Incarnate, Crucified, and Risen

We live in a time of theological questioning. Just as there is change in all other areas of society and culture, people are searching for new kinds of meaning in the church and of God. This has led to the growth of new schools of theology such as process theology, natural theology, ascetical theology, emergent theology, and many others.

While all of these theologies provide the opportunity for people to search for a deeper understanding of God, I am left to wonder if sometimes we are starting in the wrong place. It seems that sometimes we start with ourselves and our understanding of the world and build our theology from there, instead of starting with God at the center.

Bonhoeffer writes about the importance of keeping our theologies balanced:

In Jesus Christ, we have faith in the incarnate, crucified, and risen God. In the incarnation we learn of the love of God for his creation; in the crucifixion we learn of the judgment of God upon all flesh; and in the resurrection we learn of God’s will for a new world. There can be no greater error than to tear these three elements apart; for each of them comprises the whole. It is quite wrong to establish a separate theology of the incarnation, a theology of the cross, or a theology of the resurrection, each in opposition to the others… (130)

How can we develop a consistent understanding of who God is? And, how would such an understanding lead to living out a consistent Christian life?

For Better or For Worse?

Dietrich Bonhoeffer places the locus of Christian formation on Christ. Formation is not something that a person necessarily does as it is something that Christ brings. And the place where this formation occurs is the Church.

Bonhoeffer writes, “Ethics as formation is possible only upon the foundation of the form of Jesus Christ which is present in His Church. The Church is the place where Jesus Christ’s taking form is proclaimed and accomplished.”

While this is true in a best case scenario, the Church is at the same time an institution consisting of fallible human beings. While the Church strives to be the place where Christ takes form, is proclaimed, and where ministry is accomplished, there are countless illustrations when the followers of Christ have fallen very short of the mark.

Recently, a lot of press has been given to Anne Rice’s statement that she no longer considers herself a member of the church, but still follows Christ: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/anne-rice-i-quit-being-a_n_663915.html.

This article has resulted in a flurry of responses from clergy who echo Bonhoeffer’s words that formation happens in community, and that community is found in the church. Here is one of many examples: http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/episcopal_church/the_only_thing_that_makes.php

As the bride of Christ, the Church has not always lived up to its grand calling. For many people, the walls of the church are a barrier as much as they are a sanctuary.

And yet, the hope for those of us whose lives are centered on Christ, is that even in its brokenness, the Church is the place where formation, proclamation, and transformation happen.

United in Suffering

Today I begin blogging a new book, Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Ethics. This book was written during the war years and was incomplete at the time of his death. The fact that he never had the chance to finish this works was one of Bonhoeffer’s regrets as he faced death.

From the perspective of standing up against the evil forces of his day, Bonhoeffer considered Jesus words in Matthew 5:10, “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

In his interpretation, Bonhoeffer writes “This does not refer to the righteousness of God; it does not refer to persecution for Jesus Christ’s sake. It is the beatification of those who are persecuted for the sake of a just cause, and, as we may now add, for the sake of a true, good, and human cause.” (61)

These words had clear and obvious meaning for Bonhoeffer, but I am left to wonder what it means to the majority of Christians today.

There are examples of those who have been persecuted, and even killed, while working for a just cause.

Today, in Hayneville, Alabama, people will march in memory of the seminarian Jonathan Daniels who was martyred in 1965 while working for civil rights.

Just this last week, a United Methodist aid worker, Daniel Terry, and nine of his colleagues were killed in their efforts to bring health services to the people of Afghanistan.

While we hold these who know the true meaning of suffering in our hearts and prayers, what does it mean for those of us who live very comfortable lives? What true, good, and human cause would we be willing to suffer for?

Peace in No Time

I finished reading Metaxas’ biography of Bonhoeffer. The book is exhaustive, well-researched, well-written, and I would highly recommend it.

The only place the book falls short is in interpretation and analysis. There is very little exploration of what it all meant.

