The purpose matters

[W]e dare not come to the place where we let the Scripture become something we control instead of the Word of God being something that controls us. All unwittingly, the text has become an end in itself for us to study, master and control, instead of a means for an encounter with God.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 458

<idle musing>
An appropriate final excerpt from the book. I hope you have enjoyed the excerpts from the book; it definitely would be worth your effort to read the whole thing. If you want to read more of Kinlaw, I would suggest We Live As Christ or The Mind of Christ. Both are transcriptions of lecture series that he gave.

He is best when lecturing. He only wrote one or two books as books—the rest are transcriptions of his lectures. The books he wrote as books don't have the same feel to them and I wouldn't recommend them.
</idle musing>

The problem with my Bible

Excellent post about my Bible over at Jesus Creed. Here's a brief snippet, but please, do yourself a favor and read the whole thing!

At times I came to the conclusion that my Bible might be wrong. Then along came a series of very encouraging books and articles and conversations, too many to mention in this context, that provided another way. What I learned was that “my Bible” was in fact my reading of the Bible. Maybe it wasn’t so much the Bible that was wrong but the way I was reading the Bible through the lens of my own questions, questions shaped more by my past worries about evolution and less by learning to read the Bible in its own historical and theological context. (emphasis original)

Our inheritance

Exact opposites are brought together in Christ—the creature and the Creator. The Creator by virtue of his own power as God expands the limitations of the creature, which he is free to do, providing the creature with the glory that Christ has by nature, and allowing the human individual to be an actual partaker of that nature that is God the Word’s that he, as the Word, holds in common with the Father; but is not held in common by nature with the flesh he assumed.— Theosis, Volume 2, pages 174-175

You thought you understood it...

Now I have heard, “Those who sow in tears will reap with songs of joy” [Psalm 126:5] applied to prayer. The ideas is that if you pray sincerely enough, weeping, that the weeping will make your prayer more effective. However, I do not think that is what is being talked about at all. I think you and I ought to be sincere in prayer, but the key to interpreting this psalm is in the linkage between sow and tears. When you sow, your interest is tomorrow, not today. And the probabilities are that when you sow, your interest is in somebody beyond yourself. But when my circumstances go wrong, I do not want to think about the future; I want to forget all about it. The last thing I am interested in is spending what energy I have left thinking about something way down the road and preparing for it. Despair makes you captive to the moment. But the psalmist says, when despair comes, don’t let it capture you; keep thinking about tomorrow and planning. He does not say to stop weeping; but he does say not to let the weeping prevent you from sowing in faith for the future.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 437

<idle musing>
Vintage Kinlaw. As I've said before, he had a way of taking something we had read a hundred times and then getting us to see it in a new—and more accurate—way.
</idle musing>

Let's be clear about one thing

Theodore [of Mopsuestia] could not, and would not employ the term divinization in his commentary—or anywhere else in his writings, for that matter. He allowed that Scripture called human beings “gods” in Ps 82:6, but in his comments on John 10:36 he clarifies that “ Human beings are not changed into the divine nature, but by the grace of God this is what we are called.” It is an term of honor.— Theosis, Volume 2, page 163

<idle musing>
A very good clarification. Divinization/theosis isn't anything like the Mormon belief that we will become gods. It is the belief that we become like God by being consumed by his love...
</idle musing>

(Not so) Blind Faith

The Israelites’ faith did not blind them in a way that prevented them from seeing the evil or the unanswered questions—their faith did not express itself superficially. They found nothing in their faith to demand that they deny reality. Sometimes we use religion as an escapism. But you do not find that in Ecclesiastes.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 433

I love those early theologians

By offering himself as a sacrifice for us, Christ “built a wall of partition between human nature and sin” [Cyril] so that nothing might hinder our access to God and so that we might return to that original likeness we had at the creation. Just as sin separates us from God, righteousness creates a bond with God that brings us close to God’s side so that nothing can separates us from him for, as Cyril says, “We have been justified through faith in Christ.” In justification, the nature of humanity is entirely reformed and renewed enabling it through the sanctifying grace of the Spirit to once again ascend to its own first beginning about which Moses wrote in Genesis. This ascension can begin even now in this life...— Theosis, Volume 2, page 153

Real faith

As I said above, the more I have lived with this psalm [89], the more grateful I have become for it. It says to us that it is all right to ask questions, when things do not seem to fit in our faith. But it also says that present distress need not diminish the reality of our faith. The psalmist did not question that God really is the God of hesed and ’emunah, steadfast love and faithfulness. It was just the question that those did not seem to be present in the circumstances. By the same token, genuine faith does not require us to deny our pain and uncertainty.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 423

Sacrifice

But his [Christ’s] sanctification did not consist in his becoming holy, since as God he was already holy. Rather according to the sense of how the term is used in the Old Testament, “That which is brought by any one to God by way of an offering or gifts, as sacred to him, is said to be sanctified according to the custom of the Law.” [Cyril of Alexandria] Sacrifices were set apart, offered and dedicated as holy to God. Therefore when Christ says he sanctifies himself for us, he means according to Cyril that, “he brought himself as a Victim and holy Sacrifice to God the Father, ‘reconciling the world unto himself’ and bringing the human race that has fallen away back into a relationship with God.” This reunion occurs through communion in the Spirit and sanctification because the Spirit is the one who knits us together and unites us with God.— Theosis, Volume 2, pages 152-153

Thought readjustment needed

The verse [Isa 53:6] says, “We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord [Yahweh] has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Now, I checked through every translation of that verse I could find, and it is translated that way consistently. But let me tell you what the literal Hebrew is for that last sentence in the verse. It says, “Yahweh has caused to meet in him the iniquity of us all.” For me, “to cause to meet in him” gives a totally different picture than “to lay on him.” When I think about “laid on him,” I see a judgment in a courtroom. The legal obligation of one person is “laid” on another person. But the word iniquity used here is the strongest word in the Old Testament for the evil that is within us, the wrong that is within us, the depths and the great extent of our wrongness before God. So the picture here is of all our wrongness before coming into this Mediator in whom is all the goodness of God and meeting that goodness there.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 404

<idle musing>
Can you tell he studied theology under Torrence? Shows, doesn't it? As I read that, I felt my brain doing a rewire—in a good way.

Kind of puts the popular versions of atonement in the trashcan (which is where they belong, anyway!)...
</idle musing>

Let's nuance that statement a bit

There is a limit to human knowledge. A finite created being never can fully apprehend the infinite reality of God, and therefore theological language ought to be careful and reserved. However, what can be comprehended...is a knowledgeable aspect of Christian faith and worship.— Theosis, Volume 2, page 129

<idle musing>
I like that, "careful and reserved." Too bad most of what passes for theology these days isn't...
</idle musing>

But maybe not

So clearly, from a human perspective this text cannot mean what it appears to. You see, we decide how God is supposed to act. Every people group decides how God is supposed to act, and the hardest problem that God has with us, I think, is to disabuse us of our wrong notions of who His is and what He is like. So here they are describing the way they think He must be. If He is going to win, and they are sure He will, He can only do so by power and by might.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 399

<idle musing>
I neglected to write down the passage he is referring to, but that's really immaterial to the argument. The point is that we think God is like us. And where he isn't, we're right and he's wrong! Oh, we don't do it consciously, bit it's there just the same...no wonder we need repentance and new birth!
</idle musing>

Thought for the day—I think...

“All our notions of God,” he [Gregory of Nyssa] continues, “are nothing but idols forbidden by the Ten Commandments.” From this comes the rule: “If one who has seen God has understood what he has seen, this means that he has not seen God.” Or: “Words about God are the more perfect, the less comprehensible they are.”— Theosis, Volume 2, page 71

Who's on first

Reconciliation is not something wrung out of God against His will by some application of magic. The sacrificial system only has effect because Yahweh wills to offer reconciliation out of His own heart. That means that if we are to receive that reconciliation, there have to be corresponding personal overtures from us. There has to be something from within us that says we recognize what we have done and want to be reconciled.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 381

About that command by Jesus...

