]]>]]>;)
That Christ grew older is a testament to the normalcy of the growth and maturation process we go through as humans. Christ showed us how to grow, and gave us a pattern for development. There is something profound and inspiring in growing as our Lord did, to know that there is a starting point, that we don't have to know it all, be it all, or do it all on our own. That Christ lived, means that we can truly live, that we can become what God longs for us to be.]]>;)
That's my series title, and I am sticking to it...
Nothing profound has been said here but I thought I would post three of my papers from early church history over the next couple of weeks.
I am going to start with the last one I wrote and move backwards to my first.
This first entry will be on Augustine and his views on marriage and sex.
The second will be an overview of the Capadoccian father's contribution to Trinitarian theology.
The third and last will be a review of Origen's allegorical interpretation of scripture.
Without further ado, here is Old-School church dude, Augustine...
On June 10th, in the year 2000, I, David Carter Brush, took Alicia Christine Burcham, to be my lawfully wedded wife. We took our vows as Christians, within a small Church of the Nazarene in the Midwest town of Mexico, Missouri. Amid a crowd of friends and family we pronounced our vows of unwavering commitment to the other. Ten years, and two kids later we hold to our wedding vows. For better and for worse, for richer and for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
The institution of marriage is one of the most sacred rites of Christianity. It is the union of one man and one woman together in the presence of God. An act that binds together two bodies as one in a covenant relationship. Broken only by death, marriage forms the foundation of the family unit. As such marriage is the only designated relationship God has blessed for sexual intimacy. With the exception of a minority, this is the Christian view of marriage.
Has marriage always been held in as high esteem as it currently is in the church? What is the role of sex in Christian marriage? These questions and others like them are constantly being wrestled with as the church comes into contact with culture. In the west we are confronted with issues of same-sex marriage and widespread unmarried cohabitation. And yet these are not new issues for the church as they are, at their root, issues of the human nature. These two questions inform the direction of this paper in which the writings of Augustine will be analyzed. The thesis of this paper is that Augustine viewed marriage as the lesser of two goods, and held a low view of sexual intercourse, even within committed marriage.
Augustine wrote extensively in his protection of the Nicene Christian faith against the Pelagians. One of the charges laid out by the Pelagians was that the Nicene defense of original sin implicitly implied a dismissal of marriage.[1] While the modern day Christian might find they differ to a degree with Augustine’s views of marriage, we must understand that he was not adverse to it. To the Pelagian’s charge he writes:
We maintain that marriage is good; and that it must not be supposed that the concupiscence of the flesh, or “the law in our members which wars against the law of mind,” is a fault of marriage. Conjugal chastity makes a good use of the evil of concupiscence in the procreation of children.[2]
An Augustinian view of marriage finds its highest purpose in the begetting of children. While this statement reveals the ends of Augustine’s arguments it does not fully reveal the fullness of Augustine’s theology on the matter. “Therefore the first natural bond of human society is man and wife.”[3] The man and the woman are bound together. “For they are joined one to another side by side, who walk together, and look together whither they walk.”[4] From a sociological standpoint Augustine argues that marriage is both natural to the human species, and is a mutually beneficial one for its partners.
There is good ground to inquire for what reason it (marriage) be a good. And this seems not to me to be merely on account of the begetting of children, but also on account of the natural society itself in a difference of sex.[5]
It cannot be said that Augustine held an antagonistic view towards marriage. His view of marriage was instead that of the lesser of two good things with celibacy or the virginal state being the higher spiritual good. Augustine did not believe that the physical state of virginity in and of itself carried any special spiritual weight, only in that, “it hath been dedicated to God, and, although it be kept in the flesh, yet is it kept by religion and devotion of the Spirit.”[6] Augustine holds in high esteem the virginal status and discipline of the flesh, when surrendered in devotion to God. If the sinfulness of intercourse is redeemed only in the married state by the birthing of Children, then to not have intercourse at all is a higher good.
How much more, and with how much greater honor, are we to reckon among the goods of the soul that continence, whereby the virgin purity of the flesh is vowed, consecrated, and kept, for the Creator Himself of the soul and flesh.[7]
Augustine is in favor of Christian marriage, though he holds that the celibate, ascetic life is a higher good. The summation of Augustine’s belief on marriage is, “consecrated virginity is rightly preferred to marriage.”[8]
Augustine contends that sexual intercourse in marriage is only redeemed in the begetting of Children. This view of sexual intimacy as having diminished worth apart from pregnancy is tied to Augustine’s understanding of venial and original sin. Augustine writes:
For there would have been none of this shame-producing concupiscence, which is impudently praised by impudent men, if man had not previously sinned; while as to marriage, it would still have existed even if no man had sinned, since the procreation of children in the body that belonged to that life would have been effected without that malady which in “the body of this death” cannot be separated from the process of procreation.[9]
Original Sin, like a natural disease or malady, is transmitted in the sexual act to the offspring.
