The Ordination Debate

In light of the debate in the church over the ordination of women, I think it is about time to give a few points off in the opposite direction. I saw this article online, and it was too good to pass up. [Please note the irony/sarcasm/humor, and do not take these to be my serious view of the issue.]

Therefore, without further ado: "10 Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained"

10. A man’s place is in the army.

9. The pastoral duties of men who have children might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent.

8. The physique of men indicates that they are more suited to such tasks as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do ministerial tasks.

7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.

6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football and basketball games demonstrates this.

5. Some men are handsome, and this will distract women worshipers.

4. Pastors need to nurture their congregations. But this is not a traditional male role. Throughout history, women have been recognized as not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.

3. Men are prone to violence. No really masculine man wants to settle disputes except by fighting about them. Thus they would be poor role models as well as dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.

2. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was betrayed by a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment remind us of the subordinated position that all men should take.

1. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep sidewalks, repair the church roof, and perhaps even lead the song service on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church.

Source 

Hermeneutics of "Stop"

I saw some time ago, but again today and was reminded of how much I like it. "Hermeneutics in Everyday Life" by Tim Perry, for your enjoyment :)


Suppose you're traveling to work and you see a stop sign. What do you do? That depends on how you exegete the stop sign.

1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (knocks it over with his car), ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.
3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn't take it too seriously, he doesn't feel obligated to take it too seriously either.
4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn't bother to read the sign but he'll stop if the car in front of him does.
5. A fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and waits for it to tell him to go.
6. A preacher might look up "STOP" in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean: 1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
7. An orthodox Jew does one of two things:
1) Take another route to work that doesn't have a stop sign so that he doesn't run the risk of disobeying the Law.
2) Stop at the stop sign, say "Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop," wait 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceed.
Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage: R[abbi] Meir says: He who does not stop shall not live long. R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding. R. Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. R. ben Isaac says: Because of the three patriarchs. R. Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says: "Be still, and know that I am God." R. Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign. R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: "Stop, father!" In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written: "Out of the mouth of babes." R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: "Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens." R. ben Nathan says: When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: "let them serve as signs." R. Yeshuah says: ... [continues for three more pages]
8. A Pharisee does the same thing as an orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.
9. A scholar from Jesus seminar concludes that the passage "STOP" undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
10. A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called "Q". There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar's commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunately omission in the commentary, however; the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
11. An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage "STOP". For example, "ST" contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas "OP" contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the "O" and the "P".
12. Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.
13. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar emends the text, changing "T" to "H". "SHOP" is much easier to understand in context than "STOP" because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because "SHOP" is so similar to "STOP" on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
14. A "prophetic" preacher notices that the square root of the sum of the numeric representations of the letters S-T-O-P (sigma-tau-omicron-pi in the Greek alphabet), multiplied by 40 (the number of testing), and divided by four (the number of the world--north, south, east, and west), equals 666. Therefore, he concludes that stop signs are the dreaded "mark of the beast," a harbinger of divine judgment upon the world, and must be avoided at all costs.

source

Praising God

I was thinking, just now: you know how people say 'oh, it's easy to praise God in the good times, but it's when times get tough that you really have to work at it'? Well, I'm not so sure that is a good way to think of it.

My life is amazing right now. It is easy to praise God. He is blessing me beyond what I could think or imagine, and yet my automatic reaction is, sadly, 'well, these are the good times ... will I still be able to praise Him when everything isn't falling into place quite so wonderfully?'

No! Why am I focusing on the times that it feels like the sky is so far away, instead of living in the moment and overflowing with thankfulness and praise to God? Must every moment in which God blesses me be tinged with the negative counter: just wait and see if it lasts. Absolutely not.

Should I be focused on the praise? Yes. Intentional? Certainly! But instead of thinking of it as a temporary state of gratefulness which I will soon remember only dimly from a black hole of separation, can I not instead just be thankful for how amazing God is? Wouldn't a better reaction, when overwhelmed with blessing, be to store up inside memories of thinking how wonderful God is, and what it feels like to not be able to stop thanking Him for being so wonderful?

This is pretty much something that I thought of less than 5 minutes ago, and decided to post. Thoughts?

St. Francis in 13th Century Culture

             In The Major Legend of St. Francis, Saint Bonaventure shows that St. Francis of Assisi led by example and that this example presented some solutions to the difficulties faced by 13^th Century culture. He does this through relating incidents in St. Francis’ life and the way he interacted with the culture surrounding him, allowing the stories to be the example. The solution to the difficulties comes from the example itself – Bonaventure is not too subtle in saying that St. Francis’ example needed only to be followed in order for positive change to be effected. There are several themes prominent in Bonaventure’s work under which St. Francis’ life can be organized.

