grappling with Bush, Inc in faith

[gdeme...@msn.com]

 

I think it has been Herb who has raised this issue a couple times, but with out follow-up comment.  I've been very vocal on my views of the current administration on the UCC CT Conference Justicetalk, but have held back here for a variety of reasons. The story of Cindy Sheehan being arrested at the State of the Union speech because she was wearing a tea-shirt protesting the war did catch my attention.  Here's a summary: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11120353/.

 

In terms of the Iraqi war, I'll just refer readers to a collection of messages I put together a couple years back, many of them written well before the war  http://www.ctconfucc.org/resources/theology/PoliticalTheology.pdf.  I'll have to update this file as I've written a fair amount more on this since 2003.

 

I don't view Bush as evil in that I think that at some level of policy formation he is basically sincere and honest, though I'm not too sure the extent to which he's grappled with any of what I view as the profound contradictions between his stated religious views and policy, to say noting of the substantial gap between his rhetoric (I'm a uniter, not a divider) and the realities of his policies and pronouncements.  Sometimes I get the feeling that simply by speaking he is both referring to and shaping reality to what he is envisioning and that in his lexicon speech is as important as (and some times more important than) the reality of what is created. Thus, I am not sure to what extent he is unaware of his illusions that he seeks to project onto public reality in which he has a great deal of power at least to attempt to do so, though I suspect a great deal.

 

Thus, I do not attribute evil to him personally (no more and no less than any of us), although I think the consequences of his behavior contributing profoundly to the increase of evil in the public sector, domestically and in the international arena is no small matter--a great deal more than Clinton's peccadilloes, which in my view (and I was, without equivocation, highly critical of Clinton n the Lewinsky matter), pale in comparison  It is not because Bush is particularly pernicious (though his ideological zealotry concerns me a great deal), but because of the extent and range of his power for good and/or evil, that I can say, I think without exaggeration, that he is one of the most dangerous persons in the world.  While that's a statement that perhaps can be applied to any current president of the United States, the only antidote that I see is an awesome responsibility in the exercise of power, which at least is not evident to me.

 

To what extent one can separate the two, I am uncertain, but my comments refer to the public persona that might be described as Bush, Inc., rather than the to the individual person, of whom I obviously do not know.

 

In terms of the matter at hand, the passage Romans 13: 1-8 comes to mind, which requires more than a little discernment in the case at hand. 

 

George Demetrion

 

[Carl Rasmussen]

Grappling with Bush:

"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not
the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to
nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been
hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of
the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not
have crucified the Lord of glory."

1 Cor. 2:6-8

Shalom

Carl

[herb.davis]

Dear George,

Carl suggested we ponder Paul I. Cor 2:6-8 as we think about Bush.
He wrote: Grappling with Bush:

I don't think Bush is evil. I don't even think he is the most dangerous man
in the world. I am not sure the Democrats are less evil. I am a Democrat
but wonder if Clinton wasn't leaning toward evil in his refusal to respond
to Rwanda. The Canadian General in charge of the UN in Rwanda claimed 2500
troops would have prevented the killing of 800,000. This haunts me because I
like Clinton. I don't know if that is true but in some ways Bush was more
heroic in respond to Saddam, but also too simple with little principles like
freedom, etc. I have a sense that Paul and maybe DB was saying that the
wisdom of this world maybe lies. Both Republican and Democrats believe that
they can do it better. One party can serve the people better (I lean in
that direction), one party can keep us more secure (I don't lean in that
direction) neither parry like Lincoln can admit that don't control the
future, that they can't keep their promises. My problem is I don't know how
we can speak truth today as a Church. The liberal church seems to be a hand
maid to the liberals and the evangelical church seems to be a hand maid to
the conservatives. I wonder do we have a word? Do you any suggestions.
Peace, Herb

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Thanks Herb,

 

I'd like to respond more directly later.  For now I'll simply post a letter I had published in a local newspaper during the 04 race.

 

Discussion question:  To what extent can the Machiavellian Prince be linked with the prince of Peace without the intervening medium of Niebuhr's Irony of American History?  With that question as a backdrop, I offer the following for your consideration:

 

Does It Matter?

 

In his second volume of The Open Society, philosopher Karl Popper pointed to certain conditions under which:

 

“all hesitation regarding propagandist lying and distortion of the truth must disappear, particularly if it is successful in furthering the power of the state.”  Popper goes on, quoting the 19^th century philosopher Hegel on “whether it was permissible to deceive the People.  The answer is that the people will not allow themselves to be deceived concerning their substantial basis.”  As the quote within Popper’s text continues, “no error is possible where the racial soul dictates, but it deceives itself in the way that it notes this.”  For that reason, “public opinion deserves…to be esteemed as much as to be despised….Thus, to be independent of public opinion is the first condition of achieving anything great.”  As Popper summarizes the point, “it is always success that counts.  If the lie was successful, then it was no lie, since the People were not deceived concerning their substantial basis.” (The Open Society, II, p. 68).

 

Let us consider this statement in light of the Bush administration’s Iraqi policy.

 

The lies, or to be more subtle, the dissimulations have been several-fold, the most obvious being over the weapons of mass destruction (WMD).  As evident in the President’s interview with Dianne Sawyer this past spring, the issue wasn’t over whether Iraq had WMD, but whether they might develop the capacity to have them if left unchecked.  As the President put it, what’s the difference, the bottom line being that Iraq now lacks that capability and the world is a safer place.  While the WMD issue was what was needed to argue the cause for invasion on the home front and international theater, the larger truth was the need to protect the country against a potential attack that could arise if the nation did not take advantage of the then current situation, circa 2002, to link the war on terrorism with Saddam and begin the process of making the mid-east a safer place for the U.S.  Thus, while the President may have dissimulated in the narrow sense in exaggerating the threat from Iraqi WMD, he was in sync with public opinion on a more “substantial basis” and was speaking to the nation’s true interests rather than deceiving the public in this broader sense.  The broader issue, from the Bush perspective, is that the war on terrorism is a singular phenomenon. Consequently, threats from rogue states like Iraq, with proven track records of evil, were as much of a danger as international terrorist networks like Al Queda.  That Saddam was evil was not a difficult point to prove.  Neither was his demonization, which provided the administration with the powerful second legs it believed it needed to keep the “war on terrorism” as it defined it, front and center in the public consciousness

 

Without that second front, the “war” would likely have dissipated in the public mind and national resources wouldn’t be sufficiently galvanized to assume the challenges that the administration believed is needed to maintain a consistent long-term focus on the problem of international terrorism.  It is in these broader truths that the President’s dissimulations over the WMD issue requires getting over considering the real gains that have been achieved in the prosecution of the war.  That, at least, is the underlying logic of the Bush administration.

 

 

George Demetrion

 

[Chris Anderson]

Herb,

I was impressed by a comment that Jim Wallis said about
his relationship with the Democratic Party. First he said
that the Senator that was most helpful to him was the
Republican from Orgegon, Mark Hatfield. Second, he said
that he did not want to be chaplain to the Democratic
Party.

Chris

[gdeme...@msn.com]

Hi Chris,

 

That makes sense to me. The senate could certainly use a few more members of the caliber and moral integrity of Mark Hatfield and John Dansforth.

 

I do believe one can be highly critical of the current administration on the substance of their policy and the practice of their politics while not necessarily embracing a radical left agenda. While my politics are more progressive than conservative, I would define them as broadly liberal and in synch with the main currents of the American reformed tradition from the progressive era of the early 190s to the Johnson era of the Great Society.  In terms of conservative polemics it is this liberal tradition which is sometimes conflated with the "radical left," which, in reality, has exceedingly little influence in the political culture and the mainstream media.  On the other hand, a radical conservative agenda has gained increasing legitimization in the political culture with many passes given to it by the mainstream media, a movement that I view as exceedingly unhealthy.  During the early cold war era, Arthur Schlesinger Sr spoke of a vital center, which grounded the politics of "realism," as exhibited by the political scientist Hans Morgenhau, the diplomat, George Kennan, and, of course, Rienhold Neibuhr.  Such a vital center with contributory streams from moderate liberals and conservatives, is in my view, where the nation needs to go if it is to revitalize the health of its flagging political culture. I think there are movements in this direction to which Wallis and Dansforth are advocating, but any such transformation will, in my view, also need the leadership and vision at the presidential level  There is a better part of the current president that might like to strive to be like Eisenhower, but my sense is that his narrow political ideology constrains any centrist voice from rising to prominence. I view such ideological rigidity with much apprehension and I'm not advocating an ideology of the let as a counterpoise.

 

George Demetrion

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Anderson

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 7:24 AM

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: grappling with Bush, Inc in faith

 

Herb,

I was impressed by a comment that Jim Wallis said about
his relationship with the Democratic Party. First he said
that the Senator that was most helpful to him was the

Republican from Oregon, Mark Hatfield. Second, he said

[john cedarleaf]

herb.davis wrote:

Herb: What musings! Do we have a word? "That Word above all earthly
powers,no thanks to them abideth." When the focus is on ideology(no
matter how wonderful we think it is) then we succumb to "the world"(in
the worse sense of that word). When we focus on "Christ the center", who
is born into the world,whose kingdom is "not of this world", but impacts
this world in mighty ways, then we are on safer ground. Like you,
Niebuhr wears well for me, but even there we must be careful not to make
him the center. All this ambiguity gives me a headache and some days I
long for the "easy answer" of the left and the right,but can't find
myself comfortable as an acolyte of either. John

[Carl Rasmussen]

In today's Isthmus, our local weekly newspaper, is an interview with
Alfred. W. McCoy, history professor at the University of Wisconsin.

McCoy's new book has just been published, and it is being widely
reviewed: A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War
to the War on Terror. (Henry Holt)

McCoy points out that our use of torture is not a partisan issue,
although it has been made a partisan issue. President Clinton allowed
illegal rendition.

[NB: I do not take St. Paul in 1 Corinthians as any sort of argument
in favor of Democrats.]

Of his work McCoy says: "I don't want to overstate it, but it's
horribly unpleasant to immerse yourself in this immoral universe without
redemption."

Shalom

Carl.

[Donald Towle]

George wrote:

 

"I do believe one can be highly critical of the current administration on the substance of their policy and the practice of their politics while not necessarily embracing a radical left agenda. While my politics are more progressive than conservative, I would define them as broadly liberal and in synch with the main currents of the American reformed tradition from the progressive era of the early 190s to the Johnson era of the Great Society.  In terms of conservative polemics it is this liberal tradition which is sometimes conflated with the "radical left," which, in reality, has exceedingly little influence in the political culture and the mainstream media.  On the other hand, a radical conservative agenda has gained increasing legitimization in the political culture with many passes given to it by the mainstream media, a movement that I view as exceedingly unhealthy.  During the early cold war era, Arthur Schlesinger Sr spoke of a vital center, which grounded the politics of "realism," as exhibited by the political scientist Hans Morgenhau, the diplomat, George Kennan, and, of course, Rienhold Neibuhr.  Such a vital center with contributory streams from moderate liberals and conservatives, is in my view, where the nation needs to go if it is to revitalize the health of its flagging political culture.  I think there are movements in this direction to which Wallis and Dansforth are advocating, but any such transformation will, in my view, also need the leadership and vision at the presidential level  There is a better part of the current president that might like to strive to be like Eisenhower, but my sense is that his narrow political ideology constrains any centrist voice from rising to prominence. I view such ideological rigidity with much apprehension and I'm not advocating an ideology of the left as a counterpoise." 

 

 

George,

 

It is clear that we share a respect for the tradition of political realism exhibited in the writings of such people as Morgenthau, Kennan, and Reinhold Niebuhr.  The thinking of these individuals was profoundly shaped by the necessity of dealing with aggressive and ruthless totalitarianisms rooted in extremist ideologies, Fascist and Communist.  Niebuhr as I'm sure you remember was first a  pacifist, and then a Marxist before becoming a realist. 

 

It can be argued that this tradition of political realism is well-represented in the highest circles of the present administration in the thinking of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Wolfowitz, as well as in the thinking of Bush II.  

 

What leads you to characterize this thinking as narrow, rigid, and ideological?  

 

Donald  

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

[Donald Towle]

 

George wrote: " The lies, or to be more subtle, the dissimulations have been several-fold, the most obvious being over the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). "

 

George,

 

There are some UCC'ers who are old enough to remember what it meant to be liberal who take offense at the irresponsible and malicious abuse of language exhibited in this statement.  

 

Donald    

[scott...@comcast.net]

I agree with Donald! It's totally unfair to call something a lie when it is simply the willful misstatement of fact! Just because George Bush and his administration exhibit a complete and total disregard for truth in all of its forms doesn't make them liars. Sheesh people!

