Discipleship needs the raw reality of friendship

One of my dilemmas in thinking about a theology of discipleship is the very practical "what" question.  What does this actually look like in the life of a church, for a small group ministry, even within an academic institution like a seminary or college?  This often ultimately comes down to a question of curriculum - a group after all needs something to do when tackling issues of discipleship.  However, I am often quite dissatisfied with the standard "discipleship" curriculum that is in current use.  Now, I believe that such curriculum has its place, and I am sure that it has played a crucial role for people in establishing key components of the Christian life.  But most discipleship curriculum also runs the grave risk of perpetuating a very narrow and limited view of discipleship, often just schooling people in the basic spiritual disciplines of Bible reading, prayer, worship, and fellowship.  These disciplines certainly must never be neglected, but they can also never be simply the end of our "discipleship" training.  And my fear is that when we lead people through these types of discipleship workbooks, we perpetuate a tragically limited practice and theology of discipleship.

The argument of course is that people need to start somewhere, and so they need to start by building good spiritual habits.  Again, you won't hear me saying that there is anything wrong with personal spiritual disciplines - but when we talk about discipleship, we are talking about something much greater, something that encompasses the entirety of our lives.  We are, after all, talking about what it means to follow-after Jesus Christ.  And I certainly hope that a life of following Jesus Christ means more than reading my Bible everyday. 

But what do we teach people to do in their following Jesus?

Here we come to the heart of the issue - that is the wrong question.  Discipleship is not a task; it is how we live life.  It is a worldview.  It is a set of beliefs that so permeate our lives that every decision we make is a part of our discipleship.  After all, if discipleship is following-after Jesus Christ, how could our every move and every relationship be anything but another unique aspect of the life of discipleship?

I want, then, to propose that discipleship requires much more than a curriculum and workbook.  It needs relationships; and more, discipleship needs dear friendships.

This hit me the other night talking with - who else - some friends.  There we were, informally hanging out, but I would say quite formally talking about the real hardships, joys, and questions of life.  As friends, we could be honest and share hurts and struggles.  As friends, we could laugh and relax.  As friends, we offer prayers and encouragement.  And I want to say that as friends we were in that moment growing in the life of discipleship.  We were not only learning from each other, but experiencing quite tangibly what it means to live life following-after Jesus Christ.

I went home that evening with a renewed energy to read and meditate on scripture and pray - and I had this desire not because of a curriculum workbook, but because I had, through my friends, pressing issues to pray and think on.

So, what I want to say is that when we are teaching people about discipleship, we really need to teach them how to be a good friend.  As disciples, we are called to journey with each other and be with and for each other.  Bonhoeffer describes Jesus as the man-for-others, and so we as Christians are called to be ultimately for-others - for our friends, our neighbors, and ultimately for all the world.  This is the "loving more" theme that I wrote about last time.

I wonder if discipleship can be separated from friendship?  It's curious - Bonhoeffer participated in the conspiracy against Hitler in large part because his close family and friends were deeply involved in the plot.  So, Bonhoeffer's discipleship was intricately linked to his relationships/friendships.

I guess I am trying to get at the fact that discipleship is most potent when it rubs up against others in our life.  And life is not a series of habits.  Life is the journey of discipleship, best experienced in the raw reality of friendship.

The "what" question of teaching people about discipleship just got a lot more complicated and nuanced.  And more fulfilling.

Turning away from loving less

I'm constantly amazed with the people that God puts in my path.  We've moved quite a bit in the last few years, but God always blesses us with special and unique friendships.  Last night I was out late with a couple of these friends, just sitting out in the warm evening talking about life and, in this case, the difficult joy of trying to follow God's call on our lives.  We inevitably end up talking about the church when we get together, and we are all burdened with a longing for the church to be something more - or, to put it a better way, to live into what it really is.

