A number of years ago, I wrote a blog post in response to an open letter that Carl Braaten wrote to then ELCA presiding bishop Mark Hanson. To my utter astonishment, that post started turning up whenever anyone search for "Carl Braaten" on Google. As of today, it is the third result Google offers, and I've seen it as high as number one (maybe just for me, I don't know what Google does behind the scenes). In any event, this was the top search result that led people to my humble blog until it was recently surpassed by "Can Jesus Microwave a Burrito?" (The Internet is a strange place, and Google models that strangeness well.)
Anyway, for some time now, I've been intending to offer something useful to those who stumble across my blog looking for actual information about Dr. Braaten, but it turns out that such information really has been hard to find. Recently, I enlisted the help of Dwight at Versus Populum, who was able to provide me with enough information to offer the rough biography that follows. I'll also be posting this at Wikipedia, which had a very terse entry, so if anyone knows more and would care to elaborate, please go there and do so.
So, without further ado.....
------------------------------
Carl Braaten has been one of the leading theologians and teachers in the Lutheran church for the past 50 years. He has authored and edited numerous books and theological papers, including Principles of Lutheran Theology (Fortress Press, 1983), Mother Church: Ecclesiology and Ecumenism (Fortress Press, 1998) and In One Body Through the Cross: The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003).
Along with Robert Jenson, he has been an influential figure in developing and restoring the catholic roots of American Lutheranism.
Braaten was born on January 3, 1929. His parents were Norwegian-American pietists, who served as missionaries in Madagascar, and he received his early spiritual formation in that context. After finishing high school at Augustana Academy, a Lutheran boarding school in Canton, South Dakota, he attended St. Olaf College, Luther Seminary, Heidelberg University and Harvard Divinity School. where he studied under Paul Tillich and earned his doctoral degree. He was ordained by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in 1958.
At that time, he began serving a parish in Minneapolis and teaching at Luther Seminary. In 1961 Braaten, together with Robert Jenson, Roy Harrisville, Kent Knutson, James Burtness and others, founded the journal Dialog, which he continued to serve as editor until resigning in 1991. In 1962, Dr. Braaten accepted a position at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, where he taught as Professor of Systematic Theology until 1991 and where he is still recognized as Professor Emeritus.
In 1991, Braaten and Jenson founded the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology and established a new theological journal, Pro Ecclesia.
Showing posts with label Carl Braaten. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carl Braaten. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
In Search Of....
One of the odd joys of writing a blog is seeing what kind of search terms lead people here. I check my sitemeter regularly to see this fascinating quirk of the internet. Of the last 100 visits to this blog as of this writing, 29 have come through search hits. Here's what people were searching for:
No doubt this post will generate all kinds of strange search hits. I think "Carl Braaten" and "Four Spiritual Laws" are the top two things people search for that bring them here.
The Carl Braaten thing is a bit of an oddity, and frankly I'm a little sad about it. It yields a scary insight into the nature of internet-driven information. Braaten has been an influential and faithful theologian in the Church for many years, but if you Google his name, the top six hits are all commentary on the open letter he wrote last year to Mark Hanson. I'm number four, having been edged out by Al Kimmel (the Pontificator) and two articles from Ed Schroeder. Hopefully, over time this will fade.
hiddush
penultimate truth
Makeover + Culture
when did we see you
carl braaten
freshman ideas embarrassment
parable of the just judge
jewish story
problems with the 4 spiritual laws
gods civil law
carl braaten
a house built upon a rock
moses burning bush kushner
boldly
Walther Law and Gospel Lecture
C.S. Lewis, quote, conversion to Christianity
urban legends - mother theresa - people are unreasonable
"four spiritual laws" problems
sinning fish
the temptation of st. anthony biblical meaning
lectio divina lutheran
four spiritual laws plan, problem, provision
ECCLISIOLOGY
lutherans and st. francis of assisi
quarterflash
Melancthon
neo-lutheranism
moses sucks
crime and punishment george guidall
No doubt this post will generate all kinds of strange search hits. I think "Carl Braaten" and "Four Spiritual Laws" are the top two things people search for that bring them here.
