Wednesday, May 22, 2013

"Call to Action" Mark Braverman and a bad theology of land


In the continuing articles on Ecclesio.com, Mark Braverman is the author of “Kairos Time: A U.S. Call to Action.”    It is partly about the organization, Kairos U.S.A., and also about their document, Call to Action: U.S. Response to the Kairos Palestine document.”
While there are some items that can be commended in the Kairos U.S.A. document, for instance the confession of Christian anti-Semitism, there are several items which make the document unacceptable.

There is the suggestion that the problems in Israel and Palestine have to do, not with any hostility between the people nor with past hostilities, but with the overwhelming imbalance of power.  The authors are of course thinking of Israel. But this denies the complexities of the region and the several Arab States, as well as Iran and various radical Islamic organizations, who deny Israel’s right to exist.
Another is the usual attempt to avoid the bad theology of Christian Zionism by creating a similar theology of land that includes a land with “a universal mission,” which ends up fulfilling some redemptive purpose minus the cross. Instead I believe Alan Wisdom writing in Theology Matters about Israel and the land puts it just right when he states:

Even today, there remains a residue of unfulfilled prophecy. The great hope of the church is that all will be set right with the return of Christ. “Come Lord Jesus!” we pray with John (Revelation 22:20). But we do not know exactly how Israel will fit into that scenario. As Jesus said, “About that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Mark 13:32).[1]

There are still other problems such as insisting that individuals, organizations and denominations must join the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement which is not a help toward peace, but instead will only irritate the situation. But the dominant problem with the “Call to Action,” document is the usual refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. And this is both subtle and blatant. It is subtle because it is not spoken, but instead there is this which is blatant in its intent:

We believe that a role for the Jewish people will include their participation with all peoples in a new order of justice, equality and universal peace that Jesus calls the realm of God. In embracing this vision, we are not taking the land away from the Jews or in any way denying to the Jewish people their fundamental right to live in peace and security and to express themselves as a people and a culture. Nor are we challenging the Jewish people’s special tie to the land in their own experience and in the view of many Jewish and Christian theologians. Rather, we believe, in the words of the Kairos Document, that the land “has a universal mission. In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God open up to include all of humanity, starting from all the peoples of this land.”

That is a long quote, but I have placed it here to emphasize that the authors nowhere in the document acknowledge Israel as a Jewish State but rather a culture with some land shared by all peoples in the area. They also, although representing several denominations, ignore Jesus Christ who by his death gathers in those who will receive him. Both the election of Israel and the election of the Church are replaced by land. The authority that the authors give for this is a theological viewpoint which gives the land a divine and universal mission. This is utterly dismal. It is a combination of liberation theology and universalism working side by side to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel.  But it also denies the cross.
A better way, as Alan Wisdom suggests, is to look beyond the theological or biblical reasons for being pro-Israel; neither Christian Zionism nor liberation theology is helpful.  

While Wisdom does point out that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is “a standing contradiction to Israel’s democratic values,” he notes that Israel is one of the rare multicultural states in the region. Israel offers freedom of religion. Very few nations in the area allow such freedom. People, including Arab citizens are allowed to criticize the Israeli government. “Israeli society leads the region in educational attainment, cultural creativity, technological innovation, and balanced economic development.” The list goes on.[2]
Most of those who are offering articles on eccesio.com concerning the Kairos Document or any of the organizations, including the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)’s Israel/Palestine Mission Network are not working for a two state solution—their documents all point away from such a solution. Either one works out of love for both peoples and a two state solution or one kicks dust in the face of peace while drumming for war.

 

 

 

 

 




[1] Alan F. H. Wisdom, “Lands of Promise and Conflict: The Middle East in Biblical Context,” Theology Matters Vol.  19 no. 2 Mar/April 2013.  This edition is not yet on their web site but hopefully it will soon appear.
[2] Wisdom, “Arguing From Evidence: Why Support Israel?, Ibid.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Revisiting the Kairos Document as answer to Ecclesio.com & Kairos U.S.A.