The first thing that Bonaventure had to do was make sure his readers understood that St. Francis had a special calling from God and thus deserved attention. Bonaventure shows Francis as having a good heart even before his perfect conversion; a man with which God has something to work. His life before his conversion was relayed by Bonaventure as a time in which he “was ignorant of God’s counsel for him” (531). Since God wanted him for His work, though, He got Francis’ attention through affliction: “Because affliction can enlighten spiritual awareness, the hand of the Lord was upon him, and a change of the right hand of the Most High, afflicting his body with prolonged illness in order to prepare his soul for the anointing of the Holy Spirit” (531/2). This special calling from God was used by Bonaventure to show that Francis had a unique place in culture and that he was to be an example. Francis’ importance, Bonaventure was careful to show, was great enough that God used a special calling to get his attention and make sure that Francis would follow the path he had been called to follow.

Bonaventure was careful to show as well that Francis was a clear benefit to society. He did this through showing his compassion for others and willingness to help. His awareness of the needs of others was shown in his clothing of a knight - a double action of giving more dignity to a human as well as giving a noble man honor (532). In this action Francis showed both that he was compassionate and trying to do the will of God – which made him a good example. These were qualities that Bonaventure wanted to emphasize in writing his book. The economic structure was that of an emerging capitalist society – merchants were making money on trade, and the old-fashioned money gain from land and rents was harder for the nobility to maintain since people were moving to urban locations. The nobility were gradually impoverished, becoming men such as the knight Francis helped – men who were nobles and had lost both their money and their social status. Francis’ gift was not only one of clothing, but also of compassion to a man who was insecure in his current social status. This example showed a solution to the problem of social instability in uncertain times – show respect instead of disregard to others, even if they are not currently as fortunate as you.

The capitalist culture that faced Francis presented unique challenges. One of these was that there was a market focus, which did not much lend itself to ideas of a life of poverty such as Francis lived. Demanding poverty would have been detrimental to Francis’ success; a major asset to his work was Francis’ flexibility in his rule and allowance of people to live lives other than the one he lived without condemning them. While he felt that what he was doing was right for him, he never insisted that everyone else or even anyone else live exactly the way he lived – instead, he set the example of living according to his convictions (533), and was concerned only that everyone else lived according to their own convictions as well. The freedom this gave those who were attracted to his lifestyle allowed many people to become his followers while still maintaining their capitalist way of life. This was critical to the success of Francis’ influence. Had he been asking everyone to give up their way of life, his example would have been less palatable and he would have greatly diminished his effect. The result of his flexibility and insistence on personal relationship with God served the purpose of allowing others to feel free to follow his example, thus providing a solution to the difficulty of how to live a committed Christian life in an increasingly capitalist society.

Furthermore, in an increasingly individualistic society, Francis’ example was more than possible to follow – it was appealing. The idea of a personal relationship with God was one that was for the time – the urbanizing culture felt itself more and more independent of the others around them, and the people who were out of their rural communities for the first time were experiencing a new sense of identity as a very personal thing. As a ‘spiritual merchant’, Francis’ first step in ‘selling’ his example was making his life and actions results of personal decisions. He achieved this, and passed it on to those who listened to him and followed his example. In this way also, Bonaventure shows Francis as a solution difficulties arising in 13^th Century culture. The problem was the individualization of the urban society, the solution was a personal relationship with Christ to match the personal focus and keep the church centered in people’s lives. Francis is taking the way the merchants viewed the world and showing them how to hold this in a spiritual sense – telling them that they did not need to change everything about themselves in order to be acceptable to God. Instead of telling them to change everything about their lives, he told them that who they were as people was fine and only needed to be converted in order to be totally right. This again allowed many people to follow his example without asking that they follow his actions, and it was appealing enough that many people took him up on it.

His example in humility was particularly helpful in giving solutions to the difficulties faced by the culture. With so many people coming so recently from being poor and now in a position of power on level with or even above the noble classes, a lack of humility could be detrimental to social peace. Francis’ teaching to be humble was a solution to the problem of new class structure in society. He was not afraid to be honest and admit himself as the greatest of sinners (573) which showed great humility and was an example to those around him. This very humility would have kept Francis from bragging on his accomplishments as leader of a new order and trend in society. His success was that people adopted his ways of life – not that he became a popular leader (although that was certainly the way his ministry ended up, whether he was looking for it or not). He also did not fear rebuke and spoke freely to all, regardless of their station. He got away with all this since he was not a parish priest with the regular restrictions, and the pope saw that what he was doing was working as solutions to the problems faced by the church. His social position was vastly different from that of the established clergy, and one of the reasons is that he was not tied to the old traditions. Instead, he was able to move freely and set an example of a new kind of Christianity.

Francis’ piety gave him a great love for humanity and the created world, and set an example of how to treat others and the world. He felt a passion for humanity, as well as things non-human and created. He also felt particular compassion for urban people who were trying to live with authenticity, and spoke words of gentle critique for those who were trying to live his kind of life and were failing at it. However, his piety also helped him to see problems among other people, and gave him a great desire to fix those problems (588). He was deeply saddened by scandal and bad examples, seeing that bad examples caused people to be led astray. Bonaventure also shows that God reminded Francis that it was not his duty to make sure that the whole world was all in place, and Francis’ lesson from that was that piety is also knowing your own limits. Francis was set on fire by the perfect love that drives out fear, and taught by example that others should go assist people who need help since Christ loves them. This presented a solution to insensitivity in a culture that was disconnected from the normal ways of caring for others.