The Carl Braaten thing is a bit of an oddity, and frankly I'm a little sad about it. It yields a scary insight into the nature of internet-driven information. Braaten has been an influential and faithful theologian in the Church for many years, but if you Google his name, the top six hits are all commentary on the open letter he wrote last year to Mark Hanson. I'm number four, having been edged out by Al Kimmel (the Pontificator) and two articles from Ed Schroeder. Hopefully, over time this will fade.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Bonhoeffer and Braaten
Stream of consciousness warning: if you read this trying to figure out the main idea, you'll be disappointed. There isn't one. I have a couple of related things I want to say, but no central point.
In my remarks on Carl Braaten's open letter to Mark Hanson, I made reference to Bonhoeffer with regard to my approach to the sexuality issue. In several comments on various blogs it was suggested that Bonhoeffer's presence would cure the problem that Braaten points to, but, apparently, I'm part of the problem. Carl Braaten told me I don't understand Bonhoeffer. That can't be, can it? My wife told me she couldn't tell what I was saying. That must be the explanation. I just didn't make myself clear.
Seriously, I realize that I might be misinterpreting Bonhoeffer. I certainly am not claiming that he would have agreed with my conclusions. But I would like to explain my thought process a bit.
I find the following thoughts in Bonhoeffer's Ethics:
There is no king in the ELCA, and everyone does what is right in his own eyes.
This is deeply intertwined with Braaten's complaint, as may be seen in his reply to John Carlson. Although Dr. Braaten is clearly troubled by the direction the ELCA is headed with regard to the sexuality issues, this is not his chief complaint. He is primarily concerned with ecclesiology. Regardless of where you stand on the sexuality issue, this issue remains. If a majority vote makes the right decision, you still have to ask the question of whether or not majority vote was the right way to do things.
The modern American answer is, of course majority vote is the right way to do things. But is this the Christian answer? Christian teaching about human nature would seem to suggest that majority rule isn't necessarily a good idea. (This, incidentally, is a large part of the reason that America is structured as a representative democracy run through with checks and balances.)
This is a difficult problem for Lutherans because we have a deep-seated mistrust of giving power to a church hierarchy (is a consensus of bishops any more likely to be correct than a majority of lay people?). This also reflects a particularly modern, if not exclusively American, hubris. What do those seminary-trained elitists know that I don't? "All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. So why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?" So says Korah (Numbers 16:3, look it up)!
I'm not ready to change my views on the sexuality issue, and frankly I'm not thrilled with the idea of letting a collection of bishops maintain the status quo. But I do think it's past time to consider whether our denomination is organized.
In my remarks on Carl Braaten's open letter to Mark Hanson, I made reference to Bonhoeffer with regard to my approach to the sexuality issue. In several comments on various blogs it was suggested that Bonhoeffer's presence would cure the problem that Braaten points to, but, apparently, I'm part of the problem. Carl Braaten told me I don't understand Bonhoeffer. That can't be, can it? My wife told me she couldn't tell what I was saying. That must be the explanation. I just didn't make myself clear.
Seriously, I realize that I might be misinterpreting Bonhoeffer. I certainly am not claiming that he would have agreed with my conclusions. But I would like to explain my thought process a bit.
I find the following thoughts in Bonhoeffer's Ethics:
Categorizing actions as good and evil is not the business of Christian ethics. In fact, it is counter to it.This is not my interpretation of Bonhoeffer. This is simply what Bonhoeffer wrote (although all of the above are my paraphrases based on my recollection of his book; there could be some variation introduced there). The last point is critical to my application of Bonhoeffer's teaching, so I will quote exactly what he says. These are Bonhoeffer's precise words (in translation):
The will of God is not a system of rules which can be known at the outset. The will of God is something new in each new situation. Therefore we must always seek to discover anew what the will of God may be.
