Catechism of the Catholic Church

I first read this 688 page document, paying particular attention to the scripture references, while I was a student at Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary eight or ten years ago.  It is great educational and devotional reading for any Christian, Catholic or not, if taken in fifteen or twenty page bite size pieces at a time.  Of course Protestants will find some things they disagree with, but it will be a fairly small percentage of the whole, and those sections can just be ignored or skipped.

I read it again maybe three years ago before being received into the Catholic Church.  It seems to me that life long Catholics have amazingly little interest in this 1994 publication targeted at the American Catholic Church, but for individuals coming from other faith traditions, it is invaluable.  Below is a very abbreviated outline I prepared for introduction of the major contents of the book to persons interested in becoming Catholic or even to Catholics who are not familiar with it.

And here is a more artistic and more creative presentation of the contents of the Catechism.

In One Thing Only

Listening to yesterday’s Gospel reading from Luke 10 about Jesus sending the Seventy out and instructing them to “rejoice in one thing only,” I was reminded that it was the text for the one and only prepared sermon I ever delivered.  Near the end of my three years of Lutheran seminary, I took Professor Tom Ridenour’s Preaching course, not because I ever intended to do any preaching, but because Lutheran preaching is really based on careful and systematic analysis of scripture, with appropriate attention to context and key words, seeking understanding of what the text meant to those who wrote and first heard it and applying that to current situations.  Lutherans are among those who also face the additional troublesome discipline of following the lectionary which forces the preaching pastor to systematically work through most of Holy Scripture during a three year cycle…and then do it all over again.

Dr. Ridenour gave us several texts from which to choose for our soon to be videotaped sermon to the rest of the class.  After the taping, we each met with him, one on one, to review the video and hear his appraisal of our sermons and delivery of same.  I was probably the only student in the class not preparing for a lifetime of such preaching.

Anyway, for whatever it is worth, here are the text and my sermon.  I’m not going to reveal Dr. Ridenour’s appraisal of it, but I did get credit for the course.
______________________________________________________________

Rejoice in One Thing Only
Darryl K. Williams
– April 19, 2004
A Reading from Luke’s Gospel (10:1-20):
After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go. He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.  Go on your way. See, I am sending you out like lambs into the midst of wolves. Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals; and greet no one on the road.  Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house!’  And if anyone is there who shares in peace, your peace will rest on that person; but if not, it will return to you.  Remain in the same house, eating and drinking whatever they provide, for the laborer deserves to be paid. Do not move about from house to house.  Whenever you enter a town and its people welcome you, eat what is set before you;  cure the sick who are there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’  But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’   “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoeverrejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”  The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!”  He said to them, “I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning.  See,I have given you authority to tread on snakes and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing will hurt you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice at this, that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
If you would like to spend a couple of hours reading a good story of life changing significance, curl up with Luke and Acts and read them all the way through.  These books were written by one person and comprise more than 25% of the New Testament.  We talk about Paul so much that it would be easy to get the idea that he wrote most of the New Testament, but he is in second place.  Luke and Acts together are unique in presenting, from the viewpoint of one writer, the life and ministry of Jesus AND the early years of the Church He established and of which we are members today.  The Gospel reading today describes one of the early mileposts in formation of the Church: The sending out of the seventy.
I would (or at least could, with appropriate reference to Matthew 16:18) argue that the church was born in the fifth chapter of Luke when Jesus said to Peter, in the presence of James, and John, “Do not be afraid; from now on you will be catching people.” That gives us a pretty strong clue about what the church is supposed to be doing.  Peter James and John left everything and followed Jesus.  Jesus took them around the countryside preaching and teaching and healing, and he gathered other disciples who also walked with him and listened to Him and learned from Him as he proclaimed the good news. The church was planted and sprouting like bean sprouts coming forth from fresh moist soil in the warmth of spring sunshine.  People were being caught.
Jesus was always looking for more people who would leave everything and follow him.  He had high standards, and he did not make it easy for those who were interested.   He didn’t just say, “Come on in.  We will work out the details later.”  In the ninth chapter, the original three have grown to twelve, and we find him sending out the twelve to proclaim the Gospel and to heal.  They apparently stirred up a lot of interest in Jesus because just after that we find Jesus and the twelve surrounded by several thousand who have followed them and are hungry.  Jesus feeds them, and then he makes one of his sobering announcements:  He was going to be rejected and killed and raised on the third day.  I guess most people heard the parts about rejection and killing but that the part about being raised went right over their heads.   Then he said, “If any want to become my
followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.”
That should bring in the recruits in a hurry.  Follow you where Jesus?  To rejection and death?
Well, Jesus, I do want to do that, but I have some things I need to do first…like live a little.  I need to bury my father…and I need to say some goodbyes…and put my affairs inorder.  You’ll find these objections in chapter 9.
And Jesus says, “OK, but those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it.”  And by the way, I can’t guarantee a place to lay your head at night, and you are going to have to put me ahead of your friends and family. Tough words….High standards.
But still Jesus ends up with seventy who are willing to go.  And that is where we find ourselves in today’s scripture from Luke 10…on the crest of a growing wave which is the church.
We may read a bit enviously about these seventy.  They knew Jesus…in the flesh…sat at his feet…learned directly from Him…from Jesus himself.  And Jesus gave them power.   He gave them power and authority to cast out demons and to heal the sick.   Man, would I like to have that kind of power and authority…to cast out demons and to cure people of their illnesses.  Man, I’d be going from hospital to hospital just curing people right and left.  I’d cure them and bring them to church.  I’d say, “You are cured.  Come to Ebenezer (My church home at the time).”  All the doctors would be out of business.  There wouldn’t be any need for all these new heart centers that are being built.  I’d be in the newspapers and have a book deal and….    Oops.  Sorry.  I guess I lost control there for a minute.  Maybe I am having just a little trouble with that part about denying myself.
Maybe some of the seventy went a bit off the deep end also.  They came back thrilled and rejoicing, telling Jesus of their experiences…that even the demons had
submitted to them.  And Jesus has to give them a little admonition about what they should rejoice over.  They should rejoice over one thing only: THE FACT THAT THEIR NAMES ARE WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF LIFE.  There was no lack of follow-up on the part of Jesus, their leader, teacher, coach, organizer, source of authority, spiritual advisor, and….saviour.
Jesus gives some pretty detailed instructions in this Gospel reading.  I wonder if those instructions have any practical meaning for those of us in the church today.   OK, sure, I know it’s a different world.  People don’t walk around in the dust in sandals and carry bags of money and stay in the homes of strangers and cast out demons and cure people anymore.  We have sidewalks and cars and credit cards and Motel Six’s and managed care to take care of all those things.  And of course everybody already knows about Jesus and they have all made their decisions.  It’s up to them, and they have made their choices.
But surely we can learn something from the instructions Jesus gave?  There must be some general principles there.  If we read and listen carefully we might conclude that we are all called and sent out…not just the pastors.  Isn’t that what Jesus’ whole ministry was about…calling people and challenging them and teaching them and sending them out?  For Jesus it was not just the twelve, and for us, it is not just the pastors.
We might also conclude from the instructions that Jesus gave that we should pray for help…Jesus says, “Ask the Lord for help…”  right there is verse 2.
If we dig deeply into Jesus’ words and look for principles rather than specifics, we might conclude that we should have a sense of urgency and not waste time…that we should be satisfied with little and refuse to be burdened down by material goods…that our focus should be on others….that we should not get discouraged…that we should deliver a consistent and simple message.  All these ideas are contained in the charge of Jesus to the seventy.
Most of those instructions are all about logistics, but what about that consistent and simple message?  Just exactly what was the message he gave them to deliver?  He told them to say only two things, one in verse 5 and one in verse 9.  The first is “PEACE TO THIS HOUSE.”  The second is, “THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME NEAR YOU.”
PEACE is an important theme to the writer of Luke and Acts and remains so in our worship today.
In the story of the birth of Jesus, the Heavenly Host proclaims, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth PEACE among those whom he favors!”   We will sing the same phrase in a few minutes in our hymn of praise.
When Jesus is taken to the temple for circumcision, he is presented to Simeon who took him in his arms and praised God, saying, “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in PEACE, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,  a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel.”  He probably didn’t use the same tune we are going to use for these same words in a few minutes after we share in the body and blood of Jesus.
Throughout the Gospel, Jesus tells those he has healed to “Go In Peace.”  We will hear that same charge at the end of our worship.  And after his death and resurrection, Jesus stands among a group of His followers and says, “PEACE be with you.”  And we will say that to each other today as we prepare for Holy Communion.
The meaning of peace in the New Testament is much broader and deeper than harmony among people and absence from war.   According to the prophets, it would be an essential element of the messianic Kingdom…that Kingdom of God which Jesus says has come near.  The word the prophets used was Shalom.  In Christian thought, shalom or peace is nearly synonymous with the salvation that comes from Jesus.  If you listen carefully, you can hear that deep meaning in all those phrases we use in worship.  When we pass the peace during worship, we are not saying, “It’s so good to see you.  Have a nice day.”  We are saying that we are all recipients of the peace that comes from God through Jesus Christ…that we are recipients of His free gift of salvation…that we are experiencing and sharing that gift together…that the Kingdom of God has come near…and that we too, just like the seventy, have only one thing in which to rejoice…that our names are written in the Book of Life.
Thanks be to God who gives us the strength, as we share together in the body and blood of our Savior Jesus Christ, to continually deny more and more of ourselves and to follow Him more closely.