So when I got home late last night, I felt I should meditate a little on John's letters to the seven churches in Revelation.  I only had to read about the church in Ephesus in chapter 2 before coming upon my prayer, in verse 4: "Nevertheless, I have this complaint to make: you have less love now than formerly."  That stings.  Less love now than before.  How true is that, in my own life, in all our lives, and so subsequently in the churches.  Now, I'm not trying to be a downer on the church.  The church is real, it is alive, but God certainly weighs in a complaint every now and then.  And so, I'm praying first that I can repent of my less love, and I'm praying that the church will repent of less love.

But what does this mean?  Less love than what?  Than when?  The text says less love than before...  Perhaps, before, when I was more zealous, or more trusting, or more willing.  Perhaps before, when the church reached out to those in need, when it believed in and was laser focused on its mission to be the gospel in every nook and cranny of society.  Before, when the church did not exist to subsist as an institution, but as a living witness to the very reality of God's revelation in Jesus Christ.

So, this has been my prayer today.  That I would repent of loving less, and that the church would repent of loving less.  And I meditate on the promise in Revelation 2:7: "Let anyone who can hear, listen to what the Spirit is saying: those who prove victorious I will feed from the tree of life set in God's paradise."  Certainly the fruit from the tree of life will be bursting with the fullness of love.

And I'm finally struck because one of my friends from this late night hang out is preparing to set off for Santa Cruz to plant a church.  And he's picked up on this - that the Christian life is about loving more.  I think he's on to something.  New City Church Santa Cruz is about loving God, loving people, and loving more; and that is the truth and reality that we all need to bear witness to and experience.

Leadership Development and Discipleship

I just had a few quick thoughts I wanted to get down...

I'm starting to think more about the relationship between discipleship and leadership development, especially in the context of ministry and church planting.  What is the difference between them?  Can one take place without the other?  At the moment, I feel like the questions of discipleship need to be addressed prior to the issues of leadership development, because I think that leadership development will come naturally out of discipleship.  Maybe focusing on leadership development without first establishing a clear sense of discipleship among potential leaders is like putting the cart before the horse.  But I'm thinking that a first step of discipleship formation is learning how to listen both individually and collectively to God's call.  Leadership development can have a sense of go-go-go (at least, that's how I can feel about it).  And there's certainly nothing wrong with urgency and leadership growth.  However, the urgency can sometimes overwhelm us, and we can lose sight of (or even never really grasp) the work and will of God in our unique situation.  I believe that starting with discipleship serves as a sort of guard against just developing leaders for the sake of having leaders.  More importantly, I think, is the issue of discernment.  How do we learn, and how do we teach our leaders a posture of listening and of the subsequent readiness to respond to God's unique call.  When we talk about leadership development in ministry - and especially in church planting - I want to talk first about discipleship.  Because I sense that all too often we can develop leaders apart from disciples; but I think it would be difficult to develop disciples apart from leaders.

Revelation as the Foundation of Discipleship in the Theology of Barth and Bonhoeffer

Here's the introduction to my recent seminar paper...

            It is a fascinating theological exercise to investigate the places of contention, disagreement, and misunderstanding between the two theological giants Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  While belonging to the same dialectical-theological camp, and united in their opposition to the National Socialists as leaders in the Confessing Church, there are striking theological differences.  A natural place to start to investigate this question is at the end of Bonhoeffer’s career, when he accuses Barth, his mentor, of “positivism of revelation.”[1]  Barth is aghast, and perhaps rightly so, for he feels misunderstood and misinterpreted; he then offers his own less-than-enthusiastic critique of the mysterious direction of Bonhoeffer’s “worldly” theology in Letters and Papers from Prison.[2]  Further divergences can be traced to different emphases within their respective Reformed and Lutheran traditions, as in their differing explanations of the dictum, finitum non capax infiniti – the finite cannot comprehend the infinite.  As a Lutheran, Bonhoeffer feels he can challenge the Reformed interpretation, and Barth makes his own defense of it in his Church Dogmatics.[3] 

