Resisting Death: The Visions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and William Stringfellow for a “Seminary Underground” (4/15/12 - 4/21/12)

This past week was a very busy one for me. On Monday, a friend of mine told me that a philosophy conference at Cornerstone University (which was taking place on Friday evening and all day Saturday) had a cancellation and needed another person to present an academic paper. Since I have been working with all sorts of ideas which have not yet fermented, I told him I would be glad to try to write up something which reflects the conference topic. The conference was titled, Thinking Christianity in the Present Tense: The Politics of Discipleship. It was largely a conference on how Religion (Christianity) is completely inseparable from politics, that if you DO theology, you at the same time DO politics.

Since I spent the entire week writing an abstract/paper proposal, I thought I would share it with all of you. Consider this the blossoming/flourishing of my family, my education, my passions/desires, and my faith. I have added pictures for your benefit!

Abstract/Paper Proposal

Resisting Death: The Visions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and William Stringfellow for a “Seminary Underground” by Eric Karloski

William Stringfellow

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

In the past 2 years there has been a ground swell of interest in Dietrich Bonhoeffer. From Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas to the recent Bonhoeffer, Christ, and Culture conference at Wheaton College, Christians who live in America have begun to ask questions about what a genuine confessional and political witness in our contemporary American culture looks like. This interest in Bonhoeffer, I believe, is only exaggerated when a Christian wonders what university and seminary he should attend. There is a growing distrust with theological education in America. Sown from the seeds of the Enlightenment and fostered by a church which has unquestionably adopted the values of secular culture, theological education often looks no different than state universities on the one extreme, or monasteries on the other extreme.

For many Christians seeking a radical alternative to this, it is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s exemplar witness of resistance which speaks most clearly against America’s overwhelming submission to the “powers and principalities” of Death. While Bonhoeffer still speaks to us today, he does so separated by considerable time and space. Bonhoeffer’s vision for a “seminary on the run” reminds us that the churches’ resistance to a nation-state’s “prevailing ideological and political convictions” must be rejected as false doctrine “as though there were areas of our life in which we do not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords – areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through Him.” (Barman Declaration 8:15).

Since the posthumously published Letters and Papers from Prison (1953) people have wondered where Bonhoeffer’s fully developed and matured theological and political insights would have taken the church, and specifically how those insights would have affected theological education in America. It is here where I believe the church in America has missed its opportunity, because we have missed the witness of William Stringfellow. William Stringfellow (1928-1985) was one of the twentieth century’s more enigmatic and elusive theologians – a precipitator of dreams and a prophet par excellence. Stringfellow’s thick, seemingly alien polemic often counters the subtle theological complexity of his language. It is precisely this rich polemic which exposes the idols of our life and liturgy that makes him so distinct, and so engaging. He fostered the imagination of Stanley Hauerwas, Walter Wink, Jacques Ellul, Daniel Berrigan. Karl Barth said of him, “This is the theologian American needs to listen to.”

If anyone has even heard of William Stringfellow today, they still probably do not know that he himself had and participated in a radical community of resistance which Bill Wylie Kellermann calls the “seminary underground.” This group of mostly unsatisfied Union Theological Seminary students met in different places and at different times to speak of their vocation as Christians and most importantly of the reading of the Word of God. It was here where Stringfellow’s commitment to politics on the one hand, and the Christian faith on the other met as the “twin pillars” of his life and work. For Stringfellow the centrality of the seminary is the ministry devoted to the health and holiness of the Body of Christ in the World which cares for and conserves the tradition of the church, is baptism, and not ordination.[1] Stringfellow himself has said that “ordination produces a “denigration of the laity and a professionalization of the clergy, representing an adoption of the “expert” and “amateur” distinction prevalent outside the church.”[2] For Stringfellow, this structuralism creates a works based righteousness produced by our own virtue, rather than the authority bestowed by baptism. Our baptism into the death and resurrection of the risen Christ means God is not a stranger among us who needs an expert introduction; rather, the incarnation is such that God’s word is addressed to all people.

Stringfellow and Bonhoeffer agree that all theology is always confessional,[3] that is, a confession against something and a confession for something. For Bonhoeffer confession means to confess against those who would teach false doctrine and confuse the roles of the state and church. It is a confession for Christians to be preaching and professing the Christian faith in all times and in all places. For Stringfellow, Christians must understand theology as “an immediate and contemporary confession for the presence of the life of God in the world” rather than a subject/object study. Against the trend to separate the meaning of the scriptures with its application (for Stringfellow – ethics and eschatology more specifically), theology’s purpose and subject is the same goal – the life of faith in the world, in the spirit of Christ. The reading and hearing of the bible then takes priority, not as an academic act of studying, but because the Bible is the witness and descriptor par excellence to the reality of the life of faith. To be discipled in theological education is to then be in the world, which is always a political act because it “reflects upon and speaks about the reconciling activity of God in the world, and orientates people in relation to that divine activity”.