Sargent Shriver, “A Good Man”

I just finished reading A Good Man, Mark K. Shriver’s highly personal biography of his dad, Sargent Shriver.  Probably few people under the age of forty have heard of Mr. Shriver, but a few essential facts are well documented in Wikipedia, and there is no need for me to try to reword them.

Robert Sargent Shriver, Jr.; November 9, 1915—January 18, 2011) was an American statesman and activist.
As the husband of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, he was part of the Kennedy family, serving in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
Shriver was the driving force behind the creation of the Peace Corps, founded the Job Corps, Head Start and other programs as the “architect” of Johnson’s “War on Poverty” and served as the United States Ambassador to France.
During the 1972 U.S. presidential election, he was George McGovern’s running mate as the Democratic Party’s nominee for U.S. Vice President, replacing Thomas Eagleton who had resigned from the ticket.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargent_Shriver)

He was also heavily involved in his wife’s founding and operation of The Special Olympics.

The Wikipedia article goes on to say that Shriver was a devout Catholic, attended daily mass, and always carried a rosary.  His son’s biography focuses on that central theme of his life, his faith.  Mark sees his father as a person who focused his entire being on loving and serving God and his fellow man with great enthusiasm and without reservation, a strict follower of the two greatest commandments, a man who always lived in the moment, looking forward with excitement to meeting God in the life to come, and worrying not at all about mistakes of the past or challenges of the future.  He took these words of Jesus seriously:

Matthew 6:33-34  But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today. 

Politically, I would be the opposite of Mr. Shriver.  But, my conclusion based on his son’s understanding of his life is that if we all loved and served as he did, motivated as he was, all those labels that divide us, conservative and liberal, rich, middle class, and poor, gay and straight, White, African American, and Hispanic, Democrat, Republican, and Libertarian, would fade into insignificance.  We could be conservative without being A Conservative, liberal without being A Liberal, etc.  Our identities would have nothing to do with race or sex or fiscal leanings.  We would each claim only this identity: “Child and Lover of God.”

Read the book.  It is inspirational.

 

 

The Burdens of Wealth and Covetousness

The meaning of “wealthy” has changed significantly over the centuries.  In Biblical times, Abraham was declared wealthy because of his “flocks and herds, silver and gold, male and female servants, camels and donkeys.”  His son, Isaac, “had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great household, so that the Philistines envied him.”  Isaac’s son, Jacob, “grew exceedingly rich, and had large flocks, and male and female slaves, and camels and donkeys.”  Job had “seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, five hundred donkeys, and very many servants.”  Well, I’ll take some silver and gold, but you can have the rest of it.  Having such wealth sounds like a lot of worry and work and responsibility to me, trying to make sure all those servants are faithfully shepherding and feeding and watering and protecting all those sheep. I have enough trouble just keeping my one house in good shape.

Economic conditions seem to have been different in New Testament times with Roman currency established as the medium of exchange, buying and selling of goods commonplace, and existence of solid middle and upper-middle classes.  We have the example of the “rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus,” and provided a tomb for short-term occupancy by Jesus.  And there was “Lydia, a worshiper of God…from the city of Thyatira and a dealer in purple cloth,” who, after being baptized, opened her home to Paul and Timothy.  It must have been a spacious home. There was Zacchaeus, who was “a chief tax collector and was rich,” but not rich like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had been.  After all, he had climbed into a tree to see Jesus, having no servants to lift him up.  Wealth is relative.  I’m guessing that with the Roman Empire at its peak and with zealous tax collectors such as Zacchaeus at work throughout, most of the real wealth at that time belonged to the empire and to the emperor and his buddies.
We know enough about those centuries between the end of the Roman Empire and the invention of the printing press to know that the chances for economic prosperity were slim.  There was a vast divide between the wealthy landholders and those who were allowed, under feudalism, to eke out a meager sustenance working that land for the primary benefit of the landowners.
In the 21st century, most of the wealth of the wealthiest consists of no more than records, sometimes just digital information, that show “ownership” of so many shares of various companies or mutual funds or certain numbers of bonds, the values of which fluctuate daily for strange and mysterious reasons.  There are some wealthy landowners, such as Ted Turner who owns two million acres, but for most truly wealthy people, multi-millionaires, the tangible things they own, land, houses, cars, horses, etc., make up a negligible portion of their holdings and the much bigger portion consists only of those ownership records.  Values of such holdings are intangible and subjective and can change in the blink of an eye as everyone who owned Lehman Brothers bonds in the fall of 2008 or who bought Apple stock six months ago can attest.  And, if the records of ownership were to disappear or the rules governing ownership were to change significantly, as under Chavez in Venezuela, the ownership could be lost.  Our system, as it has evolved, is very fragile and faces threats as serious as and far more mysterious than the Biblical moths and rust and thieves.
But one thing about wealth has remained true over the centuries: Most of the wealth is and always has been held by a small percentage of the population, at least partly because only a small percentage of the population is both capable of and seriously interested in building and preserving wealth and bearing the associated burdens.  Hard work, disciplined planning, and delayed gratification often lose out to excessive credit card debt, irrational consumption, and advertiser incited envy, all of which bring burdens of their own, neither more nor less problematic than the burdens of wealth. Those of us who suffer from such may heed the warning to, “Go the ant, you lazybones.  Consider its ways and be wise,” or the commandment to “not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
Sometimes envy, or covetousness, may be incited by talk of spreading wealth around.  For those burdened with credit card debt as a result of having been tempted by persuasive advertising to consume irrationally, or even for those feeling sympathy for ones so suffering, the idea of spreading some wealth around may seem very enticing.  Just force Warren Buffett to sell some of his shares in Berkshire Hathaway and send that money to Washington, DC, for redistribution.  With his or her share, the recipient of new funds can upgrade to an iPhone 10, buy a new battery powered car, paint his or her house, or invest in Berkshire Hathaway.  Chances are slim that the choice will be door number three and even less, door number four.  The house will continue to deteriorate and somebody else will have to buy those shares Mr. Buffett sells.  So, the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
Even with all these problems, we can take comfort that wealth or lack thereof is not important in the long run because “one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions,” because “The rich and the poor have this in common: the LORD is the maker of them all,” and because we should “not be afraid when some become rich, when the wealth of their houses increases.  For when they die they will carry nothing away; their wealth will not go down after them.”  We can just hope that the wealthy will invest wisely in job creating businesses and industries for the benefit of the willing and able and will give wisely to help those who can’t help themselves.
Note: The quotes above are all from the Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version.  And, yes, I am well aware of the many Biblical warnings to the rich, not the least of which is that phrase, “go down after them,” in the last quote above.