Most of these issues have already been thoroughly explored in Barth and Bonhoeffer studies.  Scholars such as Charles Marsh, Andreas Pangritz, and Heinz Tödt offer valuable in-depth analysis and evaluation of these and other issues.[4]  What is more, while Barth and Bonhoeffer clearly have their differences, these differences seem to be a matter of nuance and emphasis, rather than points of major theological divergence.  Most of the seemingly glaring disagreements can be settled as nothing more than misinterpretations or misunderstandings.  In fact, both men are, in large part, pursuing similar theological projects, and their differences are often not much more than matters of focus.[5]  The German theologian Heinz Tödt suggests that a way forward in the Barth and Bonhoeffer discussion is instead to focus on the meeting and merging of their understanding of revelation and the world and its impact for today.[6]  This paper builds upon Tödt’s suggestion by exploring the convergence of the concept of revelation as it relates to a theology of contemporary discipleship in the thought of Barth and Bonhoeffer.

Barth introduces his concept of revelation in a lengthy chapter entitled, “The Revelation of God” in Church Dogmatics I/1 and I/2, and he continues to treat the concept throughout the entirety of this work.  Bonhoeffer’s approach is quite different.  Never having produced a systematic theology, his explanations of revelation are scattered throughout his books, papers, and letters, building and working off of each other.  It is admittedly difficult, therefore, and at worst inaccurate, to organize the convergence of Barth and Bonhoeffer’s understanding of revelation into three over-arching movements, as in this paper.  However, the purpose here is not only to describe the similarities and unique nuances of Barth and Bonhoeffer’s respective concepts of revelation, but to explore these understandings in terms of setting a foundation for a contemporary theology of discipleship.  With this goal in mind, it is appropriate and necessary to propose three aspects of revelation that are readily present in both Barth and Bonhoeffer: revelation is first and foremost Trinitarian; revelation is then Christological-ecclesial; and revelation is finally ethical, in its existence as faith and obedience.  These are certainly not comprehensive categories for describing the concept of revelation in Barth and Bonhoeffer.  What they attempt to offer, however, is a clear framework for understanding a theological foundation for a life of following Jesus Christ.

---

[1] Cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, vol. 8 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, English edition, ed. John de Gruchy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 364, 373, 429.

[2] Cf. Charles Marsh, Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer: The Promise of His Theology (Oxford: University Press, 1994), 25f.

[3] Cf. Joachim von Soosten, “Editor’s Afterword to the German Edition,” in Sanctorum Communio, vol. 1 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, English edition, ed. Clifford Green (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 302.  Cf. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Act and Being, vol. 2 of Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, English edition, ed. Wayne Whitson Floyd, Jr. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 84 and editor’s note 7.  Cf., for example, Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (CD) I/1 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010), 407f.

[4] Marsh, Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 3-33; Andreas Pangritz, Karl Barth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000); Pangritz, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer: ‘Within, not Outside, the Barthian Movement’,” in Bonhoeffer’s Intellectual Formation: Theology and Philosophy in His Thought, ed. Peter Frick (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 245-282; Heinz Eduard Tödt, “Belief in a Non-Religious World: Must One Choose Between Barth and Bonhoeffer?” in Authentic Faith: Bonhoeffer’s Theological Ethics in Context, English edition, ed. Glen Stassen (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2007), 30-39.  Additionally, see Ernst Feil, The Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 175-177; Ralf Wüstenberg, A Theology of Life: Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Religionless Christianity (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), 60-65.

[5] Marsh, for example, suggests that “the way to make sense of Bonhoeffer’s theological relationship to Barth is to distinguish, as Barth does, between the primary and secondary objectivity of God.”  Barth stresses the primary objectivity of God’s aseity while Bonhoeffer focuses his attention on God’s promeity.  Cf. Marsh, Reclaiming Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 31.

[6] Tödt, “Belief in a Non-Religious World: Must One Choose Between Barth and Bonhoeffer?” 39.

