Thanks for that. Very helpful. I have been impressed with the dualistic component of Lutheranism you mention here (Bonhoeffer speaks specifically about this problem in his Cost of D. and how it justifies compartmentalization). Of course, this problem as it relates to Lutherans is summarized in Niebuhr’s "Christ and Culture": “Christ and culture in paradox.”
I am a Mennonite (I live just a couple of miles away from Eastern Mennonite Seminary where Mark Thiesen Nation used to teach), and I think that the Anabaptist approach (though I fiercely defend most of it) does have a problem here as well. In its origins and especially with the approach of Michael Sattler and the Schleitheim Confession, there was, perhaps, a bit too much disassociation with the civil powers. This then led to an utter noninvolvement which sometimes meant passivity in the face of evil or reckless government (If you like see article: https://christiangood.substack.com/p/debate-and-discourse-early-anabaptist
This is still an issue among more traditional Mennonites, like myself.
We too have a kind of dualism that Anabaptists have called two-kingdom theory, but with this difference as compared to the Lutheran: much of our historic response was nonparticipation in all spheres of the civil order; the Lutheran was dual participation but splitting the Christian into two kinds of people--the citizen under the emperor and the disciple under Christ. For Lutherans, as Bonhoeffer critiques, this led to a moral schizophrenia that was ethically problematic; for us (conservative Mennonites), this led to nonengagement even with the nefarious deeds of political/civil society. Within this kind of approach, it is easy enough just to sit out the moral issues that the general culture faces and remain the “quiet in the land.”
I’ve pondered why Mennonites have held such high regard for Bonhoeffer through the decades despite his involvement with the intelligence agency Abwehr and its assassination plot, etc. I think it is because he sought a holistic ethic, taking his commitment to Christ into the whole of life. However, we will not go to the extent of tyrannicide--we would see that as falling back into the error of dualism and paradox, compromising the ethic of Jesus. This is of course why Nation, McKnight, and Hauerwas find it incredible that Bonhoeffer really contributed to the assassination plot.
Bonhoeffer's earnest courage to live out the principles of Christ could help remedy all of our ethical dualism--Anabaptist, Evangelical, or other.
Wow. Lots here to digest. It seems what you are calling social incarnational embodiment is the way we should be in the world. I am not a theologian but I am a former evangelical Christian who went through the process of deconstruction long before it was a thing. I’m interested in your perspective even though I’m not sure I can even call myself a Christian anymore. I appreciate your review of Bonhoeffer and the links you included. Thanks.
This is theologically rich. Thanks. I studied with Glen Stassen. It was through Glen Stassen that I learned the ideas of "thick" and "thin" knowing and thick ethics. Williams worked with Stassen as well. thanks for sharing.
yes my bro... when Reggie came to Northern to do the Brady Lectures .. I showed him the plaque of all the presenters over the years, and pointed to Glen Stassen ...and you could tell, by the look in his eyes, how much that meant to him :)
Thank you for this write-up! You have detailed so much of substance it's difficult to respond to it all. However, what you are detailing - social incarnational embodiment - needs to become the way of being and doing church, today. There is NO other way. You've described here what I have been describing from the pulpit, in discussions with church leadership, in one-on-one conversation with concern "church people." What the church requires is collective deconstruction: each congregation undertaking an intentional process of deconstruction. This happens through what you define as "social incarnational engagement." While I'm still attempting to develop the language to describe "collective deconstruction," it's coming. And, I appreciate your work, deeply.
Thanks for that. Very helpful. I have been impressed with the dualistic component of Lutheranism you mention here (Bonhoeffer speaks specifically about this problem in his Cost of D. and how it justifies compartmentalization). Of course, this problem as it relates to Lutherans is summarized in Niebuhr’s "Christ and Culture": “Christ and culture in paradox.”
I am a Mennonite (I live just a couple of miles away from Eastern Mennonite Seminary where Mark Thiesen Nation used to teach), and I think that the Anabaptist approach (though I fiercely defend most of it) does have a problem here as well. In its origins and especially with the approach of Michael Sattler and the Schleitheim Confession, there was, perhaps, a bit too much disassociation with the civil powers. This then led to an utter noninvolvement which sometimes meant passivity in the face of evil or reckless government (If you like see article: https://christiangood.substack.com/p/debate-and-discourse-early-anabaptist
This is still an issue among more traditional Mennonites, like myself.
We too have a kind of dualism that Anabaptists have called two-kingdom theory, but with this difference as compared to the Lutheran: much of our historic response was nonparticipation in all spheres of the civil order; the Lutheran was dual participation but splitting the Christian into two kinds of people--the citizen under the emperor and the disciple under Christ. For Lutherans, as Bonhoeffer critiques, this led to a moral schizophrenia that was ethically problematic; for us (conservative Mennonites), this led to nonengagement even with the nefarious deeds of political/civil society. Within this kind of approach, it is easy enough just to sit out the moral issues that the general culture faces and remain the “quiet in the land.”
I’ve pondered why Mennonites have held such high regard for Bonhoeffer through the decades despite his involvement with the intelligence agency Abwehr and its assassination plot, etc. I think it is because he sought a holistic ethic, taking his commitment to Christ into the whole of life. However, we will not go to the extent of tyrannicide--we would see that as falling back into the error of dualism and paradox, compromising the ethic of Jesus. This is of course why Nation, McKnight, and Hauerwas find it incredible that Bonhoeffer really contributed to the assassination plot.
Bonhoeffer's earnest courage to live out the principles of Christ could help remedy all of our ethical dualism--Anabaptist, Evangelical, or other.
Thanks again for this “provocative” article.
Wow. Lots here to digest. It seems what you are calling social incarnational embodiment is the way we should be in the world. I am not a theologian but I am a former evangelical Christian who went through the process of deconstruction long before it was a thing. I’m interested in your perspective even though I’m not sure I can even call myself a Christian anymore. I appreciate your review of Bonhoeffer and the links you included. Thanks.
This is theologically rich. Thanks. I studied with Glen Stassen. It was through Glen Stassen that I learned the ideas of "thick" and "thin" knowing and thick ethics. Williams worked with Stassen as well. thanks for sharing.
yes my bro... when Reggie came to Northern to do the Brady Lectures .. I showed him the plaque of all the presenters over the years, and pointed to Glen Stassen ...and you could tell, by the look in his eyes, how much that meant to him :)
Thank you for this write-up! You have detailed so much of substance it's difficult to respond to it all. However, what you are detailing - social incarnational embodiment - needs to become the way of being and doing church, today. There is NO other way. You've described here what I have been describing from the pulpit, in discussions with church leadership, in one-on-one conversation with concern "church people." What the church requires is collective deconstruction: each congregation undertaking an intentional process of deconstruction. This happens through what you define as "social incarnational engagement." While I'm still attempting to develop the language to describe "collective deconstruction," it's coming. And, I appreciate your work, deeply.
Andrew S Dungan, EdD
Fantastic piece big fella!!! So helpful. Best and warmest regards to you, old friend