Augustine maintained that sex as an end in-and-of itself removes the outcome of pregnancy and highlights the shame and weakness of our fallen nature. In Augustine’s estimation (and likely his personal experience) sexual intercourse as its own end is the outcome of lust. Marriage only allows lust to be, “brought under a lawful bond.”[10] Augustine argues that marriage only ‘legalizes’ intercourse as its own end, “although evil habits impel them to such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or fornication.”[11] Sexual intercourse becomes, “a mutual service of sustaining one another’s weakness.”[12]
Augustine argues that the better option is to have ‘spiritual children’. He argues that childbearing was necessary for the Israelites because of their unique identity as God’s people, but that Christ has caused a shift in that paradigm. “For from among all nations the way is open for an abundant offspring to receive spiritual regeneration, from whatever quarter they derive their natural birth.”[13]
Augustine is arguably the most influential writer and theologian of the western church. Augustine’s views on marriage and sexual intercourse within marriage can be seen through the ages of Christian tradition and practice. An example of this tradition being the Catholic prohibition of birth control. It has been noted that Augustine’s foe, Pelagius contested, “that sex is a God-given aspect of our essential creation.”[14] It could be argued from common knowledge that the western church today may side more with the alleged views of Pelagius as it relates to sex within the marriage covenant. Whether one view or the other is the more biblical of the two is not the point of this paper; nonetheless a shift has taken place within the church.
The cultural parallels between Augustine’s day and ours as it relates to the sexual permissiveness within the broader culture provide new weight to Augustine’s views. While he may certainly be an example of the extended pendulum swing in regards to his views of sex within marriage, much of what he has written about marriage itself and his critique of the place of sex within culture as a whole is relevant 1,600 years later. Abstinence, and the celibate life have lost their value within the protestant church and it could be argued that we have now elevated marriage as the better to the good of life-long celibacy. The pendulum continues to swing.
Whether or not Augustine’s views remain relevant for the faithful depends on whether the soul of the church drifts towards the desires of its more permissive activists.
Augustine. ed. Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Vol 5. Translated by Peter Holmes and Robert Wallis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.pdf (accessed December 3, 2011).
Augustine. ed. Philip Schaff. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Vol 3.**Translated by Arthur West and William Shedd. Peabody, MA: Hencrickson, 1995. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.pdf (accessed December 3, 2011).
North Umbria Community. Celtic Daily Prayer. New York: HarperOne, 2002
[1] Augustine, ed. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, trans. Peter Holmes and Robert Wallis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 5:258, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.pdf (Accessed December 3, 2011).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Augustine, ed. Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,trans. Arthur West and William Shedd (Peabody, MA: Hencrickson, 1995), 3:399, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.pdf (Accessed December 3, 2011).
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., 400.
[6] Ibid., 419.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Augustine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,5:265
[9] Ibid., 264.
[10] Augustine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,3:401
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Augustine, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,5:269
[14] North Umbria Community, Celtic Daily Prayer (New York: HarperOne, 2002), 135
]]>This is a note to Christian authors, speakers, pastors, preachers, teachers, or anyone who does anything to explain scripture to the non-professional.
Folks, do not use 'scriptural' as an excuse to ignore context, culture, anthropologic, historical, scientific and literary criticism.
The problem we run into in the world of Christian theology is that 99% of what is written, spoken, and taught is inside baseball. Whether you are a Calvinist or a Wesleyan, an Anabaptist or a Confessional Church adherent means little to the non-Christian observer.
I have the unfortunate status of being a male that only casually watches, and/or understands most sports. There is a tradition surrounding these games, an inside language, and a roster of Saints that I have little appreciation for. I keep up with baseball just enough so as to be able to insult the St. Louis Cardinals in front of my friend Mike. I enjoy watching the Chiefs, but I had to ask a more sport-astute friend the other day what in the world a 'shotgun' formation was. The bottom line, there is little within the cosmology and vocabulary of sports that makes sense to me outside of the sports realm.
Christian writing and academics can often end up being a lot like sports in this regard. There are passionate followers who have some degree of adeptness in understanding and interpreting the Christianese language. The fact that this language makes little-to-no sense beyond the boundaries of the Christian world seems to baffle those who are firmly within the Christian paradigm.
There is a need for theology (Christian talk about God) that is firmly rooted in scripture. Scripture is our main foundation for knowing God and for living a life dedicated to Jesus Christ. I have increasingly become aware over my adult life of those who use 'scripture' not as a foundation for engagement with the world, but as an excuse for distancing themselves from it altogether.
This is inside baseball in its purest form, when the observation of a subject becomes its own truth claim. In this case it would be, "my interpretation of scripture is correct, because scripture itself is correct." While certainly we don't hold equally the disciplines I mentioned in the beginning as it relates to the authority of scripture the act of dismissing them outright is foolish and lazy.
If you want to engage your faith (and teach a faith) in a way that maintains any kind of intellectual integrity (and ability to connect with those outside of the faith) we must be willing to engage and participate in subjects that have an impact on how we understand and engage scripture. While saying, 'the Bible says it, and I believe it' scores us points within the church without knowing why we believe it no one else will care. After all, is not that the point, that others would begin to care about what we as Christians care about?
]]>;)
For many today is a day of celebration. The longstanding dictator Muammar Gaddafi has been killed by Libya's freedom fighters. A despotic reign has come to an end; but whether that will turn into stability is still to be seen. It may seem at first that we should lump the Libyan revolution in with the Arab Spring movement. The Egyptian governmental overthrow was largely peaceful (apart from military and police brutality). Libya's government was overthrown because of a violent uprising of the people and aided by western military powers like the United States, France, and Great Britain.