When we hear the word of God, God is addressing us. This only remains the word of God as long as we respond. Hearing and obeying must be combined. If we try to capture the word and save it for reference, it is no longer the word of God, but only words.
It must be noted in this regard that the will of God is not revealed to us though intuition or personal insight. Rather the word that God speaks to us is the word that we hear. Any meaning contrary to this must be rejected.
The Christians attitude toward the command of God must always be one of obedience. A Christian can never use the word in judgment of another.
If by his knowledge of the law a man has become the judge of his brother and so eventually of the law itself, then he can no longer perform the law, however much else he may appear to reform. The "doer of the law," unlike the judge, submits to the law; the law never becomes a criterion for him such as he might apply to his brother; the law never confronts him otherwise than in summoning him personally to action. Even when he has to deal with a brother who is at fault, the "doer of the law" has only one possible means of giving effect to the law, and that is by performing it himself. ... This does not mean, then, that the doer of the law is content with his own doing and that with a sidelong glance he calls upon God to be the judge of his sinful brother whom he himself is, unfortunately, not permitted to judge. There really is no such sidelong glance here.... There does not remain, therefore, in addition to action or through action, some ultimate possibility of judgment; action is and must continue to be the only possible attitude towards the law of God; any residue of judgment would disrupt this action entirely and transmute it into false action, into hypocrisy.So that's what I'm responding to in Bonhoeffer. Now my application of it is this:
The question of whether or not to bless same sex unions and ordain individuals in same-sex relationships is the wrong question. The right question, which each of us individually must ask ourselves, is how do I respond to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the faith. We continually get this part wrong, so it shouldn't be surprising that there is so much controversy over the questions which must only be treated after this one has been resolved.But there is a problem here, and it returns me to Braaten's complaint. In what I have just said, I am considering my position as an individual Christian. I am certain that these views are correct for individual Christians. But notice at the very end of my position I am responding to the question of whether or not I should support blessing same sex unions. I am faced with this question because in the polity of the ELCA, I have a say in such matters.
It is observed that no one is against welcoming gay and lesbian Christians in our congregations but this is exactly the same sort of fact as the fact that no one is in favor of abortion. Just because no one is opposed to welcoming them doesn't mean they are welcomed. And the reason they are not welcomed is that the command of God is evaluated rather than obeyed. If asked whether a Christian congregation should welcome gay and lesbin members, I may easily answer in the affirmative based on any number of Biblical injunctions. But do I hear the command to love these individuals as myself as a command of God and obey it?
When I face the question of how I am to relate to gay and lesbian Christians (or non-Christians for that matter), the Bible says to me, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." When I face the question of whether or not to support the blessing of same-sex unions, the Bible says to me, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
There is no king in the ELCA, and everyone does what is right in his own eyes.
This is deeply intertwined with Braaten's complaint, as may be seen in his reply to John Carlson. Although Dr. Braaten is clearly troubled by the direction the ELCA is headed with regard to the sexuality issues, this is not his chief complaint. He is primarily concerned with ecclesiology. Regardless of where you stand on the sexuality issue, this issue remains. If a majority vote makes the right decision, you still have to ask the question of whether or not majority vote was the right way to do things.
The modern American answer is, of course majority vote is the right way to do things. But is this the Christian answer? Christian teaching about human nature would seem to suggest that majority rule isn't necessarily a good idea. (This, incidentally, is a large part of the reason that America is structured as a representative democracy run through with checks and balances.)
This is a difficult problem for Lutherans because we have a deep-seated mistrust of giving power to a church hierarchy (is a consensus of bishops any more likely to be correct than a majority of lay people?). This also reflects a particularly modern, if not exclusively American, hubris. What do those seminary-trained elitists know that I don't? "All the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. So why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?" So says Korah (Numbers 16:3, look it up)!
