Hopeful Fridays: Introduction

This is an idea I have had bouncing around for a long time, to deal with the thought of some of the "theologians of hope" on a regular basis. I'm a huge Pannenberg fan, so he will be showing up a lot, but there will be a decent mix of my take on Moltmann as well. Eschatological hope and prolepsis have become really interesting thoughts to me lately, so I'm going be reading and sharing every Friday.

Barth on Mondays: What I'm Doing

So I have recently bought a set of Barth's Kirchliche Dogmatik, thanks to my wonderful wife who found a quite inexpensive used copy. Although I'm not a Barthian, I am a fan of many things in Barth; like it or not he's one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century.

A popular thing that I have seen online is the attempt to blog through Barth's 10,000+ page work, so, hey, why not. I'm going to give it a shot. I have read large chunks of several of the volumes for other projects, so I'm going to give it a go systematically. Ideally, I should then be updating every Monday with my thoughts on the section of Barth that I have read. These will be thoughts, impressions, and connections that pop into my head, not a well-researched attempt at Barth-interpretation. Feel free to disagree, in fact, please do so in the comments.

I'm not using the translation, so I will either refer to what he says in paraphrase with my own translation for this blog, or quote in German. I will try to avoid the latter, in order to not exclude anyone.

Let's see how this works...

Worrying about the Worrying

I have some pet theological problems that I worry about. These are the things that I'm pretty much thinking about all the time. Things like the nature of revelation, our knowledge of God, agency in sanctification, and B-time vs. A-time for a proleptic kingdom.

But there's something even more worrying for me than these problems that I think about all the time, and if you are a non-theologian, it probably happened when you read that last sentence. I worry even more that these things that I just have to pick at are marginalized as ivory-tower problems. Not because I think I get marginalized by that; I could care less. Rather, it worries me because the hands-on has such a disconnect from the academy, because I get answers like "who cares, as long as we believe in Jesus?"

Let me give an example from my own life. I was a Southern Baptist for a long time, a serious conservative. I did a theology undergrad, and we cared a lot about knowing that we had the right answers. While I was serving as a "teaching pastor", I literally told someone the following about salvation: "God doesn't really know what would convince you to accept Him, because that would be like forcing you. What He actually does is calculate probabilities so well, that it's almost as if He knew. So you really do have freedom, and God only knows with, like, 99.999999999% probability what you will do, even in the next minute. That's why He's God. But you have to work together with Him to get saved."

It shouldn't take much to see the problems here. I thought that Open Theism was "bad", but I clearly wasn't sure what it was. I knew Pelagianism was "bad" (or maybe I didn't, I'm not sure - I can't be certain I could have defined the term!), but again, I clearly wasn't sure what it was that was bad. As a team I think we re-created a whole bunch of the major heresies in that church; on top of that, it was a mission church that almost constantly had seekers - those who did "make a decision" usually left within a few months, either to attend somewhere else that cared more about the Christians or to fall away.

You may think, "Ok, well, you were young, and untrained, that can happen." This happened during my theological education. Not before. I should have known better; I was never taught.

But how many say "I don't understand all of that, I just want to preach Jesus"? How many say "all that's not for me" and craft their own private heresies? How many of those, when they are told "oh, by the way, what you just said has been judged by the Church universal to be, uh, not orthodox Christianity" just reply "I don't want to deal with all that academic theology?

It worries me that no one worries. It worries me that so many are content with milk instead of meat, and that even those who are to shepherd often never made it past toddler food.

So my worries worry me. But more, it worries my that they are only my worries, or at least the worries of the few.

1 Advent

Today is the first Sunday in Advent. That's not the time we already start with Christmas, but the time where we remember that we are in need of the saviour sent to us, whose return is not yet, but whose first coming we will soon celebrate. It's a time of reflection, perhaps of fasting (if you are so inclined), and a time when we focus not only on what is to come, but what has been done for our need.