[herb.davis]

Dear George, John, Willis and Chris,  I am not sure I fully understand Popper.  I was interested in his comment, “it is always success that counts.  If the lie was successful, then it was no lie, since the People were not deceived concerning their substantial basis.”  DB says something about success., “When a successful figure becomes especially prominent and conspicuous, the majority give way to the idolization of success.  They become blind to right and wrong, truth and untruth, fair play and foul play.  They have eyes for the deed, for the successful result.” Ethics p.14.  Then he reminds us of the incarnation, “”In a world where success is the measure and justification of all things the figure of HIM who was sentenced and crucified remains a stranger and is at best the object of pity. The world will allow itself to be subdued only by success.” (Ethics p.13)  I

 

It seems to be that Bush would have no problem if he was successful, but his vision to free up the middle east with democracy in Iraq is in deep trouble even though I wish it might happen.  His tax cutting program has left him without many options in relations to very difficult issues in education, health.  On the issue of torture and surveillance he is facing some roadblocks and he may come out a winner but I am not sure. 

 

At the same time am I also  idolizing success with moderates like Danford and Progressive Politics.  Is Jim Wallis concerned about success?  Surely it must be insane to think that the unsuccessful one is the Lord and Savior.  I can’t get my mind around this stuff very well, but it is interesting and wild. Is success more important and powerful than love or is it “love that never ends.”  Is success more powerful than truth, “I am the way, the truth..” , “The Truth will set you free” Is the lie the darkness “that can’t overcome the light?”

 

Thanks George for the Popper quote.  Chris  do you remember what happened to Mark Hatfield?  Why do I remember those things?  Peace, Herb     

 

---

 

[Roger Easlund]

Brother Herb: You are indeed a treasure of wise perception of the "upside-down Kingdom and it's Prince of Peace"! You excerpted this little nugget from DB that is bigger than the Rocky Mountains in our faith "success"!  I have wrestled with this my last several years here as pastor and in a "tortured" sense  in my own life being a typical  "success" driven American male!!  I have watched the congregation wince when I have proclaimed the "mystery of the Gospel revealed in Jesus Christ" as often the opposite of winning or succeeding.  The American mind centered on : utilitarianism, pragmatism, deism, and social Darwinism HATES this message!!  The extravagance of generosity imbedded in GRACE just does not fit the model of "hard work" and "you can be anything you want to be in America" is the most powerful idolatry of the culture!!  Perhaps most of pastoral work including preaching has to do with trying to heal the side effects of this mind set: Eating disorders, gambling addictions, alcoholism, sexual addictions and abuse, not to mention the myriad heath problems created by winning your peace of the American pie!!  They hate this message most in a Republican Government town like Pierre SD where we have the highest % of women working in all the USA and 3 times the national average in teen suicide!!  The last funeral I did was for an 84 year old Vet.  His funeral instructions had me doing his prayer service in the VFW hall and bar and his funeral in a community center rather than a church.  The Honor Guard was seated in the front next to the casket. After my benediction they folded and presented the flag to the widow.  I saw heads drop at my sermon where I declared the in my sermon preparation " I knew I MUST have something very powerful to say, some thing more powerful the DEATH and the culture of DEATH, the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ!!!!" I forget my points but my text was, "if you do not honor me before men, I will not honor you before my Father in heaven".  In the family note of thanks there was a list of things she thanked me for but the "message" was obviously deleted. I brought this guy into our church by stopping and talking to him on the road out in range country where he was fixing fence and I offered to help and said " ever see a preacher work cows? Give me a call ----he did and I did".  I buried his first wife, did his second wedding and now buried him. He left most of his estate to a war memorial he was building down in a small town near his ranch. He never left the church a penny that I know of yet.  I prayed for no-violent love in my benediction.  When I got done I realized what the Spirit had me do.  At the meal after the burial there was only on kind soul that would look me in the eye.  In the days since I have been depressed thinking I am the biggest jack ass on the block and did not preach a eulogistic "something"  of comfort to the widow they thought they would get.  Now I am coming out of that stupor of idolatry thinking again I don't give a damn if they like it I MUST PREACH IT.  Any way a lot of them would like to run me off and I am tired as hell inside.  Your little jewel on DB was food for my SOUL---thanks again.   Roger  Pray for me that my enemies do not tire me out to the point of running out of town!!  This whole deal reminds me of what mentor Stan Grenz said after one of my whining, "Roger, God did NOT call you to be successful , only FAITHFUL!" Thank you so much for your encouragement!!  Your WILD friend out on the prairies- Roger ----- -----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of herb.davis
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:14 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: grappling with Bush, Inc in faith

[Chris Anderson]

Herb,

All I remember is that Billy Graham once said he would
support Hatfield for the Presidency but Hatfield would not
promise to use the nuclear option so the Presidency was
not open to him. Other than I think he died a number of
years ago. Though I might be wrong.

Chris

[Cecil Prescod]

Herb,

Mark Hatfield retired from the Senate a few years ago--and is still alive!  I am an Oregonian (Sen. Mark Hatfield served this state as Governor and Senatorfor Many years  He represented a brand of evangelicalism and political moderatism that is rare  in public life these days. One of his published works is entitled "Between a Rock and a Hard Place."- an apt description of his public career. 

I appreciate this group--a breath of fresh air.

Cecil Charles Prescod, OCC

---

From: "Chris Anderson" <fc...@suscom.net>
Reply-To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Mark Hatfield
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:25:36 -0500

[herb.davis]

Christ, thanks for your messing around with jokes and insight on the Bush
Administration. I think Hatfield maybe dead but I am not sure and I do not
want to speak ill of the dead if they are dead. If they are not dead I
might speak ill of the living but I am confused. Is there any help for me
in your Catechism. Peace, Herb

[herb.davis]

Dear Roger,  Thanks for the kind note.  Your analysis of America seems fitting to me, but we need to remember that the American dream was not enough for the old cow hand you met on the fence line.  There was something that allowed him to listen to you and probably, (I hope I am not being romantic) the Gospel we preach is more comforting and real than we realize.  This guy seemed like a real sinner, or maybe a real man.  Your ministry maybe more important and  respected than you think as long as you don’t expect it to be important.  Thanks again for the good word and DH does speak to us even when the context is different.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[Chris Anderson]

Yes, GOD IS STILL LAUGHING: THE REVISED HEIDELBERG
CATECSHIM JOKE BOOK says there is help even for you.

Q. What can Mae West teach us about our justification?
A. "Goodness had nothing to do with it." (p. 16)

PS Send me your address I meant to send you a copy.

Chris

[Roger Easlund]

Herb:  Right on concerning the horrid sin of self importance!!! The Gospel no doubt HAD already visited him-me-all way befor ( I ) showed up!!  Praise his wonderful Name!!!!   Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of herb.davis
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:10 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: grappling with Bush, Inc in faith

[herb.davis]

Chris, If you were referring to me. I have a copy and read it, but I can't
remember everything anymore so I need the author to keep me up to date. Mae
West must have been a Calvinist. Peace, Herb

[herb.davis]

Dear Ceil,  Thanks for the update on Mark Hatfield.  I am glad I didn’t say anything about him.  Glad you enjoy the group.  Hop in any time.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[herb.davis]

Dear Grapplers, I through I had this figured out. On one level when I read
DB I get the sense that the church is helpless when we believe that we can
save or bring life or healing. I assume that DB was effected by the context
of a church helpless before the Nazi govt that the only response of the
church was the cross, defeat, witness to the resurrection. I wondered if he
ever though of Is 26:17gg/ Like a woman writhes child, who writhers and
cries out in pangs when she is near her time, we were we because of you
Lord, we were with child, we writhed but we gave birth only to wind> We
have won no victories on earth." I remember Brueggemann comment about David
and his adultery. Human are good at bring about death, only God gives life.

I was thinking of this in our context where it is hard for us to believe we
are helpless that we cannot bring health or life. In fact we often talk
about how our ministry really saves people in desperate situations. So I
want to reject DB focus on defeat and the cross and rather focus on mission
and ministry. That's why I lean toward Niebuhr who seems more pragmatic.
Yet Niebuhr had not real ecclesiology.

Then I read today "The justification of the western world which has fallen
away from Christ, lies solely in the divine justification of the Church,
which lead her to the full confession of guilt and to the form of the cross.
The renewal of the western world lies solely in the divine renewal of the
Church, which leads her to the fellowship of the risen and living Jesus
Christ." Ethics/p.52.

What a theology of the church, what an ecclesiology! Is this what get
Willis upset. The renewal of the western world depends on the renewal of
the church fellowship with the divine and risen and living Jesus Christ?
Does he mean we can be witness when we know there is no life in us? We
witness to the one who is the way, truth and life? Peace, Herb

[Roger Easlund]

Herb: Leander C. Keck in his work, "The Church Confident" said: "Mindless
chaos in God-think results from 4 shifts in God-talk: 1. Theology becomes
Anthropology, the reactionary right and left use God-talk to legitimate
violence and silence the unthinking majority. 2. The Gospel of Humanism
becomes Law: Thereby eliminating the concept of Sovereignty & Biblical
Authority and Revelation 3. Mono-theistic "Faith" is replaced by; religious
pluralism, Gnosticism, polytheism, universalism, and syncretism 4. The
ensuing chaos replaces healthy suspicion with alienation, isolation and
pluralism unto anarchy!! A hermeneutic of such suspicion that it demands
re-envisioning, re-imagining and re-naming of God, finally becomes useless
rhetoric that trails off into non-sense. 911 added much, although it should
not have, to the uncertainty of our culture--The faith response from the
right and left has only added to the divisive and ambivalent actions or lack
of actions by the church which most of the time just spits
passive-aggression back and forth. Maybe this going back to DB reflects the
deep groanings we have about the destructive tone to world events and the
compromised ethics of just about every one on all levels. Are we looking in
the wrong places for Jesus the Savior to show up and fix the church's apathy
and lack of a prophetic voice. One of my 84 year old WW II vets said, " I'm
no historian but I think we are going into one of those dark ages!" His
daughter in Law got hooked on video lottery gambling and his son
subsequently committed suicide because of it. The optimism after WWII has
been shattered in the church, particularly in the mainline institutional
church. The Community church movement, the rise of Pentecostal/Charismatic
movement most of which have fundamentalist underpinnings, no solid theology
and runs on politicalizations or emotionalism. All this forces pastors to
shrink into "personal ministry" as they are marginalized by parishioners who
find their sense of authority some where else besides the Bible or Worship.
CC is a good example of try to rediscover a deeper sense of hope through
theological reflection on the classic themes. Keck was prophetic in this
regard don't you think?? May God's blessings blow your hat off today Herb.
Roger P.S. I will refrain from blurted verbatims of my own struggles in
ministry actions, sorry to divert every one's your time with such.

[Donald Towle]

Liz,

Are you around today?

Donald

[STMATT...@aol.com]

Confessors,

    I've thoroughly enjoyed the DB conversation. Though very deep and technical, it nevertheless has a devotional quality to it. My own reflections led me to Holy Scripture to consider DB in light of Jeremiah. Like DB, the prophet lived out the witness and burden of the Word he received.  In Spite of his best efforts in the Spirit, Jeremiah's only hope was in the sovereignty of God and the new thing God would do to keep covenant faith alive.  I find it fascinating that when their people came to judgment and ruin, both Jeremiah and DB struck a  powerful note of hope. Jeremiah buys a field and DB seeks out marriage. It seems that the ones we continue to look to for guidance in our own times are the same who risked everything on the promises of God. Maybe RN summarized the struggle best when he said:

 

Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in a lifetime;  therefore, we must be saved by hope. Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith.  Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone.  Therefore we are saved by love.

 

The same Word which called out to Jer., and DB, and RN  calls to us. As Mary would humbly deflect all devotion unto her to her son, I imagine that  DB would challenge us, not to respond so much to him, his life and his thought, but the Word that was his firm foundation. Blessing to you all in your own responses this day.

 

 

In Christ, Andy

[Roger Easlund]

Andy: The RN quote is a thing of beauty not unlike your personal testimony to persevere no matter the "cultural times" in the timeless hope and love of Jesus Christ our Lord!!  Are you coming out to S.D. this summer?  I got a spunky new colt for you to ride!!  Hugs for your beautiful wife and children.    Roger

[herb.davis]

Dear Roger, You always rise a number of interesting issues.
1. I remember Keck's book and his presentation at Colloquy some years ago.
I don't think the hermeneutic of suspicion is a great help to our church
since we by nature seem to be suspicious of authority and the issue of the
authority of scripture in the church is one of the central issues today. I
think human experience is as important for us than texts and we have lost
any means of dwelling in the scriptures, of eating the texts.

2. I think it is difficult for clergy in our time and there is attendance
for us to become focused on personnel ministries which was always an
important task, visiting the sick, prisoner, poor, but maybe we work so hard
at being healers and helpers that we have difficulty being ministers of the
Word. I am old and retired and probably not very helpful in this area.

3. I would not be too pessimistic about the Church (UCC) and the culture.
We always live in a time of war and rumors of war. We are not expected to
see great victories yet at the same time there is an explosion of the Gospel
throughout the world. The whole shape and face of the faith is being
changed and expanded. The Koreans have 15,000 missionaries working to
convert China to the Faith. The Gospel is so powerful and live giving in
these days for the world. It's a wild time. We simply need to be confident
that the Lord is using us in strange and wonderful ways.

