Do Muslims, Jews, and Christians Worship the Same God? (Two Articles)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2015/12/here-we-go-again-an-evangelical-controversy-over-whether-christians-and-muslims-worship-the-same-god/

by Roger Olson

December 17, 2015

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? It’s not as simple a question as it appears and therefore no simple, straightforward answer should be given. The question itself begs analysis—before any answer can be given. I worry that people who jump to answer “yes” may be motivated more by political correctness and/or fear of persecution (of Muslims) than by clear thinking about the theological differences between Islam and Christianity. I also worry that people who jump to answer “no” may be motivated more by Christian fundamentalism and/or fear of terrorists than by clear thinking about the historical-theological roots of Islam in Jewish and Christian monotheism.

So, let’s analyze the question “Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?”

First, both Christianity and Islam are diverse religions. Do all Christians worship the same God? What all is being included in “Christians” in the question? What all is being included in “Muslims” in the question? Which Muslims? Which Christians? I know enough about the diversity of Islam to wonder if they all worship the same God. And I seriously doubt that all who claim to be Christians worship the same God. Does a liberal Christian who denies the deity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity worship the same God as an orthodox Christian who affirms them?

Second, the question could be interpreted as asking whether Muslims and Christians are thinking of God sufficiently alike to be worshiping the same God. Then my answer would tend to be “no”—they are not worshiping the same God. For orthodox Christianity “God” includes Jesus which is heresy if not blasphemy to most orthodox Muslims.

Third, the question could be interpreted as asking whether God accepts sincere Muslim worship of Allah as worship of himself. That is a very different question from whether Muslims and Christians are thinking sufficiently alike about God to be worshiping the same God. That latter question (discussed in the paragraph above) is an epistemological question with a more or less empirically (or at least sociologically and philosophically) determined answer. That is not to say equally astute scholars won’t disagree; it is only to say it can be researched. The question whether God accepts Muslim worship of Allah as worship of himself is very different and much more difficult to answer because answering it presumes knowing the mind of God.

Of course, some Christians will answer “no”—God does not accept worship of Allah as worship of himself—based on Jesus’s saying in John 14:6 that no one comes to the Father except through him. But, a problem with that, as I have pointed out before here, is that most of the same people who quote that verse to claim that God never accepts non-Christian worship as worship of himself admit that even when Jesus said it (sometime around 33 AD) there were Jews whose worship of God without Jesus was accepted by God as true worship of him. The question then becomes when God “cut off” all worship not centered around Jesus? When Jesus died on the cross? Then did the cross “unsave” thousands, if not millions, of Jews and God-fearing gentiles? Did God suddenly turn a deaf ear to them just because they did not know of Jesus? (Most Jews and gentile God-fearers lived outside of Palestine during Jesus’s earthly life, death and resurrection.) To say that God “grandfathered them in,” as one fundamentalist pastor said, is absurd. What about their sons and daughters who also never heard of Jesus before dying? When did God stop accepting worship by people with Abrahamic faith in God’s promises? So simply quoting John 14:6 does not settle the question whether God has ever accepted worship that does not include faith in Jesus Christ as worship of himself.

I do not think we can answer the question of what worship God accepts as worship of himself with any degree of certainty. To be sure, there are some “worships” that we can say with certainty God does not accept as worship of himself (such as worship of Satan). I admit that I am uncomfortable even with C. S. Lewis’s scenario of God accepting Emeth’s worship of Tash as worship of himself in The Chronicles of Narnia. That’s partly, however, because of the way Tash is described in the stories. Still, and nevertheless, I do not think we can say with assurance that God does not accept any Muslim’s worship of Allah as worship of himself.

On the other hand, I tend to think the theological differences between Allah in orthodox Islam (both Shia and Sunni versions to say nothing of Amadiyyah) and orthodox Christianity (Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant) are strong enough to doubt that, in most cases, Muslims and Christians are thinking of the same God when they worship Yahweh and Allah.

Having said that, however, let me also say that, as a Christian theologian, my main concern is whether all Christians are thinking of the same God when they worship. But that’s a subject for another post.

* * * * * * * * *

ADDENDUM

Amazon link

Book Description

Often the differences between the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - seem more obvious than their commonalities, leading to the question "Do we worship the same God?" Can the answer be "yes" without denying our differences?

This volume brings Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophers and theologians together to answer this question, offering rare insight into how representatives of each religion view the other monotheistic faiths. Each of their contributions uniquely approaches the primary question from a philosophical perspective that is informed by the practice of worship and prayer. Concepts covered include "sameness" and "oneness," the nature of God, epistemology, and the Trinity. Do We Worship the Same God? models serious-minded, honest, and respectful inter-religious dialogue and gives us new ways to address an ongoing question.

* * * * * * * * * *

Do Christians Worship

a Different God than the Jews?

by R.E. Slater

December 20, 2015

Miroslav Volf says that the Jews will answer "yes" while Christians will answer "no." That according to the Jewish man or woman their God is the God of the Old Testament Yahweh but does not include the Jesus of the New Testament. But to the Christian man or woman Jesus' God was that of the Old Testament as well who incarnated Himself through the personage of Jesus to finish/complete/begin the final work of salvation He must do "within the world" and not simply "outside of the world."

But what about the Muslim man or woman? Do they worship the same God as the Jew or the Christian? To some, Muslims and Jews worship the same God but not Muslims and Christians. That the Muslim and the Jew are blood brothers (Esau and Jacob) separated by geography at first and then by worship later.

However, what's missing from this debate is not how we identify with God, but how God identifies with us. Jesus says His disciples are known by their "love for one another" and when thinking about the "enlarged brotherhood" of God's disciples should we not then include this statement as a further description to the "spiritual brotherhood" of God which binds men and women? Men and women who worship a monotheistic God?

In answer, it really depends on which religious persuasion you come from. Pervasively, all Muslims, Jews, and Christians can recognize this statement but on another level it breaks down into its many religious parts according to that religious group's persuasions of who their God is or isn't. One group might show conservative intolerance whereas another group, say liberals, might misunderstand diversity for sameness.

Another way to re-parse this statement is to say that Muslims and Jews worship God incorrectly (from the Christian perspective) but you cannot say Muslims, Jews, and Christians aren't all worshipping the same God. It's the Abrahamic God. That's historical fact. You could critique each group's perception of how to worship the same God correctly - how that each religion approaches God with a different set of doctrines and dogmas - but is this God the same God or not?

Assuredly, some Christians will say this God is not the God who revealed Himself in Jesus. That He must be worshipped as the apostles of Christ taught. That Jesus is the gateway to God. Than there are other faith groups, like the Muslim and Jew, who will say we do not recognize this great prophet of God, Jesus, whom He sent to us. But we do recognize the God whom Jesus served and prayed to who is the same God who we worship and serve.

However, is this enough for God? Which presupposes we understand God's mind or would limit His grace to only those who enter into His temples through Jesus, the pinnacle of the Christian faith? Or, as others might say, God doesn't care about your religious tribe as much as He does your heart. That circumstantially, a person may be bound to be a Muslim or a Jew and unable to come to Jesus based upon experiences, backgrounds, traditions, or events.

