Grading is based on one original post and one response. These two posts add up to ten points per week. The criteria are as follows: Completion; please refrain from poor grammar, poor spelling, and internet shorthand. Reference; mention the text or post to which the reply is directed. Personality; show thoughtfulness, care, and a sense of originality. Cohesiveness; The student should explain his or her thought without adding "fluff" merely to meet the requirement.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
cast the first stone
Who Am I?
Is assassination justified?
To make this question more relevent to modern times.... Would you kill a major sex-trafficer leader? If given the opportunity, would you? Knowing that by killing this person you'll free millions of abused, enslaved, horribly mistreated people? Knowing that this might be your only chance to end horrible injustice, to save dying people? The death of one person could bring a massive change to world, would you do it? I would want to say I would do it, but if came down to me actually pulling the trigger and ending this person's life, could I do it? I don't think I could.
To be honest I look be to the early Christians for an example. They were mercilessly persecuted, killed, and tortured. Yet Christianity grew. Roman soldiers converted, many roman citizens, surely they had means and abilities to assassinate Caesar, to end the senseless massacre of people (Christians and Jews alike), but they didn't. Instead they didn't not fight back for their lives, they living sacrifices to Christ, even unto death. What ended up happening? Overtime Christianity became the main religion, and a supposedly Christian Emperor came to power (Constantine).
But this goes against very nature, I'm a fighter. It's part of me, my family has military background, fighting is in my D.N.A and culture. In America, we are suppose to fight for our freedom, our lives, our rights. Fight against injustice, save the innocent! Correct? We are suppose to protect ourselves, aren't we? Or is all of this us trusting in ourselves, and not our God? I guess my question is, Where are Christians suppose to draw the line?
A piece of "The Hiding Place", by Corrie TenBoom, keeps running through my mind. In the book, Corrie talks about hiding Jews in her home, from Nazi's. She said that she would openly lie to save Jews in her home, even though lying is a sin. She knew that in her heart it was not sinning, she felt it was completely justified in order to save human lives and more importantly human souls. However her sister did not, and even she housed Jews too, she was questioned. Her sister answered plainly, that she was hiding people under the kitchen table. However, the Secret Police didn't not find the trap door was talking about and though she was just a crazy woman. Did Bonhoeffer feel as Corrie did? Was this assassination plot justified? Or was it not completely trusting in God?
When the question comes down to me, I don't know the answer. All I can say is that it shouldn't matter what I think. It never really matters if my question ever get answered. As long as I am following Christ with all my life, no regrets, no looking back. I will follow as I'm lead to new and unfamiliar lands. Who knows what difficult paths discipleship to Christ will take me? God forbid, but maybe one day I will be faced with this situation too?
Maybe this all seems like inherent rambling... I don't know. But that's some things that has been plaguing my mind.
P.S. commented on Meghan's post
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Giving Up EVERYTHING???
What is it that makes a work profound? What makes it not?
This blog does not deal with the specific subject matter of The Cost of Discipleship, but instead engages the work by dealing with questions of its effectiveness and profundity.
Why is it that the works which are talked of as being so profound, to me at least, do not seem to quite live up to their name? So many people in class loved Augustine, so many people love Bonhoeffer, but the subject matter, while dealing with important matters of faith, seems to be evident from the scriptures alone. Maybe this is simply because the doctrine which the authors are presenting is such a part of our church culture today that it seems to be obvious and self-evident just from familiarity.
This would make sense because when I read authors like Emerson, his views do not seem to be so self-evident to me, a Nazarene –raised American who until recently has not been exposed to transcendental ideals.
But is this simply it? Is it familiarity alone seems to suck profundity out of these works? Maybe. But then could the scriptures eventually lose their profoundness with more familiarity?
….. maybe this is the wrong track, let’s try something else….
Could it be that since works, such as Bonhoeffer’s section on costly grace, are written in a reactionary manner, his arguments do not seem so profound to those who are not in the same state as the intended audience? This seems to make sense, for if in my society everyone is practicing costly grace, a work on the importance of practicing it would seem unnecessary, almost detached.
Is there some other immensely important factor which I am leaving out?
I am just seeking to know why it is that one work seems more profound than another. I am not saying that I understand all of the intricacies of costly grace, etc. I just want to find an answer to a really out there question.
I commented on Hunter's THE WORST
Thoughts on Bonhoeffer
Lately, for honors and intercultural studies, I have stopped carrying my class notebook and started taking notes in my personal notebook instead. I like the questions these authors are raising, that you are raising, that we are raising—on all sides. They must be addressed from every angle, but as Schuler reminded me in British Literature today: stay as close to the text as possible. I think it is important to understand the background, but going back to what Talmage has said as well, we must encounter the text. In a sense, I believe the two go hand in hand, and maybe I am starting to get the hang of it.