I get excited that DB could suggestion or proclaim that the renewal of the
western world depends on the renews of the Church. Now it seems like God
has just passed over us for awhile but God will not give up on us.
Peace, Herb

[Roger Easlund]

Herb The Gig Hearted: Thank you for the expansive and open to the future
exhortation!! Did all your sermons have "3 points and a Poem?" Wonderful
sunny day approach. I guess Keck missed your vision but I got it! Thanks
again--------Wild Man of the West---Shalom Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of herb.davis
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 9:42 AM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: still grappling DB

[Willis/Loree Elliott]

Roger said to...

Herb had said:

>....I want to reject DB focus on defeat and the cross and rather focus on mission

> and ministry.  That's why I lean toward Niebuhr who seems more pragmatic.
> Yet Niebuhr had not real ecclesiology.
>
> Then I read today "The justification of the western world which has fallen
> away from Christ, lies solely in the divine justification of the Church,
> which lead her to the full confession of guilt and to the form of the cross.
> The renewal of the western world lies solely in the divine renewal of the
> Church, which leads her to the fellowship of the risen and living Jesus
> Christ." Ethics/p.52.
>
> What a theology of the church, what an ecclesiology!  Is this what get
> Willis upset.  The renewal of the western world depends on the renewal of
> the church fellowship with the divine and risen and living Jesus Christ?
> Does he mean we can be witness when we know there is no life in us?  We
> witness to the one who is the way, truth and life? 

 

Herb & Roger:

 

1    DP was upset about a church (of the "German Christians") that had joined the enemy, & took this as negative evidence of the need for the church to "confess" (the "Bekentniskirche," the Confessional [or Confessing] Church--from which name we have, in the UCC, "Confessing Christ").  What's to confess?  Sin.  Impotence.  Ignorance.  Jesus Christ as (1Cor.1.24) "the power of God and the wisdom of God."  The crucified "Lord of glory" (2.8).

 

2    For our condition in nature & church, the old BCP versions used the therapeutic metaphor

"there is no health in us."  (Yep, now dropped.)  As you put it, Herb, "no life in us."  And you add, but "we witness to the one who is the way, truth and life."  Willis does indeed get "upset" at the church's unhealth so well described--as you say, Roger--in Keck's THE CHURCH CONFIDENT.  (You may remember what a good job Keck did at the Craigville Colloquy whose participants were advised to read the book before arriving.  Unwittingly, he showed how difficult it is to be confident when you so much want to be relevant: when I pointed out to him in the planning committee that the book never refers to deity personally-pronominally, he confessed [1] that he wasn't aware of it & [2] that his "it"ing of God was from his letting some of his women students intimidate him from using the Bible's pronouns for God.)

 

3    Herb, as for RN's having "no real ecclesiology, " I've been comparing his "ethics" (1934) with DB's (strung out over a few years later).  RN was solidly-invisibly building a basement for an "impossible possible" church free of the illusions of imaging the kingdom as already here (instead of also not yet), & the reverse (e.g., p.58).  Relaxing the church/kingdom tension has always led us Christians into heretical enthusiasms & disappointments.

    In our Cape Cod Theotalk yesterday (from which you, Herb, as snowbird, have absented yourself until May), (Methodist) Larry Snow said he'd just returned from conference, where the bishop said that by 2030, "there will be no Methodist churches in New England."  (Shall we predict ditto for UCC?)  Ecclesiologically, this is calamitous--no?  What would DB & RN say?

 

4    Put it on ("put on Christ"), pass it on ("you shall be my witnesses").  Is it an illusion that as faith without faithfulness is vain (can we disagree with the Letter of James?), baptism without churchgoing & witnessing is vain?

 

Me?  I'm perplexed, but undiscouraged.  "Trust in the Lord with all thy might, and lean not unto thine own understanding...."  As you do (above), Herb, let's take DB's p52 more seriously than we Americanized Christians have, on left or right.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

[Roger Easlund]

Brother Willis:1. I just got off the phone with a young fund raiser from North American Baptist Seminary, soon to be a cross denominational new named seminary.  He goes to a church in Sioux Falls that went from 500 to 4000 members in 5 years.  Read Willow magazine.13  I. 1 p.18 about a black Chicago Church that went from 500 to 22,000 in 5 years, how, 'brought 25,000 to Christ in one year, they went door to door and gave away 30,000 Bibles, sent 42,000 Bibles on cassette to 42,000 incarcerated men and women in 2002 and brought more than 43,000 inmates into its worship experience.  They raised $200,000.00 in one day for Katrina churches destroyed by the storm. There pastor is also a State Senator.  Their message is unambiguous and uncomplicated; there only motive is "introducing the teachings and lifestyle of Jesus Christ. SO is that the clear message and mission of CC or have we bogged down the who track with Jesus "AND"?  Even the puny $5000.00 Challenge fund offer  we did for CC died on the vine!!!!  If we really confess what we say we confess something is missing in terms of Holy Spirit power to obtain  movement (in the long run we are all dead)-------I see NO movement in CC.  2. Proper language is a must to evangelism---dah--unbelievers are not scholars just seekers.  If you have to apologize for the Biblebefor you crack the book you are beat befor you got starated.  3. Like you I am frustrated but not discouraged----Jesus did not give us a spirit of timidity but of boldness(innovation, guts), not fear but love(do we love anyone enough to tell them the truth about Biblical judgment?) Not of sitting on the truth but sharing it with everybody.  Herb the Gospel IS exploding in America as well as in Asia and Africa the UCC just does not seem to be in on the action.  Rock on theologians-----------Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Willis/Loree Elliott
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:04 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: still grappling DB

[Doxtalker]

Willis: What is DB's p52?

Larry

[Roger Easlund]

Willis: you know YOU are the only one who seem to have any FIRE in your belly for evangelism----why is that?  Blessings Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Willis/Loree Elliott
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:04 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: still grappling DB

[Gabriel Fackre]

Brother Roger,

 

I beg to differ with you  about those involved in  CC not caring about evangelism 

 

Most of the people I know associated with Confessing Christ care deeply about evangelism. Some of us helped launch the Word in deed grassroots rmovement  when the UCC lost its momentum in the early 70s on evangelism. A long history here that helped to bring the emphasis back in subsequent years.

 

One of the thngs we learned, however, was that there is evangelism and there is evangelism. Increase of numbers is not the sole test of faithful evangelism (six features if Acts 3-4 is the model, as it was in the Word-in-deed movement). One of the things we learned in those earleier years was that in order to get the Word out, you have to get it straight, being clear about what the gospel, in fact, is. That is what Confessing Christ is trying to do in its various centers (see, for example,  April 1 in New England region  on communicating the gospel in preaching, adult education in youth work at the Framingham center), and its many other ventures, past and present.

 

When you look at the history of how Confessing Christ came to be, a trajectory of grassroots movements in the UCC is discernible that runs from the Word in deed movement in the 70s, through the Biblical-Theological-Liturgical group , the Mercersburg Society, the Craigville Colloquies to the Confessing Christ movement--the latter grassroots movements working hard on getting clear in our denomination what the basic Christian teaching is that we want to share in our evangelism, then doing it when and where we can.

 

                                           --Gabe

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Roger Easlund

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:54 PM

Subject: RE: still grappling DB

[herb.davis]

Dear Willis,  Glad you are back.  You suggested that DB was upset about, “A German Church that had joined the enemy.”  I think DB was also upset with the European Reformation Church that had lost the Gospel and was enfolded into the culture before WWI.  The German Church that was obedient to Hitler was the end result of a long process that ended in culture captivity.  DB was also concerned about the American Church which he felt never knew the Reformation.  Confessing Christ is also concerned about the UCC becoming captive to the powerful, successful, American culture, so that when a critical moment may arise we may obey the rulers of this world.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[herb.davis]

Dear Roger,  thanks for the good word on the Gospel exploding in the USA.  I must say I am not a good evangelist and probably don’t get excited about evangelism.  I use to know how to build strong institutional churches and I still think that is a noble calling.  I am not in the high roller group that moves a congregation from 400 to 25,000.  If that is the measure that I join DB in being a failure.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[herb.davis]

Dear Fred, I read in the Orland paper this week that Father Jean is in
Florida being treated for his illness and that he is supporting Prevail in
the election. Do you have any info. Peace, Herb

-----

[Chris Anderson]

"There's no success like failure
and failure's no success at all."

Bob Dylan

[Willis/Loree Elliott]

Larry:

 

It's quoted in Herb's note preceding but incorporated into mine (thus, my "above").

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

[john cedarleaf]

Roger Easlund wrote:

> *From:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]*On Behalf Of
> *Willis/Loree Elliott
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:04 PM
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: still grappling DB

> at the church's /un/health so well described--as you say,

> Roger--in Keck's THE CHURCH CONFIDENT. (You may remember what a
> good job Keck did at the Craigville Colloquy whose participants
> were advised to read the book before arriving. Unwittingly, he
> showed how difficult it is to be confident when you so much want
> to be relevant: when I pointed out to him in the planning
> committee that the book never refers to deity
> personally-pronominally, he confessed [1] that he wasn't aware of
> it & [2] that his "it"ing of God was from his letting some of his
> women students intimidate him from using the Bible's pronouns for
> God.)
>
> 3 Herb, as for RN's having "no real ecclesiology, " I've been
> comparing his "ethics" (1934) with DB's (strung out over a few
> years later). RN was solidly-invisibly building a basement for an

> "impossible possible" church free of the /illusions/ of imaging

> the kingdom as already here (instead of also not yet), & the
> reverse (e.g., p.58). Relaxing the church/kingdom tension has
> always led us Christians into heretical enthusiasms & disappointments.
> In our Cape Cod Theotalk yesterday (from which you, Herb, as
> snowbird, have absented yourself until May), (Methodist) Larry
> Snow said he'd just returned from conference, where the bishop
> said that by 2030, "there will be no Methodist churches in New
> England." (Shall we predict ditto for UCC?) Ecclesiologically,
> this is calamitous--no? What would DB & RN say?
>
> 4 Put it on ("put on Christ"), pass it on ("you shall be my
> witnesses"). Is it an illusion that as faith without faithfulness
> is vain (can we disagree with the Letter of James?), baptism
> without churchgoing & witnessing is vain?
>
> Me? I'm perplexed, but undiscouraged. "Trust in the Lord with
> all thy might, and lean not unto thine own understanding...." As
> you do (above), Herb, let's take DB's p52 more seriously than we
> Americanized Christians have, on left or right.
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis
>
>
>

Roger: It is easy,as you well know, to read things like you quoted and
feel like "we're not doing anything" or "we're dead." It is also easy to
be frustrated by all this. I know that after nearly forty years in
parish ministry, I've had my share of such frustration. A few years ago
our church council had a retreat at which a "facilitator"(I hate all
these words!) asked me: "How many people do you worship on a Sunday?"
Apparently this kind of talk is common among "mega church types". I was
tempted to say we don't worship people. We read stories of thousands of
people and millions of dollars and the power of the Holy Spirit at work
and it makes us feel as if we aren't doing much, or anything at all.
Maybe we aren't or maybe we aren't doing enough, or maybe we're making
things too complicated for folks. Yet, we do what we can, relying on
God's grace and love and yes the power of the Holy Spirit, even working
through "the earthen vessels" which we call human beings, and yes, the
church. Some of us keep on keeping on, seeking to keep Christ at the
center of what we do and who we are. Sometimes there is more fruit than
at other times. John

[john cedarleaf]

Gabriel Fackre wrote:

> Brother Roger,
>
> I beg to differ with you about those involved in CC not caring about
> evangelism
>
> Most of the people I know associated with Confessing Christ care
> deeply about evangelism. Some of us helped launch the Word in deed
> grassroots rmovement when the UCC lost its momentum in the early
> 70s on evangelism. A long history here that helped to bring the
> emphasis back in subsequent years.
>
> One of the thngs we learned, however, was that there is evangelism and
> there is evangelism. Increase of numbers is not the sole test of
> faithful evangelism (six features if Acts 3-4 is the model, as it was
> in the Word-in-deed movement). One of the things we learned in those

> earleier years was that in order to get the Word _out_, you have to
> get it _straight_, being clear about what the gospel, in fact, is.

