Mitt Romney announced last week that he was running for President of the United States. While Romney is currently considered the GOP front runner, he presents a problem for many Evangelical voters. Why? Because Mitt Romney is a Mormon.
Before I proceed, let me say that I have no stake in Romney’s success or failure. I have none of his swag, have not contributed to his campaign, and plan to do neither. However, if it came down to it, I’d have little problem voting for him. Which sets me at odds with many of my Christian brothers and sisters. (For example, see THIS ARTICLE in the Washington Times.)
But this post is not about politics, per se. Or Mormonism. It is about this “Evangelical hurdle” Romney faces. I’ve seen it time and time again: Evangelicals tend to be more idealistic than pragmatic. We would rather elect, appoint, or support someone who is a Christian and mildly proficient at their craft, rather than someone who is not a Christian and very proficient at their craft. Of course, finding both is the ideal. But it’s also rare. And when it comes to politics, finding a very strong, very proficient Christian politician is even more rare.
So how do we navigate this muddle? Must we sacrifice faith for pragmatism? Or should faith be a litmus test for everything we subscribe to, everyone we elect, and every service we seek?
Martin Luther illustrated it this way: “I’d rather be ruled by a competent turk than an incompetent Christian.” Or to put it another way, a capable Mormon president is better than an incapable Christian one. This principle has broad application.
- A competent atheist CPA is better than an incompetent Christian CPA
- A competent Hindu heart surgeon is better than an incompetent Christian heart surgeon
- A competent Kabbalist mechanic is better than an incompetent Christian mechanic
- A competent Wiccan carpenter is better than an incompetent Christian carpenter
- A competent Darwinian police officer is better than an incompetent Christian police officer
This is not to suggest that it’s wrong to seek out Christians or desire God-fearing folk in positions of power. Nor is it intended to mean that a person’s faith has no bearing on their skills, values, or performance. After all, if I learned my butcher was a Satanist, I would probably begin to purchase my ground beef elsewhere.
Nevertheless, our faith cannot be a litmus test for everything. Sure, if we are selecting a pastor, a Sunday School teacher, a worship leader, or a seminary professor, we should have a doctrinal checklist. But if we are looking for a good accountant, a competent mechanic, or a steady-handed neurosurgeon, what they believe about God or the afterlife shouldn’t really matter.
A person’s faith is not the measure of their proficiency. And unless we are talking about teaching theology or providing spiritual counseling, we should be careful to not be overly idealistic. Pragmatism has its advantages… especially when it comes to balancing budgets and international diplomacy.
Herman Melville suggested, “Better [to] sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.” I think we’ve had our share of “drunken Christians” in positions of power. So maybe it’s time for a “sober cannibal.”
I’m interested in your thoughts…
1) I’m trying to wrap my head around the notion of a Kabbalistic auto mechanic. (lol)
2) This is a convicting topic. I’d like to say I agree with you, and leave it at that…because I tend to agree with the views you expressed. Yet, when I look at my own behavior, I have to admit that I’m often inconsistent in how much priority I give to *idealism* vs *pragmatism*
For example, I’ve always said (and still maintain) that I would never use the web-hosting service Go-Daddy, because I find their commercials blatantly and consistently in opposition to values I hold.
Yet I do business with other companies, and enjoy their products, though their philosophies also differ from mine.
I may not sleep tonight, because of you…
In the end, I think it’s reasonable to be pragmatic about many things in life, and choose the best practitioner for the job at hand. But there are times when a Christian, as a steward of God’s resources, has to be “selectively idealistic” and take a stance they feel God is nudging them towards ….without using those principles as club over the heads of other believers.
From what I can tell, Daniel must have been such a person. As a statesman in the court of heathen monarchs, he must have been exposed on a daily basis to people and events and decisions that turned his stomach. And he must have exercised thoughtful pragmatism in order to navigate this world at such an influential level.
Yet, when it came down to certain matters of principle, he chose idealism. He picked his spiritual battles carefully and strategically…when they mattered most.
