Confessing Courage – Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945)

BibleMesh | December 27, 2011 | BibleMesh, Church History, Ethics, History, Politics

The name, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945), has become a byword for conviction and courage. In 1935, ten years before the Nazis hanged him in Flossenburg, Bonhoeffer presided over a seminary consisting of twenty-five young pastors. They were all part of the Confessing Church, believers who refused to drape Hitler’s policies with the Christian flag. Therefore, the seminary was illegal; they literally risked their lives to pray together, study together, and live together. In 1937 the Nazis shut down this clandestine seminary, and a year later Bonhoeffer wrote Life Together, reflections on a Christian community. In the pages of this book, he taught that courage is not only standing up against the unbelieving world; it includes standing up against one’s own sin in the context of the local church.

The Church had many enemies in Bonhoeffer’s day. Even before Hitler used religious language to promote his goals, modernism replaced the cross with “progress.” Commenting upon his time at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Bonhoeffer wrote, “I never heard of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . of the cross, of sin and forgiveness, of death and life (while) in New York . . . only an ethical and social idealism which pins its faith to progress.”¹ In Germany, the success of social idealism and Nazi nationalism meant the Church risked forgetting what God calls her to be: a community of faith subject to the Word of God. In order to fulfill this mission, Bonhoeffer encouraged believers to regularly confess their sins to one another (James 5:16).

Why is this so important? Because, according to Bonhoeffer, a congregation without mutual confession of sin is a church afraid to be sinners: “The pious fellowship permits no one to be a sinner. So everybody must conceal his sin from himself and from the fellowship.”² Bonhoeffer lamented this state of being. What an awful paradox: saved by the work of Christ alone and yet unwilling to let one’s sin be known. Why the silence? “Confession in the presence of a brother is the profoundest kind of humiliation. It hurts, it cuts a man down, it is a dreadful blow to pride. To stand there before a brother as a sinner is an ignominy that is almost unbearable.”³ And yet the shame must be born in order to follow Christ: “The Cross of Jesus Christ destroys all pride. We cannot find the Cross of Jesus if we shrink from going to the place where it is to be found, namely, the public death of the sinner. And we refuse to bear the Cross when we are ashamed to take upon ourselves the shameful death of the sinner in confession.”⁴

Is godward confession insufficient? Must a third party be brought into the mix? Bonhoeffer warned his readers that those ready to be honest with God while refusing to be vocal with their brother may be living in hypocrisy:

[W]e must ask ourselves whether we have not often been deceiving ourselves with confession of sin to God, whether we have not rather been confessing our sins to ourselves and also granting ourselves absolution. And is not the reason perhaps for our countless relapses and the feebleness of our Christian obedience to be found precisely in the fact that we are living on self-forgiveness and not real forgiveness.⁵

Yes, there is room for prudence in public confession. Done wrong, it can pointlessly titillate or humiliate others, including friends and loved ones. Sometimes it amounts to confessing the sins of others: “I repent of harboring ill feelings toward this brother who has wronged me.” But the dangers should only lead believers to exercise care in such confession—not to shun it.

In light of Bonhoeffer’s willingness to die for the faith, the call to mutual confession may seem minor, even trite. Not to him. He knew that dictators rise and fall. Persecution comes and goes. But the Church endures, and, until Christ returns, she is full of sinners. The courageous sinner, redeemed by the blood of Christ, will fight his sin by being honest about it, confessing it both to God and a brother or sister. Such courage may not make the history books, but it will mark those written in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Rev. 21:27).

——————————————
¹ Quoted by James and Marti Hefley, By Their Blood: Christian Martyrs of the Twentieth Century (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1996), 203.
² Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1954), 110.
³ Ibid., 114.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid., 115-116.

“An Elemental Moral Code”—Hugh Heclo

BibleMesh | December 5, 2011 | BibleMesh, Culture, Ethics, Politics, World Religions, Worldview

Hugh Heclo, a professor of political science at George Mason University, argued at Harvard University in March 2006 that American democracy depends upon Christianity. Politically, morally, and socially, the doctrines of the Christian faith nurtured democracy. While many grant that religion in general is an important cultural foundation, Heclo asserted that Christianity specifically is a religion well suited, even today, for freedom. He explains why in the following excerpt from his book Christianity and American Democracy. Christianity and democracy share a common enemy: hypocrisy.

[T]raditional Christianity comes with an elemental moral code that helps stabilize and order an otherwise chaotic democratic society. It teaches people to be honest rather than lie, to be fair rather than cheat, to keep rather than break promises, to shun selfishness, and all the rest. Of course, there are many citizens who try to behave morally without the Christian God, or any god at all. And certainly there are many immoral Christians. The point is that traditional Christianity makes it its business to ferret out religious hypocrisy. Given the temptations to misuse freedom, it is likely one will be surrounded by a democratic society that simply works better if it has citizens in it who not only try to do the right thing but who know why, because of the teachings of their religion, they are under a personal and higher obligation to actually do it.¹

————————————————-

¹ Hugh Heclo, Christianity and American Democracy (Cambridge: Harvard University, 2007), 236-237.

Can the President Seek God’s Guidance?