Here, at the end of the first section of the Sermon on the Mount, perfection is commanded. By commanding perfection, Jesus suggests the necessity—and possibility—of human transformation, a profound correcting of that which is imperfect, even within this lifetime. This causes enormous difficulties for theologians who assume that all humans are thoroughly depraved and sinful, even after being saved.— Theosis, Volume 2, page 27

<idle musing>
Oh, that's simple, we just throw it away...after all, only the parts of the Bible that I agree with are inerrant and in the original autographs—right?! : (
</idle musing>

Take that, you monergists!

Intercession is not our attempt to persuade God to do something He would rather not do. Instead, God is looking for someone who will intercede. It is Yahweh Himself who wants to initiate the intercession. Why is that? Why is intercession important? I wish I could answer that question more fully than I can. It is not that we add something to the work of salvation; salvation is in God and God alone. But there is something in Him that causes Him to invite us to enter into that process, and that entering in seems vital to the completion of the process.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 373

Let's start at the very beginning

Portraying God’s kenotic descent in Christ, and his acting in what can be seen as a shockingly ungodly manner for the common human perception of divinity, Paul elevates the significance of Christ’s suffering, death, and resurrection, and proclaims Christ to be the Lord, in contrast to the typical Roman understanding of imperial power and honor.— Theosis, Volume 2, page 9

<idle musing>
I was given this book when it first was published—and it sat on my desk (thanks to my friends at Wipf & Stock for the book). One day, I started reading it, made some notes, and then put it down. For about 2 years. I had read the first book and loved it. For some reason, this one was not as easy to read. I struggled to get into it—I suspect because of Kharlamov's writing style. He wrote the first two essays and his style is very dense and doesn't flow well. Once I got through those, the rest of the book was a delightful read, as you will see from the extracts over the next few weeks.

So, if you chose to read this book—and I highly recommend it!—be prepared to struggle through the first two essays. But persevere, it is well worth the effort. Meanwhile, enjoy the snippets...
</idle musing>

About that list of qualifications...

Now, who would be the perfect ruler, and what would he be like? The Old Testament offers many snapshots in order to create a composite picture for them so they can conceive of who the perfect ruler and the perfect mediator would be. For instance, there is Moses. How would you describe him as the leader of Israel? What is his primary characteristic? Was he a priest? A political figure? A figure of power? The thing that impresses me the most is that he was a mediator, and more particularly, an intercessor.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 373

<idle musing>
When was the last time you saw that on the list of job requirements? Can you see it?
Wanted, top level executive. Must be experienced in spending hours interceding with God on behalf of a wayward group of people. Must be willing to sacrifice him/herself for the survival of that same group. Oh, and incidentally, they are more than willing to stone you if you don't do what they want.

Think there would be many takers? Me either...
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

In September of 1934 Bonhoeffer mentioned that he had heard that some in the Oxford movement were trying to convert Hitler. Bonhoeffer referred to this as “a ridiculous failure to recognize what is going on. We are the ones to be converted, not Hitler.” (emphasis original)—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 232

<idle musing>
That's the final excerpt from the book. What do you think? Do they make their case?

As I mentioned the other day, I don't think so. The whole time I was reading the book, I felt like Herod Agrippa listening to Paul, "Almost you persuade me." Almost—but not quite. The testimony of Bethge is too hard to discard.

That being said, those who blithely state that he was involved in the plots to assassinate Hitler need to nuance that. The authors are correct to point out that he couldn't have been actively involved. But, he surely was aware of the plans and might have been more active than that.

Actually, to me the most compelling evidence for a lack of active involvement comes from the testimony of Bonhoeffer scholar Sabine Dramm. She maintains—compellingly, I feel—that the main reason Bonhoeffer was involved with the Abwehr was to prevent being drafted. He knew that if he was drafted, he couldn't serve. In Nazi Germany, that meant automatic death.

So, in the end, we have a man who firmly believed in pacifism, but felt compelled by the extenuating circumstances of the time to take on the guilt of going against those convictions. Ethics is full of statements to that effect...

By the way, while getting the link Ethics, I see that there is a Supplementary and Index volume coming out this fall! Lust! Desire! Of course, I should finish reading the ones I already own...and complete the set as well. Book lust! Erasmus is my patron saint—"If I have money I buy books. If I have any money left, I buy food..." : )
</idle musing>

Deus ex machina? Hardly

When one takes the Old Testament from the beginning, God’s purpose is redemptive; God is never first a judge. Furthermore, salvation is not going to come from the throne. It originates there but it won’t be accomplished there. It is in time and space that redemption takes place. And redemption is not going to be done without us. Yet, although it is not going to be done without us, there is no salvation in any of us. All salvation is in Him and comes from beyond, but it takes place in the here and now and not without human involvement.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 363

A simple choice?

“Our choice is Germanism or Christianity.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 229

<idle musing>
And we are faced with a choice, too. Not that I am comparing the U.S. with Nazi Germany—there are significant differences—but the choice is the same: do we stand for Jesus, or do we stand for "American interests"?

How can a Christian condone violence? Especially against children! I know there are no simple answers, but at least don't just brush it off and say we have to defend our interests!
</idle musing>

Implications of God as Father

God has this concern for the world. He is a Father. He was a Father before He was Lord, and He will be a Father in the end. And when He created us He put us in families, In other words, He put us together like Himself and He wants us to have that kind of paternal relationship with Him. But He is a holy Father. And His holiness, His otherness, is especially expressed in an ethical purity unlike anything found in humanity. As such, He is offended by wrong; it repels Him. But that repulsion does not make Him want to let us go. Rather, it makes Him want to get His arms around us and not let us go, because He knows that when we have chosen wrong, we have chosen something detrimental to us, the ones He loves. He wants to deal with the evil, not just to punish us as a Judge. So, what is it that creates evil? It is when I shut the door on the Source of life, When I shut the door on God, when I shut my heart on God, then evil develops because the source of virtue, the source of righteousness, the source of holiness, is cut off. By my shutting the door on Him, I have created something alien to Him, something that will be my destruction.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 351-352

<idle musing>
I love that about Kinlaw; he makes a straightforward observation. Then he turns it in a way that causes you to see something totally new in it. Sure, God is Father—but here are the implications. And God is a holy Father—but here are the implications. And God is a Judge—but here are the implications.

That's why his classes were such a joy to be a part of. That and the fact that he was continually making reference to a whole library full of books to read. He'd mention a book and say, "You owe it to yourself to read this." How can you not want to read it when it is introduced like that?!
</idle musing>

It's all encompassing

The call to follow Jesus, discipleship, is about the revelation of God made known to us in the person of Jesus Christ—being present with us, empowering us, commanding us to be his body in the midst of the world. And let me make something clear: just as the Sermon on the Mount is not mostly about “pacifism,” so Discipleship is neither mostly about the Sermon on the Mount nor mostly about pacifism. No, it is a provocative call to serious holistic discipleship, drawing upon both the Gospels and the Pauline material in the New Testament. This call entails many specifics, including love of enemies.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 229

Thought for a Friday

Paganism sees existence as a struggle between chaos and order, with chaos being “bad” and order being “good.” These two principles have always existed and always will, and we simply need to face the fact that disorder, evil, is as necessary a part of existence as order, good, is. It is all right to attempt to maximize order and to minimize disorder, but disorder is always going to be there, and you are just going to have to learn the tricks to try to hold it at bay. So the universe is full of these forces of disorder. To all of that the Old Testament says a resounding “No!” Evil is nothing more nor less than the results of a refusal to submit to the creative purposes of our Father. In the sense that He made a world where that refusal is possible, He is responsible for the existence of evil in the world. That means that when you face the realm of evil within you and without, He is the only One you need to deal with, and if you have Him in the right place in your life, you can forget about your fears.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 345

It's bigger than that

...in addition to being against nationalism and for peace, Bonhoeffer also had come to believe that Christians needed to be attentive to the needs of the most vulnerable in society—whether African Americans in the United States or Jews in Nazi Germany.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 228

<idle musing>
And illegal immigrants, and the unborn, and those who are being taken advantage of by big business, and...
</idle musing>

Careful, he just stole the show

[Dorothy] Sayers says that if a playwright introduces the Devil into her cast of characters, she immediately has a great problem on her hands. The problem is how to keep the Devil from becoming the hero. Since the human spirit is so attracted to evil, even if you just make Satan one of the minor characters, you are going to have trouble keeping him from getting center stage.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 343

<idle musing>
And that's true in theology too, isn't it? I suspect that is the reason you don't find a fully developed theology of satan in the scripture...and why it is so easy to see "a demon behind every bush" if you aren't careful.