> That is what Confessing Christ is trying to do in its various centers
> (see, for example, April 1 in New England region on communicating
> the gospel in preaching, adult education in youth work at the
> Framingham center), and its many other ventures, past and present.
>
> When you look at the history of how Confessing Christ came to be, a
> trajectory of grassroots movements in the UCC is discernible that runs
> from the Word in deed movement in the 70s, through the
> Biblical-Theological-Liturgical group , the Mercersburg Society, the
> Craigville Colloquies to the Confessing Christ movement--the latter
> grassroots movements working hard on getting clear in our denomination
> what the basic Christian teaching is that we want to share in our
> evangelism, then doing it when and where we can.
>
> --Gabe
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>

> *From:* Roger Easlund <mailto:pastor.e...@midconetwork.com>
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2006 5:54 PM
> *Subject:* RE: still grappling DB

> *From:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]*On Behalf Of
> *Willis/Loree Elliott
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:04 PM
> *To:* Confessi...@googlegroups.com

> *Subject:* Re: still grappling DB

> get "upset" at the church's /un/health so well described--as

> you say, Roger--in Keck's THE CHURCH CONFIDENT. (You may
> remember what a good job Keck did at the Craigville Colloquy
> whose participants were advised to read the book before
> arriving. Unwittingly, he showed how difficult it is to be
> confident when you so much want to be relevant: when I pointed
> out to him in the planning committee that the book never
> refers to deity personally-pronominally, he confessed [1] that
> he wasn't aware of it & [2] that his "it"ing of God was from
> his letting some of his women students intimidate him from
> using the Bible's pronouns for God.)
>
> 3 Herb, as for RN's having "no real ecclesiology, " I've
> been comparing his "ethics" (1934) with DB's (strung out over
> a few years later). RN was solidly-invisibly building a
> basement for an "impossible possible" church free of the

> /illusions/ of imaging the kingdom as already here (instead of

> also not yet), & the reverse (e.g., p.58). Relaxing the
> church/kingdom tension has always led us Christians into
> heretical enthusiasms & disappointments.
> In our Cape Cod Theotalk yesterday (from which you, Herb,
> as snowbird, have absented yourself until May), (Methodist)
> Larry Snow said he'd just returned from conference, where the
> bishop said that by 2030, "there will be no Methodist churches
> in New England." (Shall we predict ditto for UCC?)
> Ecclesiologically, this is calamitous--no? What would DB & RN
> say?
>
> 4 Put it on ("put on Christ"), pass it on ("you shall be my
> witnesses"). Is it an illusion that as faith without
> faithfulness is vain (can we disagree with the Letter of
> James?), baptism without churchgoing & witnessing is vain?
>
> Me? I'm perplexed, but undiscouraged. "Trust in the Lord
> with all thy might, and lean not unto thine own
> understanding...." As you do (above), Herb, let's take DB's
> p52 more seriously than we Americanized Christians have, on
> left or right.
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis
>
>
>

Thanks Gabe, I wrote my respones before I read yours. I could have saved
my words, I guess. "New Measures" are not always the best indicators for
faithful discipleship. John

[herb.davis]

Dear Larry,  I just get excited when I read some of DB.  On page 52 1959 edition , Macmillan publisher, he wrote: “The justification of the western world, which has falling away from Christ, lies solely in the divine justification of the church, which leads her to the full confession of guilt and to the form of the cross.  The renewal of the western world lies solely in the divine renewal of the Church, which leads her to the fellowship of the risen and living Jesus Christ.”  I found this exciting in the context of the American Church today which is so focus on our success, our ministry, or our failure.  Few if any of us believe that the future of the western world depends on the Church.  Maybe the present Pope believes DB, maybe Bob Dylan, but  few believe that the future depends on a church that confesses not on it works be it evangelism or progressive deeds but on our fellowship with the living and risen Jesus Christ.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[Roger Easlund]

Bros. Gabe, John, and Herb----I had written myself a note a few days earlier
,"no more blurting!". I failed my own test,----again. I know all you
Brothers are solid evangelicals and in the best of formats. Gabes sense of
historical continuity and demand for wonderful systematics along side the
Word is a treasure to every one in the Church! Herb, your knowledge of the
institutional church and the life long fruit that has born is a record of
beautiful, careful witness to your first love Jesus Christ. John your wise
pastoral reminder that the # game is not the central or even a necessary
criteria for success or faithfulness of course is right on. Thank you for
the kind exhortation and focus on pastoral care. The intimacy of Holy Spirit
lead love as the heart beat of the church--cross and resurrection. It is
just my blurted frustration BUT it is good to see the coals stirring in you
men of God!!! Gabe calls me a futurist so part of me always wants to run off
before I am ready to "take on the gods of this world", that dangerous
adventure does NOT bear fruit. I do think however that we should keep
evangelism in front of each other very often, that seems to me the main
purpose God called CC into being for (joyful theological reflection MUST
lead to acts of invitation, generosity and the converting love that forms
our spirit to be like unto his Spirit) All of you certainly have that
gift----Thank you! In the Master Evangelists love Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of john cedarleaf
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:21 AM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: still grappling DB

[Trost, Theodore]

Herb:

The note below was forwarded from the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti.

Ted Trost

Fr. Gerry Released!
January 29, Noon ET

We have great news: Political prisoner Fr. Gerard-Jean-Juste, "Fr. Gerry" is right now on a plane in the air from Port-au-Prince to Miami. A cancer center in Florida has agreed to treat his leukemia, so he will get immediate attention for the cancer, as well as for the pneumonia he contracted this week.

Fr. Gerry was granted a provisional release, which requires him to return to Haiti after the treatment to face the charges still pending against him. The current charges against him are as baseless as the other charges which have been dismissed. Fr. Gerry's lawyers at the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (BAI) have filed an appeal, asking for the charges to be dismissed. The appeals court can rule on the appeal without Fr. Gerry's presence, so it is possible that the case will be dismissed without requiring him to return to court. If he is forced to return to court, the BAI lawyers will continue to fight the charges.

In the meantime, Fr. Gerry will be relatively safe, and will have his leukemia treated. Doctors who have examined him are hopeful that his disease is at a stage where it can be successfully treated, but they cannot be certain without more tests.

Today's victory proves the Haitian proverb, "men anpil, chay pa lou-: many hands makes the load light. This mobilization has been by far the strongest and most persistent Haiti advocacy effort in the ten years that I have been involved in Haiti work. Everyone who called, faxed, wrote or emailed Haitian and US officials, everyone who signed a petition, everyone who forwarded information about Fr. Gerry to their church, their friends, and their family, should be proud. Close to a dozen human rights groups, over 50 members of the US Congress, and hundreds of religious, political and human rights leaders from all over the world joined together to make this moment possible.

Together we demonstrated that the world does care, that justice is possible, and that collective action does work. No small accomplishment.

Fr. Gerry said in a letter from prison on Friday: "understand that I wish you all to extend
your support not only to me but to as many political prisoners as possible wherever on planet earth. Probably, you are aware that there are quite a number of political prisoners around the world. Think of them and keep them in your heart.... I am very grateful to Amnesty International and to all of you for helping fight for the human rights of all political prisoners, here in Haiti and across the world. Let's keep the momentum on for justice, peace, love, and sharing to prevail all over the world as God wants it."

Today we should all take the time to pat ourselves on the back. But tomorrow we need to get back to work, to help the political prisoners that Fr. Gerry left behind in Haiti.

Peace, Brian

Brian Concannon Jr., Esq.
Director
Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti
PO Box 745
Joseph, OR 97846
541-432-0597

________________________________

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com on behalf of herb.davis
Sent: Wed 08/02/2006 9:07 PM

[Jeanny House]

Thursday, February 9, 2006, 10:17:45 AM, Trost, Theodore wrote:

Theodore> We have great news: Political prisoner Fr.
Theodore> Gerard-Jean-Juste, "Fr. Gerry" is right now on a plane in
Theodore> the air from Port-au-Prince to Miami.

Good news, indeed! Thanks be to God.

Jeanny

--
Jeanny House
jea...@fastmail.fm
Eau Claire, WI

[Rev. Linda Gruber]

This is wonderful news! Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: Trost, Theodore [mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Trost, Theodore
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 11:18 AM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Herb:

Ted Trost

_____

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com on behalf of herb.davis

[Gabriel Fackre]

Roger,

Thanks for your last comments, as you speak with the authority of one who
does what he says. I saw it up close in a South Dakota prison and on a
native American reservation, as well as in your own congregation.

As we tried to say in earlier days (and Herb was on the front lines of the
evangelism resurgence of the 1970s in spite of all his self-effacing
remarks), evangelism is getting the Story out, getting the Story in, and
getting the Story straight. Confessing Christ has put its emphasis on the
last one, for if it's the wrong story, out and in are bad news.

For a documentary trail of some of the grassroots affiirmations on getting
the Story right, see the remarkable Volume 7 of the Living Theological
Heritage edited by Fred Trost and Barbara Brown Zikmund which includes : the
1972 "Deering Statment of Commitment" on the Word-in-(the context of) deed
evangelism , the 1979 Biblical-Theological-Liturgical group ("BTL") East
Petersburg Declaration, the 1984 initiating letter to the UCC of the
participants in Craigville Colloquy I, the Confessing Christ call of 1993,
and a representative statement from the Mercersburg Society.

Amen to the good news on Father Gerard Jean-Juste about whom Fred had told
some earlier. Again, thanks to Fred and his family who worked hard to get
the word out about him, and helped to bring his release to be.

--Gabe

[Doxtalker]

Dear Herb, Thanks for your explanation about page 52. In what do you
think our fellowship with the living and risen Jesus Christ consists?
To me it sounds a little like something inward and mystical, but I am
probably wrong. Do you think it consists in our helping the neighbor?
At the end of his book "The Promise of Bonhoeffer," Benjamin Reist
quotes this from Letters and Papers from Prison: "The transcendental
is not infinite and unattainable tasks, but the neighbor who is within
reach in any given situation. God in human form -- not, as in oriental
religions, in animal form, monstrous, and terrifying, nor in the
conceptual forms of the absolute, metaphysical, infinite, etc., nor yet
in the Greek divine human form of 'man in himself,' but 'the man for
others,' and therefore, the Crucified, the man who lives out of the
transcendent." Is this what you have in mind by our fellowship with
the living and risen Jesus Christ?

Peace to you. Larry

[Carl Rasmussen]

From page 111 (pagination will vary: "The Confession of Guilt")

"The Church today is that community of men which is gripped by the
power of the grace of Christ so that, recognizing as guilt towards Jesus
Christ both its own personal sin and the apostasy of the western world
from Jesus Christ, it confesses its guilt and accepts the burden of it.
It is in her that Jesus realizes His form in the midst of the world.
That is why the Church alone[!!!] can be the place of personal and
collective rebirth and renewal."

DB Ethics.

Shalom

Carl

>>> lmit...@chicoer.com 2/9/2006 2:36 pm >>>

[herb.davis]

Dear Ted, Thanks for the note. I saw the story in the Orlando paper. Good
news and let us keep Haiti in our prayers. Peace, Herb

_____

[Jeanny House]

Thursday, February 9, 2006, 10:17:45 AM, Trost, Theodore wrote:

Theodore> We have great news: Political prisoner Fr.
Theodore> Gerard-Jean-Juste, "Fr. Gerry" is right now on a plane in
Theodore> the air from Port-au-Prince to Miami. A cancer center in
Theodore> Florida has agreed to treat his leukemia, so he will get
Theodore> immediate attention for the cancer, as well as for the
Theodore> pneumonia he contracted this week.

There's a very good interview with Fr. Jean-Juste on the February 8
broadcast of Democracy Now with Amy Goodman. You can listen to or
watch it here:

http://democracynow.org/streampage.pl?show=2006-02-08

There are also remarks by many of the speakers at Coretta Scott King's
funeral.

I listened to the show on my iPod in the car tonight on my way to a
meeting. Definitely worth the time.

[herb.davis]

Dear Larry, You wrote, " In what do you

think our fellowship with the living and risen Jesus Christ consists?
To me it sounds a little like something inward and mystical, but I am
probably wrong. Do you think it consists in our helping the neighbor?"

I am not sure. If you mean this in Kantian expression that religion is
basic to help us to do good then I am not sure. I remember but don't have
the source that DB had some concerns about the Social Gospel.

I think your Reist quote is on to something, " therefore, the Crucified, the

man who lives out of the transcendent."

I am not totally comfortable with DB and not sure I understand its depth,
but he insists that to be in a living relationship to Jesus Christ replaces
the knowledge of good and evil which is the result of the fall. He writes,
p.165 ethics, "but which every day afresh renews the knowledge that "Jesus
Christ is in us" The Christian cannot now indeed examine himself in any
other way than on the basis of this possibility which is decisive for him,
the possibility that Jesus Christ has entered into his life, nay more than
that, that Jesus Christ lives for him and in him and that Jesus Christ
occupies within him exactly the space which was previously occupied by his
own knowledge of good and evil" In this section he is tring to free us from
proving that we do good deeds, that our life is judged by our good deeds,
rather than our life being Judged by Jesus Christ who loves us and dies for
us.

I don't think there is any possibility of not relating to the neighbor it is
how do we relate in judgment or actions? How do we understanding our
action; as prove that we are good people or just an action that is human and
necessary and in proper context? What do we remember and point to; our
deeds our action or to the One who dwells in us, Jesus Christ? What do we
trust our life to; our deeds or our Savior?

What do you mean by helping the neighbor? Why is this the critical
questions, if it is? Peace, Herb

[Willis/Loree Elliott]

All so true, Herb.

You alluded to what I'm upset about.  Let's broaden that to what Christians should be upset about.

 

1    Martin Niemoeller continues to be remembered for saying (in effect), "We we're upset when they came for the Jews....then it was too late."

 

2    DB was (as you say) upset about the "enfolding" of church in culture (in Europe & America)--so that in crisis, the captive church obeys "the rulers of this world."

 

3    This, among the many things Niebuhr was upset about: 

    (1) The collapse of the vertical into the horizontal.  The sucking up of the horizontal into the vertical would be closer to Jesus (though he was personally far from anchoritic disengagement).  We should have no doubt about "the predominant vertical religious reference of Jesus' ethic" (AN INTERPRETATION OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS [H&B/35, 3 years after Amos Wilder's PhD dissertation later published as the classic THE ETHICS AND ESCHATOLOGY OF JESUS).