Tweet
Follow @dkw2020

The Pope and the Poor

 

From an AP news story about Tuesday’s public appearance of Pope Francis:

“Francis said the role of the leader of the world’s 1.2
billion Catholics is to open his arms and protect all of humanity, but
“especially the poorest, the weakest, the least important, those whom
Matthew lists in the final judgment on love: the hungry, the thirsty, the
stranger, the naked, the sick and those in prison.”  
I love this position of Pope Francis and find it the same as that of Jesus Christ.  You may wonder then why I do not count myself as a liberal social progressive advocating free health care, for example, for all.  The reason is that our liberal progressive social system fails to adequately protect the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, and the sick because of its insistence on trying to help everybody whether help is needed or not.  Just because the poor need help is no reason we all have to chip in to buy annual physicals, flu shots, and birth control pills for each other.
Instead of helping, our current system patronizes and enables the disadvantaged while frittering away taxpayer money assisting middle class and above folks who really don’t need assistance.  We have an expensive bureaucracy that depends on a large lower class and would crumble if the problems of poverty were actually solved.  In 1965 a “War on Poverty” was launched with approximately 15% of the population below some arbitrarily defined poverty line and almost fifty years and billions of dollars later we still have approximately 15% of the population in poverty.  And, because the system is designed in a way that perpetuates poverty, it is the children of the poor who are most likely to become poor adults.
It started in 1935 with Social Security for all and then compounded the error in 1965 with Medicare for all.  The current administration doubled down with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a government takeover of the health care insurance system for all when the focus should have been on a health care system (not insurance) for the poor.  The systems which are means tested, housing and food supplements primarily, ask little of recipients other than standing in lines and completing paperwork on a regular basis.
Social Security is probably the lesser evil because it does not distort markets and prices.  It just redistributes income from younger working folks, whether they can afford it or not, to older and disabled folks, whether they need it or not.  And, since the demographic destiny of the USA, absent opening the borders wide to immigrants, is a diminishing ratio of workers to retirees, the system is unsustainable.  Of course Social Security was supposed to be fully funded by our contributions to the system during our working years, but, unfortunately, that money we paid in advance was borrowed and spent and current payments to retirees all depend on current tax receipts from working folks.
The health care problem is much more serious because the isolation of patient from provider by third party payers including large employers, insurance companies, and government, with congress trying to micromanage the system under the guidance of health care industry lobbyists, has distorted the market and resulted in soaring costs, prices, and profits.  There is no competition and no price transparency, and patients have become pawns in a system that cannot be understood.  Health care has unnecessarily become unaffordable for all but the wealthy.
I suppose all of the problems are in some way related to the currently popular belief in equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity, the belief that no one should be singled out or insulted or made to feel bad, the belief that one lifestyle is as good as another and is no business of government.  The best descriptor for the system that has evolved is probably “politically correct.”
But, the fact is that, while personal loving assistance, face to face, from one person to another, expecting nothing in return, is Christ-like, provision of government handouts, though an impersonal and very expensive bureaucracy, to the poor, with no expectation of anything, not even an attempt at change in behavior, in return, is patronizing, insulting, demoralizing, and enabling.
And, the issue of assistance to the poor is complicated because of the entanglement of faith based organizations with government through acceptance of government funding, assistance that always comes with strings attached.  So, we find, for example, that a Catholic hospital that is required to provide and accept insurance under the new health care law must cover and provide services that are against its teachings.  Catholic hospitals in the USA are caught up in the same complex funding and billing system as secular institutions and serve the financially comfortable as well as the poor.
So, my suggestion is that Catholic hospitals sell their huge and expensive facilities, shrink to a more manageable size, stop accepting government funding, and focus all efforts on providing loving preventive health care, education, and counseling to the poor through a nationwide network of free medical clinics, funding their operations with donations only.  Leave the corrupt health care industry-government complex to the secular institutions.  I’d like to donate time and money to one of those Catholic medical clinics if they are established.  But I’m not coughing up anything voluntarily for these “non-profit” hospitals we now have.
Well, at least I think faith-based free medical clinics are a good idea, but I’m thinking the federal government Department of Health and Human Services might disapprove them if they were to become too conspicuous.
Just a final word on the system we have.  It obviously helps a lot of people but it also hurts a lot of people.  It’s well institutionalized and probably is not going to change much.  So I guess my primary point is that the Church cannot count our government welfare system as our obedience to the commandments of Jesus.  We have to do a lot more, and I suppose that is the challenge Pope Francis has put forward. 

Tweet
Follow @dkw2020

Christian Existence: Human Reality and Divine Mystery

Below is a short paper I wrote in May, 2002, to fulfill a requirement for a Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary course, Introduction to Theology.  The professor was Dr. David Yeago, prominent Lutheran theologian, who was always challenging us to do a better job of “unpacking” the texts we were studying or quoting and who must have been frustrated and disappointed with the short and simplistic essays we students wrote in response to his deeply challenging lectures and writings.  But, it was a privilege to sit in his class and see him at work.  There is an interesting sample of his work, The Catholic Luther, published in First Things, March 1996.

Christian Existence: Human Reality and Divine Mystery
Darryl K. Williams
May 6, 2002
HT252 – Introduction to Theology
 