Not surprised: Barth calls Bonhoeffer brilliant

As I make my way through portions of Barth's Church Dogmatics, it's been fun to see Barth refer to Bonhoeffer.  There were several references in my seminar reading for this week - selections from volume III, The Doctrine of Creation.  I'll set up the scene here for one of my favorite Bonhoeffer shout outs...

In Church Dogmatics III/4 Barth takes up the issue of ethics and identifies it as a task of the doctrine of creation.  Here, he describes how ethics cannot be detached from dogmatics.  He explains: "In books and lectures ethics can be treated independently, that is, in external separation from dogmatics, so long as it is presupposed that this separation is understood and treated as purely technical and therefore that dogmatics is not detached from its ethical content and direction and that the question of dogmatics remains paramount and decisive in ethics" (p. 3).

Basically, Barth is saying that how we think about ethical actions cannot be separated from what we think and believe about God.  I was reminded of Bonhoeffer here, and so was Barth.  Take a look at what Barth now says in the notes: "And the same attitude to the link with dogmatics is a commendable feature of the brilliant Ethik of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which unfortunately exists only in a fragmentary and provisional form" (because Bonhoeffer was arrested by the Gestapo while he was still working on the project).

That's right - the brilliant Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  And here's one reason why I gather Barth thinks so.

Barth: "The task of theological ethics is to understand the Word of God as the command of God" (p. 4).
Bonhoeffer: "Those who wish to focus on the problem of a Christian ethic are faced with an outrageous demand - from the outset they must give up, as inappropriate to this topic, the very two questions that led them to deal with the ethical problem: "How can I be good?" and "How can I do something good?"  Instead they must ask the wholly other, completely different question: what is the will of God?" (Ethics, 47).

Brilliant.  Ethics - for Barth and Bonhoeffer - does not and can not exist apart from the Word and will of God.  Now, certainly there is a distinction between the Word and will of God; but the point is that for both of these theologians the ethical question is ultimately a matter of theological orientation which finds its starting point in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.  Ethics is not a question of doing something good.  Ethics is obedience to the command of God.  What does that mean?  Well, more than I am going to get into now...  I recommend reading - you guessed it - Barth and Bonhoeffer.

I'm writing this quarter on Barth, Bonhoeffer, and revelation... but this ethics connection is tugging at me as well...  I guess I'll have to put it in the hopper for another paper.

Encounters at the 2011 Kuyper Conference on Calvinism and Culture

The 2011 Kuyper Conference on Calvinism and Culture at Princeton Seminary is not over yet, but I wanted to make note of a couple of interesting sessions and resources that I had the chance to be part of today.

First off, I have to say I've been quite impressed especially with the work of my Fuller colleagues so far.  There are eight of us students from Fuller here together at the conference, and five are presenting papers!  It's great to be further building friendships and connections with people that are not directly in my narrow Bonhoeffer field of study.  The Neo-Calvinist crowd is gracious and welcoming, and we have a good time drawing connections between Bonhoeffer, Neo-Calvinism, and the rest of life.  Look for some of their work in "The Kuyper Center Review," volume 2, and, in the forthcoming volume 3.

Several of the papers I heard today had to do with the arts and the biblical text.  David Koyzis from Redeemer University College is working on re-setting all of the psalms to traditional Genevan melodies.  His project aims to make the psalms singable again, and he creatively works to match the words with the appropriate musical patterns.  His website currently provides music and downloadable .pdf files for almost half of the psalms, and he's adding more all of the time.