The Ecclesio.com web site is offering essays from Kairos U.S.A. The writers are responding to the document “A Moment of Truth: A Word of Faith, hope and Love, from the heart of Palestinian Suffering.” The posts will, of course, be one sided as is the document. I wrote about this document in 2010, because it was part of a package put together by the Presbyterian Middle East Study Team. That was for the 2010 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A)'s General Assembly. As answer to the articles that are being placed on the Ecclesio.com site I am reposting my article minus my introduction.

The Kairos Palestine Document:


The document is entitled “A Moment of truth: A word of faith, hope and love from the heart of Palestine suffering.” It is partly written as a confession, partly as a political declaration with practical recommendations. It also has its own missional viewpoint for the Church. Each of these particulars, confession, political declaration, recommendations, and missional outlook are flawed.

The political viewpoint is intertwined with Palestinian suffering. The suffering is very real; there can be no denying that point. When writing about this the authors of the document list such problems as the separation wall, the military checkpoints, military actions of Israel and settlements. It would be foolish to write that this is not real. But the real cause for all of this is not addressed truthfully.

As is the usual case the document insists that the Israelis ‘own statements are lies. The authors insist that the wall and the check points as well as the military actions are not intended for self-defense. They write:
“Yes, there is Palestinian resistance to the occupation. However, if there were no occupation, there would be no fear and no insecurity. This is our understanding of the situation. Therefore, we call on the Israelis to end the occupation. Then they will see a new world in which there is no fear, no threat but rather security, justice and peace.” (2)
It must be said, Israel has never known security, justice and peace from her neighbors, not in 1948, 1967 or recently. As long as some radical Muslim States, groups and individuals insist that Israel does not have the right to exist the State of Israel will experience insecurity and lack of peace. And due to this lack, all in the area, both Israelis and Palestinians, will experience, no matter how hard anyone tries, injustice.

The main flaw in this area of the paper is that the whole truth is not being told and guilt is not shared. Nowhere in the document is Israel’s right to exist stated. Nowhere in the paper is there any sense of guilt on the part of Palestinian Christians for the death of innocent civilians from either suicide bombers, rockets or other forms of maiming by radical Muslim groups or individuals.
Only confession for failing to resist is offered at the end of the document. This is in grave contrast to Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s confession of both his and the German Church’s guilt offered in his book Ethics. There is also Daniel’s confession of guilt before God on behalf of himself and all Israel.

The Confessional section’s Christology is incomplete; its view of scripture faulty. The authors surprisingly use the idea of land in just the same manner as the harbingers of Nazi Germany; only hidden under a biblical cloak.

Under a “Word of Faith” the author’s give an orthodox view of Jesus Christ. “We also believe in God’s eternal Word, His only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, whom God sent as the Savior of the world.” (3) They also write, “Jesus Christ came in order to fulfill the Law and the Prophets. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, and in his light and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we read the Holy Scriptures.” But too much is left out and too much extra added.

There is no cross, no redemptive reference in the statement except to call Jesus Savior. No cross, minus no confession of guilt has deep implications for where this document ends. Rather than turning toward the redemptive actions of Jesus Christ the document heads toward an understanding of the kingdom of God as revolution. “He [Jesus] provoked a revolution of faith in the life and faith of all humanity.”

The revolution supposedly rests on a new teaching by Jesus. Using Mk 1:27 the authors see Jesus giving new light to reinterpret such themes as “the promises, the election, the people of God and the land.” I will list and explain each error of their continuing thoughts. The author's of the Kairos document are in italics.

1. “The Word of God is a living Word, casting a particular light on each period of history, manifesting to Christian believers what God is saying to us here and now.” (3) “Casting a particular light on each period of history,” is the huge mistake here. God’s word gives light to all periods of history. But it is always the same light. He and his words do not change. What God speaks to one era through his word he speaks to another.