I'm not ready to change my views on the sexuality issue, and frankly I'm not thrilled with the idea of letting a collection of bishops maintain the status quo. But I do think it's past time to consider whether our denomination is organized.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Thoughts On Carl Braaten's Open Letter
Carl Braaten's recent Open Letter to Mark Hanson has caused quite a splash in the blogosphere. It's encouraging to see the level of interest. The letter is a complaint about the widespread influence of liberal Protestantism in ELCA. Though it may be a bit opaque to lay people, everyone who follows the national goings on in the ELCA will have some feel for what it's about. If you want a clearer understanding, Chip Frontz has posted an excellent guide to the theology of the letter here.
Dr. Braaten is a distinguished theologian, and is certainly well-qualified to raise an alarm such as he has. I am not a person of such distinction, and in what follows it will be apparent that I am a layman and an amateur. (As C.S. Lewis once wrote, "Any theologian will see easily enough what, and how little, I have read.") Perhaps my opinion here can be seen as a view from the trenches.
As I read in Dr. Braaten's letter of "the apostasy that looms on the horizon of our beloved Lutheran Church" I can't help but hear reference to the present sexuality issues. I recognize that his letter is actually addressing a more general theological problem, but all Christianity must eventually be practical Christianity, and right now this is the topic in which the theological controversy is manifested. It's unfortunate that Dr. Braaten does not address this topic directly, because it leaves me unclear as to exactly where he stands and makes his overall argument difficult to evaluate.
I consider myself to be a traditional Christian and a relatively confessional Lutheran. Yet I cannot align myself with the renewing movements in the ELCA that I've come across. The congregation of which I am a member has an active Word Alone group. A couple of years ago, one of the leaders of this group came to me and asked how I, as a vocal admirer of Luther, could support CCM. Now the people in this same group are puzzled as to how I, as a faithful Christian, could hold the views I do on homosexuality.
You see, although I hold traditional views on things like the authority of scripture, I am in favor of full acceptance of gay and lesbian Christians in the Christian community. Notice that I didn't say that I am in favor of blessing same-sex unions and ordaining people in committed same-sex relationships. Being forced to take a position on those questions, I do support the so-called "liberal" side, but those aren't really the things I am in favor of. I am in favor of full acceptance of gay and lesbian Christians in our community of faith. And I believe the Bible tells me that I should be. If that causes me to keep some questionable company, so be it. One of the myths surrounding the sexuality issue is that everyone on the "liberal" side is theologically liberal. It simply isn't so.
But addressing Dr. Braaten's concerns more directly, the issue, as I understand it, is one of where God speaks. Chip Frontz, in his explanation of Dr. Braaten's letter, cited the United Church of Christ's slogan "God is Still Speaking" as symptomatic of a Protestant culture that sees God's will as being revealed in personal experience and in society. I can certainly see the danger there, but I nevertheless do believe that God is still speaking, and I believe that such is a fundamental tenet of Lutheranism.
Karlfried Froehlich observes that while the conservative Anglican J.I. Packer wrote a book on the authority of scripture titled God Has Spoken if a Lutheran had written the book it would have been called God Is Speaking. This is, of course, because of the Lutheran belief that the Word of God is a Living Word which addresses us as we hear it. Dr. Braaten cites Wolfhart Pannenburg to the effect that "a church that cannot take the Scriptures seriously is no longer a church that belongs to Jesus Christ" but I hope he would agree that a church which no longer allows itself to be addressed by the Scriptures is also no longer a church that belongs to Jesus Christ.
Dr. Braaten names Bonhoeffer among those who taught him what it means to be a Lutheran. I also have been shaped by Bonhoeffer, though only through my own understanding of his writings. Although I could misunderstand, I find much in Bonhoeffer's Ethics to support my way of approaching the sexuality issue. In particular, Bonhoeffer says that the word of God cannot be heard and stored away for later use. Rather, hearing and obeying must be united, otherwise it is no longer God to whom we are responding. It is in this sense that I feel compelled to stand in union with gay and lesbian Christians regardless of the theology of those who are also standing with them.
