Bonhoeffer Chapter 5

       

      Confession and Communion

is the title of the 5th and final chapter of Bonhoeffer's Life Together. This chapter ties the whole book together, stressing the importance, nay, the necessity of the community of  the believers. As the title suggests, he expounds on both the act of confessing sins to a brother, as well as taking communion. 

       The topic of confession is one that I really appreciated reading about. In modern, Protestant Christianity/theology, this is not something you hear lectures on very often. Why have we belittled this subject so much? 

                  I think Bonhoeffer does an incredible job of explaining it, and very eloquently. 

       The truth of the matter is as he explains on page 112:

        "The more isolated a person is, the more destructive will be the power of sin over him, and the more deeply he becomes involved in it, the more disastrous is his isolation."

      Never have I read such a perfect description of the dangers of sin and isolation. I believe this hit close to home for me because I can be a very isolated person at times. Thus, the things I struggle with, I tend to make "my own problem." But that is neglecting one of the very purposes of God's establishment of the church! Isolation and sin are an endless circle that can only be broken by the community of the believers.

      And taking Bonhoeffer's description of confession, the power and depth that it is on behalf of Christ himself that our brothers and sisters hear and forgive our confession, is one that should not be taken lightly. However, it should also not be ignored. 

       If we want to break the cycle of sin, it must be through the support system God has graciously prepared for us. 

Bonhoeffer 3

Bonhoeffer 4

          

In chapter four of Bonhoeffer's Life Together, he dives into areas of ministry of the believer. However, unlike our modern Christian minds would assume, these areas are not the worship team, children's ministry, & work projects.

       No, Bonhoeffer lists some areas of ministry that one might consider unusual: "The Ministry of Holding One's Tongue," "The Ministry of Listening," "The Ministry of Helpfulness," and others.
   


       I found these discussions very refreshing and beneficial -both Biblical and very applicable.
       One that struck me the most was that of "holding one's tongue."
       I believe the book of James got it right when it speaks of the difficulty of controlling one's tongue. In fact, just today I was discussing with a non-Christian coworker about the destruction that gossip can do. We can hurt people with our actions, but it's much quicker to cut them down with our words, and many times it cuts deeper. Gossip, insults, lies, broken promises... the very mention of these words sinks my heart, as many others, I believe, can easily identify moments of being hurt by these.
       The ministry of holding one's tongue is an interesting one because at first it appears to be an inaction rather than an action. It appears to be not doing something. But go one day while trying to control one's words, and you will realize how much action it physically requires.

     The reason this one stuck out to me the most is because words hold a great weight for me. I would always rather write something than speak, because I value the time it takes to say exactly what is meant.
     But people, Christians and non-Christians alike, do not always live by this (indeed, I do not always use my words for good). I find it fascinating that so many Christians criticize those who swear, and yet they're found gossiping or making racist slides themselves.
"Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring?" (James 3:11). If we cannot master our tongues, how can we be in service to the Lord?


     

Bonhoeffer Chapter 2

"The Day with Others," Machen's second chapter of his book Life Together, explores the liturgy of what worship ought to look like among Christians, this is not limited to Sunday morning worship but includes other gatherings including Christian families' daily practices. He addresses points of reading the Psalms together, reading other Scriptures, singing, common prayer, sharing at "the table," and finally, proceeding to the rest of the day: working.
       The Morning - this is what Bonhoeffer revolves his discourse around. This is how Christians ought to start their mornings, he says.
      I must admit, this was an interesting chapter for me to consider. I have never considered myself as a morning person, but have never deeply considered it a theological issue! Now, as an upfront clarification: I don't think whether you have a hard time waking up early or not is a sin.
    However, there is something to Bonhoeffer's position that Scripture presents the morning as a special time of day. There are lots of verses that can back this up, but I think we can even see this from experience. The morning is quiet, amidst the storm of colors that arise. The birds sing. The sky awakes and stretches. Darkness is broken. There is so much imagery in the creativity of God that is the morning.
       Thus, it is not a surprise that Christians coming together in the morning to worship God has a special significance. Does it mean it is sin if they do not? I don't think so. However, these little details of Scripture should also not be ignored, or we ourselves could miss out on something.

      One of Bonhoeffer's most moving paragraphs for myself in this chapter is on page 43:

For Christians, the beginning of the day should not be burdened and oppressed with besetting concerns for the day's work. At the threshold of the new day stands the Lord who made it.  At the threshold of the new day stands the Lord who made it. All the darkness and distraction of the dreams of night retreat before the clear light of Jesus Christ and his wakening Word. All unrest, all impurity, all care and anxiety flee before him. Therefore, at the beginning of the day let all distraction and empty talk be silenced and let the first thought and the first word belong to him whom our whole life belongs. "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light" (Ephesians 5:14).