Because of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, the church is free of the demonic powers and principalities which dominate the world and consign it to death. Our theological education must reflect this in both its teaching and in living. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and William Stringfellow are two people whose vision for theological education is alive, under the reign of God, in all of life.
________________________________________________________________________
[1] William Stringfellow, A Privet and Public Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 43-44.

[2] Anthony Dancer, An Alien in a Strange Land: Theology in the Life of William Stringfellow (Oregon, Cascade Books, 2010), 145.

[3] William Stringfellow, A Privet and Public Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 45.

Faith and Works? (4/8/12 - 4/14/12)

Last week Saturday I was traveling back from Lansing MI where a friend of mine and I were playing disc golf at an amazing course there. My friend, being like so many people in this culture both "spiritual" and an atheist got us again into a conversation. Here is how it went:

Sam: I don't even know what I am, an atheists (a-theists = someone who does not believe in theism = a god) , an agnostic (a-gnostic = without knowledge = you don't know or don't care what you believe), I just don't know?

Eric: Well, that's easy to figure out. Do you believe that this world, this material is all that exists, or do you believe something that we cannot see exists?

Sam: I think this world is all that exists. 

Eric: Great! Then you are an atheist. Problem solved.

Sam: Yet... There might be something else out there. How did you choose Christianity?

I've heard Sam's comment before. Way too often. Sam being both an atheists and a "spiritual" person is weird, idiotic, and simply stupid. It is simply contradictory - however it is pretty common in American culture. I was not upset about this comment. It was his "how did you choose Christianity" that is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. Here is how I answered him.

Eric: You are going to think what I'm about to say is purely semantics, but it is not. I did not choose Christianity. Christ chose me! Christianity is not some abstract religion, but a relationship with a personal God. It is not like my life of choice, where I can choose what I eat, where I live, who I marry, what I buy, where and what I worship, etc... The scriptures even say that Jesus Christ was chosen before the foundations of the world were made to save us from our sin and rebellion from God (I Peter 1:20).

Then, feeling like this was a good time to drive the point home, I went even further and said,

Eric: In fact, the scriptures even say that I cannot even know that God has chosen me without first the Holy Spirit illuminating my eyes (and brain) to see his choosing me. 

Sam was quiet and then we arrived at home. 

_______________________________________________________________________________

This event has left me thinking about a paradox in what I read in the scriptures and what I see in American Christianity, that is, to force our "choice driven culture" into our understanding of Christianity and all that entails: Christ, faith, salvation, eternal life, etc. 

This has traditionally be called "WORKS" by the Giants of our tradition. I wonder if my grandparents would call all of this "choosing" - works? My initial impression would be to say no, however, rather than speculate about it, let me ask you? 

1. Did you ever hear your parents, grandparents, or anyone in the family talk about "faith and works?" If yes, how did they define it?  
2. With the conversation above guiding your next answer, would you say your parents, grandparents, or anyone in the family would say we could choose God?
3. How much of our culture’s (this includes you and I) obsession with "choice" would you say has helped hinder our understanding of the Gospel?
4. Would you have answered Sam differently then I did? If yes, how?
5. John of Salisbury who lived in the 12th century once said:

We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size. Our age enjoys the gifts of preceding ages, and we know more, not because we excel in talent, but because we use the products of others who have gone before."

Do you think we indulge in "excelling in talent" or in being raised up "by their giant size" so we may "see more than they, and things at a greater distance"? 

Please feel free to respond to all of these questions as you see fit.

“In Joshua He is the Captain of the Lord’s Hosts” (5:13-15) Homer and Leona Reflect on Joshua (3/25/12 - 4/7/12)

On Wednesday this past week I had a great evening with Colette Baker Thelen about the family. The outcome of this conversation will hopefully be evidence in near future weeks. For now however we turn to Joshua. Why Joshua you ask? Well, why not! Well, ok, there are some ulterior motives. Nicky has begun a bible study on this book and it has been going for three weeks. I figured Nicky and I could look at Leona and Homer’s notes, compare them, and talk about what things were similar and what things were different. Maybe get a glimpse at their separate and related interests in this book.

 

 

The book of Joshua is the sixth book of the Old Testament. The first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are similar to a chorus or refrain of a song or the overture of a symphony – without them the rest of the story does not make sense. In Genesis, God creates the world (his kingdom) and creates caretakers for it (the man and the women). The first humans rebel against their sovereign (King) and from this rebellion, chaos, alienation, separation, curses, and death enter the world. God’s plan to live with his people has shattered. From Genesis 3:16 to the end of Deuteronomy, God begins to restore his people back to himself, and to set up his physical rule once again in the world through a people he has chosen simply out of his own freedom to choose, and he has chosen Israel. Israel herself was a small, weak, and insignificant nation, who happened to be on prime real-estate for the significant, strong, and large nations (Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon). Who would have believed that God would choose the foolish wisdom of this world to heal and redeem all created things back into right relationship with their creator?  In the most important portion of the Holy Scriptures (the first five books) we have been given a promise for this but no fulfillment.

