Svenn!
I started to reply to your comment but then decided to make a whole new post. For one thing this is gonna be lengthy, plus I really need more content here. Anyway it seems like you and I are the only ones here so what does it matter...
Actually thats not true.
In fact one of the lurkers here -- in the spirit of the previous post, let's call her "J" -- sent me a great question via chat after reading your comment: "Why does Svenn think the church ought to be humble, but the US government should not?" Takes a Canuck, huh? (Oops... ack, this anonymity thing is really hard!)
I was surprised by your summation of Niebuhr, given what I know of him, but then I haven't read The Nature and Destiny of Man so I'm perfectly willing to take your word for it. I am somewhat familiar with this German theologian who sat under Niebuhr at Union Theological for a while: Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Toward the end of his life (awaiting his death sentence for assassination attempt on Hitler), Bonhoeffer explored the notion of Jesus as "God of weakness" which I think touches on our conversation regarding AA's, and also connects to J's question.
For Bonhoeffer and his comrades, Germany in 1923 and the official Protestant Church which was complicit with the Nazi regime required rethinking patriotism and faith. He came up with the idea that "religion" (here used in a negative way in agreement with Kant) is the dominating characteristic of a institution to gather power to itself. Jesus preached a Kingdom that stood in opposition to all the other "religions" of his time (Raman Empire, Jewish establishment, Hellenic mystic cults etc) not only in ideology, but in its very nature.
OK, once again in English. Roman Empire had the ancient equivalent of a nuclear arsenal at her disposal, Jesus had a ragtag army of beggars and harlots. Caesar was swathed in purple and gold since birth, Jesus graduated from hay-swaddle to a crown of thorns. But in this 1st century death match between the might of the imperial god and the God of weakness, Jesus won. How? By dying-- even dying on his enemy's weapon of terror, the cross.
Getting back to J's question then. If your reading of Niebuhr is right, we can agree with him that choosing the way of Jesus as the basis of foreign policy would doom US to failure from the very start. On the other hand, failure is precisely how the Kingdom of God triumphed. Where is Caesar now? Stalin? Caiphas? Hitler? Irrelevance at best, ignominy at worst beneath the sands of time.
How am I doing so far?
"Why does Svenn think the church ought to be humble, but the US government should not?"
ReplyDeleteThat is a great point.
I am not saying that they are, or they should; it was just conjecture as to one possible reason things are the way they are.
People tend to forget that the church, as an institution, is comprised of people that are very much falible. While Christ's charge was "to be perfect as I am perfect" we as individuals and the church as a collective often fall far short of that mark.
Within or without church culture there is a natural tendency to distance ourselves from failure -hence the consignment of AA/Alanon type recovery groups to basements. Again, I'm not saying thats how it should be just, that's how it is.
Christ's radical "Social Redactivism" is surely the better way...if only I/we weren't so concerned with appearances :(
I thought that concerns about appearances were the precursor to the fall of a civilization.
ReplyDeleteOnly added this comment so that you'd know that you're not alone and to assure you that I'm not an online stalker.
Wow - Appearances. Jesus called the Scribes and Pharisees whitewashed tombs. Thank you for points 1,2 and 3.
ReplyDelete