Only Jesus Is Lord!

When the calls come for the Church and her people to serve the glory and power of nation or party, the Church must answer with a resounding, “No! Only Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

The Confessing Church in Germany (1934 ff) understood and articulated this well in the Theological Declaration of Barmen. It did not specifically address all of the evils of the Nazi regime or offer resistance in a specifically political sense. Rather, they rejected as false doctrine that the Church become an organ of the State. The effect of this was that congregations and individual Christians chose whether to identify themselves as “German Christians” or “Confessing Christians.”

In the current political environment of the United States, especially among those who object to some of the policies of President Trump and the Republican Party, various comparisons are made to the situation in Nazi Germany. My own opinion is that this alienates people and truncates genuine dialog. I believe it also leads to seeing false parallels and missing more fundamental issues of our time.

Since exploring the Confessing Church and its theologians when I was at Wheaton Graduate School (69-72), I have found the Theological Declaration of Barmen to be profoundly relevant and beneficial. I sense (and hope I am wrong), that the Church (full spectrum of those who trust and follow Jesus – not any one manifestation) in the United States today may be facing a similar call to choose that prompted the founding of the Confessing Church 84 years ago. Voices from several quarters seem to be calling the Church and individual Christians to serve the nation and political ideology undermining the Lordship of Jesus even as it gives him lip service. I am concerned that the Church in the United States may become divided as were the “German Christians” and “Confessing Church,” leaving most who just want to live a simple faith in Jesus and follow him daily, confused and torn as leaders they have respected advocate for competing loyalties.

Yes, the Theological Declaration of Barmen was forged in a particularly fierce furnace, but it speaks profoundly to us today. It interprets the historic challenges of Christendom to authentic Christian faith and discipleship. I am convinced it will speak relevantly to many generations who will come after us. I continue to urge its study and dialog, not as a critique of fickle political policies that will come and go and be shaped by events and reality, but as an incisive prompting to probe the profound issues of the fidelity of the Church in our day to only Jesus as Lord.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/barmen.htm

Romans 10.9:

If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

1 Corinthians 12.3:

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says “Let Jesus be cursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

Philippians 2.11:

Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Volunteer for Execution

I will be interested to see who replaces Reverend Patrick J. Conroy as Chaplain of the House of Representatives. Will they choose an obscure retired pastor to pronounce religious platitudes or a prominent figure to articulate a religious rationale for their cause?

We seem to have several aspirants for the role of Ludwig Müller, rallying churches and religious folk to serve a political cause. In that they identify with the young and women, perhaps #MeToo and #MarchForOurLives may parallel Sophie and Hans Scholl. Who are the candidates for the roles of Maximilian Kolbe and Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Executions won’t come by guillotine, noose, or carbolic acid but by dismissive slander.  

Lead Us Not into a Time of Testing

Since Pope Francis has suggested changing the liturgical wording of The Lord’s Prayer (the Our Father) from “lead us not into temptation” to “do not let us fall into temptation,” Christians of all varieties and even non-Christians have been talking it. The idea is to bring the translation used in worship in line with James 1:13, making it clear that “No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one.” Please understand, Pope Francis has not proposed changing Jesus’ prayer or the Bible, only suggesting a clearer translation in line with the rest of the Bible.

I think an even more important translation update would be to change “temptation” to “Do not bring us to the time of trial” as the NRSV does in both Matthew 6:13 and Luke 11:4. As I understand the Greek word peirasmos traditionally rendered “temptation” could also (sometimes better) be translated “time of trial” or “time of testing.” That would be consistent with the book of Job and probably Jesus’ 40 day experience in the desert following his baptism (Matthew 4; Mark 1; Luke 4). I think it also supports the idea of not suggesting God tempts us.

Along with millions of other Christians all over the world, through the centuries, I pray through the Lord’s Prayer daily. I frequently discuss with God the tests I am facing each day. In recent months I have sensed that a time of serious testing in coming upon all of us in the US who want to seriously follow Jesus as his faithful disciples. I am increasingly convinced this test is a time of spiritual and moral confusion and conflict being played out in public on a national and even international scale.

