(118,981 - 119,000 of 121,398)
Pages
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 34
-
Search Result
-
May I begin by saying that it is both a pleasure and an ordeal for me to address you this morning — a pleasure because I am grateful for the chance to share some thoughts with you and thus take one more step towards becoming a full-fledged member of the Augsburg family — an ordeal because I feel...
Show moreMay I begin by saying that it is both a pleasure and an ordeal for me to address you this morning — a pleasure because I am grateful for the chance to share some thoughts with you and thus take one more step towards becoming a full-fledged member of the Augsburg family — an ordeal because I feel that I am still very much on trial. It reminds me of a formula for success purportedly suggested by Albert Einstein. Suppose, he said, that we permit ‘x’ to stand for success. Then we might say that ‘x =a +b+c.’ What doa, b and c stand for? Well, said the great scientist, a stands for initiative and b stands for hard work. But, his friends replied, what does c stand for? Oh, said Einstein, that stands for keeping your mouth shut! Much as I might like to do otherwise, I shall have to risk ignoring the third ingredient of Einstein’s formula. In reflecting about what I should say this morning, I first thought that it would be most fitting to say something about the academic life of Augsburg College, and to issue you a challenge to take an active part init. But then I reflected that this probably had been said to you several times before and that there might arise a better opportu- nity to say it again later on, when the mid-semester doldrums have begun to set in. Then I thought that I would rather try to practice the kind of thing that I know best, and reflect with you about the meaning of one of the central terms of the Christian faith. It is purely a matter of coincidence that the text with which I shall begin is the same one with which President Anderson concluded yesterday. I trust that he won't mind. There seems to be no harm in this kind of continuity occurring occasionally. But perhaps I should say that the views I shall express are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the management! Text: I Corinthians 13:13 “So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. In one way, this is an extremely puzzling statement. Often, one might even say, normally, we understand the meaning of a word in terms of its referent. We define words often in terms of the properties shared by the things to which the words refer. But in this case, what do the terms faith, hope and love mean? They do not refer to anything substantial. Faith, hope and love are not things having properties, and therefore it is not possible to define these terms in the ordinary sense. So, perhaps naturally enough, we tend to distrust such terms. They are, we say, vague, and perhaps even dangerous because their meaning cannot be specified with precision. Because of this fact, some commentators have suggested that such terms do not have any ‘real’ mean- ing at all. And that perhaps we would be better off if such words were to be eliminated from our vocabulary, because their use (and particularly their careless use) merely deludes us into thinking that we are saying some- thing significant, when in fact we are talking about nothing at all. Now I am as concerned as anyone that we must be careful in our use of language, because I think that mistakes in language do sometimes have serious consequences; but I think it would be a tragic mistake to remove such terms from our language. Surely, such terms do have meaning, even though it is not possible to specify a referent for them. Specifically, I should like to consider briefly the concept ‘love.’ There is a sense, I believe, in which the Christian faith may be embraced by the concept ‘love’, the love of a personal God who was willing to reveal himself in his- tory to make possible the salvation of man. Yet there is a very real danger in interpreting Christianity in terms of love if we mean by ‘love’ only kindly benevolence and romantic attachment — i.e. if we forget that the love of God for man, and the love of a man for man are not merely beautiful ideals (but perhaps impossible ones) but possess a very real power to move the hearts and minds of men. .. continued
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 35
-
Search Result
-
35 Chapel * September 17, 1965, continued In the interest of power, our present world is divided into two armed camps, each of which believes (naturally enough) that it must maintain its own power in order to maintain its own existence. Both are interested in the idea of power, but what I want to...
