the limitations of dogmatics

In Section 1 of Barth, he speaks of science, and dogmatics, as limited in their very nature. Our theories in dogmatics will only be as close to the truth as our reason allows… and our reason has failed us before. He states, “Christian dogmatics will always be a thinking, an investigation and an exposition which are relative and liable to error.” Thus, the theories of dogmatics will only ever be our limited human attempt to understand something that is beyond our grasp.

Taking this view of dogmatics, any given theology, though it may seem appealing over another, will never fully match up to the truth in its entirety. Why then is it that we have so many dogmatic theological arguments today as if one theory is right while the other is completely wrong? Can we have a theory that is better, less limited and closer to the truth than another? How will we know?

If we take the approach that Barth is taking concerning dogmatics, would we ever be able to accept one theology as greater than another? (Does Barth do this?) Or would we forever be left in a realm of possibilities, not ever able to accept a theory, but relying only on faith alone to get us through. Let’s just throw reason out the window. It’s faulty anyways. No, I believe Barth would hold that we need dogmatics, but he is mainly just giving us a caution against relying on our own man-made theories as truth. But still the question remains, how do I know which one is the closest to the truth??

I commented on Cody Martin's "Barth confuses me so I'll talk about science"

What to Say?

On page 11, when discussing Christian's job to share the gospel, Barth writes "what as Christians do we really have to say?" This is a huge question that every new christian, hopeful missionary, or pastor asks them self at some point in their life. What do you really need to say in order to tell non-Christians about God's amazing gift for us, or about his love and mercy? By excepting Jesus as our savior we take on the awesome task to attempting to save the souls of the lost through the power of Christ, and on this job all of Christianity rests. Without the spreading of the gospel, or any religion for that matter, the belief would just die out.

Well, I may have it all wrong, but I think that Barth is trying to say that the way that we Christians need to fulfill out duty and spread the good news is through dogmatics. I also think he says that by using dogmatics you can see that Christianity isn't just some religion, but it has a true history and has proof to back it up. I always remembered my youth pastor saying that the number one way to get an atheist or someone like that to believe what you're saying about the Bible is true won't be to use the Bible, but to use history and science. If you throw out scripture to someone who doesn't believe the Bible in the first place, your words will mean nothings to them. However, if you give them facts, they will listen. I think that I am understanding this reading, but I'm still not sure . . . I 'm sorry I missed class on Tuesday!

I commented on Jamie Kilpatrick's blog!

-Susan Berner

Communication Is Key

Communication is an extremely vital part of our world. What would happen if language was lost? There would be no way for things to stay in order. We always need to communicate with God. I would become lost if I could not pray. Praying to God brings a sense of comfort and happiness. We need to communicate whether it is with God or with each other. I have a deep respect for missionaries because they go into foreign lands to attempt to communicate the gospel to the natives. They understand how to talk to the foreigners in a way that cometimes makes them want to know God. Their communication is so vital. We use communication to spread the word of our Lord and Savior. Without it, there would be no way of spreading the word. We just need to learn how to make it easier for people who do not know God by using terms that they understand.

P.S. I commented on Jamie's post, "Lost In Translation."

"You are more than my words could ever say..."

Language is definitely one of my major interests, thus, this talk about the often failure of language. Being semi-proficient in two languages I see this a lot. Those close to me know the frustration I feel at trying to communicate something and sometimes having the word be lost in translation. The more fluent I become (in Spanish) the more I see this happen. I don't know if it's the excitement of learning a new language or reality, but I feel like the English language falls short in many ways in trying to communicate certain senarioes. Thats right, I like Spanish better than English. Learning another language can really give one a cool perspective on worldview and just meaning. Saying all puts even more emphases on what Barth says about the failure of language in relation to talking about God. Right now... I'm having a problem communicating all my feelings because words are hard!!!!.... right. okay.... bye then.

commented on Danielle's

Rebel Heart

“The greatest hindrance of faith is again and again just the pride and anxiety of our own human hearts. We would rather not live by grace. Something within us energetically rebels against it.” Why is this so? Why do we have a problem accepting grace? Why do we have a problem with faith? I think it’s because it’s something that is out of our control. We have to trust and leave the end result up to Someone else. For control freaks (like me) that’s kind of hard. Pride and anxiety are two natural reactions of the human heart but faith bursts through them both. But how do we have faith and keep anxiety from overwhelming us? By recognizing that circumstances are out of our control and trusting Him. We have to realize that His grace is sufficient. I know I’m probably preaching to the choir, but reading this in Barth really stood out to me and was applicable to my life today, and since I realized that I still needed to blog, I decided to talk about it a bit. ☺ We say we want to live by grace but how often do our actions reflect this? I know mine don’t always because I try to take things into my control…

The battle rages on/ as storm and tempest roar/ We cannot win this fight/ inside our rebel hearts/ we're laying down our weapons now/ we raise our white flag/ we surrender all to You/ all for You...

p.s. commented on Danielle’s

We Are the 1%, But Sometimes We'd Rather Be the 99%

So last Thursday we rebelled against the norm, and noise, and trekked across campus to a new location. As we were walking, Dr. Abernathy, who had no idea what we were doing, tried to get us to return to the Library. It made me think about peer pressure, which may or may not have anything to do with Bonhoeffer, but fits in my mind. At the moment I’m still not sure who the peer pressure came from, Dr. Abernathy or Dr. Schuler, who insists he was liberating the class. But I do know that Bonhoeffer had to have received a lot of pressure not to return to Germany. But he did it anyway, he stood strong.

