A bit off the beaten track

We were in a Mennonite bookstore a few weeks ago—there are quite a few around here (we're in the middle of Mennonite/Amish country in this part of Indiana)—and I picked up an interesting little book that I'll be excerpting here for a bit. Here's the first snippet:

“Jesus was the center of the early church; all she did, all she taught was rooted in Him. He was her living Truth.

“The practice of the early church, then, was rooted in the practice of Jesus, and central to His practice was the bearing of the cross.

“When Jesus spoke of men becoming His disciples, He spoke without fail of being willing to take up the cross. The impact of this action certainly was no known until after Jesus' death; but when once the reality of the cross was made plain, taking up the cross became the characterizing life-purpose of the believers.—Love and Nonresistance, page 78

<idle musing>
Anabaptists are big on transformation and radical discipleship—see Scot McKnight's post today for a good summary of Anabaptist beliefs.

I've been a pacifist since I became a Christian almost 40 years ago. Before that I was more on the radical side of things. And not at all adverse to the use of force to see my ideas put in place. That was one of the first things God changed in me. But, I have to admit that I never explored the "nonresistance" option as opposed to pacifism. In truth, I didn't know there was a difference—and maybe there isn't. But, this author makes a case for the distinction. And, if that distinction is valid, then I would have to say that I am in the nonresistance crowd, not the pacifist crowd.

I don't buy his "two-kingdoms" model, though. I just don't see the distinction between secular and sacred the way he does. I suspect that is a hang-on from the Germanic Lutheran roots of some Anabaptists. But, if you throw away that, the book is very good—but you will be able to judge a bit more for yourself in the next week or two as I excerpt from it...
</idle musing>

About those assassination attempts...

[I]t is highly unlikely that Bonhoeffer was involved in any assassination attempts. Chapter 3 explored Bonhoeffer’s work in the Abwehr, the military intelligence agency, and discussed in some detail the five assassination attempts between 1938 and 1944 that are most relevant to Bonhoeffer’s life. It should be clear from these discussions that Bonhoeffer had no involvement in any of them.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 224

<idle musing>
As much as I would like to believe them, I can't overthrow the testimony of Bethge...I have to agree with Roger Olson on this one (and against Scot McKnight).

That being said, I believe that he never gave up on his pacifist beliefs (in line with the authors). His Ethics is full of it—but it is also full of the nature of what it means to live in a fallen world and take on that fallenness in a redemptive way.

In the end, I think Nation, et al., are wrong about Bonhoeffer's involvement, but correct that he never gave up on pacifism and God's power. A paradox, indeed. And who isn't full of paradoxes? I think the way out of this paradox is Just Peacemaking. It certainly helped me in my stand on pacifism. Only now I would call it nonresistance, based on my reading of Love and Nonresistance a few years back.

Long way around to say that Bonhoeffer, for all his faults and frailties, was a follower of Christ, doing what he thought was faithful to Christ in a difficult world. Would that we were half as faithful...
</idle musing>

Pacifism is not passivity

Pacifism isn’t quietism or withdrawal or inactivity, and it isn’t simple submission. Pacifism’s root is connected to the peacemaking beatitude, rooted in love and expressed when the follower of Jesus actively seeks peace. Pacifism isn’t a lack of interest or noninvolvement, but the hard work of seeking peace. Pacifism is nonviolent resistance, not nonresistance. What Jesus teaches his followers to do illustrates the sort of pacifism he advocates: turn the other cheek, surrender even more clothing, go the extra mile, lend and do not charge interest or require a payment back. Hardly the stuff of the inactive. These acts subvert the Roman system.— Sermon on the Mount, pages 131-132

<idle musing>
Hmmm...I agree wholeheartedly with this but wonder, did Jesus teach pacifism or nonresistance? I ask this on the basis of this book that I read in 2012 and excerpted from at that time.
</idle musing>

The place of Christ and the Christian

“We are now under Christ in every way. He is our Lord supreme, so that to come into the church is to take up a sacred vow of subjection to His authority. Joining the church is not simply a matter of water on the head or a signature in a register or a raised hand. To join the church of Jesus Christ is to espouse oneself; it is to lay down all our maiden names for that one Name; it is to vow to set all plans and thoughts and affections upon a coming union with Him; it is to pour one's whole soul into the full confession of Christ, the Son of God.

“Jesus is Lord of the church—the exclusive Lord. To flirt after another or to receive contrary advice is to play the harlot. The words of our Lord, therefore, come to us as our highest calling. His Word is the final word, His voice our greatest authority. To be a member of His church is to make His thought our motives, His commands our actions, His values our guiding ethics.