Bonaventure is careful to point out to his readers that they do not have to do exactly as Francis did in order to be in line spiritually. Instead, he portrays Francis’ example as notable on account of his fidelity to his beliefs, and makes the lesson about having a personal calling and following that calling wholeheartedly. From this, then, the example of Francis is clear and the solution to the instability in 13^th century culture is simply to follow God and to do what one knows to be the right thing to do. He was not giving a way to get out of responsibilities – that would not be a life of integrity and responsibility. Francis is advocating a life of connectedness and living fully within the life he has chosen. After deciding on a life, he taught, one should live it and live it with integrity. He did not approve of anyone who “did not put on a heart of piety and was not seasoned with the salt of discernment” (564). Living differently than Francis did was fine – being too austere and missing the point, or being too carefree and not holding to convictions, were both to be avoided.

Therefore, the example of Francis is shown as a solution by showing a way of life that others could follow. Bonaventure encourages his readers to take Francis’ life seriously as an example, but not to venerate Francis’ personal life as the only way to live. The point of Bonaventure’s writing was that Francis had a calling from God and fulfilled it to the best of his ability – that is the example Bonaventure wants to make sure his readers don’t miss. The solution that St. Francis presented to the problems faced by the culture was typically Franciscan: not a book, a rule, or a sermon, but a life lived; an example of humility, poverty, piety, and great love for the created world. The personal engagement with Christian faith and the natural world allowed the people of a new urban culture to find a place and establish a new society, one based on individualism and devotion. 

Dietrich Bonhoeffer!

What can we glean from the writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, especially his The Cost of Discipleship, about his political and social outlook? Can we say any more than the mere fact that he opposed Nazism?

Introduction

Dietrich Bonhoeffer did not only oppose Nazism; his political and social outlook was far more detailed. Far from a blanket resistance to the Nazi regime, Bonhoeffer struggled with questions such as the role of government, the duty of a believer to obey authority, nonviolence and nonresistance, and how to settle actions with conscience in times when there were conflicts between loyalties. What Bonhoeffer is known for is a (failed) assassination attempt on Hitler’s life, his arrest and imprisonment, and eventual execution. However, behind the man who decided that the best solution was murder was a man who was deeply religious and believed strongly that the duty of a Christian was to be peaceful, as he writes in his book The Cost of Discipleship: “‘‘Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.’’ The followers of Jesus have been called to peace. When he called them they found their peace, for he is their peace. But now they are told that they must not only have peace but make it. And to that end they renounce all violence and tumult.”[1] With this worldview in mind, then, it is worthwhile to look not only at what Bonhoeffer did, but also what he thought, in order to better understand the reasoning behind his actions.

On nonresistance

For a pacifist, an assassination attempt was a big step: one that required much thought, prayer, and a firm conviction that there was no better option and that something had to be done to stop Hitler. That Bonhoeffer judged the Nazi government guilty of being exceptionally bad is evident, since the theme of nonresistance is clearly present in his theology and writing. His book The Cost of Discipleship has long sections on the topic, stating his position in terms of morality and even of Christian obligation:

“The Christians are to know that if they would perceive and do the will of God, they must be content with the subordinate place accorded to them by the powers. They are bidden to be of good cheer: God himself will use the powers to work for their good, and his sovereignty extends even over the powers. …To resist the power is to resist the ordinance of God (διαταγᾔ τοῦ Θεοῦ), who has so ordered life that the world exercises dominion by force and Christ and Christians conquer by service. Failure to realize this distinction will bring a heavy judgment on the Christian … it will mean a lapse into the standards of the world.”[2]

The duty of the Christian is not to resist the government for his own purposes, but instead to obey the authorities and allow God to take care of the rest. He was committed “to renew the church in self-sacrificing service and to challenge it to relevance, even at the risk of its suppression by the civil authorities”,[3] and further encourages his readers through his reassurance that “By willing endurance we cause suffering to pass. Evil becomes a spent force when we put up no resistance. By refusing to pay back the enemy in his own coin, and by preferring to suffer without resistance, the Christian exhibits the sinfulness of contumely and insult. Violence stands condemned by its failure to evoke counter-violence.”[4] Thus far, it would seem that there was no room for the believer to resist the authorities.

Additionally, while realizing the importance of nonresistance in keeping peace, Bonhoeffer was also realistic enough to see that “Because the world is evil … the precept of no-resistance must be put into practice.… If we took the precept of non-resistance as an ethical blueprint for general application, we should indeed be indulging in idealistic dreams: we should be dreaming of a utopia with laws which the world would never obey. To make non-resistance a principle for secular life is to deny God, by undermining his gracious ordinance for the preservation of the world.”[5] To pretend that non-Christians should be following the same guidelines as Christians was nothing short of ludicrous – and so while not excusing his own readers from their responsibilities as Christians to be peaceful, he also made clear that they could not in turn expect the secular authorities to follow the same guidelines. This lifestyle is not without its benefits, though: “The cross is the only power in the world which proves that suffering love can avenge and vanquish evil. But it was just this participation in the cross which the disciples were granted when Jesus called them to him. They are called blessed because of their visible participation in his cross.”[6] In most situations, Bonhoeffer’s counsel was to not resist and to live in peace. He saw great benefits coming from such a lifestyle, and wanted to encourage others to follow it as well.