As Christians, this is something we have to do. There is a lot of outside pressure to conform to what is easy and normal, but we can’t. We have to hold fast to what is written in God’s word. We have to be the 1%, not the 99%. If we’re the 99%, we’re taking the easy way out, even though I’m sure any “Occupy Wall Street” protestors would argue that the 1% has it easier. As the 1% we have to walk the straight and narrow path. Following this path isn’t as easy as it seems, especially during those times when everything seems to be going wrong, when we’re seemingly going straight uphill. It would be easier to take the wide path that slopes gently up and around, but we must take the more difficult route. We have to trust that Christ will guide us through the difficult passages so that we can arrive triumphantly on the other side.

I’m pretty sure I made no sense tonight, but add together being home, a family who doesn’t understand homework, a four year old who potentially has pink eye, and the stress of having to remind them I should not yet be at home, and you get a jumbled mess of thoughts that refused to organize themselves.

Enjoy class tomorrow, and someone please let me know via the Facebook page what we’re reading for Tuesday!

Tantum E Tenebris Receptum Constabit

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Jamie’s post “Lost in Translation”

Barth Confuses Me, So I'll Talk About Science.

The title says it all. I'm going to talk about using science to prove God.

I don't remember who it was that said it, but in class, it was mentioned that science could be used to prove God. I beg to differ. Science, by definition is a process used to observe phenomena, formulate a hypothesis, recreate the initial observed phenomena in a controlled environment, and then draw a conclusion from the observation of the experiment. There are a few problems present in the 'proving God' theory.

1) Science only deals with the empirical world.

We can't use science in the supernatural realm of understanding. Why? because it doesn't apply. for example, look at the Old Testament. Looking only at the Old Testament we could use 'science' to conclude that God will order mass genocide of all those who don't believe or make him angry. Now looking at the New Testament, we can see that this is not the case. As a matter of fact "It is not God's will that any should perish, but that all may come to know Him."

2) Science can only draw conclusions from observable, repeatable phenomena.

As before, we can't exactly draw a solid conclusion about God from looking solely at the Old Testament. His decisions differ from one another, as do His methods.

3) Science can't prove anything.

Science, according to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, is the observation and examination of observable, repeatable evidence. It also says that science can only draw conclusions from these observations and experiments. Science cannot prove phenomena. the closest anything dicovered by science can be to a property (the closest thing to an absolute truth in science) is a law, which is still disprovable.

4) Theology is not a science.

We talked a little bit about theology as a science. Unfortunately, this does not fit within the plane of science. Again, according to Britannica, science only deals with the physical realm. Last time I checked, theology did not deal with the physical world. Now, let me explain, theology is a study, thoughts and ideas can be derived in theology by the use of reason. However, it is not a science.

Now that all that's been cleared up, we can begin to clear up the discrepancies. Yes, we can use reason to deal with theological concepts. No, we cannot prove God. To do so would put God in the finite capacities of the human mind. Soren Kierkegaard said in our book last semester "In this day in age, no one is willing to stop with faith, but goes further." He was spot on, we try to understand who God is or why He does, but ultimately we will fail.

I hope that made sense.

~~Cody Martin

Commented on Hunter's 'To See His Face'

To See His Face

"To the ones with broken dreams, and to the lost and hopeless,

to the ones that stand up for what's right to the world,

come meet your King!"

-For Today, The Advocate

One of the great things about being an Honors student is being able to have deep discussions about life not just in class but outside. For example, at dinner today I took part in a lengthy discussion with Cody, Ben, and Bethany Polinkas, the latter of which is not an Honors student, but very intelligent. We talked about everything from the meanings in The Passion of the Christ, the nature of science, and everything in between. More specifically, we discussed the nature of realism vs. existentialism. The realist observes something in nature and knows what it is because of what it is, but the existentialist asks "why" it is what is. For the realist, there is nothing we can observe in this world that is beyond what we can see in this world and what is observable through science. However, philosophy is the means through which we examine reality and the way we live, and what we determine from that is passed on to science to get a full picture of existence. However, as Cody and Bethany clearly demonstrate, realism does not exclude the divine at all, because a science based mindset only highlights the incredible power of God and the unexplainable mystery of faith and the resurrection. There is no possible why to prove this, allowing for a more faith dependent of life and even more ardent worship.

