Bonheoffer on civil courage

A long quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Letters and Papers from Prison. From here we get to his thoughts about responsible action in the face of evil. It seems, even if you’re not sure, an action done in genuine faith in opposition to evil is better than inaction.

“Civil Courage? What lies behind the complaint about the dearth of civil courage? In recent years we have seen a great deal of bravery and self-sacrifice, but civil courage hardly anywhere, even among ourselves…. We have looked upwards, not ins servile fear, but in free trust, seeing in out tasks a call, and in out call a vocation. This readiness to follow a command from ‘above’ rather than out own private opinions and wishes was a sign of legitimate self-distrust. Who would deny that in obedience, in their task and calling, the Germans have again and again shown the utmost bravery and self-sacrifice? But the German has kept his freedom – and what nation has talked more passionately of freedom that the Germans, from Luther to the idealist philosophers? – by seeking deliverance from self-will through service to the community. Calling and freedom were to him two sides of the same thing. But in this he misjudged the world; he did not realise that his submissiveness and self-sacrifice could be exploited for evil ends. When that happened, the exercise of the calling itself became questionable, and all the moral principles of the German were bound to totter. The fact could not be escaped that the Germans still lacked something fundamental: he could not see the need for free and responsible action, even in opposition to he task and his calling; in its place there appeared on the one hand an irresponsible lack of scruple, and on the other a self-tormenting punctiliousness that never led to action. Civil courage, in fact, can grow only out of the free responsibility of free men. Only now are the Germans beginning to discover the meaning of free responsibility. It depends on a God who demands responsible action in a bold venture of faith, and who promises forgiveness and consolation to the man who becomes a sinner in that venture.

John McCain’s faith

I watched segments of the interviews that Rick Warren of Saddleback church held with John McCain and Barack Obama. They were asked what their faith was like and how it helped them in their lives.

This is a wonderful touching story, and I’m sure it meant a lot to him. But it is a story that describes someone else’s faith – the faith of his prison guard. (Time magazine makes this same point in this article – “surely McCain must have an example of his own faith from the past 40 years.”) Albeit, it is one that we can gain a lot of strength by hearing an example of Christian solidarity.

Well, it seems that he does. In this article a fellow prisoner of McCain’s at the Hanoi Hilton prisoner of war camp describes McCain leading services for the prisoners.

“He was a very good preacher, much to my surprise,” said Day, now 83, a retired Air Force colonel who works as a lawyer for veterans in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. “He could remember all of the liturgy from the Episcopal services … word for word.”

He also apparently prayed ‘regularly and fervently’, and since release uses a well worn prayer book every day.

However, on his own youtube stream he describes his faith less satisfactorily.

Talk of a ‘higher being’ rather than God, and ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’ rather than following Jesus.

Now I am aware that McCain is a politian and is trying to canvas for votes from all quarters and that may explain his language. From what I’ve read, I also have no reason to doubt that his faith is heartfelt, sincere, and that God has been a genuine support to him throughout his life. But it does raise questions about how each of us talks about our faith. Are we speaking in ways that communicate our genuine reliance on God? Does is sound sincere – can listeners tell it makes a difference to us? Are we communicating a faith that makes a difference or simply portaying it as an optional extra add-on for life?

Weekly Links

I thought I’d start posting the links to stuff around the net I’ve enjoyed this week.

First, a funny moment from a spelling bee:

A good article from Christianity Today on looking at the qualities in a candidate rather than political position – How to Pick a President.

Tim Keller writes on what is the Gospel.

From the UK’s TV series ‘The Apprentice’, BBC News looks at interview techniques.

An excellent sermon on the Trinity by Rob Bell can be downloaded here.

John Sentamu criticizes ‘rampant consumerism’.

And I can’t wait for this: Lord, Save Us from your followers:

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

This controversial bill comes up for voting in the House of Commons this week. Some of the things it is promoting is to allow the creation of ‘saviour’ siblings – children created for the specific purpose of being able to donate tissues or organs to an older sibling who is sick. Additionally, the bill proposes allowing the creation of human hybrid embryos, up to 50% human. This raises difficult moral questions of part-human entities.

MPs have been given a free vote on this issue, as it is an ‘issue of conscience’. This means they do not need to vote along party lines and are free to vote how they wish. It is not too late to get in touch with your MP to let them know your views. The website www.theyworkforyou.com can tell you who your MP is and how to get in touch with them.