A good illustration of this is the movie Fantasia from Disney. The part where good finally triumphs at the end is boring! But the preceding Night on Bald Mountain is fascinating...we need the redeeming power of the Holy Spirit even to see evil as repulsive.
</idle musing>

Can we do as well?

Bonhoeffer consistently—from 1932 to the end of his life (thus before and after Hitler assumed power)—was strongly opposed to nationalism. His clear teachings against nationalism were rooted in the Sermon on the Mount and his belief that God commanded peace, as well as in his strong sense of the unity of the church and his belief that war among Christians was a violation of such unity. Connected to this, he was a strong advocate for conscientious objection among Christians.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 226

<idle musing>
There was a song done by The All Saved Freak Band that speaks well to our situation. It's titled Theme of the Fellowship of the Ring (the link is to an MP3). The relevant lyrics are

Frodo and Samwise they did quite well
In Mordor where the shadows lie
Destroyed the Ring in fires of Hell
In Mordor where the shadows lie
Hobbits destroyed it and they did quite well
In Mordor where the shadows lie
Halflings did it, even one that fell
In Mordor where the shadows lie
The Fellowship prevailed against the Two Towers
In Mordor where the shadows lie
Can we do as well in this hour, destroy its power
In Mordor where the shadows lie

Gollum fell, was consumed by the ring, but nonetheless, he assisted in the destruction of the ring...

<rant mode on>
Nationalism and Christianity can not coexist peacefully—just like God and money, nationalism (my country, right or wrong!—and of course it is right!) consumes all it touches...Where are the Bonhoeffers of today? Who is standing up against the overpowering of the church by an unthinking embrace of a theology that puts the US flag on the podium in the sanctuary?

Where are those who question equating the flag-waving adulations of the crowds with God's will? Why the embrace by Christians of militarism? How is that different from Germany in the 1930s?

Lebensraum differs from "American interests" in what way?
</rant mode off>

Just the
</idle musing> of a former bookseller who wonders where the prophets have gone...

Escapist literature

Of course there is prediction in the true prophets, but the purpose of that prediction is something very different from divination. Divination seeks to let you know what the future is so you can escape it. The purpose of true prophecy is to let you know who God is so you an get right with Him, and in that way guarantee your future.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 310

<idle musing>
Escapist literature at its best : )
</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>

Front and center

Once again, you see [in Psalm 51], Yahweh is standing right at the center of the situation. The big issue everywhere you turn in the Old Testament is Yahweh. It is not first of all about truth, or about the Law. It is not first of all about power, or about guilt. It is not first of all about sacrifice. The central overriding issue is: Who is Yahweh and how do I relate to Him?— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 259

<idle musing>
I just read an interesting post on theological systems over at Missio Alliance. It's actually a two-part post; I linked to the second post, but you should read them both. Anyway, the upshot is that we all too frequently put theology in front of our reading. Instead of reading the text that is, we read the text that our theology says is there...I know, no big news, but it is big news if we allow the Holy Spirit to break through those shackles and really speak to us. That's what this excerpt from Kinlaw is all about—at least, that's how I read it! : )
</idle musing>

Thought for a rainy Monday

The difference between Bonhoeffer’s prophetic voice and that of Niebuhr is that the life to which Bonhoeffer calls his hearers is to be directly and fully shaped by Jesus. Where Niebuhr is drawn to the more generic concept of prophetic religion, Bonhoeffer relies on the life, teaching, death, and resurrection of a specific prophet—one attested to as the very revelation of God.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 220

A fairy-tale world

We live in a cause-and-effect world. One of the most deadly things you can do to your children is always to shield them from the consequences of their actions. They will grow up living in a fairy-tale world that does not exist. And they will never be able to cope with the real world where actions have inevitable consequences. We depend on that fact, as does science. What kind of world would it be if we never knew what the effects of our actions would be? We, in our fallenness, insist on getting the just rewards of all our good (or almost-good) actions, but assume that the consequences of all our bad actions can just be forgotten. It is not true. For forgiveness to exist in the cosmos, there has to have been created some mechanism whereby the just consequences of sin can be fully suffered. Jesus Christ and His Cross are that mechanism, and so much more than a mere mechanism.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 256

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! When the kids were young, they used to say, "That's not fair!" And I would agree, but I also reminded them that "not fair" plays both ways...I wonder if they remember that.
</idle musing>

Two kingdoms?

Bonhoeffer came to reject two-sphere thinking, but he still recognized that the ethical rigorism he expected from Christians could not necessarily be expected from the culture at large or from the state.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 219

Automatic response

We are persons and we do not want to be used or mechanically controlled. But that was at the heart of much of the sacrificial system of the ancient Near East. The right words, the right ceremonies, should work automatically in a naturalistic cause-and-effect manner. These same ideas are found around the world. Studies of Polynesian culture have made a couple of their terms—taboo and mana—part of the English language. Both of them are that ex opera operatokind of thing. It does not matter what your motive was; it does not matter what the circumstances were. If you did it so that it is wrong in terms of that other world, then the consequences are automatic. The only way to avert those consequences was for you to do something to counter them.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 251

<idle musing>
Sadly, that same theology is at work in much of the church—a candy machine god. "Name it, claim it, stomp on it and frame it!" "Blab it and grab it!"

What a perversion the promises of God. That kind of theology never wants to put God first. Indeed, it makes the self the center of the world and then uses scripture to try and justify it. That's not Christian theology!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

The emphasis here is on the personal character, because Yahweh comes through as a person to Israel. He is not a force that has been personified, but a Person. Too often that personal element gets lost in religion. If there is any genius in evangelicalism it is that the personal relationship comes back into the center. And that is, as far as I can see, the only way to explain what really took place and developed in Israel in that ancient day. God stepped out of the shadows and became personal.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 249

Don't settle for less

Niebuhr rejects pacifism because he believes it is impossible, unrealistic, and, in a vicious world, even harmful. When Niebuhr says that the principle of the sanctity of life cannot be held absolutely, he moves to rationalize not an ethic oriented toward peace, which might be recognized in classic justified war thinking, but supports instead a seemingly endless cycle of armaments deterring armaments and wars opposing wars...Bonhoeffer always interpreted his world through the (un)realistic apocalypse of Christ. In this way he sought to continue apprehending reality anew...Bonhoeffer expected more of the church and demanded more of himself.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, pages 218-219

<idle musing>
We settle for less than the impossible because we don't really believe God can do more... We live in an antisupernatural society and we have been drinking the waters so long we've forgotten there is a supernatural aspect to life.
</idle musing>

Why?

[I]t is also apparent that Bonhoeffer’s rationale for his longstanding involvement in the resistance was because of—and not in spite of—his theology. Bonhoeffer believed that responding to God’s command necessitates being wholeheartedly in the world and taking up real problems.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, pages 209-210

<idle musing>
Would that more people would allow their theology out of the mind and into their life! Sure, it makes for a messier theology—not everything fits nicely into life! But it makes for more authentic living and leaves room for the Holy Spirit to work...
</idle musing>

Be Holy!