Now, I am going to share some of my notes from my personal book, which makes me a little uncomfortable, but Will already touched on some of what my notes entail. So…
In terns if killing an unjust ruler, if one is a believer, one must remember that this life is indeed not the end for all humans. There is a Heaven, and there is a Hell. Will did mention this a bit in class. Now, that in mind, it is easy for one to remember that this is not the end for oneself if one is found in Christ. Switching tenses, you know where you are going. However, you do not know where this unjust ruler is going. You can assume. But, who are you—nay, who are we—that we could choose to take this life from him without opportunity to be known by and to know Christ? True, Hitler took many a life without considering this, but do you believe that Hitler was in Christ? I do not, for fruit was lacking in his life. Therefore, I cannot hold him to the mindset that has been given me as a result of Christ in me. Yes, he is held accountable for his actions as we are all to be held accountable, but not by me personally—by my Judge who judges all justly. The law is written on our hearts so that none can stand blameless before God but Christ. Mallory mentioned the mother hen instinct in her to protect her friends in Russia, and that is a given. She is right. The instinct is there as it should be. I believe that is truly compassion.
Brad brought up a man coming into the classroom with a knife, and asked Will how he would react. This reminded me of a simple measure I take each time I go to the local WalMart on my own; I carry an open knife in my right hand by my side, just in case. I have heard story after story of women being attacked and/or raped when returning to their vehicles, and I refuse to be one of those statistics if I can help it. I will be honest with you all, if someone should attack me in the parking lot, I will not think twice in using that knife as self-defense. However, my intent in that situation is not based on “eye for an eye”, my intent is purely preserving my own life. When it comes to knives, you have to be pretty accurate and/or repetitive to take a life by it. In that situation, I do not think I would stab at my attacker repeatedly because at some point I am going to run back for the store for help. I would hope none of you would expect me to stand there and say to my attacker, “Yes, sir. You can rape me.” But consider the fact that this situation is requires immediate attention with little opportunity for rational thought. It runs purely on instinct and adrenaline. I believe that with a transformed heart and the Spirit of God in me, the Spirit would not allow me to go as far as killing my attacker. In the case of the unjust ruler, your immediate reaction is emotional (and it absolutely should be). But how close are you going to get to your unjust ruler as an individual? Slim to none, I would say. There is time for thought and rational decision making to determine how you, as an individual, are going to handle the injustice.
What can you do about it? What does Christ’s example tell you to do about it? With that, what are you going to do about it? I am personally reminded of Talmage’s father in prayer. Christ was in prayer to the point of his sweat turning blood. John 6 tells us He knew from the beginning who would betray Him. Christ suffered the greatest injustice of all by human standards, but He suffered for the sake of His Father’s glory.
I don’t really know where to go from here. My thoughts on this are still incomplete, but I wanted to share this with you all. It is simply food for thought.
COMMENTED ON ANNA’S
Is Killing Justified or Not?
Hitler vs. the world
Commented on Anna's
Truth Realized and Discipleship
Bonheoffer was not one for shallow faith. I have loved my “dialogue” with the author as I’ve read. What I like the most about Bonheoffer is his exhortation about true discipleship not shallow Christianity. I can understand in a way what Bonheoffer means. Christianity today sometimes appears to me to be shallow and fad-filled. I see this especially among those who have been raised in the church like many of us have. We have been raised in Sunday Schools, we have memorized all the “right” answers but what do we believe? Bonheoffer said,
“With an abstract idea it is possible to enter into a relation of formal knowledge, to become enthusiastic about it, and perhaps even to put it into practice; but it can never be followed in personal obedience. Christianity without the living Christ is inevitably Christianity without discipleship, and Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ” (59).
This, of course, caught my eye. As you can tell this very topic is something I’ve been thinking about lately. What makes my faith authentic? What do I really believe? Do I act and think like I know there is a God who is my father who I am following? In my prayer times do I act like God is listening? No—sometimes I get so caught up in life; I forget the importance of realizing the presence of God apart from my man made well-packaged conception of Him. I grew up in church. I now all the right answers but do I truly believe in God. He is not an abstract, misty man, “up there.” He is not a white-bearded old man sitting on a huge uncomfortable-looking throne. He is God. He is real. He is as real as I am at this moment. He is as factual as the fact that I’m sitting at a computer in the library.