I have been amazed, even appalled, shocked and disappointed, surprised and incredulous at the number of leaders among evangelical Christians who are giving Donald Trump a free pass on his alleged and acknowledged sexual indiscretions. I am not at all suggesting that I expect the US President or any other government official (elected, appointed, or hired) to be my brand of Christian (or any brand of Christian). I affirm the US Constitution’s prohibition of any religious test for public office. I think our Christian forbearers, who came before Constantine made a distorted version of Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, would agree that this is actually good for the authenticity and health of Christian faith and discipleship. The dilution and corruption of Christianity in the Christendom of Europe led to the dangerous idea that any nation could be “Christian.” The Puritans tried that in colonial New England and not only found it unsustainable, but that it undermined the faith of those who were serious about following Jesus. I would also add that my comments have nothing to do with political philosophy or any kind of comparison with either Bill or Hillary Clinton. What I am looking for in those in positions of public leadership, whether I agree with them on policy or not, is integrity, authenticity, and accountability. I mention this not to get into a debate about the cultural consensus about sexuality, but as an important test of spiritual and moral conflict and confusion those of us who follow Jesus are facing.

However, I am much more concerned about a less obvious but more ominous test of spiritual and moral conflict and confusion that seems to be emerging in recent weeks. That is the juxtaposition of increasing political instability and the beating of the drums of war. People are leaving Congress and the current administration at an unusually rapid pace. That so many are Republicans must be making party regulars uncomfortable. Anticipating the 2018 midterm elections and the 2020 presidential election evokes both hope and fear, depending on one’s political presuppositions. What effect the #MeToo and #MarchforOur Lives movements will have remains to be seen. To be sure career politicians are nervous. Some posturing that seems to prepare for challenging the validity of those elections already seems to be underway. At the same time, we are hearing both vague and direct signals that military action is being contemplated in one trouble spot or another: Syria, North Korea, Iran. That a nation’s people tend to rally around their leaders in times of war is axiomatic and understandable. Provoking a war in a time of political insecurity to manufacture national unity has been employed as a political strategy in many times and places. I am not saying that this is consciously or unconsciously pursued right now, but I think even the prospect of it may portend a time of testing, of spiritual and moral conflict and confusion for those of us who follow Jesus.

Understand, I am not suggesting anything good about the regimes in Syria, North Korea, Iran, or any other troubled or totalitarian place in the world. But I would say that outside military intervention almost inevitably exacerbates the instability and suffering. The recent history of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya are cautionary tales we should heed. Violence inherently breeds more violence. When we say things such as, “Military force is the only language they understand,” we are betraying our own failure of imagination. I know it is exceedingly hard work, but if we really care to bring peace and justice to these troubled places, we must commit ourselves to exactly that work.

I am convinced that unilateral executive or administrative action is not only fraught with moral and accountability danger, it invites political disaster and division. The US Constitution demands that Congress be the avenue for declaring and authorizing war. Of course, in a time of political chaos, getting a clear direction might be difficult, perhaps prompting an executive claim of national emergency as a pretext for proceeding to war without congressional consent. I would hope that our military leaders would have the moral insight and fortitude to refuse to be ordered to fight an ill-advised war. We must remember the big lesson of the Nuremberg trials: following orders does not excuse or justify immoral or illegal acts in war. From private to general, all military personnel are required to refuse to obey orders they believe are immoral or illegal.

I readily acknowledge that I have been a pacifist of religious conviction my entire adult life and that this perspective influences what I have written. I want to add quickly that I respect and do not judge those Christians who seek to faithfully live as disciples of Jesus in military service. I can only say that my pacifism is intrinsic and integral to my aspiration to follow Jesus as a faithful disciple which precludes that for me. I do ask that I be similarly respected without demeaning judgment.