Introduction
Christians realize they cannot understand and usually don’t question the miraculous work of grace God does in the hearts and minds and souls of individuals to bring them to salvation from sin, death, and the devil.  We accept that work of the Holy Spirit as a divine mystery.  We accept that God chose us, and we give thanks for it.  But it is a mistake to focus on that choice as bearing only on our eternal destinies and ignore what Scripture says about the responsibilities of Christian existence.
Just as there are both divine mystery and human reality of Christ, represented by His two natures, there are both divine mystery and human reality of Christian existence.  If we are “created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life,”[1] how are we to know what those good works are, and how are we able to accomplish them? What is this “way of life” intended for the Christian, and what is the role of the Church in it?  It is the purpose of this short paper to give brief and superficial and incomplete, though hopefully not incorrect, answers to these questions which have occupied the minds of great thinkers and spawned volumes of brilliant writing through the centuries.
The Human Reality of Christian Existence
Salvation in the New Testament is both event and process, and source of both assurance and hope.  Jesus certainly talked to His followers about final judgment, a place in His Father’s house, paradise, and mansions, but He talked more about the reality of challenges of the Christian life.  He restated and explained the application of the Old Testament law to the daily life of the believer.  He also carefully taught the appropriate relationship between the believer and God in his instructions on prayer and worship.  For Jesus, the point was not to just hang in there hoping for escape from punishment and a great reward sometime in the future but to live an unselfish life of love and worship and service to God and fellow mankind.
Also in support of salvation as both event and process, St. Paul, in his epistles to the churches, wrote of believers having been saved[2], being saved[3], and hoping for
salvation.[4] Paul’s emphasis, like that of Jesus, was on the Christian life in the Church beginning with its starting point or initiation, baptism.  For both Jesus and Paul, Salvation begins “now,”[5] not at the time of death.  And with salvation comes a tension because the person is, as Luther wrote, “… at one and the same time righteous in Christ and sinful in his own flesh: simul justus et peccator.”[6]  That is a serious condition making the life of the believer into a battlefield and putting the believer at odds with the world.  The battle that rages is probably what Jesus referred to when He said:
Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foeswill be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it.[7]
Jesus said that He had come that we might have life and “have it abundantly,”[8] but He never promised that it would be an easy life.  His demands for change are echoed in St. Paul’s words to the church at Rome; “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.”[9]  Certainly, the whole message of Jesus, confirmed in the writings of St. Paul, was about transformation of lives in the pattern of the change in the lives of His first followers from fishermen to
“fishers of men.”[10]
What did Jesus intend for the life of the believer?  From His word and example we know that Christians are to live lives of prayer and to love and serve and worship God and to love and serve each other.[11]  We are to subject ourselves to the discipline of study of scripture and to the discipline we learn from Scripture.[12]  Christians are to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world.[13]  Life should be better for all because we are here.  We are to tell the Gospel story and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.[14]  We are to avoid judging each other[15] and let the weeds grow with the wheat until the time of harvest.[16]  Based on the example of Christ, we should associate with and witness and minister to the un-popular and the sinful and the disreputable as He did with Samaritans and lepers and tax collectors.   As citizens of Heaven and Earth, we are instructed by Jesus to “Give therefore to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”[17]
To live such a life is a challenge faced by every believer and a challenge that cannot be met under one’s own power.  St. Paul left a very personal written testimony about the human reality of Christian living, saying “I do not understand my own actions.  For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate,” and concluding, “Who will rescue me from this body of death?  Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” [18]  Martin Luther described the human reality of Christian life in his famous phrase from The Freedom of A Christian, “A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none.  A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.”[19]  Luther makes it clear that motivation is the key and that the motivation for good works can never be for one’s own benefit.  “Man, however, needs none of these things for his righteousness and salvation. Therefore he should be guided in all his works by this thought and contemplate this one thing alone, that he may serve and benefit others in all that he does, considering nothing except the need and the advantage of his neighbor.”[20]  In Life Together,[21] Dietrich Bonhoeffer described the conflict that results from our desire for self justification.  That sinful desire leads us to compare ourselves to others and results, because of our self centeredness, in criticism of the others. By so doing, according to Bonhoeffer, we justify ourselves.  If only we realize that we already have the gift of justification by grace, we no longer have to justify ourselves by comparing ourselves with others and can accept others as creatures of God.  Only then, Bonhoeffer wrote, can we minister to them without judging.  Only then are we free to do what we want to do rather than what we hate.  Only then are we free to be “servant of all, subject to all,” as Luther taught.  These similar testimonies of St. Paul, Martin Luther, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer show that their common rescuer was the Holy Spirit whose ongoing presence is the divine mystery of Christian existence which enables all Christians to be victorious in the human reality of Christian existence.
The Divine Mystery of Christian Existence
There are two aspects to the divine mystery of Christian existence. First is the spiritual awakening, symbolized by baptism, which comes as a gift through the Holy Spirit.  The second aspect is the ongoing spiritual sustenance that comes through the Eucharist and enables the believer to live in a manner that is pleasing to God.
The first divine mystery of Christian existence is the work of the Holy Spirit in awakening the sinner to a realization of what God has done and of the justification that is a gift of God to the sinner.  St. Augustine came to that realization in a garden after reading a verse of scripture, St. Paul had to be struck blind on the road to Damascus, Luther had his “tower experience,” Dietrich Bonhoeffer suddenly realized he had not been a Christian is spite of being a theologian, and John Wesley had a strange “warming” of the heart.   All these theologians and Church leaders and others who have joined them through the centuries realized, through the power of the Holy Spirit, what God had done for them.  They were justified!  They had not made a ‘decision for Christ.”  God had made a decision for them.  But they did decide, as every person who realizes what God has done for them through the divine mystery of justification by grace must, whether,  in thankfulness and through the power of the Holy Spirit, to let the promised power of God flow through their lives or to deny that power and continue living in frustration and doubt.  Scripture leaves no doubt that believers are to claim that promise and accept union with Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  St. Paul wrote to the Romans “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.”[22]  He had a more positive statement to the Corinthians, saying “…all of us…are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.”[23]  So, according to St. Paul, it is possible, through the divine mystery of the presence of the Holy Spirit, for Christians to please God.
The second divine mystery, ongoing spiritual sustenance, comes through the Church which is the vehicle which God has provided for the transformation of the Christian life. It is easy, from a worldly viewpoint, to misunderstand the Church, seeing it, at its best, as a super civic club, growing, raising and spending money, doing good, and helping people, or, at its worst, as an exclusive private club or clique with strange practices and little interest in reaching beyond its doors or in inviting more people inside.  The New Testament is the story of the founding and early development and worship and practices of the Church, Heaven’s embassy in the world.[24]  From the founding of the Church by Christ in Matthew 16, with a dozen charter members, to the first Holy Communion prior to his crucifixion, to the promised coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the resulting expansion of the Church, to the worship symbolism in Revelation, the Church is the focus of the New Testament.  The Church is not a super civic club, nor is it an exclusive private club.  It is the body of Christ, of which Christ is the head, and is the location of the communion of saints.
Because the Church is the body of Christ, the life that is pleasing to God is life in the Church through which the grace of God and the power for Christian living are received in baptism which is cleansing from sin and Eucharist which is spiritual nourishment.[25]  Christ is the head of the Church, and Christians are the body of Christ.[26]  That means Christians are in union with Christ.  The job of the Church, in union with Christ, is to continue the work that Jesus began in the first century in Palestine, loving God and neighbor and delivering the Gospel message.  Being a Christian means being a member of the Church.
One way to think of the divine mystery of Christian existence is that there is a total disconnect between the benefits we derive from it and our ability to invest anything in it.  The student studies long hours and does well on an exam and gets a good grade.  The farmer toils in the fields and reaps a bountiful harvest.  The Christian, through the grace of God, receives a free gift of faith which results in justification.  With that justification comes sanctification, motivation and resources to do God’s good works. A fundamental problem for many Christians is that it is easier and more human to work hard on our own to do all the things we think Christ would have us do, as the student works for good grades or the farmer works for bountiful crops, than to open ourselves spiritually to the Holy Spirit and depend on the mystery of the divine guidance that is available from that source.  Simply striving to do better on our own, admirable from a human viewpoint, is “works righteousness” and displeasing to God.
It is also difficult for Christians to come to grips with a new concept of progress when thinking of Christian living.  It’s in our human nature to want to accomplish things and to be better.  One thing we cannot do in this life, even though enabled by the Holy Spirit, is make progress in reducing the infinite gap that exists between our worldly righteousness or good works and the divine perfection that is God.  The good works we do in the power of the Holy Spirit do move us forward, but just as, mathematically, an infinite distance minus 10,000 miles is still an infinite distance, we still have the same gap between what we do and what God would ultimately have us do.
Summary
Without the salvation that comes from God, life is either blissful ignorance or hopeless wallowing in sin and despair, both ending in death.  With that salvation from death, sin, and the devil, we enter into the human reality and divine mystery of Christian existence.
The human reality of that Christian existence is that we are at odds with the world, and the divine mystery is that we are able to win the ensuing struggle only through giving up our own egos and efforts and opening ourselves completely to the power of the Holy Spirit.
Thanks be to God for that power!  May He give us the strength and wisdom to rely on it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND OTHER SOURCES
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together: A Discussion of Christian
Fellowship, Translated by John W. Doberstein. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1954.
[1]Luther, M. 1999, c1957. Luther’s
works, vol. 31 : Career of the Reformer I (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H.
T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works. Vol. 31 (Vol. 31, Page 344). Fortress Press:
Philadelphia
Tappert, T. G. 2000, c1959. The book of concord : The
confessions of the evangelical Lutheran church: Philadelphia, PA: Fortress
Press: Philadelphia
Yeago, David S. 2001. The Faith of the Christian Church: A
Catholic and Evangelical Introduction to Theology. Columbia, SC.: Lutheran
Theological Southern Seminary.
Yeago, David S. 2001. Classroom Lectures for HT 252,
Introduction To Theology. Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary, Columbia, SC.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 1994. New York, NY.: Oxford
University Press.