2. “For this reason, [see above] it is unacceptable to transform the Word of God into letters of stone that pervert the love of God and his providence in the life of both peoples and individuals.” While the authors go on to castigate what I would suppose is Christian Zionism referring to “fundamentalist Biblical interpretation” which deprives the Palestinians of the rights to their land, the authors misunderstand proper biblical exegesis. What is written is God’s word, this is not separate from Jesus who is the living word; he is both fully human and fully God. And his word cannot be changed.

The Jewish content is always true. It is the story of the Jewish people, of God’s dealings and care for his people. But it also carries within it God’s plan of redemption that is before God’s creation. Neither can be changed. Because the redemptive cross is missing from their document and thoughts, the authors have invented a different theme that is not biblical.

3. “We believe that our land has a universal mission. In this universality, the meaning of the promises, of the land, of the election, of the people of God open up to include all of humanity, starting from the peoples of this land. In light of the teachings of the Holy Bible, the promise of the land has never been a political programme, but rather the preclude to complete universal salvation. It was the initiation of the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God on earth.” (4)

The authors go on to write of how it is God that makes the land holy. And in that work they include three religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But notice the land has become a substitute for the cross. The land becomes the focus for a universal plan that wipes out even secular reasons for the Jewish people to have a land of their own. The authors write, “Our presence in this land, as Christian and Muslim Palestinians, is not accidental but rather deeply rooted in the history and geography of this land, resonant with the connectedness of any other-people to the land it lives in.” (4) Here the writers turn on the West accusing them for moving the Jewish people into the land that belongs to the Palestinians.

So the final outcome for this theological quest is their understanding that Israel as a Jewish state does not have a right to exist. And this is made clear later in the document when the authors write:
“Trying to make the state a religious state, Jewish or Islamic, suffocates the state, confines it within narrow limits, and transforms it into a state that practices discrimination and exclusion, preferring one citizen over another. We appeal to both religious Jews and Muslims: let the state be a state for all citizens, with a vision constructed on respect for religion but also equality, justice, liberty and respect for pluralism and not on domination by a religion or a numerical majority.” (Emphasis mine) (11)

A Jewish state is not by necessity a religious state, and notice the term “numerical majority” has been slipped into this equation. All of this is to say that the Kairos Palestine Document is asking that there no longer be a Jewish State in the Middle East and its authors are basing their thoughts on a poorly constructed theology of sacred land. They may be using universal terms and speaking of God but in their substitution of sacred land for a redemptive Lord they have turned toward a nineteenth century view of romantic theology which was badly used by later Nazi ideologists.

It is only the Lord Jesus Christ and his redemption bought on the cross that universalizes the Kingdom of God. And in reality this has nothing at all to do with the secular state of Israel or the religious states and movements of Islam. Good-will and kindness are a part of Christ’s coming Kingdom, but since he himself stated that his kingdom is not of this world (A verse the authors have noted) it does not include any sacred land.
The facts are that God has not withheld his goodness from the Jews because he is faithful. The other fact is that Israel is a Jewish nation. She must remain so in order to insure that there will always be a place of safety in a world that has always been hostile to the Jewish people.

Practical Recommendations and the missional Church, in this document are tied together. The authors insist that the mission of the Church is to proclaim the Kingdom of God which entails standing with the oppressed against the oppressor. But in this case the documents view of the oppressor is tainted by ignoring the complexities of the situation. The authors see only one oppressor, Israel. And therein lies the fault of making the gospel or the good news of the kingdom about fighting oppression rather than the good news that Jesus Christ has lived, died on a cross and is alive for our salvation.

While love is called for as resistance is used, this is not a pacifist paper. While advocating for a logic of love the authors write “We respect and have a high esteem for all those who have given their life for our nation. And we affirm that every citizen must be ready to defend his or her life, freedom and land.” Since the acts of terrorism against Israel have, in this document, been blamed on Israel it must be concluded that with the above words the terrorist are condoned by the authors.

Following these words are sections which plead with the churches of the world to denounce any theology that would cause Palestinian oppression. Another plea is for the different Palestinian sides to come together. (This is the only near admission that something or someone besides Israel is in the wrong here.) And at the end there is also a call for “individuals, companies and states to engage in divestment and in an economic and commercial boycott of everything produced by the occupation.” This is of course a boycott against the whole nation of Israel. It is, in fact, a boycott against the Jewish people.

