I just finished reading “The Cost of Discipleship” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer and was completely blown away by this book.
For a book that was originally written in 1937 – the teachings of this book are incredibly applicable to our culture today.

I particularly love the first part of the book entitled “Grace and Discipleship”, it is split up into several chapters which deal with grace, discipleship, suffering and our identity as Christ-followers.

I want to focus on the first chapter, “Costly Grace,” because it left me with a lot of thoughts.

Bonhoeffer shares that the grace that we have cultivated in our churches is a “cheap grace” a kind of grace that a person or church defines in order for them to adhere to in a comfortable manner – a kind of grace that “we bestow on ourselves.” (1959, 44) He describes it in this manner:

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. (1959, 44-45)

So what then is “Costly Grace”?

He turns to the parable that Jesus tells of a man who finds treasure in the field; it is for this discovery that the man trades all that he has in order to obtain this field. Bonhoeffer points out that it is in that spirit of seeking and sacrifice that we can understand Costly Grace. He describes further:

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock… It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. (45)

I think what this chapter did for me was to emphasize the importance and need for us as church leaders to assess how we ourselves view grace and how we teach others to view grace. Only recently have I begun to fully realize the importance of understanding grace and understanding this call to suffer and die for our discipleship.

I believe that the North American Church has lost her sense of Costly Grace; we have traded it for a cheap imitation and have settled ourselves, “sustained” by a counterfeit grace.

Too often we view grace as a gift freely given, however, we know this is not the case; a price was paid for this grace (Jesus’ death on the cross) and a sacrifice must be made (submission of our life to God) in order to receive this grace. I think our evangelical gospel has diluted the cost of grace and we have given it away indiscriminately without warning the recipients that the gift comes with an incredible cost – although it has been bought by the blood of Christ, it now requires the recipient to transact his or her life cruciform to that of Christ’s life. The gift of grace is not freedom from sin in itself, but it is freedom from sin in Christ.

Ironically, Bonhoeffer shares with his readers:

We confess that, although our Church is orthodox as far as her doctrine of grace is concerned, we are no longer sure that we are members of a Church which follows its Lord. (55)

He points out this misguidedness that churches today face, that we’ve defined grace and ultimately, discipleship, in our own terms for our own purposes.

One pastor shares that before he baptizes people at his church, he asks them if they are sure of what they are getting themselves into, because once you get into the water, you are essentially saying that you understand that your life is no longer your own and that you are called to live completely for Christ.

What has this grace cost you?
Do you seek God fervently as the man who discovered the treasure in the field? Or have you defined grace under your own terms to fit your own sensibilities?

This grace from God means nothing if it does not cost us something; I am not saying that we are working for our salvation, indeed the salvation has been paid – but what I am saying is that we need to understand the value of the grace and the burden and weight of the glory of God that we in turn must bear in receiving this grace: that is the Costly Grace.

-end-

Works Cited:
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Touchstone, 1959.

Dave and I over at Dommerselv! have been having a discussion about Kierkegaard, Barth, and Tillich. The question concerning the relationship between the God of philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has been on my mind for quite some time. Many Christians today argue for the rejection of Hellenic Christianity, as if Neo-Platonism is a perversion of a Jewish spirituality and theology (I think here especially of process theology). On the other side, radical orthodox theologians defend Neo-Platonic metaphysics to the death, as if this is the only ontology that could possibly support a true Christian philosophy. Here was my comment:

I think I’m sympathetic with Barth as well especially with his radical Christo-centrism. I guess I’ll be finding out soon enough (with my Church Dogmatic reading project). Whether or not one agrees with him, one has to respect the rigorous application of his methodology.

I think the distance between Tillich and Barth is best contrasted by Tillich’s belief that the God of the philosophers is the same God as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Barth would obviously disagree. We only know God through God’s self-revelation in the Word of God (along with God’s covenant with Israel). I think it’s interesting to think about Tillich’s equation. How does the God of the Greek and Hebrew Bible differ from Greek’s metaphysical God? Is God impassible, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? I think it’s fairly obvious that one can find stories in the Bible where God does not exhibit these characteristics. Now, given that one can always just merely write away stories (like the one where God has to go check the reports in Sodom to see how many righteous people there are, as if he doesn’t already know) as being remnants of primitive thinking, which I’m sure Tillich would be inclined to do. This is a temptation though. We tend to have this illusory view that people get smarter over time. I’m more skeptical that we 21st century thinkers are far more advanced in our understanding of God than Hebrews five centuries before Christ. In certain areas we’re obviously more advanced (science), but theology reflects on a subject matter that has a complicated relationship with time (that’s for another day). Barth’s relationship with the Bible is much more complicated than Tillich’s liberal critical-historical perspective. He doesn’t believe that the Bible is verbally inspired by God, but rather a recording of God’s self-revelation to man.