And yet, in a larger way, in a way that is large enough for the Almighty God of the universe to admit diverse faiths into His fellowship, can this God be in some sense the same God a non-Christian believer might be able to worship? One who acknowledges the difference between good and evil? Who submits to live a life of grace, mercy, and forgiveness towards his or her's enemies? Who subscribes to the knowledge that there is one God over all who rules both by day and by night? Who wishes to live peaceably with all men?

Is this kind of God good enough to be worshipped as the same God of all Muslims, Jews, and Christians? Can it be so simply a matter of the heart's attitude towards one another and how we might live with one another? That the God of all grace is this same God of grace all His follows wish to honor by living their lives according to these grace-filled convictions no matter their religion (or morality)? Men and women who bear a conscience pricked by the convictions of service, sacrifice, and solidarity with all other men and women who bear this same Cross? The Cross of their faith, their God, their heart's convictions to live rightly with one another?

---

Another question to ask is that while this question is warranted for whether Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God can this be so with Jews and Christians? Jews and Christians share a mutual revelation and tradition. The Jews worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as do Christians. But the Jews do not recognize the fullness of the God they worship as Christians do who recognize Jesus as God's fulfillment of His promises.

Furthermore, time (history) is part of the issue, namely the Jews stop worshipping the God of promises-fulfilled when it was shown to be through Jesus. More poignantly, the Muslim's view of God is not revealed through the same means as the God of the Bible whom Christians worship and is thus a different God altogether, which in the vernacular sense of religion is true. Each faith has its differences with the other based upon tradition, time, culture, or theology.

But let us return to the original question, "Do Christians worship a different God than the Jews?" Volf says that Orthodox Jews have made that argument about Christians, but not all Jews would make this same distinction. And if anything is clear from the New Testament literature it is that Christians worship the same God as the Jews. That, the New Testament in itself is an apologia for precisely why the "God of the Christian" is the same "God of the Old Testament" and "God of the orthodox Jew."

Then there is Jesus' speech to the Pharisaical Jew (Jewish orthodoxy hadn't formed yet) of hardness to the God of the Old Testament, let alone to the God revealed in Christ Jesus. Jesus says to them,

John 8.39-47 (ESV) [sic, Jeremiah 29]

39 They answered him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham's children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, 40 but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are doing the works your father did.”

They said to him, “We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.

44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

Jesus said these things to those who believed that they more correctly worshipped Yaweh of the Old Testament (the OT is part of Christianity's bible and later collated with their New Testament in Jesus) than He did. Succinctly, Jesus queries that "If they worshipped God, they would find and believe in Him because "He and God are one." To which statement the Pharisees scoffed and rejected Jesus' incarnate presence of the divine God before them refusing to recognize their God come as Jesus and were rebuked by Jesus for their unbelief.

Importantly, Christian missionaries report frequently when witnessing of Jesus to both Muslim and Jew that those men and women who are genuinely seeking God will find Jesus because they do worship the "same/real" God of the Old Testament or Koran. That this God is revealing Himself to them in a variety of ways - some by dreams and visions, some by the simple witness of service and labors of love. Which is why Christians must go and speak of who Jesus is so the Muslim or Jewish man or woman may know who they are worshipping. Many have visions of Jesus because they truly worship God of the Bible. That is why they discover Jesus and become Christian, leaving the Muslim or Jewish God behind.

And lastly, the question for Volf is not whether we all agree on the nature of God, or believe that other non-Christian religious men and women can be saved by some other means, or that we are of the same religious faith, but whether the object of our worship, God, is the same God that is the object of each other's worship. So much of the New Testament is written to say that the God of the Old Testament is the same God that is revealed in Jesus. Jews disagree with Christians as to whether Jesus is the Messiah or whether Jesus is God incarnate, but that does not change the fact that the God we worship is the Yahweh of the Jewish Scriptures and possibly the Allah of the Koran, if - full of grace, mercy, forgiveness, and service to those around them.

R.E. Slater

December 20, 2015


Book Description
Amazon link

In this award winning, four-session small group Bible study, Carl Medearis, an international expert in the field of Arab-American and Muslim-Christian relations, provides background info on Islam and tools for sharing Christ with their Muslim neighbors.

Muslims, Christians and Jesus, is the recipient of the prestigious Outreach Magazine Resources of the Year for 2012.

According to Medearis, how Americans respond to Islam and how Christians think of Muslims could be one of the most significant issues of our time. Throughout the study, Medearis helps you understand the basics of Islam, the difference between “moderate” Muslims and radical terrorists, the Muslim view of Jesus, and how we should interact with our Muslim neighbors, friends, and coworkers.

From the Ground Zero mosque to whether we believe in the same God, Medearis also addresses key questions and responses to the current Muslim/Christian tensions facing our society.

This Participant Guide features video notes, group discussion questions, informative sidebars and quotes, and ideas for personal application. It’s designed to be used with the Muslims, Christians and Jesus DVD (sold separately).

Sessions include:

1. What is Islam? Exploring Our Fears
2. Understanding What Muslims Believe
3. Jesus: The Bridge to Muslims
4. Building Bridges through Relationship 
5. Bonus session: 10 Myths about Muslims

* * * * * * * * * *

SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION

February 10, 2016

Adinliu Ch - What do you think about the article? Do you believe we Christian worship same god of Muslim?

---

Russ Slater - Actually I wrote the second part in it. Depending on how specific you make the question a Christian could answer both yes and no. The first article by Roger Olson shares the more narrow meaning. What I then try to explain is the wider possibilities of this conundrum by throwing the Jewish consideration into the question.

So here's a few approaches... "yes" the Muslim (M), Jew (J), and Christian (C) worship the same God if it is the God of Abraham (Yahweh). But if we ask if they worship Jesus as the NT incarnation of God, then "no" to both the M and the J.

From an inter-faith dialogue - which wishes to pursue the broadest form of the answer in hopes of creating a kind of unity - then "yes". Each religion ( M, J, C) has the idea of a ruling, Sovereign God who wishes peace, goodwill, and love for both friend and enemy. But because Islam is a lot like Protestant Christianity (partitioned into its many sectarian beliefs), there can be as many "no's" to this question as yes's".

From a systematic theological perspective if one considers God to be able to consume hell for all His enemies upon His Holy personage, then "yes", every sinner - no matter how heinous the sin - will be saved (or, redeemed)... if not in this life than somewhere in death (depending on the kind of hell one's religion imagines). Meaning that the soul's transfer from "death" to "eternal life" might be immediate, or longish (in a purgatorial way), or never. This view is known as universalism. It envisions the possibility of redemption for lost souls who have died unredeemed.

My former pastor, Rob Bell, carried this belief. However, myself, I believe that though Jesus paid for all sin, sin must still carry both a penalty, a sentence, and a payment. But unlike the Catholic purgatorial view of a possible redemption (which is similar to universalism and is more probably the origin for universalism), or the Baptist view of eternal torment in hell, I like the annihilation view. In it, hell begins in this life as much as heaven does, when we commit sin or chose to submit to God and gain a "spirit-filled life". If choosing to refuse God, the difficulty of escaping sin grows stronger-and-stronger making it nearly impossible to leave evil's reign in an individual as both heart and soul become further-and-further removed from God and enmeshed in sin. Regardless of the degree of sin, in all cases the only way out is through Jesus. So that, at death, eternity for that unremitting soul may be either short or long.... That is, the dead soul continues on the path of death until finally extinguished into nothingness. So that in effect, the soul simply passes away from all memory or reality in its dimishment to its relationship with (1) the Creator-Redeemer God, (2) to God's image within itself, (3) to others, and (4) to the external world (thus, there are 4 relational bonds that are dissolved either one by one, or altogether, immediately. But importantly, this process begins in life rather than in death, while in death the soul is either slowly, or immediately, annihilated in its own kind of personal hell. If the longish view than at every step God gives that dead soul a chance to repent. If the shortist view (which I prefer), that soul's consequences are sealed and any chance of redemption is nullified because of its disobedience to God while living. Though theoretically this view might allow redemption after death, its construction places full accountability in this life, not the next.

