization and to stand up for those who are vilified, to call racism where it appears, to discredit smarmy intendre (double or not).
I could discredit left-wing excesses (and probably just as easily as spotting those from the right). I don't condone them. But my sense is that the left has less influence in capturing language and, thereby, thought than has the right wing. For that reason, I jump in on their side.
Besides, it's simply utterly ugly form to slur a really decent, hard-working, capable little old lady. (And if that doesn't prove that I'm above being "politically correct," nothing will.)
Monday, February 28, 2005
New kyd on the block
We have a new kyd (that's my mother's spelling -- to distinguish children from goats) on the blogdom block. Check the Bag Lady out.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
FaithfulAmerica: Religion and Politics
I'm big on ecumenical organizations, even though I know the shortcomings and follies of such organizations as the National Council of Churches of Christ and World Council of Churches (and in my own Lutheran sphere, the Lutheran World Federation qualifies, given the disparate nature of bodies claiming Luther as their spiritual father). But I think it important that Christians of all stripes recognize their kinship with Christians of all other -- well, at least most other -- stripes. The goal of ecumenical conversation and cooperation must ultimately be the organic reunion of the Body of Christ; the current "denominational" structure is a travesty -- especially when it restricts communion (in the broader and specific term) with fellow Christians of other traditions. At this point, I do not see that a monolithic merger is necessary to fulfill the prayer of Christ, "ut unum sint" -- "that they may all be one." A "communion of communions" -- sort of like the Roman Catholic and Uniate communion -- might very well be a good think, recognizing as it could the lovely variety of races and places on God's earth. But nevertheless, the Churches must overcome their chauvinism, pride, entrenchedness, and arrogance and listen to each other within the brooding breath of the Holy Spirit to overcome their divisions.
That said, I turn to ways in which Christians manage to overcome division to work together in ways that serve the commands of God. This has become the chief focus of the worldwide ecumenical movement, and probably of the NCC, too. But there are, I think more effective projects now extant. And one of them is FaithfulAmerica.org (a project of the NCC, so watch out for the "liberal" bias, whatever that is).
To quote from their website (or I should say "our" website, since I am a member):
FaithfulAmerica.org is an online community of people of faith who want to build a more just and compassionate nation.
It provides one-click opportunities to impact current political issues and shift the terms of public debate.
FaithfulAmerica.org provides news and information about current (admittedly political) issues and urges action on the part of Christians to affect the political process. If it can be faulted, and I know that all my theologically and politically conservative friends will line up to do so, it would be that the organization tends to assume certain positions (which many conservatives call "liberal," but which I find to be quite conservative -- so go figure) without setting out the moral reasoning that leads one to take the steps it advocates. Nevertheless, the organization takes seriously what I think are unquestioned mandates of the Gospel -- viz., to care for the poor, wherever they live, and to tend the earth and her resources. Because the Gospel leads me to a progressivist politics (about which, I continually repeat, I try to remain wary and self-conscious), I have not yet found anything in what the organization has promoted to be a violation of my discipleship. (There have been, for example, no calls for encouragement or even allowance of abortion.)
The organization (a "virtual" community) sends via e-mail regular updates on issues or calls to action. You may check these out or sign up for same by going to the organization's website and following the directions. (If you do sign up, you will not be flooded with posts, I can assure you. And if you're not in the mood to read one, just delete it.)
I personally wrestle with the issue of how to behave as a disciple of Jesus. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is never far from my mind right now, and Stanley Hauerwas has carved a niche in my consciousness that will never be otherwise occupied. Both of them make me leery of religiously inspired action. Does it substitute for diligent faithfulness (a redundant term, I realize)? Does it essentially co-opt Christian reflection on issues? These are important questions. Nevertheless, as both realize, we are citizens of the nation and the world, and it as such and in such a situation that we are called to follow Our Lord -- not, for most of us, by withdrawing from the world. (After all, even the hesychasts and ascetics often influenced politics in their region and day.)
And so, I commend FaithfulAmerica.org to your consideration.