Conclusion: As I have stated in the first part of this paper, the Kairos Palestine Document fails in so many ways. The author’s many assertions and recommendations are anything but biblical. The document pretends to be a confession filled with love and a practical but hard solution to the problems of the Middle East. It is neither. Instead it is a declaration of war against a Jewish homeland.


Saturday, May 18, 2013

Pentecost: The Holy Spirit pointing to Jesus our Lord


After the Holy Spirit was poured out on the disciples on the day of Pentecost, Peter’s sermon to those questioning the event in Jerusalem gives a clear understanding of what the Holy Spirit’s message was then and is now. First Peter quoted a prophecy of the Old Testament book Joel about the coming of the Holy Spirit and then he proclaimed the good news which is the news of salvation in Jesus Christ. “And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

And the promise is to all of those to come.

And then Peter preaches Jesus Christ; crucified according to God’s plan but by godless humanity. Next, the resurrection of Jesus and the fact that Jesus is Lord. Finally Peter tells his listeners that they must repent, be baptized and that in the name of Jesus is the forgiveness of their sins. And that is the foundational teaching and message of the Holy Spirit. Not some new truth but Jesus Christ Lord and Savior.
The Holy Spirit guides, comforts and gifts the church with his power as he points to Jesus. He calls the church to holiness, faithfulness and obedience while at the same time confronting the world concerning “sin, righteousness and judgment.” (John 16: 8-11)

The Holy Spirit discloses that which belongs to Jesus. As Jesus states in John’s gospel. “He will glorify me for he will take of mine and will disclose it to you.” This includes all that belongs to the Father, as Jesus also states, “All things that the Father has are mine; therefore I said that he [the Holy Spirit] takes of mine and will disclose it to you.”
As Dale Bruner puts it:

The work of the Holy Spirit is the honoring of Jesus Christ. The work of other spirits is the honoring of themselves or other realities. … wherever a church or a person centers thoughtfully (That is, biblically and evangelically) on honoring the person, teaching and work of Jesus Christ, there we may be quite sure, we are in the presence of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit’s work is the thoughtful honoring of Christ. (The Holy Spirit: Shy Member of the Trinity)

I watched today the interview of two Iranian women who were terribly persecuted by the Iranian government because of their faith in Jesus. When asked why they did not give in and reject Christianity, one of the women said because they loved Jesus. That is truly the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

The second coming of Christ: is there a question? Update


Know this first of all that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following their own lusts. And saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:3-4)
“They [The New Testament writers] spoke in urgent and immediate terms about what they believed to be impending apocalyptic events. Nearly two thousand years later, it is clear that what they believed would take place never did.

Does this call into question the truth or relevancy of these early Christian writings? I don’t think so, though it does demonstrate the fallible human elements of our sacred scriptures.” (John Vest, Be Ready)

 
No, the Lord has not come yet—but he will—for those who love his appearing. Does that mean Christians are to set lazily by waiting in case he comes in our generation? Absolutely not.  Paul at one point even commanded that those who would not work should not eat.
But Vest has promoted two unacceptable teachings here. One is that Jesus will not return and the other is that the New Testament writers didn’t know what they were writing about. They were in error about the return of Christ.

Vest promotes the idea that humanity will bring in the Kingdom of God and that by the help of Christ whose presence with us is his second coming:

I tend to think that what Jesus talked about as God’s kingdom has been emerging slowly over time. The “return of Christ” that the early Christians anticipated and that many subsequent Christians have waited for seems to me to be a metaphorical concept. As Easter people, we speak as if the risen Christ is present with us already, and I believe that to be true.
There have been those in the past and even today who teach that the body of Christ will bring in the Kingdom. But they have not denied that Jesus will return, just that he will return after the Kingdom is here.  That is called post-millennialism. But the belief that Jesus will never return, that he only gives us his presence, has often been part of the teaching of aberrant Christian groups.  