It is my argument that rather than classifying the Libyan overthrow as part of the Arab Spring uprisings it should be considered a continuation of the west's neo-conservative (shoot first and ask the meaningful and important questions later) foreign policy. Because of the violence used to quickly change the situation in Libya what would have been a very long (and brutally deterred) public uprising in Libya has been condensed into a few short months. It is this use of violence to establish civil order that casts into doubt whether or not Libya can make the transition to a truly democratic nation. It is the use of violence which categorizes the Libyan conflict as a continuation of the Afghanistan and Iraqi campaigns which to date have failed to create anything close to stability in the Middle East, or the security that was advertised to citizens of the United States.
While the Egyptian and Tunisian uprisings have yet to prove long-lasting and stable, their foundations are not laid on the corpses of their predecessors. Instead they found a way to reform their government rather than resort to armed revolution. It does not take a genius to understand that when you employ violence against a particular group of people you are creating an enemy. The base human instinct is one of vengeance and it does not care about equality.
The law of Moses was radical in that allowed an 'eye for an eye' or a 'tooth for a tooth' in a world in which the norm was a 'life for an eye' or a 'entire family for a tooth'. Within the barbarity that was ancient human culture God's people were called to a higher standard. As a result the Israelites, as they followed this model of justice, would have found themselves far less politically exposed to rival nations than were they to practice the barbaric vengeance of that day.
Jesus Christ set a clearer and higher standard for his followers. Jesus told us to endure our enemies attacks, to not repay violence with violence but instead to counter violence with the justice of God's love. In Matthew 26:52 Jesus admonishes Peter that those that live by the sword will die by the sword. Rather than ensuring peace, violence only leads to more violence. Of the thousands of Americans killed on 9/11 we have in return aided and oversaw the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. Not only as a nation have we failed in enduring our enemies and trusting in God's loving justice, we have fallen below even the standard set for the barbarous world of the Old Testament.
Muammar Gaddafi lived by the sword. Muammar Gaddafi died by the sword. So have his predecessors. So has the United States since its inception. Are we more stable as a country today because of our readiness to repay violence with violence? Is Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? Israel?
As one that has close friends that serve in the military what are they sacrificing their lives for? Is it really justice? Is it to ensure peace? If there is no peace apart from relationship with Jesus Christ how are we conveying that with each bullet, each bomb, each drone in the air? What lasting peace can be bought with the blood of our enemies?
Jesus Christ freely shed his blood on the cross so that no one would again have to shed their own. Yes we live in a violent world. Yes there is evil that must be stopped. When was the last time we as individuals (or as a nation) stepped back and let God do the judging? Are we afraid of who he would judge first and for what?
]]>;)
More Central Than We Think. Part 2: Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5
The Disciples
This series on Bonhoeffer’s exposition of the Sermon on the Mount began with establishing what Bonhoeffer understands discipleship to be. Discipleship is that which draws us toward ‘costly grace’, that is grace that draws us to the cross of Christ. The modern church has been overtaken by a gospel of ‘cheap grace’ that is in fact a Christianity without Christ, a human-driven endeavor. Upon that foundation Bonhoeffer moves into a closer look at the Sermon on the Mount and its centrality for Jesus’s disciples. It is within this lengthy chapter that Bonhoeffer lays the foundation for an ethic that is Christocentric, dependent upon grace, and applicable. The Sermon on the Mount did not deal in philosophical abstractions, but with the real world.
The disciple of Jesus are different. “They followed the voice of the good shepherd, because they knew his voice.” 1 This does not mean however that they are isolated from their social contexts. “Disciples and the people belong together.”2 This proximity will cause Jesus’s disciples to suffer, “everyone’s rage at God, and God’s word will fall on his disciples, and they will be rejected with him.” 3 It is precisely in the rejection of the world that Christ’s disciple find their greatest calling, to be peacemakers. “They renounce violence and strife… they encounter evil people in peace and are willing to suffer from them. Peacemakers will bear the cross with their Lord, for peace was made at the cross.” 4 Jesus refers to those that have heard his call and followed as ‘blessed’. The danger comes when the disciples of Christ view this distinctiveness as a means by which they are to be closed off to the world. Bonhoeffer rejects a ghettoized faith:
“No one understands people better than Jesus’ community. No one loves people more than Jesus’ disciples—that is why they stand apart, why they mourn… The community of disciples does not shake off suffering, as if they had nothing to do with it. Instead, they bear it. In doing so, they give witness to their connection with the people around them.” [4]
The community of Jesus’s disciples is intertwined with the people of the world, but because of Christ they are no longer natives to the world, but instead, “strangers in the world.” 5 The disciples belong in the world because, “the earth belongs to these who are without rights and power… when the realm of heaven will descend, then the form of the earth will be renewed, and it will be the earth of the community of Jesus.”6 It is precisely because of this redemption that Christ’s disciples, “seek out all those who have fallen into sin and guilt… the merciful give their own honor to those who have fallen into shame and take that shame unto themselves.” 7 The essence of the beatitudes then is Christ’s work in the disciple that allows them to, “renounce their own good and evil… and depend solely on Jesus… undivided to Christ.” 8
There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between Bonhoeffer’s understanding of who Jesus is addressing in this passage as ‘blessed’ and the common evangelical mind. Namely we have externalized the concept of poverty, poor in spirit, the rejects of the world. Those who are distasteful to the world are surely not us, the body of Christ, but instead merely those less fortunate souls to which we must condescend our benevolence and service. We forget that we are not the physician but the patient, and at most the tool within the hands of the physician. Discipleship does not mean we are better than the world, it simply means that Jesus called and we heard and were obedient to the call.