       

      My days are long, my semester is brutal, my heart is heavy. Mornings are not a time that bring me joy, but exhaustion. What if my days could start like this? What would change if my first thought was the joy of Christ? If every day was committed into his hand? Would my heart sing? My lips smile? My hands do good? 

"Behold, the morning sun

Begins his glorious way;
His beams through all the nations run,
And life and light convey.

But where the gospel comes
It spreads diviner light;
It calls dead sinners from their tombs,
And gives the blind their sight."

Isaac Watts

Machen Chapter 7

 Machen Chapter 7 - "The Church." This chapter addresses the issue of liberally-minded teachers being accepted into the church as teachers and preachers. The issue Machen has with this is not so much that these people want to spread what they want to teach, but rather their dishonesty in it all. Their desire is to spread their message, but they do it through a dishonest way of pretending they agree with the specific church's doctrine but then proceeding to teach otherwise.
      I thought it was interesting that Machen brought up the point of tolerance. Tolerance in our modern American society is much-used word, but I didn't realize it was on the radar of those in Machen's generation. Machen is not saying that, while evangelicals clearly do believe that the liberal "theology" is wrong, that they should not have be allowed to share what they believe. He is simply saying that there is no place for it in the evangelical church. He mentions how tolerance under certain authority such as governmental should be promoted; however, a voluntary organization such as religion (a church), should not be required to be "tolerant" of another belief, as that shakes the very ground the organization was built on.
     I appreciated Machen's balance here, and was actually a little surprised to how much 'grace' he gae to liberals. His argument was on the basis of honesty, which I also found intriguing.
     Considering Biblical as well as the ancient history of the church, the dealings with "false teachers" has tended to be very severe. Paul has some pretty harsh words for those people in his letters. Others in history were accused of heresy. While there must be a balance and an aspect of love for all humans, I might be so bold as to say God has used severe treatment of these false teachers as a way to preserve the Gospel. Of course I do not think this means we should imprison or exile people, it is a duty of Christians to call it like it is: a false doctrine. Not only must we publicly recognize it, but then deal with it as well: it has no place in the evangelical church.
      How might one do this? This would of course depend on the context.
      But it must, first and foremost, start with the church being in agreement of the need to preserve the holy doctrine of the Gospel.


In conclusion, while I don't necessarily agree with everything Machen says, and at times his arguments became a little repetitive, I believe the book was an effective one in recent church history. It was used to call out liberalism for what it was, contrast it to Biblical doctrine, and give Christians a practical response to implement as a result. It is difficult to judge books written in past generations because there is so much modern perspective/bias that influences, but we can only do the best we can to understand where the author is coming from in his time of life and take the good that we can learn from.

Machen Chapter Six

"Salvation" - the title of chapter six of Machen's Christianity and Liberalism.
       I'll admit, I asked myself, "What more can Machen say?" This chapter follows his arguments against liberals' views on God, man, and Christ. Finally we get to the case of the Gospel, but in my opinion, once you've proved the error in their thinking in these areas, there's not much left of the Gospel to need to speak about.
     However, Machen found a new point to bring up.
     This time he brings up the liberal argument that Christ's sacrifice, and God's forgiveness, is simply a matter of looking over trivial issues such as sin.
     This is a perspective that even some conservative Christians can easily fall into. It's easy to convince oneself of doing something with the argument that "It's not that big of a deal; God forgives." 
       But what a messed up world this would forever be if God simply left it at forgiveness. This position denies the very grace of God, because simple forgiveness does not change a person. From the liberal point of view, grace is not needed. They may recognize that people make mistakes, but they would not go so far as to say that sin is deadly and in need of atonement.
     But what would God's mere "looking over" our trivial sin actually mean in the world? It would mean people would be left selfish, unchanged, and even dangerous. It would also show that God does not seem to love people at all.
       People left unchanged would mean they keep sinning. And sin is not just against God (which in of itself is a very great deal), but we also sin against ourselves and others. When we sin against ourselves, we harm ourselves. It would be easy to say "Well, we had it coming then," and maybe that's true. But a God who does not interject in everyday life is not a loving God at all.
     What's worse, if God leaves us to our sin, He leaves us to continue to sin against each other. This is one of the point Machen makes in this chapter. Our actions, for good or bad, have an effect on others. We already get a sense for what this looks like in a world that is full of war, poverty, murder. When we are left to our own devices, we harm others. This can be on a terrible scale such as the points mentioned above, but often it starts on a smaller scale such as lying, crossing our neighbor, and gossip.
     Thus comes a conclusion that I think many times even conservative Christians forget:
Salvation is not merely for the individual.
                         there is an age-old question that states "Why does God not simply sweep up the Christians once they're converted?" The answer is simple, although not easy. God is in the business of redemption. He is not a God of abandonment; He does not avoid conflict. Rather, He promises to renew the world and has begun that process here and now, through the redemption of His children. This redemption is not simply a matter of a golden ticket into Heaven once you die. It is a process of redemption that God works not only in us, but uses us to work in others. As 2nd Corinthians states, we are agents of reconciliation to the world. God has not simply left humankind in despair until Heaven on Earth appears -He has started that ministry already. Thus, salvation is not simply for us. It's for the world.