 

[1]
Ephesians 2:10
[2] Romans
8:24
[3] 1
Corinthians 1:18.  It seems that Paul is
writing only to those already in the church and saying that they, along with
him, are in a process of “being saved.”
[4] 1 Thessalonians
5:8.
[5] 2
Corinthians 6:2
[6]Luther, M.
1999, c1960. Luther’s works, vol. 35 : Word and Sacrament I (J. J.
Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works. Vol. 35 (Vol.
35). Fortress Press: Philadelphia
[7] Matthew
10:34-39
[8] John
10:10
[9] Romans
12:2
[10] Matthew
4:19.  An example of language update gone
amuck is revision of  the KJV’s, ‘I will
make you fishers of men” to “Follow me, and I will make you fish for people.”
[11] Mark
12:29-31
[12] See
Hebrews 4:12 and 2 Timothy
3:16-17
[13] Matthew
5:13-16
[14] Matthew
28:19
[15] Matthew
7:1
[16] Matthew
13:25-30
[17] Matthew
22:21
[18] Romans
7:14-25
[19]Luther, M.
1999, c1957. Luther’s works, vol. 31 : Career of the Reformer I (J. J.
Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works. Vol. 31 (Vol.
31, Page 344). Fortress Press: Philadelphia
[20]Luther, M.
1999, c1957. Luther’s works, vol. 31 : Career of the Reformer I (J. J.
Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther’s Works. Vol. 31 (Vol.
31, Page 365). Fortress Press: Philadelphia
[21]
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together,
trans. By John W. Doberstein (San
Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1954.
[22] Romans
12:2
[23] 2
Corinthians 3:18
[24] I liked
this explanation Dr. Yeago gave in class of why it is inappropriate to fly
national flags in churches.
[25] John
6:54: So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you,
unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no
life in you.
[26]  Colossians 1:18 – He is the head of the body, the church;

Tweet
Follow @dkw2020

Dr. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Minister

 

Looking through some old stuff from my seminary retirement hobby I found this paper on Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  It was an assignment for the History of Christianity course taught by Dr. Mary Havens.  Bonhoeffer is an especially interesting character because of the inherent contradiction of a minister with a reputation for pacifism both entertaining thoughts of suicide and conspiring to assassinate Hitler.  The paper includes Bonhoeffer’s views on self esteem and his provocative view that a member of a Christian fellowship “...is prohibited from saying much that occurs to him.”  The emphases of this paper are Bonhoeffer’s theory and practice of Christian ministry, a practice that continued until the day of his hanging.
_______________________________________________
DR. DIETRICH BONHOEFFER, MINISTER
DARRYL K. WILLIAMS
MARCH 27, 2002
HT-102
HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY
Bonhoeffer’s Life
Dietrich Bonhoeffer was born February 4, 1906, in Breslau, Germany, child of prosperous, intelligent, and prominent parents and brother to seven, and died April 9, 1945, on the Nazi gallows at Flossenburg after spending his last two years confined in the company of a small group of prisoners and jail keepers of Hitler’s Third Reich.  He lived an early life of comfortable privilege surrounded by the love and support of his family and the friendship and guidance of brilliant and influential mentors and associates but in a political environment steadily advancing toward the crisis which was to result in his imprisonment and youthful death.  Relatively unknown during his life and often misunderstood after his death, perhaps because of the incompletion of his life’s work, Bonhoeffer has, nevertheless, become one of the most widely read and studied and quoted theologians of the twentieth century. Bonhoeffer’s education started at home under the tutelage of his father, Professor Karl Bonhoeffer, chair of his department at the University of Berlin.
Professor Bonhoeffer was a man of dignity, self-control, objectivity, and clear speech and taught his children the same disciplines.  Although the Church was not a priority for the Bonhoeffer family, Dietrich’s mother, Paula, had a Christian education and took personal responsibility for the religious and musical instruction of her children.  Both parents taught the Bonhoeffer children personal responsibility and concern and empathy for others and did so in a home environment that developed their natural talents, built their self confidence, and instilled in them senses of humor.[1] The fruits of those parental efforts are clearly visible in the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
The Bonhoeffer family was severely impacted by World War I, losing nephews and one son, Dietrich’s older brother, Walter, in military action when Dietrich was twelve years old.  The war experiences may have influenced him to pursue a career in theology because, at fifteen, he was studying Hebrew.[2]  He entered university at seventeen and pursued his studies vigorously without missing the opportunity to enjoy university social life.  He joined a fraternity which he eventually had to leave when it inserted the Aryan clause in its constitution.[3]  That was perhaps the first of his public anti-Hitler positions which were to become bolder and bolder eventually leading to Bonhoeffer’s execution.

There were two dramatic spiritual turning points in Bonhoeffer’s life.  The first had to do with his attitude toward the Church which was relatively unimportant to him until he spent a university term in Rome and attended St. Peter’s during Easter.  That visit, recorded in his diary as an experience which helped him begin to understand the Church, “made him conscious how nationalistic, provincial, and narrow-minded were the confines of his own church.”[4]  The second turning point occurred in 1933 when he, “discovered the Bible for the first time,” and concluded that he was, “still not a Christian.”[5]  By that time he had already served in his first assistant pastorship under the direction of a minister who apparently showed little interest in theology or religion.  There, Bonhoeffer seems. to have gotten a good look at what the Church should not be, strictly social and political in nature.He had also studied at Union Theological Seminary, had become involved in ecumenism and had become more political, even as Germany had moved closer and closer to crisis.  He had become a university lecturer, heavily involved in travel, seminars, church politics, and ecumenism.   He had also met and had become a friend of Karl Barth.  It was study, lectures, conversation with Barth, and self examination during those years that led Bonhoeffer to the second turning point.  He later confessed that he had finally realized that, “the life of a servant of Jesus Christ should belong to the Church.”[6] From that time, Bonhoeffer belonged to the Church and was focused on Christian ministry and on renewal of the Church, placing him in diametric opposition to Hitler who, in the same year, had become Chancellor of the Third Reich and had immediately begun destroying the German democracy and eliminating the freedoms of the citizens.  Bonhoeffer had ten years left before his arrest.