Having said that, my concern here about this time of testing, of spiritual and moral conflict and confusion for those of us who follow Jesus is not dependent on a pacifist ethic. Just as I do not believe the concept of a “Christian” nation is valid, I have no illusions about any nation adopting a pacifist ethic for international policy. Nevertheless, ethical principles are essential to discernment should the juxtaposition of increasing political instability and the beating of the drums of war lead to misguided military action. Christians of all political and theological persuasions must consistently call for adherence to the classical principles of just war. These trace to Greek antiquity and are closely paralleled in Deuteronomy 20. They were expressed by the pre-Reformation Church Fathers in hopes of minimizing and regulating war in Christendom, when “Christian” princes would send their armies to wage war on other “Christian” princes for a host of reasons, real and imagined.

1.      Just cause – self-defense only

2.      Just intent – restoration of peace with justice for both friend and foe

3.      Last resort – only after all other paths have failed

4.      Lawful declaration – never the prerogative of individuals or parties

5.      Immunity of non-combatants

6.      Limited objectives – unconditional surrender and the destruction of economies and institutions is unwarranted

7.      Limited means – use only sufficient force to resist violence and restore peace[i]

I conclude by returning to my reflections on the line from the Lord’s Prayer, “Do not bring us to the time of trial” and my concern that those of us in the US may be facing a time of testing, of spiritual and moral confusion and conflict. I have written this as part of my earnest prayer that we will not be brought to such a time of trial. However, as I pray as Jesus instructed each day, the news of that day intensifies this prayer. These thoughts have been simmering in my heart and mind so persistently that I felt compelled to get them written. I genuinely pray that neither national hubris nor political desperation will bring war, but I did not want to come to the place of regretting that I had not expressed this sooner.

---

[i] Holmes, Arthur F., War and Christian Ethics, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1975, pp. 4-5

Not Complaining About the Weather is a Spiritual Discipline

For many years, with I hope good humor, I have told people that I consider not complaining about the weather to be a spiritual discipline. We have no control over it. It just comes and we adjust, which I do believe is spiritually healthy.

With the seemingly prolonged winter (though I well remember April snow back to the 70’s in Wheaton, IL), I have seen and heard a lot of people all over the country fussing about the apparent delay of spring. I don’t know who they are blaming, but I still believe learning to adjust to what we can’t control is spiritually healthy. Yes, when people do things that harm others, we need to work for justice and compassion, without letting them control our emotions or steal our joy.

Yes, I am fully convinced that we humans (all of us together) have for quite a long time done things that have a destructive effect on earth’s total climate. And yes, it does affect not just my weather but the weather for all people around the world. We are right to do everything possible personally, politically, and economically to address climate change constructively. Having said that, today’s weather will be what it will be, and I still believe accepting and adjusting to that is a healthy spiritual discipline.

Generosity to the Needy is Not “Welfare Mentality”

My lectio divina for this week has included this from the Lectionary reading for Sunday: Acts 4:34-35. “There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.” As I went on to the Epistle, my eye drifted down the page to 1 John 3:17, which is not in Sunday’s reading but seemed to connect for me. “How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?” While complete communal ownership of all property in the early church is not mentioned again, the ethic of using what God has given you to help those in need persisted.

As I pondered this, I remembered seeing a social media post in which someone defended buying a new luxury car when a friend observed that a lot of poor people could have been fed for what that car cost and a less expensive car would have been just as serviceable. The defense of the luxury car was that by buying it, the owner was feeding many people who worked to produce all of the materials that went into it and building it. The post went on to reject the observation about feeding the poor by labeling it “welfare” mentality that discourages people from working and commending “capitalist” mentality that rewards work.

I have no interest in denigrating capitalism per se and certainly not work. However, as one who aspires to follow Jesus, I emphatically affirm generosity toward those in need. That was affirmed from the Hebrew Scriptures through the New Testament Epistles. As Deuteronomy 15:11 says “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’” And I dare not dismiss generosity to those in need as “welfare mentality.”