How To Choose the New Pope

While I am not a Catholic it is really interesting to see how the new Pope will be elected, a tradition lasting for centuries. This new election will affect the Catholic and Protestant world.

Theological Liberalism and The Blending of the Church and State

How the German Christians justified twisting and bending the traditionally accepted meaning of the Scriptures and the doctrines of the church is complicated. One German Christian, Reinhold Krause, said that Martin Luther had left Germans with “a priceless legacy: the completion of the German Reformation in the Third Reich!” If Luther could break away from the Catholic church, it followed that nothing was written in stone. That was the weed in the garden of Protestantism. Even Luther had questioned the canonicity of some books of the Bible, especially the book of James, for what he took as its preaching of “salvation by works.” And Bonhoeffer’s professor, the liberal theologian Adolf von Harnack, had questioned the canonicity of much of the Old Testament. There’s little question that the liberal theological school of Schleiermacher and Harnack helped push things along in this direction. But the other piece of this puzzle has to do with the confusion that inevitably arises when the Christian faith becomes too closely related to a cultural or national identity. For many Germans, their national identity had become so melted together with whatever Lutheran Christian faith they had that it was impossible to see either clearly. After 400 years of taking for granted that all Germans were Lutheran Christians, no one really knew what Christianity was anymore. (pg. 174 Bonhoeffer). 

Implications: 
Theological liberalism plowed the soil for Nazi Germany
The blending of the church and state marred true Christianity 

What do you think?

Bonhoeffer on Love and Marriage

“Marriage is more than your love for each other. It has a higher dignity and power, for it is God's holy ordinance, through which He wills to perpetuate the human race till the end of time. In your love you see only your two selves in the world, but in marriage you are a link in the chain of the generations, which God causes to come and to pass away to His glory, and calls into His kingdom. In your love, you see only the heaven of your own happiness, but in marriage you are placed at a post of responsability towards the world and mankind. Your love is your own private possession, but marriage is more than something personal - it is a status, an office. Just as it is the crown, and not merely the will to rule, that makes the king, so it is marriage, and not merely your love for each other, that joins you together in the sight of God and man. As high as God is above man, so high are the sanctity, the rights, and the promise of marriage above the sanctity, the rights, and the promise of love. It is not your love that sustains the marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love."
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, A Wedding Sermon from Prison

Valentine's Day, Love, and Those Nasty Candies

 

"To love another person is to see the face of God" - Victor Hugo

Valentines day. The day of love, emotions, hearts, cupid, and those little nasty candies with sappy words on them. Oh what a day! So, I thought in light of the "day of love" I would share some words and thoughts.

 Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity. In this section, he is discussing his view on the Christian marriage. Primarily on the idea of “love” and the phrase “being in love”.

“What we call “being in love” is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for us. It helps to make us generous and courageous, it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and it subordinates (especially at first) our merely animal sexuality; in that sense, love is the great conqueror of lust. No one in his senses would deny that being in love is far better than either common sensuality or cold self-centredness. But, as I said before, “the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs.” Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called “being in love” usually does not last. If the old fairytale ending “They lived happily ever after” is taken to mean “They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married,” then it says what probably never was nor ever could be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be “in love” need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense-love as distinct from “being in love” is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both parents ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be “in love” with someone else. “Being in love” first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.” (Mere Christianity)

Note that Lewis states that “being in love” is a good thing. You know that feeling you get deep down in your stomach, which may include “butterflies” and sweaty palms. Yeah, that feeling…it’s a good thing. This sort of “being in love” is the explosion that started it all! Any man who is married knows that feeling. Wow, what an image. However, the love that Lewis is speaking about is the deep rooted loyality and committment which is directed by our will. To intensify the idea he used the phrase “promise fidelity”. Or we could use the word ”faithfulness”. It is through the feeling of “being in love” that allows the couple to promise faithfulness but it is only through the deep rooted loyality love that allows the couple to keep that promise. It is interesting that Lewis, at the time of this writing, was not married. It is clear from the chapter that Lewis is not married, he actually states it several times. But later in his life he did marry, Joy Davidman. It is actually a remarkable story. After a few years of seeing each other the couple decided to get married. However, the church would not honor the marriage due to Joy being a divorced woman (although her pervious husband cheated on her). Lewis and Davidman continued to see each other but remained only friends. But one day, Joy was working in the kitchen when her leg broke. She was rushed to the hospital only to find out that she had cancer. Upon hearing this, Lewis went to the hospital to find the woman he loved dying. It was that day that an Anglican priest served the couple holy communion and pronounced them to be man and wife. Lewis faithfully demonstrated his love for Joy, even though she was dying. They were only married for 3 short years. But within those 3 years Lewis wrote the book The Four Loves in which you will find one of my favorite quotes:

“To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable.”