On obedience

Living in this state of nonresistance did not allow for rebellion; on the contrary, without obedience the point of not resisting would be missed. Bonhoeffer felt that the claim of a government on its citizens was very strong, which again shows that even though he ultimately worked against his government, the circumstances had to be truly extenuating in order to justify such an action. Instead, he believed that “The Christian is not obliged and not able to prove in every single case the right of the governmental demand. The duty of Christians to obey binds them up to the point where the government forces them into direct violation of the divine commandment, thus until government overtly acts contrary to its divine task and thereby forfeits its divine claim. When in doubt, obedience is demanded, for the Christian does not break the governmental responsibility.”[7]

The question of obedience to a secular government did not change the situation. “In exactly the same way in which obedience is called the consequence of faith, it must also be called the presupposition of faith”,[8] and without obedience the proper faith is therefore lacking. The problem, Bonhoeffer was telling his readers, was not that they needed a different government, but more faith that God would get them through the situation. To show this point he uses Scripture, noting that “[In Romans 13:4], St. Paul is talking to the Christians, not to the State. His concern is that the Christians should persevere in repentance and obedience wherever they may be and whatever conflict should threaten them. He is not concerned to excuse or condemn any secular power. … St. Paul certainly does not speak to the Christians in this way because the governments of this world are so good, but because the Church must obey the will of God, whether the State be bad or good.”[9] The point for obedience, then, is very strongly made that a Christian has an ethical obligation to obey the authorities.

On conscience

This position of obedience, however, proved to be difficult to maintain. Bonhoeffer found it impossible to reconcile his conscience with doing nothing to oppose the Nazis. While he did have these strong convictions about government and authority, he also felt the pull of morals and ethics, and the ideology of the Nazis he saw as being not only dangerous, but wrong. His political outlook was shaped by his conscience, and in this case, he found himself in a situation that could not be won by one man against so many, but also unable to let his conscience rest until he did something about the situation.

“For Bonhoeffer nothing less than the truth of the gospel was at stake in the confrontation with Hitler. Bethge observes that Bonhoeffer’s famous radio address in 1933, which criticized the Führer concept, was not based on liberal democratic ideas, but rather reflected Bonhoeffer’s concern with authority. According to Bonhoeffer, in the past, leadership was expressed through the office of the teacher, the statesman, and the father, but now the “Leader” has become an end in himself. When leadership was based on office, leadership required commitment to standards that were public and therefore capable of some rational justification. But the new leadership is based on choice, answering to nothing other than its own self-justification.”[10]

The mission he felt as a Christian to do something to oppose the Nazi regime was stronger than the beliefs of nonviolence and obedience to government that he held. Those convictions were the rules by which he lived, but the place he got those convictions was his Christian faith. Since his allegiance was primarily to God and that informed the rest of his beliefs, when he felt God’s call to do something rather different there was no question of if he should do it or not. Normal scruples aside, his primary task was to follow God’s direction and he felt clearly led to resist the Nazis – so he did.

On the role of government

Bonhoeffer had a lot to say about government, its structure, and the duty of a Christian to obey the government. He believed strongly that “Through an ethical failure [government] does not … lose eo ipso its divine dignity”.[11] Therefore, even though he believed that what the Nazis were doing was wrong (particularly in reference to their anti-Semitism), that belief did not justify an outright rebellion against the government. Instead, “Bonhoeffer’s belief in Christ’s centrality to brotherhood and sisterhood in a world community freed to transcend racial, religious, and national divisions led him into the anti-Hitler conspiracy”.[12] His actions did not come from a personal belief that he could get something out of overthrowing Nazism, but from Christian conviction in what was right to do as a member of the Church. That is one thing that caused him to work against the Nazis, even though he did have this belief that it was wrong to oppose authority. His actions arose from a belief that it would be more wrong to not oppose the government.

The decision to defy the Nazi German authorities was not an easy one for him to make, and he realized full well that it would be a dangerous decision – and indeed it was, as he “became part of the Holocaust, not, to be sure, in the same sense as did the six million innocent Jews, but as one who shared their fate because he resisted their oppressors and did so with the awareness that no non-Jew in Germany could dissociate himself from the guilt of the Nazi terror.”[13] However, he also realized that there was much more to the situation than a simple dislike of a governmental policy; this was an issue of making a historical statement in order to show protest for a particular regime that he felt was violating Christian principles. That he did not see this to be an easy decision, though, can be seen by his writing: “The refusal to obey within a specific historical political decision of the government, as well as this decision itself, can only be a venture of one’s own responsibility. A historical decision cannot be completely incorporated into ethical concepts. There is one thing left: the venture of action.”[14] This action in Bonhoeffer’s case was an assassination attempt, but the decision was neither impulsive nor irrational. Instead, it was the result of a moral and ethical conviction that it would be more wrong to not oppose Hitler than to continue in peace with the Nazi state. Even so, Bonhoeffer specifically noted that the church “must not condemn wars in general. It must condemn this war.”[15] The principles behind his belief had not changed, and he was very clear that what he was doing was an exception instead of a new theology. He remained a pacifist and worked to restore peace instead of calling himself a pacifist and doing nothing to bring peace.