Mark C Taylor’s book After God also stresses the different extremes of thinking between Kierkegaard and Hegel. He looks at theologies such as neo-orthodoxy (transcendent, wholly Other God, Kierkegaardian) and the change to the death-of-God theology (immanent, kenotic God, Hegelian). He argues for an a/theology that is transcendent within immanence. Although, it’s clear he doesn’t believe in any sort of God (in the common sense of the term) but rather some sort of organic sense of the sacred.

I’m curious what other people think about the relationship between philosophy and theology. Do you agree with Tillich or Barth? What about the relationship between Christian theology and Muslim theology? Are these different Gods? I’m not sure where I stand on the Tillich/Barth debate. I think it’s too easy to say, Athens bad, Jerusalem good. Although, I don’t think a close Biblical reading can uphold that God is impassible, the other three I’m not so sure about. This obviously gets much more complicated when we talk about divine characteristics in Jesus. I think it’s incorrect to start with a notion of the divine and then see how this matches up with Jesus of Nazareth’s life. That’s the wrong direction. When it comes to the incarnation, I’ll let Bonhoeffer have the last word:

“If Jesus Christ is to be described as God, then we may not speak of this divine essence, of his omnipotence and his omniscience, but we must speak of this weak man among sinners, of his cradle and cross. When we consider the Godhead of Jesus, then above all we must speak of his weakness. In christology one looks at the whole historical man Jesus and says of him, ‘He is God.’ One does not look at a human nature, and then beyond it to a divine nature; one meets the one man Jesus Christ, who is fully god.” (Christ the Center, 108)

The C.O.D.E. to reading Bonhoeffer:

Watch for these key themes in the book as you’re reading. You might even underline/high-light key lines and mark them with the appropriate letter.
• Christ – Bonhoeffer’s call to the church is to place our focus back upon Jesus – his lifestyle, his teachings, his martyrdom, and his presence in the world today. His question, “Who are we for Jesus Christ today?” emphasizes Jesus’ relevance not merely as the means of our justification or salvation but as our guide, our teacher, our Lord today.
• Obedience – The call to simple, single-minded obedience is at the heart of Bonhoeffer’s call to the Church. He says, “The paradoxical understanding of the commandments has its Christian justification, but it must never lead to the abandoning of the single-minded [simple] understanding of the commandments.” In other words, we may rightly come to the conclusion that Jesus’ command to sell all that we have and give to the poor may be interpreted in such a way that Christians can still own property, but in doing so, we must not abandon the simple call to generosity and even poverty that Jesus issued.
• Discipleship – In Lutheranism, monastics (monks) were the extreme Christians who devoted themselves to radical counter-cultural living. Bonhoeffer envisioned a sort of universal monasticism for the Church so that all Christians lived the kind of radical lives typical of those who followed Jesus during his ministry in Palestine.
• Ecumenism – “Ecumenism is the aim or effort of promoting unity among the world’s Christian churches.” Bonhoeffer’s doctoral thesis was written on the topic of the church and was titled, “The Sacred Community.” He hoped to reunite and revive the splintered and weakened church he saw in Europe and the states. As a result, his theology is intensely practical as it was always written for real churches struggling with real problems.
This sounds a lot like the plea of the Restoration Movement and Church of Christ preaching!

—————————

Reading Guide 1 (p.35-56)

Glossary:
• Ecclesiastical (35): Having to do with the church, especially formal church leadership
• Ballast (35): A heavy material placed low in a boat to provide stability
• Dogmas (36): Religious rules or official doctrines
• Sacraments (43): Holy rituals in Christian faith specifically communion and baptism
• Ipso facto (43): Latin for “by that very fact”
• Enthusiasts & Anabaptists (44): Religious groups of the reformation period (1500-1700 AD) out of which came Mennonites and the Amish. Both Catholics and Protestants of that time persecuted these groups.
• Sanctuary (45): A place made holy and safe by the presence of God which dwells there.
• Monastic (46): Having to do with monks and nuns
• Schism (46): A split or tear
• Cloister (47): A monastery or a covered walkway within a monastery
• Bourgeois (50): Middle-class western society and its materialistic values
• Indolence (51): Laziness
• Pecca Fortiter (52): Latin for “Sin Boldly.” It is the first line in a quote attributed to Martin Luther. D.B. translates the whole phrase in parentheses, but uses the first two words as shorthand for the whole idea. Don’t worry if this section is a little confusing. ☺
• Opus Operatum (52): Latin for “from the work done” generally used to refer to the power of the sacraments.
• Carte Blanche (52): French for “blank sheet” D.B. uses it here like we would use the expression, “blank check.”
• Catechumenate (54): Relating to the word catechism. A training process through which those who wish to be baptized (or confirmed) must go. Generally it consists of learning Church teachings before one commits to a church.
• Orthodox (55): Teaching/believing the right thing. The opposite of heretical.