In review, there are then 4 basic views of hell - (1) one that might be overcome by Jesus' redemption (the universalist view), (2) by sufficient retraining and learning in death (purgatory), (3) none at all as the soul is consumed in hell forever (the Baptist view), or (4) consumed in this life for its sin with physical death completing a life's end (annihilation) as it is hardened and seared, unable to repent, confess, or obey God through Jesus. I might add, though they many be personal reasons a believer or disbeliever prefers one or the other view, or none at all, we must acknowledge that in whatever view, or in all views, God has given humanity the greatest amount of opportunity to repent and be saved; to reform and do good; to change from one's evil life to a life full of bounty and healing nourishment to others. That God gives us His Spirit to help us to these "Cross" points; that He moves time and event in a way that He doesn't interfere with it but allows our greatest amount of illumination and enlightenment; that He brings into our lives opportunities for reform - sickness, suffering, death of a loved one, personal hardship, godly people, etc and etc. (Please note, all these examples come from God's creation in its present state of life and death, and not directly from God Himself. I do not wish to accuse God as One who brings evil into our lives, but One who is present with us when evil comes into our life).

The reason I entertain annihilation is because I think sin needs to be accounted for in this life, not later when it has no affect upon the living. Furthermore, it makes obedience to God in this life to be immediately important and relevant, by rewarding the obedient soul by helping conquer sin's heavy, deceptive chains of bondage. Also, rather than making Jesus a convenient escape route from dastardly, horrific deeds, it shows the immediate quagmire that sin really is. That sin and evil are to be eschewed in all areas of life and at all times. But for the obedient one to Jesus there is found a fuller, deeper walk into the promises of heaven into this life now. It makes doing the right thing important now rather than living an uneventful life spiritually while "waiting for heaven to arrive" at death. As such, actively living the Spirit-filled life may cause immediate spiritual resolutions and consequences in the world so that God's kingdom may "become" - both here and now in this present life - rather than waiting for it to "become" later when its no longer impactful upon living souls.

Thus I lean towards annihilation beginning in this life; can allow for a purgatorial or universalistic theoretical view but don't like how either system avoids the immediacy of obedience to God or its redemptive impact in this life now; and reject any version of a monstrous hell (the Baptist view) because my God loves at all times and will not torture souls in an endless future. So that, if hell exists in the after-life than not all things have been submitted to Him so He may be "All in All." So I tend to see hell in this life but not the next; whereas I see heaven beginning in this life and extending into the next for the redeemed one.

And finally, I am told, but have not confirmed, that Islam does not believe in sin (which I think they mean by this "original sin") but do believe in some kind of heaven and hell. Thus, the Islamic faith may consider a human birth free of sin but full of potentiality for evil or good. Whereas the Jews do teach original sin as Christianity does. But they emphasize the potentiality of a new life much more than Christianity would in its view of "total depravity". Myself, I like the Jewish view more and the Reformed/Calvinistic/Baptist view far less. Why? Because one must acknowledge the image of God in a life that is filled with potentiality, goodness, and light. I would rather emphasize the positive than the negative, without denying sin's imprint on us in someway, somehow... whether imputed, learned, or acquired (if constructed in "psycho-analytical" terms). And so, here is another similarity and/or difference between Muslims, Jews, and Christians when discussing "heaven," "hell," or "sin" v. "goodness".

So my apologies for the long answer. I tend to think in elaborate matrices or layers of complexity. Thus I write to help distill to Christians the many possible outcomes of their faith. A faith which must be here, now, and as much as godly -minded as possible. If our faith doesn't result in pragmatic ways of living than it is a waste of time, energy, and life. Which, I suppose, could be yet another point of contact between the M, J, and C.

As always it is good to hear from you. Blessings always. - res, February 10, 2015

---

Adinliu Ch - Well said, it would be nice if you update this article in a brief way. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Why Outcome Theology, like Outcome Politics, Betrays One's Faith

The church of Jesus Christ is [seemingly] absent in its season of Advent supposedly
proclaiming to the world Jesus' incarnate resurrectedness into humanity and all
 creation. A season we know as Christmas. But a season that is anything but
incarnate or ressurected. - re slater, 12.1.15

Faith's Old World

Lately I have been struggling with all the absurdity I have been listening to from the church in this season of American presidential politics (Fall 2015). The faith of Jesus I hold so precious is being blasted by many a Christian voice proclaiming distrust, fear, and protectionism from radical Islam as it rages to new heights known as Islamophobia. A height so great as to close America's borders to all immigrants seeking refuge and respite from hardship and evil while at the same time beating the war drum of vengeance upon all its self-proclaimed enemies.

An untenable plight causing us to ask ourselves, "Where is the church of Jesus Christ" who came to minister, heal, serve, and love the stranger, the despised, the outcast, even His enemy? As taken from the political rhetoric I have been listening to this kind of church of Christ is absent in its season of Advent supposedly proclaiming to the world Jesus' incarnate resurrectedness into humanity and all creation. A season we know as Christmas. But a season that is anything but incarnate or resurrected.

If incarnate, than the followers of Christ would act and speak differently than what I have been hearing. And if resurrected, there would be another kind of attitude - one of hope, healing, power, and strength - coming from within the church based upon its confidence in its Redeemer. But in its place I instead listen to the church's dream and deep-seated hope for Christ's coming as a bloody Conqueror to the world of sinful mankind in end-time expectation. An expectation that does no justice at all to the Jesus' present-time Sermon on the Mount. A Sermon preaching peace, grace, mercy, and forgiveness, not destruction and warfare.

Bad theologies, like bad dogmas, are prime motivators for why the world is as much at war now as it has been through the ages. Whether Jesus comes to kill, or to grant forgiveness, to the damned in the book Revelation is moot when held to the veracities of preaching grace and peace in the church now as shown to us through the Gospels of Christ. To read Revelation so literally as to wait in hope for its mythic language to leap from its pages is a grave error both ecclesiastically as well as eschatologically re the presentness of God's Kingdom now through Christ. Perhaps, we might consider Revelation's language as more that of "man's ancient struggle with sin within his own heart depicting a divine war between the Ancient of Days (Yahweh) for man's graceless hearts and prideful vengeance?" Nonetheless, it matters not what our eschatology is in the face of Christ's example of ministry and service in the gospels. If it will be so than it will be so. Till then we work by following our Lord into the throes of social justice, mercy, and grace to all, even our enemies.