Here is a draft letter written by a doctor friend of mine.

Dear [MP],

*** Urgent business: Embryology Bill ***

Thank you for your continued and conscientious work representing your constituents in Parliament.

I am writing regarding key votes in the Embryology Bill over the next couple of days. I believe it to be fortuitous that Labour MPs have been given a free vote on the key conscience issues and gives Labour MPs the opportunity to demonstrate that they are listening to their constituents at a difficult time politically. I write to request that you vote according to the views of the majority of the UK public with respect to the following four issues.

1. Human-animal embryos
The creation of such entities crosses a moral rubicon, the Bill as it stands permitting the creation of hybrids from 99% to 50% ‘human’. The critical issue is in the notion of an entity being ‘less than human’ and the risk to human dignity/rights that this category poses. Furthermore, the scientific value of such an ‘advance’ is suspect. All the medical benefits to date have come from ethically non-controversial adult stem cells, and the commercially-exciting possibility of hybrids will divert funds and attention from this proven fruitful avenue. Please vote against.

2. ‘Saviour siblings’
The main problem with this is the notion that a child is created as a means (to help a sibling) and not as an ends (for the child itself). This is bound to impact the ‘saviour’s’ sense of value. Other problems are those of either moral pressure to donate the relevant organ once old enough to consent (which will have health risks associated), or the prospect of taking tissue without any consent at all. Please vote against.

3. No need for a father
There is mounting evidence that the best environment in which to bring up a child is with its biological (male and female) parents, each having a unique contribution to make. The adverse social consequences of fatherlessness are widely acknowledged and this Bill sets out to exacerbate the situation. It also sends out a clear message that fathers are not important and will increase both the irresponsibility of some young men as regards producing progeny and decrease their sense of value as fathers. Crucial to the issue is the right of the child to have a father, which is more fundamental than that of the potential parent to have a child. Please vote in favour of the need for a father.

4. Abortion liberalisation
It is clearly ridiculous that in one part of a hospital doctors battle to save a 22 week old fetus born prematurely and in another part deliberately kill another. Social abortion is out of control in this country and needs to be more tightly regulated, not less. The legal limit should be brought down to 20 weeks or less for ‘social’ abortions. Women should be counselled about the adverse consequences of abortion (and the Royal Colleges recognise that there are many such effects, e.g. the risk of mental illness) and so be able to give fully informed consent to abortion. Please vote against liberalisation of abortion.

I realise that these are all controversial issues on which there is very little consensus. Speaking as a medical doctor keen to treat illnesses and relieve suffering, and as someone also trained in theology, I appreciate many of the nuances and the personal dilemmas. But a principle that I – and anyone else who appreciates the enormous moral significance of these issues – relies on is one of caution. Could I respectfully urge you to act similarly? If these embryos really are humans, how can we justify what we are doing to them? If we are approving the commodification of babies, the devaluing of human life, and encouraging in our society the breakdown of the family (well established as the basic and necessary socio-economic unit in all human civilisations that have flourished), how can these ever be costs worth the supposed benefits?

I urge you please to take this opportunity to vote as requested above on behalf of the majority of your constituents and in line with the moral norms that have held sway across cultures and for millennia, for the good of humanity.

Yours sincerely,

Have we created a substanceless world?

A few months ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, got into a bit of a media tangle over comments about making arrangements for religious law systems to be accommodated within UK law. His comments were quite detailed and in depth, and took a bit of listening to, had to be heard in context, and took some work to understand exactly what he was meaning. Unfortunately much of the media didn’t get that far. They heard one word. Sharia. And the media frenzy that followed seemed to focus on this word and soundbites.

Now, was Rowan right or wrong to say what he said? Perhaps using the word ‘sharia’ was unwise – he might have forseen the difficulties it would cause. Perhaps Rowan might learn to communicate in shorter sentences. But either way, my point is that the media at large did not take the time to understand what he was trying to say, but instead opted in favour of a sensationalist headline. Bound to get attention, but not necessarily reflect Rowan’s opinions.

