"May You Be One of Them"
Allow me a warning: unlike the others, this is indeed a long post but it will at least make you think about more than what you’ll have to eat today and at most not let you sleep tonight. I really think this might be worth your while.
Please also allow me a disclaimer: I am not speaking as a theologian here. I am no such thing. I am a waiter who serves food to people. Don’t get me wrong -- my credentials are what they are but I can only speak from where I am and right now I’m the guy you leave a tip for after your meal. My “theology” arises from there.
The question all of you must face right now is: what does it really mean if the church has, in essence, become extinct? Not extinct as in it doesn’t matter anymore but in the sense that this particular “species” has not survived?
Bonhoeffer: “...we are once again being driven right back to the beginnings of our understanding. Reconciliation and redemption, regeneration and the Holy Ghost, love of our enemies, cross and resurrection, life in Christ and Christian discipleship -- all these things are difficult and so remote that we hardly venture any more to speak of them. In the traditional words and acts we suspect that there may be something quite new and revolutionary, though we cannot as yet grasp or express it. That is our own fault. Our Church, which has been fighting in these years for its self-preservation, as though that were an end in itself, is incapable (emphasis mine) of taking the word of reconciliation and redemption to mankind and the world. Our earlier words are therefore bound to lose their force and cease, and our being Christians today will be limited to two things: prayer and righteous action among men. All Christian thinking, speaking, and organizing must be born anew out of this prayer and action...It is not for us to prophesy the day (though the day will come) when men will once more be called on to utter the word of God that the world will be changed and renewed by it. It will be a new language, perhaps quite non-religious, but liberating and redeeming -- as was Jesus’ language; it will shock people and yet overcome them by its power; it will be the language of a new righteousness and truth, proclaiming God’s peace with men and the coming of his kingdom...Till then the Christian cause will be a silent and hidden affair, but there will be those who pray and do right and wait for God’s own time. May you be one of them...”
What if this is the “day (that) will come”? I’m without a doubt convinced that is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves. The church’s structure, language, its very mode of being, has become extinct in the present day. Now, what do we do about it? I will not presume to have the answer to this question. But I do have some thoughts. (Note: Irony has it that Zach de la Rocha is literally screaming in my ear right now “It has to start somewhere, it has to start sometime, what better place than here, what better time than now? All hell can’t stop us now”). But that’s just it. When are we going to wake the fuck up and start taking seriously our current situation? And I’m speaking to every one of you who gives two shits about Jesus Christ, including yours truly. It’s not just a matter of saying the right things or even just living the right way; it’s letting something die so it can be born again. We have to let our idea of what it means to be the Church die. God made us adaptable beings for a reason...and we’ve become extinct.
And I’m not just trying to preach, yet again, some idealistic bullshit about how the Church can survive and save the world. It hasn’t and it won’t...which is why we must admit the fact that we have failed. Yes, failed. We’ve lost the game and we’ve been escorted from the premises due to our unacceptable behavior. Oh, I know, we want to stand up and say “But we don’t have to win! Jesus did that for us!” O.k., that might sound good and theologically accurate but what do you think Johnny McStreetperson, Jane McCEO, and Jimmy McI’velostmyfaith is going to say? “O.k.” Exactly, because that language is now foreign. It means nothing to them. Our saccharine-laced theological explanations are our own form of mental masturbation (and I mean that more than you know...we have no means to deal with our current predicament so we come up with these stimulating explanations to excuse ourselves from responsibility).
So, Bonhoeffer says that, in order to truly experience Christ’s sufferings in this world, we must live fully, and he means fully, in this world. I think there might be a hidden critique of Nietzsche here. Nietzsche whipped out the sledgehammer and said that he felt that Paul and Christianity’s genius was to require people to be a bunch of weak-ass guilt-riders so those in power can get off on the ruse. My take on Bonhoeffer is that he is saying that we have to experience life in the fullest, meaning we have to experience life without our theologically preconditioned lenses, in order to fulfill what Christ meant by sharing in his suffering. It is precisely by becoming a “worldly Christian” that we share in Christ’s suffering. God (through Christ) knows the world has been fucked up since the Fall, and it pains him b/c His work of art was screwed over by us. But his “piece” has been (by necessity?) mis-interpreted and altered and therefore our call is to give that piece its due meaning by living within it (and not trying to escape it by singing shit like “this world is not my home”...well, my question is, then what the hell is the world? A “rest area” for you to piss at, check out the map to find the ‘you are here’ symbol, and buy a stale Pay-Day until you arrive at your destination?) . So, in order for us to live within it, we have to become it (fully), understand it, and exercise “prayer and righteous action” precisely within that place.