I say all of that to talk about Barth and his perception of faith. To him, to accept God is to personally meet with the Holy Trinity and see it in its glory and truth. In this meeting, the new man understands that God is God because He says He is and that He is sovereign to the point that the man's life is automatically forfeit. He is clear and present in the sight of perception of the new disciple. Now, this would not seem to make any sense to the realist. The Christian realist understands that God, in His supreme majesty, is something he cannot possibly fathom, for he is so limited as a human being. How can He possibly meet us? Yet it is this supreme strangeness that makes God who He is, for it is only when the Holy Ghost breaks into the world through the invasion of Jesus Christ, which points us to the majesty of the Father's creation, that the realist can understand who God is. One of the most important things that my dad has ever taught me, and I've mentioned this several times, is that the Holy Spirit is literally standing with you at any given moment, and Barth would say that that understanding that is the once and for all decision. Faith is the ultimate freedom, but only for those who are willing to accept it. I personally have come to understand that I can't always count on hearing His voice. I have to understand Him through the scriptures, which truly are the voice of God, but when I earnestly ask to hear Him and see His face, it never fails. I have to make the choice to tune into His frequency, so to speak, not just shake Him like an 8 Ball. I must go and meet my King, and His ambassador goes with me. That is faith, and yes, it is a science, for I observe it every day.

Thank you for reading, please feel free to comment or argue as you please, I commented on Meghan Johnston's We Are the 1%, But Sometimes We'd Rather Be the 99%.

The Deconstruction of Truth.

As I read through the third section of Barth, I came across the word Logos a good many times. It stated that Logos is truth. This led me back to an apologetic article that I read on the postmodern condition. It states that ministry is harder than it used to be because of modern human nature. It said that modern society has a very unique perspective on truth. To society, truth is not relative. It stated that the definition of "truth" had been deconstructed so that each person has their own definition of what truth is. It continues to say that anyone that claim to have an ultimate source of truth is to be rejected. So as Christians, since we claim to have an absolute truth and moral standard, we are to be shunned. Also, documents that claim to be sources of the truth, such as the bible, are to be rejected as well for trying to force false truth on people. Unfortunately, since people turn their backs from relative truth, they rely on their own morality to tell them what is right or wrong. However, as sinful beings, our own morality can be faulty. Our morality can justify drug addiction, murder, and other atrocious things because there is no moral standard.

Jesus Christ needs to be our moral standard. Jesus Christ showed us the model lifestyle. He laid the foundation for Truth. It's like John 14:6 says: "Jesus answered, "I am the Way, the TRUTH, and the life."

I commented on Jamie's "Lost In Translation"

Lost in translation

While reading Barth, I couldn't help by think of Chemistry. (No, I'm not crazy, I promise.) Before I started taking Chemistry in the fall, the language was completely foreign to me. Many of the most basic equations looked like the greek alphabet threw up. Now, however, it is becoming easier to understand. What once meant nothing is now useful to me.

In my mind, this is how people outside of the church hear "church language." It sounds cool, but has no real meaning. As Christians, we are supposed spread the Gospel, but how can we possibly do that when much of the world doesn't understand us? We know that we have information that is useful, but unless we can communicate that information in a way that can be comprehended by those who are not part of the church, our information is completely useless. It is necessary for us to use the "common language of the world" in order to reach those who have yet to learn to speak our language.

Commented on Joy's

I think therefore I am...a Christian

Well I literally wrote down my thoughts… as I was thinking them. I’m trying to work out my thoughts about faith and reasoning. I’m still real lost trying to sort it out, but this blog is me attempting to think it through nonetheless.
So I was getting a little confused trying to follow the class discussion. I suppose the idea that faith and reason or intellect not being connected doesn’t make sense to me. I think that the ability to reason makes faith that much more valid… I’m getting stuck trying to process my thoughts right now… but okay In the Bible when it says “Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind’”. (That phrase is found in Matthew 22:37, and in Luke 10:27) With all your mind… I read that and maybe it is off base but I do think it does mean with your ability to reason. I don’t see how faith can be separated from ones intellect. I don’t really believe that people can be separated from their reason… no matter the situation one’s ability to reason is always a part of them. To separate that from faith would seem to me to be causing a divide of self… and when you think about it oneself is their only real means of sacrifice to God (maybe that’s not phrase right but I’m thinking Romans 12:1 and the whole idea of offering oneself as a living sacrifice). But maybe when we talk about faith and reason it’s not really about separating faith and reason but sacrificing the ability to reason in the sense that you accept what can’t be rationally explained. So this is where I’m at now…
Faith and intellect can’t be separated because one’s mind is so much a part of them that the separation of the two creates a divide of self… but when the Bible talks about living sacrifice that includes the mind, right? If so then yes Love God with your mind but still give up the ability to reasonably rationalize the divine because first of all it’s impossible and secondly because the mind is included when God calls us to sacrifice ourselves…

Ps. Wrote on Jannah’s post questioning assassination.