I agree with your thinking here, Alan. Specifically the “selective idealism” part. I want to believe that Christians would be the best for any job. The fact that it’s not always true, or always an option, is where pragmatism is required. Thanks for commenting!
I agree, too. And when the righteous didn’t want to consume what the king provided for them, they didn’t pitch a fit. They went to the one responsible for providing the food to make their request. It wasn’t a demand.
Sadly, it seems that some Christians use their Christianity as an excuse for incompetence. Yes, God promises to provide your needs, but if you’re still responsible to be a good steward of your finances and business.
Two thoughts:
1. How sad it is that so many Christians are incompetent at what they do when the Almighty God lives and dwells within them and is more than willing to supply them with supernatural ability.
2. I think this agrees quite well with the parable of the unjust steward in Luke 16 … the master rewarded him because he used his brain and acted, instead of sitting on his spiritual laurels.
Nice post, as usual!
One more thought… (very tongue in cheek) You don’t suppose the officers who watched the man commit suicide by walking into the ocean last week, claiming they didn’t have water rescue training because of budget shortages, were Darwinians, do you? : )
Well Obama claims to be a Christian, and that’s gotten us no where. Honestly, I couldn’t care less that he is a Mormon. . .I just think he’s a terrible candidate.
Oh, did you really bring up politics? De veras? I find the whole right/left paradigm a bit too much to take. Why do evangelicals align themselves religiously with the republican party? Why? My brain is kind of sketchy from lack of sleep right now, so I’ll come back to the discussion later, and only admit to being one of those pesky libertarian types who is wary of Romney, but NOT because he’s a Mormon.
Jill, you and I both.
Romney is too interested in what looks like a godless theocracy to me.
We libertarians (the real ones, not the republicans who call themselves such to be ingratiating) are going to be the real sticky wicket for the next 25 years.
Well, I hope so. I like a sticky wicket. It makes playing the game that much more fun. 😉
I wouldn’t vote for him, but not cause he’s a Mormon. I just think he’s a RINO. 😉 Of course, not much could be worse than what we’ve got…
I can’t believe you brought up politics, Mike…sheesh. This is the month of the controversial posts.
Oh, I meant to say that I agree with your point, though. 😀
I agree with Martin Luther as that is one of my all time favorite quotes.
We cannot know, at least not to any extent whether most politicians are believers or not. They play the religion card like many others play the race card….they use it whether it aligns with reality or not. Politicians know that professing Christians, both Evangelical and Catholic, comprise a large voting block and they kiss up to them accordingly.
Jill and Rachel, this post is not intended to be about politics so much as how this situation with Romney illustrates a pesky habit among Evangelicals to be more idealistic than pragmatic.
Not to mention that they have a tendency to align themselves w/ the Republican party, which demonstrates their lack of idealism and complete pragmatism. Most I know aren’t happy w/ the R candidates, but vote for them anyway because they represent the path of least evil (or something like that). If that’s not pragmatism, what is?
Jill, political expediance would cause someone to adopt a “lesser of two evils” approach. From my experience, Evangelical Christians have a harder time adopting that approach, especially with social issues like abortion and gay rights. Which is why I say that idealism rather than pragmatism is more at play.
Idealists tend to see the world as black or white/right or wrong. So my question is this–what happens when an idealist holds two or more opposing viewpoints? Which wins? Cognitive dissonance can be so much fun. It’s like a game. A really fun game. Like pin the tail on the donkey. Or football.
“What happens when an idealist holds two or more opposing viewpoints?” They go with their highest ideal.
If I wasn’t willing to choose the lesser of two evils I wouldn’t have voted for anyone in quite a while. Idealism, in politics, invariably puts in the place we are right now. A mess.
And yet, I’m wondering how we can divorce ideology from politics, or from medicine, either. We may not have a state religion, but we do have regulations that are ideal-based in every profession.
Since we are trying to avoid politics in this discussion I will stick to your premise. One would think Christians learned their lesson with Jimmy Carter and a long list after him. My wife’s two brain surgeries years ago were performed by a highly competent Jewish agnostic. I trusted his skill and training to save my wife and the God he didn’t believe in to keep his hands steady.