When the New Testament writers were writing of the last days they were writing of that time which existed between the first coming of Jesus and the second coming of Jesus. The church though out her long history has anticipated the soon coming of Christ. It is not false teaching, but faith in the promise of God.

In another posting that I wrote in 2008, I quoted John Henry Newman:

'Though time intervene between Christ's first and second coming, it is not recognized (as I may say) in the Gospel scheme, but is, as it were, an accident. For so it was, that up to Christ's coming in the flesh, the course of things ran straight towards the end, nearing it by every step; but now, under the Gospel, that course has (if I may so speak) altered its direction, as regards His second coming, and runs, not toward the end, but along it, and on the brink of it; and is at all times near that great event, which did it run towards it, it would at once run into. Christ, then, is ever at the doors.'[1]

Something I want to add here is about the simplicity of the good news, and yet the depth that one finds in its every corner and cranny. To take the word that God has given us as believers and attempt to explain every portion and teaching with post-modern suspicion leaves nothing but empty grain husks which in reality are filled with meatiness and goodness.

We have a hope! Maranatha!  
 
But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wanting any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

Update: A friend just pointed me to a video-which I must put with this--just skip the ad, please:





[1] John Henry Newman, “Waiting for Christ, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vi (London, 1896) 241, in F.F. Bruce, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1970) 65.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

“The little ship of Christ’s church is sailing in a storm.” Lessons from the book, Paul Schneider: Witness of Buchenwald


Several years ago I wrote a post about Paul Schneider, a pastor in the Confessing Church of Germany who was martyred in a concentration camp. Over a long extended period he was beaten, isolated and finally poisoned to death. Since 2008 a German biography of Schneider, Paul Schneider: Witness of Buchenwald, written by Rudolf Wentorf and translated by Daniel Bloesch, has been available for the English reader.

The book is filled with documents, sermons and, various kinds of correspondence such as Reformed church session minutes and letters, correspondence from the Gestapo to German Christian Church leaders and even a church lady’s aid group pleading in a letter for the release of their pastor from detention.

Rather than writing the standard book review I have decided, using the book as reference, I will look at the various reasons Schneider was harassed by the leaders of the German Christians, the Gestapo and even the Nazi government.   Contemporary orthodox Christians will relate to most of the controversies that plagued Schneider, although rather than dealing with a dictator and extreme nationalism they deal with a culture increasingly intolerant of Christianity. A culture whose prejudices toward morality and faith feed into too many organizations and governmental bodies.

Reading Wentorf’s information and documentation, it is clear that the issues for Schneider revolved around morality, ministry to youth, church discipline, and false revelation. All of these issues needed faithful believers to affirm biblical teaching and lift up Jesus Christ as the head of the church.

According to Wentorf, Schneider became a pastor in 1926. He was installed in the churches of Hochelheim and Dornholzhausen after the death of his father, the churches’ former pastor. He still pastored those two churches when Hitler came to power in 1933.

The Nazi’s began programs that would interest youth and they held most meetings on Sundays. A motion with a statement was made by Schneider and his church session. It was to have the district synod send a message to be read in all churches and also to send it to “the youth clubs, sport clubs and gymnastic associations, including the Hitler Youth and SA [Storm Troopers] and SS-units[protection Squad] . For Protestant Christians our Sunday worship must be our top priority and will continue to be our main concern.”(68)

As the Nazi groups continued to take over most of the youth work in Germany the church fought a continuing battle to keep its young people.

The beginning of real hostilities had to do with a newspaper article which began with the statement that “Chief of staff of the SA Röhm is campaigning against sanctimoniousness.” The article was supposedly aimed at the “leaders and troops of the SA and SS.” But not really. According to Wentorf, it was aimed at denominational youth associations outside of the Nazi Youth groups. (84) And Schneider reacts. He places a protest in a glass case notice board in his congregation which includes this:

“If chief of staff Röhm thinks that the development of our people have nothing to do with morality and chastity and when he speaks of these things as being done by “eccentric moralists” he is mistaken and has not done our nation any favor by issuing this appeal. (84)

Letters go back and forth over Schneider’s protest. He is threatened with “preventive detention” if he does not renounce the statements. It is finally resolved but letters sent by the ruling consistory (made up of mostly German Christians) to higher church authorities suggest that there is hope to transfer Schneider to a different church. So for clarity, the first issue that Schneider dealt with was morality and the continuing need to protect the faith of the young people.

