What is religionless Christianity? #2

In a previous post, I explained Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s idea of “religionless Christianity” primarily in terms of its institutional structure, such as the absence of the church. Here I try to explain the concept itself, while admitting that it still puzzles me. Bonhoeffer elaborated the concept of religionless Christianity in the two years before his murder by Hitler’s Gestapo, and it was undeveloped at the time of his death. I think it remains a puzzle for which we have, at best, no more than half the pieces.

Religionless Christianity is based on “a world come of age,” which began with the Enlightenment (early eighteenth century). Even before then, the Western world found less and less need for the “God hypothesis,” as Bonhoeffer calls it (Letters, pp 325, 360). Every thinker from Machiavelli to Hobbes to Galileo, and every discipline from science and technology to medicine and law, created worlds with no place for God. In some ways this is good, for in a world come of age people take responsibility for their own fates, instead of blaming God.

Continue reading What is religionless Christianity? #2

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: An unlikely hero

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: an unlikely hero.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), a German theologian who rejected theology, was an unlikely hero. Murdered by the Nazis for his participation in the plot to assassinate Hitler, one would never have guessed his ending from his beginning.

His father was the most important neurologist in the most important hospital in Germany. His twin sister Sabine was tutored by the daughter of Thedor Mommsen, Nobel prizewinner and classicist. As a student he commuted to the Humboldt University of Berlin with his neighbor, Adolf von Harnack, the most distinguished scholar of the German Protestant Church. Put simply, Bonhoeffer belonged to the Protestant elite. (p 45)

Bonhoeffer was financially dependent on his family almost his entire life. When he wasn’t traveling, he generally lived at home. Throughout his life he would mail his dirty laundry home, to be washed by servants, and returned by Deutsch Post. When he was running an underground seminary during the Hitler era, his parents gave him an Audi convertible so he could more easily come home on weekends. Not your average revolutionary.

He would never disown the advantages of birth or pretend to have surpassed them. It was an aristocratic confidence, he would insist, that helped him see through propaganda and resist mediocrity. (p 74)

The statement is, I believe, absolutely correct.

A theologian at 15

At the age of 15 he read a two-volume book on the beginnings of Christianity, and began signing his name “Dietrich Bonhoeffer, theol.” (p 17) By the end of his life he would reject both theology and the university. He was blessed with a large family and many friends, but never had a girlfriend. Finally, at the age of 36, he became engaged to his 17-year-old niece, whose mother insisted they wait. They never married; three months after his engagement he was jailed. He met Eberhard Bethge, his first real friend, when he was twenty-nine, ten years before his death. They were exceptionally close. Bethge married another of Bonhoeffer’s nieces while Bonhoeffer was in prison. Their first child was named after Dietrich.

Continue reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer: An unlikely hero

John Yoder: a great theologian, and decades of sexual assault

John Yoder: a great theologian and decades of sexual assault.

John Yoder is not nearly as widely known as Karl Barth or Reinhold Niebuhr. Yet, he is as significant as they, primarily because he politicizes Jesus in a convincing way. “Christianity Today” ranked The Politics of Jesus as the fifth most important religious book of the twentieth-century (v. 44, no. 5).

Yoder is also a troubling character, having been accused by more than one-hundred women of sexual abuse. His status, institutional cover up, and the absence of the #MeToo movement in the 1970’s protected him. I’m not sure how important sexual assault is in judging a theologian’s contribution, but I can’t believe that the behavior of the man doesn’t matter. More on this later in my post.

Yoder’s thesis: Christ was a political actor in a political world

A Mennonite, Yoder argued in The Politics of Jesus (1972), his most well-known book, that if one doesn’t think of Christianity as a confrontation with corrupt power, and instead thinks of it in terms of personal salvation, then one has missed the point.

Continue reading John Yoder: a great theologian, and decades of sexual assault

The Lord’s Prayer puzzles me

Something about the Lord’s Prayer (Pater Noster) has always puzzled me.* First, let me remind you of it.

Our father who is in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.** (Matthew 6:9-13. Compare with Luke’s abbreviated version, Luke 11:2-4)

Jesus tells us that the Lord’s Prayer is a private prayer. Don’t be like the Pharisees who stand on the corner muttering long prayers for everyone to hear. Don’t be like the pagans and go on and on. Go into your room, close the door, and pray this prayer in private. That’s all you need to do, for your Father knows what you need more than you do (Matthew 6:5-13).

Private or communal?

There’s a tension here. If it’s a private prayer, then why do all the pronouns refer to more than one? Every reference to “us,” or “we,” or “our” employs the Greek term hēmin (ἡμῖν; Strongs G2254), a collective pronoun. There is no “I” or “me.” In terms of its content, it seems to be a prayer intended for collective use during worship. Yet, Jesus introduces it as a personal prayer. Is there any way to make sense of this?

Continue reading The Lord’s Prayer puzzles me

A brief note on temptation in the Lord’s Prayer

A brief note on the phrase “lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” in the Lord’s Prayer. See https://godblog.org/the-lords-prayer-puzzles-me/ for the original post.

This phrase has puzzled many over the years, for why would God lead us into temptation in the first place? I don’t have a great answer, only a suggestion. My answer is basically the same as Richard Tyson’s of October 30, 2021. I simply suggest a paraphrase of the Greek.

Though almost all translations render πειρασμός (peirasmos) as temptation (Strongs 3986), the word could as easily be rendered “testing,” in the sense of “do not test our faith, for we know that we are weak.”