David Roach | August 17, 2011 | Culture, Politics, Scripture

Fresh off her victory in the Iowa straw poll, presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press this past Sunday, and things got interesting when host David Gregory asked about her faith. Take a look:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

First, honesty compels us to credit Gregory where he’s right: submission is not synonymous with respect. And Bachmann could have answered that question both more logically and more biblically. Far more troubling though, was his questioning about God’s guidance, for he suggested that it would be wrong for Bachmann to ask God to guide her in decision making if she were to become President.

So is it indeed odd for a Christian (as Bachmann professes to be) to speak of God’s guidance in decision making? Is that overly mystical or weird? Not according to Scripture:

–Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths (Proverbs 3:5-6).

–If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him (James 1:5).

–He leads the humble in what is right, and teaches the humble his way (Psalm 25:9).

–Walk about Zion, go around her, number her towers, consider well her ramparts, go through her citadels, that you may tell the next generation that this is God, our God forever and ever. He will guide us forever (Psalm 48:12-14).

–And the Lord will guide you continually… (Isaiah 58:11).

–Nevertheless, I am continually with you; you hold my right hand. You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory (Psalm 73:23-24).

–When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come (John 16:13).

We could go on, but you get the idea. God does grant His people wisdom and guidance in decision making, and He expects them to ask Him for help—whether they are auto mechanics, teachers, waiters, stay-at-home moms, or the President of the United States.

But why would a respected journalist suggest that it is wrong for the President to seek God’s guidance? The answer seems to be that he views God’s guidance as either an insufficient or inappropriate basis for governing a nation. A tragic conclusion. Whether or not they vote for Bachmann, if American voters share David Gregory’s view, the country is in trouble. Thankfully, God doesn’t share Gregory’s view.

Anthony Weiner and Gospel Apologies

Owen Strachan | June 14, 2011 | Politics

You have likely heard of the Anthony Weiner scandal and his ensuing apology. A married man, Weiner “sexted” with several women until he posted a salacious photo intended for private viewing to his public Twitter account. Those who still doubt the utility of Twitter, take note. It now accounts for the loss of a shamed public servant.

With many others, I followed these developments with interest. I wanted to see how Weiner apologized. There have been a spate of these kind of men-behaving-badly fiascos and the inevitable apology often sounds like a remixed personal pep talk. ”I see now that I acted out of line with my personal convictions, and I am determined to do my very best to live up to all that my thousands of fans expect of me.” You hear this sort of shlock all the time.

As far as public confessions of shame by disgraced men go, this one was actually pretty good. Here’s a snippet:

I have exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years. For the most part, these relation– communications took place before my marriage, though some have sadly took place after.

To be clear, I have never met these any of these women or had physical relationships at any time. I haven’t told the truth, and I’ve done things I deeply regret.

I brought pain to people I care about the most and the people who believed in me, and for that I’m deeply sorry. I apologize to my wife and our families, as well as to our friends and supporters.

I’m deeply ashamed of my terrible judgment and actions.

Here’s the whole transcript.

As I said, this apology was solid–maybe a six out of ten. Of course, Weiner stopped short of giving his apology backbone. He has vowed to stay in office. An apology is not enough. Egregious actions should have serious consequences. It’s not sufficient to stand in front of some cameras and confess. Confession should bring contrition–expressed in the form of action like, say, resigning.

But that’s a matter for another message-board discussion. All of this hubbub had me thinking about apologies. Apologies are not just pro forma statements of contritive fact. They are utterances from the core of our being that we are in the wrong. Apologies are a form of common grace. In a world ruled by Satan, not by God, no one would apologize. Everyone would excuse their actions or ignore them. When we fail to apologize to our spouse or roommate or employer, we are picturing a little bit of a world order ruled by vicious principalities and powers.

But when, because we have been transformed by Christ, make regular apologies as we necessarily must, we are giving the world a glimpse of a much greater realm and a much greater king. We are, in fact, acting out the core of faith. To follow God is to say, at the core, “You are right and I am wrong.” That is the essence of conversion. The Holy Spirit births this kind of instinct in us at the moment when we are converted and he relentlessly and graciously animates that instinct in us whenever we say we are sorry, whether for lying about taking out the trash or ruining our marriage.

The gospel activates and propels numerous virtues–courage, self-awareness, humility, and more–but they nowhere cohere more beautifully than in a simple apology. The person who hates the gospel–and this is all of us naturally–may apologize, but does so from a heart that hates doing so. The Christian, on the other hand, recognizes that he or she is continually in the wrong and exposed as a sinner before a holy, majestic God. This produces a life of confession, of humility. Though it’s still difficult as a Christian to say, “I’m sorry,” there is a joy in doing so, for we are acting in distinctly Christocentric ways.

The next time we speak unkindly to our husband or wife; the next time we lust after someone who is not ours; the next time we self-justify our actions for the thousandth time; the next time we fail to care well for our children and leave them to flounder; the next time we act selfishly and do not care for the needy among us; in all of these instances, we can take joy in knowing that we are freed by grace to apologize. The gospel has come, and it has struck. We are transformed. Our sin resides, but grace is greater. We are no longer trapped in prisons of our delusional making that keep us thinking that we aren’t wrong–everyone else is! We are freed to live holy lives and when we do not to make atonement.

The reason we can do this? Because atonement has been made for us. May we show the world a better way. May we apologize freely and quickly, knowing that there is nothing more impressive and more God-given than this. Then, trusting in a sovereign God, we can take steps toward restitution, witnessing as we do to housewives, mechanics, college professors and shamed congressmen that there is a better world, a more perfect place, than the one we know.