The Cost of Discipleship: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Pt.1

Alright, so I missed a couple of Fridays because of general life business, but here we are again today with a new post. I am revising my original goal of getting a post out every week. I realize now that was a bit overly ambitious. I will instead write at least 2 blog posts each month, sometimes more. The next few blog posts are all going to be over the same book.

I'm going to do a 4- part reflection on Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship because the book is worthy of volumes of reflection and is conveniently written in 4 parts. They are as follows:
1. Grace and Discipleship
2. The Sermon on the Mount
3. The Messengers
4. The Church of Jesus Christ and the Life of Discipleship
This reflection is Part 1, and will focus on Grace and Discipleship.

I've loved Bonhoeffer since reading his book: Letters and Papers in Prison for a class in undergrad. I haven't read much of his work, just these two books; but his life is fascinating and for a man who was killed so young; he has contributed an amazing amount to modern protestant theology.

About the Author
Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) is a German protestant theologian that was killed for being part of a plot to assassinate Hitler. He left a job in America to be in Germany during the war, because he felt it was his duty as a Christian to take a stand against the horrible injustice being done by the Nazis during WWII. He was ashamed that the church as a whole wasn't doing much to stand up against the Nazi's, and did all he could as an individual to live into his understanding of a what it meant to be a disciple in response to the tragedy at hand.

Summary
Part 1 of Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship is titled: Grace and Discipleship. There are 5 chapters in this section, each of which focuses on a different aspect of the main theme: grace and discipleship.

Chapter 1: Costly Grace
In this chapter, Bonhoeffer describes the difference between cheap grace and costly grace. He is frustrated because it seems to him that so many Christians are content to accept a grace that doesn't require any sort of sacrifice or transformation on the person's part. That is not what grace is about. grace should be transformative. It does more that forgive sin, it should not be used as an excuse to sin, and it is certainly not cheap because our grace was bought with the highest price. Cheap grace is the "justification of the sin without the justification of the sinner (page 43)." It is "the grace we bestow on ourselves (page 44)."

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. (Page 44-45) 

Cheap grace is just that: cheap. It's worth very little. Costly grace, however, is the "treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it  man will gladly go and sell all he has (page 45)." Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought after, a gift that must be asked for, and a door at which a person must knock.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a [person his or her] life, and it is grace because it gives a [person] the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner.

Grace should be costly, it cost God the very life of God's own son. It should not be a cheap thing to be taken for granted, but rather it is something to be treasured. It is given freely, but only to those who ask and receive; and when one asks and receives, one receives not only grace but a call to follow Christ. This is because "Costly grace is the Incarnation of God (page 45)." One cannot think of grace without thinking of Christ. "Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoe of Christ and follow him; it is grace because Jesus says: 'My yoke is easy and my burden is light (page 45)."

Cheap grace erases discipleship, when in fact, costly grace IS discipleship. To follow, to be transformed by, and to accept the love and forgiveness of God is the very nature of true, costly grace. Bonhoeffer believes the word of cheap grace has been the downfall of more Christians than anything else. The church is happy to offer grace, but only cheap grace. The call to follow the narrow path is hardly heard. This should not be the case. Grace is not grace unless it is also a call to discipleship. "Happy are they who know that discipleship simply means the life which springs from grace, and that grace simply means discipleship (page 56)." That brings us to the second chapter in this section.

Chapter 2: A Call to Discipleship
It is through an act of obedience that a disciple responds to call to follow Christ, not a confession of faith. "There is no road to faith or discipleship, no other road - only obedience to the call of Jesus (page 58)."One must forsake her former life and surrender it to the call. This can seem quite scary, but in reality, one only finds stability after she has 'burned her boats' to follow Christ.

The disciple is dragged out of his relative security into a life of absolute insecurity (that is, in truth, into the absolute security and safety of the fellowship of Jesus), from a life which is observable and calculable (it is, In fact, quite incalculable) into a life where everything is unobservable and fortuitous (that is, into one which is necessary and calculable), to of the realm of finite (which is in truth the infinite) into the realm of infinite possibilities (which is the one liberating reality). (page 58) 

Christ must be the object of this obedience, because discipleship means adherence to Christ. You cannot have Christianity without Christ, without discipleship. A system of rules and set of religious dogma cannot replace the living Christ and those who obediently respond to the grace of God with discipleship.

Faith is only made possible in the midst of the call of Jesus. Humans cannot come up with faith on their own outside of the grace of God. Discipleship is the response in obedience to a call of Jesus, and it is through this call that one receives justification in the grace of God. Faith is only possible because of this grace, and it is also a necessary part of the response of obedience. "Only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes (page 63)."Obedience and faith go hand in hand. One does not respond to a call to discipleship with faith alone, but rather "in exactly the same way in which obedience is called the consequence of faith, it must also be called the presupposition of faith (page 64)." One is obedient because of a faith in the grace of God that is given in the call to discipleship, and that faith is only possible because of obedience in responding to the call. One can obediently follow the call to Jesus without faith. Faith may not be possible until the first step is taken.

If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. then you will find yourself in a situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word. (page 67)

Think about the rich young man who asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. The response was simply to surrender his old life and follow Christ. Jesus knew true obedience could not be possible for the man while he had all of his things, because his heart would be in worldly possessions and he would be obedient to his greed. In order to be a disciple, he would need to sell them all and follow Jesus.

 

Think also of the lawyer who asks Jesus the same question in the parable of the Good Samaritan. This man means to tempt Jesus. He knows the law- love God, love neighbor. He asks Jesus who is his neighbor? Jesus responds with the parable of the Good Samaritan. So many times we ask this question- who is my neighbor? The lawyer here is trying to justify his disobedience, his refusal to love certain types of people. Jesus' answer tells him to stop asking questions and go live out the commandments. Answer the call. Be obedient.