In that sense, a sermon (my translation) from Johann Albrecht Bengel, on the First Sunday in Advent:
Matthew 21:1-9
"Christ desires to take us in, if we come to him and wish to stay with him,

 a) as a poor king. The text says: Jesus sent two of his disciples and said to them: Go into the village before you, and you will soon find a donkey bound, and a colt with her; loose them and bring them to me. If anyone questions you, say 'the Lord has need of them,' and they will leave them over to you. The Lord of heaven and earth requires a donkey for his kingly entrance! Any other king, when he wants something done, sends out people according to the nature of the things to be done, not just the lowly, but the ministers and advisers of the court, the honorable and noble; but this king has sent as his representatives for his procession two of his disciples, who were lowly fishermen. To these he commands to go into the village, where they will find a donkey tied and a colt by her; these they should loose and bring to him. Oh Lord Jesus Christ! Thanks be to you, that for our sakes you have lowered yourself so deeply: you were Lord over all, and require now the help of others.
He says: loose them, and bring them to me. A donkey is otherwise an unvalued and difficult animal, we say: to the donkey belong the whip and the burden. If we wish to observe what light is cast upon the human, who is not yet justified in Christ, by his own nature in sin, so is he also under the burden of the Law, he feels the painful whip-strokes of his conscience; there are his wounds and stripes. There in the conscience, when it is not free of care and secure, are the Sins too heavy, as a heavy burden, and the Law is a hard yoke which no one can bear; such things are known to everyone who rightly views sins; these are the proper bonds through which we are bound. But what does Christ say? He says: unbind them. He is the one who has saved us, who were forced into the servitude of Din from fear; he has made us free, he has unbound the bonds of Death; He is the one who frees from the servitude of Sin those who repent and turn to hum; the one who has given the servants of his Church the power: what you loose will also be loosed in heaven. He says Himself: The Spirit of Glory is upon me. This is the freedom to which Christ has made us free: That we are free from the debt of Sin, free from from Death, free from damnation, free from the curse of the Law, free from unrighteousness. Those who wish to be free, must be called by this: loose them and bring them to me. This statement: loose them and bring them to me; Christ describes Himself with this same glorious meaning in Matthew 11: Come to me, all you who are heavy laden and weary, it is my desire to refresh you. For my yoke is gentle, and my burden is light. He who lets himself be led to Christ will not be turned away; for as we here see, this is a humble king, who seeks us in His own poverty; He was not ashamed, to hold His procession in such a manner: He will also not be ashamed of us. But the Lord continues, He says: If anyone questions you, say that the Lord has need of them. What a wonderful phrase: The Lord has need of them. Jesus Christus! Should it be so, that You, the Lord of heaven and earth, wish to have a kingly procession into the city and you should have not a single animal of Your own? Have thanks for this lowliness! This lowliness, this humility, this poverty of Christ - what is that more than our raising up, our honor, our riches? Christ leaves the glory of His riches for a time for our sakes, that we might be able to take from His fullness grace upon grace (John 1). He is become poor for our sakes (2 Corinthians 8). Poor people have a glorious assurance from this humility of Christ. For there are those, with not a cent to their name, who don't know where they will be spending the night tonight; those who lack clothing and food, a place to lay their heads - we must think thereon, that Christ also lacked these things; he became so poor that He could say: foxes have their dens and birds have their nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head. Lazarus was carried to Abraham's bosom. The poor widow with two mites was loved more than all the rich. And I have never seen the righteous left in need - when true poverty stands before our doors, we must think that Christ stands before us and says: Do good to this person for My sake, for I, the Lord, have need of it. Christ will one day praise these things from the rooftops: what you have done to the least of these, you have done also to me.