Memoir (p.13-33)
• You don’t have to read this for class, but it does give you a nice relatively concise introduction to Bonhoeffer’s extraordinary life. I would recommend that you read his poem, “Who Am I” which he wrote while in a Nazi prison (p.19-20).
Introduction (p.35-39)
1. Bonhoeffer wanted to start a Christian revival in Germany, but he saw the Lutheran Church as too weighed down with man-made doctrines and traditions. What two things does he think the Church should emphasize in order to revitalize the church? (p.35)

a. ______________________________

b. ______________________________
2. How do you feel about his critique of preaching on pages 35-36? Do we ever fall victim to the same kinds of problems he identifies in 1930’s Germany? Consider the following line, “So many people come to church with a genuine desire to hear what we have to say, yet they are always going home with the uncomfortable feeling that we are making it too difficult for them to come to Jesus” (p36). What sorts of things happen at church that act as unnecessary obstacles for outsiders to come to Christ?

Costly Grace (p.43-56)
1. Read Romans 5:20-6:4 before reading this chapter. What connections do you see between Paul’s point there and Bonhoeffer’s description of “cheap grace”?

2. What does Bonhoeffer see as the biggest mistake of the monastics? (47)

3. Bonhoeffer says that Luther was right about being saved by grace, but that “salvation by grace only” is the end of the matter, not the first – the sum of the equation, not one of the factors. What does he mean by this? (50-55)

4. Bonhoeffer says that the Lutheran Church was orthodox (correct/true) in its doctrine of grace but that it had ceased following the Lord. Is it possible for a church to have the right teachings but completely fail to live out the implications of those teachings? How should churches respond when that happens?

I have a bunch of books lying around all vying for my attention over break, so here is the list that I am hoping to stick to. 

1) The Cost of Discipleship by Deitrich Bonhoeffer (lack about 150 pages)
2)  Passion of Jesus Christ by John Piper (Lack about 50 pages)
3) Mythology by Edith Hamilton (lack about 200 pages)
4) Emergent Manifesto of Hope by many writers
5) Long Way Home by Ishmael Beah

I will be glad if I finish the first two, but these are the priorities right now.  Wish me luck!

The following quote is from Dietrich Bonhoeffer (from his book, Ethics), one of my “heroes of the faith.”  Bonhoeffer was a German pastor who resisted Hitler and consistently spoke out against the actions of Germany, particularly regarding the government’s take-over of the Church and their actions against the Jewish people.

“The division of the total reality into a sacred and a profane sphere, a Christian and a secular sphere, creates the possibility of existence in a single one of these spheres, a spiritual existence which has no part in secular existence, and a secular existence which can claim autonomy for itself and can exercise this right of autonomy in its dealing with the spiritual sphere. …So long as Christ and the world are conceived as two opposing and mutually repellent spheres, man will be left in the following dilemma: he abandons reality as a whole, and places himself in one or the other of the two spheres.  He seeks Christ without the world, or he seeks the world without Christ.  In either case he is deceiving himself.”

This has been greatly influential in my life, because I often find myself struggling in my self-identity.  If you’re not sure if this applies to you, here are some diagnostic questions to ask:

• Do you have “church friends” and “other friends?”
• Do you act differently in church or around Christians than you do elsewhere?
• When you’re brutally honest, do you have to admit that you don’t see religion as having influence over how you live at school, work, or most other place (except for church)?

That’s what he’s talking about.  Bonhoeffer is urging Christians to be WHOLE Christians, not just partial ones.  This is what Jesus was talking about when he said “No one can serve two masters.  Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24).

What about you?  Are you really two people living in the same person, and the “you” others see depends on where you are and who you’re with?

(c) Brandon Schaefer

In his book Life Together Bonhoeffer makes some comments about personal Bible reading and Bible reading in smaller groups and families. He believes that the tendency to read smaller and smaller portions of scripture is very dangerous. Minimum, for Bonhoeffer, is for people to be reading 1 chapter of the Old Testament and at least half a chapter from the New both morning and evening. His grounds for this view isn’t really any sort of legalism but is instead based on the absolute importance of Scripture.

I’m not really one for prescribing exactly how much and how often and such details. But his challenge to us about the place of God’s Word in our lives and in our hearts is a helpful one. Whether you agree with the specifics or not, his reasoning is solid and his challenge to us is, as always, blistering. Here’s his defense of this practice of at least 3 chapters of Scripture read per day:

“When the practice is first tried, of course, most people will find even this modest measure too much and will offer resistence. It will be objected that it is impossible to take in and retain such an abundance of ideas and associations, that it even shows disrespect for God’s Word to read more than one can seriously assimilate. These objections will cause us quite readily to content ourselves again with reading only verses.

“In truth, however, there lurks in this attitude a grave error. If it is really true that it is hard for us, as adult Christians, to comprehend even a chapter of the Old Testament in sequence, then this can only fill us with profound shame; what kind of testimony is that to our knowledge of the Scriptures and all our previous reading of them? If we were familiar with the substance of what we read we should be able to follow a chapter without difficulty, especially if we have an open Bible in our hands and participate in the reading. But, of course, we must admit that the Scriptures are still largely unkown to us. Can the realization of our fault, our ignorance of the Word of God, have any other consequence than that we should earnestly and faithfully retrieve what has been neglected? And should not ministers be the very first to get to work at this point?