That said, I turn to ways in which Christians manage to overcome division to work together in ways that serve the commands of God. This has become the chief focus of the worldwide ecumenical movement, and probably of the NCC, too. But there are, I think more effective projects now extant. And one of them is FaithfulAmerica.org (a project of the NCC, so watch out for the "liberal" bias, whatever that is).
To quote from their website (or I should say "our" website, since I am a member):
FaithfulAmerica.org is an online community of people of faith who want to build a more just and compassionate nation.
It provides one-click opportunities to impact current political issues and shift the terms of public debate.
It aspires to be an online wing of a powerful, new progressive faith movement, like the ones that fought for independence, abolition and civil rights.
FaithfulAmerica.org is a project of the National Council of Churches with support from TrueMajority and Res Publica.FaithfulAmerica.org provides news and information about current (admittedly political) issues and urges action on the part of Christians to affect the political process. If it can be faulted, and I know that all my theologically and politically conservative friends will line up to do so, it would be that the organization tends to assume certain positions (which many conservatives call "liberal," but which I find to be quite conservative -- so go figure) without setting out the moral reasoning that leads one to take the steps it advocates. Nevertheless, the organization takes seriously what I think are unquestioned mandates of the Gospel -- viz., to care for the poor, wherever they live, and to tend the earth and her resources. Because the Gospel leads me to a progressivist politics (about which, I continually repeat, I try to remain wary and self-conscious), I have not yet found anything in what the organization has promoted to be a violation of my discipleship. (There have been, for example, no calls for encouragement or even allowance of abortion.)
The organization (a "virtual" community) sends via e-mail regular updates on issues or calls to action. You may check these out or sign up for same by going to the organization's website and following the directions. (If you do sign up, you will not be flooded with posts, I can assure you. And if you're not in the mood to read one, just delete it.)
I personally wrestle with the issue of how to behave as a disciple of Jesus. Dietrich Bonhoeffer is never far from my mind right now, and Stanley Hauerwas has carved a niche in my consciousness that will never be otherwise occupied. Both of them make me leery of religiously inspired action. Does it substitute for diligent faithfulness (a redundant term, I realize)? Does it essentially co-opt Christian reflection on issues? These are important questions. Nevertheless, as both realize, we are citizens of the nation and the world, and it as such and in such a situation that we are called to follow Our Lord -- not, for most of us, by withdrawing from the world. (After all, even the hesychasts and ascetics often influenced politics in their region and day.)
And so, I commend FaithfulAmerica.org to your consideration.
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Addendum to Lenten Meditations
I pushed "publish" before I meant to. If you don't want to buy the book without checking it out, you may review the contents (or use it in virtual form) at the Bruderhof site.
The Bruderhof's hospitality extends to providing free use of the publications! Astounding.
The Bruderhof's hospitality extends to providing free use of the publications! Astounding.
Lenten meditations
Good news! Orbis has published the Bruderhof's book of Lenten thought-pieces, Bread and Wine: Readings for Lent and Easter. As a complement to a regimen of prayer (divine office, daily prayer, freestyle. or whatever), this work is, to my eye, unsurpassed. The readings come from a variety of more-or-less modern people, though I would have welcomed at least some attention to the Church Fathers. You can check it out at amazon.com here.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
"One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic"
I am not a great fan of megachurches or of the "church growth" movement. And I've raised various objections. Now I've run across a person (whom I presume to be a Presbyterian) who says in a precise and witty way some of what I feel.
The internet is a fascinating reality: A brief time cruising just the blogs easily gives one the vision of the sum of human wisdom’s being available at the touch of a few keystrokes. (Yes, I spent much more time following “threads” and links than was reasonable, and I’m trying to justify my expenditure of time!)
Michael Spencer (who is the Internet Monk) reprinted an essay (here, scroll down to the entry for July 21, 2004) by R. C. Sproul, Jr., “Sophisticated Lady,” (from Tabletalk, June 2004, Ligonier Ministries, pp. 60-61) in which this preacher-teacher raises the question of whether the modern (or post-modern) “growth” church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” – and answers with a grieved “no.” The essay is short and worth reading, and I heartily recommend the few minutes it will take to read. (Thanks to Michael Spencer, whom I don’t know, for posting it.) But because there are some simply wonderful formulations, and because I enjoy nothing better than careful rhetoric, and because I think his critique is so marvelously “evangelical-catholic”, I’ll outline and quote here.