Reading Bonhoeffer tonight, I suddenly found God in my life (somewhere) for these very reasons. I don’t even know what all that means yet. But I know I felt it. A few years ago, thewalrus had it all together: a wife, a degree, a fat-ass cat, and a promising future...and now I’m working at a restaurant, single, with a fat-ass cat and no idea where the hell I will end up. Some say, “Everything happens for a reason.” I say, “Go to hell” because even if that were right, they wouldn’t know it, and they’re only saying it b/c it makes them feel better. Can’t say I blame them...except for the fact that the bottom of a bottle or the pants of a girl or the end of a line of coke has more to offer...and I don’t say that lightly. That pious phrase will get you absolutely nowhere. I say all this because, yes, I’ve been through a lot of shit, but I’m still staying up ungodly hours talking about the things I resent (and yet love) the most. No, this post isn’t ultimately about me, but if it’s not partially, then I’m wasting my time. Speak to me brothers and sisters. Start a revolution or something because I need to go to sleep. And you have no idea how much I mean both of those things...
posted by thewalrus at 4:09 AM
30 Comments:
Well, since I like to be the first to comment on my own posts...
If this interests you, go to a library or your local bookstore and pick up a copy of Bonhoeffer's Letters and Papers from Prison. In order for you to truly understand where I’m coming from, you will need to read from the man himself. He is the one to really listen to, not me. If you want to cheat, read his letters from April 30, 1944 on
4:38 AM, February 25, 2005
walrus -
i'd really like to respond to one of your posts (esp this last one), but have hit my 3:00 slump. just wanted you to know that your writing is appreciated and well worth the wait. you really poured a lot into this, so i thought you deserved a hearty 'fuck dragon!' (dante?) even if i couldn't manage any commentary.
3:35 PM, February 25, 2005
Awwww Hell! Just had to bust out the Bonhoeffer didn't you. Now is when the post really begins to get interesting. There will be those who go psycho on you and then those who will be skeptical.
However, I have a few questions, that were probably answered but that I missed.
First, if the Church has bought the bullet, how the hell do we know to keep up this prayer and righteous action bullshit? Wouldn't hence have now become a disguise that we wear covering up the fact that we don't know anything yet try to choose to believe something.
Second, what was up with the comment "So let's change the rules of the game and show the 'world' that the reason Jesus Christ won't go away is because he has the balls to let his woman die to becomewho she needs to be."? Please clarify this.
There will be more questions but right now I also need sleep.
Rock on and Peace out
2:09 AM, February 26, 2005
goldfishb,
Thanks for responding. To your first question: I'm not quite sure I understand it (esp. the "bought the bullet" comment -- did you mean "bit the bullet"--there's a lot of irony going on here, which might be what you intend). The only thing I mean by prayer and righteous action (and I think I speak for DB here as well) is actually quite elementary. We need to petition God to help us get this thing to die. As DB said, "All Christian thinking, speaking, and organizing must be born anew out of this prayer and action." I think one place to begin is this non-religious language he speaks of. But more on that later.
To your second: Changing the rules of the game includes not bringing out our defensive weapons to defend the extinct beast. God provides us with the freedom to say "yep it's dead, let's get to work on something new." If we do that, then Jesus Christ's presence in the world will return. In other words, it's no threat to Jesus' power (and thus manhood in our culture) to let us bury our failed attempt at making him present.
Please continue with questions. I may not have the answers but it is helpful to me.
2:25 AM, February 26, 2005
Hobbes,
Your honest reflection in response to this inspires me to keep going. I sometimes wonder whether I'm doing much good here. And most of all, and I really mean most of all, thanks for your respect. Without that, I wouldn't care about any of this. Respect even trumps love on the personal requirement list.