Well, I certainly don’t ask what the faith of my doctor is before I let him run test on me and such. I agree with your thoughts here. Not much to really add.
Other than I’m not a big Romney fan. Not so much because he’s Morman, I just don’t trust him that much. Maybe it is because he comes across as a car salesman, maybe its because of the whole health care thing going on in Mass. But at any rate, it’s because of his politics more than his religion.
But if it were between him and Obama, I’d be voting for him. But, we’re getting ahead of ourselves. 🙂
You’re point is well taken.
I think many evangelical Christians — and Melville– fall into the habit of either-oring things to death. The post attempts to show that we shouldn’t be simplistic yet in its own way it’s very simplistic. I’ve seen it so often, Christians dividing the world and ideas into either/or or black/white/gray or positing choices that are extremes.
It is possible that Mitt Romney is Christian in a way we do not understand and in a way that American Christians will understand because the American culture is so Christianized, and even Mormons are affected by it. Mormons in recent years have changed so much of their ideas (few of them nowadays believe God had sex with Mary for instance.)
And many American Christians have also been Mormonized, believing in extreme ideas of wifely submission, the believing of teachers, famous pastors and prophets rather than interpreting the Bible for themselves.
In addition, both groups are totally American — which has its own nationalistic sins of arrogance, greed, the worship of country, the assumption that external behavior shows holiness, a desire to avoid discussions of racism in America and the church.
That’s only a few things. But the weakness of the debate is shown by the idea that leadership can be qualified. I don’t think one can judge who will be the right leader as much as one can judge the times one will be lead into or out of. In a nation that is more or less rushing toward multiculturalism, a white bread president might not make a good leader for Blacks, Native American, Hispanics who can believe we can spot a racist or “all-american patriot” a mile away.
Plus the idea of Christians being a “block” vote shows that white evangelical Christians think they’re the only ones who exist in the Christian voting pool. Many Native American and Black evangelicals –who love Jesus as much as their white brothers– voted for Obama in the last election. I voted for Ralph Nader, the Arab-American.
Re: Sober Christian versus drunk Cannibal. Melville didn’t say that about competence but about judgmentalism, friendship, and inate respect of their fellow man. And, having met a lot of sober Christians and drunken out-of-their-minds heathen …I go along with Melville’s assessment. As for Romney, he shares enough evangelical Christian habits to make me want to hang out with the Cannibal. I think you misjudge when you think the majority of white evangelical Christians wouldn’t vote for Romney; he is a lot like they are in many ways. -C
Carole, voting Evangelicals’ dislike for Romney may be misguided but it’s not a figment of my imagination (see link). You’re right, Christians aren’t a block vote. However, Evangelicals, for the most part, are. I agree that Christians (I use the term generically) are not politically monolithic. Evangelicals are a different story. It is Evangelicals’ idealism v. pragmatI am criticizing here. Thanks for your comments!
I think there is a problem with Evangelicals’ politicisation which transcends the Romney’s-faith issue. For the saddest of reasons–lust for belonging, tansmuted into lust for power–segments of the Church have allowed a blending of their faith ideals and political beliefs that is destroying the calling to holiness. Ive written about this issue for years and in some segments of the Web world am a respected voice for Christian libertarianism.
Now that there is little doubt as to the worldview I bring to this argument, I think it is perhaps not a bad idea to consider this seemingly new question (Romney’s Mormonism as a bar to Evangelical bloc voters’ acceptance) under the umbrella of last week’s holiness discussion. How much are we rendering unto Caeser that which is God’s? How much are we instituting shibboleths to answer a question which requires not a spiritual passcode but a secular nuance?
Most importantly: how much are we planning on institutionalising and codifying our faith, thus forcing people to live a false, Christless version of cultural Christianity?
It’s all the same question.
Romney’s Mormonism doesn’t bother me. Palin’s polarizing effect bothers me more. We need someone who knows what the heck they’re doing.