b) as a King rich in joy. We see this from the prophetic reading for today: for it comes to us, that everything occurred, that the Prophet might be fulfilled, he that spoke: say to the daughter of Zion: your King comes to you. In the Prophet Zachariah 9:9 the words say: But you, oh daughter of Zion, be joyful, and you oh daughter of Jerusalem, rejoice; see, your King comes to you, a Righteous One and a Helper, poor and riding on a donkey, and on the colt of a donkey. It says: rejoice, oh daughter of Zion. We have here a King, whose presence is worth rejoicing; to whose good is this King come? In the Text, the daughter of Zion and Jerusalem, these are the City of David. First, this entrance is to the City of David and the people of Israel.
Should we be excluded from this? Far be it! For we are also in the Kingdom of this King. The Jews, who should have accepted Him, did not want Him to reign over them. So are we also only through the Grace of God the servants of this Lord. The citizenship in this Kingdom is only enjoyed by those who submit themselves to the command, the word, and the will of this great King; all others are rebels. These are the beloved subjects, Zion and Jerusalem. To translate Zion: a dry place. Where our King should refresh our hearts as our King, so must we be a dry land: we must realize, that we are from our nature an unfruitful field, that bears nothing more than thorns and thistles. I wish to say, we must realize how we have insulted and dishonored God through our debasement, through our many sins and failures; how we have earned His wrath and that we must, because of this, humiliate ourselves before God and have true repentance before Him. We must have fear before Him! We must be a dry land, that is, to bear a deep longing in our hearts for the Grace of God; to search for our righteousness and life in Christus Jesus - for that is the dry land, that Zion, which this King rejoices over: for it says, I desire to pour out water on the thirsty and rivers on the drought. Here it is said: ...(There is a problem here in the original text, sorry!)... For blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled (Matthew 5:6).
What sort of King do we have? A King rich in joy, for it is said be joyful and rejoice. Well is it the people, who can rejoice, for the Kingdom of this King is righteousness, peace, joy in the Holy Spirit (Romans 14). Therefore rejoice in the Lord, you righteous, and praise Him, you pious ones. All tongues shall swear and say, that in the Lord I have my righteousness and strength: therefore rejoice in the Lord always (Philippians 4). For see, your King comes to you! Take heed of our King, our King comes! In the text he has many other names. He is called the Righteous One, a Helper, poor but gentle; these are names to rejoice over. He does not have for Himself alone the perfect righteousness; He the Righteous One, who has suffered for us unrighteous ones, gives to us his righteousness; He is the one who alone has fulfilled all righteousness and the will of God; the Righteous One who through knowledge of Him makes many righteous: through whom Sin is thrown into the depths of the sea and the true righteousness is returned, the one who delivers us from all unrighteousness. See, what a beautiful name this is! Indeed, he who is a Christian shall also be righteous, as Christ is righteous.

c) Our King is named a Helper. He is the one whose help and salvation the Fathers longed for: Ach, that help came from Zion, that would save us from death; He our loyal King takes us unto Him, who has given His live as sacrifice for us. We could not help ourselves, rather we were sunk in the ditch where the water runs, but Christ our King offered us His hand and saved us from the deep waters, pulled us from the mire as the waves wanted to swallow us. He is the comfort of all unbelievers and the salvation of God to the ends of the earth. A light, to enlighten the unbelieving.
Christ has taken through His death the power from the one who had the power of Death. He is called gentle and humble. He came in such a form, that one said: blessed is he, who does not take offense at me. But that is what is happened, to our great advantage. Through this humility and gentleness we learn, that He has true patience with us and with our failures, if we remain true to Him. For the bent reed He will not break. He took sinners unto Himself. He was gentle, and humble. Therefore let us go in full faith away from the guilty conscience and to Him. When our sins make us doubt: the righteousness of Christ is ours; when Death and the fear of Hell make us quake: Christ is our Helper; do our enemies attack us, Christ is our King; is the opponent near to us, ei, so Christ is come to us, and is by us all the days until the end of the world. Do we still have failures, Christ is gentle and poor, He will not cast us out. See, such things we have in our Saviour! He says: My peace I give to you. Thus we should take on this peace, which is proclaimed in the Gospel, that we may say: we have peace with God.
How shall we encounter our King of Grace? The text tells us: the disciples went and did as He commanded, and brought him the donkey and the colt. a) Obedience.  We see the praise given, that they obeyed without arguing and objecting. No! They go; they are as those obedient servants, of whom it is said: I tell him to go, and he goes. They do as Jesus tells them, they bring the donkey and the colt. Here we have a wonderful example of how we should act towards our King: when He speaks to us and His command comes to us, so should it also be with us: do as Jesus has said. It should be as at the wedding at Cana: do whatever He commands of you. The command of Christ should be sufficient for us. If he says in His Word: he who would follow me... so should we say: see, we have left everything and are followed you. If He says: this is my commandment, that you love one another: so is our reply, You sweet love, give us favour. If He says: repent and turn from evil, so shall the answer be: bring me to repentance, oh Lord. Such is possible only through the Grace of God; for who would wish to take the honor from our King and say that he could not purchase a people, that does good works industriously? Thus, when we hear in a sermon or read in the Holy Scriptures something that we must do or leave undone, so must we realize that this is God's earnest will for us; for that is the will of God, our holiness: and this is what we request: Thy will be done. If we have not until now done the will of God, so we can know that we have not been the subjects of Christ: Ach that such a one might turn truly to this King of Grace, for he is a merciful King... (seems to be some text missing here)

d) Humlity, as the people did: they spread their cloaks on the street, others took branches from the trees and spread them on the path. He wishes yet to enter in by us, thus we should make a path for Him: make straight and even a path for our God; such occurs when we tear down the hills of our pride that He might come in to us. All should show their humility before Him. So shall He look upon us with eyes of Grace.