Show more35 Chapel * September 17, 1965, continued In the interest of power, our present world is divided into two armed camps, each of which believes (naturally enough) that it must maintain its own power in order to maintain its own existence. Both are interested in the idea of power, but what I want to note this morning is that they differ profoundly in their conceptions of the nature and source of power: A. In the one hand there is the camp of Russian Marxism (which perhaps is not really Marxist at all) which says with F. Nietzsche: “Can it be possible that these fools do not know that God is dead?” This is the view that sees history determined only by economics, by the law of supply and demand, by the terrible forces of greed on the part of the exploiter, and the desire for revenge and a peculiar sort of justice on the part of the exploited. It is the view that weeps for justice and freedom on the one hand, and on the other attempts to gain it by enforced slav- ery and cruel injustice. The view that with a perverted kind of ethics pleads for justice on the one hand but refuses to grant it on the other. The other camp holds the view that, at the very least, history is influenced by something more than material con- cerns — that man’s history can be understood only in the light of ideas; of concern for truth; of commitment to the good and to the moral right and ought. More significantly still, those of the Christian world believe that history stands in its right perspective only in terms of one historical event, the manifestation of God’s love in the life and person of Jesus of Nazareth. History revolves about this center, and moves forward only in terms of the return of Christ into history. And it is also believed that the proper response of man to the love of God in Christ, is also love: of devotion to God, and of love to man — not of a sentimental, naive sort, but of love that finds its right expression in the pursuit of social justice and freedom for all men. In a sense then, we can say that the division of our world into two camps is a kind of moral separation, based on two vastly different conceptions of the meaning of faith, hope, and love: On the one hand moral ideas and ideals are held to be meaningless except insofar as they may advance the power of the state. This is why one can never reasonably expect any commitment to or respect for truth, in the western, objective sense, from a Stalin or a Krushchev. ‘Truth, to them, is only that which seems likely to promote their own interests — it has no relation to the moral integrity of the individual. To the contrary, I believe that Paul is here trying to say to us that moral ideas have a distinctive power to move men’s hearts and minds; that truth is true not only because it works, but because it has significance for the moral stature of the individual. Elton Trueblood points out, rather strikingly. In his excellent volume The Life We Prize, that the frightening aspect of our present society is not that we are divided, but that we are so nearly one world! - that so many of us who would be shocked and saddened at being accused of being pro-communist actually live a testimony to the belief that there is no force in history, that nothing is significant in life except that which advances our material welfare. In essence what our society as a whole so often reflects — agreement with Marx, with Nietzsche, with Stalin — a dangerous proximity to a united world, but from a totally wrong standpoint. A. Therefore, I want to emphasize that it is necessary for us to remind ourselves that these words of Paul are not meaningless — that words like faith, hope, love are not mere fannings of the air, but possess power to capture the minds and hearts of men — the one power that can hope to defeat a philosophy which fails to recognize it. Perhaps we cannot dispense with the machine of war, but we cannot win with them alone. We cannot defeat the communistic world view by joining it; we only lose, too. B. The solution of the worlds’ problems is, of course, a difficult and complex matter. But I believe that our only hope lies in the direction — in the direction of the life that is lived for the sake of what is good, rather than pleasant or temporarily expedient. The ideal of love is not empty, but must be made significant and real in terms of social justice, and of life made meaningful by the entrance of Jesus Christ into a world otherwise made meaningless and hopeless through selfishness, stupidity, intolerance, and bigotry.
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 36
-
Search Result
-
Chapel * Augsburg College, Minneapolis, Minnesota * January 8, 1968 Romans I: 16-17 - “For I have complete confidence in the gospel: it is God’s power to save all who believe, first the Jews and also toe Gentiles. For the gospel reveals how God pits men right with himself: it 1s through faith...