The Church
The job of the disciples of Christ is to be a visible and vibrant part of the communities and contexts in which they live. Jesus’ allusions to salt and light within the sermon call us to, “penetrate the entire earth.” 9 Bonhoeffer notes that Jesus’s words in this passage do not relegate the tasks of being salt and light to the realm of suggestion, “‘You are the salt’–not ‘you should be the salt’!” 10 Because of this affirmative work of Jesus within his church we, “can stay hidden no longer,” and, “It means following Christ–or the call itself will destroy the one called. There is no second opportunity to be saved.” 11 Surely the words of Christ are not to be taken so indiscrimanately as we have taken them within our protestant post-reformation reality of a public/private schism of faith. Being a disciple of Christ within the life of our community does not mean however that we should look to be noticed, at least not us personally. Bonhoeffer reminds us of Jesus’s admonishment that in our collective work of bearing Christ’s cross together it is, “Not you, but your good works [that should be seen].” 12
The call of Christ leaves the one who hears it two options; follow, or as the salt that has lost it’s saltiness, be trampled under foot. There is a ferocity within Jesus’s call that makes it a dangerous proposition; this is in Bonhoeffer’s words ‘costly grace’. The modern protestant movement, along with the comforts of modern existence, have moved faith decisions out of the public realm and into the realm of a private conviction that is at best a half-answer to Jesus’ call. That Jesus is truly Lord of all; including the public as well as the private, the workplace as well as the home, the stores and streets as well as the churches, is today a counter-cultural claim, and one that if observed by the Christian bound to cause them to suffer. It is this resistance to suffering that Bonhoeffer condemns as being unworthy of the title disciple.
The Righteousness of Christ
There has been much made of the covenant made between God and men within Jesus Christ as opposed to the old covenental law established between God and the Hebrew people. Surely the old law no longer has meaning for the one saved in Christ? Bonhoeffer points to Jesus’ words within the Sermon on the Mount, “‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets…’ Christ puts the law of the Old Covenant into force.” 13 The work of Jesus is not the abolishment of the law, but the fulfilment of it. “His concern is not for a ‘better law’… His concern really is for a ‘better righteousness.’” 14 In this way Jesus is confirming the legitimacy of God’s covenant in the law, and in his fulfillment of it proves it valid. As Christians then we are not bound to the law itself, but instead the covenant is mediated by Christ. “Because Jesus points the disciples to the law, which he alone fulfills, he thus binds them anew to himself.” 15
It is Jesus’ concern for better righteousness that distinguishes his disciples above the pharisees. While the pharisees knew the letter of the law they had long ago lost an embodied understanding of the spirit of the law, namely greater love for God and others. Bonhoeffer concludes this section:
“The disciples’ righteousness is ‘better’ than that of the Pharisees in that it rests solely on the call into the community of Jesus, who alone has fulfilled the law… The righteousness of Christ should not just be taught, but done. Otherwise, it is no better than the law which is merely taught, but not obeyed.” 16
We must understand that for Bonhoeffer tying together the ‘Old Covenant’ and it’s fulfilment in Christ, with Christian discipleship is not merely a theological statement but a deeply political one as well. His ardent case of the apparent ‘Jewishness’ of Jesus’s work stands in opposition to the de-judaization efforts of the church under Hitler. While Bonhoeffer’s first intention in this affirmation of Christianity’s Hebrew origins was not to make a political statement, but to state an orthodox theology of discipleship, authentically following Christ often puts the disciple at odds with the political establishment. This is because the commandment of Christ supercedes any earthly affiliations the disciple might be subject to.
Kindred
We are now entering some of the most dangerous territory for the modern-day protestant, namely Jesus’ admonition against revenge and murder within the life of his disciples. The physical act of destroying another, of removing from them their life, could almost universely be agreed upon as a forbidden act. “The life of one’s brothers and sisters was granted by God and is in God’s hand. Only God has power over life and death.” 17 Jesus compels his disciples to an even higher understanding of what ‘death’ means for his disciples. Bonhoeffer writes, “Every anger attacks the life of the other person; it begrudges their lives; it craves the other’s destruction.” In our anger we attempt to live our lives as though the other no longer existed, as if they were dead; however, “Alienating oneself from another person causes alienation from God… Contempt for others makes worship dishonest.” 18 The reason for this is that the other has also been made in God’s image, and as such must be honored. “God does not want to be honored if a sister of brother is dishonored.” 19
While we constantly hear of rivalries and ill-intentions in the realms of politics, corporations, or sports teams, there is no sadder event than when it occurs within the disicples of Jesus Christ, or between a disciple and a non-believer. To truly wish our enemies well, to love unconditionally, “is a difficult path Jesus imposes on his disciples… But it is the path to him.” 20 This is a truly counter-cultural commandment, and one too often and too publicly transgressed Christ’s disciples. There can be only harm that comes when we hold others in contempt, no healing can take place.
The next entry will cover Bonhoeffer’s exposition on the Sermon the Mount from Woman to the end of Matthew 5.