Moreover, we reset our priorities and agendas to "work and speak and act" towards one another as real human beings in "solidarity with humankind" working towards the divine graces of peace and goodwill. To speak up against social injustices. To advocate for the despised and hated. To appreciate the needful distance between church and state. And to respect the civil rights of all men whoever they be. The Constitutional of the United States has all this goodness and appeal within it. A constitution partly built on the non-mainline church's oppressive experiences with the mainline churches of the Old World, and partly built upon its aspirations and dreams for a greater colony/society lived to the highest maxims of peace and goodwill, of tolerance and helpfulness to one another. This is no mistake. It was built upon hardship, religious oppression, exclusionary doctrines, and bad dogmas from the Old Europe. Let us not repeat this mistake and take an "Old World" view of our present situations today.

But if so, then the culmination of man's endless wars with each other is annihilation and doom caused by bad theology + bad politics. This would be the rightful equation for ungodly despair whether held by sinner or saint. A despair that is unnecessary if Christianity would pragmatically heed Jesus' call to grace and peace.

Or, even listen to the serious attempts by the moral parts of this world wishing to make peace with one another regardless of religion, faith, or doctrine. In the world's eyes, religion but seemingly adds gas to the fires of the ignobility of mankind when held to the lower standards of strife and  pride.

Faith's New World

So then, let us examine the several ways which orthodox Christianity might elevate its speech and doctrines. One comes from listening to one another. Another way comes from examining our beliefs and motives. And yet a third by repenting to God as seeking the light of His glory in our walks of life. Let's first begin with an introduction and then examine Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a prime candidate of a Christian caught between the crossfires of faith and reality:

"We wish to rupture the faith of the land. To disturb it, stir it, apply it, and

re-examine it at every level of our thought and being, actions and attitudes.

Even as the Lord Himself did during the times of His ministry to the lost

generations of both believers and unbelievers alike." - re slater, 10.16.14

At Relevancy22 we follow many of the trends within Christianity - whether from a radical anti-Christian viewpoint (aka Radical Christianity), or from a deeply convicted liberal view (aka biblical hermeneutics et al), or as a conservative traditionalist (mainstream (neo-)evangelicalism and postfundamentalism  - with a flavoring of Christian "common sense realism" that might be applied to each group's grasp of the truth as they wish to see it and purvey it. Similar to a cluster of blind scientists trying to describe an elephant - one thinking the animal is all nose, the other all hide, and the third large ears, missing the animal itself, so too Bonhoeffer is caricatured in this way by all theologic parties involved.

So that, when coming to Radical Theology, we will admit to that aspect of Christianity that can (and should be) religionless realizing that our cultures can never attain this aspect, only aspire within its religions and denominations.

That when coming to Liberal Christianity we should pay attention to liberal scholarship's observations and statements of the Bible as scholars in their own right of academia just so long as they do not loose the tradition of the historic orthodox Christian faith in Christ Jesus. An orthodox faith which we here at Relevancy22 have intentionally been elevating and re-describing within today's postmodern, post-secular, post-Christian contexts (heretofore described as emergent Christianity or postmodern Christianity but now as progressive Christianity). Contexts that neither deny Jesus nor refuse to listen to the newer discoveries and observations made of the Christian faith and its religious foundations. A difficult tightrope to walk... but nonetheless we walk it without collapsing into a loss of faith in the God who loves. And loves us through His Son as the ultimate expression of His grace and truth.

And finally, when coming to conservative Christianity - one which this writer here (myself) was birthed within and from the depths of its bowels - we seek its truths. But also wish to display its foibles, its bad theology, and fallacious dogmas. We would do the historic Christian faith no justice if we were not to examine all its foundations, its philosophies, its directions and bearing, lest we loose that precious faith itself to the false prophets of our day. Whether they be in the pulpits of the church or at the dais of the university lecture rooms. All who pretend to examine Jesus must proclaim Him Lord and King, Savior and God. Suffering Servant and loving Humanitarian.

Jesus is the conundrum of faith even as He can be all things to Radicals, Liberals, or Conservatives. Each group, each direction, each organization of thought has its own philosophical and religious lenses through which it chooses to see Jesus and the Christian faith. No less we here at Relevancy22 using a combination of all the above approaches without losing sight of the Lord's calling to be the mustard seed, the new wine, the lost coin of the Kingdom realm. Even the found faith of our days and times, years and appointments.

We wish to rupture the faith of the land. To disturb it, stir it, apply it, and re-examine it at every level of our thought and being, actions and attitudes. Even as the Lord Himself did during the times of His ministry to the lost generations of both believers and unbelievers alike. So be ye then salt, and light, and new wine, in the name of the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

R.E. Slater

October 16, 2014

revised December 19, 2014

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Eric Metaxas and the Egregious Misuse of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

http://www.scottpaeth.com/2014/03/eric-metaxas-and-the-egregious-misuse-of-dietrich-bonhoeffer.html

by Scott R. Paeth
Associate Professor of Religious Studies at DePaul University in Chicago, IL. He works in the fields of Christian Social Ethics and Public Theology.

March 20, 2014

I could have as easily titled this post "The Egregious Eric Metaxas's misuse of Dietrich Bonhoeffer," because, make no mistake, Metaxas is egregious, and the cottage industry he has cultivated in selling right wing Christian self-righteousness under the banner of comparing their moral sclerosis to the genuine courage and moral risk taken by Dietrich Bonhoeffer is disgusting and offensive. And the fact that he has done it through a biographical hatchet job that has become successful by flattering the delusions of American evangelicals that they are embroiled in a struggle for the soul of America that is in some way equivalent to that of the German Confessing Church just piles offense on offense.

So, when I read that, once more, Metaxas is peddling evangelical victimology under the cover of Bonhoeffer, I am both unsurprised and appalled. His latest comes in the form of an interview on a conservative Christian radio show, where he states, while comparing the struggles of Bonhoeffer (who, as a reminder, was murdered by the Nazis for his involvement in a conspiracy against the Reich):

"I’m talking about the theological liberals in the mainstream church that is just getting off in a whole other direction where they are just failing to teach biblical orthodoxy, failing to teach the Bible as the word of God and yet they still think of themselves as the church,” he said. “We see that obviously happening in issues of sexuality, but how can you say that most mainline denominations in America today are profoundly Christian when they have given up the ghost on all of these fundamentals of the faith? You had the exact same thing happening in Germany. It’s just setting things up so that when evil comes, where do people turn?"

So, just to be clear: Metaxas is hijacking the legacy and reputation of a man who, in a state of great moral and spiritual conflict, chose to resist what is commonly understood to be the most evil and despicable regime of the 20th century - a regime that corralled and murdered, among many others, homosexuals - and using that legacy to argue that the welcome extended by liberal churches to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is somehow "the exact same thing" as the complacent acceptance of Nazism by German Christians in the 1930s.

I'm sorry, but this is a crime against history and an offense against Christianity. It's bad theology, bad biblical criticism, and bad ethics. There is simply no basis for anyone to grant Eric Metaxas any credibility as an historian or as a commentator on Bonhoeffer, let alone a spokesperson for what constitutes "biblical orthodoxy" (a term I want to come back to in a moment). But of course, we've known this for a long time. One of the first -- and best -- reviews of Metaxas's Bonhoeffer biography was written by Clifford Green in The Christian Century and it completely and utterly dismantles the book. A small sample of that review:

"Two aspects of Bonhoeffer are so disturbing to Metaxas that he has to deny them outright or try to explain them away. Bonhoeffer, he insists, was not a pacifist. While pacifism as usually understood is not a good word to describe Bonhoeffer's position, his Christian peace ethic was rooted in the core doctrines of his theology—his Christology and his understanding of discipleship, his interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and his doctrine of the church. He did not abandon his peace ethic while working to kill Hitler and end the Nazi regime. Just one sign of this stance is the fact that even during the war Bonhoeffer wrote in his Ethics and spoke to his fiancée in support of conscientious objection. These matters of theology and ethics are too subtle for Metaxas; consequently his treatment of the Lasserre-Bonhoeffer friendship in New York falsifies the sources and wallows in sentimentality.