“[...] Not only the young Christian but also the adult Christian will complain that the Scripture reading is often too long for him and that much therein he does not understand. To this it must be said that for the mature Christian every Scripture reading will be ‘too long’, even the shortest one.

“[...] We must learn to know the Scriptures again, as the Reformers and our fathers knew them. We must not grudge the time and the work that it takes. We must know the Sriptures first and foremost for the sake of our salvation. [...] But one who will not learn to handle the Bible for himself is not an evangelical Christian.”

                          Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together, pp. 36-37 + 39

I have been reading through Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s short treatise on the subject of Christan community entitled “Life Together.”  His words are clear and convicting.  I often hear pastors talking about the necessity of “vision” in leading a church.  This passage from Bonhoeffer may cause some to question the idolatry of their own “vision.”

God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious.  The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself.  He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly.  He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren.  He acts as if he is the creator of the Christian community, as if his dream binds men together.  When things do not go his way, he calls the effort a failure.  When his ideal picture is destroyed, he sees the community going to smash.  So he becomes,  first an accuser of his brethren, then an accuser of God, and finally the despairing accuser of himself.

 This is exceedingly brilliant, amazing; it is sadly and joyfully true:

“The most experienced psychologist or observer of human nature knows infinitely less of the human heart than the simplest Christian who lives beneath the Cross of Jesus.  The greatest psychological insight, ability, and experience cannot grasp this one thing: what sin is.  Worldly wisdom knows what distress and weakness and failure are, but it does not know the godlessness of men.  And so it also does not know that man is destroyed only by his sin and can be healed only by forgiveness.”

“In the presence of a psychiatrist I can only be a sick man; in the presence of a Christian brother [or sister] I can dare to be a sinner.  The psychiatrist must first search my heart and yet he never plumbs its ultimate depth.  The Christian brother knows when I come to him: here is a sinner like myself, a godless man who wants to confess and yearns for God’s forgiveness.  The psychiatrist views me as if there were no God.  The brother views me as I am before the judging and merciful God in the Cross of Jesus Christ.”

That’s it, really.  Bonhoeffer nailed it.  Only before the cross and in the presence of a fellow real, true, sinner can we call a thing what it is: sin.

Above quote taken from the excellent, Life Together, page 118-119.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

This is the second week of Advent: a time to prepare ourselves for the Return of the King.  Are you ready?  A couple of years ago I came across this letter by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Enjoy!

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20

When early Christianity spoke of the return of the Lord Jesus, they thought of a great day of judgment. Even though this thought may appear to us to be so unlike Christmas, it is original Christianity and to be taken extremely seriously. When we hear Jesus knocking, our conscience first of all pricks us: Are we rightly prepared? Is our heart capable of becoming God’s dwelling place? Thus Advent becomes a time of self-examination. “Put the desires of your heart in order, O human beings!” (Valentin Thilo), as the old song sings.

“Our whole life is an Advent, a time of waiting for the ultimate, for the time when there will be a new heaven and a new earth, when all people will be brothers and sisters.”

It is very remarkable that we face the thought that God is coming so calmly, whereas previously peoples trembled at the day of God, whereas the world fell into trembling when Jesus Christ walked over the earth. That is why we find it so strange when we see the marks of God in the world so often together with the marks of human suffering, with the marks of the cross on Golgotha.

We have become so accustomed to the idea of divine love and of God’s coming at Christmas that we no longer feel the shiver of fear that God’s coming should arouse in us. We are indifferent to the message, taking only the pleasant and agreeable out of it and forgetting the serious aspect, that the God of the world draws near to the people of our little earth and lays claim to us. The coming of God is truly not only glad tidings, but first of all frightening news for everyone who has a conscience.

Only when we have felt the terror of the matter, can we recognize the incomparable kindness. God comes into the very midst of evil and of death, and judges the evil in us and in the world. And by judging us, God cleanses and sanctifies us, comes to us with grace and love. God makes us happy as only children can be happy.

God wants to always be with us, wherever we may be – in our sin, in our suffering and death. We are no longer alone; God is with us. We are no longer homeless; a bit of the eternal home itself has moved unto us. Therefore we adults can rejoice deeply within our hearts under the Christmas tree, perhaps much more than the children are able. We know that God’s goodness will once again draw near. We think of all of God’s goodness that came our way last year and sense something of this marvelous home. Jesus comes in judgment and grace: “Behold I stand at the door!  Open wide the gates!” (Ps. 24:7)?

One day, at the last judgment, he will separate the sheep and the goats and will say to those on his right: “Come, you blessed?  I was hungry and you fed me?” (Matt. 25:34).  To the astonished question of when and where, he answered: “What you did to the least of these, you have done to me?” (Matt. 25:40).