“In Jesus the church finds its mind, its will, and its pleasure. To be otherwise minded is to pervert the sacred trust of intellect. To be contrary willed is to debase the sacred power of choice. The be otherwise fulfilled and delighted is to prostitute the holy capacity of joy. The church, therefore, finds her most profound knowledge when she takes on the mind of Christ. She finds her highest freedom in full submission and obedience to the will of Christ. And she finds her most sacred emotional stirrings in the discovery and adoration of His great heart of love.”—,John Coblentz, Love and Nonresistance: God's Plan for the Church, pages 57-58

<idle musing>
A very nice summary of the place of Christ in the life of a Christian—and the role of the church in the plan of Christ.
</idle musing>

Transformation

“Professed Christianity, Christianity that is not like Christ, Christianity that is no longer based on inner transformation is void of power, void of effect, and therefore void of any worth. It is fit for nowhere but under foot. Cast it away. It is worse than refuse; it is reprobate.”—John Coblentz, in Love and Nonresistance, page 131

<idle musing>
It certainly is. But, we don't need to settle for less; Christ is the one who transforms us. We don't do it ourselves; we allow the Holy Spirit to do it in us. Why settle for empty formalities when you can have the real thing?
</idle musing>

Cross-bearing in the US

“In a land of freedom and prosperity, the Biblical concept of cross-bearing is easily lost. We find it easy to become attached to our possessions, to love a good reputation, to relish the satisfaction of ease and pleasure. The cross of Jesus certainly does not call us to create loss, shame, or persecution, but it stands all contrary to worldly gain, worldly praise, and worldly pleasure. Persecution is never pleasant, but it has never been such a threat to the existence of the church as the world's smile, the world's goods, and the world's pleasures have been; and that church in freedom whose cross is but a sentimental emblem will surely fall prey to the friendship of the world.

“There are lands where the blood of cross-bearing flows freely. Should that arm of hatred and persecution ever extend to our land, it would likely find the church at large woefully un-Christlike in its response. Now is the time to hold up the cross in its entirely. Whether the world holds us in shame or superficial honor, whether it inflicts suffering or is tolerant, whether it takes our possessions or tempts us with affluence and pleasure, the church must be moved by none of these things. She must embrace the cross of her Lord with joy and with the willingness to withstand either hatred or flirtation, to suffer trial or temptation. This is her delight, her calling, and her ethical standard.”—Love and Nonresistance, page 80

<idle musing>
Amen! Deuteronomy warns the Israelites against forgetting YHWH when they prosper. Would that we hearkened here in the U.S.!
</idle musing>

Suffering willingly

“At the cross believers were transformed. In its light they received the wisdom of God. And they purposed upon their confession of faith to identify in the suffering and shame of the One who had died there for their sins. The cross became the symbol of the life-governing ethics of the new way. When, for their faith, believers lost their possessions, their inheritances, their families, or their reputation, they associated all such loss with their identification with the cross of Christ, and they counted it not loss but gain, not sorrow but joy. Earthly loss for their faith in Christ meant dying with Him, and therefore gave them solid hope for resurrection with Him.

“To suffer willingly, to receive insult without retaliation, to lose possessions without resistance—this was not heroic action by traditional Jewish standards. To the Jews the resister was the hero, the one who never gave up; who even under Roman rule was indomitable. The Romans held a similar value. Though separated from the Jews by race, culture, and social standards, with the Jew they believed in honor by the exercise of physical strength and force. Taking up the cross, meaning being willing to suffer wrong, was therefore a shame in the eyes of both the Jews and the Romans. To both cultures the Christians became the offscouring of humanity, the contemptible sect; in Jesus' predictive words, the 'hated for my name's sake.'”—Love and Nonresistance, pages 78-79

<idle musing>
Wow. There's a lot of good stuff there to digest... I especially like this: "...with the Jew they believed in honor by the exercise of physical strength and force." Not much has changed in 2000 years, except now we can substitute "American culture" for "the Romans."
</idle musing>

Prevenient Grace

I'm finally getting around to reading Arminian Theology by Roger Olson. I will be dropping quotes here from it every now and then.

I found one statement very interesting; he claims that most evangelical preaching, even by supposed Calvinists, is actually semi-pelagian. Interesting claim, but he backs it up with quotes from sermons that I'm sure we've all heard: "You take the first step and God will meet you." and other ones like that. As if we can do anything without God's prevenient (Latin, coming before) grace. Here's a great quote from the book:

...prevenient grace does not interfere with the freedom of the will. It does not bend the will or render the will's response certain. It only enables the will to make the free choice to either cooperate with or resist grace. Cooperation does not contribute to salvation, as if God does part and humans do part; rather cooperation with grace in Arminian theology is simply nonresistance to grace. It is merely deciding to allow grace to do its work by laying down all attempts at self-justification and self-purification, and admitting that only Christ can save...Arminianism holds that salvation is all of grace—every movement of the soul toward God is initated by divine grace... Arminian Theology, page 36.

To what extent Christian?