e) with praise; the people, that before and after Him went, cried Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed be He that comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! They call to the King, and praise Him, Hosanna, Salvation to the Son of David, to the one to whom God has given the throne of David and His eternal kingdom: they praise Him publicly, and speak in one voice: blessed is He, who comes. What do we wish to do, to honor our King? We should also lift Him up: it should be also, I wish to raise You up my God! The praise of God is that which we become the equals not only of Israel but also of the angels and the chosen ones of God: this praise is glorious and beautiful; God, your throne remains always and eternally. Here in particular the communicants should be aware, that they obediently bend to the will of their King, humble and praising, whom they are about to meet in the Holy Eucharist and who will enter into them and be within them. Obedient, that they live out his will and command, and grow in obedience. Humble, that they are aware of their own unworthiness; not spreading out their cloaks before Him but rather throwing their very selves down at His feet, and humbly confessing their sins, asking for his Grace in mercy; praising that they can rejoice when they have this true King in repentance and faith: rejoice, daughter of Zion, your King comes to you! Thus praise the Lord, for He is good, and His mercy endures forever. We should not praise Him with mouth and tongue alone, but also with the heart: sing and play to the Lord with joy, and all that you do, do it in the name of the Lord, the Lord Jesus, and thank God and the Father through Him. Such praise is not for today alone, due to the entry into Jerusalem, but endlessly, so long as His mercy endures: in particular however now, as we are obligated to proclaim these things in memory of Him.

Praise the Lord in His Holiness. Let all that has breath, praise the Lord.

Amen.



(I have been free in a few places for understanding, and translated "Heiden" as "unbelievers" rather than "heathens" due to connotation. I have tried to match tone for Bengel's time, thus "is come" rather than "has come", and so forth. You can find out a little more about Bengel here.)
(Übersetzung erfolgt aufgrund "Rede, Wort des Vaters" Steinkopf Verlag Stuttgart 1967 S. 13-18)

Barth and the Analogia Entis

(I'm making no apologies for not blogging for a while. Either it works, or it doesn't. Hardly anyone reads this thing anyway.)

I have come to a realization about Barth and the analogia entis. (For the non-theologians, that's the "analogy of being" - We say God "is", and we "are", but we can't talk about both "be"ing in the same way, because God is perfect; so there the being of everything else and the being of God are just analogous, not univocal).

I really only encountered the analogia entis in Aquinas, who I read through Barth's lens, and in Barth's huge opposition to it. And I was always pretty sure that Barth was dead on in his criticism of it: we can't take the fact of our being, and make an analogy to figure out that God exists.

Turns out that the consensus is actually that Barth didn't understand the analogia entis correctly. I don't really know about that, I need to look into it some more. But I did realize something important about the analogia entis in general.

I was at AAR/SBL/EPS/ETS in the last week, talking to some actual Barthian guys, and made the comment "God is the only thing to which the term 'being' can really apply, we just have derivative being; it's not the same thing." No one had a problem with that. Turns out, that's actually the way the analogia entis is supposed to run (I ran into this through Hans Boersma).

Barth deals with the analogia entis in his section about the knowledge of God, and what he opposes, he is right to oppose. It's not a way to come to knowledge of God outside of revelation. It's a terrible base for theology, it ends in a terrible, twisted natural theology that's just idolatrous. He's right about that. (I also am about to reread this section of the KD, I want to take a closer look at what he says)

But that's not the point of the analogia entis. It might run the risk of being used for natural theology, but apparently, the point is to say that we can only understand our being by making an analogy to God's, who is the source of all being. We can't know our being, we can't know ourselves, without first knowing God - otherwise nothing makes sense. "We can't know ourselves without knowing God" - that's Calvin, by the way, in the beginning of the Institutes.