And the final question "Who is my neighbor?" is the parting shot of despair (or else of self-confidence); the lawyer is trying to justify his disobedience. The answer is: "You are the neighbor. Go along and try to be obedient by loving others." (page 78)

Chapter 3: Single-Minded Obedience
This chapter is short and to the point. "Obedience to the call of Jesus never lies within our own power (page 85)." We are called purely to be obedient and have faith, and we cannot instead choose to make up our own rules or live according to our own religious system. We must simply hear the call of Christ, and respond to the grace of God with obedience. This is why the scriptures say that one cannot serve two masters. It is true, a disciple must serve only Christ. A disciple must have a single-minded obedience. Thankfully, there is grace. It would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Though with men and women this is impossible; with God all things are possible. Salvation through following Jesus is not something we can achieve ourselves- but with God, all things are possible.

Chapter 4: Discipleship and the Cross
The cross of Jesus symbolize his suffering and rejection. A disciple must also experience suffering and rejection and share in the Lord's experience of crucifixion in this way. Jesus himself says that any who are to follow must take up their cross. We must abandon the attachments of this world and deny ourselves. "Discipleship means allegiance to the suffering Christ, and it is therefore not at all surprising that Christians should be called upon to suffer (page 91)." When we put our obedience and our faith in Christ, we must certainly face the rejection of this world. We must also be willing to stand alongside Christ as an individual.

Chapter 5: Discipleship and the Individual
We must place our relationship as disciples above all other relationships. In doing this, we become individual followers of Christ. This does not mean we stand alone, however. Community is created through Christ. "He divides, but he also unites (page 100)." One must understand first that it is not on the backs of others that they can place their cross, but that one must carry her own cross in order to follow. Then, community can be truly experienced as individuals walking alongside one another in Christ.

Reflections
Costly grace. How many of us truly understand the cost of grace? I've always thought of grace as a gift freely given. It is a gift freely given, but that doesn't mean it doesn't cost anything to the giver or the receiver. The grace we receive is not free, just given freely, available to all who are willing to answer the call. I guess it's kind of like if someone wins a free trip to Disney World, the trip is freely given, but it still cost someone the money to pay for it; and you still have to actually make the journey to Disney World in order to experience the gift.

God has freely offered grace to all of us, and it cost God the life of God's own son. For us to use this precious grace as a 'cover all' of forgiveness both cheapens and misuses it. Grace does not give us an excuse to live corrupt, hateful lives. God offers us all grace not simply to forgive, but also to transform and to call back. Grace allows us to turn our hearts back to the spirit and renew our commitment as disciples.

If there is something I have learned while working with teenagers, its that they are not interested in cheap grace. They are not interested in easy answers. They want something transformative, something that requires commitment and work, something that challenges them and strengthens them. They want costly grace. They want discipleship. A good youth ministry should not revolve around pizza and Christian music from the 90's. A good youth ministry program studies scripture and the cultural script that helps us to understand it; asks tough questions and doesn't always have the answers; and focuses on building a strong community that values each individual and the ministry they are capable of within and outside the group. A good youth ministry helps young people to see where God is calling them and what gives them joy. It supports, loves, and accepts everyone no matter where they are on their journey. It offers grace that comes with a call to discipleship.

I'd like to say that this is what my youth ministry looks like, and I hope that it does most of the time. I know, however, that I am not perfect. I confess- I have used pizza and games to get young people through the doors. I can also tell you that pizza does not work as well as offering an opportunity to serve or be a part of the fight for justice. People come through the doors to play games, but more are able to build strong relationships with people who will walk alongside them for years when offered a place in a small mentoring group.

I am truly blessed to be ministering with a group of young people that has, as a community, decided to take the commandments of loving God and loving neighbor seriously. I love how Bonhoeffer summarized the parable of the Good Samaritan, and I cannot wait to teach this passage through the lens of this text. We take grace seriously when we realize that we are, in fact the neighbor. We are not the center, everyone else does not revolve around us. To accept the gift of costly grace is to realize this and "go along and try to be obedient by loving others (page 78)."

Citation
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. Touchstone, New York 1995.

The Humanity of God- Karl Barth

About the Author
Karl Barth (1886-1968) is a Swiss reformed theologian, and is known as one of the greatest protestant theologians of the 20th century for his most famous work: Church Dogmatics, which covers four major topics: Revelation, God, Creation, and Reconciliation (atonement) and was published in 13 volumes. He also wrote a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which was his first major work.

Summary of Content
Karl Barth's The Humanity of God was originally delivered as a lecture at the meeting of the Swiss Reformed Ministers Association in Aarau on September 25th, 1956. Barth claims that the problem with evangelical theology (which Barth describes in another lecture contained in this book as the "science and doctrine of the commerce and communion between God and man, informed by the gospel of Jesus Christ as heard in Holy Scripture (page 11)" is that it has become religionistic, anthropocentric, and humanistic. This is to say that the piety of man has become its "object of study and its theme (page 39)."

For this theology, to think about God meant to think in a scarcely veiled fashion about man, more exactly about the religious, the Christian religious man. (page 39)

Barth explains that in reading the Bible, the theme is not humanity's religious morality and certainly not humanity's secret deity, but rather;

[T]he theme of the Bible is the deity of God, more exactly God's deity - God's independence and particular character, to only in relation to the natural but also to the spiritual cosmos; God's absolutely unique existence, might, and initiative, above all, in His relation to man. (page 41)

So, one should not focus the conversation on the ways in which humans can become more like God, more pious, more religious, and more perfect; but rather one should examine the humanity of God and the utter necessity of God's relationship with God's created people. In order to examine God's humanity, one must concurrently study God's deity; for "it is precisely God's deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity (page 46)." Barth points out that this is a Christological statement, and rightly so; for in Jesus Christ we are dealing neither with a human in the abstract, or with God in the abstract, but "in Jesus Christ there is no isolation of man from God or of God from man (page 46)." Christ is both God and man, preserving the full integrity of both natures.