Show moreChapel * Augsburg College, Minneapolis, Minnesota * January 8, 1968 Romans I: 16-17 - “For I have complete confidence in the gospel: it is God’s power to save all who believe, first the Jews and also toe Gentiles. For the gospel reveals how God pits men right with himself: it 1s through faith alone, from beginning to end. As the scripture says, ‘He who is put right with God through faith shall live.”” This is perhaps the most comforting passage in the New Testament. Apparently all that is necessary in order that man might live is that he have faith. This would appear to be a simple matter, and one wonders why so much anxiety is expressed these days in the church, and in the colleges, over the difficulty of modern youth having faith. Particularly, it seems to me, there seems to be considerable concern among the people of the church over shy the faith of the youth should be put to so severe a strain in, of all places, the colleges of the church! Doesn’t it seem that if we really do have a complete confidence in the gospel, the task of the Christian college would be a simple one — to inform young people, if they aren’t already informed, as to what the gospel is, and to persuade them to have faith in it. What I propose to try to do today is to explain, as much for my own sake as for yours, why it is that colleges like Augsburg believe that it is important to study matters of faith, religious and otherwise, as rigorously and critical- ly as possible. In a sense, I think that concerned people in the church are right, but for the wrong reasons. Briefly, I think that they are right in wondering why it is that the faith of young people is put to so severe a test; but they are wrong in supposing that it is because we in the colleges assume a critical attitude toward matters of religious belief. In the “Prologue” to his delightful poem “Thus Spake Zarathustra,” Friedrich Nietzsche portrays a meeting between Zarathustra and an Old Saint of the Forest who tells Zarathustra that he praises God by weeping, laugh- ing, singing and mumbling. Zarathustra is quite properly puzzled by these antics, and he leaves the Old Saint and says to himself: “Can it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not heat heard of it that God is dead!” To many people it appears that in assuming a critical approach to the study of Christian belief we run the risk of the student concluding that God is indeed dead, if he ever lived at all: that the behavior of the Christian in his supposed acts of worship is no better than the antics of the Old Saint in the Forest. If a critical approach to reli- gious belief runs the risk of alienating the student from the Christian family, would it not be wiser to adopt a less critical approach? One apology for choosing the critical approach is provided by a quotation from Immanuel Kant: “Religion on the ground of its sanctity, and law on the ground of its majesty, often resist the sifting of their claims by rational thought. But in doing so they inevitably awake a not unjust suspicion that their claims are ill-founded, and they cease to command the unfeigned homage which is paid by Reason to that which has shown itself able to stand the test of free inquiry,” The usual defense of the critical approach to the study of religion is made on grounds similar to Kant’s. And this defense is essentially correct. Within the Christian family there are a variety of claims and points of view, and when points of view conflict it is quite obvious that not all of them can be true. Indeed it is sometimes the case that none of them may be, To the extent that it is a responsibility of a college to help its students to distinguish true claims from false ones, to the extent it is an obligation of the college to subject religious claims to the same critical scrutiny as we would apply to any other area of knowledge. It is precisely at this point, it seems to me, that the problem arises. If we seriously entertain the possibility that some religious claims — even Lutheran ones — and possibly all of them with regard to a certain article of belief, are false, then it would seem that the faith is in danger from precisely those people who would most naturally be expected to defend it. .. continued 36
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 37
-
Search Result
-
Chapel ¢ January 8, 1968, continued Perhaps you noticed that in my last sentence I shifted from using the term ‘belief’ to the term ‘faith.’ Notice that in the translation I used, the term Paul uses is ‘faith,’ because I hoped to raise in your mind the question of whether they are really...
Show moreChapel ¢ January 8, 1968, continued Perhaps you noticed that in my last sentence I shifted from using the term ‘belief’ to the term ‘faith.’ Notice that in the translation I used, the term Paul uses is ‘faith,’ because I hoped to raise in your mind the question of whether they are really synonymous terms. My contention is that they are not. . Many people suppose that genuine Christian faith is dependent upon accepting as true, or ‘believing’ in the truth of, certain statements, assertions, claims. But notice that Paul says that ‘faith’ is a way in which man is “put right” with God. He does not say that faith is a matter of having the right statements, assertions, beliefs . regarding creation, original sin, etc. Hence it appears that men who have faith, that is who have been “put right ' with God may nevertheless disagree vehemently as to how certain theological matters are to be understood or talked about. One of the most helpful ways of putting this, I think, is to say that faith is a matter of accepting the gift of God which puts him right with God. It is an act of acceptance, of adopting an entirely new outlook on life which does not solve or intellectual, theological problems, but which does set the mind at peace with respect to ' the assurance that one is “set right” with God. ff In this framework, then, it is quite possible to say that there are men of faith of many denominational affiliations who differ not in the presence or absence of being ‘set right’ with God; but who differ in their beliefs as to how these complex matters are most properly described or talked about. Then it is possible to understand | how people of faith can examine, criticize, doubt, despair, and differ over credal statements without losing faith. As Paul says, it is the gospel — God’s gift to man — in which we need to have complete confidence; and this confi- dence is possible even though we may not agree on the appropriate language to be used.