Sproul points out that the Church is in danger of losing her soul by adapting itself to the ways of the world in “selling” herself and judging her success by worldly measures of success. He illustrates by reference to “Oakmont Family Worship Center.” While there are “no oaks, no mountains, few families (that is, the families all split and go their separate ways as soon as they enter [in order to participate in various programs]), no worship, and precious little center,” there is a wide array of “offerings” that fit the demographics of the population Oakmont seeks to attract: a gym, twelve-step programs, youth/women/men/single groups, and a coffee bar “right in the narthex, I mean, the ‘greeting center.’”
Sproul then goes on to decry such church-growth plants: Oakmont is not one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Test what he says against your experience and your home congregation’s “lifestyle.” If they resonate, you may want to buy some sackcloth and practice prophecy.
I'll let Rev. Sproul speak for himself, except for the boldface, which I've added.
“It is not one because unlike the true church, its being isn’t centered on the work of Christ. … It is the first church of what’s happening now, and thus is untethered from the church in history.”
“Neither, of course is the church holy. It not only is not set apart, but labors diligently to mimic the world. It is unholy on purpose, because its reason for being is pleasing the lost, rather than the One who finds the lost. … The church begins with the assumption that I can be whatever it wishes and concludes by wishing to be just like the world.”
"The prototypical Oakmont is not catholic either. Not only does it begin with a marketing strategy, but that marketing strategy is to reach a particular niche (virtually always yuppies, not coincidentally). … Its vision of the church extends only as broadly as the demographic it is seeking.”
"Worst of all, Oakmont is not apostolic. It rejects not only the faith once delivered unto the saints, but likewise it rejects the messengers who delivered that faith. It takes its cues from modern-day church growth gurus, who, in turn, take their cues from the madmen of Madison Avenue. Oakmont isn’t concerned with what the apostles said because they make their decisions based on what the market says. And one thing the market cannot bear is sound, old, demanding doctrine. When demographics divide, that’s good marketing. But when doctrine divides, that bad marketing.”
“[This worldview] in the church, then, not only guts the church of her defining marks but givers her a new identity. Now she is no longer the bride of Christ, but a painted lady. When the church hustles the world, it becomes a worldly hustler.”
He goes on to warn the church: “When the church plays to consumers, she will find herself consumed by the One who is a consuming fire.”
Thus R. C. Sproul.
I am eager to compare this criticism of the Church with Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity.” It has been decades since I read Letters and Papers from Prison, and so I want to see the new translation and think it through again. But it seems to me that Bonhoeffer, like Sproul, was (re)calling the Church to her distinctive identity. Religion comprises all those trappings that we acquire and don when we try to be our own gods or define god or make our own “godlike” way. It is an attempt to manipulate – both God and humanity. To be religionless, for Bonhoeffer, could not have meant leaving behind the oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity – but rather to identify those in the journey of following Jesus.
On the basis of my very limited contact with both the writers, I think they work toward the same point – to make known to the Church how she is falling prey to false gods, gods that have been created and revealed by the world on the world’s terms. While the world is the Lord’s, until the final consummation, it remains world over against the Church (the Body of Christ). It must be called to account, to repentance, to faith – and not mistakenly (i.e., sinfully) allowed to shape that account, that repentance, that purported faith on its own terms. Oakmont is religion, regardless of the good intentions of her founders and movers and shakers. And Sproul is right to name it.
Incidentally, I think Hauerwas might appreciate this description, too. In fact, it sounds a little like him. (See why I was taken with this “read”?)
The Lord’s peace, not as the world gives peace, sustain you.
The internet is a fascinating reality: A brief time cruising just the blogs easily gives one the vision of the sum of human wisdom’s being available at the touch of a few keystrokes. (Yes, I spent much more time following “threads” and links than was reasonable, and I’m trying to justify my expenditure of time!)