Never Alone

“Never Alone.” That’s a phrase repeated over and over in one of my favourite book series, The Door Within. It’s a reminder that servants of the King are never alone in any task they undertake for His glory. I know that it’s understood that God is always with us, but I’d never seen that specific phrase anywhere other than that series before I read Barth. He takes it more in depth; explains the weight behind those two words. Behind “Never Alone” is the unconditional and absolute promise that God has your back no matter what happens. That you are always in His company no matter where you are. It’s something that we’ve always been told in church, that God is always with us and that He sees everything, but sometimes it takes a fresh voice to make you really think about something. So, never alone.


P.S. I commented on Will's "Cohesion"

The Failure of Language

As an English major and writer, I am a lover of words.

So what happens when I start realizing that they fail? They confuse. They lose their meaning. Even more--what does that mean for me, loving the description of Jesus as 'the Word made flesh'? Sometimes I catch myself wondering what that even means.

Barth translates the Word as Logos, which he later defines as meaning and truth. If Christ is the Word, the Meaning, the Truth--that starts to mean a whole lot more. In modernity, the world seems to have turned to mush and lost it's meaning. Language has ceased to be sufficient, and words seem to hinder us connecting in meaningful relationships. Even worse is the fear that once something is spoken, it ceases to lose it's meaning. It is no longer in your heart and mind being meditated on, but thrown out into the universe and often forgotten. Words typed up on a page are skimmed over or not even read at all. "Words, words, words!" as Hamlet says. It's somewhat maddening. But Jesus as the Meaning--now that is something modernity needs.

--commented on Will's

So because I am writing my paper partly on Bonhoeffer I decided to blog on some things that stood out to me in The Cost of Discipleship.

In section 5, Bonhoeffer begins to talk about Luke 14 verse 26. In this verse Jesus says, "If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Bonhoeffer makes the statement that, "It is Christ's will that he should be thus isolated, and that he should fix his eyes solely upon him.," where, "he," refers to a disciple. I find this to be one of the most difficult parts of discipleship, because I highly value my relationships with those around me. The idea of isolation honestly scares me and it is a constant struggle to completely focus on God in this aspect. Continuously fighting to put God first is an extremely rewarding battle though, filled with growth that I truly long for.

P.S. I commented on Will's post

Cohesion

One thing I've learned here at UM is that no matter which classes I take, there is always cohesion.

I picked up on it again in the last session.

Barth speaks of the difference between scientia (knowledge of) and sapientia (knowing something intimately). Right before reading this piece, I had thought about Spanish and the difference between "saber" and "conocer." The former means "to know information", the latter means to be familiar with. They both translate into "to know" in the English language. Unfortunately, this may actually be a point that foreign languages are allowed to put on the scoreboard over English.

This, I believe, is the difference in Dr. Talmage's illustration. One person, the scientist/philosopher that looks strictly at the empirical evidence, uses personal knowledge to attempt understanding. Another person, the person of faith, sees the empirical evidence and is touched by God's knowledge.

Language is key in understanding Barth, science, philosophy, and even God, yet it does fall short quite often.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. I commented on Samantha's "Titles Vex Me."

Titles Vex Me

What are we to think and say about Karl Barth?

Well, I do know that the whole evolution discussion took me back to biology with Mr. Carey last semester. If you ever want to have a real argument about it, step out of our minor honors debates on the matter and sit down in his office one day, then come talk to me. I type that with excitement not condescension.

I know I said this in class, and I know I go back to this a lot, but I am ever reminded of my first true encounter with doubt and fighting for my faith in Mashburn's class. Getting to the point that I do not believe what I believe because of ______, but that I believe in spite of _____ was no easy feat, but that is the resolve for me. It was nice to see it affirmed with Barth. "When we believe, we must believe in spite of God's hiddenness. This hiddenness of God necessarily reminds us of our human limitation."

In chapter three when Barth says that Christian faith is not irrational, anti-rational, or suprarational, I think he does something crucial to his defense against scientia. It is not a war against science, so to speak, but I think he takes the scientific view that we cannot bring issues like metaphysics, faith, and the like up against science because there can be no solid proof. And sure, Mr. Carey and many of his colleagues are right, there is not necessarily empirical evidence for any of this. Barth brings Christianity, faith, and God back down to Earth when he puts the Church into earthly history and earthly time. He makes it something for the flawed rational, he makes it something we can touch because he reminds us of Christ becoming wholly man. Barth brings it down so that we can encounter faith and Christ the way we encounter one another. When Christ came, he was just as human as you and I but he is also wholly God. He was and still is One to be encountered and to know, as in the Spanish verb conocer: to be familiar with or acquainted with, as in a person or place.