It is through his experience that Lewis could write such words. He protected his love for many years and was finally able to release his love. His love for Joy was unbreakable, impenetrable, and irredeemable. I love this and oh how I pray my love would be that by God’s grace. As some of you know I actually used this quote when I proposed to Kailie. Yes, I’m a Lewis nerd, what can I say. I’m thankful for God using Lewis. He has made an impact on my life and my view of love.

The Flip Side to Love

However, there is a flip side to this idea of love and "being in love". Note the words out of The Beast in the Jungle written by Henry James

The escape would have been to love her; then, then he would have lived. She had lived—who could say now with what passion?—since she had loved him for himself; whereas he had never thought of her (ah how it hugely glared at him!) but in the chill of his egotism and the light of her use. Her spoken words came back to him—the chain stretched and stretched. The Beast had lurked indeed, and the Beast, at its hour, had sprung; it had sprung in that twilight of the cold April when, pale, ill, wasted, but all beautiful, and perhaps even then recoverable, she had risen from her chair to stand before him and let him imaginably guess. It had sprung as he didn’t guess; it had sprung as she hopelessly turned from him, and the mark, by the time he left her, had fallen where it was to fall. He had justified his fear and achieved his fate; he had failed, with the last exactitude, of all he was to fail of; and a moan now rose to his lips as he remembered she had prayed he mightn’t know. This horror of waking—thiswas knowledge, knowledge under the breath of which the very tears in his eyes seemed to freeze. Through them, none the less, he tried to fix it and hold it; he kept it there before him so that he might feel the pain. That at least, belated and bitter, had something of the taste of life. But the bitterness suddenly sickened him, and it was as if, horribly, he saw, in the truth, in the cruelty of his image, what had been appointed and done. He saw the Jungle of his life and saw the lurking Beast; then, while he looked, perceived it, as by a stir of the air, rise, huge and hideous, for the leap that was to settle him. His eyes darkened—it was close; and, instinctively turning, in his hallucination, to avoid it, he flung himself, face down, on the tomb.John Marcher, the main character in the story, was selfish and did not return the love that May Bartram had for him. If, he would have loved her he would have lived. What a line! Henry James had a different view of love, however, notice the Christian nature behind it...love is suppose to be given and received.


Theologically love is an expression of our God given humanity. This is an aspect to being created in God's image. God created us to be relational beings and we express that relational nature through love, with the closest type of love being the love shared between a husband and wife. Which is a witness to the reality of Christ's love for His Church. Love is a heavenly idea fleshed out on the earth between humanity.


Read the greatest love poem ever written:

 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. - 1 Corinthians 13:4-7


So, on this "day of love" remember that the love you share is an expression of your image which is rooted in God's design for you. You were made to love. Designed to love. But, you must first know Love in order to give it.

Invitation and Challenge

The Gospel of Matthew is my favorite of the four Gospels. I'd like to share a section out of it for you. I'm thinking about Matthew 8-9. It is broken up in a very interesting way. Matthew has a series of 3 blocks of 3 miracles with a discourse upon discipleship in between the episodes.

 
The First Block:
8:1-4 The Healing of the Leper
8:5-13 The Faith of a Centurion
8:14-17 Jesus Heals Many

Discipleship Discourse
8:18-21 The Cost of Following Jesus

The Second Block:
8:23-27 Jesus Calms the Storm
8:28-34 Jesus Heals Two Men with Demons
9:1-8 Jesus Heals a Paralytic

Discipleship Discourse
9:9-17 Jesus Calls Matthew and is Questioned about Fasting

The Third Block:
9:18-26 A Girl is Restored and a Woman is Healed
9:27-31 Jesus Heals Two Blind Men
9:32-34 Jesus Heals a Mute Man

Concluding Discipleship Remarks
9:35-37 The Harvest is Plentiful

You may be wondering why this is so important. Well not only does it show the creative writing ability of Matthew, it shows the profound theological practicality in the mission of Jesus: Challenge and Invitation. There are several themes that emerge through these two chapters. I’ll just touch two and just name the rest of the implications.