Michael Spencer (who is the Internet Monk) reprinted an essay (here, scroll down to the entry for July 21, 2004) by R. C. Sproul, Jr., “Sophisticated Lady,” (from Tabletalk, June 2004, Ligonier Ministries, pp. 60-61) in which this preacher-teacher raises the question of whether the modern (or post-modern) “growth” church is “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic” – and answers with a grieved “no.” The essay is short and worth reading, and I heartily recommend the few minutes it will take to read. (Thanks to Michael Spencer, whom I don’t know, for posting it.) But because there are some simply wonderful formulations, and because I enjoy nothing better than careful rhetoric, and because I think his critique is so marvelously “evangelical-catholic”, I’ll outline and quote here.
Sproul points out that the Church is in danger of losing her soul by adapting itself to the ways of the world in “selling” herself and judging her success by worldly measures of success. He illustrates by reference to “Oakmont Family Worship Center.” While there are “no oaks, no mountains, few families (that is, the families all split and go their separate ways as soon as they enter [in order to participate in various programs]), no worship, and precious little center,” there is a wide array of “offerings” that fit the demographics of the population Oakmont seeks to attract: a gym, twelve-step programs, youth/women/men/single groups, and a coffee bar “right in the narthex, I mean, the ‘greeting center.’”
Sproul then goes on to decry such church-growth plants: Oakmont is not one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. Test what he says against your experience and your home congregation’s “lifestyle.” If they resonate, you may want to buy some sackcloth and practice prophecy.
I'll let Rev. Sproul speak for himself, except for the boldface, which I've added.
“It is not one because unlike the true church, its being isn’t centered on the work of Christ. … It is the first church of what’s happening now, and thus is untethered from the church in history.”
“Neither, of course is the church holy. It not only is not set apart, but labors diligently to mimic the world. It is unholy on purpose, because its reason for being is pleasing the lost, rather than the One who finds the lost. … The church begins with the assumption that I can be whatever it wishes and concludes by wishing to be just like the world.”
"The prototypical Oakmont is not catholic either. Not only does it begin with a marketing strategy, but that marketing strategy is to reach a particular niche (virtually always yuppies, not coincidentally). … Its vision of the church extends only as broadly as the demographic it is seeking.”
"Worst of all, Oakmont is not apostolic. It rejects not only the faith once delivered unto the saints, but likewise it rejects the messengers who delivered that faith. It takes its cues from modern-day church growth gurus, who, in turn, take their cues from the madmen of Madison Avenue. Oakmont isn’t concerned with what the apostles said because they make their decisions based on what the market says. And one thing the market cannot bear is sound, old, demanding doctrine. When demographics divide, that’s good marketing. But when doctrine divides, that bad marketing.”
“[This worldview] in the church, then, not only guts the church of her defining marks but givers her a new identity. Now she is no longer the bride of Christ, but a painted lady. When the church hustles the world, it becomes a worldly hustler.”
He goes on to warn the church: “When the church plays to consumers, she will find herself consumed by the One who is a consuming fire.”
Thus R. C. Sproul.
I am eager to compare this criticism of the Church with Bonhoeffer’s “religionless Christianity.” It has been decades since I read Letters and Papers from Prison, and so I want to see the new translation and think it through again. But it seems to me that Bonhoeffer, like Sproul, was (re)calling the Church to her distinctive identity. Religion comprises all those trappings that we acquire and don when we try to be our own gods or define god or make our own “godlike” way. It is an attempt to manipulate – both God and humanity. To be religionless, for Bonhoeffer, could not have meant leaving behind the oneness, holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity – but rather to identify those in the journey of following Jesus.
On the basis of my very limited contact with both the writers, I think they work toward the same point – to make known to the Church how she is falling prey to false gods, gods that have been created and revealed by the world on the world’s terms. While the world is the Lord’s, until the final consummation, it remains world over against the Church (the Body of Christ). It must be called to account, to repentance, to faith – and not mistakenly (i.e., sinfully) allowed to shape that account, that repentance, that purported faith on its own terms. Oakmont is religion, regardless of the good intentions of her founders and movers and shakers. And Sproul is right to name it.