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 38
-
Search Result
-
St. Matthew 22:34-40 In 1966, a book by Joseph Fletcher, "Situation Ethics" introduced a new term into our common vocabulary. It is a bit unfortunate, I think, that the sub-title of Fletcher's book is "The New Morality,” suggesting that Fletcher's views somehow overturned or made obsolete an...
Show moreSt. Matthew 22:34-40 In 1966, a book by Joseph Fletcher, "Situation Ethics" introduced a new term into our common vocabulary. It is a bit unfortunate, I think, that the sub-title of Fletcher's book is "The New Morality,” suggesting that Fletcher's views somehow overturned or made obsolete an older, more traditional morality. It is my conviction that the passage from St. Matthew just read substantiates the claim that Fletcher's views were really not new at all but, to the contrary, merely placed into a contemporary context a view of ethics and morality for which we are basically indebted to the New Testament. It is unfortunate, too, I believe, that the two titles of Fletcher's book suggest that the terms "ethics" and "morality" are equivalent. In some contexts they may be; and of course it is always possible for an author to use two or more terms in the same way if he chooses to do so. But in this instance to suggest that ethics and morality are the same thing is to obscure a vitally important, and perhaps subtle point. I will not trouble you now with a discussion of an obscure semantic issue, important as it is. Whatever terms you choose to use -- I employ "ethics" and "morality" for the sake of convenience and because of their position in the common vocabulary - the basic point is that our reflections about value, and our attempts to decide upon a right course of action necessarily involve two different types of rules, one material and the other formal. Both types of rule are essential to consideration of a right course of action, but they function in radically different ways. Confusion between them has often led to unnecessary, and sometimes bitter, controversy -- and sometimes leads these days to an altogether too hasty condemnation of "Situation Ethics." The rules with which we are most familiar are material or ethical rules. These we learn as children from our par- ents, society, church, school, etc.; and they usually serve admirably to teach a pattern of behavior that is accept- able in a given cultural setting. If one happens to approve of this process, we speak of a "well adjusted person" -- if one disapproves, than we speak disparagingly of "conformity." Obviously the rules of any cultural organization are not absolute. They must and do change as circumstances change; and if they are to change in appropriate, intelligent ways, some reference point must be available from which one can criticize and suggest changes. Such a vantage point is afforded by the Christian point of view. Jesus does voice a rule: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” -- but it is a rule utterly different from those established by a society or cultural group. Yesterday Pastor David Preus recalled that penetrating question from the Old Testament - “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The Christian response is simple, “yes, you are” - but it leaves entirely open the question of what to do about it. Consider the oddity of a rule like “thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.” If we face an ethical problem - e.g., is it right to establish a guaranteed annual wage? - to be told that the Christian answer is merely to love your neighbor a yourself really doesn’t in one sense, help very much. It does tell us what our attitude must be - namely that it is our neighbor’s welfare that is our concern, not our own - but it does not tell us how his best welfare is to be achieved. Every four years, as we face election of a president and other governmental officers, | am deeply troubled by the very common tendency to confuse ends and means - among people of good will, regardless of party affiliation, the ends to be achieved - achievement of a decent standard of living for all people; and of peace and justice in the world - are not at issue. The only issue is, how are these to be achieved? To this question we receive almost no answer at all, for it is the nature of politics to substitute rhetoric for information. .. .continued 38
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 39
-
Search Result
-
iy Chapel * September 24, 1968, continued The answer to an ethical problem always depends upon information - what is the situation, what are the alterna- tive courses of action, and how likely is each one to achieve the desired end? Whether there ought to be a guar- anteed annual wage is not a...