The same goes with Christ. He truly died on the cross for my justification. How real it that to me? You see Bonheoffer is challenging shallow Christianity. No longer is it a question of whether or not you’re a Christian, but rather, whether or not you’re a disciple. It is not until we base our whole lives in these facts, with a reality that can only be known, not just learned, that we can be disciples if Christ. This is challenging. It is rich, and it blows my mind.
P.S. I commented on Chloe's blog
I'm Taking the Hobbits to Isengard: An Observation on the Cost of Being Different
I find it interesting that the original title of the book was not The Cost of Discipleship but simply Discipleship. What does this mean? I found myself thinking about this very question in Honors yesterday. I came to the conclusion that perhaps it means we are supposed to instinctively know following after Christ comes with a price. It shouldn’t be something that we focus intensely on, doing anything different is pricey.
As I’m sure you’ve all seen I’ve been walking around campus wearing a cloak for the past week. I’m sure you’ve all either asked me, or wondered why I was wearing it. My reasoning, because I’m taking the Hobbits to Isengard…! Okay, in all honesty, it’s simply because I like it. I’ve always wanted to have one, and so I went and made one. Why shouldn’t I wear it? Since I’ve started wearing it, people have stared at me, tweeted about me, posted things on Facebook about me, and asked me all kinds of questions about it. Some of those things that weren’t directed at me, such as the tweets and Facebook statuses, haven’t been very kind. I’m paying a price a for being different.
When I first thought about making the cloak and wearing it, I didn’t actively think, “Oh, everyone’s going to stare, am I ready to be the center of attention?” No, I just instinctively knew it was going to happen, and I didn’t care. I think that it’s the same way when it comes to being a disciple, of anything. When I accepted Christ, I didn’t stop and think about what it would cost me (okay I was 4 at the time, but still…). Even now, as every day I choose to follow Christ, I don’t actively think about what it’s going to cost me that day, I just do it. And as someone who has problems letting God take control of my life, it costs me a lot! But I don’t think about the fact that it’s costing me the safety net I feel I need to have, I’ve just accepted the fact it HAS already cost me the safety net. I’ve just accepted the fact that being different, whether it’s by following Christ or by wearing a cloak everyone mistakes for a cape, has a high price.
Romans 12:2 has been on my mind this week, and while it may not exactly fit my situation, I think it can in a way. The verse says, “Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—His good, pleasing and perfect will.” I think this definitely sums up what Discipleship is, breaking away from everything “mainstream” in the world and following after Christ and allowing Christ to change you in a way that is pleasing to Him.
Until next time,
~Meghan
P.S. I commented on Chloe’s post “Oh Happiness There’s Grace! Enough for us and the whole human race.”
To Kill Or Not To Kill
P.S. I commented on Amanda's post, "Faith Is Not Rational."
Oh Happiness There's Grace! Enough for us and the whole human race!
p.s. commented on Amanda's
Faith is not rational.
rationality of faith. I agree with Dr. Talmage that “Putting it into categories
destroys the incarnation.” We can’t understand God by rational methods- that is
why following God is a journey of faith. Bonhoeffer (who is like another Kierkegaard to
me- some of you will understand the gravity of that comparison) agrees that
rational logic has no place in discipleship. The issue in question: didn’t God
give man the ability to be rational? Did he not make men rational creatures?
Looking at page 73,
“Man must decide for himself what is good by using his
conscience and his knowledge of good and evil. The commandment may be variously
interpreted, and it is God’s will that it should be interpreted and explained:
for God has given man a free will to decide what he will do. But this means
disobedience from the start. Doubt and reflection take the place of spontaneous
obedience… In short, it is a retreat from the reality of God to the
speculations of men, from faith to doubt.”
The issue for Adam and Eve in the Garden was not choosing
God or rejecting him. They already knew Him. However, because he gave them free
will, their decision was to sin or not to sin. They knew God- they knew he was
good, and he gave them only one command- not to eat from the Tree of Life. This
was a command to be followed with unquestioning obedience, but they doubted his
word. They decided to figure things out on their own, thinking in their limited
human knowledge that God was holding out on them. They rationalized the command
they had been given, and listened to the influence of Satan. They did not
choose righteousness, and so they set the precedent for generations to come-
rational thought. Thinking that our “knowledge of good and evil” is more
applicable than God’s command is the basis of rationality (which is the
possession of reason, and reason is “the mental powers concerned with forming
conclusions, judgments, or inferences”). The problem with this is that our
mental powers are faulty. We are not perfect, we do not have perfect knowledge,
and the One who does is requesting spontaneous obedience. Reading over this it
kind of sounds like we just need to be brainless Christians following blindly
an elusive voice from the sky… but that’s not it at all! I think it takes a
whole lot more maturity to listen to one who knows more than you, who can see
the big picture, and who has your best interests at heart than to run around
saying “lalalalalalala I don’t hear you! I wanna do it MY way!”