That all became clear when Yahweh called upon His people to “be holy as [he is] holy.” Could they share His essence? Of course not! Were they to be holy simply by being “separated” to Him in some sense? That is not what the context of the covenant conveys. When Yahweh calls on His people to share His holiness, as in Leviticus 19, it is inseparably linked with unselfish moral and ethical behavior. All of that came to be contained in qadosh, which had once been morally neutral. Yahweh’s holiness burst the word open with new meaning.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 230

Thought for today

Christ’s selfless love is an example of actively taking guilt upon oneself. Thus, like Christ, the individual engaging in free responsible action is guilty in one sense and sinless in another. Whether or not this is ultimately intelligible, Bonhoeffer believes that following Christ in this way sets the conscience free for service.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 207

Not a what

Do you know what I think is primary in the book of Revelation? It is like the Old Testament; when the book of Revelation talks about the future it does not tell you the what in your future, but it tells you the who. Who is central in the first chapter of the book of Revelation and then again in the fourth and the fifth chapters after the letter to the churches? It is the exalted Christ. And there He is, central to whatever is in the future.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 203

<idle musing>
Indeed! Would that more would focus on the who instead of the how and when!
</idle musing>

Thought for today

“People do not fulfill the responsibility laid on them by faithfully performing their earthly vocational obligations as citizens, workers, and parents, but by hearing the call of Jesus Christ that, although it leads them also into earthly obligations, is never synonymous with these, but instead always transcends them as a reality standing before and behind them.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 204

I thought you were going to judge me

What hesed teaches us is that the arms of Yahweh are wide open, waiting. Sometimes it is difficult to reconcile scripture with scripture. For instance, the prophet Jeremiah will say that Judah has come to the end, that the Babylonian conquest is inevitable; but a few verses later he will be calling upon the people to repent so they can escape the coming judgment. Likewise in the Psalms, you will find one that begins with seemingly inevitable judgment, but then throws the door wide open for repentance and return. He says, “I have to punish you, I have to chasten you, I have to deal with your sin,” and then before He finishes the sentence His arms of compassion and forgiveness are spread wide open. Why is this? Because it is His will that none of us should perish. The reason for the election of the Hebrew people in the Old Testament is that God has elected the whole world. And hesed is at the heart of that.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 181

<idle musing>
Are you getting this? Mind you, this is God in the Old Testament! Sounds a lot like Jesus, doesn't it? It should, because Jesus is the "the exact representation" of God (Heb 1:3).
</idle musing>

True life

True human life is found outside the creature’s being, in Christ. Thus life is found in the dialectic of the “No” pronounced on our sinful life and the “Yes” given as we find new life in Christ. In this vein Bonhoeffer writes, “We can no longer speak about our life other than in this relation to Jesus Christ.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 196

I dare you!

But you will never find out what God’s hesed can do unless you dare to take risks. The only people who really know about His hesed are the people who intentionally reach beyond their own abilities and their own resources. If you play it safe, you will never know that He keeps covenant with you. But if you will risk everything for Him, you will find He keeps covenant, and more than that, does hesed, with those who belong to Him.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 180

<idle musing>
Go ahead! I dare you! Take the risk and actually walk by faith!

We are too comfortable; we don't need God for most of what we do. The infrastructure takes care of so much that we live under the illusion of self-sufficiency...
</idle musing>

A Christian response

Bonhoeffer did clearly oppose the Nazi regime, but more fundamentally than being an “anti-Nazi” theologian, he was a Christian theologian whose care for the world was demonstrated by his deep concern for the church and its witness. This did cause him to oppose Nazism, but it also prompted his opposition to the bourgeois character of the church, deontological ethics, nationalism, the racism and flabby theology he encountered in the United States of America, and the continued division of the Christian community.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 190

<idle musing>
Indeed! He would have even harsher words for the U.S. church today, especially on this high holy day of social religion, the fourth of July.
</idle musing>

About that covenant breach

So this is the way Yahweh starts this revelation of His essential character to Moses. He is the compassionate One, the gracious One. He doesn’t start with His holiness. He doesn’t even start with His righteousness and He doesn’t start with truth. But He starts with the fact that He is compassionate and gracious. To those two He adds that He is slow to anger. He is very patient. Then the text says, “He is abounding in hesed and faithfulness.” The Hebrew word here translated with “abounding” is rab, which means “Much. Large, abundant.” In other words, His character is full to overflowing with these qualities. But what does that mean? He has to say it again. It means He is very careful to extend “hesed to thousands, forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.” Here in the setting of the first major breach of the covenant, Yahweh is at great pains to let Moses know that He is not merely characterized by justice and mercy, but rather that who He is goes far beyond that. He is absolutely loyal and dependable when the only reason for such behavior is just consistency with Himself. So, Israel is given a second chance, and the reason is because of Yahweh’s nature as hesed and ’emet.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 176

<idle musing>
Meditate on that for a while. It's breathtaking, isn't it? It's the core of who God is and the reason Jesus came. I love that word ḥesed!
</idle musing>

About that weather forecast

Sunday was one of those days—the weather forecast said it would be sunny most of the day. Well, I guess it was—somewhere! Living right next to a huge body of water where the temperature of the water is about 39°F can have a huge effect on the weather. Sunday was one of those days.

The fog rolled in and out all morning. One minute the sun would be shining and it would be short-sleeve weather. The next minute, the fog would roll in, obscuring the sun and dropping the temperature about 15°. In and out, in and out all morning and early afternoon.

I had decided to take a bike ride after cleaning the cabins (only 4 needed cleaning). But, given the fog, I decided to ride up the Gunflint and over the ridge. That way I would be away from the fog and bad visibility. I hadn't ridden up the Trail yet this year; it's about a 1000 feet climb in around 2 miles. Quite the climb, with one section being especially steep.

After getting over the ridge, I usually ride along Devil Track Lake; it's a long lake with a north shore and south shore option. I chose the north shore, giving me a 25 mile ride. The weather was lovely, but with a bank of clouds to the west. I figured I would easily be home before any storm might hit. Wrong! about 10 miles into the ride, it started to sprinkle. That's fairly common around here, though, so I just kept going. After all, I only had another 3 miles to the half-way point. At the half-way point I would turn around and ride away from the rain. Not a problem, I do it all the time.

It started raining a bit harder just before the half-way point, but I still figured I could outrun it on the way home. Wrong again! It started raining harder and the wind picked up. I put on my windbreaker that is only water resistant, not waterproof. Inside of 2 miles, I was drenched. I picked up the pace a bit, hoping to outrun it.

It appeared to be working; the rain was subsiding. But then, it started hailing. That's right, the rain subsided—by turning into hail! Not tiny hail, either. Marble-sized hail. And it was getting harder.

Let me assure you that marble-sized hail hurts when it hits unprotected flesh. And it hurts even worse when you are going 30 MPH. In my attempt to outrun the storm, I was cranking as hard and as fast as I could. I don't normally go much over 20 MPH, but I was moving at around 28-30 MPH and it was taking all I had.

I finally outran the storm just before I got to the top of the ridge. It was all downhill from there. But it was heading back to the west again—right into the storm!

So, here I am, drenched, exhausted, and I'm going 35 MPH downhill directly into the rain and wind. At least it wasn't hailing anymore!

I got home just before the worst of the storm hit. But I felt great! Crazy, isn't it?!

Who not what

Bonhoeffer’s point is that Christians do not remake the world with ideas distilled from Scripture or even Christ’s teachings. After all, Jesus did not come to teach a revised form of piety, but to form human creatures anew. The reason Bonhoeffer rejects a view of Christ as “essentially” a teacher is rooted in this central concern: if Christ is primarily a teacher then it is what he teaches rather than who he is that is of central importance.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 184

<idle musing>
But to listen to most Christian teaching, Jesus is primarily a teacher. The whole culture wars thing is predicated on Jesus being a teacher...
</idle musing>

Love that word

For us love is primarily, and almost exclusively, a word about feelings. But the main truth about God is not that He feels in certain ways. The main truth about God is that He is certain things as revealed in how He acts. That is what is so significant about hesed. it is not about a way of feeling, it is about a way of acting. And when we discover that this is the way He always acts, that tells us about who He is. The, when the Bible says that God is love, we have some new categories in which to put that statement.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 171-172

<idle musing>
I love that word ḥesed! Read the article in the TDOT, and then read the article in TWOT (yes, it really is published by Moody Press!) to augment the TDOT article.
</idle musing>

Two kingdoms?