    An instance, in the current UNITED CHURCH NEWS, of this collapse of the vertical into the horizontal: Brueggemann's claim that "the deepest impulse of the Bible" is horizontal, viz. "toward inclusion, that all of God's creatures be accorded dignity, respect, safety and a sense of belonging."  Isn't it astonishing that anybody could write (as UCN writes of WB) "more than 25 books on the Bible" without noticing that the Bible's "deepest impulse" is vertical (as in the first four of the Ten Commandments), & thus the church "primal mandate" is vertical, viz. obedience to our Lord Jesus' stress on the First Commandment (vertical, & not the horizontal of WB's "message of inclusiveness," which he claims is the church's "primal mandate")?

    (1)    The collapse of (God's) grace into (our) works (in Kierkegaardian language, of religion into ethics).  Turning away from Protestant liberalism's social-gospel conviction of basic human goodness with its limitless "can do" implication, Niebuhr preached original-sin realism.  An irony Niebuhr did not fail to notice: the old-liberal goal of "bringing in the kingdom" has the effect of distancing the church from the kingdom, from reality, & even from its own existence.

 

4    I am deeply upset about the mainline's supine acceptance of secular humanism's captivity of the American public school (which forms almost all American children's minds, & increasingly is taking over the traditional sacred time for the religious ed of Christian & Jewish chn., viz. Sunday a.m.).

 

5    I am deeply upset about the mainline's success in using likeminded biblical scholars to capture the Bible for its particular vision, its own "ideological self-characterization."  The quotation is from p22 of WB's AN INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT: The Canon and Christian Imagination (West./Jn.K./03): "it does not matter greatly if the exile is historical or if it is an ideological self-characterization" (the practical effect having been to provide the exiles with "a more or less coherent statement" to shore up their faith & hope).

    This fast-&-loose pragmatic handling of biblical materials for current relevance reduces biblical authority from the level of "Realitaet" (revelational reality) down to the level of "Wirklichkeit" (effectual actuality).  The ethical & ecclesial effect is the overriding authority of the religion I call egalianity, in which sin is exclusivity & righteousness is (o blessed word!) "inclusivity."

    (To egalianity, opposition to same-sex "marriage" is sinful, not just wrong-headed.  This issue is tearing up the mainline in a fashion somewhat similar to the current world-Muslim troubles over the Danish cartoons of Mohammad.)

 

6    I'd like to be more hopeful about Confessing Christ, but it seems unwilling to engage any of the issues I find most upsetting.

 

Grace and peace--

Willis    

 

 

[Roger Easlund]

carl: Perfect! Shalom Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Carl Rasmussen
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:53 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Doxtalker]

Dear Herb:

Thanks so much for your illuminating words here. I feel you and Fred
both have made something very clear to me, when you write about "in
context" and as Fred puts it, doing good is not a program but a human
response.
I think I see what I think you mean by our fellowship in Jesus. Or
with Jesus. Reist writes about what he calls the danger of people
reading about DB's "nonreligious interprestation" and going off,
thinking they don't need the church and they don't need the Bible. They
would have completely misunderstood DB, he says.
Reist also puts tremendous emphasis on DB's thought about Christ now
existing in us. I think that is a rather amazing thought.
Reist writes that DB "ethicized theology," making ethics, being "the
man for others" central.
That's what I mean by "helping the neighbor." I think of DB's
"advices," if you could call them that, for us to bear men's defects,
as he writes in Life Together.
For me, what you and Fred write about not making a program out of it
is a liberating idea.
A former pastor at our church once said, "Christians are so annoying.
They wear their religion so tightly around themselves like a mantle."
Think of a loosening up. That's good news. Reist writes that DB felt
the Pharisees were super concerned about how they could be and do good.
But Jesus was concerned about obedience to his Father. The difference
might seem subtle, but the former seems like the program Fred eschews,
and the latter a much more organic, contextual thing. This is very
appealing.
I think yours and Fred's comments also shed light on a passage from
Tillich that has long puzzled me. This is in his sermon on "The Yoke
of Religion" that appears in "The Shaking of the Foundations."
Tillich writes that the good news, the new Being is Jesus himself, I
believe. Jesuss has not founded a new religion, he writes.
And Tillich goes on to denounce the moralizers, the religious leaders
who demand superhuman efforts of Christians, who demand perfection and
achievements that are far beyond the capabilities of the people in the
pews, these ordinary people. Those who make such demands are the
greaters distorters of Jesus' true message, he writes.
Thank you again. One question: I'm not quite sure what you mean by
our knowledge of good and evil that has been replaced by Jesus'
existence in us.

Larry

[Roger Easlund]

Best Brother in the World, Gabe: Frustration and impatience are my enemies!!
I think I have NABS moving on $250,000.00 for a Stan Grenz memorial teaching
station(getting the Story straight) on the South Dakota Reservations. I am
putting strings on that they must teach with Stan's Theology with extra
emphasis on EVANGELISM. Jean and I are putting up $50,000.00 as challenge
funds. Pray we get more than merely 250K, that is the minimum to do a
decent long term job. CC could have had that opportunity but saw no serious
faith partners. I hope they will have spots for guest teachers, they are
meeting on it today. Now, one more time,---------- CC should raise at least
$500,000.00 To get the message to ALL UCC Churches and pastors interested in
evangelism that CC has ready resources and people to facilitate evangelism.
They should look to CC for resources, regional meetings, extra support and
financial aid for pastors and lay people who need evangelism training etc.
We should spend way more time in the history making business as well as the
history remembering business. It is God mandated in Jesus Christ!! Is not
God asking us "What are you doing about the Good News I sent you TODAY AND
TOMORROW?? If $500,000.00 is too puny, raise it. God said, "my people who I
love perish if they have no vision". Best love. Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:Confessi...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Gabriel Fackre
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:43 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

[Carl Rasmussen]

Roger:

You have struck a chord here. I have been contemplating a more involved response to your question of Evangelism--but your Email has sent me in a new direction.

Money is indeed part of the question here (i.e. the place of the Church in our culture) and we should think about it. Frankly the worldly success of some of our "Evangelical" brothers and sisters has less to do with the content of their message than their ability to raise money. I have seen it done.

Some considerations:

* CC could be a fund raising entity. To raise funds, it should be more formally organized than it is now. I could help with that, but the Board should put together a plan first. The CC Board would need to think through what CC's mission might be long term.

* CC as a fund raising entity raises the eternal question of whether we would draw funds that might go to other UCC projects. That needs to be considered by the Board. But in my view it should not be an obstacle. I think that CC is doing important work. I think that CC could raise funds that otherwise would not go to the church.

* I serve (and have served) on several charitable boards, some involved in active fund raising. I am also a Trust and Estate lawyer who helps people with their own charitable giving. So, I know the ropes. Unlike our salvation, for which their is no method, fundraising is something one can learn and do. According to the flesh.

* Perhaps it is time to think about this aspect of our current dilemma.

* In any near term I am way over committed, but I am willing to be in on conversations around this issue.

Shalom

Carl.

>>> pastor.e...@midconetwork.com 2/10/2006 3:17 pm >>>

[Frederick Trost]

Dear Larry, Herb, and Other Confessors,

Dietrich Bonhoeffer's question, "Who is Christ for us today?" abides,
does it not? In reality, is this not an ancient question, asked over
and over again in the life of the Church?

I think of the lovely words of the great John Chrysostom in the 4th
century, reflecting on the women at the tomb: "They had brought
ointments. They were waiting at the tomb, so that if the madness of
the civil authorities should relax, they might go and care for the
body. Do you see these women's courage? See their depth of
affection?... See their noble spirit even to death? Let us men
imitate these women! Let us not forsake Jesus in times of trial!
These women exposed their lives so much for him, even when he was
dead... But we men, I repeat, neither feed him when hungry nor
clothe him when naked. Seeing him begging, we pass him by. And yet
if we might really behold him in the neighbor, we would divest
ourselves of all our goods."

For Chrysostom, such trust seems to have little to do with an
accumulation of "good deeds," or our being "good people." Rather, it
appears to have everything to do with "ointments," with living
patiently amidst madness, with moments of raw courage and taking
risks, with gratitude and faith lived (to our astonishment) in the
shadow of the cross; a grateful, blunt, uncomplicated but dangerous
response to the profound reality of the Incarnation and the
crucifixion, completed in the resurrection with its stunning
implications.

Don't our liturgies, our confirmation instruction, at least hint at
this, i.e. point to the fact that our calling as Christians, our
vocation as those who have been baptized, have to do with dying to
ourselves so we might live (literally!) with Christ? Vilmos Vajta
wrote a wonderful book on Luther and worship in which he observed
(with Gustav Wingrin) that our "daily calling is the place where the
old man is crucified... The old man dies as he spends himself for
his fellow-men. But in this surrender of self, he is joined to
Christ and obtains a new life. The work of the Christian in his
calling becomes a function of his priesthood, his bodily sacrifice.
His work in the calling is a work of faith..." Thus, "Worship is not
confined to pious exercises in the sanctuary but includes the whole
of Christian life in service and self-surrender to the needs of the
world."
Vajta remembers Luther's words at the time a plague was striking
close to Wittenberg: Luther writes: "If you have a wife, child,
brother, sister, or neighbor, stay and help. We owe a death to one
another."

I think of people like Fr. Jean-Juste, or Bishop Samuel Ruiz in
Chiapas, or the Lutheran bishop Gomez in El Salvador, of Dorothy Day
and the four women religious, and thousands of nameless witnesses to
the Gospel (close to us and far away). Have they not had a glimpse
of this? That is, that a life of faith; modest, incomplete, broken
and beaten down (as most of us would confess), has nothing to do with
human righteousness and everything to do with the One who calls the
Church to joyful and costly living in a world filled with
contradictions and idolatries of every description? I wonder if we
would perhaps all agree that the incomplete discipleship to which
Chrysostom and Luther and countless saints have pointed, looks for no
reward, but only to live in some proximity to the cross of Christ?
Doug Hall has pointed for decades to how difficult this is,
particularly in any culture where achievement and success are
idolized. And most of us who have attempted to preach or to nurture
the confirmands or the "Inquirers' Class" know what he is talking about.

Blessings! Fred

i.e. "the living Christ who is encountered again and again at every
juncture of personal and social life... it is this Christ... who
provides the source and direction for the ethical life. In the
compelling meeting with him, most often through other persons, one
taps the source for the direction of action. Ethics then is done in
communion with Christ and one's (neighbor); it is koinonia ethics...
the fitting response to the Living Lord. (Larry Rasmussen)

[Chris Anderson]

Carl & Roger,

I remember a conversation I had with a CMA pastor in
Albany,NY in the early 70's. The CMA is a conservative
holiness church with an emphasis on world missions..."The
Christian and Missionary ALliance." The pastor was talking
about the Independent Baptist Chruches and said, "Well we
must admit that they are better at evangelism than we are
but we bring Christians into a deeper life."

The point of the story is that almost all types of
Christians who believe in evangelism believe that someone,
somewhere, somehow, at sometime is doing it better, more
often, and more successfully. This is true for even such
groups as the CMA. So we are not alone.

Chris of Heidelberg

[herb.davis]

Dear Larry, I think we are in the same boat on this issue. The question you
asked, "I'm not quite sure what you mean by

our knowledge of good and evil that has been replaced by Jesus'

existence in us." Maybe you have already answered. I will add a couple of
thoughts.
Some years ago I was talking with youth at a UCC youth social justice
conference. A Catholic Worker, a young woman, who was doing a wonderful
ministry with the poor in a near by city was sharing with the group her
ministry. Some of the youth wanted to know what they should do to be more
involved in justice ministry. They were excited and really mutative to
respond to the neighbor. They wanted to know how to do it, where to do it,
what was the good deed.

When I was younger I would have said, join the social action committee at
your church, or work in a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, picket, etc. I
use to feel participation in justice programs would get people involved.
But the young woman and I agreed said, "Go to Mass, receive the Eucharist
regular (she suggested daily, I at least twice a month), pray, mediate on
the scripture. She said, "In your baptism you have died with Christ, it is
no longer you who live but Christ in lives in you." Our youth couldn't
understand what we were saying. I think this is what DB is saying.

The issue of good and evil is result of the fall, the result is not action
but judgment. This is critical in DB. Carl is very good on this issue.

Peace, Herb

[Timothy Haut]

Fred,

Thank you for your eloquent expression of what to live
as a follower of Jesus may mean to us in its
essentials. I am frequently moved by your words, as
well as those of St. John Chrysostom and Luther and
the others you call to mind. We truly owe each other
a death and a life.

Yours,
Tim Haut, Deep River, CT

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Roger Easlund]

Carl: Hallelujah!!! Andy A. and I agree that if CC wants a more significant
thrust it needs a structural change and a wider definition of its calling.
The "doing of joyful theology never needs to suffer in this. It is
completely obvious the God has/is using CC for a vital for the upholding of
biblical mandates concerning evangelism as it folds together will all
biblical revelation. I see CC as flat or wounded right now, lets not stay
there!!!! Go ahead and ask to be on the Steering Committee, I will gladly
relinquish my spot if it is a number issue!!! I am energized by your
response!!! Hallelujah to the Lord Jesus Christ!! Start working in your
mind as to what a long term strategy looks like! In his powerful love

[Chris Anderson]

NEWSRELEASE BY TRUTH IN MEDIA

"The Confessing Christ Fund Raising Campaign has succeeded
beyond all expectations. It has been discovered that a
percentage of the excess money was used to purchase UNITED
CHURCH NEWS!