The other artist I wanted to bring to your attention was a plenary speaker, John Harvey, the Director of the Centre for Studies in the Visual Culture of Religion in Aberystwyth University, Wales.  He's doing fascinating work providing visual and aural approaches to imaging the Bible.  As an artist, he's concerned with providing a stark image of the biblical text itself.  As such, he takes an austere, abstract approach, and the outcomes are striking.  I wish his website provided more of the background and explanation to his art -  it was incredibly interesting to hear about his method and approach to crafting a piece of art work or music.  Basically, he works from a grid system, where each letter of a verse is assigned a specific number and then color value.  It's much more complicated and thoughtful than that, but at least you can begin to get some perspective to what he is doing when you look through the gallery.  Meditating on the scripture in this way visually - as opposed to a traditional pictorial representation of a biblical event - really does draw you into each letter of the text.  He also does similarly fascinating work imaging scripture aurally.

I also wanted to make note of a comment that Prof Harvey made during the question and answer time.  A gentleman identified himself as a pastor, and asked how he thought that the art work could be used in a congregational setting.  I myself thought this was an interesting question, and was already forming ideas of how special services of mediation could be set up.  But then Harvey answered in a way I wasn't expecting - he said that as an artist, he has a knee jerk reaction to that kind of comment.  He explained that he doesn't create the art to be utilitarian - that is, he doesn't make it to be in the service of the church.  The art stands on its own, and can't rely on the church to bring it meaning and value.  I soon realized that this was a perfect Neo-Calvinist response, because it affirms the inherent truth, meaning, and value of the distinct sphere of art.  Now, certainly, his art work has Christian foundations which inform the creation of the work, but he explained that his work is for the gallery, not for the church.  It is in the gallery, in the realm that is separate and unique from the church, that the art is allowed to be true.  What is exciting, is that the art, hanging on a gallery wall, witnesses to the truth and sovereignty of Jesus Christ as much if not more so than it would in a church.

These are just two of the many interesting projects that I am encountering here.  I share these with you in part because of the ability to link to their work on the web.  I'd also encourage you to look at the program for this year's conference, if even just to see the kind of work that is currently being done, thanks to the Neo-Calvinist perspective of engagement with the world.

Barth, Bonhoeffer, and a theology of revelation

This quarter I'm taking a Karl Barth seminar and am focusing my research on the influence of Barth on Bonhoeffer's theology of revelation.  'Revelation' is the foundation for the theology of discipleship that I am working on, so this should be a very fruitful and exciting opportunity to further my understanding of Bonhoeffer in this area.

I'm starting by getting a thorough overview of Barth's influence on Bonhoeffer by reading Andreas Pangritz's Karl Barth in the Theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Pangritz focuses his research by honing in on Bonhoeffer's critique of Barth's "positivism of revelation," in Letters and Papers from Prison.  I'm still working through the book, but so far am pleased with the depth and insight that Pangritz is offering.  One of the big questions that Barth and Bonhoeffer scholars have is what Bonhoeffer could have meant in this accusation of "positivism of revelation" in Barth - even Barth himself was not sure what to make of Bonhoeffer's comments.  Pangritz treats the whole question and context quite well and so is proving to be a very valuable resource.

I think my research may focus more on Bonhoeffer's earlier work.  I'm particularly interested in seeing where I can find Barth's influence in Creation and Fall, for example.  Since Bonhoeffer's theology is always developing throughout his career, I think it's important to see where he begins in his understanding of revelation.  I will also be curious to see if I can trace nuanced developments of revelation as Bonhoeffer progresses through his middle and later period.

Theological method is the basis, the presuppositions, that someone has when they begin to address theological questions.  Barth's work challenged the prevailing theological method of his time by insisting that theology must begin with God's revelation of himself toward humanity, and not with the human pursuit of the knowledge of God.  Bonhoeffer was one of the early adopters of Barth's method, though certainly did not just accept all of the implications or outworkings (as we see in Letters and Papers).

It is important, then, to have a starting point when we talk about a theology of discipleship.  I'm going to take Barth and Bonhoeffer's lead as I put forth the conviction that only because God freely chooses to reveal himself to us through Jesus Christ can we live and move in a life of discipleship.  We'll have to give it a few weeks (for starters) of research and writing to see how this all comes together.