Discipleship, p. 100 ↩
ibid, p. 101 ↩
ibid, p. 101 ↩
ibid, p. 108 ↩
ibid, p. 105 ↩
ibid, p. 105 ↩
ibid, pp. 106–107 ↩
ibid, p. 107 ↩
ibid, p. 111 ↩
ibid, p. 111 ↩
ibid, p. 112 ↩
ibid, p. 114 ↩
ibid, p. 116 ↩
ibid, p. 116 ↩
ibid, p. 118 ↩
ibid, p. 120 ↩
ibid, p. 121 ↩
ibid, p. 123 ↩
ibid, p. 123 ↩
ibid, p. 124 ↩
;)
Introduction
One of the most radical stands a follower of Christ can take is to undertake Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount as a concrete command. That this would be a radical position for a Christian to take is unfortuneate. I was chatting with my friend regarding Bonhoeffer’s Sermon on the Mount chapter in Discipleship and he remarked, “I think that sermon is more central than we think.” My response, and Bonhoeffer’s too, is, more central indeed. What keeps us, as Christians, from engaging Jesus’s sermon as something more than a moralistic metaphor? Why is it that those that call for the strictest literal interpretation of scripture argue against the need for Christ’s followers to take literally, or at least seriously, the Sermon on the Mount? It is these two questions that when asked confirm a central thesis of Bonhoeffer’s Discipleship, Christians do not wish to endure the ‘costly grace’ of the cross and opt instead for a ‘cheap grace’.
The church that does not embrace costly grace, that is discipleship, is promoting a, “Christianity without Jesus Christ.” 1 If we ignore the clear commandment of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in that moment we are no longer in discipleship to him, but rather, “a human program, which I can organize according to my own judgment and can justify rationally and ethically.” 2 Bonhoeffer utilizes the story of the wealthy young ruler that had obeyed the laws but could not bear to part with his wealth to illustrate his claim that, “A call to discipleship thus immediately creates a new situation. Staying in the old situation and following Christ mutually exclude each other.” 3 The appropriate response to Christ’s commandment is obedience, this is because, “Discipleship is not a human offer. The call alone creates the situation.” 4 This means that discipleship to Christ is not an equivalency that we can offer in exchange for God’s grace. In fact it is only God’s abundant grace that makes true discipleship possible, that can remove from our discipleship a self-glorifying human agenda. “Peter cannot convert himself, but he can leave his nets.” 5 It is this human motivated attempt and negotiation that Bonhoeffer reveals as ‘cheap grace’. Those that cling to this cheap grace, “remain disobedient and console themselves with a forgiveness that they grant themselves, and in doing so, they close themselves off from the word of God.” 6
How is true discipleship effected in us given our human condition and our natural inclination toward sin? Was not the law meant to reveal that reliance on God’s grace was essential and that human achievement was not only improbable but impossible? How is adherence to the Sermon on the Mount any different than the law of Moses? When Bonhoeffer argues for simple obedience it is not to the words of Jesus Christ, but the Word that Jesus Christ is. If we are obedient to the words of Christ that is no different than adherence to the law which we cannot fulfill. If all we do is attempt to follow precisely the Sermon on the Mount as legal precept then we have missed the point. “When Jesus commands, then I should know that he never demands legalistic obedience. Instead, he has only one expectation of me, namely, that I believe.” 7 To put this in more practical language Bonhoeffer writes, “The main concern is not whether or not I have any worldly goods, but that I should possess goods as if I did not possess them, and inwardly I should be free of them.” 8 This is why it is not sufficient to simply do good and from that expect redemption. Doing good is adherence to the words of Jesus and not the Word that is Jesus.
What does faith in the Word that is Jesus look like? Bonhoeffer understands this as self-denial. He writes:
“Self-denial means knowing only Christ, no longer knowing oneself. It means no longer seeing oneself, only him who is going ahead, no longer seeing the way which is too difficult for us. Self-denial says only: he is going ahead; hold fast to him.” 9
The call of Christ, “summons us away from our attachments to this world… Those who enter into discipleship enter into Jesus’ death… Whenever Christ calls us, his call leads us to death.” 10
Costly grace is not marked purely by a binary status of saved or unsaved; rather it is salvation as fully expressed in discipleship to Christ. It is a discipleship that draws us to the cross of Christ.
“Those who do not want to take up their cross, who do not want to give their lives in suffering and being rejected by people, lose their community with Christ. They are not disciples. But those who lose their lives in discipleship, in bearing the cross, will find life again in following in the community of the cross with Christ.” 11
Cheap grace is plague upon our churches. We have watered down the gospel to a point at which we are no longer producing disciples of Christ and those that do become life-long disciples are the minority of those that have made a descision for Christ at some point in their life.
Bonhoeffer's challenge remains, will we satiate our own desire for comfort with a cheap grace in which we control the experience, or will we step into something deeper and more transformational? If Bonhoeffer continued to live, or could speak to us today it might come in the form of Scot McKnight's newest book, The King Jesus Gospel. There is something wrong, something misguided at the heart of the Protestant movement's understanding of the gospel. It is time for us to re-evaluate what we are preaching/teachning in our churches.
This is the first entry on Bonhoeffer’s book ‘Discipleship’ or ‘Cost of Discipleship’ depending on your printing. The next few entries will expound upon the title of the series as it is exemplified in Bonhoeffer’s analysis of the Sermon on the Mount
]]>;)
Grab some coffee, this is going to take a while...
