Karl Barth to the Church in Crisis

Some interesting reading from Eberhard Busch's book on Karl Barth which describes Barth's activities and approach to church and state in those fateful days of pre-WWII Germany:

"Barth sent [a] sermon immediately to Adolf Hitler with a letter saying that he should learn what the Christian church is really about. . . ."

On October 31, 1933, in Berlin Barth challenged the German Church at a public gathering of 150 pastors with the following tirade of questions:

"'What has happened this summer in Germany? Did it happen justly or unjustly? What about this kind of seizure of power? What abotu the liquidation of all other parties? What about the confiscation of property? What took place in the concentration camps? What happened to the Jews? Can Germany, can the German Church, accept responsibility for so many suicides? Has the Church not also become guilty in all this by remaining silent? Whoever proclaims the Word of God has to speak what the Word of God says about such actions.'

Barth was immediately expelled from Germany for these statements. . . .

During the 1930s, it became obvious how easily a church so proud of herself could be led astray. Barth tried to bring clarity by using the phrase 'The Church must be the Church.' She may neither be a hidden monastery nor a department store.

And he worked hard to get this point across. He did so out of the conviction that the church herself is her own greatest threat and that she must resist this threat above all others.

He regarded Dietrich Bonhoeffer's idea of leaving the church because of the infiltration of Nazi ideology as an unhelpful escape from this task. He insisted that you, the followers of this ideology, have left the church.

Part of the significance of the Barmen Declaration was that it called those in error back to the church. Therefore, he called those resisting this error the Confessing Church. . . .

For Barth the church is in order when Christ alone is at her center and when her members are no more and no less than brothers and sisters."

A Link to Some Lament

One of the things we talked about a lot at seminary was the lack of healthy, biblical lament in church and, thus, the lopsidedness of our worship. We had a few times of lamentation in our seminary community chapels, but I have yet to see it attempted much, at least not in an intentional way, in a church setting.

But my friend Jon Kramer has blazed a bit of a trail (in our denominational tradition anyway) and recently led a contextually appropriate and, from what I can tell, very healthy and authentic lament service at his church (following another tragedy in the church) and anyone who is interested can see his comments, and a copy of his talk, here. For any of you who have talked about this with me in the past this is a head's up: Go read it, save it, print it off, frame it.

I feel for that church at this rough time, but thank God they have a pastor willing to help them begin to understand how to walk through it together, rather than, as Jon says, all feeling like they have to go off to some Shack somewhere to deal with it alone until they are ready to come do the "shiny happy" again. Oh man, that's gold.

OK Church: What's the Diff? Part 2

Some more comments have been added to the Interlude post, but I'm prepared to put my answer out there and hopefully it addresses them somewhat while also providing my basic responses to the original question. I don't have much more time to work on it, but would rather put out an unpolished version and then discuss and clarify than hold off indefinitely until that never-to-come day when it is perfectly put.

So, if you are just joining us, the question Trev asked was as follows. There could be (and has been) some debate over the presumptions in the question itself, but my goal is to address the main thrust of it.

"One of the biggest criticisms against the church is its claim to have an objective source for morality (God). Yet, we see an organization that seems to follow suit with whatever the rest of the world is doing. The church is constantly evolving and re-examining its moral compass....just like everyone else. So what's the difference? What is Jesus doing within the church that isn't happening elsewhere in society? Is society following the church's example, or is the church following society's example?"

And: "What IS the church?"

The church confesses God in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

Its people know they are works in progress. Where they forget this they stand to be corrected. They confess again that it is a reconciling.

Are they different than society? Of course they are. This isn't the group that gathers around the feeling that Lando is their favourite Star Wars character. It is the people that gathers around the belief that God in Christ is reconciling the world to himself. Wherever they are different it is there: In the content of what they are gathered by and for.

But the question was really about their moral difference. If they have an "objective source for morality" from God why aren't they better across the board than the rest of society? Why should anyone care about them if they are not morally better?