“When Christianity ceases to insist on a transformed nature, it no longer sees worldly indulgence and worldly love as sinful. And this being true, we must admit the antithesis as well. When we begin to feel at home in this world, when we begin to judge our comfort, our happiness, our wealth, our education, and our tastes by the same standards as this world's, we cease to be Christian.”—Love and Nonresistance, page 129

<idle musing>
All we have to do is look around us...there is no difference; the church has compromised to the point that it looks to politics to solve soul problems. How sad...the power of the Holy Spirit is replaced with the power of the ballot box and lobbyist. Prayer meetings are dying because people don't expect answers to prayer. "Pray about it" is used as a joke instead of a true admonition.
</idle musing>

Good stuff

I've been woefully behind in mentioning a few books that I've received recently. I won't have time to read them for at least another month. Between the cabins, getting the garden ready for winter, and editing/proofreading work, and sneaking a hike or two in, there isn't much time left for reading.

Anyway, a long, long, long time ago (July, I think), Adrianna from InterVarsity Press sent me a copy of Atonement and a copy of Incarnation by T.F. Torrance. I'm really looking forward to reading these...look for snippets to begin appearing later this fall.

Much more recently—in fact, just last week—Bobby K. from Hendrickson Publishers sent me a copy of Unholy Allegiances by David deSilva. This looks really good. Here's part of the blurb on the book:

This is a truly unique book that studies Revelation by (1) stating the context in which it was written (Roman Asia in the first century), (2) noting why John wrote what he did to the church, and (3) powerfully applying John’s message to the church today. It is concisely written and carries a genuine spiritual message.

And, earlier this week, Jeremy from Baker Academic sent me a copy of Bonhoeffer the Assassin?. This one piqued my interest when I saw it in the Baker catalog earlier this year. Here's the blurb from the book:

Most of us think we know the moving story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's life--a pacifist pastor turns anti-Hitler conspirator due to horrors encountered during World War II--but does the evidence really support this prevailing view? This pioneering work carefully examines the biographical and textual evidence and finds no support for the theory that Bonhoeffer abandoned his ethic of discipleship and was involved in plots to assassinate Hitler. In fact, Bonhoeffer consistently affirmed a strong stance of peacemaking from 1932 to the end of his life, and his commitment to peace was integrated with his theology as a whole.

We'll see...I'd love to believe them, being a person of nonresistance myself and liking Bonhoeffer's theology.

Oh, and much earlier, Jeremy also sent me a copy of Cook and Holmstedt's Beginning Biblical Hebrew which has an integrated reader. Well, actually the reader is more a graphic novel than anything. They use their insights from linguistics and second language acquisition studies and attempt to bring them to bear in teaching Biblical Hebrew. Good stuff...

The way of victory

“Whenever the devil opposes the continued work of Calvary by carnal weaponry in the hands of evil men, the church must respond to those men as Christ did—not resisting them, but rather loving them and praying for their forgiveness. In that response, the wisdom of God is always at work to transform the attack of men to the ultimate defeat of spiritual forces. This was demonstrated not only at Calvary but also in the early church. Nonresistant under the attack of evil men, the church multiplied.”—Love and Nonresistance, page 83

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! Would that we would all follow his injunction.
</idle musing>

Bringing people to church

“Christians are made strangers of the world by transformation, but they are left in the world that they might bring others to experience the same transformation.

“Those who abandon the stranger concept, who indulge in worldly pleasures under the guise of relating better to society, inadvertently destroy their message of transformation. They may bring people to church. They may even convince them to take the name Christian. But they have not brought them to Christ.”—Love and Nonresistance page 134

<idle musing>
Yep. Without transformation—and that means from the inside out—they are not brought to Christ. They can attend as many church functions as they wish, but they are still not "in Christ."
</idle musing>

Serving the king

Nice thoughts by Ted Gossard yesterday about a Christian and wordly kingdoms. Here's a snippet to whet your appetite:

It's not just about Christian pacifism, or nonresistance. It's -more to the point- to what and to whom we belong. God is our King. And we in Jesus are part of the kingdom of God made known and spelled out in the good news/gospel of Jesus.

So it's an identity issue. And then the question comes just how much, or to what extent we can be identified with our various nations, as the new Israel scattered throughout the earth. That is not an easy question, and both individual Christians, as well as churches will vary on their answers, or practice, even within the peace churches.

<idle musing>
Well said. As Christians our first loyalty is always to the King of kings. He cites Bonhoeffer as a good example of that.
</idle musing>

Withdrawal? Hardly!

Pacifism isn’t quietism or withdrawal or inactivity, and it isn’t simple submission. Pacifism’s root is connected to the peacemaking beatitude, rooted in love and expressed when the follower of Jesus actively seeks peace. Pacifism isn’t a lack of interest or noninvolvement, but the hard work of seeking peace. Pacifism is nonviolent resistance, not nonresistance. What Jesus teaches his followers to do illustrates the sort of pacifism he advocates: turn the other cheek, surrender even more clothing, go the extra mile, lend and do not charge interest or require a payment back. Hardly the stuff of the inactive. These acts subvert the Roman system.— Sermon on the Mount, pages 131-132

<idle musing>
And, I would add, subvert the American system as well...

It's too bad that pacifism sounds so much like passive. I've found the work of Glen Stassen on just peacemaking very helpful. I just ran across this on the SBL website while looking for the previous link. Looks interesting...
</idle musing>