Bonhoeffer became a parish minister in London in 1933 but returned to Germany in 1935 to lead an underground illegal seminary.  His experiences at the seminary are the subject of Life Together, [7] published in 1938.   After an unsatisfying attempt to escape the German situation by a move to NY, he returned to Germany in 1939 to, “share the tribulations of this time with my people,”[8] and joined the resistance against Hitler, eventually becoming involved in a plot to assassinate the German ruler.  He was arrested and imprisoned in 1943 and, after discovery of the assassination plot, was condemned and hanged in 1945.
Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Ministry 
In Life Together,  Bonhoeffer outlined his concept of ministry, linking the gift of ministry to the gift of justification by grace.  He argued that self justification forces us to compare ourselves to others and results, because of our self centeredness, in criticism of the others.  By so doing, according to Bonhoeffer, we justify ourselves.  If only we realize that we already have the gift of justification by grace, we no longer have to justify ourselves by comparing ourselves with others and can accept others as creatures of God.  Only then can we minister to them without judging.
Bonhoeffer listed seven essential elements of ministry, two that were inward focused and five that had to do with interaction with others.  The first essential element of Christian ministry, according to Bonhoeffer, is control of the tongue.  His strongest statement on the tongue is that, “…it must be a decisive rule of every Christian fellowship that each individual is prohibited from saying much that occurs to him.”[9]  The prohibition applies not to kind words spoken in private and in love to Christian brothers but to criticism spoken in public and behind the backs of the criticized.  Scriptural support is found in Psalms 50:20-21, Ephesians 4:19, and, perhaps most directly, in James 4:11-12:  “Speak not evil one of another, brethren…who are thou that judgest another?”[10]  According to Bonhoeffer, if that philosophy is adopted, “diverse individuals in the community are no longer incentives for talking and judging and condemning, and thus excuses for self justification.” [11]
Meekness is Bonhoeffer’s second, inward focused, essential element of ministry.  To put his advice in modern terms, those who would minister should give up self esteem.  Bonhoeffer’s actual words were that such a person should, “think little of himself.”  Romans 12:3 was cited as a scriptural basis: “…I say to everyone among you not to think of yourself more highly than you ought to think…” [12] The purposes of meekness are to avoid the “sin of resentment”[13] and to be able to humbly serve others.  As Bonhoeffer asks, “How can I possibly serve another person in unfeigned humility if I seriously regard his sinfulness as worse than my own?”[14]
Then Bonhoeffer turns to three specific things Christians should do in personal ministry to each other: Listening attentively, resisting the temptation to interrupt and take the center of attention, helping in even trivial matters, always being willing to be interrupted, and bearing each others burdens,  never sidestepping what others may impose upon us.  All three require a total selflessness and seem almost impossible.  How can one make a living and take care of personal responsibilities if always ready to listen to concerns of others, to be interrupted to help with menial tasks, and to share concern with whatever anyone else may be concerned about?  Such is possible only by the Grace of God.
Bonhoeffer further states that Christians are to proclaim the gospel and speak openly of Jesus Christ to each other.  Bonhoeffer is speaking of, “free communication of the Word from person to person, not by the ordained ministry which is bound to a particular office, time, and place.”[15]  In spite of our concerns about confrontation of Christian friends with the Gospel, we must do it because we are all sinners and, “have only God to fear.”[16]
Finally, according to Bonhoeffer, if we truly serve one another as ministers, we have the ministry of authority.  Believers should not confer authority on persons because of their physical or mental traits and characteristics and abilities but only because of their humble service.  He states, “The Church does not need brilliant personalities but faithful servants of Jesus and the brethren.”[17]  These statements were not just intellectual affirmations but were intensely personal for Bonhoeffer, who in fact was a brilliant personality, charismatic, influential, and gifted, and who later confessed that personal ambition had once been a problem for him and that he had, “turned the doctrine of Jesus Christ into something of personal advantage.”  Certainly during the latter years of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s life he qualified as a faithful servant giving humble service.
Bonhoeffer’s Practice of Ministry
The student of Bonhoeffer has the advantage of being able to assess the actual ministry of the always great and eventually humble theologian against his simple theory.  The personality and discipline required of a person making his or her mark as a theologian, ministering through writing and teaching and across distance and time, are different from those required of a person focused on face-to-face personal and immediate ministry to others. Bonhoeffer excelled in both areas. His writings are ample evidence of his significance as a theologian and have also become an ongoing ministry of great impact.  A Rabbi wrote to Bonhoeffer’s friend, Eberhard Bethge, that Bonhoeffer’s Letters and Papers from Prison had, “made him understand for the first time how one might be able to worship Jesus Christ.”[18]  But it is not just his writing.  Bonhoeffer’s life story includes many examples of selflessness in the practice of personal ministry.
Even as a student responsible for a childrens’ service at the Grunewald church, Bonhoeffer’s talent for personal ministry was foreshadowed in his invitations of the children to his home and in his initiation of discussion groups with the older children.[19] Later he took charge of an unruly confirmation class whose confidence and respect he won through personal involvement in their lives and through opening his home to them, even in his absence.[20]  His personal ministry matured during his leadership of an underground seminary at Finkenwalde from 1935 to 1938.  The seminary was an establishment of the Confessing Church, regarded as illegal by the Reich church government.  In Spartan surroundings, Bonhoeffer opened himself completely to the seminarians, installing his treasured library and piano in a common area for use by all and reading to them from his works in progress.  Initial German patriotism of the seminarians was overcome by Bonhoeffer’s teaching on pacifism.  Finally in 1935, when the seminary itself was officially declared illegal, Bonhoeffer called all the ordinands together and released them from their obligations to the seminary.  None left.[21]  It was of his experiences at Finkenwalde that Bonhoeffer wrote Life Together.
Finally it was the prison experience from April 1943 until his death which was the ultimate test of Bonhoeffer as a minister.  Initially in solitary confinement, forbidden conversation even with the guards, and without amenities even for personal cleanliness, he entertained thoughts of suicide, not only to avoid the risk of betraying his family or associates in conspiracy but, “because basically I am already dead.”[22]  However, after an initial interrogation period, Bonhoeffer was allowed to convert his cell to a study including minimal comforts from home and books and paper. He gained the respect and assistance of his jailers and was eventually able to smuggle out his writing uncensored.
Throughout his imprisonment, Bonhoeffer worked and worshiped and ministered, always maintaining a personal discipline and serenity that could not be ignored by his fellow prisoners and prison keepers.  It was not only in matters of faith and religion that Bonhoeffer helped.  Bethge reported that he drafted letters, provided money, helped with legal matters, and assisted in cases of illness and injury.[23]  Rene Marle[24] quoted the comments of one of Bonhoeffer’s fellow prisoners, a British
Intelligence Service officer: Bonhoeffer…was all humility and sweetness; he always seemed to me to diffuse an atmosphere of happiness, of joy, in every smallest event in
life, and of deep gratitude for the mere fact that he was alive…He was one of the few men that I have met to whom God was real and close.[25]
Another prisoner, one who occupied the cell next to Bonhoeffer’s, reported that, “…often he would slip into my hand a scrap of paper with a few words of comfort and faith from the Bible written on it.”[26]  Bethge reported that, at Christmas, he wrote prayers for distribution throughout the prison by the chaplain.[27]  In prison, it was not only middle class Christian church members with whom Bonhoeffer was associated.  There were people from all walks of life, and he was often impressed with the contributions to the community of those from outside the Church.[28]  Certainly it was no exaggeration for Renate Wind to write that, “In the emergency community of Tegel he gave and experienced solidarity.”[29]
Bonhoeffer was also active in leadership of worship among the prisoners including celebrations of weddings and christenings.  On his last day of which there is any record,
he was locked in a school in Bavaria on the journey to the extermination facility at Flossenburg.  At the request of the other prisoners, Bonhoeffer conducted a service of the Word.  He was about to begin a service with a second group when he was taken away for his execution. The inscription placed on Bonhoeffer’s memorial tablet at the church in the town where his execution took place said, “A witness to Jesus Christ among his brothers.”[30]
Thanks be to God for the life and witness and ministry of Dietrich Bonhoeffer!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bethge, Eberhard. Costly Grace: An Illustrated Introduction
to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Translated by Rosaleen Ockenden. San Francisco: Harper
and Row, 1979.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together: A Discussion of
Christian Fellowship, Translated by John W. Doberstein. San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1954.
Marle, Rene. Bonhoeffer: The Man and His Work, Translated by
Rosemary Sheed.  New York: Newman Press,
1967.
Mohan, T. N.  Hanged
on a Twisted Cross, Written by Eberhard Bethge. 120 min.
Lathika International Film and Entertainment, Inc., 1996.
Videocassette.
Robertson, E. H. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Richmond, VA: John
Knox Press, 1966.
Wind, Renate. A Spoke in the Wheel: The Life of Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1991.