One way in which he saw ethical justice could be achieved was through Christian intervention, but he also saw this as being acceptable only in very extreme cases. “Put[ing] a spoke in the wheel, the direct political action of the church’, was left for that last and extreme case when the church in fact saw the state unrestrainedly bring about too much or too little law and order. Bonhoeffer was convinced that this instance in which the church had to abandon its own task and take on that of another was ... unique.”[16] The situation in 1943 fit his criteria of an extreme case, allowing him to act in a way otherwise not in accordance with his pacifist principles. He certainly did not believe that there was anything wrong with having a state that was not specifically Christian, in fact he believed that “the concept of the Christian state is … untenable, for the governmental character of the state is independent of the Christian character of persons in government.”[17] Furthermore, he saw government as being “established and ordained by God alone”.[18] For this reason, the idea of rebelling against a government was akin to rebelling against God, which is self-evidently not desirable. “Government is not itself world, but of God”[19] he wrote, showing just how strongly he felt on nonresistance toward the government. To rebel against a government is to rebel against God’s chosen agent here on earth, which to the believer ought not to be an option. For this reason he was very careful in his approach, so that no one would mistake his actions or motives but understand clearly that they stemmed from his religious convictions. His belief in the duty of the believer to uphold government was not being undermined by his decision to join the resistance, but instead he used his actions to show just how important he thought the situation was. By working counter to the government, he was making clear that he thought the case was exceptionally bad and that added weight to the situation that would not have been felt had he only spoken words of resistance.

Conclusion

Bonhoeffer’s political and social views are apparent not only in his writings, but also in what others have written about him. Far above a simple opposition to Nazism, Bonhoeffer struggled with the balance between obedience to authority and following his Christian convictions regarding social justice. In this sense, the two oppose each other – his political views of non-resistance and pacifism collide with his Christian beliefs. There are many facets to his convictions, some of the strongest being nonresistance and obedience to authority – countered with conscience and Christian belief.

In writing of this difficulty, Bonhoeffer gives his conclusion on how to settle the question of how to live: be “the man whose final standard is not his reason, his principles, his conscience, his freedom, or his virtue, but who is ready to sacrifice all this when he is called to obedience and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God – the responsible man, who tries to make his whole life an answer to the question and call of God”[20] He is not making the claim that this path will be easy, but that it is the only way to live. That is the way even a man who was so conflicted about the way to live as both a pacifist and a Christian in a world of injustice was able to decide to partake in an assassination plot: he felt the call of God to do something, and acted upon it. The consequences were not an obstacle: he believed that “To endure the cross is not a tragedy; it is the suffering which is the fruit of an exclusive allegiance to Jesus Christ. When it comes, it is not an accident, but a necessity. It is not the sort of suffering which is inseparable from this mortal life, but the suffering which is an essential part of the specifically Christian life.”[21] Although he felt called to go against the government and as a result suffered in this world, he did not see this as something unusual but instead gladly suffered for Christ, knowing that what he was doing was the right thing.

If there was one motto through which these many parts of theology all come together, it would be found in The Cost of Discipleship, written to show believers exactly that the Christian life should not be expected to be easy or painless, but must be pursued with absolute devotion. “If the world refuses justice,” Bonhoeffer writes, “the Christian will pursue mercy”[22] What he saw in Germany in 1943 was the world refusing justice, and as a Christian, he saw no other option but to show that his ultimate allegiance was to God and pursue mercy in the best way he knew how.

Bibliography:

D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: SCM Press Ltd, 1959).

D. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 16, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 1940-1945, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006).

D. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1953).

S. Hauerwas, Performing the Faith Bonhoeffer and the Practice of Nonviolence (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004).

G.B. Kelley, Liberating Faith: Bonhoeffer’s Message for Today (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984).

A.J. Klassen, A Bonhoeffer Legacy (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company 1981).

K. Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich, Volume One: 1918-1934 (London: SCM Press Ltd, 1977).


[1] D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 112.
[2] D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 261.
[3] G.B. Kelley, Liberating Faith, p. 20.
[4] D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 142.
[5] ibid., p. 144.
[6] ibid., pp. 144-145.
[7] D. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 16, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 1940-1945, pp. 516-517.
[8] D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 64.
[9] ibid., p. 262.
[10] S. Hauerwas, Performing the Faith, pp. 60-61.
[11] D. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 16, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 1940-1945, p. 513.
[12] G.B. Kelley, p. 15.
[13] A.J. Klassen, A Bonhoeffer Legacy, p. 161.
[14] D. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 16, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 1940-1945, p. 518.
[15] G.B. Kelley, p. 22.
[16] D. Bonhoeffer, No Rusty Swords, London and New York: 1970, 217-25: qtd. K. Scholder, The Churches and the Third Reich, Volume One: 1918-1934 pp. 276-277.
[17] D. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Volume 16, Conspiracy and Imprisonment: 1940-1945, p. 510.
[18] ibid., p. 510.
[19] ibid..
[20] D. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, p. 5.
[21] D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, p. 88.
[22] ibid., p. 258.