Thus while I do hear the truth in Dr. Braaten's letter, and I share much of his concern, I believe we must be careful in how we apply this concern. How fitting that this letter emerged in the week in which the parable of the wheat and the tares was the Gospel text!
Dr. Braaten is a distinguished theologian, and is certainly well-qualified to raise an alarm such as he has. I am not a person of such distinction, and in what follows it will be apparent that I am a layman and an amateur. (As C.S. Lewis once wrote, "Any theologian will see easily enough what, and how little, I have read.") Perhaps my opinion here can be seen as a view from the trenches.
As I read in Dr. Braaten's letter of "the apostasy that looms on the horizon of our beloved Lutheran Church" I can't help but hear reference to the present sexuality issues. I recognize that his letter is actually addressing a more general theological problem, but all Christianity must eventually be practical Christianity, and right now this is the topic in which the theological controversy is manifested. It's unfortunate that Dr. Braaten does not address this topic directly, because it leaves me unclear as to exactly where he stands and makes his overall argument difficult to evaluate.
I consider myself to be a traditional Christian and a relatively confessional Lutheran. Yet I cannot align myself with the renewing movements in the ELCA that I've come across. The congregation of which I am a member has an active Word Alone group. A couple of years ago, one of the leaders of this group came to me and asked how I, as a vocal admirer of Luther, could support CCM. Now the people in this same group are puzzled as to how I, as a faithful Christian, could hold the views I do on homosexuality.
You see, although I hold traditional views on things like the authority of scripture, I am in favor of full acceptance of gay and lesbian Christians in the Christian community. Notice that I didn't say that I am in favor of blessing same-sex unions and ordaining people in committed same-sex relationships. Being forced to take a position on those questions, I do support the so-called "liberal" side, but those aren't really the things I am in favor of. I am in favor of full acceptance of gay and lesbian Christians in our community of faith. And I believe the Bible tells me that I should be. If that causes me to keep some questionable company, so be it. One of the myths surrounding the sexuality issue is that everyone on the "liberal" side is theologically liberal. It simply isn't so.
But addressing Dr. Braaten's concerns more directly, the issue, as I understand it, is one of where God speaks. Chip Frontz, in his explanation of Dr. Braaten's letter, cited the United Church of Christ's slogan "God is Still Speaking" as symptomatic of a Protestant culture that sees God's will as being revealed in personal experience and in society. I can certainly see the danger there, but I nevertheless do believe that God is still speaking, and I believe that such is a fundamental tenet of Lutheranism.
Karlfried Froehlich observes that while the conservative Anglican J.I. Packer wrote a book on the authority of scripture titled God Has Spoken if a Lutheran had written the book it would have been called God Is Speaking. This is, of course, because of the Lutheran belief that the Word of God is a Living Word which addresses us as we hear it. Dr. Braaten cites Wolfhart Pannenburg to the effect that "a church that cannot take the Scriptures seriously is no longer a church that belongs to Jesus Christ" but I hope he would agree that a church which no longer allows itself to be addressed by the Scriptures is also no longer a church that belongs to Jesus Christ.
Dr. Braaten names Bonhoeffer among those who taught him what it means to be a Lutheran. I also have been shaped by Bonhoeffer, though only through my own understanding of his writings. Although I could misunderstand, I find much in Bonhoeffer's Ethics to support my way of approaching the sexuality issue. In particular, Bonhoeffer says that the word of God cannot be heard and stored away for later use. Rather, hearing and obeying must be united, otherwise it is no longer God to whom we are responding. It is in this sense that I feel compelled to stand in union with gay and lesbian Christians regardless of the theology of those who are also standing with them.
Thus while I do hear the truth in Dr. Braaten's letter, and I share much of his concern, I believe we must be careful in how we apply this concern. How fitting that this letter emerged in the week in which the parable of the wheat and the tares was the Gospel text!