Jesus calls us as whole persons because there is no other type of person but the whole person. Obedience to Jesus, then cannot divide reality into two contradictory zones, one operating in obedience to Jesus and the other operating independent of Jesus’s influence. All of reality is the legitimate place for holistic obedience to Jesus Christ.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 156

<idle musing>
And that is precisely where the two-kingdom model of Luther falls apart...
</idle musing>

That's not fair

If you have to fight for something, it may be that you have put your hand on it and in so doing have hindered the hand of God. For if God intends to give that thing to you, He is going to do it in His own time, and nobody is going to stop Him. That is the reason you do not have to pull strings or play politics with regard to your pastoral appointment. Someone may say, “You’re unrealistic.” That is right from the world’s perspective. It all depends on which set of standards you area operating under. If you do not believe that God can get you where you should be, I question whether you have the faith of Abraham that justified him.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 156

<idle musing>
Ouch! But he's right. If we think we have to take things under our wing in order to make them happen, then we are operating as atheists...
</idle musing>

You can't do it

To love one’s enemy is not something that can possibly emerge naturally from a person; it comes as a super-added gift of grace. But because Bonhoeffer has already grounded the capacity for obedience in Jesus Christ rather than in the disciple’s human capacities, obedience is made possible despite its impossibility for human nature. Obedience requires Christ precisely because Christ’s commands transcend human ability.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 155

Yes, even in Torah

Finally, the evidence of any inner attitude is in behavior, so the Old Testament contains the 613 laws of the Torah. But it would be a mistake to think that it is only behavior that interests the Old Testament. In fact, the very opposite is true. Without the correct attitude, all that obedience is simply empty show. So the laws are the secondary thing. What is primary is this thing behind conduct. It is the attitude that leads to the right kind of conduct. It is that something that God approved of in Abimelech when Abimelech said, “I was perfect; I was innocent when I took Sarah,” and God said, “Yes, I know that.” Abimelech was speaking of an attitude or a condition and because of that right attitude or condition there was no judgment upon him.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 154

That's too (Christo)logical

Thus Bonhoeffer states his case for obedience to Jesus on grounds different from those at the basis of a system of moral principles. He grounds obedience on the basis of Jesus Christ alone.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 154

Why?

So, Abraham took his cue from God and said, “Well, now, let’s talk a little about Sodom.” As he does this, he is playing the role that a prophet, or a man or woman of God, or the elect people are supposed to play. That is a role of intercession, because election is not for privilege. Election, being chosen by God, is so a world can know the truth of the Gospel.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 145

<idle musing>
Indeed. But, as usual, we pervert it and make it all about us...
</idle musing>

The real enemy

[T]he test of whether you are a believer is not in what you do with the third through the tenth commandments; but it is what you let the God of the first two commandments do with the good, the goods, in your life. The greatest enemies to God in our lives are the gifts and the goods He has given us. There is where the competition is.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 136

<idle musing>
Indeed! Too much prosperity and you forget God. You don't need him—you've got the future covered. Right? Wrong! He holds the future. And all our goods and goodies won't secure it. But we forget that when we have too much, don't we?
</idle musing>

Yes or no?

Jesus’s command forces the hearer to decision, to a stark “yes” or “no” response to his call. But if we refuse to be led through this break with given worldly ties, then we have already refused our allegiance. We have failed both to believe and obey. Christ’s call has not formed us as it could have, and thus we fail to see reality as it is in truth.—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 149

Walk on

The most astounding about all of this is that Abraham is an example of justification by faith. What is justification? Justification by faith is a legal concept for most of us, is it not? How can you make someone understand “justification by faith” if you do not have a law code, if you do not have a court, and if you do not have a judge? Yet Abraham is the supreme example of being justified by faith. He believed God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. Clearly that is not according to some legal system of accounting. So what is the righteousness that God is seeking and which accrued to Abraham? The essence of it is a personal relationship with the living God. Notice Genesis 17:1. God says that if Abraham is to be all he is meant to be as a human being (“perfect” in the language of the King James Version), he has only to “walk” before God. That is not surprising when we remember that in Genesis the most characteristic way of describing what we mean by the term salvation is to say that a person “walked with God.”— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 123

It's not the act

Christ’s call to do something specific, then, should not mean that the only thing required is behavior modification. Rather, true obedience has commitment to the person of Jesus Christ as its ground and goal. Obedience without commitment to Jesus Christ is not obedience at all but self-chosen moral idealism. Without Jesus Christ, then, “obedience” is disobedience no matter what concrete behavioral form it may take.—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 147

It's grounded in YHWH

If you look at the book of Leviticus, chapter 18, to see how sexual behavior is addressed in Israelite society, you will find at both the beginning and the end of the chapter the simple expression, “I am the Lord [Yahweh] your God.” What is the point of this? It is providing one simple explanation for the commandments regarding sexual behavior: because I am Yahweh. Why don’t you do this or that? One simple answer is given: “I am Yahweh.” The basis for moral differentiation and for ethical discrimination lies ultimately and solely in the very nature of the God of Israel.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 113

<idle musing>
You don't hear that in the current debates, do you? It's almost as if nobody—on either side—really wants to approach it from the nature of who God is. And if it is grounded in who God is, then what are the ramifications? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it might send all of us back to God on our knees...

I've been reading the book of Romans lately in multiple different translations. It's been a fun exercise in seeing things through varied lenses, but all of them agree on something: the culmination of the catalog of sins in Romans 1 isn't homosexuality—sure it's on the road there, but the final destination is a list of what most would call "common sins"—gossip, pride, breaking promises, lack of kindness, disobeying parents—the list goes on. The sad thing is that some of the ones yelling the loudest against homosexuality are doing so in the most unkind and unloving way.

Make no mistake about it, homosexuality is sin! But so are the other things listed! They all need to be repented off. And by repent, I mean turned away from. In other words, Stop it!. All by the grace of God through the indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. There is no other way. But, by the power of the Holy Spirit, it is possible—and God commands it!.

Flame away! But here I stand, I can do no other!
</idle musing>

True freedom

But from all that can be gathered about Bonhoeffer’s soteriology, it is clear that the self that needs to be broken—and broken into—is the guilty self, the self fallen way from God and others, hopelessly entangled in its own falsely construed world. Only because this bondage is so pernicious—it is, after all, a bondage where one is enslaved by oneself—does Bonhoeffer feel it necessary to emphasize the intrusive and disrupting influence of God’s call in Christ in words that are often quite forceful. Thus it should never be forgotten that the purpose of defeat of the selfish self is its liberation, its salvation, and its being made free for God and for others in community rather htan its destruction or corruption.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 142

<idle musing>
And if ever there was a message that is unpalatable to the world, death to self is. It doesn't matter that death to self is actually liberation. It just won't sell. It won't fill the pews. It won't meet the budget. It isn't popular. Never was. And never will be. But that doesn't mean it isn't true! And it also doesn't mean it shouldn't be preached...
</idle musing>

Sovereignty

If God was alone before the act of Creation, then the concept of sovereignty is not the ultimate concept of God, the ultimate word to be said about Him. In the beginning when there was nothing but Yahweh alone, there was nothing for Him to be sovereign over! So, there must be something about Him that is greater than His sovereignty. His sovereignty is an expression of who He is in relation to everything that he created.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 100

The eclipse of the sun god

Last weekend was the summer solstice, the time of year when the sun is declared king and the temperatures are soaring. Well, supposedly that's the way it works. Except it doesn't always work that way—especially in Grand Marais!

There is always a festival celebrating the summer solstice. Part of that is a pageant put on by the local players; this year it featured a celebration of the north woods—complete with kids on stilts looking like trees and a TALL sun god on very tall stilts and a larger than life Bacchus with green face. Over all it was a cute and well done performance.

Except that the temperature was about 40°F for the performance and the whole weekend was foggy. The sun didn't shine at all. The temperature didn't get above about 60° and most of the time is was in the low 50s° to mid-40s°. The fog would roll in and the temperatures would crash. The fog would subside a bit, and the temperature would recover a bit. So much for the power of the sun god!

I found it highly ironic and not a little amusing. Maybe if there had been more or better sacrifices? Or maybe the sun god's priests didn't perform the liturgy correctly. Or...maybe the sun god isn't sovereign over the weather! Maybe only the Christian God is sovereign. Something to think about, isn't it?

So that's the problem!