"The Febuary/March 2006 edition of THE UNITED CHURCH NEWS
reveals some of the changes that will take place for this
formerly denominational newspaper. Andy Lang will head the
foreign desk. Fred Trost will comfortably become the
Church Historian editor position. Willis Elliot will
become the editor-in-chief. Gabriel Fackre will become the
new theological editor. Chris Anderson will be the
centerfold.

"So far the CC Committee has "no comment" on the
monumentous change. Rumors abound that The Christian
Century and Christianity Today are next."

Fred Olson of Heidelberg

[Andy Lang]

Chris, it was a good issue, wasn't it?

I think Gabe can help us understand the evolution
(over the past few years) of United Church News into a
more substantial newspaper: he's had direct dealings
with Ben Guess, the editor, who is very friendly to
the Evangelical and Reformed tradition (Ben is a
former pastor of an Evangelical congregation), and it
was Ben's choice to place on the same page my article
about the 25th-anniversary celebration of
Kirchengemeinschaft and the biographical sidebars on
Bonhoeffer. I wouldn't have thought of that. Ben also
has been promoting the airing this month on PBS of the
Bonhoeffer documentary. I don't think anybody told him
that would be a PC move to placate Confessing Christ.
It's just Ben.

Another factor is that UC News moved from a 10-issues
to a 6-issues schedule two years ago as the result of
budget cuts. That means that to some extent it has
become more of a magazine with longer articles, and
with more timely articles posted on the weekly
information service at news.ucc.org. When I was a
writer for United Church News (under its very gifted
editor, W. Evan Golder, who was in many ways my
mentor) we had more of a "newspaper" attitude with
stories written within limits and with topicality as
the driving force. At that time, that was a good
policy, which helped me return to my roots as a daily
newspaper reporter. But in its evolution into
something more like a bimonthly magazine, there's more
space for longer, more thoughtful articles.

Anyway, I enjoyed reading the paper. I also noticed
the additional space given to letters which are now
grouped into pages where some real commentary and
dissent is possible.

Andy Lang
Cleveland, OH
216-926-6262
lang...@sbcglobal.net
http://langohio.blogspot.com

[Chris Anderson]

Andy,

I agree with you about the UCN. I think the change has
been good for it. This issue really does have some
substantial articles.

Yet I must admit that I have always liked the newspaper.
AD never interested me and I assumed that I would not like
UCN when it began. Yet it surprised me. From its inception
I have always found that the Letters to the Editor section
was worth reading. Whether it was because AD was a joint
project with the Presbyterians or because of an editorial
policy it never seemed to reflect what was happening in
the denomination. It somehow seemed to remote or removed
to me. I had been in the CMA for a while and it seemed as
tepid as did the Alliance Witness did in the mid and late
70's.

At minimum I always take a serious look at UCN. I think
that it is quite fair in its reporting. In part this is
helped by the responses it gets in the Letters to the
editor's section.

Chris of Heidelberg

[Deb Kunkel]

Ok, isn't it a little early for April Fool's?  And if this is true...can I be editor of the fashion section (of course, that would mean mainly coverage of new jeans, comfortable sweats and sneakers/walking shoes....)

God's Grace and Peace,

Deb Kunkel

[Roger Easlund]

Fred: Why the sarcasm? Who are you angry at?? Roger

[Chris Anderson]

Roger,

To quote my idol, "Just the facts, jack."

Fred of Heidelberg

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 07:20:48 -0600
"Roger Easlund" <pastor.e...@midconetwork.com>
wrote:

[Doxtalker]

Dear Herb, Fred and others,

A belated respoonse, partly because I've been busy at work and also
because so much of interest has been said, it's hard to know where to
begin.
But here are two thoughts/questions:
1) The advice of the Catholic worker is surprising (and Herb's
agreement with her). Why, Herb, did you change your mind so that in
your younger days you would have advised picketing and now you would
advise receiving Communion? Although Fred says he is not much
interested in the question of what is a "true Christian," the problem
still perplexes me: what does it mean to live your faith, to be
authentic in it, and not just "playing church," as people sometimes
say.
You asked me, Herb, why do I say "helping the neighbor" is the
critical issue. I suppose because it seems to me (and to many others)
that we are caught in a struggle between egoism -- helping ourselves to
what we think we want and need -- and seeing the needs of others and
responding to them. In the advice of the Catholic worker, it might
seem that receiving communion is doing something for yourself, while
working with the poor is doing something for them.
2) I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, Herb, when you seem to
make a distinction between "judgment and action." You can say if I
misunderstood you here:
It seems to me that in our preoccupation with "success" we are
preoccupied with actions -- how many people came into the church, how
many Bible pages did we read, how many Habitat for Humanity homes did
we build.
And here I have a problem, because I feel many of us are not free to
engage in a lot of these actions.
But judgments may be another matter. We all are free to change our
minds.
So the question arises, are thoughts (judgments) the important thing,
or important things, along with actions?
In her book "The Sovereignty of Good," Iris Murdoch gives the example
of M, a mother-in-law who dislikes D, her daughter-in-law. She thinks
her son has married an uncultured, silly girl. Nevertheless, she
behaves with perfect propriety towards D. Over time, she changes her
mind ... she comes to see D not as silly, but as delightfully
young-at-heart. Her behavior doesn't change. It remains perfectly warm
and kind all along. Murdoch asks the question if we can say anything
has happened, even though no change in M's behavior has occurred.
Obviously she believes something real has occurred in this inner
change. So I would ask whether our opinions count for something. I'm
not sure if I'm barking up an important theological/philosophical tree
here or just howling at the moon.

Larry

[herb.davis]

Dear Larry, Glad to have you back and what a gentle way to raise what I
think it one of the critical questions that our church and maybe liberal
protestants faces. I loved your parable from Murdock and I have often howled
at the moon. I think you have asked two questions that are closely related
and I think theologically important. Let me try to answer the first: You
wrote: "Why, Herb, did you change your mind so that in your younger days you

would have advised picketing and now you would advise receiving Communion?
Although Fred says he is not much interested in the question of what is a
"true Christian," the problem still perplexes me: what does it mean to live
your faith, to be authentic in it, and not just "playing church," as people
sometimes say."

1. Changing any mind is probably a complex process, but the context of my
personal life, theological training, friends and associates, congregations,
UCC and the historical moment all effect us. When I was ordained the primary
question was "How can one be a good neighbor?" and Martin Luther King was
one who helped define the answer. I think in those days being Christian was
associated with being a good person, a decent, caring, fair citizen and
eventually it became difficult for liberal Christian to really talk about
why being in Christ, disciplined Table fellowship with Christ, why baptism
was critical. We did all these (playing church?)actions but they were not
joyful, exciting moments and we kept trying to juice them up, make them
authentic and a lot of people just said I can be a good person, decent
neighbor without Christ and the church and in fact AA, the homeless
shelter, the poverty program is where the action is. It is the bread shared
with the hungry that is sacred not the bread on the altar.
2. I was always uncomfortable with this view, not just to keep my job but I
could not separate the bread on the altar with the bread shared with the
poor. For me Eucharist and picketing were related. Slowly and late the
critical question became "How can Christ be formed in us?" and then "What
are the gifts of Christ that help me be a witness?" I don't have all the
gifts but how do I claim the gifts I have received from Christ being formed
in me for witness?"

3. The answer to that question came from struggle with friend and enemies
and influenced by Niebuhr focus on sin, Mercersburg Theology focus on Church
and sacraments, Barth focus on The Word as a truthful witness to Christ, and
Bonhoeffer focus on Christ and the Church. The shift is from our good works
to the glorious work of God in Christ. The task then become not to learn to
do justice by doing but to be transformed by Christ (Rom 12). There is no
sure way of strengthening the act of Baptism, where be are united with
Christ in a death like his and raised to newness of life, but we begin by
believe that is true and then from the nurture of congregation, sacrament,
preaching, living we might become more like Christ. This is probably a
mystery and the Spirit works in many ways, and we are constantly meeting men
and women in our congregations that witness, live out their faith are
faithful in many different way (not all picket).

4. Bonhoeffer in Ethics, page 177-178, talks about the Church and the World
in the crisis of Nazi Germany. He is talking about the best of the secular
world who share the great values of the west and how when all is threatened
they and the Christian both discover the origin is in Christ. He observed
that: "The children of the Church, who had become independent and gone their
own ways, now n the hour of danger returned to their mother. During the time
of their estrangement their appearance and their language had altered a
great deal, and yet at the crucial moment the mother and the children once
again recognized one another. Reason, justice, culture, humanity and all
the kindred concepts sought and found a new purpose and a new power in their
origin. The origin is Jesus Christ....Only he who shares in Him has the
power to withstand and to overcome. He is the centre and the strength of the
Bible, of the Church and of theology, but also of humanity, of reason, of
justice, and of culture." P.178

Sorry about this being a long post. I will try to respond to your question
on action and judgment later, but Carl know this better than I. Peace, Herb

~----~------~----~------~--~---

[Chris Anderson]

"Luther, primarily shaped by the interests of a serious
monasticism, asked the question about salvation, or
better, about the truth of salvation and faith, which says
how the human is saved in truth. The Reformed, primarily
shaped by the interests of a serious humanism, asked the
question about the truth, or better, about the truth of
salvation, and thus the anti-Catholic thrust of their
doctrine was the transcendence of their concept of God,
which was the answer to the questions of who saves the
human in truth."

THE THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS, Karl Barth,
lectures beginning in the summer of 1923. page 81, from
the CONLUMBIA SERIES IN REFORMED THEOLOGY.

What thinkest thou?

Chris of Heidelberg

[Doxtalker]

OK. Thanks, Herb. Now I see why the Catholic worker said what she
did and why you agree. This makes good sense to me. Especially the
following you wrote:

The shift is from our good works
to the glorious work of God in Christ. The task then become not to
learn to
do justice by doing but to be transformed by Christ (Rom 12). There is
no
sure way of strengthening the act of Baptism, where be are united with
Christ in a death like his and raised to newness of life, but we begin
by
believe that is true and then from the nurture of congregation,
sacrament,
preaching, living we might become more like Christ.

It's interesting to me what you said about Niebuhr's focus on sin. I
am really unfamiliar with Niebuhr. I reread the passage in Reist's
book where he says that Bonhoeffer "ethicized theology," or, as he puts
it, intensified the ethical aspect of theology, and I believe he goes
on to say that other theologians also went in this direction at the
time, including Niebuhr. You said Neibuhr's focus on sin helped you to
answer the question "how do I claim the gifts of Christ being formed in
me for witness?" How did Niebuhr help and what answer did you get?

Best wishes.

Larry

[herb.davis]

Dear Chris, On your post on Barth's comments on Lutheran and Reformed
Theology this is a very early Barth and I wonder if Barth followed this line
of thinking. It doesn't sound like the later Barth. Can you help me?
Peace, Herb

--~--~---

[Chris Anderson]

Herb,

I have just started reading Barth's 1923 lectures on THE
THEOLOGY OF THE REFORMED CONFESSIONS. I have no idea
whether he changed his view point later.

The point I think he makes in 1923 is that there was a
difference in the way Lutherans and the Reformed Church
looked at their Confessions. Luterans seemed to try and
put the Augsburg Confession on the same level as the
Apostles Creed, the Nicene and the Athanasian Creed which
was very high.

On the other hand the Reformed did not look on their
creeds so highly and were even open to criticism on the
early creeds. This was due to a very powerful scriptural
principle which Barth says that was not as powerful in the
Lutheran documents.

Whereas the Lutherans stressed 1) an ecumenical creed,
2)the importance of unity of interpretation on the creed
3) the creed as a "symbol" 4) a high claim to authority
that cannot be changed and 5) the obligation to the
Augsburg Confession for the teachers of the church the
Reformed did not do so.

There was a sense for the Reformed that they could be
wrong since they are not scripture. Barth writes "The
well-known saying, 'God's Word and Luther's teaching will
not perish now or ever' could not be uttered by a
Calvinist. To put Calvin in the first line, pairing it
with God's Word, would be impossible for even the most
enthusiastic Calvinist." (page 21)

Barth further says "It is still the case, even in the age
of Dart and the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, that the
church's dogma is subject to discussion." (p. 25)

Barth also states: "The facts themselves shape the
conclusion that the Reformed confessions essentially could
not have the character of final words, as did the
Lutherans." (p. 26)

His mian point is that though the Lutheran view of the
Augsburg Confession is that it points to itself, "The
Reformed confession points beyond itself." (p. 38) This he
believes is because of what he calls the scriptural
principle "The church recognizes the rule of its
proclaimation solely in the WOrd of God and finds the Word
of God solely in Holy Scripture." (p.41)

Again: "According to the Refomed view, the Word of God is
the plan of the entire house and not merely its lowest
floor." (p. 45)

This seems to be what Barth was saying in 1923. Lee
Barrett recommnded this volume as one of two basic books
on the Reformed Confessions. I would suppose that Lee
would think Barth's points are therefore still valid.

