“There can only be a community of peace when it does not rest on lies and injustice.”
-Bonhoeffer, “No Rusty Swords”
I’m reading a book entitled “Performing the Faith: Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Non-violence” by Hauerwas. I’m only through the first two chapters, which happen to be the only chapters solely dedicated to Bonhoeffer, but I am really enjoying it. Since I have no one with whom to discuss, I choose to write. I want to say that Bonhoeffer’s life was intriguing even without his theology, but one cannot seem to separate the way he lived from his theology. It is also clear that his theology was unfinished and from my limited knowledge, misunderstood. His disdain for institutional religion has been viewed as some as the beginning of the “Death of God” movement. Hauerwas asserts that this would cause Bonhoeffer great agony, but I digress: on to the book.
Hauerwas asserts that Bonhoeffer was devoted to “the visibility of the church amid the ruins of Christendom.” This visibility could only be established by the proclamation and living of the truth. In other words, the “community of peace” cannot rest on “lies and injustice.” The community of peace I am equating to the visible church and the lies parallels living in truthfulness.
It is interesting to see Bonhoeffer’s take on the American church. Not only does he condemn the “Protestant fugitives” who fled Europe to worship God in peace, thus foregoing suffering, but critiques the American church in saying that “they do not see the radical claim of truth on the shaping of their lives. Community is therefore founded less on truth than on the spirit of ‘fairness.’” One can wonder whether this derives from the political nature of democracy (which is built on compromise), but that is a different discussion. Hauerwas characterizes it this way, “Fairness, not truth, becomes the primary commitment necessary to sustain community for Americans.”
As it would go, our idea of peace is based upon a sort of tolerance, a “subordination of truth and justice” where peace is seen as the absence of conflict rather than the reality of the gospel. A peace brought by war is only an illusory peace, a peace that is brought by injustice. Can there be war without a form of injustice? The visible church expresses that the gospel is “not an answer to questions produced by human anxiety, but a proclamation of a ‘fact.’” Bonhoeffer brings together the reality of truth-living with the visible community of peace.
But is he clear as to what that ‘truth’ is? Some argue no, some say he promoted a type of situational ethic (brought to fruition through his plot to assassinate Hitler), and still others (others being Hauerwas in this book) say that Bonhoeffer did not see the significance of giving a ‘theory of truth’ but rather realizing that being truthful is something learned. Whatever Bonhoeffer meant, we know that our living truthfully had everything to do with our life in connection with God’s, our ability to express truth vitalized through the expression of reality, as it is in God. And one cannot grasp reality without the truthful witness of Jesus Christ. As it turned out, Bonhoeffer saw the terrible lie that was Hitler as starting with the inability of the church to speak truth effectively even in the little things. It begs the question of whether our churches are adequately speaking/living truth even in the little things. Hauerwas continues that “Bonhoeffer believed that the church is the sign that God has placed in the windows of the world to make possible a truthful politics.” Is the church now truly a visible witness or have we consigned ourselves to the storefronts of abandoned warehouses?
Friday, November 30, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
Democrat Primary Debate
I started to get interested in the upcoming Presidential Election last Jan/Feb. when Barack Obama made an intent to run and started a huge grass roots campaign while not taking any money from special interest groups. I remember thinking last June that Clinton was unelectable. It has little to do with her being a woman than it does her being stuck in the democrat political machine. I enjoyed listening to John Edwards and his comments on the poor but his $400 haircut kind of turned me off to him. Three weeks ago a debate was held in Philadelphia. Clinton had a poor outing. It appeared that she was staged, gave pat answers, and proved to give inconsistent answers on certain issues. She started to drop in the polls and Obama seemed to be on a surge.
Another debate was held last night. I was very interested in it, so I went to a friends house and watched it with about 8 others. To be honest, it was a lackluster performance from the top three candidates. Clinton seems to have come ahead only because she didn't stumble. Obama and Edwards didn't seem to make up any ground because they didn't stand out. However, I think a few things are worth mentioning.
There was a question last night involving human rights and national security. The question asked, "Would you place our national security above human rights." Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton said similar things. The job of the President is to ensure the security of our own. We are to do this while upholding the Constitution. Later analysts said that Clinton was looking toward the general election against the Republicans so they couldn't use her response against her. (The Republicans seem to be big on national security above any rights of anyone). I thought Obama's answer was intriguing though. He didn't give a yes or no answer. This, in a debate, sometimes comes across as a weakness but I hope people were listening. He said he doesn't think that national security and human rights are necessarily incompatible. One doesn't need be to placed above the other. This logic seems to make sense to me. Right now the Bush administration has polarized America with his war agenda. Not only are we in an unjust war in Iraq, but there has been talk of military conflict with Iran as well (this would be a grave mistake). However, while we are killing in the middle-east we are neglecting other countries like the Sudan and Burma where vasts amounts of people are now left homeless, injured, orphaned, or dead (not to neglect the other 2 Billion people living on less than $2 a day). The world has seen our ugly foreign policy and our trampling of human rights in the middle-east and places like Guantanamo. Obama, I think, rightly associates the building and support of human rights not only because it is the right thing to do, but because as a result it will in turn make us more secure. If people aren't dying, if they have enough to eat, or even enough to live, they are less likely to harbor bitterness. Even more, America is even the cause of that bitterness in several instances. Jim Wallis writes in "God's Politics" that "the developed World will never be secure until the developing world also achieves some economic security." I think there is some truth found in that statement.
It is my hope that this kind of Politics becomes more evident. I hope that Obama's words are heard for what they are (Bill Richardson said something similar). I still think Clinton is unelectable. She may be ahead in the Democratic primaries but recent polls show that the vast majority of independents and republicans would not vote for her. On the other side, Obama holds the votes of more independents and even some moderate Republicans than any other candidate. Just words to think about.