 

[1] Eberhard
Bethge, Costly Grace, trans. Rosaleen
Ockenden (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1979), 17.  Most of the biographical details are taken
from this source.
[2] Ibid.,
26.
[3] Ibid.,
31.
[4] Ibid.,
34.
[5] Ibid., 57.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Dietrich
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, trans. By
John W. Doberstein (San Francisco:
HarperSanFrancisco, 1954.
[8] Bethge,
99.
[9]
Bonhoeffer, 92.
[10] NRSV
[11]
Bonhoeffer, 93.
[12] NRSV
[13]
Bonhoeffer, 96.
[14] Ibid.,
97.
[15] Ibid,.
103.
[16] Ibid.,
106.
[17] Ibid.,
109.
[18] Rene
Marle, Bonhoeffer: The Man and His Work,
trans. Rosemary Sheed (New York: Newman Press, 1967), 39.
[19] Bethge,
36.
[20]T. N. Mohan,  Hanged on a Twisted Cross, Written by
Eberhard Bethge. 120 min. Lathika International Film and Entertainment, Inc.,
1996. Videocassette.
[21] Bethge,
82.
[22] Ibid.,
116.
[23] Ibid.,
137.
[24] Marle,
39.
[25]
According to Marle, this quote was reported by Eberhard Bethge in his forward
to an edition of Letters and Papers from Prison.
[26] Marle,
38.
[27] Bethge,
137.
[28] Wind
115
[29] Renate
Wind, A Spoke in the Wheel: The Life of
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM Press Ltd., 1991),
115.
[30] Marle,
35.

Tweet

Follow @dkw2020

The (Holy) Bible and (Christian) Theology

Listening to the Gospel reading this morning from Mark 10 about the young man who went away sad after Jesus told him to sell everything he had and give to the poor inspired some reflection on the difficulties we have understanding scripture and formulating a cohesive theology from it.  A couple of things I learned in three years of seminary training are that there is a difference between Bible study and Theology and that either, carelessly done, can easily lead to questionable conclusions.
Study of the Bible, a compilation of writings of various genres produced over a period of a thousand years or so and covering a much longer time has to be done text by text.  In other words, if one desires to study a selection from the Gospel of John, one must focus on the earliest possible version of that text, and that text alone, in the original language, paying close attention to several factors:
  1. Genre, form, and structure of the text.
  2. Literary context: What comes before and after and why?
  3. Historical and cultural context.
  4. Key words and phrases and their meanings at the time of
    writing.
  5. Translation difficulties and uncertainties.
  6. Writer and audience identification, purpose of the writer
    and meaning to the audience.
  7. And, for persons of faith, what the application today is.
(One who wants to undertake such a study shouldn’t worry too much about that original language thing because there are excellent commentaries which thoroughly explore the translation issues and many versions of the Bible which lay out various translation options.)
It is failure to follow such a Bible study regimen that leads to theological errors such as applying Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through Him…,” to personal and self serving accomplishment, seeing St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians 9 comparison of the spiritual life to that of an athlete as an endorsement of success for ones football team, or understanding the Leviticus sexual code as a good guide for behavior and punishment in the 21st century.  Sloppy Bible study tends to lead to emphasis on the Great Commission at the expense of The Greatest Commandments, or vice versa, focus on faith at the expense of works, or vice versa, and focus on the bye and bye at the expense of the here and how, or vice versa.  It almost always misses the big picture, the forest, due to excessive focus on the details, the trees, or weeds.
Theology, on the other hand, still uses but de-emphasizes the details of a particular text and, for Christians, seeks to identify broad themes running through the whole of Scripture.  What can we learn from The Holy Bible about God, creation, the universe, and humankind, about good and evil, about life and death and living and dying, about salvation and condemnation?  Are we to subscribe to a theology of prosperity or one of poverty, chastity and obedience, to a theology of just “me and Jesus,” or a theology of the Church as the Body of Christ, each of us members of it, to a theology of social justice and liberation or atheology of personal generosity and service?  Should our theology be one of “Focus on the Family,” or of focus on The Family of God?  Shall we depend on good works, or on our personal faith, or on the faithfulness of God?
Without informed guidance and prayerful study, even with a serious attempt to focus on the big picture, the forest, our theologies can easily beskewed in  wrong or overly simplistic directions by possibly well-meaning but misguided smooth talkers making logical or emotional appeals.  There are plenty of examples of that in recent history as outlined in Ross Douthat’s Bad Religion which I wrote about a few weeks ago.
Sometimes we mistakenly (Romans 12:2) look to societal trends to help us understand and tinker with our theologies.  But, with some scriptural support (1 Timothy 3:15) serious Christians often depend on the Church to interpret or help interpret the scriptures and keep us on a sound theological basis.
And, we sometimes find that the surprising answer from the Church to a difficult either-or theological issue is not one or the other but both-and.

Stinginess Not Only Alternative to Philanthropy

Note: The material below was posted originally on permanentfixes.com but seemed to be of interest also to all of us who give to and through our churches and take tax deductions for such gifts.  I have come to believe that is not a good thing and should be given up, along with other “sacred” tax benefits such as the home mortgage deduction in favor of lower marginal tax rates across the board on all  income, including inheritances, elimination of estate taxes, and much simpler tax returns.  Bottom line is that the federal government should  not be in the business of picking winners and losers, subsidizing some of us at the expense of others. More explanation of that here.
____________________________________________In a September 19 WSJ article, Geoffrey A. Fowler reported that more billionaires are signing on to the idea, promoted by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, of giving away large portions, at least half, of their money.  Well, it is certainly more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35), but whether such largess is a better idea than investing the funds in new GDP-generating, job-creating, and government funding enterprises depends, in my opinion, on what they give it to, how well the recipients manage it, and what other options the donors have for investing the money.