God's nature does not exclude human nature, but God and human exist entirely together in perfect relationship in the Christ. Barth goes so far as to say that "In Him the fact is once for all established that God does not exist without man (page 50)." Although God's own eternal love is sufficient within God's self, Barth states that God wants in God's freedom not to be without humanity, but to be with humans and for humans. This is God's grace, undeserved but freely given. This is also God's humanity.

His free affirmation of man, His free concern for him, His free substitution for him - this is God's humanity. (page 51)

Barth then goes on to outline 5 consequences of our knowledge of the humanity of God.

1. Because of God's humanity, one must acknowledge every other human being as sister and brother to Christ, and as daughter and son to God.

"On the basis of the eternal will of God we have to think of every human being, even the oddest, most villainous or miserable, as one to whom Jesus Christ is Brother and God is Father; and we have to deal with him on this assumption. If the other person knows that already, then we have to strengthen him in the knowledge. If he does not know it yet or no longer knows it, our business is to transmit this knowledge to him. On the basis of the knowledge of the humanity of God no other attitude to any kind of fellow man is possible.  It is identical with the practical acknowledgment of his human rights and his human dignity. To deny it to him would be for us to renounce having Jesus Christ as Brother and God is Father." (page 53)

2. Because God in God's deity is human, we must neither focus on humanity in itself or God in God's self, but rather we must concern ourselves with the human-encountering God and the God-encountering human. Who is the God that we interact with? Who are the people that God interacts with?

3. God's humanity calls an alignment between theological thinking and speaking. Theology cannot be done in a vacuum, we can never merely think in theories. It is not a monologue but rather a conversation. It is not a fixed picture but rather a living relationship that we study.

He whose heart is really with God and therefore really with men may have faith that the Word of God, to which he seeks to bear witness, will not return unto Him void. (page 59)

4. The way we speak of the covenant of God with humanity must be positive, because God in God's humanity is utterly full of grace and affirmation; and the news is Good.

This much is certain, that we have no theological right to set any sort of limits to the loving-kindness of God which has appeared in Jesus Christ. Our theological duty is to see and understand it as being still greater than we had seen before. (page 62) 

5. The knowledge of the humanity of God must "take seriously, affirm, and thankfully acknowledge Christendom, the Church (page 62)."

The Church is not too mean a thing for Him but, for better or for worse, sufficiently precious and worthy in His eyes to be entrusted with His witnessing and thus his affairs in the world - yes, even Himself. So great is God's loving-kindness! For this reason there is no private Christianity. (page 64)

It is in the Church that we participate in and share with others a relationship with a human God is affirms us as God's created people. It is good, for "If God is for us, who is against us?"

Reflection
I've just got a short reflection on this week's work of theology. Although I'm not sure I agree with (or entirely understand) the notion that God does not exist without humanity, I did really appreciate the discussion of God's humanity in Barth's lecture. I most enjoyed the first point he made in the final part of his lecture: Because of God's humanity, one must acknowledge every other human being as sister and brother to Christ, and as daughter and son to God. This, to me, is the perfect picture of Christendom on earth. Everyone treating everybody like we all deserve to be treated. How many things would be different today if we really made a conscious effort to show love and respect to our fellow human being, no matter whether or not we like them or agree with them. If God is for us, who is against us? If we are for each other, then the answer is: no-one. A short reflection, but a tall order.

Book Citation
Barth, Karl. The Humanity of God. Louisville: WJK, 1996.

On Free Will - St. Anselm of Canterbury

I have been intrigued by Anselm ever since I first learned of his Ontological argument in a Philosophy of Religion class in college. The Ontological argument states that God is 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived,' and because God is the greatest possible imaginable being, God cannot be thought not to exist; for a God thought not to exist is not 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived' and is thus not God. It's an interesting argument, because [supposedly] one cannot refute the existence of God as God is understood in the terms of this definition. I have read several articles that make the point that you cannot equivocate something thought of in the mind to something existing in objective reality; but I still think the Ontological argument holds a lot of merit. Anyway, I didn't read about this argument in Anselm's Proslogion this week, but I did read something else of his from my collection of major works. I decided to read about Anselm's thoughts on free will.

Anselm defines free will differently than I have always thought of it for myself, and I think I might like his definition more than the loose one I've been working with all these years. On Free Will is written as a conversation between a student (S) and a teacher (T), and the student is asking the teacher all sorts of questions about his understanding of free will and liberty. The teacher continues to teach and challenge the student throughout the conversation, until finally the student runs out of questions. It's a shorter piece of literature, but it does well to go deep into the idea of free will both succinctly and with clarity. I am already looking forward to reading through the rest of Anselm's works in this book and reflecting on them in the future.

About the Author
St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) was the Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093-1109. At age 27, he became a Benedictine monk at the Bec monastery and became a disciple of the current prior: Lanfranc. When Lanfranc left the monastery in 1063, Anselm became the principal teacher at Bec. Soon after he wrote the Monologion, which he considered to be a 'meditation on the divine essence', and followed it shortly with his Proslogion. in 1708 Anselm became the Abbot of Bec. He started to garner quite the reputation as his writing circulated through Europe, and others began to challenge his work. He wrote On the Incarnation of the Word just to clarify his position on the Trinity after someone pointed out his name had been linked to an unorthodox teaching.