Alex Kirby of the BBC wrote this about him, a few days afterwards:

“The first is his inability, or refusal, to say everything in the neatly-packaged soundbite most of the media now demand. It’s hard work understanding an archiepiscopal speech or sermon these days. But it’s always worth the effort, which has certainly not been the case with all his recent predecessors.” (from an article by Alex Kirby on the BBC website)

More recently, Barack Obama has been in the news. This time, not over things he said, but over things his pastor said. Pastor Jeremiah Wright was accused of being unpatriotic in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost”. This quote was used as an example of what a bad pastor he must be, and hence what a bad President one of his congregations will make. However, once again, the soundbite does not do justice to the context. Without looking deeper, the intent of the quote is mistaken, and his real meaning is missed.

Anderson Cooper of CNN has quoted the relevant parts of the sermon here, and the youtube of the actual sermon can be found here. (The gist of the sermon was a call to social transformation and to examine your own life and society)

It takes time and investigation to discover the context of peoples’ statements. Life cannot be summed up in media soundbites or editorial comments. In trying to do that, we lose a lot of the depth, insight, and subtlety that is essential in thoughtful comment. We lose a lot of life’s substance and we are reduced to sensationalism

Martin Luther on Religion and Politics

How far are Christians to obey the law of the land? How much should religion and politics meet? Paul mentions in Romans how Christians should obey the earthly authorities and governments placed over them.

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. (Rom 13:1-6)

Is this always the case. What about when governments interfere with civil liberties and so on? How much should a Christian be involved informing/changing/overthrowing that government?

In February 1522, the ruler of Albertine Saxony, Duke George, banned the sale of Martin Luther’s German translation of the Bible (I think this was the first one which had been translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew, avoiding the Latin Vulgate). This led him to write a treatise on earthly law: ‘Temporal Authority: To what Extent should it be Obeyed?’ In it, he proposed that there were two ways in which God rules the world: the Kingdom of Christ made up of those who follow Christ – these people (theoretically) obey the civil law gladly from the heart; and the kingdom of the world, consisting of everyone else. These people need compulsion to obey the law of the land, hence the threat of punishment.

The gospel (kingdom of Christ)  advises Christians to turn the other cheek, forgive repeatedly, to be self-givingly generous and so on. As this is an impossible way of running a worldly government, the Christian operates in both spheres. In public roles, when acting on behalf of others, they are bound by the laws of the land (giving out punishment where necessary etc.) , but in private interactions, offences must be met with values in keeping with God’s kingdom, and not those in keeping with the law of the land.

So Luther seemed to see some sort of dualism in the way Christians act in public life – a clear separation of matters of national governance and matters of faith. Luther’s application was that as the Duke George had interfered in a matter of faith by banning the sale of the German Bible, therefore Christians were free to disobey the ban.

I agree with this to a certain extent – there are definitely two kingdoms. Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world” – therefore it seems logical that kingdoms of this world (such s governments) can never be entirely ‘Christian’. However, I’m not sure if I’m comfortable with such a separation in the way Christians interact with politics (i.e. the kingdom of this world). Our lives are a continual flow of interactions, decisions, and networks which in the public and private sphere. Faith is to be lived out publicly as well as privately nurtured. It is important to say that Luther’s context sheds a lot of light on what he was saying. He was reacting to the ban of the german Bible as well as writing in the midst of the Peasants Revolt in Germany in 1525-6 – when (some) priests were rallying people to get involved in violent uprisings against the rulers of the day. He was exhorting people that they could disobey the laws of the land on some things, but shouldn’t on others, whilst also saying that the church should not be in the business of gaining wealth, governing countries, going to war etc.

“Luther wanted to insist that it was the task of rulers to rule and clergy to preach. Both are agents of God’s rule, both are demonstrations on God’s care for his world – but the two must not get confused” (Graham Tomlin in Luther and his World).

However, In 1930s-40s Germany, many churchgoers were using exactly this belief in this separation, but taking it out of the context of Luther’s situation. On the whole, churches completely failed to stand up to Hitler because of their belief that they shouldn’t get involved in secular government. On the whole, this separation is unhealthy.

So what should we make of Christians in politics? That’s fine so long as the church is not doing the governing, making the policies, or owning the parties, as inevitably this will require compromise from the values of God’s kingdom. Creating heaven on earth is not possible until Jesus comes back. However, Christians are called to ake political stands, such as Martin Luther King on segregation – done peacefully and effectively. It seems clear that just voting for the *right* candidate isn’t enough – unjust policies need to be opposed. But I think Luther is right is saying the church as a whole are not there to govern.