It is important in understanding Bonhoeffer’s ethics, and before we define what ethical (good) is from his perspective, that we have the right understanding of where good (responsible) action takes place. Good and bad can only be discerned within reality. Reality is nothing other than the revelation of Jesus Christ. It is in Jesus Christ that the world is reconciled to God (made real) and only in Christ can we know what is truly good. In Bonhoeffer’s ethics the idea of an independent agent that can objectively determine good from evil is a myth that is not rooted in reality. 1 Bonhoeffer writes, “No one has the responsibility of turning the world into the kingdom of God, but only of taking the next necessary step that corresponds to God’s becoming human in Christ.” 2
So then, what does Bonhoeffer define as good? “Good is historical action that receives its laws of historical action from the center of history, from the event of God’s becoming human.” 3 It is only in Christ that anything we do can or should be considered good. Real good can only ever exist in the reality that God has become a human being, Jesus Christ.
Bonhoeffer rejects any attempt to generate ethical principles from Jesus, this would just be replacing one law with another, not freedom from the law. He writes, “Jesus is not concerned with the establishment of new ethical ideals…but exclusively with God’s love for human beings.” 4 It is this love for humanity that compels Christian activity which, “springs from the unity between God and the world.” 5 Jesus taught about this kind of love in the Sermon on the Mount. Bonhoeffer writes, “The Sermon on the Mount as the proclamation of the incarnate love of God calls people to love one another, and thus to reject everything that hinders fulfilling this task—in short, it calls them to self-denial.” 6 The love of God expressed in Christ for humanity is not just an end in-and-of itself, rather God’s love in Christ is the means by which we arrive at the real end that is reconcilliation.
The love of God constitutes what Bonhoeffer would call a ‘responsible action’ in that it is a self-sacrificial love. Jesus, “lived as the one who in himself has taken on and bears the selves of all human beings.” 7 As his followers we are not excused from self-sacrificial love either, “only selfless people truly live.” 8 We are not just responsible for ourselves, but those that God has entrusted into our care. This responsibility demands that the Christian take part in the world not just for their own benefit but for the well-being of others. It requires following Christ in the public as well as the private.
Drawing upon what we have read so far it is clear that Bonhoeffer does not believe in a purely personal ethic. Our ethics, our understanding of what is Good, can only be rooted in relationship with Christ, and through Christ the rest of humanity. Among the followers of Christ there is no such thing as the abstract individual on which to base an ethic. We are literally called, in Christ, to ‘life together.’
It seems then that Bonhoeffer’s continuing message to the church is that we would turn to Jesus. Jesus is the only hope for humanity, and therefore the church. Apart from Jesus, and his love for the world, we are lost and suffer under the ‘divine No’ of God’s judgment on sin. This message contends against a church that remains complicit in its engagement of the world apart from the love of Christ for the world. When the church is not in Christ–as Christ is in and reconciled to the world– it is no longer the church.
What is the forbidden fruit? What had God deemed improper for Adam and Eve to know? Scripture refers to the tree that bears that fruit as the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Bonhoeffer understands this prohibition as one of possibilities, namely that prior to their knowledge of good and evil our progenitors did not conceive of their own capability to do evil; but, “by understanding themselves according to their possibilities… human beings come to see themselves as the origin of good and evil.” 9 Or, “Instead of knowing themselves in God, who is their origin, they now must know themselves as the origin.” 10 Finally, “They have become like God—but opposed to God.” 11
It is important at this point to make the distinction between guilt and shame. Through the actions of the first humans we are guilty. Guilty is not a feeling, but a pronouncement upon us. The emotion that confirms to us in our guilt is shame. We can deal with shame in two different ways. Bonhoeffer writes:
“Shame contians both an acknowledgement of and a protest against disunion, which is why human beings live between concealment and disclosure, between hiding and revealing themselves, between solitude and community.” 12
Shame can lead to repentance, reconcilliation, and restoration, or it can lead to dissolution, distance, and ultimately death.
What role does the conscience play in this process of evil and the human? If shame reminds us of our disconnection from our origin (from God), “conscience is the sign of human beings’ disunion within themselves” 13 It is our conscience that longs for us to become/remain reconciled and avoid the prohibited. Humans seek unity within themselves, “this unity itself already presupposes disunion with God.” 14 Bonhoeffer understands conscience as only concerned with ones ability to be at peace with oneself for ones own actions. By assuaging our own conscience–apart from God’s mandate of what good is–good and evil become centered within ourselves and we, “have now become the judge of God and others.” 15 Bonhoeffer epitomizes the one who is in this disunion as the Pharisee. “For Pharisees, every moment of life turns into a situation of conflict in which they have to choose between good and evil.” 16 The pharisee has in effect confused the law of men for the law of God. This sureness of their own piety, and confirmed by their conscience, leads them to see the true origin, the I am that is Jesus, as a nihilistic upstart who, “knows and respects nothing but his own law”. 17
What is the Good News then in light of our knowledge of our own capability for good and evil? Bonhoeffer summarizes this hope as such:
“The freedom of Jesus is not the arbitrary choice of one among countless possibilities… but always only one. Jesus calls this one option the will of God… He lives and acts not out of knowledge of good and evil, but out of the will of God. There is only one will of God. In it, the origin has been regained. It is the source of freedom and simplicity in everything that is done.” 18
When peering into the life of Bonhoeffer it can be seen that he did not just simply write his theology, but lived it out. Bonhoeffer’s theology is born out of his interactions within the real world. Conscience is not simply some external guide that attempts to keep us on the straight and narrow, conscience is something internal and with which we must struggle. There were points in his life in which Bonhoeffer needed to know God’s will apart from keeping his own conscience appeased. This a richer and deeper understanding of guilt, shame, and conscience than many of us currently know.
