Hubben and Why I May not Vote in the Upcoming Elections

I just finished (actually, it's taking me so long to read or blog lately, that I really finished it weeks ago but am just getting around to finishing this blog) reading Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Kafka by William Hubben. Not an especially long read, the book is a brief analysis of the life and works of four wildly important existentialists. Hubben does a good job outlining a type of progression of thought, beginning with Sören Kierkegaard. Dostoevsky is next, then the nihilism of Friedrich Nietzsche, and finally Franz Kafka desperate in hoplessness and lack of meaning.

One amazing insight of these "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse," as Hubben refers to them, is how insightful they are about 19th century Christianity. Each, for different reasons, found the merging of Christianity and government to be ultimately distasteful and a complete rejection of what Christianity has always stood for. Though Dostoevsky's Russian nationalism is emphasized as a theme, this paragraph on Nietzsche said much:

"In the vein of Kierkegaard's thinking, with which he was unacquainted, Nietzsche, the Antichrist, is indignant about the unholy fusion of state and religion, as he also believes that the state prevents the Single One from attaining his dignity. Original Christianity taught man not to conform to the state and even to separate himself from his family for the sake of the spirit. Our statesmen, 'anti-Chrisitians in their deeds,' have clearly changed this. They attend communion. they promote 'Christian' thinking in their speeches and schools. The chasm between the world and the faith of Jesus has been eliminated. Now the Christian is a soldier, a judge, a patriot who knows nothing about non-resistance to evil. He defends his honor instead of accepting humiliations; he is as proud as though he had never heard of the humble Galilean's teachings, and the Church has become precisely that institution Jesus had wanted to abolish." (108)

Assuming that Hubben's treatment of Nietzsche's thoughts on Christianity are accurate (and from what I've read of Nietzsche, they certainly don't contradict his thoughts on Jesus), I think this paragraph has some weight. Though Nietzsche's relationship to Christianity is, at the very least, antagonistic, he does make a particularly insightful observation of the result of the fusion of government and Christianity--that it damages Christianity. Though I don't think the statement "separate himself from family for the sake of the spirit" is accurate, the notion that the statesmen misunderstand Christianity is absolutely true.

In my time I have noticed that this fusion is most often used as a manipulation tactic by both of the main political parties. Each has a propensity to proclaim itself "Christian," and loves to relate its planks to Christian values. This consistently sets Christians in a strange position in which they feel the need to "vote their Christian values," but find themselves voting for a person whom they do not understand, know, or trust, because they have assumed that his views are really the "Christian" views.

Let me start another way. I have always been turned off by businesses which advertise on their signs or in their Yellow Page ads that they are "Christian" businesses. You find plumber ads with the ichthus symbol and lawyer signs with Bible verses. But what does one have to do with the other? What does the business owner gain from such a maneuver? Is he promoting the Kingdom of God? Is our call to advertise that we are Christians or is the call to behave like Christ? My conclusion is that the reason business owners do this is that so many Christians are convinced that Christianity is supporting Christian entertainment and frequenting Christian businesses to promote other Christians.

Similarly, politicians love to talk about their "faith." But I've never heard a politician describe a faith that I felt I had much in common with. I have voted pro-life since I was old enough to pull a lever because I felt my Christian faith necessitated that. Yet, those who claimed to be pro-life never acted on their pro-life positions. And, on top of that, the global situation has only worstened as those I have voted for have made decisions which have now turned into other problems.

The bottom line is, I'm not sure I'm voting this time for two reasons. One, as a citizen I doubt very much I'm going to find someone I really can get behind. Two, as a Christian, I don't think it's the point!