Incidentally, I think Hauerwas might appreciate this description, too. In fact, it sounds a little like him. (See why I was taken with this “read”?)
The Lord’s peace, not as the world gives peace, sustain you.
Friday, February 04, 2005
Lenten Resource
It is almost Lent, and I don't know how we have arrived there so early (well, Easter is early -- but that's not my point): Einstein's relatively has something to do with it, I suppose, but I don't know that he focussed on aging as one of the factors.
At any rate, it's time to begin thinking about a little more rigor -- or for the modernists among us, intentionality -- in our daily meditations and musings. I have not seen offered for sale my favorite resource, the Bruderhof's Bread and Wine: Readings for Lent and Easter. It's an anthology of readings (one for each day) drawn from a simply amazing array of people. Most of them are wonderful. I understand that Maryknoll has released a paperback, but I have not researched the matter. If you find one, snatch it up. I'm grateful that I was able to get the original hardcover before The Plough (the Bruderhof's now-defunct publishing house) went out of existence.
For the more technology-inspired, Ed Schroeder, retired (sort of) professor of theology (with roots in the pre-schism Missouri Synod) has placed on-line a daily meditatioin (quite short, apparently; just enough to give you some time to commune with the Lord of Life before or after beginning a hectic day). It is located here.
There are, of course, numerous books -- many of them considering the Lord's seven last words. Richard John Neuhaus has one that I grapple with, and Walter Wangerin is always good. (By the way, reading Wangerin's The Book of the Dun Cow would be a good Lenten endeavor.)
I'll try to post a couple more suggestions, but how about you? What's going to guide your reflection during the Lenten journey? Just add your comments.
And to those of you, my officially-being-trained theologian friends, where are your suggestions?
Blessings and peace,
At any rate, it's time to begin thinking about a little more rigor -- or for the modernists among us, intentionality -- in our daily meditations and musings. I have not seen offered for sale my favorite resource, the Bruderhof's Bread and Wine: Readings for Lent and Easter. It's an anthology of readings (one for each day) drawn from a simply amazing array of people. Most of them are wonderful. I understand that Maryknoll has released a paperback, but I have not researched the matter. If you find one, snatch it up. I'm grateful that I was able to get the original hardcover before The Plough (the Bruderhof's now-defunct publishing house) went out of existence.
For the more technology-inspired, Ed Schroeder, retired (sort of) professor of theology (with roots in the pre-schism Missouri Synod) has placed on-line a daily meditatioin (quite short, apparently; just enough to give you some time to commune with the Lord of Life before or after beginning a hectic day). It is located here.
There are, of course, numerous books -- many of them considering the Lord's seven last words. Richard John Neuhaus has one that I grapple with, and Walter Wangerin is always good. (By the way, reading Wangerin's The Book of the Dun Cow would be a good Lenten endeavor.)
I'll try to post a couple more suggestions, but how about you? What's going to guide your reflection during the Lenten journey? Just add your comments.
And to those of you, my officially-being-trained theologian friends, where are your suggestions?
Blessings and peace,
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Something Completely Different
As some of my friends know, I have this year begun a new regime in my pursuit of insights into Christ and Culture: I have begun attending movies with a friend on a regular basis -- viz., almost every Tuesday night. As a result, for the first time in a decade I have actually seen most (instead of none) of the Oscar-nominated movies and stars on the big screen and not waited for rental stores or, now, Netflix (I've got to sing that companies praises one of these days) to provide them.
When I was young, I attended movies all the time, but in my later adult years, that practice has fallen off -- even though I love seeing things in theaters (notwithstanding being driven up the wall by popcorn-chomping-Coke-slurping fellow viewers). I learned to articulate what I liked and disliked about movies, but mostly I enjoyed being carried into another world. Yes, I have never had problems with the suspension of reality; I'm an easy mark.
In my new situation, I relish lists of the "ten best" or the "keepers" or such -- by whomever puts out the lists. I've been a fan of Roger Ebert's criticism since I discovered his review show with Gene Siskel (of blessed memory) on pubic TV, and I continue to enjoy him in his new arrangment with Richard Roeper. (There's a summary of their picks for Best Movies, including 2004, of the past few years here.) And I get a newsletter from Orthodox laywoman Frederika Mathewes-Greene that includes movie reviews on a regular basis. (I often disagree with her.)