There are times in which God’s will can come into conflict with our fallen–disunified–sensibilities and bring us to point where like Jacob we find ourselves wrestling with God. Bonhoeffer encourages us to engage with God’s will in a dynamic and ongoing way, and not to rely on a set of ‘principles’ which can lead us down the path of the Pharisee.
It is ultimately a challenge of the Christian to press on in their discipleship under Jesus Christ. Will we be obedient God’s will?
This last part will cover a rather large swath of territory, drawing from the remaining four chapters of Bonhoefer’s Ethics. It is important to stress that the ethic covered here largely concerns the church and its interaction with the world as Christ’s body. To understand Bonhoeffer’s view of the church we must realize that he places no special status on humanity within the church other than it, “participates in Christ.” 19 There can be a misconception among Christians that Christ belongs to the church alone, that we are granted a more priviliged estate than those outside of the faith. Bonhoeffer rejects this ‘two-worlds’ theology when he states, “Christ belongs to the wicked and the good,” 20 In order for the church to properly bring Christ’s message to the world it must consider itself no better. It must, as Christ does, enter into the world and become ‘worldly’ in the most Christian sense of the word.
This entering into the world presents a challenge then for the church. Bonhoeffer writes, “A theologicall correct Christian proclamation is not enough… the church is supposed to offer solutions for the world’s unsolved problems.” 21 As Christians we will fail to deal with these human problems if we start from our own vantage, Bonhoeffer states, “The way of Jesus Christ, and thus the way of all Christian thought, is not the way from the world to God but from God to the world.” 22 Bonhoeffer argues that a purely human solution to a human problem is, for the Christian, unbiblical. As God sent Christ because he so loved the world, the church of Christ is placed in, “responsibility for the world.” 23 We are held responsible because, “there are not two sets of values, one for the world and one for Christians. Rather, there is only the one word of God, demanding faith and obedience, which is valid for all people.” 24 In taking responsibility for the world the church is ‘preparing the way’ for Christ’s return.
As we prepare the world for Christ’s return, how should we then live in the world? Bonhoeffer is concerned with the school of ethical thought as it applies to Christian life in that its estimation of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is not rooted in God, but in the ethical construct of the ‘ought’. Bonhoeffer understands ‘ought’ as a secularist understanding of original sin. This is because, “the ‘ought’ only belongs where something is not.” 25 That is to say that ought is a secularist view of where there is a gap between what is, and what should be. Right is only restored when there is no more ought, so it becomes the job of the ethicist to overcome the existence of ought by helping people, “learn to live with others.” 26 This would be a noble goal if it were not for the revelation of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ God has claimed the right of expecting our obedience. Right, then is not the removal of ought, but doing what God commands, “it is concrete speech to concrete human beings. God’s commandment leaves human beings no room for interpretation, but only for obedience or disobedience.” 27 Keep in mind though that Bonhoeffer does not claim each and every decision is dependent on God’s command. He writes:
“God’s commandment is either utterly specific, clear, and concrete or it is not God’s commandment,” and also, “The commandment of God is permission to live before God as a human being. God’s commandment is permission. It is distinguished from all human laws in that it commands freedom.” 28
Bonhoeffer closes Ethics with an essay discussing how the church has come to be the place in which God has entrusted the gospel be proclaimed. Bonhoeffer argues that this kind of mandate can, “only be understood from above, from God.” 29 The mandate of the church then is rooted in God’s work from above entering into humanity below. We have been mandated then, “as a vicarious representative, as a stand-in for the one who issued the commission.” 30 Bonhoeffer expounds on this more concreately:
“God wants a place at which, until the end of the world, God’s word is again and again spoken, pronounced, delivered, expounded, and spread. The Word that in Jesus Christ came from heaven wants to come again in the form of human speech… In the church God is determind to speak in person.” 31
The church then is to be the voice of God amongst the orders of the world, calling them to obedience to God’s command for them. It is important that the church remain faithful in its own calling because only then, “can it legitimately question the goverment about fulfilling its mandate.” 32 Christians have no right from which to critique the goverment until/unless we are doing what it is that God has mandated us to be doing.
As we consider Bonhoeffer’s challenge to a traditional/secularist ethic there is a consistency to his message. Turn to Christ. Strive to know the will of God. God’s will is always specific and has real-world applicability. Confess your sins before God and men. It is these pillars that guided Bonhoeffer to make the boldest of stands against his own government, and to take on the highest responsibility for his fellow humans. While we can quibble with this or that about his theology, that it is either too situational, or perhaps even too fatalistic, we cannot argue that Bonhoeffer did not live out his theology.