I am not sure what Barth wants us to do about it flawed and fallen as we are. And maybe he only does all of this so we can better ask the question and understand it: What are we to think and say?

COMMENTED ON JOY'S

Macroevolution

Today something was said in class about Christian evolution... You know trying to make those two things mesh just does not work out well. You are trying to mesh two different beliefs. I do not believe that God left room for us to interpret macro-evolution into the creation story or the grand scheme of things. He did so intentionally. "GOD CREATED." That is not to say that there is not micro-evolution. To say that would be like saying someone from up North can never adjust to our weather in Mobile so they have to move back up to New York or wherever. Or saying that someone from Mobile could not adjust to the cold up North... God did create us to be able to adapt. However, we did not evolve from other creatures and I do not believe that the world is millions of years old or that it formed from two atoms striking. Science, history, and the Word do not support such a belief, they actually disprove it.

Ps - AJackson "Never Alone"

talking of Michelangelo.

We’ve been given these books about suffering because they’re supposed to be speaking to us. Talking to us. And all I’ve found is waste and misery. And strange feelings of contempt for myself as I complain about my slight headache. As if my own life is something I should hold onto more precious because it is free from pain. And yet finding, like the Catcher in the Rye and like Prufrock- that I can’t.

I turn back to Ecclesiastes, because last semester Dr. Mashburn assigned me a paper on it and ever since then I haven’t been able get it out of my mind. If everything was really meaningless would we really have the need to read Frankl’s book? I am beginning to understand that there are some questions I may never answer. May never be able to put into boxes in my mind. Right now it feels like there is no answer to suffering. No meaning in the silence of God. Because really- do existentialists ever face the why? I mean they are into the how, but the why? In this I mean to say- why do you want to live? Why do you want to avoid suffering? In this case it seems to me that evil is universal. It must be- to further the conversation. Suffering is real and tangible to all. This feeling of suffering seems universal and sweeping and all-encompassing. Surely if this darkness is so very real, there is a hope that is greater than this.

well, now i feel a lot better. maybe this will help my paper writing. we're allowed to blog rant right? it's a direct response to my reading, but for good measure I'll just throw in that I liked Bart but i don't know what Talmage would have to say about his whole "faith being knowable" thing. seems directly opposite to what Talmage said last week- yet i see in myself signs of both.

Here are some quotes that help me make sense of everything:

defenseless under the night, our world in a stupor lies

yet, dotted everywhere, ironic points of light

flash out wherever the Just exchange their messages.

may i, composed like them of eros and of dust

beleaguered by the same negation and despair

show an affirming flame.

-auden

“The world is not respectable; it is mortal, tormented, confused, deluded forever; but it is shot through with beauty, with love, with glints of courage and laughter; and in these, the spirit blooms timidly, and struggles to the light amid the thorns.”

- George Santayana

What is Evil? (An Infographic)

Last Thursday, the Honors class discussed the nature of evil: what it is and how it manifests itself in human affairs. From my notes, I created an infographic to outline the discussion and to keep future conversation focused.

Click to enlarge.

Among us, it may be generally assumed that evil is whatever is contrary to good, but this raises other questions. What is good, and if so, who or what defines it? Is there good? Is there evil? These are questions for which an answer must be sought, but for now, I digress.

EDIT: I commented on Joy Vignuelle's "Macroevolution."

cast the first stone

There was something from class that was said that kind of bothered me in class last Thursday, and I have been thinking on it ever since. It was talked about several times by several different classmates that people who call themselves christians cannot give a reason for their faith, and could never know what it is like to give up much for Christ's sake.

Now before we go casting the first stone, let us think about who is to blame for that. Granted, spiritual maturity and intellect should be sought after for every believer, but it is our responsibility as those who have walked with Christ for years to train and to teach. When we hear of these "Weak Christians", we have to wonder how much of that reflects our actions, or lack there of. A key part of discipleship that we have to remember is that we are supposed to be like Christ, which in turn would mean that we should have a circle of people we invest in and so an and so forth. HE assured us that we would do far greater things than He has done. Why then have we not shown it? If we think we have enough of this figured out to the point of calling others out, then let us be consistant and lift those up and teach them as they should go so that they/we will look different than the world...

p.s I commented on Nick Hampton's post

Who Am I?

In the memoir section of The Cost of Discipleship, we read Bonhoeffer's poem "Who Am I." When I first read this poem, I was immediately reminded of a camp called Crosswild I have been a part of since middle school. The summer before my senior year of high school, Crosswild's theme was I Am. Through the course of the week, different session topics were things like I Am Called, I Am Saved, I Am Loved and other ones I'm currently having trouble remembering. The aim of that week though, was to paint a picture of that very question. Who Am I? When a life spent following Christ is being pursued, then this question will inherently be asked.