That would be a paraphrase, rather than a translation, but I see nothing in the context that contradicts it. The transliterated Greek is “peirasmos me eisenenkēs hemas eis peirasmon.” (Matthew 6:13)

There are many occasions in the Bible where God tests people. Job is perhaps the most dramatic example. I believe many people still see God as tempting their faith to make it stronger. It is not just the work of the devil.

Paul in love

Paul in Love. Several well-known Protestant theologians claim that Paul is the intellectual equal of the Greek philosophers. “Paul ranks with Plato and Aristotle as a thinker,” says N. T. Wright.* I don’t think so, but it hardly matters. Paul has his own great idea. Paul loves love. Nothing is more important than love.

The ancient Greeks had a lot to say about love, but almost always they were talking about eros (ἐρεῶ), passionate erotic love. If not, they were talking about philia (φιλία) based on a strong ongoing relationship. What Paul calls agape (ἀγάπη) is more and less than eros. Agape may be as intense as eros, but it is not as personal. It is hard to be erotically in love with more than one or two people. (Like the Greeks, I’m talking about love, not just sexual attraction.) Agape has room for more. Latin generally translates agape as caritas. When Paul speaks of charity (a translation from Latin), he is talking about agape.

What is agape? Sometimes people use the term to suggest a self-sacrificing love, the type of love Jesus had for humanity, and humans sometimes have for each other. But Paul’s meaning is broader than this. Agape is love that is concerned above all with the welfare of another. Faithfulness and commitment, as well as sacrifice, characterize agape. Eros, as the Greeks well knew, is fundamentally selfish (Plato, Symposium, 198c-213e); philia is more personal.

Continue reading Paul in love

On the best-selling Bible self-help book ever

On the best selling Bible self-help book ever.

I don’t usually review Bible study self-help books, but Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life, is so influential it deserves a post of its own.

The book was on the New York Times bestseller list for almost two years. It sold 32 million copies within its first decade. Fifty million copies had been sold in more than 85 languages by 2020. A survey of Christian leaders in 2005 asked which books were most influential in their lives and ministries. The Purpose Driven Life was the most frequent response (Wiki).

The book has an intriguing side story. Captive (2005), a docudrama, tells the story of Ashley Smith, who was held hostage in her apartment by Brian Nichols. Smith told reporters that during this time she read chapter 33 of The Purpose Driven Life to Nichols, which she says led Nichols to release her. After this story was on CNN, Warren’s book became Amazon’s number 2 best-seller.*

I imagine Warren’s book has helped some people live happier lives, which is more than one can say for most books. Nevertheless, I don’t like it very much, and I’ll tell you why. Some reasons are shared with other Bible-based self-help books. Others are unique to Warren.

Warren says his is not a self-help book.

The Bible says, “Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self.” This is not a self-help book. It is about becoming what God created you to be. (p 23)

By the way, don’t go looking for this quote in your Bible (Matthew 16:25). Warren quotes from a number of beginner Bibles. The Message Bible, quoted here, is a highly idiomatic “simplistic translation,” as Wikipedia calls it. I’m not sure this is all bad, for it makes scripture more accessible to some. Still, the reader should be aware.

Revelation

How do you know what God created you to be? The answer depends on God’s revelation (p 24). Trouble is, lots of people aren’t going to have a revelation. Others are going to convince themselves they have, but it will be the wrong one, driven by greed, lust, guilt, or fear. Most will probably choose the socially approved one, the revelation the church deems proper, such as live a Godly life, whatever that means exactly.

Revelation just isn’t an answer, and Warren knows it. His real answer is to look at your skills and talents, and examine the situation God has put you in—that is, your life. Balance the two. Ok, but that’s not terribly helpful.

Continue reading On the best-selling Bible self-help book ever

Creation science makes sense, but . . . .

Creation science makes sense, but . . . .

Many Christians, and almost all adamant atheists, see creation science as a backdoor to sneaking God into school curricula, and public life generally. Among most educated people, creation science lacks respect. Wikipedia defines creation science as “a pseudoscientific form of . . . creationism, which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible.” But what if we think about creationism more generally, as the claim that mind created the universe? Then it makes perfect sense, especially when you consider the alternatives: that the universe created itself, or that it has existed forever. “Perfect sense” doesn’t mean automatically true. It just means that it rests on a good argument.

The Odds

One argument for creationism is that the conditions under which the universe could form, including planets on which people could live, are so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. Roger Penrose estimates it as 1 in 10 ¹⁰¹²³. That is, 1 in 1 + 23 zeros. It’s a big number. Physicists have estimated that the entire universe contains “only” 10⁸⁰ elementary particles (Moyer, p. 238).*

The only alternative is God, or so some creationists conclude. But that puts it too narrowly. What if instead of God we say “mind”? We’ll see. But couldn’t life have formed itself, lightening setting off a chain reaction in a pre-biotic chemical soup? It’s possible, but again unlikely in the extreme, perhaps impossible. As John Walton wrote in the Times Literary Supplement, “intense laboratory research has failed to produce even one nucleotide (RNA component) under geologically plausible conditions.” Scientists have faced “insuperable problems” in explaining the origin of the information that would need to be present in “the chains of nucleotides required for the RNA world.” RNA is the first genetic molecule capable of reproducing itself.

Continue reading Creation science makes sense, but . . . .