Bonhoeffer offers this suggestion for continued reform in the protestant church that still bears repeating today, “Only by rediscovering the divine office of private confession will the Protestant church find its way bact to a concrete ethics.” 33 If the church is to stand against the forces of pornography, illicit sex, human trafficking, unjust war, genocide, abortion, and poverty it must become a place where confession is heard, forgiven, and dealt with. The church that does not confess its sins will die from the inside out.
Our next reading assignment will cover part one of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s work Discipleship which is volume 3 of the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works series by Fortress Press.
The beat continues unabated and dense
each a wave of overlaping brilliance.
Take a step back and it reveals a heartbeat
sure and strong in its rhythm, it is life.
Pulsing and coursing strands of silver heat
radiate into infinite places of song.
At once order and chaos combine and
dance, the dialectic foes of forgetten men.
So we too come along and with open eyes
to capture the dance, phantom and lensed.
Our perception betrays our stature and vice,
emperors of a keyhole on the universe.
;)
We are within a story. The story has a direction in which it is headed, and as characters within the grand narrative we are part of that movement towards the fulfillment of all things God has promised. What gives the story we are within direction and meaning, that is to say reality, is Christ. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was concerned that as humans we often get sidetracked and end up missing the forrest for the trees, the travesty of mistaking the wedding ring for the covenant itself. We are concerned more with the things before the last, than the last things, as the professor of my course on Bonhoeffer, Glen Stassen, has so aptly simplified in his lecture on Bonhoeffer’s Ethics chapter Ultimate and Penultimate Things.
As Christians, and those of us that care for other Christians, our hope most be in Christ alone. It is only within this narrative that we are able to withstand the competing narratives that would divert us from Christ, setting us against reality. The danger is not that we should find ourselves turned wholly against Christ, but rather that we would find ourselves a degree of difference off of God’s destination in history. “There are ways that are condemned. Strictly speaking, we should not repeat Luther’s way any more than the way of the woman caught in adultery, the thief on the cross, Peter’s denial. Or Paul’s zealous persecution of Christ.”1
It does not take a wholly evil intent to miss the importance of receiving God’s grace. Salvation can easily become an ambitious target, and when we do this it becomes something less than ultimate. “The word remains irreversibly the ultimate; otherwise it would be degraded to something calculable, a commodity, and would be robbed of its essential divinity. Grace would become cheap; it would not be a gift.”2 Through our attempts to achieve salvation we have denied the reality of Christ. We are called not to engage in our own story rather in the story of Christ in the world.3 Bonhoeffer would stress though that taking part in his narrative does not dis-engages us from the world however, rather it calls us deeper into it, knowing that in him it is being redeemed. While Christ is already at work within the world, it has not yet reached that ‘ultimate’ and as such we afford the world its fallen, yet future status in Christ.4
The church is challenged today in this regard, to fully embrace the world as part of God’s present and future kingdom presents a challenge for those of us that would attempt to escape the world within a Christianized ghetto. The ultimate, that is Christ in the world, should draw Christ’s followers in, not push them out.
;)
It is rather easy, in hindsight, to pass condemnation against the protestant church of Germany for its complicity, or at least active non-engagement of Hitler’s campaign against the Jews. That is not an apologetic, rather it is a statement based on a developed protestant understanding of human rights as part of the state. The Luternism of Bonhoeffer’s era was firmly rooted in a two kingdoms view of reality. God’s kingdom being one and the governments of the world being the other. Christian ethics were a matter of God’s kingdom, not a factor in how Christians should engage the governmental powers of the world. As discussed previously Bonhoeffer only saw the world and kingdom of heaven as one reality, built within and subject to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
The vast majority of Germans, having lived within top-down governance as the norm had little understanding of human rights as a worldly concept, let alone a theological one. In his chapter on natural life Bonhoeffer attempts to form a distinct protestant understanding of human rights.5 In Bonhoeffer’s view traditional protestantism had thrown the baby out with the bathwater in it’s strict condemnation of anything ‘human’ as being sinful. Even though our natural lives are indeed fallen God has not stripped us of all humanity. Being made in the image of God it is our humanity that is the basis for Bonhoeffer’s ethic on natural rights. As Tödt notes, “Since by God’s will human life on earth exists only as bodily life, the body has a right to be preserved for the sake of the whole person.”6
The systemic violation of the naturl life by the Nazi’s could was not, and could not be resisted by a church that itself had no agreement or understanding of the value given to all human life, regardless of ethnic and religious status. Bonhoeffer wrote, “The first right of natural life is the protection of bodily life from arbitrary killing.”7 Bonhoeffer goes on to deal with other topics such as euthanasia, suicide, and reproductive rights.
That Bonhoeffer would arise at this understanding of basic human rights is not surprising given his experiences in the United States among the African American congregations, and his strong stand against Hitler from the outset. There is something deeply political about Bonhoeffer’s Christology that carries throughout his life and written theology.
The issues of human rights as arising from a God given existence provides a point of struggle for the thinking Christian today. For instance does another’s right to life trump my right to pursuit of happiness if my definition of happiness means providing as little as possible for the common good? Are there times in which fiscal conservation actually does more to increase the suffering of ‘the least of these’ and provide an opportnity of the church to act ‘politically’ albeit within the framework of Christian responsibility? These kind of questions still need to be struggled with within Christ’s body.
Read Ethics Chapters History and Good 1 and 2, God’s Love and the Disintigration of the World, Church and World I,
]]>