"Worse, if possible, is Metaxas's embarrassment about Bonhoeffer's writing in Letters and Papers from Prison about "religionless Christianity." In a Trinity Forum interview he even stated that Bonhoeffer "never really said it," but then had to retract that because, well, Bonhoeffer did say it. But, Metaxas continues, he wrote it privately in a letter to Bethge and never intended anyone to see it because it was "utterly out of keeping with the rest of Bonhoeffer's life." He calls Bonhoeffer's theological prison reflections a "few bone fragments . . . set upon by famished kites and less noble birds, many of whose descendants gnaw them still.""

Green concludes that "Given all this, the most descriptive and honest title for Metaxas's book would perhaps beBonhoeffer Co-opted. Or better: Bonhoeffer Hijacked." But, here, because he completely deserves it, let me pile on a bit from another review:

"The result is a terrible oversimplification and at times misinterpretation of Bonhoeffer’s thought, the theological and ecclesial world of his times, and the history of Nazi Germany. There are numerous errors, some small, some rather stunning. The most glaring errors occur in his account of the church struggle, which is portrayed as the battle between the Nazi-controlled German Christians against Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who here leads the Confessing Church together with Martin Niemoeller. In Metaxas’ version, the Barmen declaration repudiates Nazi anti-Semitism, the Confessing Church breaks away from the Reich Church, and the neutral or intact churches are completely absent from the scene (there are not even index entries for Bishops Wurm, Marahrens, or Meiser, the last of whom is referred to but not named). Bonhoeffer of course leads the way, both in the name of true Christianity and on behalf of the Jews. This oversimplification of the battle lines and the complexities of the church struggle (and of Bonhoeffer himself) characterizes the portrayal of the entire period. National Socialism and its leaders are of course unambiguously anti-Christian. Most of the generals in the resistance against Hitler, we learn, are “serious Christians”. Luther’s anti-Semitism is attributed to his digestive troubles, and Metaxas does not address how anti-Semitism, whatever its source, had permeated the mindset of German Protestantism and the wider culture. ... In some places it is offensive, as when Metaxas argues that supporters of the Aryan paragraph were not really anti-Semitic: “Some believed that an ethnically Jewish person who was honestly converted to Christian faith should be part of a church composed of other converted Jews. Many sincere white American Christians felt that way about Christians of other races until just a few decades ago.” (Why, some of their best friends …). Along the way Metaxas inserts shorthand summaries that range from the silly (Luther as “the Catholic monk who invented Protestantism”) to the bizarre (the difference between Barth and Harnack is compared to contemporary debates “between strict Darwinian evolutionists and advocates of so-called Intelligent Design”)."

There is only one reason that Metaxas hasn't been completely laughed out of any and all serious conversation about Bonhoeffer, and that is because he flatters the self-conception of conservative evangelicals.

I should probably just end there, but it is worth noting a couple of the underlying problems in Metaxas's whole approach, particularly in this interview. First is his insistence that the dividing line between his evangelical cohort of followers and "liberal Christianity" is over this idea of "Biblical orthodoxy," which is of course another way of saying "Liberal Christians don't go out of their way to condemn homosexuality," a topic that occupies all of about five verses in the entire Bible. "Biblical orthodoxy" never seems to attend such [(gay)] issues as, for example, nonviolence, which was central to Jesus' teaching, or charging interest on loans (known in the Bible as usury, but known in the United States as "the engine of our economy").

But then again, evangelicals of the kind who like to be flattered by Metaxas's historical distortions aren't really all that concerned with war or economic injustice, both of which are much more central to the moral concerns of the Bible than any issues of "sexual orthodoxy." It's passing strange when your conception of what constitutes orthodoxy of any sort revolves around the isolated focus on such a minuscule aspect of the Biblical text. It's even stranger when your conception of orthodoxy focuses, not on questions of God's nature, Christ's incarnation, the nature of his sacrifice or the possibilities of salvation, but instead on one question that was culturally marginal at the time the Bible was written and has become crucial today only because a subset of the human family has decided that it would very much like to be treated as fully human thank-you-very-much. If that's orthdoxy, I'll take heresy any day of the week.

In fact, it's worth noting that, if we were looking for any group who was acting "just like" the Nazis with regard to gays and lesbians, we'd be far more likely to be successful if we looked to those conservative evangelicals who have been hard at work in Uganda over the past several years trying, ultimately successfully, to get legislation passed to declare homosexuality a crime and to put gays and lesbians in prison. These are the same brand of conservative evangelicals, it should be noted, that seem to conform to what Metaxas means by "biblical orthodoxy." So please, Eric, be careful where you are swinging your Nazi comparisons.

Of course, the whole evangelical hermeneutic could best be described as "interpreting the Bible while pretending we're not interpreting it. It would be more honest to say that conservatives of the Metaxas strain and liberals have different interpretations of the Bible, and then inquiry as to which interpretation best comports with what we can say of about God's will based on the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. But that approach would lead inevitably to the conclusion that the conservative obsession with other people's sex lives is utterly ridiculous and anti-Christian, and they can't have that.

But finally, I think a word has to be said on behalf of Bonhoeffer. Insofar as Metaxas has set himself up as the go-to contemporary interpreter of Bonhoeffer, he has done a huge disservice to the complexity and ambiguity inherent in Bonhoeffer's thought. Evangelicals have an understandable attachment to earlier works like Discipleship and Life Together, while liberals are often fascinated by the fragmentary material collected in Ethics and Letters and Papers from Prison. The earlier books have a strong emphasis on obedience to God and personal Christian commitment, ideas that have a strong resonance in evangelical circles, while the latter books point to the difficulties of discerning God's will in ambiguous circumstances, and imagine the possibilities of a "religionless Christianity" that approaches things from the perspective of those on the margins of society. 

The unfortunate truth is that, because he was murdered, we have no way of knowing what direction Bonhoeffer's thought might have taken after the war. It's therefore worth displaying a bit of humility in attempting to assert with confidence what Bohoeffer "really" thought near the end of his life. However, if we were looking for an interpreter on that front, Eberhard Bethge would be a far better choice than Eric Metaxas, as Bethge was the editor of Bonhoeffer's prison writings, the compiler of the Ethics, and one of Bonhoeffer's most frequent prison correspondents. Bethge himself seemed content to let Bonhoeffer's words and action speak for themselves, without filtering them through the anachronistic lenses of contemporary disputes. The truth is that there is something in Bonhoeffer for those on the political and theological left as well as those on the right. Metaxas is not totally wrong when he sees those elements in Bonhoeffer that are attractive to conservatives. But his utter dishonesty in his presentation of those issues, his shoddy scholarship, and his repulsive comparisons of liberals to Nazis should be enough to render everything else he has to say irrelevant.