Show moreiy Chapel * September 24, 1968, continued The answer to an ethical problem always depends upon information - what is the situation, what are the alterna- tive courses of action, and how likely is each one to achieve the desired end? Whether there ought to be a guar- anteed annual wage is not a moral question, but a practical one. How likely is this course of action to produce the desired end, and is it more likely than any other alternative? Political disagreement is nearly always of this sort. Am I my brother's keeper? Yes, indeed, but what does that belief imply in terms of concrete action? To even begin an intelligent answer to this question - which really is the issue at hand - we need to employ the best information available to us, and that is none too good. Tam not concerned with whetting a political axe. As Pastor Preus remarked, again, Christianity is in some ways more effective in raising questions than in answering them. My sole concern is to remind you that in answering questions of an ethical sort, we must utilize our intelligence and whatever information is at our command. The contribution of the Christian faith is to remind us that whatever decision we make, whatever course of action we choose, we are obliged to be as sure as possible that the ends are worthy and productive of the good of our neighbor.
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 40
-
Search Result
-
Whenever I, with my background, am asked to speak in Chapel, my first tendency is always to beg off - for it is difficult for me to see what I might have to say that could be of interest, and just may be of some value, to such a disparate audience and in the context of a worship service. Let me...
Show moreWhenever I, with my background, am asked to speak in Chapel, my first tendency is always to beg off - for it is difficult for me to see what I might have to say that could be of interest, and just may be of some value, to such a disparate audience and in the context of a worship service. Let me assure you that I am not a preacher - my few ventures into that area have not met with spectacular success - and I do not intend to practice on you. What I would like to do is to offer for your reflection some thoughts on the relationship(s) between Christianity and higher education. These are not final thoughts by any means - indeed, philosophers are not prone to think of any idea as being really finished - but I offer them in the hope that they may be of some help to you in your own reflection, even if to you they seem misguided. When I was still in college, a good friend came to me one day and expressed his impatience with what he was called upon to do for the sake of his educational preparation for the Christian ministry. "When all that is need- ed," he said, "is faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, what need do I have for Greek, History, Literature, Philosophy, etc.?" What he was saying was that somehow his understanding of the Christian faith was getting in the way of his education. If he already had the "one thing needful," why burden him with extra trappings of information, insight, and understanding? What, at that moment, he did not see, of course, is that faith and the church do not exist in a vacuum. He want- ed to see his faith and the church as somehow "holy" and unsullied by any traffic with the secular world. But all of us live in a variety of worlds, of which the church and "secular" society are only two. If the church and its Lord demand of us faith, society's demand for competence is no less vigorous. The Christian cannot hope to live in isolation from his culture, and if he does not understand his culture he will soon find that his faith is as irrele- vant as some of its critics have held it to be. My first suggestion to you, therefore, is that you take advantage of every opportunity you have here to broaden and deepen your understanding of our culture and its history. Our faith, properly understood, leads us into service to the world. We can serve the world and the "human needs of a changing society" only if we really understand what they are. Another friend, who teaches now in a public university, once said to me that he could not understand how any- one who hoped to be a scholar, or a reasonably objective teacher, could stand teaching at a church-related college. "For me," he said, "freedom of the classroom is of fundamental importance. I could not abide any limitations upon my freedom to analyze and explore ideas, imposed by a church body." What he was saying, of course, was that, for him, quality education gets in the way of a meaningful faith. He thought that commitment to the Christian faith and life would restrict him to a certain way of understanding the world - in terms of a six-day cre- ation, miracles, magic and the rest. What he did not see is that Christianity is far less a way of understanding the world than it is a way of intending the world. The data of chemistry or physics are, generally, the same to every- one. While there is always room in the sciences for genuine creative thought, meters and metre stick read the same to all of us. But there is a vast difference between relating to the world as a mere accident of cosmic histo- ry, in which case Bertrand Russell is right and the world will eventually become nothing but another cold planet rotating endlessly around a dead sun; and relating to it as somehow God's creation for which we, as merely tem- porary residents, are responsible. Perhaps, with all of our interest in ecology and environment, we are coming to realize again our responsibility as stewards. My second suggestion to you, therefore, is to remember that the Christian faith is not a means to knowledge of the world; but rather a way of ‘intending’ the world as God's creation, and of relating to one another. Education, no matter how objective and rigorous, need not get in the way. Some years ago I attended a series of lectures given by Dr. Arthur Compton, an American physicist of considerable note and reputation. To my surprise, the subject of his lectures was not atomic physics, of which he is undoubtedly a master, but religion. He saw, as many people of considerable learning do, that his objective understanding of the world was not enough - that somehow he needed also to find his way to a satisfactory relationship to the world, to its people, and finally to God. .. .continued 40
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 41
-
Search Result
-
Chapel ¢ September 24, 1973, continued Finally may I suggest that a Christian college has as its educational aim that most difficult of all human accom- ’ plishments - wisdom. Wisdom is a compilation of knowledge, understanding, faith, and compassion for which philosophers have long sought but...