We may see this question as insecurity or doubt, but realistically I think this question is an incredibly important part of being honest in one's walk. When we pursue God's will for our lives, we wrestle with concerns of what we are called to do, where we are called to go, all these things become part of our thinking. I would assert though, that we can lose ourselves all too easily in these questions if we do not confront the main question first.

Before anything else we must strive to establish our innermost identity in Christ, "that I may gain Christ and be found in Him." If all of those other questions are confronted before this, then when things dont go as we expected, then that is all we are left with. However, when one's very identity is founded in Christ, then that will always be there regardless of any and all other circumstances. When life hits the fan, I Am still exactly who God created me to be and I know that He loves me and has a plan for me. That cannot be taken away.

This is the conclusion that Bonhoeffer brings his poem to in the last line, "Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God, I am Thine!" Throughout the poem, he essentially lists insecurities and other ideas pertaining to who he is. He talks about doubts in himself, other's opinions of him, and different things that have happened, yet in the end, he still knows who he is. He is who he is in Christ. That is the only true constant and thus, can never be taken away from him. Whatever happens, we are His.

p.s. I commented on Susan's

Is assassination justified?

     To be honest I've been struggling with some questions. The biggest question, that I still cannot answer, is should a Christian be a part of a group to assassinate someone? Which leads me to another question, is there ever a time when Christ would lead you to assassinate someone?
    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

Giving Up EVERYTHING???

A thought that came to mind when we were discussing Bonhoeffer. I asked myself if I would have done what the disciples did when Christ called the to drop everything and follow Him.

In the society we live in, we can’t imagine having to give up all of our junk for anything. We can’t even imagine giving up anything. This makes me think that I can have no idea what it must have been like to give up everything to follow Christ. Yes we may face “persecution,” but in present day America, what is that other than some one turning away from you when you say something about Christ?

So, my thought from earlier, would I, or any of you, be willing to literally give up everything to follow Christ or if it was harder than most people have it here would we just give up?

PS - I commented on Anna Rhodes' post.

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

Well, from what I understand I missed out on quite the discussion in class the other day. Not gonna lie--I am not entirely sure how we got on the subject of killing Hitler, considering Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship doesn't really discuss anything about it, though I do understand that he was a part of the plot to assassinate Hitler.

First of all, I will just say that any hypothetical situation or generalization will not do this question justice. For me, this dilemma deals only with Hitler and the Holocaust--not some other historical event or some imaginary situation. If I was Bonhoeffer, seeing the injustice, having people I cared about killed, knowing in my heart of hearts how wrong and powerful this man was: I would have killed him. Now would I have thought it was just? Perhaps not. I would have done it, but I would have been fully ready to accept the consequences, begging for forgiveness. I probably would have realized that Hitler and I were both pretty great sinners. I would need a lot of grace. Eventually, I might even regret what I did--but for the most part I could pretty confidently say that I would have felt that I saved a lot of souls from perishing, though I had killed one. Yes, morally that might not be right. In the end, though, there is really no good option. It is simply a matter of what consequences you are willing to suffer.

On another note entirely, I found it very cool that in my bible study, at True Spin, and in my reading that the body of Christ was discussed. Neal even quoted Bonhoeffer a lot. One of my favorite sections in The Visible Community says:

"A truth, a doctrine, or a religion need no space for themselves. They are disembodied entities. They are heard, learnt and apprehended, and that is all. But the incarnate Son of God needs not only ears or hearts, but living men who will follow him."

It adds a bit more reality to the whole being a Christian idea if you think about it. It's pretty sweet.

Commented on Tori's.

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?

Our discussion our Tuesday really got me thinking a lot about death and killing (such happy topics . . . not!). A lot of people said that they think it is not a human's place to kill someone in self defense, or to end the life of a person who is destroying the lives of many other innocent people. I really don't think that anyone is really in the position to sit in our safe classroom at our christian college in Alabama and judge those who have killed dictators or saved the lives of many people by killing another in self defense. It is easy to judge someone from the sidelines, but I know that if I was ever put into the situation where someone was trying to kill me, I would do everything in my power to defend myself. If that meant that I had to kill the villain trying to hurt me, I would. I wouldn't be happy about it, but I believe that God gave humans the nature instincts to live. I don't want to die and I certainly hope that no one else in our class wants to either! I know that we are not the ones who judge other humans, but that doesn't mean that we should just throw our lives away. To say that humans shouldn't judge other people because God is the only true god is like saying that there should just be no lawyers or judges to put people behind bars. But of course we would never do that because then there would be even more criminals running free around the world than there already is. Basically what I am trying to say in my rambling is that we live in a cursed world, which means that we are going to be faced with murders, death, and difficult decisions, but that doesn't mean that we should just let the innocent be murdered. I think it is okay and even good to protect the innocent and tho kill anyone like Hitler who is killing entire people groups and starting war between anions.