We do have to be careful not to be simple minded when it comes to politics. Do we really want really want a state sponsored religion? I don’t think so. But that’s the impression Christians give when they can’t see past religious affiliation, and it scares the other side into falling for fluff and electing an incompetent. (Not that I have an opinion on that matter…)
Oh…sorry, got too political there. So taking it outside that realm to pragmatism…I agree. 🙂 Dare I say that God even works through the atheist surgeon to help bring about healing.
Anyone interested in this subject should read The Ambition by Lee Strobel. Yes, he’s an evangelical. And yes he wrote his first novel for a CBA house. But Strobel is also a former legal editor for the Chicagn Tribune and knows what he is writing about. This is a balanced view of what happens when politics, faith and our own personal fallen nature become intertwined. There are no simple answers.
All politics are pragmatic. There is no other kind. Idealistic candidates never make good leaders in office. Unless, of course, they are willing to allow their idealism to be moderated by the realities of compromise. The ones who can do that and maintain their integrity are few and far between.
As usual, everybody but me is wrong. 😉
First of all, belief informs “competence.”
The work of a highly competent Amish axle-maker would be rejected by a highly competent Scientologist axle-maker at Ford. Their respective faiths don’t tell them what an axle is, nor how physics work, but do have a bearing on what quality is.
More generally, in art, faith does inform competence. Frank Capra films will, at the base level, be deemed more competent than the films of Quentin Tarantino, and vice versa, by a critic, depending on his faith.
Excuse the bad stereotypes, but bear with me:
Conservative Mormon: “Capra is more competent than Tarantino. He could tell deep moving stories and illuminate the essence and darkness of man’s soul without ever resorting to cheap theatrics or fowl language.”
Liberal Unitarian: “Tarantino captures the grit and hyperkinetic nature of modern decline in a more honest and open way than Capra could have ever envision. His competence as a true filmmaker is greater.”
Furthermore, incompetence can be the result of faith.
I hate to bring up the whipping boy, but Twilight has incompetent writing, yes, and that is theoretically agnostic, I suppose (and debatable – there is an interesting relationship between faith, quality and creation), but the plotting and characterization is incompetent because of the faith of its creator.
When I say “incompetent,” I’m specifically addressing a failure of verisimilitude. In other words, in Meyer’s fantasy world, her faith informs her view of a vampire culture that is disconnected from the original monster, which is, and always has been, a stand-in for the Antichrist. Not believing in a traditional Antichrist absolutely informs her conception of vampires, and diminishes the quality of the characters.
Now, all of this is a jumble. The right faith does not assure competence, and the wrong faith doesn’t assure incompetence. But there is a spiritual relationship between faith and works, one that is often mischaracterized to purity on either side.
This is why we have doctrines that teach that “salvation is not by works” and that “faith without works is dead.”
We need to remember both. Faith is connected to competence, but also that we are not finished, and that all earthly things are not our dominion, but someone else’s. Our measure of competence is related to what the world often calls a “foolishness,” and that should not be forgotten (1 Cor, Ch 1).
Christians who are incompetent at their practice are damnable, and it is foolish to pervert the axiom “the Christ-formed are required by their calling to be more competent at their vocation than others” to “the Christ-formed are more competent.” It is even greater folly to assume that the Christ-formed are competent at all things by nature of their salvation.
But it is also untrue to believe that those in darkness are not led by their faith (or lack thereof) toward competencies which are, at best, effective shadows of the Creator’s handiwork, and, at worst, below the standard of “competent.”
After the thousand year Kingdom, millions will align themselves with satanic representation. The rule of Christ on earth wants to be defeated one more time. Why?
I liked Carol’s conviction that Christians ought to be able to stand on their own two legs when it comes to what the Bible teaches and how it applies to their lives. Taking personal responsibility is not the norm. Instead we are like sheep. The Bah-Bah kind at that.