Sin cannot merely be a looking over of our sin (it must effect a change).

Machen Chapter 4

How then, can we connect the historical events of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection with our modern life and experiences?

      This is a question I have wrestled with in recent years. First, the ramifications of what it means that Jesus was actually a living, historical person. And once you've come to terms with that, then understanding what that actually means for you, a person of the 21st century.
      Machen seeks to tie these points together, while combating the liberalist idea that Christian experience is enough to connect us with Christ. 
       His main point is that, as he mentions on page 60, "Christianity depends, not on a complex of ideas, but upon the narration of an event." This is how Christianity is unlike other religions. It is dependent on a specific event.
      Machen's main point is that this historical event has taken place, but it has effects on people today. We cannot separate these points; both of these truths are necessary for the Christian faith. What the liberalist Christians seek to do is say that the historical event doesn't matter, only the Christian experience that we feel today does.
     Machen argues this with the fact that Christian experience must be based off of the historical events; otherwise, it isn't Christianity.
   
       "Christian experience is rightly used when it helps to convince us that the events narrated in the New Testament actually did occur; but it can never enable us to be Christians whether the events occurred or not" (62).

       To speak on the flip-side of that, I think maybe in Western Christian society, we have almost gone the exact opposite and removed the validity of Christian experience altogether. In fear of those who have denied the historical events, we have almost made it almost entirely about the historical facts. So I appreciate Machen emphasizing that Christian experience does have a rightful place; however, that place is being checked against the historical truths of Jesus.
   
        God works in many mysterious and wonderful ways; but these will always be consistent with who He has revealed himself as in the inerrant Scriptures.

Machen Chapter 3

In Machen's 3rd chapter 

                    he begins to discuss man's relationship with God. He asks the question, "How then shall God be known?" (48), and begins to unfold this idea that God must be known not only through Jesus, as some liberalists would argue, but there must be another foundation before this. He then goes on to distinguish two types of knowledge: knowledge of God and a relationship with God. He continues on to explain how liberalists like the idea of the universal fatherhood of God (meaning, God is the father of all humankind), and how this differs from what Christianity actually preaches. He makes the case that Christianity does not offer less than universal fatherhood, but rather, more. 

           He closes the chapter discussing how liberalism's view of God is not the only difference, but also its view of man. They see man as inherently good, thus devoid of basically any morality, whereas Christianity understands that man is completely sinful -a reality that must first drive Christians to complete repentance, but then ultimately to complete Joy. 

     So what do I make of these points? I think the discussion of man & God is an incredibly important regarding the doctrine of Christianity, and indeed, is one of which I still have a lot of processing to do. However, it was a little surprising to me that Machen went as far as he did about the revelation of Jesus not being enough knowledge about God. He makes the point that in order to understand what it means that Jesus is God, you must have some type of concept about God, and I suppose that is true. However, his argument almost seemed to go a little too far.

        The main issue I had with this part of the book is that he seems to separate the idea of God and Jesus too much; almost splitting the Trinity in an unhealthy manner. If Jesus is the greatest revelation of God, because He was God walking on the earth, then the point must be made that He is the best way to understand God. Of course, we have the rest of the Bible, and we also have our own experiences with God, but Jesus is the Emmanuel, "God with us." The direction Machen went with his argument made me a little comfortable because it felt like it was undermining not only the significance of Jesus' presence on the earth, but seemed to distinguish Jesus from God so much that he seemed to be talking about two separate beings. 

         The issue I have with this could quickly lead into nit-picking language and doctrine almost too much, but I do believe if Jesus is God, then all of God's characteristics (and the very fact that He has a relationship with humans) applies to both Jesus and the Father. 