Today I came across Christianity Today's lists of the best, and I was surprised to find such stuff there. As a kind of knee-jerk political liberal, I don't read CT regularly, but, as an evangelical-catholic Christian, I feel bad about that. I admit that my prejudices put the journal's efforts at culture-criticism in the "carping" pigeonholde. And for that I repent. (I have expected the tone of the journal to be of a type with the snarling self-righteous tone that infests First Things and Touchstone, both of which carry fabulous stuff but alienate me with the editorial crews' partisanship and tunnel vision.)
CT has published two lists of movies, with critical commentary, that are fascinating to see.
I encourage you to check out, here, the journal's list of the Ten Most Redeeming Films of 2004 and, here, its list of the Ten Best Films of 2004. It makes for fascinating reading, and for the most part, the evaluations are sound -- and even accurate.
Your comments, reviews, or list would be welcome here.
Salaam,
When I was young, I attended movies all the time, but in my later adult years, that practice has fallen off -- even though I love seeing things in theaters (notwithstanding being driven up the wall by popcorn-chomping-Coke-slurping fellow viewers). I learned to articulate what I liked and disliked about movies, but mostly I enjoyed being carried into another world. Yes, I have never had problems with the suspension of reality; I'm an easy mark.
In my new situation, I relish lists of the "ten best" or the "keepers" or such -- by whomever puts out the lists. I've been a fan of Roger Ebert's criticism since I discovered his review show with Gene Siskel (of blessed memory) on pubic TV, and I continue to enjoy him in his new arrangment with Richard Roeper. (There's a summary of their picks for Best Movies, including 2004, of the past few years here.) And I get a newsletter from Orthodox laywoman Frederika Mathewes-Greene that includes movie reviews on a regular basis. (I often disagree with her.)
Today I came across Christianity Today's lists of the best, and I was surprised to find such stuff there. As a kind of knee-jerk political liberal, I don't read CT regularly, but, as an evangelical-catholic Christian, I feel bad about that. I admit that my prejudices put the journal's efforts at culture-criticism in the "carping" pigeonholde. And for that I repent. (I have expected the tone of the journal to be of a type with the snarling self-righteous tone that infests First Things and Touchstone, both of which carry fabulous stuff but alienate me with the editorial crews' partisanship and tunnel vision.)
CT has published two lists of movies, with critical commentary, that are fascinating to see.
I encourage you to check out, here, the journal's list of the Ten Most Redeeming Films of 2004 and, here, its list of the Ten Best Films of 2004. It makes for fascinating reading, and for the most part, the evaluations are sound -- and even accurate.
Your comments, reviews, or list would be welcome here.
Salaam,
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Prayer for Healing
Our prayers go to God that he restore the health and strength of his servant, His Holiness John Paul II.
Vatican spokespeople assure us that his condition is not life-threatening, but breathing problems are never a minor concern -- and are of even greater concern here given the Pope's Parkinson's.
Vatican spokespeople assure us that his condition is not life-threatening, but breathing problems are never a minor concern -- and are of even greater concern here given the Pope's Parkinson's.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Lutheran Theosis: A New Book (at last)
There is a new book out (and long overdue) that everyone with an interest in Lutheran theology or ecumenism ought to read: Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther's View of Justification , ed. and introduced by Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). (See how inexpensive it is here.)
Professor Mannermaa (recently retired) was long-time professor at University of Helsinki, where he spearheaded an entire movement (fondly called "The Finnish School") devoted to a careful re-reading and re-evaluation of Luther's own writings. Mannermaa discovered and almost counless of his students and colleagues have since provided more and more evidence that Luther has been misinterpreted around the central issue of the Reformation -- Justification by Faith. Mannermaa discovered in Luther a more Orthodox (as in Eastern Church) meaning to the term "justification" than is usually ascribed to the term. For Luther, per The Finnish School, Christ justifies not just in some forensic way, but "really" -- i.e., by making himself truly present to and in the believer. Christ "enters the believer" and in the process begins a process of incorporating the believer into Christ.