When we run the analogy that way, it's kind of the heart of orthodoxy - of course, like a lot of things, it runs a risk of misuse. We just have to use it correctly. And I think there's a lot of truth here - I don't understand anything about reality, about anything the way it really is, or about any truth, unless I first have a relationship with God who grounds and determines all these things: without the cognitive tools (T.F. Torrance) to deal with reality and God, which I get through revelation, I don't know anything - I just might think I do.

There's a lot more in here to be thought out, more than one blog post can handle - I'm working on it though.

Whoops....

So, I ignored the blog again, and didn't manage to even post about the final day of the DGPhil. Nothing for it now. At least I've realized it more quickly, and the time in between posts is getting reduced - eventually, I should be blogging regularly.

And hey, I have a good excuse, I had to take the state-level exam in Ancient Greek, so that took all of my time up....

DGPhil Day 2

This actually happened Tuesday, but I didn't get around to posting it then or yesterday. There won't be a Day 3, because I had to work in the morning and I didn't feel like going in just for the business meeting in the afternoon.

I made the plenary on day 2, which was a talk on human rights by Seyla Benhabib from Yale. It was actually very interesting, on how we ground human rights and how they differ from legislative rights. It gave me the impetus to check out some books and learn a bit more about political philosophy, sometime when I have more time...

Following that was a colloquium on ethics, "Angewandte Ethik zwischen Rationalität und Weltanschaaung"
Armin Grünwald from KIT talked about the "Ethizierung" within tech ethics, and noted that the term has become too wide and that too many non-ethicists get places on ethical advisory committees. He was working with a purely descriptive concept of ethics, and didn't agree with a special role for theological ethics. He opined that questions like "are we playing God?" or "is it hubris?" in areas like genetic engineering or climate engineering aren't ethical questions at all. When I challenged this (virtue or character ethics from a normative concept of humanity) he backed off on their nature, but still maintained that the role of ethics is to describe how people think about what is right action / right nature.
Michael Quante from Münster then spent 45 minutes that should have been about medical ethics quoting Wikipedia at us to prove that both "rational" and "worldview" are too imprecise to be poles for a question like this. He also worked with ethics as purely descriptive, and made some pointed comments about paternalism, including the religious kind. In short, this is what happens when you don't have a norm, you can't really say anything and the ethicists struggle to define what they do as separate from sociology.

I had to work in the afternoon, so the only other paper I saw was Dirk Vonfara on the reception of aristotelian Greek thought in Islam and Christianity in the Middle Ages. I think I expected too much out of the paper, because I didn't really learn anything - he only covered Avicenna and Averroes on one side, Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas on the other - but it was well done and highlighted the end relations between revealed and philosophical theology in Islam (think about why the dude got burned!) and the development of theology as a proper scientia in Christianity (though not the tension between theologia and doctrina sacra)

DGPhil Day 1

So here's an overview of what I managed to attend yesterday:
I didn't go to the plenaries, or some of the late sections, because I had some other stuff to do.

I went to a colloquium on "first philosophy", and heard Jonathan Lowe (Durham) explain his four-category ontology, to which I was very sympathetic (I will probably do a separate post on this after the weekend). Johannes Hübner (Halle) responded, and I wasn't so impressed with the response, but I did get straightened out about some of the characteristics of hylomorphism.
Following that Christian Beyer (Göttingen) talked about Husserl and modern epistemology, and I was reminded why I don't read all too much continental philosophy - frankly, I didn't get his point.

In the afternoon sessions, I heard:

Elzbieta Stabryla speak on the moral impulse in literature, and I wasn't too happy with that either. She concluded that all narrative both is and is not moral impetus, which I disliked because of its ambiguity, and because I like the idea of a narrative self, so her theory not only applies to stories read and told, but also to communities and individual moral exemplars.

Julia Peters on McDowell and Loss and Eudaimonia. Julia I've known for a bit, and I knew I would disagree with her, but I must say she is one of the few people with whom I agree on very little but still like personally. There will be an expanded post on her paper later for sure, so I can think about the ideas.

Florian Franken comparing Aristotle and Kant on Eudaimonia. My mother told me that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. I will just note that papers like this come from having a textbook culture of learning, because for such a comparison to be interesting, one must simply never have read Aristotle and Kant's original texts extensively (now, that's not to say that there couldn't have been a different, more interesting comparison...)


Today I'm only going to be able to make the plenary in the morning and a colloquium on ethics, because I have to work, so I might even post about today this evening.