So now, let us finally be done with Eric Metaxas. May I never have to hear his name or discuss his "work" ever again.

Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace - Religionless Christianity

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugLAJvUCiBw#action=share



A scene from movie 'Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace' - "Lamb among wolves."
German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the great pacifist theologian speaks of
a religionless Christianity centered around Jesus and the suffering of mankind.

Amazon Link

Bonhoeffer the Assassin?: Challenging The Myth.

Recovering His Call To Peacemaking by Nation.

Mark Thiessen ( 2013 ) Paperback

This careful examination questions the assumption that Bonhoeffer was involved in plots to assassinate Hitler and reveals Bonhoeffer's consistent commitment to peace.

Related Links to Mark Theissen Nation @ Relevancy22

Roger Olson - When Pacifism Meets Reality: Examining Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Hitler-Dilemma"

• “There is no evidence that Bonhoeffer was ‘involved in the plots to kill Hitler.’ Hopefully we have also shown that there is no real evidence that Bonhoeffer himself affirmed the killing of Hitler.” (p. 93).

• But, according to Bethege, there is no doubt that he believed Bonhoeffer at least tentatively gave up his pacifism in a “boundary situation,” namely, the extremity of having to end the war and the holocaust.

• Bethge clearly thought, from personal conversations with Bonhoeffer, that Bonhoeffer thought the Krisau Circle, von Moltke, and non-violent resistance to Hitler was useless.

• My conclusion is that the authors of Bonhoeffer the Assassin? (and Foreword author Hauerwas) fail to give us a strong enough statement of Bethge’s proximity to Bonhoeffer throughout the time of his involvement in the resistance against Hitler and unjustly cast doubt on his veracity about Bonhoeffer’s role in it. Anyone who reads the book must also read Bethge’s biography of Bonhoeffer, or at least the portion of it dealing with the conspiracy, and then make up their own mind. Believing Nation, et al., will require more than doubting Bethge. And if Bethge could be wrong about this, he must not [then] be considered as a "reliable" witness to the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Scot McKnight - The Continuing Debate to Bonhoeffer's German Resistance and Its Implications for Jesus' "Kingdom Ethics"

• There is tension here between his “this-worldliness” and his earlier Discipleship. That he has to say he still stands by the early work is a telling concession that emerged in his thinking as a result of his participation in the conspiracy.

• Bonhoeffer’s own journey is the struggle the church has always had with how to live out the Sermon on the Mount.

• The most important element of this scheme was that Bonhoeffer changed his mind from being a pacifist to being a (Niebuhrian) realist

• Mark Thiessen Nation, along with Anthony G. Siegrist and Daniel P. Umbel, have now published their work: Bonhoeffer the Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2013). They ask if Bonhoeffer was involved in the conspiracy to kill Hitler. They conclude he was not. In part two of this review I will sketch their views and respond to their proposal.

• What this book does in the middle chapters, chapters harder to read than the others, is to demonstrate that there is a decisive break between Barcelona and Discipleship, one in which Bonhoeffer shifts from anti-pacifism to pacifism on the basis of the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus’ teachings.

• I no longer think Bonhoeffer made a tragic mistake in entering into the conspiracy and so shifted from his pacifism because I’m not convinced he entered into the conspiracy. Bonhoeffer may well have sustained his pacifism.

Scot McKnight - Review of "Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer," by Charles Marsh

• Eric Metaxas (Bonhoeffer) told a different story, a more evangelical one, which is why so many evangelicals have found Bonhoeffer in the last five years. Mark Thiessen Nation provides in his study (Bonhoeffer the Assassin?) a different journey for Bonhoeffer (see reviews by Scot McKnight and Roger Olson).

Amazon Link

• But the best written description of Bonhoeffer’s journey is now byCharles Marsh, Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Why use the word “journey”? Because people have made meaning out of Bonhoeffer’s life and theological development according to the scheme they find in his story. The fork in the road or the place of decision is right here: When Bonhoeffer returned to Germany after that aborted visit to Union Theological Seminary in the summer of 1939, did his theology shift from a pacifist Discipleship and Life Together direction toward a more Niebuhrianrealism/responsibility vision? That is, did he enter into the Abwehr (double agent) in Hitler’s National Socialist party as one who was seeking the downfall, assassination, and replacement of Hitler, or was his life as a double agent a ruse for his continued life in the ministry of the ecumenical movement?

• ...the best way to act as a responsible Christian under Hitler was to assume the guilt of the nation and seek his country’s collapse. Maybe the best way of all to frame this is to say Bonhoeffer took leave of Discipleship by the time he was writing Ethics. That, at any rate, is the most common journey told of Bonhoeffer’s theological development. I have already covered Mark Thiessen Nation’s proposal and this post is about Marsh’s study, but it appears to me Bonhoeffer’s pacifism can remain in tact in spite of his realism since he saw entrance into the resistance as guilt (personal and national).

• Seemingly ahead of everyone else in theological circles, including Barth, Bonhoeffer saw the Jewish Question as the Christian Problem. He helped his sister and brother in law escape from Germany to England through Switzerland. They survived the war, Dietrich did not. Marsh’s Bonhoeffer is probing pluralism in affirmative terms, and Marsh is accurate.

• Marsh, in my view, downplays Discipleship and Life Together because, again in my view, he sees a different journey for Bonhoeffer: it is one that sees the highlight years in DB’s life not in the outside-the-system seminary (they weren’t underground until the end) writings and spirituality but in the more “responsible” political theology of the Ethics and his Letters and Papers from Prison. His sketches of DB’s theology after his return to Germany and while in prison were a highlight for me.

Scot McKnight - Who Owns Bonhoeffer? Or, How to Take Sides in Theological Disputes

• Will the real DB stand up? Is he a radical (anti-)Christian seeking a religionless Christianity (sic, Peter Rollins)? Is he a deeply convicted liberal advocating for social justice, Christian resistance to both the conservative church and against mainstream political fascism of Germany? Or, is he a conservative traditionalist as Metaxas advocates who left his childhood faith for another kind of Christianity altogether (noting the difference in his theologic life between his writings on Discipleship to that of Ethics)?

Scot McKnight - Taking Sides in Theological Disputes (last article in link)

• For DB, taking sides was as much about attitude as it was about correctness. He could appreciate a Rudolf Bultmann for his theologic work though differing from RB as well. But when listening to the conservative church react to RB as against theologic anti-intellectualism, Dietrich faulted the attitude of the conservative church for its failings to truly listen to the struggle of the times Rudolf was working both with and against. That this foster attitude upon the church by self-proclaimed leaders of its evangelical faith was dangerous to listen to, absorb, and act upon. - abridged: re slater

* * * * * * * * 

No, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Didn’t Try To Kill Adolf Hitler

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/no-dietrich-bonhoeffer-didnt-try-to-kill-adolph-hitler/

by Benjamin L. Corey

December 19, 2014

Comments

It seems quite often when I discuss the theology of Christian Nonviolence, some folks are quick to drop the name of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer for many has become a “trump card” in discussions on nonviolence when one wants to give an example of someone who used violence to confront evil, as he has the reputation of being an attempted assassin of Adolph Hitler. Unfortunately, Bonhoeffer is a poor example of the desired point as there is no evidence that was actively involved in planning or attempting to assassinate Hitler -  a basic fact accepted by the academy but seemingly missing from common internet discussions on Bonhoeffer.