One question I am left wondering is the use of violent means to bring a peaceable end. Metaxas never addresses this issue of the pastor and theologian who is an active member of the plot to kill Hitler.

Bonhoeffer himself recognized that murder was sin and that to engage in these actions were sinful. Yet, he believed he was doing what God called him to do and trusted in God’s grace and forgiveness.

However, my question about the efficacy of violence comes in the aftermath of the failed assassination plots. After the failed attempt in 1944, in which Hitler was left charred and barely injured, Hitler saw his survival as validation of his actions. This caused him to increase the level of brutality and executions. When Hitler found out how deep the conspiracy ran, he struck back with a vengeance, killing members of some of the most notable families in Germany.

So, the attempt to kill Hitler resulted in more killing. The hope of using violence to bring a peaceable end brought more violence.

This leaves me wondering, can violence bring peace?

And yet, the problem is, what other recourse did Bonhoeffer and his friends have? They worked for a change in the German government in the 1930s and that failed. They reached out to Churchill for support in toppling Hitler and that failed. So, Bonhoeffer choose the only means left—violence. And violence only brought more violence.

Only days before the allied forces liberated concentration camps, Bonhoeffer was killed.

There are no easy answers to these questions. We continue to live in the struggle between hopes of peace and the reality of violence. Perhaps all we can do, is like Bonhoeffer, trust in God’s grace and forgiveness.

Freedom verses Fear

Note: This section was used as the introduction for my sermon on August 1st, "Jesus Teaching on Fear".

It was January of 1943 and the German theologian and pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, had been poking his finger in the eye of the Nazi regime for a decade.

As each new law was passed that took away the humanity of the Jewish people, Bonhoeffer spoke openly and publicly against this brutal anti-Semitism.

When the German church sat passively and silently by when people with disabilities were taken away to be killed, Bonhoeffer founded the Confessing Church which spoke out against the state church.

When the German propaganda machine tried to keep the rest of the world in the dark about what was going on inside Germany, Bonhoeffer traveled throughout Europe exposing the actions of the Third Reich.

And when the hopes of a peaceful change in government did not happen, Bonhoeffer became a part of the resistance movement that tried several times to assassinate Adolph Hitler.

So, by early 1943, the German Gestapo was hot on the trail of the German pastor and theologian. Unknown to him, his phone was tapped, his movements were followed, and a case against him was coming together.

In the midst of this struggle, a very curious thing happened. Bonhoeffer fell in love and rather quickly became engaged to a woman named Maria von Wedemeyer.

The falling in love thing would not be unexpected for people of their age. But many people thought the engagement, for someone like him, was foolish and even dangerous for Maria.

Bonhoeffer’s friends and family did not know the full extent of his involvement in the German resistance. Even when he was arrested in April 1943, they thought he would be questioned and quickly released. When, in fact, he would never be released. Yet, they knew he was involved in something. And that by getting engaged, he was putting Maria in danger.

Why do that? Why not just wait for the war to be over like many other young people had decided?

For Bonhoeffer, allowing oneself to fall in love, choosing to get engaged, was an exercise in freedom. This was not merely freedom for freedom’s sake; it wasn’t a mere act of defiance in the face of a tyrannical government.

This was a freedom based on Bonhoeffer’s understand of who God is and what it meant to live as a Christian.

When friends and family asked him why he would get engaged at a time like this, his answer was that he was living into the freedom given to all of us by God. Bonhoeffer believed that as followers of Jesus Christ, living on this side of the resurrection, that our lives should be filled with freedom, joy, and beauty.

To live in any other way was to deny the present reality of Christ among us. Bonhoeffer believed that to allow oneself to be consumed or controlled by fear meant a failure to live into the life he had been given in Christ.

Even when he spent the last two years of his life in prison, he saw fear and pity as falling short of being the kind of person who had found life in Jesus Christ. Even in a Nazi prison in the midst of World War II, he found ways to live a life of freedom.