You said, "I will have to say my understanding of where you are coming from and what you are trying to say is incomplete." Well, I'll even say that my understanding of where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to say is incomplete as well. This post is a train of thought moving on its current path. I hope to provide more in the upcoming days to further clarify all I'm trying to say. I get too wrapped up in entertaining myself with my own prose sometimes and it ends up just confusing the hell out of people. So, hang in there and keep the responses coming.
But for God's sake, feed yourself and move into your home!
2:34 AM, February 26, 2005
Hobbes,
Well, I think in terms of "righteous action" I would go with Bonhoeffer on the Sermon on the Mount being our guide. If that's our starting point, it will lead us somewhere. But the Church doesn't even remotely exemplify the kind of discipleship taught there. But we really do have to work on this language thing as well.
I do not doubt that you and everyone else (including me) has had "powerful and meaningful" experiences in the church. There's a lot of good people who dedicate their lives to doing good things. But that doesn't distinguish it from those outside the church. There's a lot of good people who dedicate their lives to doing good things there as well. Which is precisely why the church is superfluous. Yet again, this brings us to the language problem.
In terms of your historical question, I'll have to think that one over a bit. There is certainly a feeling here that the type of transformation our current situation requires might be unprecedented.
And please respond to rino's comments as hers are equally (if not more) pertinent.
12:11 AM, February 27, 2005
rino,
I would consider it a great loss if you remove yourself from the theological discussions as I feel you have much to offer. If it's just a matter of disinterest, then I do understand, as I have been in that "phase" as well for some time now. This blog is the first time I've really talked about this stuff in a long time.
I wish I had more thoughts to offer on your comments but I agree with them too much. Two of your points that stuck out were:
1)That "the rest of the world hardly notices" the church. This is absolutely true. It has no effect on their lives.
2)I think the rest of the world is indeed waiting for someone to "suit up and lead." The problem is that they're no longer looking to the church for that b/c there's nothing there.
12:18 AM, February 27, 2005
Ouch!!!! Alabama gets beat again. Does this mean the Crimson Tide are finished.
Sorry about the comments last night. I think I was asleep at the computer.
Peace
12:59 AM, February 27, 2005
goldfishb,
No, Bama is never finished. They just suffered a 1-2 punch but they'll fight back. LSU got a bit lucky but Kentucky's just plain better (but beatable). Man, that Sparks guy..geez.
dante,
Well, the last time I acknowledged a fellow blogger's wife (system), I was chastised, so I've decided that I might need to engage single women only. Looks like rino and I will hook up (she always makes me buy her drinks anyway :)) But since you're the sharing type, dante...
dani,
Nice to have you at thesecondchance. If you hang around and provide some commentary, I'll buy you a drink or two. I would love to have your feedback on this post. Or, you can just talk about your cool cat who fetches.
5:44 PM, February 27, 2005
Walrus,
sorry I had to take a little hiatus from serious comments, and even more sorry that it coincided with your bonhoeffer post.
I think Hobbes' question abount history is important. the church is constantly dying and being reborn, It constantly redefines itself against itself...what it is supposed to be against what it is. so perhaps "revolution" in a very literal sense is what we're talking about.
rereading your post (for like the 20th time) I always come to one thing, the LPP quote talks about the day when the church will reemerge from silent action and prayer, but reading your comments it's almost like you think we're just now getting to the point where we need to enter into exactly thaet type of silence. so are you saying the day has come for us to shut her down and let her die, or are you talking about the day has come when the church needs to be reborn from her irrelevance? Isn't that what bonhoeffer was pointing towards?
Okay, gotta run, but set me straight.
2:40 PM, February 28, 2005
rino,
If I pay, does this mean you'll actually drink? Or will you go with the "2 smirnoffs and I'm drunk" bit? In other words, will you be drinking "radically moderate?" I'm so proud of that one. This cyber-flirt is kind of fun.
3:54 PM, February 28, 2005
system,
I've got to go to work but I'll respond to your questions tonight.
Where did Hobbes go? Did he move into the street with no internet connection? Where's wireless when you need it?
4:05 PM, February 28, 2005
I know I am younger than those that have written on this topic, and that may explain the confusion on my part.
I understand(not necessarily agree with)the concept of the church being "extinct". What I am having trouble grasping is what should be done about it. When you say we need to shut her down, what exactly are you meaning? I'm not understanding how we can or should start over.