In 1093, Anselm became Archbishop of Canterbury, though he didn't much care for the post. He didn't get along well with the king, and had to deal with some conflict there. There was also a good deal of conflict due to the East West schism which had occurred in 1054. The pope asked Anselm to speak on the main theological question of the schism (whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Father alone, or from both God the Father and God the Son) to try and sway the Greeks, who believed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from God the Father alone. Anselm did speak at the Council at Bari, but was unsuccessful in swaying the Greeks. Anselm died on April 21st in 1109, on the Wednesday of Holy Week at age 76. (Page vii-x)

Summary
Anselm defines free will as the power of preserving the rectitude of will for its own sake. Basically, that means free will is the ability to align a person's own will with the will of God, simply because that is a person's natural and free state (like Adam and Eve before the fall). Anselm says that the ability to sin has nothing to do with free will. Free will is the ability not to sin in spite of the temptations and evils present in this world. Yes, both humans and angels have the capacity to sin, but that is not the same has having a free will to sin.

Anselm explains that a person who is able to refrain from becoming a slave to sin is more free than one who chooses to sin. The first humans were totally free to choose not to sin. They could not be made to sin by any power other than their own. They had that total freedom. They did choose to sin, but it was in spite of their free will, not because of their free will.

For what has it in its power not to serve cannot be forced by another to serve, although it can serve by its own power. (Page 177)

One cannot be forced to become a slave to sin, and one is not naturally in that state. It is not until a person willingly chooses to abandon her rectitude that she becomes a slave to sin. Anselm explains that no temptation can force one to sin unwillingly. The example is given of a person who must lie to save his life. The student asks Anselm whether his lie might be given unwillingly, because it was given under threat of immanent death. Anselm points out that he has still willingly chosen to lie, even if he did not will to lie for the sake of the lie, but for the sake of his life. He has unwillingly been thrust into a situation in which he must choose between sin and death, but if he had chosen to act according to his free will and preserved his rectitude for its own sake, he would have prevailed in eternal life. Anselm's point here is that no temptation can conquer right will, because the will can only be conquered by itself.

Although our will sometimes seems powerless against temptations, Anselm points out that "temptation can fight against a will that does not give in, but cannot conquer it against its will (Page 185)." We always have free will, or the ability not to sin, even when we are in the midst of abandoning our free will. It is likened to a person still having the ability to see, even though they might currently have their eyes closed. Anselm says that not even God can take away our free will, though only God can restore rectitude of will to a person who has abandoned it. When we abandon our free will, we become slaves to sin (though willingly). We are unable to restore our righteousness on our own. We still have the inherent ability to preserve our original rectitude, because we never lose our free will; but we cannot be restored through our own power. We are only restored to righteousness through the will of God.

Those who lack rectitude either lack it irrecoverably or recoverably. He who recoverably lacks it is one of the men in this life who lack it although many of them do not recover it. Those who lack it irrecoverably are reprobate angels and men, angels after their ruin and men after this life. (192)

Reflections
I always thought that there was sin in this world because of our free will, and that free will was our ability to choose to sin or not to sin. Anselm's definition has given me a lot to think about. I think I really like it. It makes free will sound more like something God has equipped us with to fight against the temptations and evils in this world, rather than something God has burdened us with. It makes a lot of sense too, because why would God (who is totally Good and cannot be in relationship to sin) "gift" God's created beings with the ability to sin?

I like the idea that God instead gifted us with the free will to refrain from sinning. God has gifted us all with the capacity to love God and to love neighbors, and hate has nothing to do with free will. To choose hate is to choose against the free will God has given each of us. God has gifted us with the ability to remain patient and not lash out in anger and frustration. Violence is not an effect of free will, but it is rather to defect from it, to abandon the rectitude of will. Choosing hatred and violence is choosing willingly to become a slave to sin. Choosing love, patience, mercy, and forgiveness is to act according to our free will, align our will with God's will, and remain righteous.

According to this definition, Anselm does not believe humans are born into 'original sin', because if we were, then we would not inherently have free will- the ability to choose not to sin. This too, I like, because I have never been comfortable with the notion that humans are without the capacity to refrain from sinning; and never liked to think that we are born with evil (sin) in us. If this were so, if humans were born into original sin, then God seems entirely unjust to punish people for living into their natural state of being. Anselm's definition of free will disallows for this notion, and rather favors the idea that humans are born naturally with free will, and have the total capacity to live out their entire lives in alignment to God's will. We simply choose more often than not to abandon this free will and allow sin to enslave us.

One human being lived into his free will his entire life, and we all know who that is: (think Sunday School) Jesus of course! I have not read any of Anselm's Christology, so I cannot comment on the roll of the Christ in the restitution of our free will, but I will most likely be reflecting on it in the near future as I continue to read more of Anselm's work and understand his theology better. Humans are not always good, though (according to Anselm) we could be if we tried hard enough. God, however is Good all the time. All the time, God is Good. Amen.

Book Citation
St. Anselm. Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

The Crucified God by Jürgen Moltmann

Since today is Good Friday, it seemed appropriate to reflect on a book that examines the theology of  the cross. The title of this book told me it would fit the bill: The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology.  Most Christians understand the importance of the crucifixion and the resurrection as the foundation for their faith, but Moltmann talks about their significance on a whole new level. For him, the Cross is the framework by which all of Jesus' teachings must be understood, and theology of the Cross must be at the foundation of everything the Church does and considers itself to be. Our relevance as Christians lies in our identification with the crucified and resurrected Christ. The book took some time to get through, but I feel like I got a lot out of it and I look forward to reading more of Moltmann's work in the future. In college, I had a project where I edited the Wikipedia page for Jürgen Moltmann, and although I've always appreciated him as a liberation theologian, this is the first time I've critically examined one of his books. In my reflection, I focus on the first 5 chapters of his book which deal with Christology. His last three chapters systematically develop his understandings of the consequences of his theology for the concept of God, for anthropology, and for a critical theory of church and society. I will instead offer my own reflections on my understanding of his Christology.