      Aside from this point, I think his points on the fatherhood of God as well as the sin of man & Christians' response to this truth were very good points, and if we as Christians believe these doctrines to be true, we should truly be the happiest people on the earth. So the question begs to be asked -why aren't we?

Machen Chapter 2

IN CHAPTER TWO of Machen's Christianity & Liberalism, Machen introduces how liberalism and Christianity's doctrine differ, with this chapter focusing mainly on the doctrine of Christianity. Machen goes about presenting questions appearing to be from the liberalist's side about the Bible/the Gospel, and then proceeds to answer them.
     The most interesting topic I found in this chapter was Machen's point of Jesus in history versus Jesus in doctrine. I think this is an incredibly difficult and delicate balance to find, even in the mind of a Christian, let alone someone who denies the majority of the Bible.
    The first point Machen makes is that Christianity was founded on lives changed based on a doctrine, and not the other way around. What does this mean for us? It means our experience does not shape (or should not shape) the basic fundamentals of Christianity, but that these truths should shape our experiences with God! This can be seen Biblically with the case of Paul -the message of the Gospel was given to him, and that is when his life turned around.
     I appreciate what Machen wrote: " 'Christ died' -that is history; 'Christ died for our sins' -that is doctrine" (23). He also says, "The narration of the facts is history; the narration of the facts with meaning of the facts is doctrine" (25).
     So what does this mean for us as Christians? This is the question I have personally been wrestling with the past year. Although I think my problem has been the opposite of what a liberalist's would be -I have focused so long on the doctrine of Christianity, that it wasn't until last year that I really started trying to understand who the "historical" Jesus was. Of course, He is the same person. But to really grasp the understanding that our "doctrinal" or "religious" God in fact became human in history... it was not something that had been adequately expressed to me. While I'm still trying to understand the ramifications of what that actually means in my life, I do think it is important to accept. Jesus was not simply a character made up to believe in. He walked the earth. What's more, Christianity burst on the sight because of the people who actually walked and talked with him. Christianity, against all odds, spread like wildfire and resisted so many attacks against it, and this is both historical and doctrinal.  
     THUS, CHRISTIANITY WAS BASED OFF of a proclamation of an event, an event that was both foretold by Jesus Himself and shared afterward by his disciples. This doctrine continues to be the core of what Christianity is and is worth fighting for -an historical event that carries significant doctrinal implications.

Machen - Christianity & Liberalism, Chapter 1

     J. Gresham Machen's Christianity & Liberalism was published in 1923. Understanding the context in which this book was written, not only the year but also the location (the United States) adds an interesting take on this book.
   In the first chapter, Machen introduces the problem -the rise of modernism, or liberalism, in Christianity. He states that really, Christian Liberalism is a failure to both Christianity and modern science.
    One thing that was frustrating in reading this chapter was the lack of elaboration for terms he used. Without knowing if he will expound on these ideas (or his ideas of these words), I don't want to say too much negative about it. However, I felt like even his brief description on what he sees liberalism as was not enough to help me process his point of view. He used other terms as well (e.g. "Christian convictions," "scientific history," "higher aspirations of humanity," and "materialism") that are so subjective in today's world that it seems necessary that he explain what he views them as.
       Apart from this, one thing that particularly stood out to me is how "American" his ideas are. This is not necessarily good or bad, simply an observation. He mentions ideas of utilitarianism robbing human aspirations, as well as how the government controls things such as education which ends up removing individual freedoms. Clearly the picture he is painting is a negative one. However, as I read this, I take it with a grain of salt, recognizing the American ideals ringing loudly.
      His point of the chapter can be summed up in his thought-provoking statement, "Material betterment has gone hand in hand with spiritual decline" (13).  While this is an interesting statement, and I have seen evidences of this when visiting Christian cultures in other countries such as Haiti and then comparing them to that of my own culture, I simply do no think one can make a blanket statement such as that. While yes, scientific and technological advances can push society to be more comfortable and more dependent on them, and most likely even idolizing them, I believe 1) "spiritual decline" cannot be measured on a societal level, and 2) humans are always sinful and will always look for something to idolize and worship aside from God, with or without these scientific advances.
       I do want to highlight to a phrase he says in his closing paragraph of this chapter:

"...by showing what Christianity is not we hope to be able to show what Christianity is" (13).

The age-old question of "what determines what is Christian is and is not" is still one in many minds, including mine. But often before we can start to say what it is, we have to start learning to say, "Nope. That's not it."