Excuse me if the answer to my question is obvious. I'm still used to discussions that aren't any deeper than who last hooked up with who. These deep thoughts are realtively new to me.
9:55 PM, February 28, 2005
rino,
Not necessarily saying you're a light weight (well, literally perhaps). I'm just complimenting you...your political beliefs are really effecting all areas of your life...it's all about the consistency.
And don't credit me with success yet! I'm still working on it! I mean, I at least wait til 9:30 every morning before I drown my cereal in Absolut.
12:49 AM, March 01, 2005
hobbes and system,
Concerning the history question. Revolution actually may not be far off target. But I'm not convinced the church has ever truly died. I'm thinking that it needs to recognize its current situation, declare failure, shut down, and start over. Theoretically speaking, it's just confusing. Practically speaking, it's seemingly impossible. But I think it has to start with a public declaration by the church.
What I see DB saying in the quote is that we must enter into a type of silent mode whereby we are able to first, pray and act righteously (read Sermon on Mount), and second, as a result of the prayer and righteous action, construct a new language whereby we can communicate with those outside the church. If we shut the church down per se, we can be more concerned about discovering these new possibilities rather than our public/political image. Sure, it's introspective but I think it must be done to truly reach out. The church's rebirth will occur through God's providence by doing those things.
1:02 AM, March 01, 2005
Longhorn,
Unfortunately, there are no obvious answers at thesecondchance so you’re safe there. And it makes no difference how old you are. The questions you’re asking actually look like everyone else’s so it sounds like you’ve got a basic understanding of the issues at hand. In terms of your questions about how all this needs to be done, see my comment to hobbes and system above.
11:01 PM, March 01, 2005
Tiredofwaiting,
I appreciate your honest and passionate response. I’m sensing anger and perhaps even some resentment in your remarks. I am glad that you feel free to express those to me as you did and I respect you for doing so.
In terms of “extinct,” see the “Last Call” thread for my comments.
In terms of experiences outside the church: Well, I understand that you have no doubt had a wonderful personal experience in the Church and that Christ has filled a void in your life. However, to say that these experiences do not “really happen” in those outside the church is never a call that you’ll be able to make unless you’re them. I will agree that those experiences are yet to be filled with complete meaning, but to deny their occurrence is a serious injustice to their humanity. I understand it’s your opinion...just sharing mine as well.
I don’t think DB wants to change the “message” of Christianity at all. The message, as you say, really cannot be changed. But its mode of presentation (through new words/phrases, etc.) can and should be changed.
I’m not sure how you came to interpret my comments as saying that the church should “fade off into the abyss and become silent/extinct.” I feel that I’m saying the opposite. The church has become extinct because it has refused to adapt. Therefore, it must start a process of rebirth (beginning with prayer and righteous action) precisely in order to come out of the abyss in which it currently finds itself.
Regarding the pious phrase comment: The reason I stated that sentence as I did is only because I was talking about myself, not everyone in general. I shouldn’t have said “That pious phrase will get you nowhere” because it distracted from my point. Those words (“everything happens for a reason”) are meaningful for certain people, no doubt. I am saying
1)A person shouldn’t say it to me because they’re just trying to “co-opt” my story to the point to where it doesn’t question/challenge their own life. It’s not an encouraging phrase to me at all. If it’s true, then I’m even more confused than I already am.
2)It’s a dangerous phrase to use because it carries a world of implications with it. We throw it around too lightly too often.
You said, “it angers/upsets me when people try to use that as a cop out. And by that I mean saying that Christians don't know what pain is and if they had any real problems they wouldn't be saying all those "churchy" things and that we can't possibly mean them when we say them.” I hope you’re not speaking of me here because I have never said that Christians don’t know what pain is or that they don’t have real problems. Of course they do. I’m not even necessarily saying that people don’t mean those phrases when they say them, although it is true that they rarely understand their full implication. I’m saying that we need to let people experience things for what they are and not always be naming them (read co-opting) as something else. We don’t have to give explanations to things. The reason we often do is because certain experiences in other people’s lives don’t make sense within our “worldview” and so we label it and gloss it and thereby keep it compatible with our worldview.