 

About the Author

Jürgen Moltmann (born 1926) is a German reformed theologian, known best for his book: Theology of Hope. He is influenced by Karl Barth's dialectical theology, and by Hegel's absolute idealism (among others).  He was introduced to Christian Theology as a POW in WWII. He served as a Professor of Systematic Theology at the University of Tubingen (in Germany) from 1967 until he retired in 1994.

Book Summary

The Cross as a Foundation for the Identity and Relevance of Christian Faith

Moltmann begins his book with a discussion on the identity and relevance of faith. The crisis of relevance in Christian life is the church's inability to have a profound impact on the world that is distinctly Christian. Should Christians get involved in social justice movements? Yes, but what about our involvement is Christian? People of other faiths and atheists all get involved in social justice movements as well, because it is the reasonable and humane thing to do. How does our relevance as Christians in society relate to our identity as Christians?

Christian identity can be understood only as an act of identification with the crucified Christ, to the extent to which one has accepted the proclamation that in him God has identified himself with the godless and those abandoned by God, to whom one belongs oneself. (Kindle Locations 337-338)

Our identity is forever linked to our identification with Christ. If we understand our relevance through this framework, then we stay true to ourselves as Christians. Too many churches try to maintain their identity by proclaiming that they alone have the truth. They point to themselves and their theology as ultimate truth, instead of relying wholly upon their identity in Christ. They have adopted the understanding that they are bearing their own cross when others point out their faults. As Moltmann states:

When the 'religion of fear' finds its way into the Christian church, those who regard themselves as the most vigilant guardians of the faith do violence to faith and smother it. (Kindle Locations 346-347).

Similarly, there have been many attempts to distort the message of the cross to keep people in oppression. A group might say that an oppressed people must simply be willing to 'bear their cross.' This does not correlate to what Jesus said when he told his disciples they must be willing to take up their cross and follow him. When Jesus said that, it was a call to action; a call to rebellion against the status quo. Jesus was the ultimate liberator, offering hope and redemption to all people. He was not afraid to take action, not afraid to step on anyone's toes. When an oppressed people take up their cross, they take action towards liberation.

 

We must work to properly understand the symbol of the cross, for it is of the utmost importance.

The symbol of the cross in the church points to the God who was crucified not between two candles on an altar, but between two thieves in the place of the skull, where the outcasts belong, outside the gates of the city. It does not invite thought but a change of mind. It is a symbol which therefore leads out of the church and out of religious longing into the fellowship of the oppressed and abandoned. On the other hand, it is a symbol which calls the oppressed and godless into the church and through the church into the fellowship of the crucified God. (Kindle Locations 626-630).

Our identity in the cross must be tied to our relationship with other people, especially the poor and oppressed. That is how we can become relevant as a Church. When we take up our own cross, we must be willing to suffer rejection. When we tie our identity to Christ, we tie ourselves to his love for humanity. Love leaves us open to wounding and disappointment, for nothing is so humanizing as love.

 

Theology of the Cross

Moltmann transitions from a discussion of relevance and identity into a discussion of theology.

Moltmann explains that to speak of God, one must understand that God cannot merely be the object of human discourse. God must be thought of as subject alongside object. This means that theology is only possible when understanding God through what God has said or done. The cross of Christ shows us in one instance God as subject and object. Jesus is God, and Jesus is abandoned by God on the cross. ("My God My God, why have you forsaken me?) God is emptied of God's self, in order that God might be made known to humans more intimately. For this reason, our faith "stands and falls with the knowledge of the crucified Christ, that is, with the knowledge of God in the crucified Christ (kindle locations 994-995)."

 

The act of Jesus' crucifixion was utterly scandalous, completely incomprehensible, and wholly offensive. It was the moment in which God totally and completely emptied God's self, and in that period of time when God was dead, all hope was gone. Then on that first Easter morning, God was made fully known in the resurrected Christ, and the hope that Jesus brought with him back from the grave is a hope for all who tie their identity to him.

 

Who is Jesus

Moltmann explains that we cannot be satisfied with either a quest to understand the historical Jesus or with a Christology which ignores Jesus the man in favor of examining Jesus as God. There is an intimate link between who Jesus was/is, and what Jesus preached; and both must be understood through the lens of the crucified and risen Christ.

 

Moltmann explains how Jesus preached eschatologically of the kingdom of God, unlike Paul who preached eschatologically about the righteousness of God. Those who would preach about Jesus understood the dominion of God to have been inaugurated in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The teaching of Jesus was tied to his person. It included concrete promises about who he was and what his role in the kingdom of God was. It also included promises for the people around him. It was the way Jesus spoke of the kingdom of God that lead to his persecution and eventually crucifixion. As Moltmann explains, here was some poor man from Nazareth (and what good can come from Nazareth?) proclaiming the kingdom and justification of God to the poor and the sinners around him. In his death, Jesus fulfilled his proclamation. (I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it).

 

The proclaimer has become the proclaimed. This is the essential problem of Jesus himself, and can only be understood in Christological terms. The historical Jesus IS the crucified and dead Jesus. The true critique of the preaching of Jesus is his crucifixion. That is the framework through which the words, teachings, and actions of Jesus must be understood. The resurrection is a necessary part of this framework, because while Jesus’ death on the cross might be understood as a refutation to his preaching (he was killed because the religious and political leaders of the time refuted his teaching); the resurrection is a repudiation of this refutation (Jesus really was who he said he was). Jesus preaching about the kingdom of God is fulfilled and transformed by his death and resurrection. The eschaton has begun. No one who is speaking of Jesus can do so without bearing this in mind. Faith in God is faith in the resurrection. The God who abandons Jesus in the crucifixion is the same God who is present in the resurrection. This God is the same God who is incarnate in the person of Jesus, and the same God that Jesus is fully conscious of, who fully existed in his person, throughout his earthly ministry.