That argument continued in a different way when Schneider decided that those youths who came for a special celebratory communion and yet did not attend any other service or Bible class could not take communion. But they could attend a service of confession which would end in communion.  Even Schneider’s session disagreed with his plan. But always Schneider was seeking to place the church on its true foundation, Jesus Christ.  His heart was set on guiding the young people in the faith.

Once again the issue of morality was raised. Schneider attacked an essay written by Nazi Propagandist Goebbels, “More Morality, but less Moral Hypocrisy.” As author Wentorf points out the essay came as Nazi leadership not only pushed young Jewish and Polish women into brothels, killed those people who they considered unworthy to live because of disabilities and “so-called hereditary diseases,” and also encouraged sex outside of marriage in order to produce more, supposedly, Aryan children. That was a campaign called, “Give the Führer a Child!” (128)

Schneider was also incensed, as were other pastors, by a partially pagan rally held by the German Christians, “the Sports Palace Rally.”  Speakers at the rally threatened those Christians and pastors who refused German Christian ideology.

Spies were always in Schneider’s services taking notes. They reported on him and sent their notes to the leadership of the National Socialist Worker’s Party, (NSDAP), who then sent reports to the Protestant Consistory who were generally German Christians. After being called to a meeting with the Consistory Schneider naively sent his sermon to them.

The sermon is meant as a wakeup call to the congregations. He suggests that some in the church think the church should “organize its life from a political standpoint as the “German Christians” do. And then he compares the differences in the two worldviews:

Of course, they [the German Christians] must underpin the practice with the false teaching that the message of the church is not the gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ, the Savior of sinners and the Kingdom of God alone, but our national character and traditions plus the gospel. They are in fact breaking with the living God and his Christ by placing blood and race and the history of the nation as sources of revelation alongside God’s Word, alongside God’s will revealed to us in the Word of Scripture alone, alongside Jesus as the only mediator between God and man. The struggle in our church has erupted over this issue [the false revelation] and there can be no peace until the traitors of pure doctrine and those who have forced their way into the sheep pen as wolves have vacated bishop’s chairs and representative seats or until the confessing Christians have left this false church. (139)

After explaining all of the attempts of the German Christians, backed by the government, to stop the members of the confessing church from confessing that Jesus is the only Lord, Schneider states, “The little ship of Christ’s church is sailing in a storm.” And he uses this theme throughout the rest of his sermon showing that the storm is batting hard against the church and yet proclaiming that Christ was with the “little ship” in all storms. (139-145)

For instance:

We tolerated the teaching of Balaam, of liberalism among us, which praised the goodness and freedom of man, reduced the redemptive work of the Savior and God’s glory and dissolved the seriousness of eternity into a foggy notion … We do not hate the works of the Nicolaitians enough! The letters of Revelation warn us about the works of those who are morally lax, greedy, disreputable, and despise the Lord’s Day. We have had communion with obvious and unrepentant sinners. … And now the storm tide has swept over our church, and its little ship is swamped by ruinous and corrupting waves, and we need to scoop them out.

And:

Do we not want to rejoice that this ship is given to us? See, it is not just a story of old, our gospel is a story of today, of the living Lord and his church, just as you have been singing this song in the village from earlier times: “O church of Christ, noble ship, how glorious your course, many a reef surely threatens you in the storm, many a wave surges up. But God is with you, so be confident, the Lord is leading you to your destination. However much the sea surges and rages, when he gives the command, it is still! (143)

Schneider did mention Goebbels in his sermon and later apologized for doing so, but still he was suspended and sent to a different church. It was during this time of ministry that he began the bigger battles that would lead to prison and death. One issue was paganism. The final issue was church discipline.  