With that we are faced with the shocking reality: Jesus stands at the door and knocks, in complete reality.  He asks you for help in the form of a beggar, in the form of a ruined human being in torn clothing.  He confronts you in every person that you meet.  Christ walks on the earth as your neighbor as long as there are people.  He walks on the earth as the one through whom God calls you, speaks to you and makes his demands.  That is the greatest seriousness and the greatest blessedness of the Advent message.  Christ stands at the door.  He lives in the form of the person in our midst.  Will you keep the door locked or open it to him?

Christ is still knocking.  It is not yet Christmas.  But it is also not the great final Advent, the final coming of Christ.  Through all the Advents of our life that we celebrate goes the longing for the final Advent, where it says: “Behold, I make all things new” (Rev. 21:5).

Advent is a time of waiting.  Our whole life, however, is Advent – that is, a time of waiting for the ultimate, for the time when there will be a new heaven and a new earth, when all people are brothers and sisters and one rejoices in the words of the angels: “On earth peace to those on whom God’s favor rests.”  Learn to wait, because he has promised to come.  ”I stand at the door?”  We however call to him: “Yes, come soon, Lord Jesus!”  Amen.

(Reprinted from Watch for the Light)

SDG

Courage as a Value

How do you define courage?  Is it the soldier who looks right and left, then hops the trench wall running toward air filled with flying shrapnel?  That soldier knows he might die, yet he persists.  Is it the politician who votes her conscience despite the influence of lobby groups promising quick cash?  She does so knowing her political future might be compromised as a result.

We value courage.  Why?  Courage is like a high strength glue that holds societies together.  Often, however, courage is absent.  When we need courage in buckets, sometimes we can’t even find enough to fill a spoon.  Perhaps this is why courage intrigues us, and causes us to study the topic as if it were the Hope Diamond itself.  We think if we could just reach out and touch it once, then we could claim ownership of it forever.  But values are not diamonds.  Nobody can own a value for the mere sake of ownership.  Values such as courage cannot be hoarded.  Unless they are in use they are not present at all.

Gordon Brown’s Courage

Gordon Brown recently published a book entitled Courage:  Portraits of Bravery in the Service of Great Causes.  Brown is the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.  In Courage Brown chronicles the lives of eight heroes who exhibited bravery in the service of great causes.  The most helpful aspect of his book are the commonalities Brown describes among his eight heroes.  Understanding these common links will not make one courageous any more than owning fishing tackle makes someone a competent fisherman.  However, learning the common traits that Brown describes can inspire us — hopefully toward our own acts of courage.

As we consider the common traits Brown teaches, let us consider how they apply to one of his subjects, Dietrich Bonhoeffer the German Lutheran pastor and theologian.  Bonhoeffer is a hero because he stood in opposition to the Nazi policy of anti-Semitism.  Bonhoeffer’s opposition cost him his life, yet his courageous battle against Nazi oppression sowed the seeds of a renewal within the Church in Germany.

Great Causes

Brown says his eight heroes each showed courage in support of great causes.  Before the Nazi rise to power, Bonhoeffer was content to teach theology and pastor Lutheran congregations.  He was not looking for a cause.  In a sense, the cause of resisting anti-Semitism found him.  There is a reason great causes produce courageous men and women.  Great causes compel men and women of uncommon character towards action.

Few people, however, live their lives dedicated to great causes.  This is one reason why courage is rare.  Using the example of contemporary American churches, we find relatively few leaders calling their flocks to serve Christ in ways that exceed their own self-interest.  Yet, this is essentially the call of Christ when He said, “Take up your cross and follow me.”  Bonhoeffer heard Christ’s call clearly.  His book The Cost of Discipleship describes a theology of action that supersedes self-interest.  It should be required reading for Christians today.

Remained Engaged in Spite of Dangers

Every leader Brown profiles had an opportunity to back away from their cause to a level that would insure their personal safety.  This could be considered a test of conscience.  Bonhoeffer spent two years as a pastor in London, but returned to Germany to run an underground seminary.  He traveled to the United States to 1939, but returned to Germany where he faced certain prosecution.  Two times Bonhoeffer could have chosen a safer place to war against anti-Semitism.  Twice he returned to Germany where his activity would provide the most direct influence.  Brown says, “Bonhoeffer had the courage to leave a safe situation for a perilous one because living life as a witness for Christ was more important to him than simply living; he was impelled by his faith in a greater cause.”  (Brown, 47)

The Courageous Mature as they Persevere

According to Brown, all courageous people mature as they persevere.  Bonhoeffer was a competent pastor and theology professor before the Nazi’s came to power.  But his work resisting Nazi Policy caused his theology to become more complete.  I offer two Bonhoeffer quotes from Brown’s book that represent knowledge that came through living courageously:

On Discipline:

“If you set out to seek freedom, then learn above all things to govern your soul and your senses, for fear that your passions and longings may lead you away from the path you should follow.  Chaste be your mind and your body, and both in subjection, obediently, steadfastly seeking the aim set before them; only through discipline may a man learn to be free.” (Brown, 60)

On Action:

“Daring to do what is right, not what fancy may tell you valiantly grasping occasions, not cravenly doubting — freedom comes only through deeds, not through thoughts taking wing.  Faint not nor fear, but go out to the storm and the action.  Trusting in God whose commandment you faithfully follow; freedom exultant will welcome your spirit with joy.” (Ibid)

All are Unlikely Heroes

Brown suggests all eight were unlikely heroes.  Brown says simply that there was little to suggest that Bonhoeffer would pursue a courageous path or leave such a memorable legacy. (Brown, 37)  Bonhoeffer was only 39 when he was hanged at the Flossenburg Concentration Camp days before the end of World War II.  There were other theologians better known, and some would have given the appearance of possessing a greater set of skills.  Nobody, however, in the Christian church acted as courageously against German Nazi anti-Semitism as did Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Bonhoeffer’s faith in Christ cannot be separated from his actions.  Bonhoeffer represents a great example for Christians, because his faith was interwoven into every recess of his character.  I believe the type of faith Bonhoeffer exhibited can be described simply as the normal Christian life.  Bonhoeffer’s own identification with what he called the “Confessing Church” should give us a clue about the distinction he made between culturally informed Christianity (those who sided with Hitler) and true followers of Christ (what I consider normal Christianity).  This is not to say that all confessing Christians will become well-known heroes like Bonhoeffer, but courageous people they have the opportunity to become nonetheless.

Faithfulness as Christian Courage

Last evening, the Marion Bible Fellowship Men’s Group reflected on Bonhoeffer’s courage.  There was a statement made about Christian courage, which I found helpful.  For the Christian, courage is simply faithfulness.

Without my reviewing each of Brown’s commonalities, consider that Christians practicing faithfully have each trait Brown uses to define courage.  Simply put, great faithfulness to the mission of Christ naturally produces the type of courage we all so richly cherish.

May the tribe of the faithful increase, and may the corresponding courage that results greatly influence our world for good.

“[Quoting Bonhoeffer in Life Together] God hates visionary dreaming; it makes the dreamer proud and pretentious. The man who fashions a visionary ideal of community demands that it be realized by God, by others, and by himself. He enters the community of Christians with his demands, sets up his own law, and judges the brethren and God Himself accordingly. He stands adamant, a living reproach to all others in the circle of brethren.” (Brian J. Dodd. Empowered Church Leadership. Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003, p. 165)

A leadership focus on vision can end up making an idol of it. We aren’t to be a vision-centered community, but a God-centered community. Sounds simple, but it requires a lot more humility than most of us leaders have. Is my vision one of something I’ll do for God, or is it a vision of God Himself He’s inviting me to share with  others? There is a difference. Focusing on a purpose or a vision can easily become a subtle diversion from sincere and pure devotion to Christ Himself (2 Corinthians 11:3).

Buy a copy of Empowered Church Leadership: Ministry in the Spirit According to Paul on Amazon.com

I hope to blog out my thoughts about EmeringUmc2: Restoring Missional Methodism over the next several days.  Here is my first attempt to summarize my experience at the conference.

EmergingUMC2 has come and gone. You can see the twitter conversation (#emergingumc2)  here.

 It was an event that my congregation, Lockerbie Central United Methodist, had lobbied hard to get.  We were a small congregation that had been left for dead but had found new life in the emergent/missonal way.   We wanted to show and tell our story. 

I went into the conference feeling a little bit out of it though.  In this season of the H1N1, I woke up Thursday morning–12 hours before the conference started–puking my guts out.  Lucky for me, it wasn’t the flu and I made it through the weekend. 

Thursday Night:

We screened the movie The Ordinary Radicals to start the conference  and as part of our normal Thursday night film series. We had about 1o0 people in attendance.  Director Jamie Moffett was in town and it was exciting to see Lockerbie Central’s brief appearance in the movie.  The film tells the story of “Ordinary Radicals”– everyday people whose faith and commitment to community have begun to provide an alternative to what it means to be a North American Christian.   Imagine a Christianity that actually took Jesus seriously–that is what the Ordinary Radicals are. The film follows Shane Claiborne and his merry band of Christian troublemakers (in the best of that word) and jesters (in the best sense of that word) across the country  in a grease powered bus during the summer of 2008 as part of  the Jesus For President (book] tour.

The movie was inspiring but I could tell that for many conference attendees, the Ordinary Radicals’ movement wouldn’t quite translate to the county seat churches.  Well, lets just say it wouldn’t happen over night. 

Friday Morning:  

After a worship gathering, we took a three hour walk across downtown Indianapolis.  We wanted to give conference goers a sense of our missional context. 