I think Bonhoeffer's thoughts on Luther are relevant to my thinking on this now:

"It was the Reformation that broke asunder the unity of the faith. That was not because Luther willed it so. He was indeed wholly concerned for the true unity of the Church. But the word of the Bible forced him to the conclusion that the unity of the Church can lie only in Jesus Christ as He lives in His word and sacrament, and not in any political power. In this way he shattered the whole structure of the Church, which was founded upon Roman tradition. Only a Pope who submitted unreservedly to the word of the Bible could be the shepherd of a united Christendom. But the Pope, bound as he was by tradition, was incapable of submission, and that is why the unity of Christendom was destroyed. The corpus christianum is resolved into its true constituents, the corpus Christi and the world. In His Church Christ rules not by the sword but solely with His word. Unity of Faith exists only in obedience to the true word of Jesus Christ. But the sword is the property of the secular government, which in its own way, i the proper discharge of its office, also serves the same Lord Jesus Christ. There are two kingdoms which so long as the world continues, must neither be mixed together nor yet torn asunder. There is the kingdom of the preached word of God, and there is the kingdom of the sword. The kingdom of the Church, and the kingdom of the world. The realm of the spiritual office, and the realm of secular government. The sword can never bring about the unity of the Church and of the faith. Preaching can never govern the nations. But the Lord of both kingdoms is the God who is made manifest in Jesus Christ (Ethics, 95-96)."

For what it is worth, I'm not certain how closely Bonhoeffer's synopsis of Luther on the topic actually mirrors his own views, but I like the paradox offered here.

This is a disjointed thought--but I've found my time so precious lately! I'm busy and loving my new job.

Final thought. Please pray as I'm working on a new article submisson. The last few weeks have done more to solidify some of my thinking on church leadership and gender roles than any time I have spend studying. I am considering writing an article rethinking 1 Timothy 2-3 based on my recent sermons. You can check them out by clicking the link to my podcasts.

Thanks!

Scattered Thoughts: Pacifism, Bonhoeffer, the Move

Greetings to those who occasionally visit my Abyss. Amidst the frenzy of our move and all of the emotions we experienced in picking up our lives and going to Georgia, and as I have attempted to develop a routine for writing sermons (which, now that I have time to do it right, I am actually enjoying again), I have had some random thoughts to share.

First, thanks to all of my friends who interacted with me on the topic of pacifism. Between the posts (which are immortalized in print) and the discussions we had in person, I feel I have a much better grasp on the topic than before--and I've come to understand more fully the view that many of my closest friends hold. Believe it or not, you all influenced me much more than I may have let on. I think I've been forced to re-evaluate my dilemma and approach it from a strictly Christian viewpoint. In asking, "How did Christ approach the dilemma that I have posed?" I found myself thinking of the woman caught in adultery and how Jesus dealt with that. Here we have a woman who was being unfairly persecuted (where was her lover?) and was going to be killed by a merciless gang of lynchers. Granted, their actions, by some interpretations, were protected by Jewish law. Yet, Jesus understood the real ins and outs of the situation. How did he approach it?

My pacifist friends will be proud of me, I hope! Jesus did not fight. He knelt in the sand and wrote something (I have my theories). Then he stood up and told whoever had not broken the law to cast the first stone. Jesus approached the situation non-violently. Ironically, he risked a great deal of violence to himself in doing so. And I think that may be the key. As Christians, on a personal level, where we can, perhaps we are called to suffer for others more so than fight for them. That was, actually, Jesus' entire philosophy of dealing with violence, was it not? It was to receive violence in lieu of someone else. There. I've said it. You've moved me.

I still cannot get past the separation I find inherent in NT teaching about the role of government and its use of violence in situations. It seems to me that, if God has ordained this, then there is some justification for war. I still hold that there is a paradox on war in Christian teaching. Yet, I am moved closer in my own walk to the position of many of my friends.

Interestingly, Bonhoeffer moved from being a pacifist to an attempt to assassinate Hitler. The explanation provided to me was that Bonhoeffer recognized that Hitler's regime was a product of the non-action of the church when it could have done something. Therefore, he moved to violence as a secondary position--not as good as the primary, but necessary according to situation. I think I agree with Bonhoeffer. There is a point at which it is too late to say, "This is what we should have done."