Another debate was held last night. I was very interested in it, so I went to a friends house and watched it with about 8 others. To be honest, it was a lackluster performance from the top three candidates. Clinton seems to have come ahead only because she didn't stumble. Obama and Edwards didn't seem to make up any ground because they didn't stand out. However, I think a few things are worth mentioning.
There was a question last night involving human rights and national security. The question asked, "Would you place our national security above human rights." Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton said similar things. The job of the President is to ensure the security of our own. We are to do this while upholding the Constitution. Later analysts said that Clinton was looking toward the general election against the Republicans so they couldn't use her response against her. (The Republicans seem to be big on national security above any rights of anyone). I thought Obama's answer was intriguing though. He didn't give a yes or no answer. This, in a debate, sometimes comes across as a weakness but I hope people were listening. He said he doesn't think that national security and human rights are necessarily incompatible. One doesn't need be to placed above the other. This logic seems to make sense to me. Right now the Bush administration has polarized America with his war agenda. Not only are we in an unjust war in Iraq, but there has been talk of military conflict with Iran as well (this would be a grave mistake). However, while we are killing in the middle-east we are neglecting other countries like the Sudan and Burma where vasts amounts of people are now left homeless, injured, orphaned, or dead (not to neglect the other 2 Billion people living on less than $2 a day). The world has seen our ugly foreign policy and our trampling of human rights in the middle-east and places like Guantanamo. Obama, I think, rightly associates the building and support of human rights not only because it is the right thing to do, but because as a result it will in turn make us more secure. If people aren't dying, if they have enough to eat, or even enough to live, they are less likely to harbor bitterness. Even more, America is even the cause of that bitterness in several instances. Jim Wallis writes in "God's Politics" that "the developed World will never be secure until the developing world also achieves some economic security." I think there is some truth found in that statement.
It is my hope that this kind of Politics becomes more evident. I hope that Obama's words are heard for what they are (Bill Richardson said something similar). I still think Clinton is unelectable. She may be ahead in the Democratic primaries but recent polls show that the vast majority of independents and republicans would not vote for her. On the other side, Obama holds the votes of more independents and even some moderate Republicans than any other candidate. Just words to think about.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Football and the Church
I read an article yesterday on Adrian Peterson. He's a running back for the Minnesota Vikings. He's actually having a tremendous season. Just last week he ran for an NFL record for most yards in a single game (296). He's on pace to break the single season rushing record set by Eric Dickerson in the 80's. There are already talks of him being the best running back in the NFL at this moment, which is quite an accomplishment for being in the same league as Ladanian Tomlinson. Oh yeah, Adrian Peterson is a rookie. This is his first year in the NFL. The article was about Peterson's vision. What does he see to make him break the tackles that he does? Many have remarked that Peterson's vision is much like the great Walter Payton's. He doesn't see the tacklers, he only sees the goal line. In other words, he doesn't focus on making mistakes so much as he focuses on the purpose.
I wonder if this isn't anything like the church. I am a part of a Monday night group that meets together for a meal. We're all younger married couples that bring a meal, share our time and lives, and we read and discuss the Bible or another book. We're working on a book by a guy named Kinlaw. He once was the President of Asbury. I am not a big fan of the premise of the book, "How every person can have the Mind of Christ." It sounds too much like one of those "if you follow this book then you too can be holy" kind of things. (7 Steps to your Best Life Now). The second chapter talks about the difference between doing right and being righteous. I found it odd that the criteria for doing right was abstaining from alcohol, drugs, sexual promiscuity, smoking, and the like. In other words, doing right is not doing wrong. It sounds to me like we try so hard on avoiding sin that we miss the joy of Christ. It kind of makes me think that perhaps "doing right" is not in the things that we need to avoid but in the things that we as a church don't seem to actually do.
Matthew 25 gives a clear picture of what God desires. This chapter talks about the final judgment in terms of what we did or did not do for the Kingdom of God. It is very clear that Kingdom is more concerned about loving the sick, the dying, the poor, the outcast, the prisoner, and the single mothers than it is about the dangers of social drinking. I hope that we can start focusing on these purposes, and the joy that comes from being part of the Kingdom, rather than constantly getting bogged down by avoiding sin. It seems like a healthier way to live.
I wonder if this isn't anything like the church. I am a part of a Monday night group that meets together for a meal. We're all younger married couples that bring a meal, share our time and lives, and we read and discuss the Bible or another book. We're working on a book by a guy named Kinlaw. He once was the President of Asbury. I am not a big fan of the premise of the book, "How every person can have the Mind of Christ." It sounds too much like one of those "if you follow this book then you too can be holy" kind of things. (7 Steps to your Best Life Now). The second chapter talks about the difference between doing right and being righteous. I found it odd that the criteria for doing right was abstaining from alcohol, drugs, sexual promiscuity, smoking, and the like. In other words, doing right is not doing wrong. It sounds to me like we try so hard on avoiding sin that we miss the joy of Christ. It kind of makes me think that perhaps "doing right" is not in the things that we need to avoid but in the things that we as a church don't seem to actually do.
Matthew 25 gives a clear picture of what God desires. This chapter talks about the final judgment in terms of what we did or did not do for the Kingdom of God. It is very clear that Kingdom is more concerned about loving the sick, the dying, the poor, the outcast, the prisoner, and the single mothers than it is about the dangers of social drinking. I hope that we can start focusing on these purposes, and the joy that comes from being part of the Kingdom, rather than constantly getting bogged down by avoiding sin. It seems like a healthier way to live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