[Chris Anderson]

Correction...."age of Dort" (Ie The Synod of Dort) not
"age of Dart"

Barth further says "It is still the case, even in the
>age
> of Dart and the Helvetic Formula of Consensus, that the
> church's dogma is subject to discussion." (p. 25)
>

Chris

[Gabriel Fackre]

Chris and Herb,

See Barth's Word of God and Word of Man, 229, 230 on the difference between
Reformed and Lutherans vis a vis status of confessions. Much discussed in
the FOA negotiations (see Affirmations and Admonitions, 25 and A Common
Calling, 25-30)

--Gabe

[Chris Anderson]

"but in the truest sense there is no such thing as
Reformed doctrine, except the timeless appeal to the open
Bible and the Spirit which speaks to our spirit. Our
fathers had good reason for leaving us no Augsburg
Confession, authentically interpreting the word of God, no
Formula of Concord, no 'Symbolic Books' which might later,
like the Lutheran, come to possess an ordor of sanctity."

Karl Barth, THE WORD OF GOD AND THE WORD OF MAN
(page 229)

This is the same thing he said in 1923.

Chris

[Chris Anderson]

Gabe,

THE WORD OF GOD AND THE WORD OF MAN is oddly one of the
few smaller Barth books that I have still not read. (See
as I have spent a lot of time avoiding the CD!)It does
interest me that the German title was DAS WORT GOTTES UND
DIE THEOLOGIE. Somehow the German title makes the work
more compelling for me. The phrase "the word of man" never
touched me in any way. I never understood what it meant.

Chris

[link...@aol.com]

Barth's views on confession are amazing. In CD III 4 Barth seemed to
view confession as a particular act of witness that could take place
only in the moment in which the faith of the church was confronted by
some dire threat to its integrity: an individual or group of
individuals gladly and freely bears witness to the truth of God when
that truth, as Scripture testifies to it, is challenged by a demonic
lie. As God's creatures, alive in that very moment of challenge, we may
and must speak up for the One who has made us. When a particular threat
is over, the church may give thanks to God for confession, and consider
what took place, but the church cannot enshrine and recite confessions
as though they have become the eternal truth of God. Barmen is a case
in point. I also think that the singing crowds who greeted Jesus as he
enterned into the hostile territory of Jerusalem were, in fact, model
confessors.

[Trost, Theodore]

Chris:

When I was writing about Douglas Horton--who translated Das Wort Gottes for Pilgrim Press in 1928--I ran across a letter from the Pilgrim Press editor to Horton stating that Americans don't like books with the word "theology" in the title; he therefore recommended the change. In Horton's famous Christian Century article "God Unleashes Karl Barth," (late '27 or early '28), Horton still refers to the book he is translating as THE WORD OFGOD AND THEOLOGY.

Ted Trost

________________________________

From: Confessi...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Chris Anderson
Sent: Sat 25/02/2006 12:05 PM
To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Barth on Luther's Emphasis versus the Reformed Emphasis

[Chris Anderson]

Ted,
Thanks. You put everything in perspective.
Chris

[herb.davis]

Dear Chris, Thanks for the fine discussion on confessions. I didn't
understand you initial post but fully agree with you and Barth (notice I put
you first). The Reformed Tradition does not hold creeds or confessions on
the same level as Scripture and in face we keep writing new confessions,
some very good and some will disappear. On the other hand Nevin did claim
that the Apostle Creed was revelation. Peace, Herb
-~---

[herb.davis]

Dear Ted, Whenever we get upset with the UCC we should remember that Horton
translated and introduced Barth's, "Word of God and Word of Man" to USA.
That book was very important in my early theological development. Thanks
for keeping Horton in the story. Peace, Herb

_____

[herb.davis]

Dear Larry, A few days ago you asked about judgment and action. I am still
working on this because it is Bonhoeffer categories. He was convince I
think that the knowledge of good and evil was the result of the fall, when
we no longer trust God we trust our knowledge of good and evil and that the
result is judgment. I though you illustration of "M" relationship to her
daughter-in-law was an example of action not judgment or of relation to a
daughter in law rather than judging a stranger. The relationship is
critical, are we sons and daughters, friends of God or aliens and strangers.

I am still pondering judgment and action, but I wish Carl would had his
wisdom.

You asked how Niebuhr helped? I went to Korea as an Infantry Office in 1952
believing the liberal story that all we need is more education,
understanding, and scientific research to establish the peaceable kingdom.
I cam home with that image no longer making sense and was cynical. A pastor
introduced me to Niebuhr and his understanding of the fall in social and
political terms, he critic of western and Christian idealism gave me a new
way to understand our life together. In a funny way he may have been
dealing with the same issue of Bonhoeffer from a different angle. Niebuhr
had to struggle against the Social Gospel (which is a powerful image in our
time and more powerful in the early 1900's and against passivism or
isolationism controlled most of the Christian Churches in America. He had
to move the Kingdom of God beyond our time and our creation. His answers
aren't always satisfying but they were helpful to me. It also allowed me to
act without believing the kingdom depended on me. Peace, Herb
----- ---

[Willis Elliott]

Chris of Heidelberg quoted Barth to Chris Anderson:

>
> Again: "According to the Refomed view, the Word of God is
> the plan of the entire house and not merely its lowest
> floor." (p. 45)

 

Chris/Chris:

 

This anti-Lutheran rhetoric could (wrongly) be read as excluding doctrinal development.

 

Barth is highly competent in his use of the creeds.

Besides much use of the Creeds in the Dogmatik, thrice he publishes takes on the Apostles' Creed: '35, '43, '46 (lectures ["for the first time in my life...without a manuscript"] given in the ruins of Bonn, published as DOGMATICS IN OUTLINE [Philosophical Library 1st Am. ed., '47, p8]: "the Christian Confession not only can stand, it even demands, interpretation").  (And the book's last paragraph contains a quote from the Heidelberg Catechism.)

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

[Chris Anderson]

Willis,

What is interesting is that Roman Catholics obviously
believe in the development of doctrine but by placing such
things as The Asssumption of Mary in that category they
shows that they do not believe in the primacy of scripture
and by putting such things in cement they do not allow
further thought on them.

Lutherans on the other hand show the same thing by giving
the Augsburg Confession primacy over the scriptures.

The Reformed view certainly allows for the development of
doctrine because from the start it is nervous about giving
historic confessions the same authority as scripture. If
it did it would therefore allow what was written in an
earier period to have primacy over what the Spirit through
the scripture would say to us in a later age and
ironically go against the development of doctrine.

All this make me appreciate Nevin more. He had a high view
of the confessions but still saw that the scriptures had
the power to critic them.

Oddly enough Barth's writings on this is new for me but I
have had the "gut" sense of this before. Though Luther's
"simul justus et pecator" pulls me towards Lutheranism,
the Reformed view of confessions is wonderful.

Chris

[Willis Elliott]

 "Chris Anderson" <fc...@suscom.net> wrote:

>
> Willis,
>
> What is interesting is that Roman Catholics obviously
> believe in the development of doctrine but by placing such
> things as The Asssumption of Mary in that category they
> shows that they do not believe in the primacy of scripture
> and by putting such things in cement they do not allow
> further thought on them.

> The Reformed view certainly allows for the development of
> doctrine because from the start it is nervous about giving
> historic confessions the same authority as scripture. If
> it did it would therefore allow what was written in an
> earier period to have primacy over what the Spirit through
> the scripture would say to us in a later age and
> ironically go against the development of doctrine.
>
> All this make me appreciate Nevin more. He had a high view

> of the confessiobns but still saw that the scriptures had

> the power to critic them.

 

Chris:

 

Yes!  My appreciation for the Mercersburg balance continues to grow.

 

Here at Craigville, the founding denomination (Churches of the Christian Connection) was imbalanced against the confessional & the sacramental: the Reformed POV gone to seed.  Not only "Where the scriptures speak, we speak: where the scriptures are silent, we are silent"--but also "Only God knows the number in God" (Austin Craig, our eponymous ancestor, who said the NT provides the materials for, but not the "plan" of, the Trinity.)  (I quoted "plan" because Barth used it: the NT has not only the materials for the full Christian doctrine of God but also the "plan.")

 

You're right: Rome ran to rigidity (& the necessary fancy footwork of verbally denying but actually accepting change).  An opposite was the original (pre-C&C/UCC) Craigville theology, too unstructured to prevent the drift

of most of the CCC churches into unitarianism, then nonexistence. ( In their innocuous desuetude, those churches presaged the present mainline situation.)

 

Grace and peace--

Willis

 

 

 

 

[Carl Rasmussen]

Herb:

Much thanks. It is always a great pleasure to read and reflect upon
your posts.

I have indeed been following with interest the discussion of
judgment/action, authentic faith and being a good Christian. And I do
indeed have some thoughts.

As to wisdom, I disavow it. I claim only enough to play the fool
(Viola, Twelfth Night). Or so much as I learned following old William
Blake: "The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom." (a very
Lutheran proverb!)

St. Paul had a few things to say about wisdom . . . .

1. Judgement/Action.

DB takes a very hard line against judgment, as you suggest. He thinks
that judgment is the mark of the Fall. We express our fallen nature
most fully when we judge others.

DB thinks that we judge because we do not want to act: The section
"Doing" in The Ethics is very instructive here. It is particularly
interesting that "Doing" is largely a commentary on the Letter of James:
A Lutheran commentary on what Luther called the Epistle of Straw! DB
finds James quite instructive.

DB: "The irreconcilable opposite of action is judgement. .(Jas 4:11)
. .There are two possible attitudes to the law: judgement and action.
The two are mutually exclusive. The man who judges envisages the law as
a criterion which he applies to others, and he envisages himself as
being responsible for the execution of the law. He forgets that there is
only one lawgiver and judge "who is able to save and to destroy." (Jas.
4:12) . . .

I would quote further from the section: It really merits close
attention.

2. Narcissism as a theme in DB. The theme of judgement is part of the
larger theme of narcissism in DB. To my knowledge, DB does not use that
word but he is deeply interested in the Lutheran theme of the "cor
curvum in se," the heart turned in upon itself, especially the religious
heart turned in upon itself. He is concerned specifically about
religious narcisssim.

DB's thinking about psychology is very nuanced: I have wondered about
the extent to which he was influenced by his father in this.

For DB (as for Luther) our highest deeds and motives are mere
expressions of the cor curvum in se. Thus we find the following in the
section "Doing;"

". . . precisely when the action arises from the purest motives, when
the most pious and selfless deeds are performed, the danger is
especially great that this is the ungodly antithesis of the will of God
which resembles the will of God to the point of being entirely
indistinguishable from it, but which springs from a man's own knowledge
of good and evil, from his disunion with God. . . ."

3. DB on Being a Good Christian.

It follows from the theme of the cor curvum in se, that DB rejects the
idea that we must be "good" or that we must be "good Christians:"

I quote at length from the introduction of "Christ, Reality and Good,"
which is terribly important:

"But the problem of ethics at once assumes a new aspect if it becomes
apparent that these realities, myself and the world, themselves lie
embedded in a quite different ultimate reality, namely the reality of
God, the Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer. What is of ultimate
importance is now no longer that I should become good or that the
condition of the world should be made better by my action, but that the
reality of God should show itself everywhere to be the ultimate reality.
Where there is faith in God as the ultimate reality, all concern with
ethics will have as its starting-point that God shows Himself to be
good, EVEN IF THIS INVOLVES THE RISK THAT I MYSELF AND THE WORLD ARE NOT
GOOD BUT THOROUGHLY BAD." (My emphasis)

It is in this very section of the Ethics that DB criticizes "the
American philosopher of religion," Reinhold Neibuhr, for his "abstract"
distinction between moral man and immoral society. For DB, no such
distinction is possible.

4. DB on Faith/Justification

I will go out on a limb here. I would even say that DB did not care
about belief. (I have to be careful because DB speaks about "belief"
favorably.) He understood "faith," within the context of a thoroughly
Lutheran doctrine of justification. For DB faith manifests itself not
in "belief" but as "obedience." Our faith manifests itself to us and to
others not in what we think (which is always likely to be self
regarding--the cor curvum in se) but our obedience to the will of God.
True doing (as opposed to mere judgment) is action in obedience to the
will of God.

Excursus:

I argue that DB did not care about belief, because of his polemic
against the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment constrains faith within
the realm of "values." Hence, faith becomes a purely interior
moment--"belief." And hence "belief" becomes extraordinarily important:
If we do not cling to and express and manifest our "values--beliefs,"
they do not exist. We must be "committed" in "authenticity" to our
"values--beliefs" or else they would cease to exist. In Enlightenment
terms, we create our world by believing in it. Which gives rise to the
anxiety of the Enlightenment, since if the world does not somehow
conform to our "beliefs-values" we are responsible for the failure.

DB does not care about any such interiority: He does not care about
whether we are "good" or "good Christians" or "authentically faithful."
That is all cor curvum in se. Indeed it is Pelagian.