 

The Significance of the Resurrection

As Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:14, "If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith is vain." If Christ is not risen, we are left at the cross, abandoned by God, and without hope. The crucifixion must be understood in light of the resurrection. The resurrection is about so much more than just the miracle of Jesus coming back to life. As Moltmann explains:

Jesus resurrection from the dead by God was never regarded as a private and isolated miracle for his authentication, but as the beginning of the general resurrection of the dead, I.e. as the beginning of the end of history in the midst of history. His resurrection was nor regarded as a fortuitous miracle in an unchangeable world, but as the beginning of the eschatological transformation of the world by its creator. Thus the resurrection of Jesus stood in the framework of a universal hope of eschatological belief, which was kindled in it. (Kindle Location 2397)

The hope of Easter after abandonment by God shines forward into the hope for a new creation in the midst of the world's current suffering.

Any interpretation of the meaning of his death which does not have as a presupposition his resurrection from the dead is a hopeless matter, because it cannot communicate the new element of life and salvation which came to light in his resurrection. ... His resurrection is the content of the significance of his death on the cross 'for us' because the risen Christ is himself the crucified Christ. His resurrection from the dead can be known in his death 'for many'. It is not that his 'resurrection' is a dimension of his death on the cross; on the contrary, his sacrifice on the cross for the reconciliation of the world is the immanent dimension of his eschatological resurrection in the glory of the coming kingdom... In the one who became poor for our sake, God's riches are opened up for us. In the one who became a servant for our sake, we are grasped by God's freedom. In the one who became sin for us, sinners become the righteousness of God in the world. (Kindle Locations 2726-2749)

This hope is apocalyptic because it promises righteousness in an unrighteous world, and it is eschatological because it promises new life. A new life for the sinner. A new life for the poor. A new life for the oppressor and for the oppressed. It is the resurrection that qualifies the saving significance of Christ's death on the cross for us.

 

Reflection
Having read this book during Holy Week, I am struck with a new appreciation for the significance of Good Friday and Holy Saturday. In the past, I had been so focused on the celebration of Easter Sunday that I nearly forgot the lament and despair that come with Good Friday and Holy Saturday. What does it mean to "celebrate" the death of Christ and the abandonment of God? I'm not sure I can answer that question, even for myself. I am left feeling disquieted and uncomfortable just thinking about it. I know Easter is coming, but what about the disciples on the day after Christ was crucified who didn't know that Easter was coming? What must they have been experiencing?

Perhaps it is necessary to remember this feeling of abandonment and despair, because without it- what significance would the elation of celebration on Easter morning mean? Perhaps I'm not meant to understand it, but simply to acknowledge it and to feel it. How can I understand the light if I've never been in darkness? Liberation theologians talk about God's 'preferential option for the poor and oppressed', meaning that God favors the poor and oppressed. I now understand that idea in a new way. The more fully a person has experienced 'abandonment' by God, the more fully a person can appreciate God's presence.

Jesus was the only person to ever live who knew God's presence fully and intimately, and so his despair of having been abandoned by God on the cross would have been absolute. How does God abandon God's self? How does God become empty of God? I'm not sure, but perhaps it is something akin to how we are asked to die to ourselves or deny ourselves, and follow Christ. For a moment, God was emptied of Gods self so that God might be in perfect relationship to humanity.

Perhaps that is why Moltmann says our faith must begin in that moment of abandonment on the cross. Then, when Jesus was open and completely vulnerable, God and yet abandoned by God, fully human and completely linked to all of humanity; he died, taking 'us' with him. Then in the resurrection, 'we' are all brought back into a new life, a new way of being.

Romans 6:3 says: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" When we link ourselves to Christ, we are linking ourselves to his death so that we might also experience the new life that is promised to all who believe. When we say that Christ died for us, it's about more than him dying for our sins. It's about him dying for us as a full being {and now I'm getting how Moltmann was influenced by Hegel}, so that we might forever unite our 'self' to God's 'self', so that we can participate in relationship with God in a meaningful way. Perhaps this is what is meant by the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. It is our link to God's essential being that we receive when we die to ourselves and participate in the death of Christ. 

This Christology brings a whole new level of understanding to the celebration of Easter, for me at least. I have, until now, understood Holy Week as a time to remember that Christ died for our sins, and that Christ rose again so that we who are imperfect might have a relationship with a perfect God that includes eternal life. I'm not saying I was wrong, but I believe I now have a more full and complete understanding. From what I now understand, Holy Week remembers that Christ died and was resurrected for us, so that we who put our faith in Christ will have a new life and the opportunity to participate in eternal life. I have a much better understanding of my part in the story, and a much greater appreciation for the despair of Holy Saturday.

I also appreciated the discussion of Jesus's morality as being linked to his God-consciousness. How many times have I heard the words: What Would Jesus Do? They were always linked to a specific situation, many times the situation was one that Jesus would not have concerned himself with. Jesus was inherently good because Jesus was always and in everything aware of God's presence. Jesus was/is God, and so his awareness of God was perfect. I am not God, but I can certainly try to make myself aware of God in all situations. This is not to say "be careful, for God is watching" but rather to understand that as a Christian, the way I treat other people and the way I conduct myself are both known to and representative of God. It's all part of the new life that is promised to (and expected of) those who choose to follow the crucified and resurrected Christ.

Christ has died. Christ is risen. Christ will come again. Hallelujah!
 