What is the Challenge?

Notice with me these verses, v. 8:4, 8:13, 8:32, 9:6, 9:13, 9:24, 9:32. In each verse you see the word “Go”. Jesus speaks the word “go” to a leper, centurion, demon, paralytic, Pharisees, crowd of people, and blind men. The interesting thing…they all obeyed Him. He commanded them and they went. Not only that but it was with His word that sickness left and the storm was calmed. We can say that Jesus gave the challenge and they all obeyed. It was by His words that the people were astonished, for He spoke with authority.

What is the Invitation?

But Jesus also gave an invitation, twice actually in verse 8:21 and 9:9. The invitation was to “Follow Me”. Notice that only one, Matthew, a dirty evil tax collector, took Jesus up on his challenge and the other guy…well, didn’t follow Him. This guy was looking to follow someone but the cost of following Jesus was too difficult for him. But Matthew responded. He rose and followed Him. 

What’s the Point?

This is the nature of the Kingdom of God. People can accept or reject the invitation of Jesus but if Jesus gives a challenge, you must obey. The invitation is to “follow me” and the challenge is to “go”. This is clear in the call of the twelve apostles in chapter 10. Jesus “called them” and he “gave them” authority. The same authority He Himself has… Kingdom of God authority!

So here is the invitation and challenge: follow Him and then go and tell others.

Here are some other implications in Matthew 8-9:

·         Faith is coupled with obedience

·         The Kingdom of God is about Word and Deed

·         Jesus is both rejected and glorified

·         The irony is that the disciples of Jesus lack simple faith

·         If demons obey Jesus, why don’t you?

Jesus and Empire Studies

There are several books on the horizon that I'm looking forward to their release. One that has captured my attention is, Jesus Is Lord, Caesar is Not: Evaluating Empire in New Testament Studies edited by Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica.


Here is the Amazon description:

The New Testament is immersed in the often hostile world of the Roman Empire, but its relationship to that world is complex. What is meant by Jesus' call to "render unto Caesar" his due, when Luke subversively heralds the arrival of a Savior and Lord who is not Caesar, but Christ? Is there tension between Peter's command to "honor the emperor" and John's apocalyptic denouncement of Rome as "Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots"? Under the direction of editors Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, respected biblical scholars have come together to investigate an increasingly popular approach in New Testament scholarship of interpreting the text through the lens of empire. The contributors praise recent insights into the New Testament's exposé of Roman statecraft, ideology and emperor worship. But they conclude that rhetoric of anti-imperialism is often given too much sway. More than simply hearing the biblical authors in their context, it tends to govern what they must be saying about their context. The result of this collaboration, Jesus Is Lord, Caesar Is Not, is a groundbreaking yet accessible critical evaluation of empire criticism. Contributors include:

• David Nystrom on Roman ideology
• Judith A. Diehl on the state of empire scholarship
• Joel Willits on Matthew
• Dean Pinter on Luke
• Christopher W. Skinner on John's Gospel and Letters
• Drew Strait on Acts
• Michael F. Bird on Romans
• Lynn Cohick on Philippians
• Allan R. Bevere on Colossians and Philemon
• Dwight Sheets on Revelation

I've been challenge in the area of "Jesus and Empire" studies over the past few years. My first exposure to this idea was in a class I took at Criswell College taught by Dr. Alan Streett. The anti-imperial language in the New Testament is a fascinating study, especially in a time of liberation theology and postcolonial interpretation.

Related, is this article by Dr. Craig Evans.

Jesus Opens Our Eyes

Eric Metaxas, author of Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, delievered this speech last year during the National Prayer Breakfast. I encourage you to listen to the whole speech but pay close attention to the 24 minute mark.

"Jesus opens our eyes to His ideas which are different from our own, which are radical."