I'm reading Ethics by Bonhoeffer right now (amidst other things--see Theo's Picks for the link). My new schedule affords more time for reading and personal study. (Perhaps I should have made this move a long time ago.) Bonhoeffer is fascinating me with the idea that the whole study of ethics is really a product of the fall--in that people believe they can be the source of knowledge of good and evil. In fact, my first sermon at Castle really ended up being about that (I borrowed heavily from Paul Axton's genius chapel sermon). Once we have updated Castle's podcast, I will add the link to the Abyss. Because of the profundity of some of his comments, I was thinking of just adding a few quotes for discussion, if anyone is interested.

"To know good and evil is to know oneself as the origin of good and evil, as the origin of an eternal choice and election. How this is possible remains the secret of Him in whom there is no disunion because He is Himself the one and eternal origin and the overcoming of all disunion. This secret has been stolen from God by man in his desire to be an origin on his own account. Instead of knowing only the God who is good to him and instead of knowing all things in Him, he now knows himself as the origin of good and evil. Instead of accepting the choice and election of God, man himself desires to choose, to be the origin of election. And so, in a certain sense, he bears within himself the secret of predestination. Instead of knowing himself solely in the reality of being chosen and loved by God, he must now know himself in the possibility of choosing and of being the origin of good and evil. He has become like God, but against God. Herein lies the serpent's deceit. Man knows good and evil, but because he is not the origin, because he acquires this knowledge only at the price of estrangement from the origin, the good and evil he knows are not the good and evil of God but good and evil against God. They are good and evil of man's own choosing, in opposition to the eternal election of God. In becoming like God man has become a god against God." (Ethics, 23)

"Man's life is now disunion with God, with men, with things, and with himself." (24)

"Knowing of good and evil in disunion with the origin, man begins to reflect upon himself. His life is now his understanding of himself, whereas at the origin it was his knowledge of God. Self-knowledge is now the measure and the goal of life. This holds true even when man presses out beyond the bonds of his own self. Self-knowledge is man's interminable striving to overcome his disunion with himself by thought; by unceasingly distinguishing himself from himself he endeavours to achieve unity with himself." (29)

"No longer knowing good and evil, but knowing Christ as origin and reconciliation, man will know all. For in knowing Christ man knows and acknowledges God's choice which has fallen upon this man himself; he no longer stands as the chooser between good and evil, that is to say, in disunion; he is the chosen one, who can no longer choose, but has already made his choice in his being chosen in the freedom and unity of the deed and will of God. He thus has a new knowledge, in which the knowledge of God, yet no longer as the man who has become like God, but as the man who bears the image of God. All he knows now is "Jesus Christ, adn him crucified (I Cor. 2.2), and in HIm he knows all. As one who is without knowledge he has become the one who knows only God and all things in Him." (37)

One of my favorites:

"The voice of the heart is not to be confused with the will of God, nor is any kind of inspiriation or any general principle..." (41) He goes on to discuss that the will of God, at its base, is the metamorphasis of the human.

In some of my earlier wrestlings with the "will of God," Bonhoeffer sums up beautifully and solves the problem:

"But when all this has been said it is still necessary really to examine what is the will of God, what is rightful in a given situation, what course is truly pleasing to God; for, after all, there have to be concrete life and action. Intelligence, discernment, attentive observation of the given facts, all these now come into lively operation, all will be embraced and pervaded by prayer. Particular experiences will afford correction and warning. Direct inspirations must in no case be heeded or expected, for this could all to easily lead to a man's abandoning himself to self-deception. In view of what is at stake there must be a lofty spirit of sober self-control. Possibilities and consequences must be carefully assessed. In other words, the whole apparatus of human powers must be set in motion when it is a matter of proving what is the will of God. But in all this there will be no room for the torment of being confronted with insoluble conflicts, or for the arrogant notion that one can master every conflict, or even for the enthusiastic expectation and assertion of direct inspiration. There will be belief that if a man asks God humbly God will give him certain knowledge of His will; and then, after all this earnest proving, there will also be the freedom to make a real decision, and with it the confidence that it is not man but God Himself who, through this proving, gives effect to His will." (43-44) Beautiful!

Anyhow, I'm liking Bonhoeffer! Thoughts?