One last thought, because this is way longer than I wanted
it to be so everyone has probably stopped reading it by now so I’m just talking
to the air, but… Think of all that Adam and Eve missed out on because they ate
from the tree. They gave up a perfect life because they thought their way was
better. Obviously, I don’t have a shot at a perfect life, but I do not want to
miss God’s best for me because I am so determined to do things my own way. This
is why following him in obedience is so important. If we aren’t obeying then
how can we even say we’re following? We are just making choices and hoping He
blesses them. On that note, I love love love the quote from Luther on page 93! We won't understand... He is too big for us to comprehend and "his thoughts are not our thoughts"... so we must have faith.
But I digress…
P.S. commented on Joy’s “All of it Together”
Does HE know YOU?
Ps i commented on Lane's post
Still On My Mind
The Worst
-Ezekiel 25:17
Yes, this is the very same line of scripture quoted in Pulp Fiction, but in the Biblical context God is giving a prophecy regarding the Philistines. Specifically, they sought to destroy Judah with malice and vengeance in their hearts, so the Lord swore to annihilate them. There are various verses in the Bible regarding the vengeance of the LORD upon those that seek the blood of his people and those that openly mock His name. You know, I honestly think that we, as Christians, must come to a point where we stop playing the whole "I'm a sinner, I'm only human, I can't fully change my ways" game that this culture is so accustomed to, because we have got to draw a line at some point between who we are the Bride of Christ and who is the enemy of God. We must remember that there is an enemy that wishes to rape and kill the Bride of Christ, and although God will have his vengeance upon the enemy a thousand times over, in this life and at the End of Days, we must fight him at every turn, resisting not just the sin in our own hearts but those that would wish to make us compromise our beliefs and openly defy the Spirit of God, for those people are literally abominations in the eyes of God-there's no getting around it.
I say all of this to address not just Bonhoeffer's decision to kill Hitler, but the all the drama surrounding Joseph Kony, a man that Invisible Children has declared, in no uncertain terms, is on the same level of evil as Hitler. If you've actually put in some legitimate research about the crisis and have done more than just watch the 30 min video, you would agree that Kony is (or was) worthy of being compared to Hitler in light of his human and heretical atrocities. You may remember that I even supported KONY 2012, shared the video on some of my Facebook groups and had at least two Bible verses to bolster my resolve, namely verses asking the Godly to seek justice and defend the oppressed. I no longer actively support the IC's efforts to catch Kony, but the question I have struggled with throughout all of this is: what exactly are the people of God supposed to do about Kony? We all have a sort of ministry that we live out on a day to day basis, but should part of that ministry really involve donating money and activity to a secular organization that works with a corrupt regime to catch a madman that hasn't truly been active in the region for several years? Do we pray that we catch Kony ourselves and put him to justice for his crimes against the Lord or do we stand back and focus our time in other places, letting him do evil and cause suffering while we focus on the typical homeless/foreign/unreached fronts?
It's not the same situation, but it is similar to Bonhoeffer's in that he was a theologian, a man of the scripture, who found himself plotting to kill not just a terrorist but the very ruler of the country he was born in. Bonhoeffer was a preacher, not a rebel; a lover, not a fighter, and yet he found himself compelled to not just teach his people and keep them from harm but destroy the source of the problem itself. It seems that we would have an obligation, as the church (salt and light of the world, living beings filled with the fire of God), to resist the evils of this world in every way possible, perhaps even going as far as to bring down the very same dark tower that causes those problems. If we call ourselves disciples, we must entirely focus ourselves upon Christ, who, while he did suffer and die on the cross, faced his death and those that befouled his church with a fierce resolution that few people will ever know in their lifetimes. What if we followed the same fierce example of Christ's resolution on the cross to face our sins and those that oppress the church? What if we actually took action, in His name and for His glory, against those that defied the name of the LORD and took that is rightfully His? The ancient Israelites did the same thing-why shouldn't we?
Notice that this is less of a definitive statement on what I believe, but a look into the questioning surrounding Kony and Hitler in the eyes of God. If we are to transcend the culture we live in and actually look at the Word of God says, we will discover what God actually thinks. We just have to be willing to do so, and we must do so before we can ever hope to expand God's kingdom in any mission front. Feel free to comment or complain as you wish, thank you for reading, I commented on Josh Spell's Heidegger's Miserable "Faith".
Bonhoeffer
All Of It Together
Bonhoeffer - I love the way he challenges me, I wish it was a book I owned, I may just have to go buy it after this semester is over (don't worry I borrowed it from the library instead!). He really challenges me to know my word better and what it says. To live out what I claim to believe in. He stood on his biblical convictions even though it ended up costing him his life.