I commented on Amanda Gaster's blog!

Hitler vs. the world

In class on Tuesday, I really wrestled with our discussion about whether or not killing Hitler is justified. Personally, if I was locked in a room with Hitler and happened to have a gun on me, I would probably shoot him without hesitation simply out of hatred. Emotionally, I can justify this action. Genocide should be punished, who can argue with that? I can't help but bawl like a baby when I watch a Holocaust documentary or read a book about it's victims (i.e. Frankl). Just thinking about it breaks my heart like few other things can. Yet... Spiritually and morally I cannot justify taking a life, no matter whose life it is. Who are we to decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die? If Hitler deserves to die, then so do I. This may sound extreme, but how many lives are on my hands because I neglected my Christian duty to bear witness? God says that when we withhold the Gospel from someone their blood is on our hands. So, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.Taking Hitler's life is like saying, "God, I don't trust you to make things right and I'm not so sure you know what you're doing by letting such an evil man gain so much power. Since you aren't doing your job, I'll just take matters into my own hands." or in more concise words, "Hold up, God. I got this!" it is not our job to play God. He is the God of justice, and we are merely sinners, just like Hitler. David had many chances to kill Saul, but instead he waited on God's justice. I'm pretty sure this post also summarizes my view on Capitol punishment. You can chew my ear off about the impossibility of accommodating so many prisoners and "an eye for an eye", etc., but I will never completely agree with giving the government the power to decide a person's fate. Thus, why I will NEVER be a politician...

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

I listened intently to the debate about whether Hitler should have been killed or not. I was very torn between whether I thought Hitler should have been killed or not. I think he got out of it too easily when he committed suicide. I understand that he murdered millions of people, but who are we to judge him? I am not supporting Hitler, but I feel that he will receive his fate from our very just God. Murder can be a very touchy subject. People have killed just to kill while others have killed in self defense. We have soldiers who go overseas and kill people every day. I feel that we take it upon ourselves to decide whether killing is right or wrong when it is really God's decision that counts. We do have a right to put dangerous people in jail to protect the lives of others, but we do not need to judge them for what they have done. It was a very difficult debate Tuesday and it is hard to make a decision. We really just need to pray for these people who feel that they need to kill. They will receive their judgement from God when they go before Him.

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!

Bonhoeffer has so much in his writings, my mind is still thinking about his first chapter on cheap grace and costly grace. He ruined me. After I read that chapter, I applied that chapter to every Christian thing I encountered. I became overly aware of every time I presented the gospel and how I presented it. Because the truth is, we of course want people to accept Christ and be saved by Him, but out of our own desires and  sympathies for their soul we make the gospel something easy and pleasing. We make it cheap. Anyone can get it. Which is true. However, if I sharing only a portion of the gospel - the portion that is popular and easy to share - just to win a great number of souls to "heaven" then I'm not really sharing the true gospel. I'm sharing Chloe's heart. The outcome won't be true followers of the true Christ, but followers of Chloe's heart, which is an extremely scary thought. It reminds me of this devotion book I'm going through right now (My Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers-read it). Chambers takes several days to emphasize the Christian's responsibility to be the Bridegroom's friend, all based on the passage where John explains that he rejoices to hear the Bridegroom's voice and ends with the famous verse -"He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30 Christians fail to be the Bridegroom's friend when they stand in the Bridegroom's way and become necessities to a soul because they preach a false message or give commands out of what could be a genuine care for the soul. However, because the Christian is constantly giving direction to the soul, discipling it in a way that isn't God's order, the soul is following and worshipping them, and in actuality doesn't even know who God is.  So essentially we do the same thing when we preach the cheap "grace." I can most easily see this cheap grace when in my Jihad and Crusade class Pope's  and other church leaders proclaimed that God would forgive all of men's sins if they would go and fight "for Him" in pursuit of the holy city Jerusalem. But now I'm like afraid that every Christian song like David Crowder's "Oh Happiness" is a song of cheap grace. Or in his song How He Loves when he sings the line "if grace is an ocean then i'm sinking." Which these things are true, God's grace does abound. But I don't know, I guess I'm over thinking everything, which goes against Bonhoeffer anyways, since faith transcends intellect.
p.s. commented on Amanda's

Faith is not rational.

We ended class Tuesday with a discussion about the
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?