Because God is active in Jesus Christ, Christ’s call is both an act of grace and an act of salvation without failing to be a call to obedience at the same time…At the center of Bonhoeffer’s soteriology is his insistence that the unredeemed human subject is trapped inside itself…Only as the sinful human subject is encountered by God’s own self can the human person be liberated from his or her own self-imposed entrapment, isolation, and the resulting alienation from others. Neither human action nor human reflection is capable of delivering humanity from its self-enclosed isolationism. Only by being actively confronted by the living God can the human self be freed from its distorted selfhood to be free for God and for others in community. Self-reflection is not the solution to the problem; it only compounds the problem.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, pages 140-141

<idle musing>
Indeed! And in our self-worshiping society, with it's constant attention to self, we are compounding the problem every moment...and the solution seems ridiculous. Death to self? Are you crazy? Deny your self? Yougottabekiddingme!
</idle musing>

Revelation (not the book)

He [God] is the Creator who makes all things, but He transcends His own creation. He is not involved in the flux and flow of the universe. There is an infinite qualitative distinction between Him and what He has created, an infinite ontological distinction between them. He is one order of being and the creation is another. There is a discontinuity between them.

That is the reason revelation is so crucial; there is a gulf between us and Him that we cannot cross. If we are ever to know Him, He must come down to us. That chasm is uncrossable apart from revelation. He must reveal Himself, and that is what we are getting in the Scripture.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 95

Morality and legalism

The model of Christ as a moral teacher cannot do justice to the disciple’s dependence upon God’s gracious and active call in Jesus because it has employed an objectified and objectifying model of God and of Christ. This model has reduced Christ to an object of reflection and his teachings to lifeless moral values, principles, or absolutes. This model, in not doing justice to Christ as the divine subject incarnate, reduces obedience to legalism and Christian freedom to self-grounded moral striving.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 140

About that primordial surd

Now, where does that magical power come from? It does not come from the realm of the gods, because the gods draw on it as well. It comes from that primordial realm behind the gods.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 82-83

<idle musing>
To get the full understanding of what he's driving at, you need to remember the previous excerpt. Basically, the gods are subject to a power greater than themselves and must manipulate that power via magic—just as humans try to do. So gods are just bigger versions of humanity, subject to circumstances outside themselves but with a bit more power and a longer (unending) life...that's what makes the biblical God so different and unique—he condemns magic because he doesn't need to control anything—he already does! And you can't control him via magic because he is creator of all...

Personally I find that refreshing and freeing : )
</idle musing>

Intellectual assent

“An idea about Christ, a doctrinal system, a general religious recognition of grace or forgiveness of sins does not require discipleship.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 139

<idle musing>
And that's how we got into this mess...
</idle musing>

What's that I see behind you?

In the Babylonian story of cosmic origins, the one who reigned had the tablets of destiny around his neck, and they had magical power. Did you notice any reference to magic in the book of Psalms? Did you notice any appeal to witchcraft or sorcery? Yet there is no god in any of the pantheons in the Ancient Near East who was not very skilled in magic, sorcery, witchcraft, and the occult. Why is that? If you are a god, why do you need a magical amulet and the skill to use it?...It is because there is a power behind the gods to which we must turn if we are to gain power. Notice that in magic there is no appeal to a personal god. The realm for magic, sorcery, witchcraft, and the occult is what [Yehezkiel] Kaufmann call the “metadivine,” the real beyond the gods. So he says, behind everything in the pagan understanding of reality there are two worlds, not one. There is the divine world and behind the divine world, there is the metadivine one. And the gods are as dependent on that metadivine world, the world of raw, faceless power, as we humans are. This idea is at the heart of every mythology; if you read Greek mythology, you will find it; if you read Norse mythology, you will find it, and on and on. In every one of them you will find that the nature, the activity, and the fate of every god is determined by a force outside of themselves.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 77-78

<idle musing>
And nothing has changed since then. Even among Christians, you see this. Use a particular verse to bind God to act in a certain way. Pray a certain prayer in a certain way. Do a liturgical act. Get up at a certain time. Read a certain number of Bible verses/chapters a day. The list goes on.

Why? Because we want to be in control! If there is a power behind God that we can get a handle on, we can control our destiny. We don't really believe that God is love, do we? If we did, we wouldn't see a need for all of that stuff...we would be able to "cast our cares upon him" and "take no thought for the morrow" and "in everything give thanks" and...well, you get the idea.
</idle musing>

Who is really important here?

Every Friday morning, several of us get together at 6:00 for an informal time of sharing and praying. The group varies in size from two to a dozen and has been meeting for over 10 years now. We gather at the local coffee shop, Java Moose, for about two hours.

Last Friday, the book Practice of the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence came up. In case you aren't aware of the book, it was written in the 1600s in a monastery in Paris. Brother Lawrence was the dishwasher for the monastery for many years; he was illiterate, so the book is a record of conversations between him and the person who wrote the book. It's delightful little book that you can easily read in a sitting—or spend a lifetime pondering its insights.

Steve, one of the guys there, commented that 400 years later, we don't know anything about the monastery's personnel except the dishwasher, the lowliest of the lows on the totem pole. The support staff, as it were, of the mission.

Interesting isn't it? I'm sure the people in charge at the time were convinced they were doing great things for God that were of lasting importance. But all we have is a book by a dishwasher! And it's had a major impact on many (millions, maybe) lives.

Think about that when you think of missions organizations. Maybe the support staff, who are usually considered overhead, are the ones who will be remembered 400 years from now..."But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first." (Matthew 19:30; Mark 10:31, NIV)

It isn't legalism

One of Bonhoeffer’s most important insights in Discipleship is his definition of the nature and effects of Christ’s authority. His understanding of Christ’s authority will allow him to depict God’s subjectivity in the Christ narrative. It will allow him to appropriate Jesus’s commandments and obedience to them as theologically suitable. But Bonhoeffer’s particular model of Jesus’s authority will also enable him to bring together grace and obedience without succumbing to either legalism or antinomianism. Thus his model of Christ’s authority is the positive insight that his deconstruction of “cheap grace” anticipates.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, pages 136-127

<idle musing>
I've heard people accuse Bonhoeffer of being a legalist after reading The Cost of Discipleship. I agree with the authors of this book; Bonhoeffer navigates the tricky waters between legalism and antinomianism very skillfully. Would that more people were able to...
</idle musing>

How atheistic are they really?

The reality is that any good atheist today is about sixty-five percent Christian. And if you listen to him, you will find that most of his arguments for his position had their origins in biblical revelation.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 72

<idle musing>
I heard Kinlaw argue in class once or twice that atheism couldn't exist in its current form without a Christian foundation. Interesting thought, isn't it?
</idle musing>

Say that again...

Because this Word is always God’s own, it is transcendent; but because it is God’s Word, it makes itself known. Because God makes God’s self known in God’s Word, human beings can hear that Word and know God through that Word. The Word is revelation of God inasmuch as it is God’s Word; and inasmuch as God’s Word is God’s, it is revelation of God to humanity.— Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 133

Who's in charge here, anyway?

To return to our psalm [16], we remember that the writer is saying there are two groups of people. There are those who are the holy ones, and there are those who seek what they want, and that is the difference between the two groups. Those in the one group let Yahweh be Lord and let Him decide what is good for them, while those in the other group have their own ideas, seeking and wanting what they want. At the most basic level that is the difference between the holy and the unholy.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 66-67

<idle musing>
Can't get any more basic than that, can you? I think that's a good summary. Do I want God to run my life? Or do I want to run my life?

If the latter, then any hope of success must come from me. I'm responsible for everything. And I can manipulate things to get my own way—actually, I have to manipulate things to get my way. And it might work for a while. Some people are very good at it—for a while, but eventually they will get caught or run into someone more powerful or better at it than they are.

No wonder people are stressed out! Personally, I opt for the first choice; I'll let God run my life. By doing that, I can relax and enjoy all of life's often bizarre circumstances because I know who is directing my paths...
</idle musing>

God's initiative

Barth surmounts the Kantian impasses between God’s transcendence and the object-boundedness of the human mind by insisting upon God’s revelation through God’s Word. Barth does not take issue with the epistemological gulf that Kant sees between the transcendent God and the limited cognition of the human mind. But while Barth agrees with Kant that the human mind cannot itself bridge this gulf, he does not believe God is constrained by the same limitations. God does what human capacity cannot do by bridging the gulf between divinity and humanity from the divine side rather than from the human side.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 132

<idle musing>
And you thought the book was about Bonhoeffer! : )
</idle musing>

Location, location, location?