DGPhil Conference

Today is the beginning of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Philosophie 's annual conference, this year here at the LMU Munich. I'm not presenting, but I'm going to be attending, so I will report back at at least a little on what I hear.

I skipped the plenary address this morning, because I had to go buy milk, but I'm about to head in for the colloquium "Erste Philosophie heute?"

More, hopefully, to follow.

Ack...

Well, I've managed to not post in over a month. If blogging were a sin, I'd be on my way to sainthood...

Anyway, I've not given up. I took a vacation in Tyrol, and made some progress on the dissertation here (Good side: I'm in the 20th Century! Bad side: that means dealing with the monster chapter on Barth's view of the topic), as well as finishing another course on the philosophy side (I might really make comps around the first of the year).

So now I'm dealing with Barth and Brunner's essays, a couple volumes of the Kirchliche Dogmatik, and Pannenberg's critique of Barth on one side, and trying to get together an analysis of the relationship between being, virtue and the good on the other.

In other projects, I'm going to submit a critique of Craig's Molinism for a Masterclass here in Munich, I'm working on a paper on God and Time (I'm a B-Time guy, I'll post something about that soon), and preparing my paper on virtue and deontological epistemology for the EPS national meeting in November.

Add to that the fact that I've still got to pass my state Greek exam (and have to work in there somewhere too!), and you can see why I don't find much time to blog. But, it's doable.

I'll leave you with a paraphrase of something (and addition to) I heard recently: Keeping your faith when all is lost can be made easier when we do away with hyperbole. All is not lost, only some things aren't how we would like them. Rejecting the temptation of this false "all is wrong" reality allows us to see the reality of our God, who holds us in the palm of His own hand.

On Vacation...

I'm actually on vacation right now, so I'm just going to write something I heard the other day:

Two people talking about heresy, apologetics, and atheism;
"If Richard Dawkins had been in Geneva with Calvin, it'd have been the stake for him."
"Yeah, but probably for Ken Ham, too."

Boethius gives me comfort...

Boethius: "My life sucks. I've lost it all, nothing works right. Me has an emo."

Lady Philosophy: "That's not tragic. You know what's a tragedy? That someone like you is throwing a pity party. Now get off your butt and focus on the endgame."

Thinking about Demythologization

(side note: Hey, I'm managing to blog more often than once a month!)

Something I've been considering lately is the idea of demythologizing the concepts of the Bible. If we follow Bultmann, we demythologize the kerygma and the setting of the New Testament - Bultmann wanted to make the whole package palatable. That's clear. Personally, though, I think Bultmann reduces everything to an abstract existential decision - you can read Heidegger here for sure.
But if we reject Bultmann's interpretation of history, if we say we have a God who does act in history, who was incarnate, who did atone, why do we keep the part of Bultmann's program dealing with the rest of the package? What Bultmann has to say about myth is interesting, and in some areas he's even right - but how do we justify rejecting his interpretation of the cross and the kerygma but swallowing the whole thing when it comes to the supernatural, to a devil and demons, to angels, etc.?
Are we so worried that it "makes no sense to the modern man" that we become cowards about it? Or do we see "evil" as abstract and impersonal because we have been convinced that it is so?

Personally, I'm not convinced. I've yet to encounter an argument about, say, the reality of a literal Satan that wouldn't require interpreting Christ the same way. I do admit, even as a person of the century of social networking and smartphones, that I believe there is a devil, roaming about and seeking someone to devour (1 Peter 5:8 my paraphrase), and we'd be fools to ignore that.
Laugh if you will, but I'd rather be prepared for a threat that turns out to be false than to ignore a real one because I'm to "modern" to believe it is there.

Expatriate Musings on an American Holiday

Today's the 4th - but since I don't live in America, for everyone around me, it's just another Monday. I'm going to go to work as normal, and, due to my schedule, probably not do anything special tonight.

Now, I love my country, but being outside of it for an extended period of time changes one's perspective.

Sometimes I'm embarrassed by how my fellow Americans act, both when they're here in Europe, and back home. Some of the crap we pull, and worse, some of the crap we American Christians pull, makes me ashamed.

Another problem I have is that I find a lot of American Christians act the way they are named - Americans first, Christians second (if at all). Our willingness to accept injustice and attitudes towards the disadvantaged and hurting are too often the result of our Faustian deal with free-market economy rather than an outgrowth of Christian character - and it shows.