Spring at Houghton!

I think this post might actually be a life update! I wrote a paper last night, but I haven't decided if it's of general interest/if I should post it or not, so for now I'm going with what has gone on of late.

It has been absolutely gorgeous here. And at Houghton in the spring, that means going for walks, playing frisbee, sitting on the chapel steps and eating ice cream, (and if you're me) taking pictures of it. Here are a couple:

In case you couldn't tell, it's pretty much the same view (chapel and the quad), except one is at night (I hope you could tell that).

Overlooking one of the waterfalls

Do not ever overestimate the maturity of honors students in college :p

We were playing kung fu ... 

These were from Letchworth last year, but we're planning to go there this Saturday and I don't have pictures from anything lately. 

Other items of interest: 

- While in canoeing class today, I fell in the lake. [It was ... moderately warm ... I mean cool ...]

- I was re-elected Commissioner of Communications for Student Government. I made up a powerpoint slide as a part of my campaign, and it was a whole lot of fun. 

Yeah ... it's cheesy ... I know ... but I had fun making it, and it might make more sense if you know that our school mascot is highlander. =) And lest you think I have no gravity whatsoever, I did in fact add a rather long email beneath it, saying 'anyone unconvinced can read this' and gave my serious reasons for why I should be re-elected. Oh, so much fun :D

Oh, and this is our erstwhile student senate ... well, it was the goofy picture, they can be serious ... sometimes ... :)

On a different note:

This morning's chapel was very good. The speaker, Mr. Gordon MacDonald, spoke not on continuing education, which we hear about all the time, or higher education (the uppity way of saying college), but 'deeper education'. He said that he learned 4 things about this deeper education that helped him to become a better person:

- Be a good listener (don't just say 'how are you' and keep walking - really care about people and take time to listen)

- Be thankful (notice good in others and encourage them; it gives a much more positive outlook on life both for you and for the other person)

- Be reliable (don't be late to things, if you say you'll be somewhere, be there)

- Be a real friend (this kind of summarizes the others, but remember that the way you treat your friends and those around you defines the way you treat relationships in life, so if you know that you have to work on patience, kindness, etc, friends are great experience)

Hope y'all got something out of that ... it was definitely one of the better chapel talks I have heard! 

---

And now, I feel totally successful and accomplished and can't believe I really am just blogging and that this didn't take me an hour to write! Maybe I should do it more often :) Senate in half an hour ... it's a good life =)

Did the church Christianise society in the fourth century, or was it merely compromised by its alliance with the state?

Introduction

The fourth century was a time of political and social unrest, as the western Roman Empire was taken over by a quick succession of military leaders (one of the better-known being Constantine). In those politically tumultuous times, there was additionally a very important social change going on – the change from a largely pagan society with a small minority of Christians to a society in which the mandatory state religion was Christianity and paganism was being persecuted by the Christians who had so lately been the ones being persecuted. However, the Christianity of the late fourth century had not transformed the Roman culture; instead it had adapted itself to fit the mold of Roman society. This had required some change in Roman doctrine (such as moving from a pantheon of gods to a monotheistic religion), but the greater change was in Christian theology.

Christian philosophy adopted Greek methods of thought and explanations of doctrine through the rise of the apologists. “The Christian Apologists were a new breed of converts … [who] had known the advantages and privileges of citizenship, even of power, in the empire. They were well-educated, professional, acquainted with the subtleties of Greek philosophy.”[1] The Christianity developing in the fourth century was not the Christianity of the Early Church but instead a new kind of Christianity: one that had adapted to the culture it found itself so unexpectedly ruling. The Roman Empire was a culture in which newly converted pagans were attempting to fit their lifestyles into their new religion; a culture that for centuries had placed reliance on virtue and thought and tradition, and was now being heavily influenced by a monotheistic religion. Instead of transforming every aspect of their lives, these pagans – some of the most influential being Roman aristocrats who just wanted to keep the Emperor’s favor and their wealthy lifestyle – adapted those parts of their life which were absolutely necessary for conversion to the accepted religion, went through a hasty catechumenate, and stepped into their new religion to keep the peace just as Romans had done for the last thousand years. At all costs, the Pax Romana must be kept – and if this involved an allegiance to a new god, it certainly was not the first time Romans had done such a thing. The fact that this time it was Christianity did not mean that the nature of Roman society had changed all that much.