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Whither the Church?
I'd like to engage one last topic from Carl Braaten's Mother Church before I return it to the bookshelf.
In speaking on the future of Lutheranism in America, Braaten draws on the writings of German Protestant-turned-Catholic Erik Peterson from the 1930's. Peterson observes that as Protestant churches turn away from a Church based on pure doctrine (i.e. away from their confessional roots and the ties therein to the catholic/Catholic church), they are faced with three possible alternatives: (1) translate theology into universal truths that conform to the spirit of the times, (2) turn toward mysticism, or (3) take shelter in social activism.
These three alternatives are easy to find in American Protestantism, and I suggest they are hiding in a few places that may not be apparent. (Is the emergent church, for example, a case of the first alternative? What about the church growth movement?) I myself have recently daydreamed a sort of Church unity that I'm afraid was, on some level of my mind, mostly based in social activism.
The obvious solution would seem to be a retreat to our Lutheran castle (to borrow a term from C.F.W. Walther), or perhaps a Neuhausian return to Catholicism. However, (and I know this will draw disdain from certain circles), I think the Lutheran castle, to the extent that it is a dogmatic option, is sinking into the swamp that has been recognized by post-modern thought. Dogmatism isn't really a long-term option anymore. And that makes the Catholic option a bit unfruitful as well.
Braaten, near as I can tell, has his hopes pinned on a recovery of visible unity, based on apostolic faith, among catholic, orthodox and evangelical churches protected by bishops, though with eyes wide open as to the limitations therein this time. Honestly, having read this book of Braaten's on ecclisiology, I feel like I should have a better grasp of what his vision is, but having finished it last week it is already slipping from my mind and I'm left with a sketchy image of apostolic faith, episcopal leadership and lots of hard work.
Honestly, I was left with a better feeling (hope?) for the future unity of the Church after reading Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy than after reading Braaten's Mother Church. Perhaps the two visions should be combined?
In speaking on the future of Lutheranism in America, Braaten draws on the writings of German Protestant-turned-Catholic Erik Peterson from the 1930's. Peterson observes that as Protestant churches turn away from a Church based on pure doctrine (i.e. away from their confessional roots and the ties therein to the catholic/Catholic church), they are faced with three possible alternatives: (1) translate theology into universal truths that conform to the spirit of the times, (2) turn toward mysticism, or (3) take shelter in social activism.
These three alternatives are easy to find in American Protestantism, and I suggest they are hiding in a few places that may not be apparent. (Is the emergent church, for example, a case of the first alternative? What about the church growth movement?) I myself have recently daydreamed a sort of Church unity that I'm afraid was, on some level of my mind, mostly based in social activism.
The obvious solution would seem to be a retreat to our Lutheran castle (to borrow a term from C.F.W. Walther), or perhaps a Neuhausian return to Catholicism. However, (and I know this will draw disdain from certain circles), I think the Lutheran castle, to the extent that it is a dogmatic option, is sinking into the swamp that has been recognized by post-modern thought. Dogmatism isn't really a long-term option anymore. And that makes the Catholic option a bit unfruitful as well.
Braaten, near as I can tell, has his hopes pinned on a recovery of visible unity, based on apostolic faith, among catholic, orthodox and evangelical churches protected by bishops, though with eyes wide open as to the limitations therein this time. Honestly, having read this book of Braaten's on ecclisiology, I feel like I should have a better grasp of what his vision is, but having finished it last week it is already slipping from my mind and I'm left with a sketchy image of apostolic faith, episcopal leadership and lots of hard work.
Honestly, I was left with a better feeling (hope?) for the future unity of the Church after reading Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy than after reading Braaten's Mother Church. Perhaps the two visions should be combined?
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
The Temptations of the Church
In Mother Church, Carl Braaten discusses three common ways that our understanding of the Church is distorted: reduction of the Church to the kingdom, reduction of the Church to itself and reduction of the Church to its action in the world.