To address this issue on the blog, I decided to sit down with Dr. Joseph McGarry, a Bonhoeffer scholar, and ask him to briefly explain in simple terms why thinking of Bonhoeffer as an assassin is probably not the best way to view the historical evidence.

Dr. McGarry was awarded his PhD in systematic theology from the University of Aberdeen in 2013, writing on Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s theology of formation in Christ. His doctoral thesis has been accepted for publication by Fortress Press under the title Christ Among a Band of People: Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Formation in Christ. He has been published in Theology Today, The Journal of Spiritual Formation and Soul Care, and The Bonhoeffer Legacy: Australasian Journal of Bonhoeffer Studies. He has also contributed numerous lectures for the Evangelical Theological Society, the American Academy of Religion, and the Society for the Study of Theology. Furthermore, he is a diehard fan of the Buffalo Bills (who can’t seem to beat the New England Patriots).

---

BLC: Dr. McGarry, it seems that it is a popular assumption in today’s culture that Bonhoeffer was a Christian theologian from Germany who was executed because he tried to assassinate Hitler. However, having attended several Bonhoeffer presentations by scholars at the American Academy of Religion, it seems to me that no serious Bonhoeffer scholar sees him as an assassin or even as a direct accomplice to any assassination attempt. Which version of history is correct? And, if Bonhoeffer wasn’t actually involved in an assassination attempt, where did this myth come from?

Dr. McGarry: Yeah, there’s a somewhat prevalent misnomer, and I’d imagine the myth stems from a series of logical deductions and some assumptions along the way. When people think about the Bonhoeffer’s life and involvement in the resistence, the flow of logic goes something like this:

• a) Dietrich Bonhoeffer worked for the Abwehr, and was recruited there by his brother in law, Hans von Dohnányi;

• b) Members of the Abwehr’s leadership (specifically Hans Oster, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, and Dohnányi) actively planned attempts on Hitler’s life;

• c) When the “Zossen files” were discovered in September 1944 (after the failure of the 20 July plot) von Dohnányi was clearly implicated in assassination planning, and the rest of the Abwehr by extension.

• Therefore, everyone associated with these files was executed for treason against the Reich. Generally, it is then assumed that— because Bonhoeffer was executed with these other people who actively planned Hitler’s assassination—Bonhoeffer himself was actively involved as well.

Unfortunately, it is this assumption that scholars have again and again called an overstatement of the evidence. Something closer to reality is that Bonhoeffer was (at least) one level removed from the active planning. He was part of the organization but not part of the core. He was surely knowledgeable that *something* was being planned, but he was not part of the inner circle and it is likely he didn’t know what that *something* was.

Rather, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a courier, passing messages—particularly to England through his friend Bishop George Bell—and trying to get assurances from the Allied forces that they would stop bombing Germany when Hitler’s regime was overthrown. Bonhoeffer’s job was to try to find a way to convince England to stop destroying Germany. He was a messenger, not an assassination planner. He likely provided a measure of theological justification for what others were doing (as can be seen in his Christmas 1942 letter “After 10 Years”), but he himself was—at best—a bit player in the overall scheme of things. When we think of Bonhoeffer and Hitler’s assassination, it’s probably better to think of his role as “message boy” and not “core leader”.

Now, there is a current stream of interpretation that says that Bonhoeffer had actually no knowledge whatsoever that the Abwehr leadership was planning an assassination, but this seems to me to be a bit of an overstatement from the other side.

Either way, the general consensus of scholarship is that Bonhoeffer himself was neither a core member of the resistance, nor was he central to any of the planning that the Abwer did.

---

BLC: If Bonhoeffer’s connection with the role of assassin is an overstatement of the evidence, how did we get here? Was he even focused on finding a way to destroy Hitler’s power?

Dr. McGarry: I think we get to this point from some very well intentioned people who have been truly impacted by Bonhoeffer’s amazing biography. It’s compelling, it’s dramatic. A man who forsakes all in the way he did, especially with how he returned from New York in 1939, believing that he needed to be with his nation if he were to have any right to rebuilt it…..it’s powerful stuff.

I think there’s also a tendency for us to look for heroes of the Christian faith–people who encourage us and who give us something to aspire toward. Surely Dietrich Bonhoeffer is that kind of person–a man of conviction who did what he felt was right, what was difficult, and ended up dying for how he lived his faith. I mean, let’s be honest, that was a significant factor in my own study of his work. But, in the midst of telling that type of story, there’s a temptation to overplay the hand, so to speak. It’s easy to forget that a very significant portion of his employment with the Abwehr had to do with his desire to escape the front lines. He wasn’t going to fight for the Reich. First, he tried to escape active combat by becoming a chaplain, but he was denied. His only other option would have been to come forward as a conscientious objector, but that would have earned him a one way ticket to a concentration camp. He ended up going to New York on a theological fellowship in 1939 as a way to escape, but he was overcome with guilt and returned just a few weeks later. So he returns to Germany, certain to be sent into combat, and he was trying to find a way out. And then, he found a way into the Abwehr. A way to escape the war. Though he was very sympathetic to the resistance movement, the main reason he joined the Abwehr wasn’t to be part of the resistance so much as to avoid military service (Bonhoeffer was originally imprisoned as a draft dodger, and it wasn’t until late 1944 that it was revealed that he worked in the same section of the Abwehr as those who planned the assassination plot). Though he was executed for his association with people who planned the assassination, he was put in prison for avoiding conscription.

I think that’s what often happens when we look at Bonhoeffer’s life: we focus on the stuff that shapes the heroic story of David standing up against Goliath–standing for the Gospel. And it’s not as if it’s wrong, it’s just only half of the picture. The other half (which we can’t put to the side) is the well connected pastor from a family who had political connections that could give him an exemption from combat service. It just so happened they worked for the Abwehr and that was his ticket out. If they worked as janitors in a steel factory, then he would have been doing that instead.

---

The short summary of the whole is this: Bonhoeffer did not want to die in a concentration camp, and he didn’t want to be sent off to fight either. Thus, he used family connections to find a way out of both scenarios: joining the Abwehr. While he was there, some members of the Abwehr did plan an overthrow of Hitler, but the evidence shows Bonhoeffer was at least one step removed from the circle of people who did that. However, because he was likely aware that *something* was being discussed (without knowing what that was), he did use personal friendships to ask the Allies to stop bombing and killing his family and friends (an attempt at peacemaking, not violence) which they declined. In the end, he was executed not because he was part of an assassination attempt, but simply because he was associated with people who were.

Bonhoeffer is one of my favorite people in history, as perhaps he is yours. However, to claim that he was a would-be assassin, is simply an overstatement of the historical facts.

For further reading on this topic, I recommend: Bonhoeffer The Assassin? Challenging The Myth, Recovering His Call To Peacemaking.

Pentatonix's Lindsey Stirling Rejoices in the Lord playing "Hallelujah" & "Shatter Me"

God's Season of Advent has become His Resurrection Song. A poetry that the very elements of the Eucharist speaks to through serving and loving one another rather than using or harming one another. String violinist and performer Lindsey Stirling speaks to this divine melody she hears within her soul when proclaiming Jesus as her Savior and benevolent Lord come to shatter us into His resurrection song. Hallelujah! Christ is King!