DB is concerned about what we do: in obedience to the will of God.

Shalom

Carl

[Chris Anderson]

Deear Confessors,

The discussion on Reformed Confessions (especially Willis'
comments on balance) has me returnijng to some basics.

Yes, the Scripture is primary but it has to be interpreted
through the work of the Holy Spirit via some the "rule of
faith." Now the problem is who defines what the "rule of
faith" is.

Roman Cathlics define it as the Creeds plus Councils and
Papal statements that are ex cathedra. Lutherans define
the "rule of faith" as the use of the Creeds (including
Augsburg)to interpret scripture.

Now the Reformed view works hard to keep the principle of
"the primacy of scripture" but it at the same time says
with Paul that the unspiritual cannot interpret scripture
correctly. Therefore (as Bloesch continually stresses) we
are to be theologians of the Word and the Spirit and not
merely the Word. In doing so Jesus and the Gospel do
become our lens and in that sense the primacy of scripture
does not mean interpreting without the Spirit or without
the mind of Christ or without the Gospel. (We do use the
Creeds but always with some hesitation since they are not
the Word.)

It seems that one of the errors of
Fundamentalism/Evangelicalsim (especially that that was
highly influenced by the Enlightenment Common Sense
Realism School of Philosophy.) was the thought that the
scriptures could be approached objectively and could be
interpreted that way without the Spirit, the Christ or the
Gospel.

Chris

[Chris Anderson]

Dear Confessors,

I have just had a new insight on an old insight (an
example of the development of doctrine). The old insight
is the tough Bohoeffer statement "A pastor should not
complain about his congregation, certainly never to other
people, but also not to God. A congregation has not been
entrusted to him in order that he should become its
accuser before God and men." (p. 29 LIFE TOGETHER)

When I first read this twenty or more years ago I was very
convicted and have been convicted continually since then
or whenever I allow God to speak to me through this
insight. DB's point is that pastors often go into a church
and have a visionary dream of how the church should
function. Then reality hits and they (we) are depressed
and accuse the congreation before God and other people as
Satan did. This is a powerful message for us pastors.

Yet it just struck me today that we all do this about the
wider church also. We complain that our denomination is
too liberal, not prophetic enough, too political, not
political enough, too predictable, too unpredictable,
etc....all the complaints reveal more about us and oour
visions than the what is happening in the UCC.

I am not sure how to digest this insight but I think it is
powerful. It obviously does not mean that we do not seek
to preach the word and stress Christ crucified and have
hope for God's work in our midst BUT it shouuld temper us
as to our great ignorance of how God is working in our
midst. We need to ask ourselvess have we become accusers
of God's church?

Any thoughts?

Chris of Heidelberg

[Dexter Van Zile]

But what happens when the denomination itself becomes the accuser?

 

---

Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[gdeme...@msn.com]

or the accused

 

GD

[Richard Floyd]

The balance of Mercersburg about which Willis writes is never attained
pristinely by the church at any time (even by Mercersburg), yet must be
avidly sought. I offer this epigram from an important book on the
subject:

“Authentic orthodoxy has to change in order to remain the same. In a
higher world it is otherwise, but here below to live is to change, and
to be mature is to have changed often” (John Henry Newman, Essay on
Development, quoted in Jaroslav Pelikan, The Melody of Theology.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988, p. 55).

R. L. Floyd

[Dexter Van Zile]

I've been one of the accusers. Unrepentant, too.

DVZ

gdeme...@msn.com wrote:

or the accused

 

GD

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Dexter Van Zile

Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 7:48 AM

To: Confessi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: Pastors as Accusers (Bonhoeffer)

 

But what happens when the denomination itself becomes the accuser?

 

---

Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

[Chris Anderson]

Dexter & other confessors,

The question I raise is not a partisan. Bonhoeffer
criticizes pastors who act like Satan in being the accuser
of their congregations. Here are a few options:
1) Bonhoeffer's comments on local pastors may be right but
the analogy may not work when it moves to the larger
denomination. (I am not sure.)
2)DB's comments on the local pastor may be wrong in the
first place. (I do not think so.)

Obviously Bonhoeffer saw problems with the German
Christian Movement that had taken over the church and
therefore he taught in an illegal seminary for the
Confessing Church. He signed Barth's Barmen Declaration
that spoke of the "errors of 'the German Christians'". "We
reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and
would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation,
apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other
events and powers, figures and truths, as God's
revelations."

I am merely thinking through all this. It raises many
questions for me.

Are my conservative friends taking the role of Satan in
accussing the chruch of heresy? Or are my friends being
prophetic? I have disliked the attitude of some of my
"liberal" friends who state that they just wish the nay
sayers would leave the UCC. Yet maybe they are right. How
can two walk together except they be agreed? And the
biggest question is what are we to agree on? Why didn'tthe
conservatives leave when certain people taught theologies
that denied the incarnation? Why did they not leave when
certain people denied the ressurection? The Barmen
declaration was as basic as anything can be. It said that
Jesus is the way, the truth and the light and we can not
have other leaders. Is this issue that divides the chruch
as basic as that?

I respect Bill Boylan of the BWF because he is
congregational and it does not matter what the larger
bodies vote on he is going to stay and speak his mind.
When I saw him at GS he had not thought of leaving the
UCC. The BWF did use the Barmen in their attempts to
become a Confessing Chruch within the UCC. I do not
understand all that happened but it does appear that the
criticism that the BWF was out to have churches leave the
UCC has not proven true.

I am not trying to stir up trouble or controversy but I am
only trying to apply something that DB wrote about. DB
would probably use a differing way to describe his stance
toward the German Christians than the term for Satan, ie
the accuser. I am interested in how others might see this.

Chris of Heidelberg

[Janet Keyes]

Chris Anderson wrote:

>
> Dear Confessors,
>
> I have just had a new insight on an old insight (an
> example of the development of doctrine). The old insight
> is the tough Bohoeffer statement "A pastor should not
> complain about his congregation, certainly never to other
> people, but also not to God. A congregation has not been
> entrusted to him in order that he should become its
> accuser before God and men." (p. 29 LIFE TOGETHER)
>

> ...............
>....... We complain that our denomination is

> too liberal, not prophetic enough, too political, not
> political enough, too predictable, too unpredictable,
> etc....all the complaints reveal more about us and oour
> visions than the what is happening in the UCC.

> ...............
> We need to ask ourselves have we become accusers

> of God's church?
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Chris of Heidelberg
>

Chris-
Yes, I have thoughts.
A few months ago my husband and I were summoned to a meeting with the pastor
and the church moderator (our CEO). There we were accused of attempting to
undermine the minister and the mission of the church.(And having secret
meetings with like minded co-conspiritors, etc.) No one bothered to tell
who was actually accusing us in these totally false charges.
We simply stated that there was not one shred of truth to the accusations,
and I challenged the pastor to find even one person who had ever heard me
say anything other that that the pastor was a really nice person. The
minister immediately declared the meeting over, and left red-faced.
No apology has ever been offered.
We all need to realize the destructive power of accusation - pastors,
parishoners, and denominational leaders. We all need to acknowledge before
God whatever pain we ourselves may have caused.
And an occasional apology wouldn't hurt; it might even wax the skis of
forgiveness.
Janet

>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 2/24/2006
>
>

[herb.davis]

Dear Chris, I just loved your DB quote on pastors accusing their
congregations. No wisdom is all inclusive. I know there are some
congregations that are clergy killers and some clergy that are congregation
killers but on the whole DB is on target when he advises pastors not to
accuse congregations. How can one preach the Gospel every Sunday, eat and
sleep, marry and bury, laugh and cry with a people when you see them as the
enemy? It takes a few years to learn this, but if you don't you can't
really pastor, because you can really share the pain and the hopes of the
people.

Pastors who accuse their congregations are like spouses who blame the other
for marriage problems. No real change is possible because it is always the
other's fault.

I think it may apply to the national church. You have a real insight here
and it convicted me. I don't think this means we don't disagree, or debate.
DB was very critical of the German Church and in many ways the western
church. No have no compassion for the difficulties congregations and
leaders is to lack any understanding of the complexities of even small
communities and leadership.

Thanks again for the DB quote I would agree. You are wiser than you look
Chris. Peace, Herb
-----

[herb.davis]

Dear Richard, You wrote, ““Authentic orthodoxy has to change in order to remain the same.”  In a culture that worship change I like to say I never change, same wife, same church, same political party, watch the same old movies, read the same old book, try to say same the same old prayers daily.  Of course I watch the movies on an IPOD, read the book on a computer, left the theological table talk  company of Fackre and Willis on the Cape for an  evangelical Bible study group on discipleship and keep tap dancing as fast as I can.  You tell the truth and I tell lies.  Balance was never one of my strong suits, but I think you are right it maybe a gift of the Spirit to the church as we do the orthodoxy dance.  Thanks for that wonderful quote from a great Protestant who changed  that set me off.  Peace, Herb

 

---

 

[Dexter Van Zile]

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful response.

 

A few words about Barmen, which may or may not be relevant to your point.

 

A while back in the course of my work, I invoked Barmen as if it were a talisman to ward off forces in the UCC and other Protestant churches I did not agree with and still do not agree with. It was a convenient found object that at first heft seemed more substantive than it does to me now. The fact that even when it was written it did not mention the hostility the Nazi regime had toward Jews is one reason why it seems to have less substance now than it did to me before. It's easy for me to judge, however, living 70 years hence.

 

I leaned heavily on Barmen early in my work at the David Project and I wonder if I laid too much emphasis on it and not enough on the Gospel or the Holy Spirit. Invoking the Gospel or the Holy Spirit is a much bigger burden to embrace than invoking a courageous, but flawed declaration that was written for a particular period of  history. I have heard others refer to the Barmen declaration as a useful, powerful and necessary corrective, but not something we should place our entire faith in. I know that is not what you are doing, but now I understand what they meant.

 

Just as the Barmen Declaration is not as central to me as I used to view it, I no longer have such an idealistic view of the UCC polity or denominational history.

 

I used to regard the history of the UCC's predecessor churches, especially congregationalism (my own background, the others I don't know so much about) as somehow central to the denomination's ministry. Now, less so.

 

I still think this history is important. The UCC's historical identity has lessons to teach us as we respond to the threat of religious fundamentalism in the world stage. Our historical commitment to separation between church and state, religous tolerance and the right to private conscience (which I'm sure I'm idealizing) has a lot to tell us about how to create a civil society amongst the world's religions.

 

All this is instructive, but just as I have become less enamored of Barmen, I have become less willing to place my spiritual weight on this history. As an "intellectual" concerned about society yes, it's important, but as a Christian becoming increasingly concerned with the salvific power of Christ, not so much. Is this the way it goes? The more we learn the less confidence we have in the power of knowledge?

 

As I type that last sentence, I realize it cuts, or at least appears to, cut against WB's acknowledgement that tradition has a huge role to play in our efforts to criticize and re-energize the world. I think he's right. We have an obligation to know our tradition, but ultimately, it is insufficient.

 

My guess as to why people at BWF have not left is that they, like me, see some value in the historical identity of the church and they want to ensure that it is accompanied by a remnant of Christian faith that they believe is correct. That's pretty much what DRB has said in print -- that he doesn't want the historical roots of the denomination to be used for purposes that to his mind, aren't a faithful interpretation of the Gospel. I don't speak for BWF, but that's my guess.

 

DB's discussion of the Pastor as accusers seems to be a metric that could be applicable from one context to the next, but like any metric, it has its limitations.

 

Again, thanks for the post.

 

 

Chris Anderson <fc...@suscom.net> wrote:

---

Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

[john cedarleaf]

herb.davis wrote:

Herb, Chris:
Part of the issue, I think, with the "accusing stance" has to do with a
propensity among many of us clergy folk for purity. We should know
better, but there is something which tells us that somehow the church
should be "pure." The whole regenerate church idea which was so much a
part of American evangelicalism(at least at one time) influences us more
than we may care to admit. If only these "turkeys" would get with the
program then things would be better. It is a disease of both the left
and the right and once again a good dose of Niebuhrian realism is good
medicine. This works both in the local church and at the denominational
level. John

[Chris Anderson]

John,

YOur thoughts on "purity" lead me to something that WB
discusses. He says that there are atleast two streams of
religious emphasis in the OT that sometimes run counter to
each other.
1) THE PURITY STREAM. This is the Leviticus teaching of
not touching dead people, not weaving differing clothes
together, separating out the lepers and other unclean
humans, not eating pigs etc. This type of religion is well
evidenced in Ezra, Nehemiah and the Pharisees.
2) THE COMMUNITY STREAM: This teaches us to care for our
neighbors, strangers, widows, orphans, the poor, the
oppressed, debtors, prisoners etc.

In a recent gospel reading Jesus broke the first in order
to live in the second. He touched the leper and he did
jnot become dirty or impure the leper become clean. The
same argument jesus made about helping a man pull his ox
out of a hole on the Sabbath applies here.

My question is does this struggle between the two streams
speak to us and the gay issue that has so divided the
church? Are we holding on to the Purity Stream when we
should be pressing the Community Stream?

Chris of Heidelberg