Notable Quotes:

• "In Christ, God and our neighbor are a unity, and what God has joined together, man shall not put apart, least of all the theologian." (Kindle Locations 408-409).
• "Even the disciples of Jesus all fled from their master's cross. Christians who do not have the feeling that they must flee the crucified Christ have probably not yet understood him in a sufficiently radical way." (Kindle Locations 597-598). 

Book Citation
Jürgen Moltmann. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology. Kindle Edition.

Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich

Here it is! Friday #1, with book #1. I chose to write my first reflection on one of my favorite theology books: Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich. I wrote my senior thesis in college on Paul Tillich, and this book is a big reason why I chose to do so. I think its great, and it really changed the way I think about faith.

 

 

About the Author

 

Paul Tillich (1886-1965) is a German- American theologian and a Christian existentialist philosopher*. His best known books are: Dynamics of Faith and The Courage to Be. Many think of Tillich as one of the most influential theologians in the 20th century. Some of his focuses include symbols of Christian revelation, the problem of human existence, and relating theology to modern culture.

 

 

Book Summary

 

1. What Faith Is

Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned. It demands total surrender to the subject of ultimate concern. Faith is more than the sum of its parts, and it has a transcendent quality. It is more than believing, more than acting, more than understanding. These are elements of faith, but faith goes beyond all of that. Faith is ecstatic, meaning that it allows a person to stand outside of herself without ceasing to be herself. It is both the belief, and the thing that makes belief possible.

In order for a person to be in relationship with another being, there must be both subject and object, just like a sentence has to have a subject and an object. True faith focuses on God (that which is truly ultimate) as its ultimate concern, and so subject and object become one. Tillich refers to God as 'being-itself', and as such, God is at the center of each human existence. Faith connects our essential being to God's essential being (which is being-itself), and transcends all human experience. For this reason, where there is faith, there is an awareness of holiness.

Faith also includes uncertainty and doubt. Doubt is not lack of faith, but rather is a necessary element to true faith. As humans, we are finite beings. We must accept our finitude, and we must accept an element of uncertainty in our faith. The element of faith which accepts this is courage. Tillich has written an entire book on this subject (The Courage to Be), but I will quote his summary of the concept here:

Courage as an element of faith is the daring self-affirmation of one's own being in spite of the powers of "nonbeing" which are the heritage of everything finite (page 19).

Doubt is a necessary consequence of the risk of faith. It must be experienced and accepted through courage. It is not a permanent experience, but it is always present as one element in the structure of faith.

2. What Faith is Not

Faith is not merely an act of knowledge with little to no evidence backing it up. It is not ignoring the evidence (or lack of evidence) and 'believing anyway'. Faith neither affirms nor denies scientific knowledge or understood fact.

3. Speaking Symbolically

We can only talk about God symbolically, because we are finite beings with finite knowledge. Nothing we say about God will ever be perfectly true. Symbols are like signs in that they point to something beyond themselves, but they are different than signs because they "participate in that to which [they] point (page 48)." Tillich gives here the symbol of the American Flag. If the faith here is patriotism, and the 'ultimate concern' is one's country, the American Flag would be a symbol that both represents patriotism and participates in it. If someone were to burn the flag, it would be considered a sort of 'blasphemy' on patriotism.

Symbols also open up levels of reality which we may not otherwise be able to understand, and unlock dimensions and elements of our soul which correspond to such elements of reality. The example given here is a great painting or play, which opens us up to an aspect of human experience we might not otherwise have known; and also helps us to understand ourselves on a different level. Finally, symbols cannot be produced intentionally- they must grow out of a collective unconscious; and as such they are living things- they can grow and they can die.

 

Tillich goes on to explain that the fundamental symbol of our ultimate concern is God. "God is a symbol for God (page 53)."

Faith, if it takes its symbols literally, becomes idolatrous! It calls something ultimate which is less than ultimate. Faith, conscious of the symbolic character of its symbols, gives God the honor which is due him (page 60).

God is not the only symbol for faith, but God is the basic symbol of faith. Tillich makes it clear that God as being-itself is very much a reality and that God is the truly ultimate, but as he has already stated: we can only speak symbolically about God. Symbols are the language of faith.

The criterion of the truth of faith, therefore, is that it implies an element of self-negation. That symbol is the most adequate which expresses not only the ultimate but also its own lack of ultimacy (page 112).

Here Tillich points  to Jesus the Christ, who gave up his own ultimacy in an act of total self-negation on the cross. The Christ is the ultimate symbol, pointing to and participating in the ultimate story of God's love for humanity. Jesus opens up a level of reality that humans would otherwise not be able to experience- relationship with the divine. Jesus also creates in us a New Being, which Tillich goes into depth about in some of his other work- that's for another time.  

Reflections

Before I read this book, I thought faith and believing were the same thing. I thought that what I believed made me a faithful person. The idea of faith being anything more than that never crossed my mind as a possibility. I assumed that I was a Christian because I had faith in God and in Jesus as the Christ; and I assumed having faith in those things meant I believed they were true. This idea of faith as the state of being ultimately concerned has completely transformed the way I participate in relationship with God.

Faith connects me (as a finite, imperfect being) to an infinite and perfect God. God is always drawing me in to relationship- for God is both subject and object, and faith is how I participate in the connection of my essential being to God.   When I ground the center of my being in the God who is being-itself, I live in faith. This makes being a faithful person about a whole lot more than believing the right things and following the right rules. I must totally surrender myself to God. This is no easy task, and it takes a lifetime of dedication, or-as we Christians normally call it- discipleship. I am not a perfect disciple, and I have to accept that about myself.