All holiness comes from Him [Yahweh]. So, if it is a holy place, it is because He is there. When God said to Moses, “The place you are standing on is holy ground,” it was not because it was a religious site; it was not because it was a high place; it was not because other people had worshiped there before. It was holy because Yahweh was there. He alone is the source of holiness. And if there is anything holy, it gets its identification from its relationship to Him.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 66

<idle musing>
Kinda stands the old "location, location, location" saying on it's head, doesn't it?! : )
</idle musing>

Transition

In order to make sense of Bonhoeffer’s ethical development, including the emergence of his pacifism, it is vital to see the relationship between the Barcelona lecture on Christian ethics and Discipleship in terms of a transition from one theological whole to another. The endorsement of violence in the first thought structure is merely a part of the overall ethical and theological foundations that legitimate such an endorsement. So also, the peace ethic in Discipleship makes sense only within the framework of its own foundation theological commitments.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 127

<idle musing>
In other words, it wasn't just a minor adjustment that could easily be gone back on. It was a radical paradigm shift. In order to argue that Bonhoeffer later repented of his pacifism, we need to find a similar radical shift. The authors will argue we don't find that shift.

While I agree with them, I don't buy their argument that Bonhoeffer wasn't really actively involved in the resistance and the plot to kill Hitler. More on that later, when I write the review of the book as a whole.
</idle musing>

Why that word?

Neither Homer nor Virgil [sic] used it [hagios]. But it does occur a few times in scattered places, so it was available for the translators of the Septuagint to use if they chose to. So, why did they choose to? I believe, and I am not alone in believing it, that they chose hagios because it had the fewest negative connotations that came with the pagan concept of the holy. In order to convey what they knew to be true of Yahweh, they very carefully chose a word that was almost unknown.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 65

<idle musing>
I know that idea has fallen out of favor of late, but I still think it makes good sense...
</idle musing>

Radical

Not only does Bonhoeffer become a pacifist—not only does his mind change regarding practical applications in morals, in other words—but his work in Discipleship also demonstrates a fundamental reworking of the very foundations of Christian ethics.—Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 124

<idle musing>
In other words, after Bonhoeffer's time in the U.S. where he was exposed to biblical pacifism, he didn't just modify his views on the state, he had the equivalent of a conversion experience. It transformed the way he looked at everything. It would be the equivalent of an open-carry person suddenly becoming the proponent of massive gun control. Of Saul, the persecutor of Christians becoming Saul, the evangelist.

You read Bonhoeffer's early sermons on national themes, and he endorses the two kingdoms theory. He's all for the defense of national honor. He might not have agreed with Hitler's methods, but he endorsed the underlying reasons for it. But not after his sojourn in the U.S. and his exposure to the Sermon on the Mount in a new way by his French companion...would that more people would encounter the Sermon on the Mount in an unfiltered way!
</idle musing>

Listen and learn

As you know, a person’s language reveals a great deal about that person. If you le me listen to you long enough, I can tell what is in your heart. So, the psalmist says, the very nouns I use, or don’t use, will tell you what my commitments are. My language will reflect the fact that I have set Yahweh always before my face. He is the one whom I seek, and He is the one whom I want to serve.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 62

Are we confused about what peace is?

“How does peace come about? Through a system of political treaties? Through the investment of international capital in different countries? Through the big banks, through money? Or through universal peaceful rearmament in order to guarantee peace? Through none of these, for the single reason that in all of them peace is confused with safety. There is no way to peace along the way of safety. For peace must be dared. It is the great venture. It can never be made safe. Peace is the opposite of security. To demand guarantees it to mistrust, and this mistrust in turns brings forth war. To look for guarantees is to want to protect oneself. Peace means to give oneself altogether to the law of God, wanting no security, but in faith and obedience laying the destiny of the nations in the hand of Almighty God, not trying to direct it for selfish purposes. Battles are won, not with weapons, but with God. They are won where the way leads to the cross.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 57

Oh no, a nevil!

Evil is simply good in the wrong place or at the wrong time. It is not an eternal entity independent of the good gods as it is in most of the religions of the Ancient Near East. Even the snake of Genesis 3, which many interpreters equate with Satan, the Accuser, in Job is nothing more than a creature of God. Yahweh created everything that exists, so if you find something or someone acting contrary to God’s will, it is not because there is an independent evil force over against the creator God and in eternal conflict with Him. In the Old Testament, if something exists, no matter whether it is good or evil, God made it. But the reality is that evil is something that was originally good.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 60

<idle musing>
The post title is taken from The Magician's Nephew in the Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan has just created their world and an evil creature has already been set loose in it. But, the creatures a just created and don't know what evil is. They assume it is a creature, so they interpret it as "a nevil." OK, I guess it doesn't really fly, but I thought it was appropriate...
</idle musing>

Unless...

“Peace on earth is not a problem, but a commandment given at Christ’s coming. There are two ways of reacting to this command from God: the unconditional, blind obedience of action, or the hypocritical question of the Serpent: ‘Yea, hath God said...?’ This question is the mortal enemy of obedience, and therefore the mortal enemy of real peace.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 56

<idle musing>
Unless, of course, you don't really want to obey...violence is addictive. It seems to work—or is it that we want it to work, so we remember it as working? After all, that way we are doing something—unlike prayer, which feels like we aren't really doing anything...as usual, our perspective is backwards.
</idle musing>

Nothing really changes

He [Edwin Lewis, Methodist theologian from the mid-20th century] stood up and said, “Now, I can divide you right down the middle on one question. Your answer to that question will tell me whether you have a gospel to preach or not, and that question is this: Was Jesus the son of Mary who became the Son of God? Or was He the eternal Son of God who became the son of Mary? And if you go with the first, you have no gospel because there is nothing saving that is in us. Salvation is in God and in God alone. So if Jesus emerged out of us, He can do nothing more for us than we can do for ourselves. But if He came to us out of the nature of the eternal Deity, then He can do for us what only God can do.”— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 54

<idle musing>
Did he just read Ehrman's new book? Oh wait, he said that in the 1950s...nothing really changes, does it?
</idle musing>

Giving offense

“Christianity has adjusted itself much too easily to the worship of power. It should give much more offence, more shock to the world, than it is doing. Christianity should…take a much more definite stand for the weak than to consider the potential right of the strong.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 54 (ellipsis original)

About that CV

But then comes [1 Kings] 17:1: “Now Elijah the Tishbite, from Tishbe in Gilead, said to Ahab [the king], ‘As the Lord [Yahweh], the God of Israel, lives, whom I serve, there will be neither dew nor rain for the next few years except at my word.’” There is not a word of explanation about Elijah’s background, or who he is. I love it. We are given an example of the dreadful condition in which the country stood, but nothing aobut the prophet. He just showed up and said, “I have a word from Yahweh.” Why? Because it does not matter about Elijah; just as it does not matter about you and me. That is a magnificent model for a preacher. The important thing is the word of God, which he or she carries. And if he or she does not have such a word, nothing else counts.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 46-47

Ain't it the truth

One’s own folly leads to ruin,

yet the heart rages against the LORD. Prov. 19:3 TNIV

Thought for a rainy Saturday

My son, pay attention to what I say; turn your ear to my words. Do not let them out of your sight, keep them within your heart; for they are life to those who find them and health to one’s whole body. Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it. Keep your mouth free of perversity; keep corrupt talk far from your lips. Let your eyes look straight ahead; fix your gaze directly before you. Give careful thought to the paths for your feet and be steadfast in all your ways. Do not turn to the right or the left; keep your foot from evil. (Proverbs 4:20-27 NIV)

Another D-Day thought...

Read this book by Brian Zahnd:

— A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor's Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace

Especially today, when one of war's most memorable days is celebrated...would that we worshiped at the feet of the Prince of Peace instead of the statue of Mars...

D-Day thought

“The church forsakes obedience whenever it sanctions war. The church of Christ stands against war in favor of peace among the peoples, between nations, classes and races.