The discussion that took much of our time in class was on his involvement with plotting to kill Hitler. I must say I am not sure I struggled with that aspect of him much (even though I believe I would struggle killing someone) because in the Old Testament God had His people wipe out entire nations. I must say I am not a pacifist. I agree with turning the other check but I also believe that the Bible teaches we are to stand with His people... I know that there are some in the class who take the stand of not killing. However, when the question was raised would you kill to protect your family? I am protective of my friends too. If I know they do not have a personal relationship with Christ then the answer to that question is easy for me. Let me ask this though, no this is not supporting pacifism, what would your friend or family member want you to do if they were ready to meet Jesus but the attacker wasn't? Conversely, what would you do if there was a large crowd of people who didn't know Jesus and an attacker who didn't know Jesus?... Playing with all the different possibilities in your head will make you sit down and figure out, at least contemplate, what your biblical convictions are on these matters.
PS -Rachel K
Heidegger's Miserable “Faith”
This semester, I have been extraordinarily generous with our texts. I've read them with an open mind; I've given allowances here and there to accommodate their ideas; and I've pushed aside my own thoughts, making an active attempt to see things through the authors' eyes. I have done so since the beginning. See the comment I left on Goldman's first post:
For our purposes here (understanding what Yeats wanted to communicate), it does little good to view this poem through our [Southern Baptist] evangelical lens. We should try and see the world from his eyes, if only for a second. - (25 January, 2012)Also see what I wrote concerning Martin Heidegger back in February:
Hopefully, I have given the bloggers some biographical perspective that allows them to see the work and philosophy of Heidegger in another view, other than our 21st century one, which often ignores historical context, and our evangelical Christian one, which often fails to wrestle with philosophers on their own terms.Read my other blog posts and my other comments, where I have brought outside sources to shed greater light on our subjects; where I have been extraordinarily generous in my reading; and where none can accuse me of not having wrestled with the texts.
The professors know this as well. After reading my "Explication of Heidegger's 'Fundamental Question,'" not even Dr. Talmage can say I didn't wrestle with the man on his own terms, which I clearly defined and understood. I am an intellectual heavyweight. But now my generosity is spent.
Today, we came full circle when I asked the question, "What is faith?" Endo, Bonhoeffer and Frankl are taking us back to where we started: Heidegger's fundamental question: "Why are there essents rather than nothing?" In my paper, I wrote,
When one truly asks the question, it strips away all his securities and formerly held presumptions, and it makes him vulnerable to whatever he finds, whether he finds a real or pretended foundation for being or none at all (Spell 1).And also,
To engage in metaphysics, one does not adhere to a set of fashionable "truths." Instead, he takes a leap of [uncertainty] without knowing where he will land. Though he may fall on solid ground, he may also fall into the abyss, but that is the risk all metaphysicians are willing to take (Spell 2).A metaphysician is one who questions. To question is to will to know, and to know is to be able to learn; therefore, to question is to be willing to learn what knowledge he does not possess. Someone who is unwilling to learn and believes he already "knows" the answers of life cannot be a metaphysician, because,
A faith that does not perpetually expose itself to the possibility of unfaith is no faith but merely a convenience: the believer simply makes up his mind to adhere to the traditional doctrine (Heidegger 7).Martin Heidegger's “faith” is synonymous to “doubt,” and I utterly reject it. His opinions amount to nothing. They lead only to a dark, knowledgeless abyss— it's dead empty! Why question? I will not expose myself to the possibility of unfaith, because I've made my mind to adhere to the traditional Christian doctrine, which is this:
Now faith [is] the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)So what if it's convenient? I've simply decided to follow Jesus. Undoubtedly, someone reading Bonhoeffer will say, "How can you have faith in Jesus, when faith means you're uncertain of where he leads you?" But I am completely certain where he leads me, because he makes it absolutely clear:
If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you (John 15:20).
Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted (II Timothy 3:12).And again, "How can you be certain of that?" Because I've made up my mind to believe the traditional doctrine (see above). I have the greater faith: the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. The people of old received their commendation for their faith. Now we receive it for our skepticism. Preposterous! I am content with being a simple Christian, like the ones in Abernathy's 202 class. With them, therefore, I stand.
I have stared into the abyss and, weighing the dangers, have walked away from it. To the abyss with you and your miserable, corrosive “faith,” Martin Heidegger! You wolf! You Anti-Christ! You dim-witted, mini-Hitler! Begone with you and your whore, Reason! I'll have no part with either of you.
Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. (Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569)