Pragmatism is only appropriate to a point. Its expediencies have left us gasping for air at our own fumes. Genetically altered crops are heralded as the saviors of a growing world population rendering many ancient species obsolete. Nitrogen soil therapy wants to take its place to be the answer of choice only to make us pay the price of poisoned ground water supplies. The Babel of modern scientific pragmatism is taking humanity to ever new heights and with them to dizzying consequences.
Someone above mentioned humanities’ disability to discern the future and yet we are glued to the TV set to hear about our weekend prospects for fun at the park. Pragmatism in the absence of wisdom affords the German people a strongman who builds the Autobahn in order to expediently move his war machine.
What good is it to sleep with a sober cannibal when you find yourself tied up in a pot the next morning on her breakfast menu?
What are those most liked, most used quotes that speak of bad things happening because good people stand passively bye?
I also had recent surgery on my left hand. The surgeon was from upper-west India. An outstanding surgeon. I was fine with that, but not totally. There are limits to who I let work on my body. I called his office and asked to talk to him before my decision to have him do the work. I asked him whether he was a believing Hindu. A believing Hindu would not be a person I would consider to do surgery on me. A believing Hindu subscribes to the belief that the 350 million Dalit in India are genetically not human. They are the Untouchables. If you are not familiar, study it.
My youngest daughter is from New-Delhi India, I will not teach her indifference to the plight of her own people by my choices for convenience sake. (There is a whole world-view attached here.)
The surgeon came on and I was able to share with him my convictions. He turned out not to be a representative of the most viscous religion on earth and he did a fantastic job. His name is Kulvinder Sachar, one of Denver’s finest.
Another good post, Mike.
I think the entire debate reveals a breakdown in discernment, (touching on an earlier post) and while I know there are spiritual dynamics and agree character counts – see Rep Weiner for a current example- the underlying assumption that Christian faith confers an automatic stamp of divine approval or some magical proficiency is plain foolish.
Hiring the right plumber has nothing to do with sacrificing faith for pragmatism. We are free to employ common sense here. The principle of “rendering unto Caesar” has broader applications than taxes and tithes, and if your selection of a mechanic or accountant has that much of an impact on your relationship with Jesus, I question the solidity of your faith.
I think Evangelical Myopia is the real, deeper issue. It’s not that Ideals are bad, it’s that we don’t know what we’re aiming for. The New Jerusalem isn’t here yet. In the meantime, Christians often end up doing too little, too late, or dying on the wrong battlefield.
Thanks Patric,
Why are we such morons? This is a real question I am asking. Honestly, why are we such incredibly impotent, stupid, short sighted, shallow, uneducated, idiots?
You mean humankind, right?
Guess that’s why we all need a Savior and it’s called ‘grace’.
Left on our own, we’re pretty screwed.
Thanks for answering Patric.
Grace, ya, I guess so. Is grace then responsible for us remaining such? God, what is wrong with us? We are just so messed up and from generation to generation we repeat and make it worse. I think God should come back if He means it, you know being our father n’ all. Shouldn’t he now? Shouldn’t he? “Come back already! Its time, well overdue. We need you! We so damn need you!”
We who are redeemed by acceptance of free grace DO have the comfort of the living God through the Holy Spirit. It is our duty to convey that comfort upon the world through our actions and testimony.
Instead of begging God to come back we should be proclaiming that God is here and that the comfort of God is readily available to all.
Hi Kathrine,
Indeed!
We ought not neglect such great a salvation then, should we?
Comfort? Ya, He is the comforter. Are you?
I see a great silence in the absence of God in our churches. The noise however is often quite distasteful. A noise that is to make up for His silence and that with fists in our pockets. Isaiah 58
Maranatha!
Grace isn’t responsible for our shortcomings – we are. Just because God can speak through a donkey doesn’t mean He wants me to be an ass.
From my reading, the working of grace through the Holy Spirit provides not only forgiveness but transformation as well. We aren’t supposed to remain the bitter little trolls we once were. That we do is entirely on us and no reflection on the Gift or the Giver.
Hi Patric, thanks for your response.