“However, the church also knows that there is no peace unless justice and truth are preserved. A peace that violates justice and truth is no peace, and the church of Christ must protest against such peace. There can be a peace that is worse than struggle. Yet it must be a struggle out of love for another, a battle that comes from the Spirit not from the flesh.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 34

<idle musing>
Appropriate for D-Day, don't you think?
</idle musing>

Perverse

He’s [God/Yahweh] the one who is. He is the One who was before you took advantage of somebody. He’s the One who was there while you were doing it, and He is the One who will be there when you finish doing it. And there is no way to escape Him. Where does the psalmist’s concern for the oppressed, the hungry, the prisoner, the blind, the broken, the foreigner, the orphan, the widow come from? All of that arose because he met Yahweh. I believe the proof that someone has met the living God is that he or she gets turned inside out and personal concerns shift from inward to outward. Do you know how badly we have corrupted that? What does “to be born again” mean to the typical American evangelical? Doesn’t it mean how to get my soul saved? Get me safe for heaven? I think that is an absolute perversion of biblical truth.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, page 37

<idle musing>
I just started reading A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor's Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace yesterday. He says the same thing—even more bluntly. By the way, if you are looking for a quick, but extremely challenging, read, then look no further. It's a great book—unless you are afraid of having your views challenged...especially if you have no problem waving a flag or saying the Pledge of Allegiance!
</idle musing>

How do you read the Bible?

“We prefer our own thoughts to those of the Bible. We no longer read the Bible seriously. We read it not longer against ourselves but only for ourselves.”—Bonhoeffer as quoted in Bonhoeffer the Assassin?, page 33

<idle musing>
Too many of us read "our" Bible. That is, we read what we want to see, which isn't necessarily what is there...
</idle musing>

More than a conception

So, biblically, the knowledge of God is different from having a conception of God by which one defines His nature. It is not a theory about Him. It is not ontological refection upon His being, but it is existential, and if it is a true knowing of Him it will affect you and it will affect Him. It is life in a true relationship with God. So the Old Testament does not try to bring us to a theology that defines the being of God.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 20-21

The end of theology

Many years ago—back before many of you were old enough to know right from wrong (Isaiah)—I was a seminary student. One of the courses I was privileged to take was a course in Old Testament Theology from Dennis Kinlaw. He had just stepped down from being president of Asbury College and taught for two semesters at Asbury Seminary. I took every class he taught, plus two independent study courses (Syriac and Aramaic—yes, in that order!). To say that he profoundly affected my theological development would be an understatement. He never was much of a writer; most of his books are edited versions of transcriptions of his seminars and sermons. The book I will be excerpting from next is no exception. I took the class in the summer of 1983; the book is a transcription of his lectures from the only other time (that I know of) that he taught the class after that, in 1993.

Here's the first of many excerpts. I hope they make you think and worship:

Furthermore, true theology ought to end in prayer. If theology is the study of God, the knowledge of God, and if God is God, then the end of the study ought to be worship. If it is not, if it has been only a study about a subject and our thoughts on that subject, that is idolatry; I have made God a thing. It does not matter how accurate my thought is; if it does not bring me to Him as a living Person, I have only found a substitute for Him, a knowledge of something other than God. When one comes to know the true God, the only response is, in the language of the Old Testament, fearful worship. I do not mean fearful in the sense of craven terror, but rather a deep-seated awe that you have come into the presence of the Holy one of Israel, the Creator and Lord of all.— Lectures in Old Testament Theology, pages 15-16

This is good

I subscribe (via RSS) to a few blogs that do weekly link lists—think of it as a weekly biblical studies carnival. Among them is the Wednesday Link List, done a Canadian blogger. Today he links to a good post on the consequences of misunderstanding holiness, calling out a well-known Christian leader in the process. Here's a snippet, but do yourself the favor of reading the whole thing (it's really quite short):

Whatever you’re trying to do for the sake of Christ, the most important lesson from the Gospels and epistles is the centrality of the Holy Spirit. You won’t last long by simply trying harder.

Living in fear of an angry God will grow old.

When fear of God gives way to loving God as a father, holiness becomes a natural response.

...

Before the cross, God had an intense, undying love for us.

In the epistle to the Romans, Paul had God’s mercy rather than his wrath in mind. He also called his readers to be renewed in their minds rather than trying harder:

“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” (Romans 12:1-2, NIV via BibleGateway)

<idle musing>
He's singing my song...oh, and while you're reading stuff, check out this post with the scary title of "The intimacy of toothbrushes (and sex)." Here's the final line from the post:

And it makes me wonder if, after an evening of flirting and good chemistry, if handsome guy was to sidle over to delightful girl and whisper, “so, you wanna go home and share my toothbrush?”, whether the response might not be a little different.

Something to think about...just an
</idle musing>

It's just possible

I ramble a good bit on this blog about transformation and the Christian life. Sometimes I feel like a voice in the wilderness...but today there's a good post on Jesus Creed that you should read. Here's a snippet to whet your appetite (yes, whet, not wet! look it up.)

Evangelical brands of Christianity in the west have too often espoused only a “change when I die” eschatology/soteriology. This doesn’t mean they are “bad” Christians. It simply means they have not yet developed the imagination, nor received any substantive teaching, regarding how to begin living the kinds of lives that people like Abraham, Moses, David, Ezekiel, Daniel, Mary, John the Baptist, or Paul, lived in and through the power of God while on earth. This is a result of modern evangelicalism having never developed a stomach (much less a budget) for discipleship as the PRIMARY objective of the church. Instead, most Christians today fully expect to become their perfect/perfected selves only after leaving earth and entering the eternal (eschatological) character reformation project in heaven. This is a widely held belief that unconsciously demotivated us from pursuing any sustained commitment to the intentional efforts involved in character transformation. Just like the rapture theology caused many conservative evangelicals to forsake responsible stewardship of the earth, so too a “change when I die” dogma stalls any move toward holiness.

<idle musing>
Amen! You can't hope to attain to something you don't believe is possible! If you think you're a sinner, you will act like a sinner! If you know you're a saint, you will begin to act like a saint...
</idle musing>

Its a scandal

Between Mark 15.13 and 16.6 he uses the verb σταυροῦν, which was so offensive to ancient ears, eight times, and three times he talks of the σταυρός of the Messiah. Only those who understand how extremely offensive this word will have been to both Jewish and Gentile ears will be able to grasp what that means.— The Atonement, 43

<idle musing>
No wonder Paul calls it the scandal of the cross...We need to recapture that.
</idle musing>

Old book

In my continuing quest to learn more, I've been going back and picking up older books that are referred to frequently in newer stuff. For some reason, there are huge gaps in my reading! What a surprise—not. With so much stuff being published, it's impossible to keep up. Anyway, one of the books that I've been meaning to read for decades now, is Martin Hengel's The Atonement. But, seeing the current debates, it's pretty obvious lots of people have overlooked it...here's a nice little snippet to add spice to your day:

That the man Jesus died meant little, for many men were crucified in Jewish Palestine at that time; incomparably more astonishing was the confession that this man Jesus, executed as a criminal, was raised by God. To say that the Messiah had died was a complete reversal of this. It was taken for granted that God would grant victory to the Messiah; the message of his death on the cross, however, was a scandal.— The Atonement, 40

Final thoughts on legalism

Legalism doesn’t need God. Legalism is the search for innocence—not forgiveness. It’s a systematic process of defending self, explaining self, and justifying self. Legalists are obsessed with self—not God.

Legalism:

Turns my opinion into your burden. There is only room for one opinion in this boat. And guess who is wrong!
Turns my opinion into your boundary. Your opposing opinion makes me question not only your right to have fellowship with me, but also your salvation.
Turns my opinion into your obligation. Christians must toe the company line. Your job isn’t to think, it’s to march.

If you want to be in the group, stay in step and don’t ask questions.— He Still Moves Stones, 120

<idle musing>
Wow. I've never heard it put so bluntly before! But he's right. And we call that "the gospel"?! What a negation of the term. We need to be set free, to know the truth that sets us free, i.e., the gospel!
</idle musing>