You said, “In summary, I agree that the Church needs to find new ways to communicate to unbelievers. We need to look past our own needs as a church and look to the needs of those on the "outside". But, I do not think that means that we aren't allowed to also speak in a language that expresses the truth.” I really don’t know what you mean by this. Are you saying that I’m trying to speak a language that contradicts truth? Why would I want to do that?
Thanks again and I hope my comments are accurately responding to your concerns.
11:02 PM, March 01, 2005
"If we shut the church down per se, we can be more concerned about discovering these new possibilities rather than our public/political image."
I agree. The church has a tainted image. Walrus, I'm reminded of the example you used with the woman at the bar. She had such a terrible past with men, that no matter what you said, she wasn't listening. If the Church is able to lose its present image, then it will be heard.
Yes maybe the solution is for the Church to end, and start over. Realistically I don't see any way of that happening. Maybe it's an authority problem, which has been discussed previously at the secondchance. There are other problems. If a single church declared it was shutting down, other churches would respond negatively toward that church, other churches might even declare no association with the church that shut down. I think every single church would have to end, or else if only a few do, it would merely be a religious fad.
Now as I take a step back, and try to peer into the situation from a different angle, this is what I have to say...the problem of the Church seems to be relative. Some would say the Church is effective, some would say it isn't. Some care and some don't, in and out of the Church. How can we, that have grown up in the church, no matter where we are currently, know how those who have grown outside of the Church perceive this issue?
Maybe those of us who have grown up in the church care more about it than those who haven't. We say it needs to shut down. Maybe others don't "give a shit" whether the Church shuts down or not. People outside of the Church may not care whether it even is what it proclaims being. That is my point...we don't know.
11:45 PM, March 01, 2005
leigh botts,
The practicality of the church's need to shut down and reinvent itself is the toughest question. But it has to start somewhere, here at the blog, writing to those in authority, sharing these ideas, etc. But realistically, when and how has any major revolution occurred except for the instigation of a few? We don't know where it will lead. And the most pertinent question of all is: what do we have to lose?
You said, "How can we, that have grown up in the church, no matter where we are currently, know how those who have grown outside of the Church perceive this issue?" Well, to start, talk with them, live with them, immerse yourself in their world. These are exactly the kind of people I've associated with on a daily basis for close to a year now. And yes, some care and some don't. Even I personally lean towards the latter. But I think their apathy is a result of ours, or at least a product of our inability to reach them where they are. But if those in the church care about the good in the world being named and practiced, then we have to start thinking about what we can do to make them care about the good (and what it means) as well.
Thoughts?
12:42 AM, March 02, 2005
holy cow...you people wear me out...i have read through everything for the second time and I now have a better understanding (i think) of the discussion here..i appreciate all the posts, i am really trying to let it all sink in and figure where i am because i can see both sides...i see how the church is irrelevant in a lot of ways but in my working with families i also see a great relevance..so...i am thinking, and processing...thanks for being patient
2coopers
5:01 PM, March 02, 2005
2coopers,
Thanks for taking the time to read through it. I hope it will be of some benefit.
tiredofwaiting,
I'll respond to your comments soon.
6:32 PM, March 02, 2005
I'm still confused. If we decide to "shut down" and start a new so that we are able to reach out to the people, what exactly is going to change that makes us more able to communicate with those outside the church? I may be off-base in thinking this, but if we decide to start a new and try again will anything actually change? Will the world actually view us differently than they already do? What can we change that will suddenly make us relevant to the non-believers?
8:40 PM, March 02, 2005
longhorn and tiredofwaiting,
Hold tight...I will respond before I go to work tomorrow afternoon. I need some rest though as my billiards practice has worn me out tonight.
3:06 AM, March 03, 2005
O.k.,
Something came up so I'll have to wait til tonight. I'm off to go serve those salads...
3:16 PM, March 03, 2005
longhorn,
Great questions. Responses to your questions in order.
This is where the prayer and righteous action bit comes in. This is why the church needs the non-religious language of which Bonhoeffer speaks. Becoming the world will prevent it from ever having the problem of trying to figure out how to reach them. And when I say becoming the world, I’m speaking of worldly Christianity (DB).
My answer to your second question is a question of my own: what does the church have to lose in trying? Nothing. And yet, what does it have to gain? The respect of the world. And yes, I do think the world will view it differently if it is able to be truly Christian, which means in the worldly sense.