However, I’m not sure if I’ve entirely understood his position.

Shooting in Illinois University – Why again?

Why does this always seem to happen in the United States?  A gunman entered the campus at Cole Hall, a place where students tend to gather, opened fire, killed 6, injured many more, before turning the gun on himself.  Read more here (BBC) and here (CNN).

It doesn’t take much of a search to find other examples of similar events happening. Virginia, Pennsylvania Amish, Nebraska Shopping Mall, Columbine, Colorado Church, and there are many others.

Why does it seem to happen in the US? I don’t know the answer – I’m sure there are no easy answers, – comments welcome.

This problem is of course not confined to the US. In 1996 a lone gunman walked into a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland, and murdered 16 children and their teacher, before killing himself. However, what followed seemed to be dramatically different. There was a “gun amnesty” – anyone who owned an illegal firearm could drop it into any police station anonymously without the possibility of charges. This had the effect of taking guns off the street. There was an immediate public outcry for tighter gun controls, which were introduced fairly quickly afterwards. Guns became harder to buy. I don’t think it has happened since (or at least, not as frequently as in the US)

I know it says in the constitution that everyone has the right to bear arms. This was introduced long ago for good reason. However society is no longer the same as it was in 1776. Is this a right that we need to give up in order to reduce the number of gun deaths? Surely there must be a way of protecting that right so that honest citizens can still hunt safely AND our children are protected in their schools and colleges. How about a better national register, or a law which bans guns from all residential areas (including in our homes), but at the same time allows gun clubs to exist for the purposes of hunting. These are only ideas, I’m no politician – but it seems like the NRA is too loud and powerful for any of this to change. Are they happy with the frequency of such shootings?

But what is driving people to kill and take their own life in the first place. Is life really that empty? Surely in a materialist consumer society where education is available where there is an abundance of life-enhancing technologies there would be no need for such action. Or is it ultimately empty at its core. Is genuine human relationship lacking? This emptiness seems to be resulting in a greater threat to US life than terrorism.

Society needs to rediscover the purpose of human life -  only this, and not the abundance of things, can lead to ultimate fulfillment. Who are we? What are we about? Why do we exist? How do we relate to each other? Have we been consuming (buying) out identities and purpose instead of discovering them? Weren’t we made to be creative, instead of buy creatively? Weren’t we made for long term committed, deep, ‘take the rough with the smooth’, relationships (which offer stability to soceity) rather than serial monogamy with no depth. How on earth can we understand each other and be understood if we don’t take the time to do it? Real depth in relationship cannot be bought or found instantly, but surely it is worth it to create a society without fear. In a society without fear, there is no need to kill or be killed.

“There is no fear in love. Perfect love casts out fear” (1 John 4:18)

Just opening the debate.

Who created Huckabee? Stewart? Conan? Colbert?

There’s a hilarious video over on the Fox News blog with John Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Conan O’Brien. Keep watching to the end – it shows that Mike Huckabee has a sense of humour!

Click here for the full article.

Or watch the youtube video:

Barack Obama on funding faith based initiatives

Barack Obama has been quoted in an interview on saying this about if/whether/how he will support faith based initiatives if he gets elected:

“You know, what I’d like to do is I’d like to see how [the faith based initiatives have] been operating. One of the things that I think churches have to be mindful of is that if the federal government starts paying the piper, then they get to call the tune. It can, over the long term, be an encroachment on religious freedom. So, I want to see how moneys have been allocated through that office before I make a firm commitment in terms of sustaining practices that may not have worked as well as they should have.”(from an interview with Christianity today http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html?start=2)

I think he is right on this – Christians are first and foremost citizens of God’s kingdom, over and obove allegiance to any national government or group. Our task it to demonstrate God’s kingdom to the world through acts and words of love. Nothing should hinder this. This does not mean Christians should not get involved in politics or whatever, but should be very aware that the priorities of politics, government, and nation are often very different from the priorities of God. A look at how Jesus reacts to these questions can tell us a lot. For example, (see Matt 22:15-22, Luke 12:13-21) he refuses to accept the basis of human, political, and legal questions in order to point his hearers to the characteristics that are in line with his kingdom. This his just an example of how different governmental and political concerns can be to those which Christians should be concerned about.

Sure, take the money and use it for good, but don’t let government call the tune.