I must sound bitter to you, and I can understand why you think so. Be careful not to equate all bitterness with the kind that is all together condemnable.
I think we are as a nation very self-focused. The grace that I wonder about is the kind that has snaked itself into the consciousness of mainstream Christendom. Affluent and selfish, this kind of grace has provided the medium by which America justifies its appetites and zest for life in the fast lane. It is also the kind that has produced the ME generation, the entitlement generation.
Consumerism has been pumped as the highest good and we laugh at its dependencies and believe them to be good. Shall we not also reap with such dependencies their ultimate emptiness and disillusionment and the collapse of the the environment, the death of this world?
How is it that in the presence of grace, the social statistics are the same, for the “world” (that Christendom is so proud of having escaped), and Christendom?
There is little to be gained by writing everything off. Do your best to be your best. I only see you challenging everyone else–people you dont know and about whom you seem to be making several assumptions.
Ummm… Matt? You don’t sound bitter to me. Thought never crossed my mind and I’m not confused at all here.
You do sound critical however, and I’d simply caution that it takes no skill – or heart – to be an iconoclast. Any idiot can throw a rock.
Even if we could verify the statistics, I can’t answer for the rest of the ‘church world’ – only myself. And I’ve learned highlighting a problem is really only valid when offering the remedy.
The people around us need Christians to live out their principles, not fight over them. Stealing from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn now…
“You can resolve to live your life with integrity. Let your credo be this: Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me.”
“A decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today. The Western world has lost its civic courage . . . . Such a decline in courage is particularly noticeable among the ruling and intellectual elite, causing an impression of a loss of courage by the entire society.”
— Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
I do not know how familiar you guys are with Germany during the 3rd Reich. A dwindling minority stood against the tide of the “German Christians”. The German Christians were those who sought after Bishop Mueller to represent the whole of German Christendom, a Fuhrer hand-picked crony. Leaders of the opposition, called the “confessing Church”, were people like Bodelschwing, Bonhoeffer and Niemoeller. They were considered iconoclasts then, and ended up excommunicated, shut-up and some eventually murdered.
Contrary to popular opinion then, these people and their like-minded stood against a whole nation on issues like antisemitism, Church and state, the Fuehrer Principle, euthanasia, the mentally and physically handicapped, etc.; by virtue of their faith in the God of the Bible.
Maintaining status quo in a Church that sits on its lores is nothing short of pathetic. The most wealthy of all nations has an almost 15 trillion dollar deficit and nothing to show for except a gap between the rich and poor that is ever increasing. I have NEVER heard a sermon on that.
In fact when I taught on the sermon of the mount and combined it with Isaiah 58 exploring such difficult social injustices as the American slave syndrome in an elite Christian prep-school, I was snuffed at numerous times by the head of school for doing so. I had simply shown correlations between the extremely high unemployment numbers of black Americans today in light of their emancipation struggles and the residual effects of their enslavement to white Americans.
Perhaps that is throwing stones, perhaps it is taking it on the cheek.
I am by no means throwing out the baby, but getting rid of the dirty bathwater ought to be a never ending holy struggle for all those who follow Jesus.
When a majority becomes more and more lop sided in its ideology, watch out! The slaves know of such majorities, the Quakers also, the Jews, certainly. Who is next? Should we really invite the lie?
Uh. I am VERY familiar with Germany before, during and after the third reich. (I’m also quite familiar with Godwin’s Law. I bring that up only to suggest that you might care to look into it for future reference.)
It seems to me, as I try to follow these exchanges, that you have–like most of the rest of us here–a few issues with the way the modern Church approaches the modern world. Most of these dialogues that Mike has so bravely opened are in one way or another about that.
Please allow me to speak plainly to you, and know that I do so from a place of love and concern and respect.
Since you bring up Boenhoeffer, et. al. , I’m assuming that you’ve read them.
