-
It is interesting: now, two months after 9-11, people in our congregation
are starting to resonate with repentance as a response to the terrorist
attacks. I preached repentance on 9/16 and people came back the next week.
I'll be preaching it again this week with Luke's gospel and the destruction
of the temple - trade center/pentagon.
I've been teaching a course using the Crossways Bible Time line. Since it
presents a wide variety of events in scripture the participants always
bring up 9-11. I see it as a wonderful opportunity to remind people of
what God's ultimate will is for us: "Return to the Lord your God...."
Just to let you know who I am. I am an ELCA pastor serving a small, rural
congregation. I heard about Sabbatheology and Thursday Theology from my
wife who heard about it from David Truemper at Valparaiso University.
Thanks for your thoughts.
-
- Bravo. Esp. your update of Amos 3:3-6, wherewith the home run got hit.
- You drove me to my favorite Reformed guy, Newbigin, whose stuff rings
with new clarity in the wake of 9/11. From his little TRUTH TO TELL,
chapter 3 ("Speaking the Truth to Caesar"): "The ideology which the Barmen
Declaration sought to unmask and to reject was the ideology of nation and
race and blood. The ideology which we [truth-telling 1990's folks] have to
recognize, unmask, and reject is an ideology of freedom, a false and
idolatrous conception of freedom which equates it with the freedom of each
individual to do as he or she wishes." What do your quibblers #3 not get?
- Newbigin somewhere tells a marvelous story--wish I could quickly put my
finger on it--that he uses to describe what repentance is fundamentally
about. Seems that in his days as Church of South India bishop, he was
paying a visit to a village with a one-way street. The locals had
organized a procession to meet him, the idea being that as he drew near the
village they would parade the length of the street to meet him. Problem
is, the path he was taking to the village brought him to the same end of
the street where the processors had gathered. Discovering this, and
recognizing the imminence of embarrassment all around, he and his entourage
backtracked a little, trudged around the edge of the village and then
renewed their approach from the opposite direction. This, he said, is what
repentance is about: a 180 degree turn--like the younger brother turning
homeward from the pig sty of the far country; unlike the older brother who
remains standing in the field with his back toward the house where the
party's breaking out.
- I very much appreciated your observation about the NT's flat "repent,"
minus an "of".
- Keep it coming.
-
Ed, It is refreshing to watch your discoveries as first, the events of
contemporary history, and now, the reactions of your readers to your
reading of contemporary history, push you deeper into the sources. Your
apologia gets richer and richer (I just finished reading ThTh-179).
I recall your first "reading" of the September 11 "tea leaves" to be meek
and a bit tentative. But at each re-crossing of the events of our day with
the sources in the OT/NT and in the church fathers, you grow more forceful.
I am reminded of the days in the early 1970's as the attacks against the
St. Louis [Missouri Synod seminary] faculty grew stronger, the theology of
those under attack grew sharper and more focused on the Gospel.
Culminating at one point in "Faithful to our Calling, Faithful to our God".
And I recall Doc Caemmerer's comment in those days, that his own personal
question mark about his Lord's promise that to follow Him would entail
suffering, was finally erased when Doc himself came under intense fire for
living what he had preached for so many years.
I'm sure that it is interesting (maybe painful) for you to see the
critiques that come now from inside the church against your reflections. It
is clear to me that although you may not have a vision from heaven to
promote your analysis of Sept. 11, you certainly have a long-standing call
to speak News that is even better than we expect, after we have finally
seen that our problem is even worse that we dared to dream. Your ThTh is
very meaningful for me. Thanks for engaging in the fracas (again),
-
My god, you hit the nail on the head again. Repentance is a turning to the
Lord because turning anywhere else is idolatrous. The church has been so
lax in preaching a repentance for the forgiveness of sins the last 20-30
years that sin was so down-played that glory theology became the internal
religious philosophy of the decades. And so it does seem a correct
observational analysis that the what-should-we-do mentality misses the
whole point of it. So Elert was correct in that ethics needs to begin in
the garden/fall of humanity model with God (the critic?) announcing to Adam
, "Where are you?" as the beginning point to where we address ethics. The
Pelagian what-should-we-do mentality does not begin at the right place. In
fact, the fault (sin) may lie in that humans seek a relationship with dos
and donts rather than the primary relationship with God (either faced with
God the critic in my old Adam or reaching out in pure trust to Jesus, the
new Adam, a new self opened to Jesus' forgiveness in his resurrection).
Just wanted to share some thoughts. I'm with you on this...go for it.
-
Ed, Just made a quick run through your latest epistle; need to read it at a
slower pace, in my daily walk; good stuff, you bet. At any rate, you are
not talking to the choir, you got a fighting fish by the tail, and
therefore you have to keep on reeling in. Aka-repentance. Read the
letters to the editor and you read about "nuke the enemy." Spend just one
hour, like I did, at the Peace Park in Hiroshima, where living and dying
were one, and where l20,000--they say, 200,000--were "french fried" in an
instant, and one thinks differently. Therefore, keep on keeping on, and
faith, of course, attracts real fire, when you get into the fat.
-
I have been wrestling with your comments for the past 9 weeks, as I have
been struggling to sort out much of the theology I've been hearing since
9-11. Most of the comments from colleagues and others have been swirling
with both hubris and partisanship, and it has been difficult for me to find
clarity. My own hubris and partisanship was also getting in the way of
understanding where God's saving act in Christ Jesus speaks to us in these
days.
Thank you for this last Thursday Theology. The Summa [final paragraph
of ThTh 179] finally started to break through with a clear sense of the
cross. The part about national Pelagianism also started to make sense, and
it ties into a religious Pelagianism I've seen in myself and colleagues as
we struggle to believe the "right" thing. Don't get me wrong, I am not a
relativist, but I have found myself these 9 weeks struggling to justify my
existence by having the right theology.
I have found myself very frustrated with the Thursday Theology pieces
the past 9 weeks, to the point of not wanting to read anymore. However,
even when I disagreed, I appreciated the quality of your argument so much
that I could not disregard it. Thank you for continuing this dialog. I
plan to continue to read your reflections with fear and trembling, as well
as gratitude and peace.
Thank you for the hard word.
-
Anyway, I want to thank you for your last two ThTh's, especially for
unveiling the "Pelagian" fallacy in the question of repenting "from what,"
which is nothing but an avoidance tactic for doing true repentance:
repentance as "denying yourself." For one can always work on
changing/veiling the fruit, and quibble about "making satisfactions," but
we cannot change the "self" as known by God--and that is the focus of
repentance, the self before God. Again, many thanks.
-
Thanks for your drumbeat. I'm not getting bored or frustrated, but fed.
As you say, "Repent" in the old book, which the new one tries to translate
with "metanoia," does indeed mean turn around. Come back! Come home!
Quit looking for home ever further into the darkness that can never give
you arms to hold you or hands into which to rest your life at the end of
your day of crossbearing (Lk 23:46).
As for Luke 23 and the crucified King, that's become one of my most
cherished images of the church: Some crucified folks hanging there asking,
"Now what? What's next?" while much of the world stands by laughing at this
foolishness, this sorry gallows humor.
We say we are crucified with Christ by baptism into his death, so that's us
hanging there, too, having got what we deserve. We look like a sick comedy
sketch to the world that watches this bizarre scene. Crucified folks have
no future, right?
So it seems.
Hang in there, Ed. I'm off next week to [famous Lutheran venue] to lead an
Advent retreat. You've helped prepare me. We'll work at repentance, at
listening to the voice that calls us home. God's peace.