Christian and Roman societies

The early Christian church, beginning in a provincial part of the Roman Empire and quickly spreading throughout the Mediterranean world, did not at first glance have much to set it apart from any number of other mystery cults which were currently flourishing in the Empire. Pagans viewed these mystery cults with suspicion on account of their closed-door practices, but the idea of Pax Deorum – the peace of the gods – was enough for most Romans to simply ignore other religions. There were notable exceptions, and the names of some of the emperors who did execute heavy persecutions are well known. For the most part, though, the attitude of the Roman government and people can be summarized in Pliny the Younger’s letter to Trajan and the emperor’s reply: essentially, so long as the Christians were not causing trouble and threatening a disturbance of the peace, there was no need to actively hunt them down. Peace was the main concern, not any kind of ideological warfare against a certain belief.[2]

Christianity’s monotheism was viewed with suspicion and fear of danger that this religion would break down the standards of civilization and push for something that was not only unhealthy for society but would also harm the structure established in tradition and excite the wrath of the gods. “The old polytheism was somehow built into the fabric of society, and to challenge it could sound dangerously like revolution and a loosening of the bonds of custom and morality.”[3] The fact that Roman society was pagan should not be taken in any way to mean that they were non-religious; on the contrary the Romans were deeply religious and took the utmost care that they not anger the gods or do anything that might cause the breakdown of the success of Rome – believed by many to be a sign of the favor of the gods.

The culture even during the reign of Diocletian was becoming infiltrated with Christians: “the traditional pagan governing class … [was] in danger of being outbid by the new, ‘middle-brow’ culture of the Christian bishops, whose organizing power and adaptability had been proved conclusively in the previously generation [during the persecutions]”.[4] Yet even in at this time, before Christianity was legalized, the focus was still on keeping peace – the emperor Diocletian, for instance, was a “sincere … Roman traditionalist; yet he ruled for nineteen years without giving a thought to the Christians”[5] The philosophy of the Greek world was finding ways to express itself that were compatible with the new religion that was slowly taking root.[6] The laid back attitude of this culture allowed Christianity to take root and flourish, since it was not a society that strongly held to a certain exclusive ideology. So long as one group’s religion did not threaten another, there was not a problem and certainly no need to cause a fuss that might disturb the gods. “In the fourth century, there were many families … for whom the ‘crisis’ of the third century had meant little, and the conversion of Constantine nothing.”[7]

Christianity was legalized in the Empire under Constantine, who had found “a new and powerful God, who had favoured him [;]… at all costs Constantine [believed he] must keep on the right side of Him. Anything which would upset the proper worship of this ultra-powerful deity could not be tolerated.”[8] Later, in the Theodosian Code, the Emperor Theodosius shows this lingering mentality, even in a society where Christianity was being made the only, compulsory religion: “There shall be no opportunity for any man to go out to the public and to argue about religion or to discuss it or to give any counsel. If any person hereafter, with flagrant and damnable audacity, should suppose that he may contravene any law of this kind or if he should dare to persist in his action of ruinous obstinacy, he shall be restrained with a due penalty and proper punishment.”[9] And so the pagans, while objecting to the things about Christianity that they thought would cause the gods to be angry with them and therefore sporadically persecuting the Christians, did it not out of a certain malice but instead for a measure of protection, as if to prove that they really were trying to keep the peace.  “One of Constantine’s main aims [after his conversion] was to see that the Empire and the imperial dynasty continued to receive God’s blessing”[10] –a clear continuation of Roman tradition and not specifically Christian as much as it was a play for military success, which success was imperative if Constantine was to keep his throne.

Beginnings of absorption of culture

As is the case with all humans, the people who lived in the fourth century Roman world and their religious convictions were a part of their culture. “The ruler worship of the ancient world did not cease with Constantine’s conversion. It was transmuted into the liturgical homage the Church accorded Christian emperors. If Christ became an Emperor, emperors and kings were invested with divine Grace. There was no clear separation of the divine and human spheres.”[11] Constantine set the trend for Christianity to be the replacing religion, giving the traditional religious gifts to Christian basilicas instead of pagan temples, gifts to bishops instead of priests, etc[12] – and accepting Christianity, at least as a religion, if not necessarily the only one. This integration of Christianity into everyday life – not a transformation or conquest, but a morphing of culture into a Romanized Christianity – was a new practice adopted by Constantine and copied widely after him by those who wanted to maintain his favor. Christianity was incorporated all throughout the society and into the upper classes in ways that looked strikingly Roman; by the late fourth century “the Catholic Church had taken on the sharp contours of a closed aristocracy … treating themselves as a superior elite”[13] just as the church under Constantine and afterwards was increasingly an experiment to see what happened when a religion that was not set up to lead a government, much less an empire, was suddenly the predominant (and later compulsory) religion.[14]

Integration of theology and philosophy

One of the first things that had to happen in order for this development to take place was that the basics of philosophy had to match up with the theology of the accepted religion. “Many of the existing cultural and social forms and customs had to be adapted, and they transformed only very gradually.”[15] It would not do to have the majority of the people believing that there was a pantheon of gods who were looking after them (or out to get them) while citing a religion that had only one God. Philosophers set to work tweaking philosophy to fit this new religion – again, making the entire transition as smooth as possible; no need to be complicated and disturb social order.[16]

With state favor on the Christian religion, the people who still wanted government handouts were increasingly drawn to this new religion – but they were still Romans too. There was a rise of Christian thinkers for the purpose of holding the civilization and theology together, modification of Christian thought by influence of Greek philosophy, and a general metamorphosis of the Mediterranean culture from a pagan culture dominating and an underground Christian culture spreading to one civilized culture that could take the elements of classical philosophy and combine them with Christian thought.