What the church can change and what it must change is the way it views itself and the way it views the world. This is part of the “let go” and “reinvent” stuff that I speak of. I don’t think it will “suddenly” make it relevant. It is certainly a process that will take time.
11:53 PM, March 03, 2005
tiredofwaiting,
I seemed to have struck a real chord with the "everything happens..." comment. For someone like you, who has a personal narrative to which this comment can speak, and who has thought through this statement and its meaning in your life, I'm not saying that they should go to hell. I hope you understand that much. I'm also not saying that the phrase has no meaning or that it should not be used by someone who has thought through it. Again, I am not saying that these phrases have no meaning. Only that they are frequently (different than always) used too glibly and that they carry a lot of theological weight. But you do have to realize that just because that phrase holds considerable meaning for you doesn't mean it will do the same for someone else. Even if you believe it's what the Bible says, it doesn't mean you should necessarily say it to others. It's just not that cut and dry. I believe Christianity will "offend" people at times as well but I don't think that means we just do it for the sake of doing it. I think you're personalizing my statement here a bit too much. If you said that to me, I would take it differently b/c I know you and b/c you have a story and you're willing to talk about it.
Yes, I was speaking of the phrase when I said "if it's true." The phrase confuses me b/c in my own personal narrative it would make God to seem like, how should I say it, not a pleasant person. The phrase carries various implications such as:
1)It's fundamentally calvinist. God ordains everything to happen just the way it does. Some people have a shitty life, others don't. God made it that way and it's not for us to question. To me, this just seems like a really screwed up and fatalistic way of looking at things.
2)Related to the first point, there is no free will. If that's true, then, well, I don't want to be Christian.
3)It just seems like a generally unsatisfactory way of dealing with pain and loss. It can be comforting, sure, but maybe too much.
So, there's my thoughts on it. I respect yours and do not wish to take away from its meaning in your life.
On the co-opting thing, yes, the relationship part would make a difference. Which is also why I'm not talking about you.
I'm not saying that we have to throw out everything and start over. We just have to stop, pray, do right, and re-evaluate where we are. Because using the jargon we are using now doesn't really seem to be helping the situation.
I hope I have covered everything. It's hard to go back and forth between screens and comment. Don't worry about being frustrated or angry. I recognize that my statements and the way I'm presenting them will provoke those kinds of reactions. I don't resent it at all if that's your concern. As long as you see that there's meaning behind my statements and not just me pissing you off for the sake of pissing you off, then you will be understanding me correctly.
Thanks again for your time and comments.
12:30 AM, March 04, 2005
walrus,
I understand that the church has nothing to lose and thw world to gain if it chose to take this action, so I can see you point of view from there.
Somewhere on this site(I'm too lazy to find the exact post it is in or who said it), there is a question. "Is the church that bad off to where we must start completely over again?" is the general gist of the question. I do not know if you have answered that person yet, but I would ask the same question. Have we failed so miserably that you think we must start anew? Can we not just adjust what we've been doing wrong and try to get on the right path?
6:17 PM, March 06, 2005
loki,
Explain a bit more what you mean here. I think I'm in agreement with you on the continuous nature of the "church-community" and the "world" (if I'm understanding you correctly). But I don't understand why you think Bonhoeffer would be opposed to the use of the term relevant. If the church recognizes this continuous nature, it will be on its way toward being relevant to the world.
12:26 AM, March 07, 2005
longhorn,
I really do think the church as we know it is beyond repair. Its language and its way of relating to the world are fundamentally flawed. For example, if a church just tried to start another "program" to address these things, it would merely be seen as another hypocritical effort to reach the world. The church needs to make a public confession of repentance, failure, and a re-commitment to becoming what it claims to be, a church of Jesus Christ.
12:33 AM, March 07, 2005
squanchum,
I'm amazed that I was even able to find which thread you commented under. I get a notice in my e-mail when someone comments but it doesn't tell me which thread.
Well, I wish I had the answers for you here. I think the church needs to die and if that means closing then so be it. I have no idea how to go about doing that other than it perhaps starting with certain denominations declaring themselves to be finished. That would just be fascinating for curiosity's sake. But if you decide to take over Nashville and Colorado Springs, give me a call.
12:11 AM, May 13, 2005
Post a Comment
<< Home