After having moved to the parishes Dickenschied and Womrath, Schneider conducted a funeral for a young man, Karl Moog. Schneider in a letter to the superintendent complains that the district leader of the NSDAP had spoken and stated that Moog “had crossed over into the storm of Horst Wessel.”[1] Schneider would have nothing to do with such anti-Christian words at a Christian funeral. As he stated in his letter he had spoken up saying he protested and “This is a Church ceremony and as a Protestant pastor I am responsible for the pure teaching of the Holy Scriptures.” (153)

Schneider also wrote to the district leader about the occasion. He was arrested and held in what was called preventive detention. (153-155) Schneider would later be released but his final trial begun when he and his session, using the their Book of Order, backed by the Heidelberg Catechism and certainly by the Bible, attempted to discipline two farmers who among other problems, were spreading vicious slanders against the pastor.

 They were national socialist and wanted a German Christian pastor. One of them, Ernst Scherer, who wanted his son taught in a German Christian church, writes to the “Highest Administrative office of the Protestant Church” in Berlin and to the Consistory. Part of his letter to the consistory states, “In his opinion [Schneider’s] only those who have a green membership card of the Brotherhood Council Church [The Confessing Church]  are considered to be “genuine Christians” … Moreover, after having become familiar with his quite eccentric medieval goals with a fanatical zeal …”(206)

Schneider is eventually rearrested and with an agreement by the consistory. But the Gestapo steps into the final argument and makes the final arrest. All of the groups, Nazis and German Christians have their files full of his “misdeeds” and they all seek to end his influence on the church and the community. Because Schneider refuses deportation away from his church he eventually ends up in Buchenwald where he continues to preach to his fellow inmates. When his wife goes to pick up his body, as she looks at his face, she states, “Dead, but not defeated.” (384)

There is a great deal more to learn in Wentorf’s book. He has written about a culture completely given over to the Nazi ideology.  There is far too much material to cover in a blog posting. The Confessing Church continues to teach the western church about standing for Christ in a time of cultural madness. The Confessing Church continued on in East Germany during the Communist rule and withstood the contrary ideology of Marxism.

But the issues that Schneider and the other confessing pastors faced are not that different than those contemporary western Christians face. Only the context is different.  Issues of false revelation, immorality, a battle for the faith of youth, the need for church discipline, failure to uphold the Holy Scriptures and most of all faithfulness to Jesus Christ. Truly the little ship, the church, needs to face the future in the strength of Christ.   

 

picture by Viola Larson


[1] There is an article on Wikipedia about the German Horst Wessel who was glorified by the Nazis “Nazi propaganda glorified his life. The bimonthly Der Brunnen - Für deutsche Lebensart (Frithjof Fischer ed.) in its issue of 2 Jan 1934 declared: "How high Horst Wessel towers over that Jesus of Nazareth - that Jesus who pleaded that the bitter cup be taken from him. How unattainably high all Horst Wessels stand above Jesus!"[

Friday, May 10, 2013

Something nice from the PC (U.S.A.)


I have been working all week putting a new laptop together. I have to set in my cozy Morris chair with a pillow, using my laptop, to write long postings because of spinal disease. And my laptop died this last weekend. I will be writing more soon.

In the meantime, I found something very nice on You-Tube last night and it is Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). From Hastings College in Nebraska:

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Separating Jesus from the written word


It is possible, by tearing Jesus from the Scriptures to change who he really is and use our false image as a cultural idol.
This past weekend, May 5th through the 7th, was the Sacramento Presbytery’s pastor’s conference.  I wrote about the conference here, Speaker for Sacramento Presbytery retreat teaches others how to move the orthodox to accept 'new' truth and here, How important is the written word of God & confessional Christology to Sacramento Presbytery?  One of my concerns was speaker Bishop Yvette Flunder’s views about Scripture.