Given that I'm personally torn between Just War and Hauerwas-style pacifism, America's military present and history can be a rough point for me. The Just War arguments are good - good enough to stick to when I feel like I would be betraying servicemen and -women, good enough to stick to when the other option is to admit that the Revolutionary War was inexcusable...but am I convinced? I don't think about it too much, because I'm scared of the answer.

In a "post-American" age, are we as Americans allowed to have issues about being American? Or do we all have to still pretend it is the 50's?

Shall we Celebrate a Death?

I woke up this morning (since I’m in Europe) to the news that Bin Laden had been killed. Before I begin, let me say the following:

One, I recognize and acknowledge that armed force was the only way to deal with this threat, and that the reality of the situation was such that a capture rather than a killing was made impossible.

Two, I am hopeful for the result, that is, that the organization might be weakened, and the terrorist threat to the west might be reduced.

That said, I have two problems:

One is the President’s claim that “justice has been done.” Has justice been done? Even by the standards of human justice? A man, even one who might have confessed to acts deserving of death, who is summarily executed has neither received justice, nor has justice been served in the name of whatever standard he has transgressed against. Bin Laden was never tried, even in absentia, at least to my knowledge. He claimed responsibility, he may be held responsible for his orders, but what happened was not justice. Justice was robbed, and this is a tragedy – and a danger, that he will be made into a martyr by his followers. Even worse, President Obama claimed that we are “at war” with Al-Qaeda – in effect, legitimizing their efforts and making the death of Bin Laden problematic. One is only at war with a nation – a terrorist cell, a group of criminals, should be treated as and referred to as such. If we are “at war”, then we have just killed the head of a “nation” in a military strike, that is, we have assassinated the leader of our opponents. Better would be to tell the truth – a dangerous criminal leader resisted apprehension, and was, unfortunately, killed before he could be brought to justice.

The second is problematic for me as a Christian. I’ve already seen pictures of the celebrations being held in response to this announcement. I question, no matter how evil, no matter how depraved, should we celebrate that someone has been killed? Is the “us-and-them,” “we got ‘em” mentality an ethical response? I reject this course wholeheartedly, and am ashamed for my fellow Christians who do not. I regret most deeply that Bin Laden was not captured; I regret most deeply that he was given no opportunity for rehabilitation; and I regret most deeply that he, as a human of equal worth, has died without Christ (and RE: the big universalist debate going on right now, perhaps you think I needn’t regret that last one, but those celebrating would likely be angry to hear it). A Christian response to Bin Laden’s death is not one of joy, though perhaps a human response might well be one of relief.

We dare not glory in killing, even that of a terrorist, for even when a war is just, violence and death must be a last resort. Today should be a somber day, a day of relief that a threat may be removed or reduced, but a day of sadness that we could do no better, and a day of mourning for the loss of life of one of our fellow humans, one of our fellow creations, one of our fellow bearers of the Imago Dei, and furthermore, a day of sadness, as we can reasonably assert that this image bearer lost his life while in poor standing before God.

Lord, who is above our grievances and hatreds, who is beyond our spite and vengeance, help up to keep perspective in this matter – help us to see these events as Christians, and not citizens of a nation or offended parties. Help us to live out the love you’ve called us to, the difficult love; let us not turn our backs in joy at a loss which we should mourn.

Starting Again...Again

I've made a couple of abortive attempts at blogging, but now I'm going to give it another shot. Some of the reason why is a re-conception of what the purpose of my blogging is. Previously, I wanted to work out my own standpoint in a dynamic manner - since then, I'm no longer so uncertain about where I come down on important issues, and I'm not struggling so much with the theological baggage I was carrying with me.

This isn't a blog about my trying to decide what aspects of my faith have to change in my journey away from being Baptist and towards being Lutheran anymore. It's a blog about my take on theology, out of my own (chosen) tradition, in awareness of orthodox faith, and from my own viewpoints - and speaking to what I find important.

This isn't a blog where I try to post things that I want to develop into articles, or talk about my research in the hope that some hiring committee will read it - it's not a blog where I need to impress anyone. The last restart is closer to what I'm doing now that the original intent is, but I feel the need to distinguish my primary aim.

If I manage to blog consistently for a while, I'll even join some of those Biblioblog Lists out there (this sentence is more for posterity, I entertain no illusions that I currently have readers other than my fiancée and parents).