 

 

The beginning of this fulfillment is what concerns Joshua. Where God issues only one command in the garden, God now issues an entire institution of commands. Where God walks with his people in total immanence in the garden, God must now be worshiped with transcendence, weight, and holiness in mind. Where God sets up total egalitarianism (all are equals) in the garden, he now institutes chains of command/hierarchies. Seen in this way, the long lists of names, battles, and seemingly tedious information in the book of Joshua begins to not only make more sense, but to actually be interesting.       

 

 

Amidst all of the overwhelming historical information, my ancestors Homer and Leona choose not to reflect on this. Other than one date underlined in the cross reference notes (by Homer), all of the notes, marginal marks/notes, underlining, and cross references have focused on something else altogether. Can you guess? We’ve already mentioned in past reflections that for Homer and Leona, Jeanette, and Dick, the scriptures were immensely accessible, that is to say, they gave immediate access to how I should live (morality/ethics), and what I should do (the Christian life). For them the historical gap of at least six thousand years on all accounts did not exist. The scriptures, through the leading of the Holy Spirit spoke through them directly to us. So for them, Joshua was primarily about:

 

 

1.)    The Promises of God for us – Inheriting the Baptized Life. 

2.)    The Commands of God for us – Living the Baptized Life.

 

 

In suggesting these two interests, let me add a caveat. We cannot suggest that Homer and Leona (and for that matter Jeanette and Dick) were unaware of the historical reality of the biblical texts. I am sure they could wax eloquent regarding the historical issues of date, authorship, place in the canon, Israel’s society, and ancient Near Eastern culture, etc.  We cannot suggest however that their intensions were purely objective or followed a proper rule for biblical interpretation. What I mean by this is that just like now; they also faced a cultural landscape of deteriorating trust in the scriptures as being without error and a sure belief in God. What I am “getting at” is that their notes can be viewed as the remains of a cultural battle ground, more or less extinct. Going back to the second post about Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, there was a battle being waged for the legitimacy of the Holy Scriptures. For Leona and Homer, the scriptures were the inspired word of God without error, as opposed to those who believed the scriptures to be from human origin. Homer and Leona loved Timothy when he said “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ^ that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (I Tim. 3:16-17).

What all this means is that God’s speech to Joshua in 1:2-9 (8 verses), and Joshua’s speech to Israel in 1:11-18 (8 verses) both being about not losing heart and being courageous when you enter the promised land – this for my grandparents was primarily about not losing heart and being courageous in fighting the good fight of protecting the bible from those who would naysay it. Against those who would deny God’s existence and/or not trust the Word of God,  those promises of God were underlined, scored, marked, and cherished. For them Joshua was a smorgasbord of encouragement.

Here are the verses in Joshua that both Homer and Leona had underlined. A picture of them follows:

• “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.” (1:8-9)

Homer's Notes



Leona's Notes

• That all the people of the earth might know the hand of the LORD, that it is mighty: that ye might fear the LORD your God for ever. (4:24)

Homer's Notes

• Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.  (24:14-15)

Homer's Notes

Leona's Notes

Where both were concerned with the promises of God and the commands of God, what interested Nicky and I more when going through them together were the things that interested Homer and Leona differently. Here are a small collection of the notes and verses underlined that caught our attention.

From Homer’s Bible:                                                           

• Homer has underlined 6:18 “And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.” One wonders if he believed God was talking about the purity of the church here?

• Next to Joshua 7:3 he has written “again 12,000”

• In 7:5 the text says “And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men.” Homer has this underlined. I hope he underlined this because there was a boy still in him who enjoyed a good war story and fight sequence.

• A funny note, Homer has written next to 24:27 “stone heard.” Here is 24:27, “And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God.” There is glimpse here into Homer’s imagination as he pondered the fact of a stone hearing the Word of God.

From Leona’s Bible:

• On the page before Joshua begins Leona has some notes on tithing.

• In 1:7 she has underlined “Only” in “Only be thou strong and very courageous…” She seemed to understand that the Christian life stemmed from a few simple commands.

• Next to 1:8 Leona has written “for success in your Christian Life” and “PROMISE”

• Throughout two thousand years of Christian interpretation of scripture, the Ark of the Covenant was seen as a type of Christ, that is to say, the ark gave an initial glimpse of something that was fully seen later with Christ. In Joshua 3 Grandma has written “Ark is a Picture of Christ.”  In verses 3, 6 (2x), 8, and 11 she has “ark” circled.

• In chapter 6 Joshua and the hosts of Yahweh have leveled Jericho, only one family was saved from the destruction of the city, the family of Rahab. Leona has only underlined the phrase “Joshua saved Rahab” in verse 6:25. One wonders if she is showing that God deeply cares for women here.

• Leona has made little notes through the text of Joshua indicating when God did a miracle.
• Next to chapter 14 Leona’s marginal note says “Caleb means whole hearted.”

• Next to 24:14-15 Grandma wrote “Who will you serve, Joshua made his choice.”

If their notes in these bibles were an indicator of their knowledge of the scriptures then both of them were thoroughly submerged in its teaching. However one must wonder if Leona has a better, more well rounded understanding of them from the evidence of her notes.

I hope you enjoyed this tour de force through the book of Joshua, guided by my Grandparents, Homer and Leona Baker.