We headed from the church, across Lockerbie Square, and over to Mass. Ave. , where we met Pauline Moffett at the Indy Fringe Building.  Pauline is executive director of the Indianapolis Fringe Festival, a 10 day uncensored and unjuried theater and arts festival, where all ticket sales go to the performers.  Our church has worked with Indy Fringe for the last four years and last year hosted the festival’s dance performances.  I’ll talk about it more in a later post, but it was quite amazing how much the mission of Indy Fringe met up with the ideal of the conference. 

From there, we walked towards downtown, talking about Indianapolis history—the good, the bad, and the ugly– and then met with the Justice For Janitors campaign on the steps of  Monument Circle.  A half decade into the struggle, janitors won their first union contact last year with the help of clergy leaders.  If the campaign continues to succeed, 2,000 lowpaying  jobs will be tranformed into living wage jobs that can support a family.  From there, we walked a few more blocks, saw the state house, and then met with Stuart Mora, a hotel worker and Lockerbie Central member, who is working with his coworkers to organize a union at downtown hotels.  Like the janitors, if the hotel workers suceed thousands of jobs will become living wage jobs.  If clergy and the church get involved in real and meaningful ways in these types of struggles, our economy will be transformed and perhaps the church might have a future.

Having walked three miles or so, the group headed back to Lockerbie Central UMC and had lunch.  We read this qoute off of our church sign:    

It may be that the day of judgment will dawn tomorrow; in that case we will gladly stop working toward a better future. But not before. Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Nationalism in America’s churches is in many ways more explicit and more unnoticed by participants than even 1930’s Germany. The church I work at has decided that it’s far more acceptable to say the pledge of allegiance than to take communion on a regular basis. This shows a church that has lost its way, a community not gathered around the cross, but around a constitution, around not God’s Word, but the republic.

The church I attend is confesssional, it has creeds, it has liturgies, the sad fact of the matter is that these liturgies are America’s ideology. Our creeds are not the Christian creeds, but the creeds of America. Our pastor stands to decry a godless society week after week in love and patience, but, cannot even begin to articulate the problems which we really face. I’ve heard sermons about the evils of evolution and how serving Jesus is like being in the American service, I’ve stood in silent horror as my brothers and sisters salute a flag, pledging allegiance to a bloodthirsty nation in the very community that was built as a community of peace, and cross bearing discipleship.

I’ve heard our pastor thank veterans for defending our freedom, when really, there hasn’t been anything near a just war in the history of America, and the only war that comes remotely close is the European theatre of WWII. But even that was invalidated by our decision to as a nation commit the greatest act of terrorism ever known to history. There’s no defense of freedom in the wars we fight today, or in any of our wars, it’s never been about the defense of freedom it’s been about the unnamed expansion of empire. It’s been about cultural indoctrination and the self-entitled right to supremacy assumed by the American people.

The “tolerant” Americans have sought to excuse themselves from their imperialism by calling it other things, including: a war on terror, defending our freedom, liberating the oppressed, taking out a threat to our national security, disabling a mass murderer, bringing democracy to a people in need of freedom. The rhetoric is all the same and all underlies what’s really going on. America is a darkened face, and a nation willing to commit seedy acts to save her image, to save face. Just like Two-Face and Batman in the Dark Knight, our image has been marred by the publication of torture acts, of really looking at the things we’ve done in order to save “this fair city” from “madmen”.

America’s two face is the presidency and the CIA, agencies we love to praise, that we now have no choice but to see as disfigured and disfiguring aspects of our society. So we’ve created the idea of “the troops” and “freedom” as our heroes, who bear the weight of our guilt, for better and for worse, we shove off the blame on the president, the vice president, the government agencies, the powerlessness of the american people. The mask we’ve taken on for ourselves is a deliberate and overtly intentional rebranding, a way to distance ourselves from the war we find ourselves in. Yet it doesn’t change the reality that is Two-Face, the reality that our white knights have turned out to be monsters.

Our nation is a people determined to be free of guilt, obsessed with ignoring the past to live in the eternal present. The death of metanarrative and historical unity in American culture is a sign of the ways in which the American project is mediating its own failure to itself. We have become dejected and rather than acknowledge our place in history, we’d rather displace ourselves from it in what Foucault called differance. Trying to make ourselves differ from the past and even our present, making America an ideal, an invisible unity, a sinless body removed from the sins of individual persons.

America’s ecclesiological apologetic for itself is that it is an invisible body, perfectly unmarred by the sins of the past. The ideal still lives on, despite historical failures, because these were the failures of presidents, of leaders, but not of America. Underlying America is a strong belief in her invisible unity, despite her radical inclusion of most peoples (although there are some dissenters like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh). But nevertheless, the claim of America’s idealistic unity and legitimacy as this ideal society in the minds of both conservatives and liberals stands.