I am always mindful of this quote from Boenhoeffer:
“”To understand reality is not the same as to know about outward events. It is to perceive the essential nature of things. The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential. But on the other hand, knowledge of an apparently trivial detail quite often makes it possible to see into the depths of things. And so the wise man will seek to acquire the best possible knowledge about events, but always without becoming dependent upon this knowledge. To recognize the significant in the factual is wisdom.”
I bring that to bear here because of this:
I think that your concern for the direction of things is causing you to come off (to me at least) as strident and judgemental. I get that is rooted in a passionate heart, and most probably driven by a love for God.
But it is hubristic to proclaim against the failings of others as something apart from and less than you. It is setting yourself in the position of God to look at others and say “this thing you do is rotten.”
Boenhoeffer et. al. decried ideologies and practices, but not people. And that is where a recepient of Grace MUST be careful. It’s the parable of the debtor. Of the prodigal son’s older brother.
Yes, there are problems. There will always be problems. But those problems are best fixed when we encourage one another to keep our eyes fixed on the cross. Not looking around and saying “I saw what you did and youre BAD!”
As a person with many, many years of philosophical and historical study with some of the finest minds in modern philosophy and hermeneutics I feel well able to assure you that it was that judgmental attitude which led to the type of behaviour that Boenhoeffer was arguing against. That Deutsch Christen movement came about because the group wanted to institutionalise their beliefs about the inferiority of others. The opposing Confessing Church was about individualising a faithful response founded upon scripture and spiritual guidance.
I find that it best and most effective to guide gently by example as best as one can, while at the same time trusting that God is bigger than all and capable of working through the widow’s mite we bring.
Oh my God.
Instead of engaging the issue you do what I have seen more often than not in this country. You carefully design your argument against the way the issue is presented, avoiding the validity of the issue and thereby avoiding the need for the issue to be considered. Lol.
Kathrine, I do not know what your education entailed, but I guess my hat off to you for working so hard and many hours to educate yourself. Should I now counter by making mention of my years of inter-continental higher education and see whether mine is greater? I think not. How about my experience as pastor, CEO, teacher, youth worker, executive director, father, husband, apologist? Ugh!
Honestly, I could care less about “Godwins” law. Within the scope of the conversation that ensued it was more than appropriate to use Bonhoeffer etc. Dietrich is my favorite German theologian. It makes sense that I quote him or borrow from the particular development in Germany with respect to comparing the ideologues of our time with those of that time in history. I do not cut and paste stuff by him without understanding his overall “Werdegang”. (It means the “walk” by which one “becomes”. Much deeper meaning here than “career”.)
I would place your quote, (which is all over the internet without reference) within his deliberations on ecclesiology or ethics. The popular side of these extraordinary thoughts he beautifully espouses in his “Life together” throughout chapter one. Remembering that he is hugely influenced by Karl Barth, he opposes Luther’s dual reality take of differentiating between the Kingdom of the Church and the Kingdom of the World. Bonhoeffer takes “reconciled ALL things in heaven and on earth” to its ultimate conclusion. One Kingdom under Christ. God LOVES this world. Period.
“This thing is rotten”. Do not understand that with all your education you fall short of engaging the subject. If you think Bonhoeffer for even an instant to be a “beating around the bushes” kind of person, you have figured him completely wrong. He is never afraid to call a spade a spade and a rotten person “rotten”.
During his year in the US he attended Union Theological Seminary and his opinions then of the American students was one of utter disdain. “There is no theology here, they (students) talk a blue streak without the slightest substantive foundation.” He goes on to express his frustration with his fellow students complete ignorance on dogmatics. (Letter to his German superintendent. The Lutheran church to this day has District Superintendents.)
Do I decry people as such? Or do I decry practices? I think I do decry depravity and lying, I decry our selfishness and claim to holiness, where there is not even the understanding of the word. I decry a Christianity that can not define itself as different from its national character. That has lost itself in pursuits and cravings no different from materialism.
You say I am too general. I could become very specific. I gave one experience from my own life and I could give you so many it would leave us all exhausted, specific and real life experiences in Church context that range from lies, fraud, stealing, emotional abuse, sexual abuse to even rapes, by a pastor figure, administrator or elder type.