I have quoted her understanding:
 Somebody said this [the Bible] is the word of God. My response is that these are words about God. Jesus is the Word of God. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the Word was God—capital W-o-r-d. That means that everything else feels less, theology are words about God but if there were no words about God at all, if they all disappear, we would still have a word of God, Do you understand what I’m saying to you. …I love the book, I’m close to the book, I love the Bible I guess there are parts of the book that don’t love me.

I know a lot of progressive theologians, teaching elders and laity hold a similar view. So, I was surprised when I read a similar statement by a German Christian (during the Nazi era). The author of the statement was “Bishop” Heinrich Oberheid, who “at a district meeting of the German Christians in Jena” was attempting to show that the German Christians were still upheld Christianity although they did not consider the whole Bible to be the written word of God. 

The quote is taken from an English translation of a German biography of Pastor Paul Schneider who died a martyr in the German concentration camp of Buchenwald, Paul Schneider: Witness of Buchenwald.
The reason the German Christians denied that the whole Bible was the word of God was so they could disparage all of the Jewish content. The quote:

The New Testament cannot be considered an appendage of the Old Testament. It is crass to read the message of the New Testament through the eyes of the Old Testament. Luther pushed aside a centuries old tradition and broke through to the Scriptures. We have continued the search for 400 years and have broken through to the Savior. This intellectual work spanning 400 years must not be suppressed. We have broken through to the Savior, for he is the Word of God and not the whole Bible. We will remove the Old Testament, and we will also critically examine the New Testament. The Jew named Paul cannot be a standard, just as any confessions from the past cannot either. We will demand that many, many verses from the New Testament appear before the judgment seat as well.[1]
So can the progressive’s aversion to the inspiration of the Bible really be equated with the German Christian’s denial that it is God’s word? Well no, not in several ways, but the effect can be the same. The German Christian was attempting to keep Christianity from being equated with what they supposed was the taint of Judaism. They were rejecting Jews, and they, in doing so, despite their supposed adherence to Christianity and Jesus the Savior, were rejecting the true God.

Jesus divorced from his history can be turned into anything. He can be the noble Savior who picks Germany and Hitler to be the favored people and the new revelation of God, which is exactly what the German Christians made him. Jesus was to be the one who would bring the German nation together in unity. Jesus would be the noble hero who was a model for German youth.
And this always happens if Jesus is taken away from the Old and New Testaments. In the United States, as the Scriptures lose their authority in the church, both morality and true grace are being lost.  Many believe the Bible is tainted by an archaic morality, (as Flunder, a lesbian, states, “there are parts of the book that don’t love me”), and they see the ancient understanding of blood sacrifice as having no connection whatever to Jesus. Many who call themselves Christian have began rejecting the sacrificial death of Jesus. The cross becomes only a political symbol that calls the believer to advocacy rather than repentance.

The division isn’t complete—the separation of the Word of God from the written word of God is not complete. Perhaps in mercy God will not allow this to happen, but if it does happen, the outcome is not yet known. But there is this: Christ separate from his word always becomes implanted in the dark forces of culture. And then he is a false Christ. An idol not recognized by those who lift up the written word of God. Then good become bad, grace becomes works.
Walking to Emmaus with two of his disciples after the resurrection, Jesus beautifully connected Himself to the Hebrew Bible. And in doing so he put himself in that place where the church, the true church, has always adored him as King and their only glory.

And he said to them, ‘O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter his glory?’
Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, he explained to them the things concerning himself in all the Scriptures. (Luke 24: 25-27)

In verse 44 of the chapter Jesus includes Moses, (the law), and the prophets and the Psalms. Jesus sacrificial life, death and resurrection are not lost when the church’s faith in him rests in Holy Scripture.  The Christian is fastened to truth by the written word of God; the believer is tied to the suffering of the cross because of the Word of God. The church is connected to a glory and a kingdom that is not culturally bound.



[1] Heinrich Oberheid in K.D. Schmidt, Dokunete des Kirchenkampfes 11/2 (1965), p 984, in Rudolf Wentorf, Paul Schneider: Witness of Buchenwald, trans. Daniel Bloesch (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing 2008) 190.