Resulting culture

The culture that sprang from this kind of thought was one that had not fused two distinct lines of thought together, but one that had drawn on the cultural, political, religious, and social factors present in the fourth century and created a new culture. This new combination was Christian in name and individually had many sincere believers, but as a whole consisted of people who only knew Roman culture as a culture and who had no concept of what kind of life they would have if it wasn’t for being Roman and Christian together. Even before Christianity was legalized, the ‘Great Persecution’ starting in 302 was a ‘brutal shock’ to Christians who suddenly “found themselves officially outcastes in the society with which they had so strenuously identified themselves”.[17] The thought of discontinuing being Roman on account of becoming a Christian was a preposterous idea – unlike the Early Church, which saw Rome as being the center of all evils, the fourth-century Christians simply saw Rome as being the capital of their citizenship, the historic place where the center of the world had stood for a thousand years.[18] The Christian bishops had had an aristocratic education – indeed, many were of the senatorial class or other wealthy, and elite people[19] – and reasoned both their faith and their giving like Romans. It would be a great injustice to the culture and beliefs of the people involved to claim that the fact that these converts were Roman did not influence the way they practiced and lived out their faith. On the other hand, the influence that Christianity had on the culture was more a redirection of wealth than a cultural revolution.[20]

While there certainly were concessions that were made from the Romans, the major differences that came about were changes on the side of the Christians. An important one was on the issue of military violence – Christians initially “were not allowed to shed blood or torture anyone even when under orders. The same held true for Christians in the position of judges…. when society became almost wholly Christianized on the surface, it became inevitable and acceptable that Christians should assume all the burdens of law-and-order enforcement, including the use of violence on behalf of the safety of the empire, as long as the war could be considered morally justified and was conducted without barbarism”.[21] In a culture that consisted increasingly of professing Christians, something had to change in either governmental structure or else religious practice – and in a situation concerning military and judicial rule, it was religion that changed.

Conclusion

The Greco-Roman culture in which Christianity originated was a pagan society accustomed to adapting to whatever the most acceptable, profitable religion was as a  part of civilized life (since this was during the period of the end of the Empire and the early Roman virtues were waning). Once the emperor Constantine began showing particular favor to Christians, it was in the best interests of the rest of the aristocrats in power to follow along with the religion to get the benefits. The changes that were made in fourth-century Rome toward Christianity had threads of Christianizing society, but were primarily social forms. The pagans became Christians, but the church changed. Originally, there were small churches with closed congregations that met to strengthen and support one another. Now, floods of pagans came to large state basilicas led by bishops (aristocrats) who were looking for state approval from the rest of their culture, just as they always had. The changes in appearance of Christian philosophy in the fourth century reflects this transition, as converted philosophers attempted to justify the transition of Roma Aeterna into a Christian society. It was imperative for public image that it not appear that Rome had been wrong all along, and the issue of the favor of the gods had to be worked out and smoothed over. Therefore, while some of the vocabulary of the fourth century was Christianized, the major influence was in the other direction as the Christian-State alliance changed the way the Church functioned in society. As far as society was concerned, the vocabulary and some traditions changed – but the church as a state religion looked very different than the church as a persecuted religion, and thus Christianity was more compromised by the merging of societies than the Roman state.

Bibliography

Brown, P. (1971). The World of Late Antiquity. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

Chadwick, H. (1993). The Early Church. London: Penguin Books.

Cunningham, A. (1982). The Early Church and the State. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Fousek, M.S. (1971). The Church in a Changing World. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Hillgarth, J.N. (1986). Christianity and Paganism, 350-750. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Smith, M.A. (1976). The Church Under Siege. Leicester: Intervarsity Press.

Westcott, B.F. (1909). The Two Empires. London: MacMillan and Co.

---

[1] A. Cunningham, The Early Church and the State, p. 9.

[2] B.F. Westcott, The Two Empires, pp. 56-57.

[3] H. Chadwick, The Early Church, p. 152.

[4] P. Brown, The World of Late Antiquity. p. 86.

[5] ibid..

[6] ibid., p. 21.

[7] ibid., pp. 115-116.

[8] M.A. Smith, The Church Under Siege, pp. 23-24.

[9] Qtd. J.N. Hillgarth, Christianity and Paganism, 350-750, p. 47.

[10] M.A. Smith, p. 24.

[11] J.N. Hillgarth, p. 89.

[12] M.S. Fousek, The Church in a Changing World, p. 14.

[13] P. Brown, p. 116.

[14] M.S. Fousek, p. 13.

[15] ibid., p. 16.

[16] ibid., p. 17.

[17] P. Brown, p. 86.

[18] M.S. Fousek, p. 18.

[19] H. Chadwick, p. 154.

[20] P. Brown, p. 44.

[21] M.S. Fousek, p. 22.