When the Church is reduced to the kingdom, we focus our attention on heaven, imagining that this life is just something we must endure to get there, or at most this life is preparation for life in heaven. When we hold this view we undervalue the here and now and disregard the gift of life.
When the Church is reduced to itself, we see a sharp division between those inside the Church and those outside the Church, and we imagine that being inside the Church is all-important. We might venture out occaisionally to invite more people in, but the inside is what it's all about. When we hold this view, we disregard the missional nature of the Church and forget that the Church does not exist for itself.
When the Church is reduced to its action in the world, we see things like traditional dogmas as an embarrasment or an impedement, certainly not as essential. When we hold this view of the Church, we lose sight of the dependence of the Church on its Lord.
As I was thinking about these three distortions, I tried to apply them to various other models: overemphasis on past, present or future; imbalance of attention to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; parallel to the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. I felt a bit like a medieval theologian doing this, but it did help a bit in exploring the ideas involved.
Here's what I came up with regarding the temptations of Jesus and the temptations of the Church. The reduction of the Church to its influence in the world is like the temptation of Jesus to turn stones into bread. The Church is tempted to evaluate its self-worth by the way it is able to provide for basic needs, but in the process it risks losing sight of God. The reduction of the Church to the kingdom is like the temptation of Jesus to throw himself from the top of the Temple. The Church is tempted to abdicate its mission and look only to God's salvation. The reduction of the Church to itself is like the temptation of Jesus to bow down to Satan in exchange for the kingdoms of the world. Everything is subjugated to the acquistion of control.
I imagine the following scene:
When the Church is reduced to the kingdom, we focus our attention on heaven, imagining that this life is just something we must endure to get there, or at most this life is preparation for life in heaven. When we hold this view we undervalue the here and now and disregard the gift of life.
When the Church is reduced to itself, we see a sharp division between those inside the Church and those outside the Church, and we imagine that being inside the Church is all-important. We might venture out occaisionally to invite more people in, but the inside is what it's all about. When we hold this view, we disregard the missional nature of the Church and forget that the Church does not exist for itself.
When the Church is reduced to its action in the world, we see things like traditional dogmas as an embarrasment or an impedement, certainly not as essential. When we hold this view of the Church, we lose sight of the dependence of the Church on its Lord.
As I was thinking about these three distortions, I tried to apply them to various other models: overemphasis on past, present or future; imbalance of attention to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; parallel to the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness. I felt a bit like a medieval theologian doing this, but it did help a bit in exploring the ideas involved.
Here's what I came up with regarding the temptations of Jesus and the temptations of the Church. The reduction of the Church to its influence in the world is like the temptation of Jesus to turn stones into bread. The Church is tempted to evaluate its self-worth by the way it is able to provide for basic needs, but in the process it risks losing sight of God. The reduction of the Church to the kingdom is like the temptation of Jesus to throw himself from the top of the Temple. The Church is tempted to abdicate its mission and look only to God's salvation. The reduction of the Church to itself is like the temptation of Jesus to bow down to Satan in exchange for the kingdoms of the world. Everything is subjugated to the acquistion of control.
I imagine the following scene:
Then the Church was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. The tempter came and said, "If you are the people of God, prove it by feeding the hungry of the world." But they answered, "It is written,'One does not live by bread alone,Then the devil took them to Mount Athos, saying to them, "If you are the people of God, withdraw here and wait for his coming; for it is written,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"'He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet,But the Church said to him, "Again it is written,
and they shall gather his elect from the four winds,
from one end of heaven to the other'"'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"Again, the devil took them to the top of seven mountains and showed them all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour; and he said to them, "All these I will give you, if you will but take them." The Church said to him, "Away with you, Satan! for it is written,'Worship the Lord your God,Then the devil left them, and suddenly angels came and waited on them.
and serve only him.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