The article included a puzzling and blog-post-inspiring quote from Gordon Moore, 83 year old founder of Intel and author of the famous Moore’s Law:  “…it’s a good idea and has shaken loose a lot of money that otherwise would have been tied up for a long time.”  Well, only if somebody had it stuffed in a mattress somewhere or in a safety deposit box would it have been “tied up,” because otherwise the money was supporting some endeavor or enterprise already.
I have no first-hand information about this, but it is very likely that donations of Messrs. Moore, Gates, Buffett, and other billionaires are in the form of shares of appreciated stock, donated unsold to avoid capital gains taxes and estate taxes, to a foundation, which might continue to hold the shares and use the dividends from them to support its work.  So, the money would still be “tied up” in those shares of stock.  Or the foundation might sell the stock and use the proceeds from the sale in some new or existing charitable effort which might even involve hiring a lot of people.  In that case, somebody else will have to come up with money to buy the stock so that equivalent amount of money would still be “tied up,” having previously been “tied up” in something else.  Only if the overall transaction were so large as to result in a decline in the value of the stock would less money end up being “tied up,” and that would be a bad thing.
Don’t get me wrong.  I believe we are stewards and not owners of our financial assets and responsible for using them wisely, voluntarily and systematically giving to worthy causes and people in need throughout our lives and, when possible, being personally involved in the work of the organizations and persons we give to and through.  These billionaires are generous to want to give the money away and spend time managing the gifts, and generosity always trumps stinginess.
But, stinginess isn’t the only option.  If a wealthy person has a good idea for a new product or service that will be of benefit to humankind, investing money and time, hiring people, and taking risks to make it a reality, earning more money in the process, would not be less moral than giving away the money and would be better than irresponsible giving.  Such business development is no less important to the future than, and is a prerequisite for, philanthropy…and for tax revenues too, by the way.
As an example of the point I am trying to make, think of George Vanderbilt, wealthy grandson of Cornelius, whom I wrote about in a July14, 2012 posting on this blog.  Here is what I said:
“One bit of residue of the Vanderbilt fortune is Biltmore Estate in Asheville, NC, built in the late 1800’s, the “gilded age,” by grandson George. To many it seems to have been an extravagant indulgence (Check out this recent column by Mona Charen.), but he built a town to support the project, pushed the limits on technology, and employed thousands in the design and construction of it, artists and craftsmen and laborers, thereby revolutionizing the Western North Carolina economy. One hundred and forty years later, Biltmore Estate, a working farm and resort, employs 1700 people and hosts a million visitors annually from all over the world. Now that was a real jobs program!”
I’m not arguing that George was virtuous for building Biltmore but just that, while he didn’t live long enough to enjoy it, it was a worthwhile endeavor that paid off big for other people.  Had he just freely distributed the money to the citizens of Western North Carolina, he would have been widely celebrated and admired at the time but any positive effect would probably have long since disappeared.
Summing up the life of the infamously ruthless Commodore who made his fortune personally networking the nation with railroads and connecting its ports with steamships while driving down the cost of freight, I said this: “The Commodore lived into his eighties, rare for the time, but it’s too bad he couldn’t have had an additional productive hundred years. If he had, the United States rather than Japan would have been the leader in high speed trains and Amtrak would never have been created.”
A modern day Vanderbilt, smaller scale of course, recently introduced to me by a David Brooks column, is Elon Musk, entrepreneur extraordinaire, founder of Zip2, SpaceX, Tesla Motors, and PayPal and a philanthropist who has signed on to the pledge to give away at least half his fortune.  I just hope he doesn’t give it all away before he runs out of ideas because he is a serious job creator and GDP generator.
Bill and Melinda Gates are apparently doing great work around the world in the fields of health and education.  Mr. Buffett is apparently giving much of his money to the Gates foundation.  If they all bring along their personal management skills with their money, I have no doubt that much good will be accomplished, many problems solved, and countless lives improved.  I thank and congratulate them.  But I would also be happy and offering congratulations if they had come up with another economy building, paradigm changing, job creating, idea such as MSDOS which launched the personal computer business and lifted far more people out of poverty than will ever be possible with charitable giving from their personal fortunes.
And here is another option to stinginess.  One curmudgeon billionaire quoted in the Fowler article, German shipping magnate Peter Krämer, said that individuals should not have the right to determine use of such large sums of money, that it should instead be taxed away and its use determined by the government.  I don’t like that idea either, nor apparently does Mr. Buffett since, although he has publicly announced support for a trivial increase in his income taxes, he is responsibly doing whatever he can to keep his vast personal fortune out of government hands which would disperse it completely in just a tad over one day.

 

Comment on Ross Douthat’s “Bad Religion”

Maybe it is the journey beginning in the Southern Baptist Church of my youth and early adulthood, progressing through middle age commitments to a couple of “mainline” churches, and recently moving to the Catholic Church, hopefully for my remaining senior years, that caused me to enjoy so much Ross Douthat’s Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics.  Or maybe it is just that I lived through and have some familiarity with almost everything he discusses in the book but have never knit all the pieces together in a continuous narrative, explaining the development of theological liberalism as he does.
Douthat is a magna cum laud Harvard graduate, a Pentecostal turned Catholic, and a lonely conservative columnist, the youngest ever, at the New York Times.  Don’t worry about him though, because, when it comes to the written word, he can hold his own with anybody. In Bad Religion, he has provided a well documented history of the US Christian Church from the 1940’s to today, producing a volume that should qualify as a textbook for a course in any Christian seminary and deserves a permanent place in the library of any person of faith.
His story begins in the post WWII glory days for the Christian Church in America, attendance, membership, and giving all increasing, Protestant evangelist Billy Graham, Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen, and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., all receiving general respect and approval of the public and little criticism, except from segregationists, and none of them waffling on the traditional orthodox Apostles and Nicene Creed truths held by Christians since the early centuries of the Church.  It was a time when thirty seven mainline denominations could cooperate to establish a protestant presence in New York City, the National Council of Churches, have the cornerstone for their new nineteen story skyscraper laid by President Eisenhower, and get favorable comment and support from both the President of the United States and The New York Times.
But then the 1960’s brought the Vietnam War, the Pill and subsequent sexual revolution, increasing wealth, mobility, consumerism and suburban sprawl, globalization, theological relativism, and individualism.  And political polarization began to divide Christians and even complicate joint worship and prayer by “liberals” and “conservatives.”  Inclusion and accommodation became the bywords for mainline Protestant churches, and many formerly faithful members lost track of the reasons they had joined and worshiped there.  On the Catholic side, The American Catholic Church influence waned as Vatican II was miss-interpreted, liturgical practices suffered, and seminary discipline broke down.  And many formerly faithful Catholics and Protestants stayed home Sunday mornings and zipped up their pocketbooks.
And from that turmoil, according to Douthat, came Bad Religion, abandonment of the orthodox fundamentals of the Christian faith and adoption of heresies focusing on prosperity (Joel Osteen e.g.), narcissism and selfactualization (Eat, Pray, Love e.g.), and nationalism (Glen Beck e.g.).
You may be wondering how I can, with all that bad news about the Church, claim, as I did in the first paragraph, to have enjoyed Douthat’s book. I take comfort, first of all, in the promise Jesus made that he would establish his Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it so I am not too stressed about the current state of affairs.  I see the Church not as a civic or social or political or self-help or even a social justice organization but a “place” of divine mystery and miracles, the embassy of Heaven on Earth, a place to be comforted and fed but also a place to be reminded that Jesus said that if we love him, weare to keep his commandments.
Douthat makes it clear at the end of his book that his objective was to make a “…case for Christian orthodoxy – defending its exacting moralism as a curb against worldly excess and corruption, praising its paradoxes and mysteries for respecting the complexities of human affairs in ways that more streamlined theologies do not, celebrating the role of its institutions in assimilating immigrants, sustaining families, and forging strong communities.” He closes by inviting his readers to Church.  I thought that was a positive note and one I can endorse and second.

Other interesting articles on Douthat’s book.
Interview with him.
A critical response to Douthat’s book.
A Douthat defense of the book.
Discussion and critiques of Douthat’s book.
An expert commentary by Fr. Robert Barron

It is obviously a book that has stirred up considerable interest and commentary.  Get it and read it.