As Christians, we do not hope for America, we do not hope in America, we do not take oaths of allegiance, to church or state, baptism is our yes. We need take no oaths of allegiance to the church, to the bible, to the Christian flag, to Jesus. Baptism is our yes, so let us live as though it matters. Pledging allegiance to the Christian flag is rarely if ever done without pledging allegiance to the American flag first, and it just goes to show where the priorities are.

I think that this video shows the problem in explicit detail so you know i’m not just making this up.

the only difference between that first video and the one that follows is not all the children in the first video have flags, but the sentiment is the same. The only difference between American and German fascism is that Americans are gathered around the invisible church that is “Christian America” rather than a charismatic leader. Fundamentalist churches have displaced the invisible church with the visible america in need of “restoration”. My only question is, were we a Christian nation while we moved in slaughtering indians, or after that, when we decided to import slaves to create our livelihoods? Was it at our earliest founding, by Catholic missionaries? Or was it when Puritans decided to betray the natives who had taught them to work the land?

What separates the “Christian” nationalism above from the one presented below?

What would Bonhoeffer say? What would Karl Barth say? What might St. Paul say? Augustine?

Es ist ja nicht so als ob Leute, die die Evolutionstheorie anzweifeln und an einen Schöpfer glauben in der Mehrheit wären, oder auch nur irgendeine Bedrohung für die pseudowissenschaftliche Diktatur im etablierten Bildungswesen darstellen würden, was ihre Zahlen anbelangt.

Die Macht gehört – genau wie hier vor 70 Jahren, oder in Stalins Russland oder Maos China – den Evolutionisten.

Darum nervt es mich, wenn die Hexenjäger der Gedankendiktatur es Andersdenkenden vergraulen wollen, ihre Meinung öffentlich zu machen, was bestimmt mehr Mut erfordert als die mit der Rotte heulende “Hund friss Hund” Meute, die es nicht verkraften kann, dass einer das Ammenmärchen vom mutierten Affen mal nicht schluckt, jemals besitzen wird.

Der einzige Unterschied zwischen damals und jetzt ist, dass sie uns momentan nicht in Konzentrationslager schicken können, aber wie ich den Fortschritt der “Evolution” sehe, kann sich das jederzeit rapide ändern.

Schließlich will man doch der Theorie von “nur der Stärkere überlebt” ein weinig unter die Arme greifen, wenn es schon sonst keine Beweise für sie gibt, und den paar widerspenstigen Rebellen zeigen wer hier der Stärkere ist, der sicher stellt dass der Schwächere nicht überlebt.

Wenn jetzt jemand daher kommt und sagt, “Aber Bush war auch Kreationist” ist das nur ein weiterer Beleg für meine Theorie, das Gegenteil der Evolution: dass der Mensch jede nur mögliche Lüge schluckt die im Fernsehen erzählt wird, eine Begebenheit die die größte Massenverblödung der Geschichte der Menschheit bewirkt hat.

Wenn Bonhoeffer andeutete dass die Deutschen zu seiner Zeit dumm waren, hat er nur die winzige Spitze des Eisbergs gesehen, verglichen zur heutigen Zeit.

Die Neandertaler waren wenigsten noch mit ein paar lebensnotwendigen Fakten vertraut.

Was natürlich das Ganze auf die Spitze treibt, ist dass der ganze Bockmist der da tonnenweise in Hirne gepumpt wird, “Wissen” genannt wird, und jeder Durchschnitts-Asi sich für zehn mal schlauer hält als alles vorher dagewesene.

Die Evolutionstheorie hat ganze Arbeit geleistet: die Menschen denken, sie werden automatisch schlauer, egal wie blöd sie sind. Und dieser Prozess wird dann auch noch vom Gesetz erzwungen, einem Gesetz, wohlgemerkt, das wir Adolf Hitler zu verdanken haben.

Was dieses Gesetz im Großen und Ganzen in der Realität besagt ist, dass nur solches Gedankengut als Fakt angesehen werden darf, das in den Schulen (und Medien) verbreitet wird. Vorgekaute Schlussfolgerungen sind das einzig erlaubte Wissen, und Querdenkern wird keine Chance gegeben.

“Wagen es trotzdem noch Vereinzelte von ihnen, gegen die Gedankendiktatur aufzumotzen, dann haben wir ja noch unsere regimetreuen Hetzhunde, die dann unseren Quark den wir ihnen eingetrichtert haben, als Kommentare posten zu jedem Beitrag den die Abtrünnigen zu leisten haben…”

Was diese systemtreuen Verteidiger des genehmigten „Wissens“ beweisen, ist, dass die Gehirnwäsche des 21. Jahrhunderts mindestens so gut funktioniert wie die Mittel Hitlers, Stalins und Maos.

“Es lebe die Diktatur! Es lebe die Meute! Nieder mit den Einzelgängern! Weg mit dem Querdenkerpack und Tod den allerniederträchtigsten Verrätern an unserer geheiligten Kuh der Evolutionswissenschaft, den Kreationisten!”