 

This is where the aspect of courage that Tillich talks about comes in. I am a finite being, and I am not perfect. It is always going to be difficult to live fully into a faith that acknowledges God as my ultimate concern. I will have to make sacrifices, there is going to be doubt, and I will make mistakes. However, Tillich states in his book: A Courage To Be that "the courage to be is the courage to accept oneself as accepted in spite of being unacceptable (Courage to Be, page 164)." Part of having faith is acknowledging that I am unacceptable, and understanding that God loves me and accepts me anyway.

 

As a youth pastor, I spend a lot of time talking about what it means to have faith. It is difficult to explain Tillich's notion of faith concretely; but I believe a discussion on the role of the Holy Spirit can be helpful. It is familiar to students that when Jesus left this earth, he sent the Holy Spirit to be a guide and an advocate, to dwell with us and within us as a community. The Holy Spirit is alive in our Church when we as a people of God are living into our relationship with God. We understand the Holy Spirit as a part of our essential being, and when we rely on the Holy Spirit, we are connecting our essential being to God who is being-itself.

 

So how do we rely on the Holy Spirit? Through prayer of course, and when we are worried about something or don't know what to do. Also though. we can participate in faith through our connection to the Spirit by simply acknowledging its presence and importance in our lives. We can let our thoughts dwell on God, we can see the Spirit alive in others, we can let the beauty of God's creation remind us who it is we rely on for life.

When a doctor or a lawyer is getting ready to take her big exams; she will think about it constantly for weeks and months up until the test date. What little time she does not spend studying will be spent worrying or contemplating. The test is her 'big concern' for the time being. That concern is temporary, but God as our ultimate concern is forever. To be a faithful person all the time is to be always in the state of ultimate concern; to be always participating in relationship to God, always relying on the Holy Spirit.

 

This means that my understanding of God must necessarily affect everything I do- the way I treat other people, the choices I make, everything. Again, we are not going to be perfect. We must accept this, and accept that God accepts us in our imperfection. I am reminded of the rich man who asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life.

17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

¹⁸ Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. ¹⁹ You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.’” ²⁰ He said to him, “Teacher, I have kept all these since my youth.” ²¹ Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” ²² When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.

23 Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it will be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”

²⁴ And the disciples were perplexed at these words. But Jesus said to them again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! ²⁵ It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” ²⁶ They were greatly astounded and said to one another, “Then who can be saved?” ²⁷ Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible.” ~Mark 17:10-27 NRSV

 

So many of us are willing to believe. We are willing to follow the rules. But God alone is good. When we are asked to totally surrender ourselves to God, to give up the other things in our lives that have become gods to us (for this man- his money), we just can't do it. What do I have in my life that keeps me from fully participating in faith? How can I begin to chip away at the things that keep me from being willing to drop it all and follow Jesus? Can any of us say we would really be willing to give up the other things that are important to us and totally surrender ourselves to God?

 

"Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said, "For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible."

 

Amen.

 

Notable Quotes

• "Faith is the state of being ultimately concerned." (page 1)
• "Our ultimate concern can destroy us as it can heal us. But we can never be without it." (page 18)
• "God is a symbol for God." (page 53)
• "Faith, if it takes its symbols literally, becomes idolatrous! It calls something ultimate which is less than ultimate. Faith, conscious of the symbolic character of its symbols, gives God the honor which is due him." (page 60)
• "Reason is the precondition of faith; faith is the act in which reason reaches ecstatically beyond itself." (page 87)
• "Faith cannot guarantee factual truth. But faith can and must interpret the meaning of facts from the point of view of man's ultimate concern." (page 99)
• "Faith stands upon itself and justifies itself against those who attack it, because they can attack it only in the name of another faith. It is the triumph of the dynamics of faith that any denial of faith is itself an expression of faith, of an ultimate concern." (page 147)

 

 

Book Citation

Tillich, Paul. Dynamics of Faith. New York: Harper Collins, 1957.

Notes

*Existentialism focuses on an individual person as a 'free agent' who determines their own future and development by the choices they make. Christian existentialism then focuses on the relationship between humans (free agents) and God. [Side note: for more insight into Christian existentialism, read some Kierkegaard. I'll reflect on some of his books at some point.]

So I had this idea....

My name is Jenna, and I love to read. Having spent the last 6 years in college and seminary studying to be a Youth Pastor, I've had the opportunity to read a lot of theology books. Now as I work in a Church ministering to students, I get to teach about what I'm reading.

In school, we'd normally have to write reports or papers on the books we read, and I have found that I really enjoy reflecting on the things that I read by writing about them. I graduated from seminary in the spring of 2012, and over this past year I've missed having the discipline of writing down my reflections on the books that I'm reading.

I'm probably one of the only people who misses having to write papers and book reports in school, but there you have it. I'm a little bit of a nerd. I'm also the kind of person who can't half-do anything. I like to dive all the way in to the things that I'm passionate about. For example, I ran my first 5k last September, and have already signed up for a marathon this coming October. Along the same lines, when I read a good book I can't just put it down and move on to the next one. I want to reflect on it, write a curriculum that uses information from it, talk about it with others, and get other people excited about it too.

That's where this blog comes in. Every Friday for 1 year, I'll write a reflection on a theology book I've read. It might be something I read at Ohio Northern (where I got my BA in Youth Ministry), or something I read at Methodist Theological School in Ohio (where I got my MA in Practical Theology), or something I've read recently. That's 52 weeks, and 52 books.

I think I'll start this Friday with one of my favorite theology books that has been quite formative in my understanding of faith: Dynamics of Faith by Paul Tillich. I'm a big fan of Paul Tillich, so you'll most likely be seeing reflections on several of his books over the next few months.

I've always loved being a student, and that doesn't have to stop just because I'm no longer in school. I believe we should never stop learning, so I'm looking forward to this new way of reflecting on the things I learn through theology books; and the ways I can share those lessons with my students, my friends, and (now with this blog) on the internet.

Anyways, God Bless and happy reading!

Jenna