The explication of this argument is a beautiful thing to behold (although very little of the literature is available in English -- it's almost all in German and Scandinavian languages). This short book, Mannermaa's original setting forth of his thesis, finally appears in English. Published over twenty years ago as a part of the Professor's official involvement in the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues in Europe, it represented the groundbreaking for what has become a very fertile -- and very controversial -- line of scholarship.
I was privileged to have coffee with Professor Mannermaa one time, and I can testify that he is a gentle, warm, personable, humble, brilliant bear of a man. He and some of his closest colleagues addressed a seminar at St. Olaf sponsored by the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology (the first of the Center's conferences I ever attened and the long-term result of which is that I now sit on the Center's Board of Directors). The addresses, together with responses by American theologians, were collected into what remains really the only other collection of essays around the theme, even to this day: Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). (You can see a picture of Professor Mannermaa in that book.)
This is stuff that will not and ought not go away, despite the controversy. It radically changed my own personal perspective on Luther -- but that is something I have trouble communicating to more "traditional" Lutherans because of my inability to read Luther in German. I'm not sure to what extent English translations of Luther betray a worldview about Luther different from what the German might convey. Nevertheless, I hope that the book is widely read and discussed. Professor Mannermaa himself participated in the translation of his book, working with editor Stjerna to get just the right meaning. (In her introduction, Professor Stjerna discusses the translation process and thereby documents what an invaluable resource this book will prove to be as an accurate overview of all the scholarship that grew out of it.)
And I think Kirsi Stjerna, who teaches at my alma mater, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, deserves high praise and effusive thanks for making this book finally available to us.
Professor Mannermaa (recently retired) was long-time professor at University of Helsinki, where he spearheaded an entire movement (fondly called "The Finnish School") devoted to a careful re-reading and re-evaluation of Luther's own writings. Mannermaa discovered and almost counless of his students and colleagues have since provided more and more evidence that Luther has been misinterpreted around the central issue of the Reformation -- Justification by Faith. Mannermaa discovered in Luther a more Orthodox (as in Eastern Church) meaning to the term "justification" than is usually ascribed to the term. For Luther, per The Finnish School, Christ justifies not just in some forensic way, but "really" -- i.e., by making himself truly present to and in the believer. Christ "enters the believer" and in the process begins a process of incorporating the believer into Christ.
The explication of this argument is a beautiful thing to behold (although very little of the literature is available in English -- it's almost all in German and Scandinavian languages). This short book, Mannermaa's original setting forth of his thesis, finally appears in English. Published over twenty years ago as a part of the Professor's official involvement in the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogues in Europe, it represented the groundbreaking for what has become a very fertile -- and very controversial -- line of scholarship.
I was privileged to have coffee with Professor Mannermaa one time, and I can testify that he is a gentle, warm, personable, humble, brilliant bear of a man. He and some of his closest colleagues addressed a seminar at St. Olaf sponsored by the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology (the first of the Center's conferences I ever attened and the long-term result of which is that I now sit on the Center's Board of Directors). The addresses, together with responses by American theologians, were collected into what remains really the only other collection of essays around the theme, even to this day: Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. by Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). (You can see a picture of Professor Mannermaa in that book.)
This is stuff that will not and ought not go away, despite the controversy. It radically changed my own personal perspective on Luther -- but that is something I have trouble communicating to more "traditional" Lutherans because of my inability to read Luther in German. I'm not sure to what extent English translations of Luther betray a worldview about Luther different from what the German might convey. Nevertheless, I hope that the book is widely read and discussed. Professor Mannermaa himself participated in the translation of his book, working with editor Stjerna to get just the right meaning. (In her introduction, Professor Stjerna discusses the translation process and thereby documents what an invaluable resource this book will prove to be as an accurate overview of all the scholarship that grew out of it.)
And I think Kirsi Stjerna, who teaches at my alma mater, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, deserves high praise and effusive thanks for making this book finally available to us.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)