In Class on tuesday, we had the discussion of whether or not it is ok to kill someone just because they are a bad or evil person. For example with the situation of Hitler. I didn't say anything in class, I just listened to the discussion. And I may be going off on my on tangent here, but it reminded me alot of the idea of capitol punishment. If someone went and intentionally murdered another person, then does that person deserve to die as well? This issue is definitely a debated one for sure. In the aspect of Hitler's case where he had thousands of Jews slaughtered. That is another whole issue! That is thousands of innocent people! Of course that is wrong! However, in view of Bonhoeffer, it was brought up that he is not as concerned about morality as he is on whether one has encountered Christ. In my personal view, killing (murder) is wrong. What Hitler did was very wrong, no doubt about it. I believe that Bonhoeffer was looking at something completely different. He was looking at a person's soul. Have you truly encountered God? Yes, some may say "I know God" but does God Know YOU? I think, just as Dr. Talmage mentioned, the crucial thing here is whether or not GOD knows You and if you have truly had an encounter with Him.

Ps i commented on Lane's post
  

Still On My Mind

Read Romans 13 before reading this post.

I'm sure a few others have mentioned this already. The Bonheffer discussion has taken residence in my subconscious. I'm not in a wrestling match with it, but it is following me around.

Samantha and I discussed another side of it last night. The circumstance of attack from another citizen is different than oppression from a leader. The argument should distinguish between the two.

I had a few thoughts about the actual scenario myself. Quite often it is possible to escape an attack without death of either party. Due to the fact that we don't often encounter these predicaments (I'd dare say that no student in the class has), we exaggerate them to be a "kill or be killed" situation. It doesn't matter who the person is, there is a point where any person will stop (physically through incapacitation, psychologically through pain). It is not necessary to kill in order to avoid death.

Another thought: the refusal to kill is not the same as pacifism.

I'm still not sure what to think. We are fighters. We want to survive, to kill, and to win. We're corrupt and we are tempted to find pleasure in justifying situations in which we can kill (e.g. Zombie apocalypse) or to outrightly sin.

Thank Christ for his sacrifice that covers all sins, even undefinable ones.

Ad augusta per angusta,

Will Drake

P.S. Commented on Lane's "Bonhoeffer"

The Worst

"And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I AM the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them."
-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

Bonhoeffer is one of my personal heroes. I had already heard about him before we started reading him in class but my curiosity peaked when I saw him on the reading list for this semester. He has personally challenged me to get deeper in my knowledge of God and my knowledge of the Bible. He also challenges me to always live out what I teach, preach, or just say in general. We all need to learn a little from Bonhoeffer. He had personal convictions and he stood by them regardless of what would happen to him. Which as we know it wound up costing him his life. That's another thing I've spent so much time thinking about. When it comes down to it am I willing to die for a cause? Would I give up my life to share the good news of Christ with others? Would I stand by my personal convictions even if I knew it would cost me my life? Things I've spent so much time pondering the last couple of weeks.

I commented on Joy's post

All Of It Together

I must say it was a relief to hear that I was not the only one struggling with why we were reading what we were this semester. I understood the reasoning behind some of it but other pieces we read I just could not figure their purpose... I still am not sure on all of it to be honest, but I have definitely enjoyed the books we have read!

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 21^st 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)

Meh

I am not really one for an argument. In fact I flea confrontation. A good discussion- I might participate in but it depends on the people involved. When entering into a discussion like the one we had in class together it is so very important to remember a couple of things:

1. Listen

2. Be respectful: do not allow emotions to attack one another. Raising voices often does not change anyone's mind.

I could give a lot more rules for pleasant discussions but I don't suppose many people want to have pleasant discussions when discussing something so emotional as other people's lives.

On the Topic of Bonhoeffer: I find it interesting given what I have read of "The Cost of Discipleship" that Bonhoeffer chose to be apart of a plot to kill Hitler, he didn't really seem to allude to many of his political philosophies within this work. Although, I suppose that makes lots of sense since this book is truly written for the church.

In class today, I think we were addressing more than one issue....

I would say the majority of the class and the Christian community accepts the notion of rebellion against an unjust ruler. The question is not whether or not rebellion against an unjust ruler when that ruler is asking a Christian to disobey God's commands because I can't think of anyone who would disagree with that idea. Further, however separately, if someone is trying to stab you, the Bible does not particularly advocate allowing that person to kill you. However, some people do read it this way.

The REAL question revolves around whether or not as a Christian it is right to kill an unjust ruler. And I think a lot of people were so distracted by the 12 million people in concentrations camps (a terrible injustice) to get at the deeper question. Yes, there are 12 million people in the concentration camps, but that does not mean the solution to their freedom is to kill the leader, necessarily or that after that leader has been killed that the action is just. Leaving Hitler alive could cause him to create a worse situation for the people in Germany, but killing Hitler could cause an uprising of a vengeful force....

In Nursing 252 "Professional Socialization" we had a 2 hour class about ethical dilemmas. The fact of the matter is the reason these kind of things are called into question is because they are ethical dilemmas, neither option is preferable. Both options will result in negatives, but the one making the decision must weigh the options and make a decision. Now, obviously in class we were discussing ethical dilemmas which can be found in hospital settings however, the principle does not change.

I'm not really sure if I said anything at all.....