Show moreChapel ¢ September 24, 1973, continued Finally may I suggest that a Christian college has as its educational aim that most difficult of all human accom- ’ plishments - wisdom. Wisdom is a compilation of knowledge, understanding, faith, and compassion for which philosophers have long sought but seldom found. I find it instructive that St. Luke tells us that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Luke 2:52) I do not think that Luke intended to sug- gest that there is a necessary connection between wisdom and favor with man; but did intend to convey the idea that Jesus grew during these formative years not only in understanding but also in faith and compassion. ~ So, with the Psalmist, let us "number our days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom.” (Psalms 90:12) If we can learn to understand our world, our culture, and its history; and if we can learn to 'intend' the world and its people as creations of God; we will have come a long way on what Karl Jaspers calls the "Way to Wisdom."
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 42
-
Search Result
-
During the month of January, a group of students and I spent some time reflecting about some of the issues that arise when the claims of science and the claims of religion are considered together. As for me, I enjoyed the course tremendously; and I think the students did, too, but you will need...
Show moreDuring the month of January, a group of students and I spent some time reflecting about some of the issues that arise when the claims of science and the claims of religion are considered together. As for me, I enjoyed the course tremendously; and I think the students did, too, but you will need to ask them for confirmation of my belief. The course was offered for a couple of reasons: first because this area has long been an interest of mine; and, more importantly because, in my informal conversations with people, I find that questions in this area arise again and again. In spite of the current popularity of transcendentalism in religious thought, it still seems to me that we live in an age dominated by a scientific and technological outlook. That is not surprising, since science, in the ways in which we understand it today, is not yet very old (some very basic considerations have been in the forefront of our concern for only some thirty years); and because the technology which grows out of basic science is a highly important economic, social, and political force in our day. Just a few days ago I chanced to read an article about the teaching of evolution in the public schools of some of our states; an article which deplored the juxtaposition of the creation accounts in the book of Genesis with a contemporary understanding of the evolu- tion of the earth and of life upon it. While I do not agree with the article in every respect, I certainly do agree that the issue needs to be faced openly and honestly; and the basic issue is that people often are puzzled by the apparent conflict between what they are taught in the contexts of science and religious belief. The issues are there, and we must either face them honestly, or ignore them. We can ignore them only at the risk of seeing some aspects at least of our religious beliefs become irrelevant in a science-minded age. I would like to talk with you briefly this morning about the concept of a miracle. The question I have in mind arises from the story of Jesus’ calming the winds and the sea as reported by St. Matthew: "And a severe storm came up on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but He (Jesus) lay sleeping. So they went to Him and roused Him, saying ‘Lord, save us, we are perishing.’ He said to them, “You of little faith. Why are you afraid?’ Then, standing up, He rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.” (Matt. 8:24-26) This is a pretty impressive story. J recall hearing a man say one time that this was the one account of a miracle in the New Testament that convinced him that Jesus was God. All of the other accounts, he thought, could be explained in terms of psychology or some other natural process, but not this one! Here is a man who bids the very elements to be still, and they obey him. Surely this is all the evidence we need to convince us that Jesus is the Son of God! Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Matthew has told a straight story. I think it would be beside the point to become involved in a hassle over haw we know that Matthew's story is true. Assuming that it is, clearly Jesus has apparently done an impressive thing. He has performed a miracle! But now suppose we just ask ourselves what we mean when we say that Jesus performed a miracle. What does the term 'miracle' mean? I don't intend to propose some highly complicated and technical definition of the term ‘miracle’ here, I simply want to try to understand the meaning of that term as it is ordinarily used, in our every- day conversation about some of the events in the life of Jesus. In the first place, the term 'miracle' seems to suggest that the event is unusual. At least some of the disciples were old hands at fishing and handling ships. No doubt they had seen storms before and had come through them safely. But this time they were frightened, which suggests a story of really unusual magnitude. But then Jesus simply "rebuked" the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. An unusual event? Certainly. But then, suppose that someone, right now, were to drop a nickel in the top row of seats which, rolling down the floor, finally dropped into an opening, shorted out the electrical wiring and blew out all the fuses in this build- ing. An unusual event? Surely, it probably wouldn't happen again in a million times. A miracle? No, for com- plicated as the event would be, it could be explained in terms of known laws of nature. In order to term an event a ‘miracle’ it is not enough that it be unusual or unexpected. Well, then, maybe a miracle is an event which we cannot account for in terms of the laws of nature which are presently known. Some years ago it was discovered that, in the presence of certain materials, photographic plates could be exposed even though they were kept in complete 'darkness' (as far as ordinary light is concerned) b .. continued
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 43
-
Search Result
-
wed Chapel ¢ February 4, 1977, continued all of the time. Here is an event which could not be explained in terms of natural laws known at that time. Was it therefore a miracle? No, for men came to suspect that there were laws which could explain this curious event, of which at the time nothing...