Peace.

R.E. Slater

December 17, 2015

Related links - Pentatonix - Medleys of Christmas

* * * * * * * * * * *

Hallelujah- Lindsey Stirling- #aSaviorIsBorn

Website - http://www.lindseystirling.com/home/

FaceBook - https://www.facebook.com/lindseystirlingmusic

Published on Dec 7, 2015
Merry Christmas Stirlingites!

Please watch this video that shares the Christmas story:
https://www.mormon.org/christmas?cid=...

Buy this song on
iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/hal...
Google Play: http://bit.ly/LShallelujah
Amazon: http://bit.ly/AMZhallelujah

* * * * * * * * * * *

Wikipedia Bio - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Stirling

Lindsey Stirling (born September 21, 1986) is an American violinist, dancer, performance artist, singer and composer. She presents choreographed violin performances, both live and in music videos found on her YouTube channel, Lindsey Stirling, which she introduced in 2007.

Stirling performs a variety of music styles, from classical to pop and rock to electronic dance music. Aside from original work, her discography contains covers of songs by other musicians and various soundtracks. Her music video, "Crystallize" finished as the eighth-most watched video of 2012, and her cover version of Radioactive with Pentatonix won Response of the Year in the first YouTube Music Awards in 2013. Stirling achieved one million singles sold worldwide by August of 2014. As of April 2015, her LindseystompYouTube channel exceeded 7 million subscribers and over a billion total views.

Stirling has been named in Forbes magazine's, 30 Under 30 In Music: The Class Of 2015. Forbes notes her quarter-finalist position on America's Got Talent season five in 2010, a No. 2 position on the Billboard 200 for her second album Shatter Me in 2014, and her 7 million subscribers on YouTube.

Stirling's eponymous debut album was a commercial success in Europe, selling 200,000 copies in Germany, winning a platinum certification; three additional certifications were given by Austria, Switzerland and Poland. The debut album was nominated for the 2014 Billboard Music Awards for Top Dance/Electronic Albums. Stirling's second album Shatter Mewon the 2015 Billboard Music Awards for Top Dance/Electronic Album.

Shatter Me Featuring Lzzy Hale - Lindsey Stirling

I. Howared Marshall - Father of Open Theism

While reading Michael Bird's posted communiques, author and theologian Thomas Jay Oord, known for his own discourses on God's relational love, open theism, and process thinking, discovered the following:

"Biblical scholar I. Howard Marshall died recently. In Michael Bird's blog, I learned

something new: "A little known fact about Howard is that he is one of the root causes

of  Open Theism! Clark Pinnock read Howard’s 'Kept by the Power of God,' which

made him drop the “P” from “TULIP” which had a domino effect that drove Clark

Pinnock to embrace Third Wave Charismatic Renewal and eventually Open Theism.

So, for Open Theism, blame Howard for getting the ball rolling on that one!"

                                                                           - Michael F. Bird, author and theologian

                                                                                   

Hayward 2002 lecture 1: I. Howard Marshall

[the volume is bad so earbuds may be required]

Published on Apr 13, 2012

2002 Hayward Lectures

Dr. I. Howard Marshall speaks on "The Interpretation of the Bible and Development of Theology"

Lecture 1: "Evangelicals and Hermeneutics" Nov 18

* * * * * * * * * *

I. Howard Marshall | Photo from TGC

I. Howard Marshall (1934-2015)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2015/12/i-howard-marshall-1934-2015/

by Michael F. Bird

December 13, 2015

Comments

I was deeply saddened to hear of the passing of I. Howard Marshall.

Just yesterday I was reading his volume Origins of Christology and it reminded me of the stature of his work and even his boldness in going against (at the time) the scholarly grain.

Howard’s influence is not simply through his many writings, but also through the 30-40 PhD students he supervised, people like Craig Blomberg, Ray Van Neste, Gary Burge, Joel Green, and Darrell Bock! So many fine evangelicals scholars were made into capable researchers at the stables of Aberdeen thanks to Howard. No wonder he was the recipient of two festschifts.

I got to know Howard during my time in Scotland, in visits to Aberdeen, through the Tyndale Fellowship, and at the British New Testament Society. I had the honour of supervising a PhD with him and learned a lot about how to be a good supervisor from him.

I have several fond memories of Howard.

First, I gave a lecture at the Tyndale Fellowship and kept mispronouncing William Wrede’s name as “Read-ay” rather than “Red-a.” When Howard questioned my pronunciation, I tried to bluff my way through and suggest that maybe it had French roots, but Howard just smiled back and said, “I-I-I-I, don’t think so Michael.”

Second, I remember the committee of the Tyndale Fellowship rejoicing that TGC was taking over the journal Themelios (which otherwise would have simply folded), but Howard wryly lamented that it was such a pity that he could not write for the journal any more, since authors had to be both Calvinists and Complementarians, of which he was neither. (UPDATE: I’ve since learned from TGC HQ that contributors to Themelios do not have to subscribe to the TGC doctrinal statement, only that they should not write anything that might undermine it).

Third, I remember getting an email from Howard asking me to translate Presbyterianism into Methodist so he could understand an EQ submission where a chap was arguing there is no such thing as positional sanctification because the Westminster Confession of Faith does not refer to any.

A little known fact about Howard is that he is one of the root causes of Open Theism! Clark Pinnock read Howard’s Kept by the Power of God, which made him drop the “P” from “TULIP” which had a domino effect that drove Clark Pinnock to embrace Third Wave Charismatic Renewal and eventually Open Theism. So for Open Theism, blame Howard for getting the ball rolling on that one!

Of his many books, I will remember his Luke commentary (NIGTC), Acts commentary (TNTC), and Lucan theology. I think his volume Aspects of Atonement is a neglected gem of a book and well worth reading (and he pushes back on his former student, Joel Green’s, critique of penal substitution). His Pastorals commentary for the ICC is hard to get pass too. I have a soft spot for his Why I Believe in the Historical Jesus? And his New Testament Theology is a very readable and rock solid volume, always sensible and even handed.

Howard typified what I would call a “British” evangelical, he was in many ways conservative in his views of biblical criticism on issues like dating and historicity (esp. on Acts), but never uncritical or unreasoned in his approach (like on the authorship of the Pastorals). He believed in the reliability of the Bible, but did not see the attraction of what I’ve called the American Inerrancy Tradition. But most of all, his scholarship was combined with a genuine and heartfelt piety, love for God, and love for others. He was such a kind and gentle soul, he epitomized the notion of a good Christian gentleman.

Howard Marshall was the kind of man who watched his life and doctrine closely (1 Tim 4.16) and we can learn not only from his scholarship but from his example.

I insist that my PhD students read Carl Trueman, “Interview with Professor Howard Marshall,” Themelios 26 (2002): 48-53, which has some great nuggets of advice for young players from Howard.

You can read other tributes by Darrell Bock and Ray Van Neste both hosted at TGC.

A younger generation might want to get a sample of Howard’s work by listening to his 2002 Hayward Lecture on “The Interpretation of the Bible and the Development of Theology.”

The lectures are also part of a book called Beyond the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2004), and I habitually refer students to it to discuss whether we still have to abstain from eating meat with blood in it as per the apostolic decree of Acts 15.

May he rest in peace and rise in glory!