Bonhoeffer, was astonished at the Church in the US when it lived in segregation and was deeply disappointed with it as he saw the potential danger for justifying antisemitism raising its ugly head in Germany. He spent much time with his black American friend Frank Fisher who introduced him to Dr. Powell the preacher at the Abyssinian Baptist church. Powell’s preaching was sophisticated and fresh to the post doctoral Bonhoeffer. Dietrich’s theology was greatly influenced also by the hauntingly beautiful slave inspired spirituals of the time.
A widow’s might can only be brought by a person who has no status in society and is extremely poor at that. A widow’s might is a love/faith offering of the purest kind, just as the appreciation for God’s grace the whore experienced as she washed her Lord’s feet with her tears.
While I have experienced the tears at His feet, I have never been destitute, although living as a runaway kid on the streets of Germany came close. I sure would love to hear sermons though on “Why the rich become richer and the poor become poorer in the US of America”, in our all/99% white suburban churches. Lol, that’ll be the day.
I am trying to be polite. Which is, they will tell you, not something I often do.
I no longer participate in conversations of this particular type as a general rule, but I wanted to address your methodology here because that is what I have issue with here. And no, I have no desire to play “my CV can beat up your CV”. I merely wanted to confirm that I have knowledge not only of “Germany during the third reich” but of the philoshophical and historical climate which created that world.
Here’s the thing; you have been levelling vague, emotionally wrought charges at any number of moving targets. I cannot accurately, it seems, debate the ideas presented in your thesis statement as it morphs from comment to comment.
You seem to me to be saying that all of modern Christianity, with the noble exception of you, is a neonazi suckhole with doubleplusbadness everywhere. At least that is my perception of what you say.
And my polite response to that was to tell you that i, as an Anabaptist of the Mennonite tradition, separate practice from both the Deutsch Christen and the Confessing Church. I believe the Bible teaches primarily about individuals’ practice, not institutional ones. And therefore I also believe the appropriate response to that in the Church which troubles any of us is a Biblical confrontation as outlined in Matthew. As opposed to your method which seems to be to come to a popular blog and level charges against something ephemeral which no one here can address on the same scale. This isnt Richard Land’s blog, or the Pope’s, or Pat Robertson’s.
As it is I am enormously uncomfortable carrying out this conversation on another fellow’s property and only do so because you link to no other way to reach you. (My sincerest of apologies to Mike for his generous and patient hosting.)
Now I knowmy own patience with this grandstanding has worn very thin. I can only imagine others feel the same. So I bow out reiterating my thoughts of earlier this morning, albeit less politely.
You arent better than everyone else. Yes, there are problems all over. No one will give you the medal you seem to want for pointing them out. But perhaps they will if you FIX them.
Kathrine,
I I have offended you, I apologize, no need for that whatsoever.
Your Mennonite roots are much appreciated. I love the Mennonites as they strive to make this world a better place. My favorite professor in undergraduate school Dr. Miller (taught me statistics :)) was a Mennonite. You are amazing people, all over the world helping people to farm for all its worth and build agricultural infrastructure. Thank you and everyone who does this!
I am confused however by your earlier post that you trace yourself as a church to the puritans and their theology. Mennonites are of the Armenian tradition rather than the Calvinistic. Maybe I misunderstood.
When is comes to making a choice between a drunken Christian verses a sober Cannibal, I am not sure how that would superimpose itself upon my question, which I think totally pertinent, since the problem of the rich getting richer and poor getting poorer in this country is real.
The drunk does not care and the cannibal will help himself to the victims.
I care that Romney is a Mormon, as it’s not like someone’s religion doesn’t bear some relation to their political views. This is the compartmentalizing problem. But I could easily overcome that if he wasn’t a socialist and an idiotic liberal who can’t articulate his ideas any further than to be a Joel Osteen, and just smile big and give a sound bite. If we’re going to have that, maybe it would be better if we had Obama….. at least we know he’s an imposter and a fake.