I think CS Lewis was right about this in Mere Christianity. In my view if you are going to look for the moral difference Christ makes you don't get far comparing the behaviour of Christian Jon to that of atheist Matthew. Matthew may have been quite simple born morally superior to Jon: Light years ahead in grace and humility. The question is what difference there is between Christian Jon and un-Christian Jon. This is a comparison one can make, although not perfectly of course. Most Christians can and will speak of the difference Christ has made in their lives.

But I suspect this is exactly the attitude Trev wishes to confront. When church people shift the focus from "God in Christ reconciling the world" to "God in me made better than you". And what we need to continue doing, morally speaking, is ask ourselves what difference Christ has yet to make in our lives.

Is the church different? Morally? Many times probably yes. But not in the sense that they are all made better than everyone else immediately upon entry into the building or the religion. That's just not how it works. God in Christ is still reconciling, not just the church, but the world. The church confesses this and strives for it. That's how it is different.

The church is not different than society because it has an objective static moral code that requires no effort in interpretation or application. Yes you have church folk who make it out to be that way, but if that's the cardboard cut out you want to use to cover the whole church you just aren't trying very hard. The church itself has correctives for such folk.

However, neither is the church the same as society because it has a "moral compass" that is "constantly evolving" and "following suit" with society at every step of the way. Sometimes it does, and some pockets of it are more societally-driven than others, and sometimes that is to varying degrees appropriate. Sometimes, too, societally-driven change is actually inappropriate, according to the church's discernment. Sometimes there is a bit of both.

One example of a time it was good to go with (part of) society was and is in the case of the abolition of slavery in the U.S., although it is not that simple as to say that eradicating slavery was the work of society against the church. It was society in part along with the church in part against society in part and the church in part. Would it have changed without the seeds of Judeo-Christian equality in the society itself?

An example of something the society may arguably be "ahead" on might be the role of women. But even here, would it be where it is without the seeds of Judeo-Christian equality (however slowly they've been born out to their full redemption as of yet)? And can we really call something like societal feminism "ahead" when it also entails the full-scale slaughter of innocent yet-to-be-born children?

An obvious example of an inappropriate going-along-with-society was the church in Germany which supported the National Socialists. But there was also the confessing church in Germany, and another huge part of the church and a huge part of the society around Germany, that begged to differ with that party's values. Would Hitler have been able to do what he did without some perverted biblical interpretations of anti-semitist nationalism? Perhaps not, but I imagine he'd have found some other justification. And there are hugely reasonable grounds for opposing him in Christian theology itself.

To say that the church's "moral compass" is no different than society's is, to me, missing something. Just because it has to think along the way, interpret, wrestle, adapt, and apply, doesn't make it different. It makes it human. But it believes Jesus is the Son of God, the Word made flesh, and it believes the Spirit guides us into truth as we wrestle with the Scriptures together. So I'd say the moral compass is a bit different.

It is indeed constantly "re-examining" its moral compass, Jesus Christ, as testified to in Scripture and in church history and in church-present by the communal work of interpretation and application as led by the Spirit. This is exactly what it is doing and trying to do. But where it is different is that the moral compass is Jesus Christ. And I find it ironic that it gets accused on one hand of just going with whatever conveniently allows it to sleep with society at night, and on the other of not going along with it quickly enough. It is also ironic that it is accused of being flighty, when the one thing that sets it apart is precisely the root from which it grows.

Even in those cases where society seems ahead, the church will have a different motive or goal or slant or style of moral change depending on the degree to which Christ is speaking into the situation through society and then back into society through the church gathered around Him.

We believe God in Christ is reconciling the world to himself. Not human ideas about God, but God revealed in Christ. And he is reconciling; not done yet; active and relevant. And the goal is reconciliation of the world, not just the select, escapist, pietistically superior, rapturable few.

And the goal is full-scale reconciliation to God, not simply some moral improvement in itself. And reconciliation to God of course entails healing of relationships with others, with creation, and also the hope of new creation in Christ yet to come.

I think the church has moral stances that are going to be unpopular. Within it are also approaches to morality that could use refining. But if it can be criticized at any point it is by Christ himself. It is to be criticized wherever it is not more like Christ.

But there are a couple ways to go about that criticism. There are the Pharisees who demand a certain holiness and offer no help or togetherness in getting there. These are the old Pharisees everyone rails against: The legalists so obsessed with personal piety and the rapture. But there are also the new Pharisees who have left the church because it doesn't live up.

But there is a new (old) way of being the church, and that is to love it as Christ loves it, and loves us, with grace, with a commitment to what we should be, with a conviction that we get there by forgiveness and reconciliation and not of ourselves. This is my conviction: That if the church is to be different it is here. Ambassadors of reconciliation.

We can't well do that from our moral haunches and pedestals, but we can do it be continuing to gather at the communion table, not in false peace, but in the commitment to speak TRUTH in LOVE to one another, to listen in return, to have a spirit of forgiveness, and to be the people who in word and deed continue to gather together and then work and speak in the world as if God is, inded, in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

Interlude: Inspired

Saw this over at can't find normal and have watched it several times. It's a must see. Really.




I have seen lots of skateboarding videos that wowed me too. I love these guys. I used to hang out at skate parks (and make 28 year old attempts to rollerblade the half pipe) and watch them. I think what is so amazing about the bike stuff is that we've all ridden a bike and so we know this is incredible.

I was going to post this as an interlude to the whole conversation that has been going on in the post below, but now that I think about it I realize this is not a departure at all.

Lest Trev accuse me of evading the question, I think there is an important point here. I watch a video like this and I think: "What a creature we call 'human'!"

As Christians we talk a lot about the fall, and being redeemed from it. So Trev is right to ask why we often don't look all that different, all that redeemed. I think this is a generalization that doesn't ring true across the board, but is a valid query and decent point nonetheless.

But one of the things we also say is that God made people, and called them very good. And though we've fallen there is yet much good to be found. And in Psalm 8 the Psalmist wrestles with both sides of the issue -- our devastating finitude and fallenness and our amazing capability and goodness:

"what are mere mortals that you are mindful of them,
human beings that you care for them?
You have made them a little lower than the heavenly beings
and crowned them with glory and honor."

I think one of the things we perhaps don't do enough of as the church is affirm and involve ourselves in the good around us. Certainly we'll see it as good of a different sort and source, but like I think Tanti was saying below, why do we need to take credit for it?

I have no idea if this bike riding genius is a Christian or not, but, man, he is good!

And yet I'll add a Christian spin on it too. I might risk sounding cheesy here, but as a Christian watching this genius biker I also want to affirm the good I see when instead of destroying property (as the stereotype would have it), part way through the video he puts stuff back how he found it. My wife loved that part.

Anyway, this is perhaps a bit of an interlude in the conversation, but perhaps not. I hope everyone enjoys this video. And in the interests of continuing the conversation (and not evading the question), in the comment stream to this post I'll re-state the question and recap the answers given in the other post so we can keep it going.

OK Church: What's the Diff?

Though a very busy month for me in every regard, strangely enough April was my busiest blogging month of all time (by a long shot: 18 posts to the next closest 12!). That's a bit misleading though. There have been other months where I've blogged way more, it is just that those months I spent most of my time commenting on other's blogs (wink wink nudge nudge Joel and Matthew).

Anyway, for my first post in May I want to come back to something Trev raised in the comments on my Shriners' post in early April. We had a bit of a back and forth at the time and then I moved on (you can get the context here, if you want). But I don't want to ignore challenges that have been raised, at least not on my very own blog, especially when it has been done articulately and respectfully. So here's what Trev said:

"One of the biggest criticisms against the church is its claim to have an objective source for morality (God). Yet, we see an organization that seems to follow suit with whatever the rest of the world is doing. The church is constantly evolving and re-examining its moral compass....just like everyone else. So what's the difference? What is Jesus doing within the church that isn't happening elsewhere in society? Is society following the church's example, or is the church following society's example?"

Good question. I am not sure I have the time to craft a long involved answer or enter into super-lengthy debate, but I do have some thoughts on the matter. However, first I want to put the question out there and see if any of my readers (Christian or otherwise) wish to chime in.

What do you think about Trev's question?

(To be clear (and knowing my readers I probably don't really need to say this), this is not to be an attack on Trev. He raised it, and I want to let the comment stream continue.)