Show morewed Chapel ¢ February 4, 1977, continued all of the time. Here is an event which could not be explained in terms of natural laws known at that time. Was it therefore a miracle? No, for men came to suspect that there were laws which could explain this curious event, of which at the time nothing was known, and when these laws were formulated the science of radioactivity was born. The same thing can happen to any natural event whatsoever. The world is a very complicated affair, and we can never be sure but that any event whatsoever will some day become understandable in terms of natural laws of which we are ignorant at the moment. The point I am trying to make, you see, is that we simply cannot define the notion of a miracle by reference to natural laws.. whether known or unknown. There is no natural event which we can safely assume will never be explainable by natural law, whether known now or to become known in the future. It is sometimes said that the Sea of Galilee is known for its sudden and violent storms--squalls one might call them--which come up suddenly, are very violent for a time, and then cease just as suddenly as they began. Suppose that we were to decide that the incident Matthew recounts was merely one of these sudden, violent storms, and really nothing unusual at all. Would this then destroy the significance of the story Matthew tells? That is, is the significance of this event dependent upon our never being able to explain what happened in terms of natural laws? The answer is, has to be, no. What we have here is not an instance of God standing outside of nature and sud- denly reaching down in order to change the order of natural events. Quite the opposite. The impression one gets from the story is that here is a man for whom nature holds no strangeness. As the spiritual puts it so well, God holds the whole of creation in His hand, not just at some particular moments but all of the time. God is not an extra cause outside of nature which can sometimes be inserted into the natural course of events in order to . change them to our liking. Of course the world is God's creation, but we must not permit the doctrine of creation to mislead us into suppos- ing that at some time in the past God made the world and then stood aside and permitted his creation to roll along under its own impetus, except for an occasional act when he reaches down and interferes with the natural course of events. This is an altogether primitive conception of God. The Gods of Homer's epics, as you all know, _ were of this capricious sort. Ordinarily they left the world of men pretty much alone, because they were usually occupied with their own affairs, but on occasion, if the bribe mere large enough or if someone like Ullyses could " come up with a cogent enough argument, they would agree to come and lend a hand in the affairs of men. As _ Christianity understands Him, God does not behave in this way. He is not a Deus Absconditus, an absent God who is only occasionally present in His creation. But if we suppose that the meaning of 'miracle' is that God reaches down and interferes with the natural course of events this is just the view of God that we imply. It implies that God is usually absent from His creation, and _ does not care about the affairs of men unless, for purposes of his own or because He has been persuaded by a sufficient number of appeals, he occasionally changes his mind and arranges it so that events in the world hap- _ pen ina way different from the way they would have if He had not interfered. - Do you think that miracles happened only in New Testament days? Look around you. There is a sense, and a very profound one, in which the whole world is the only real miracle. We do not know why it is here; or why | _ things happen in the ways they do. Certainly we do not know why God thought enough of his creation to send ’ his own son to save it! _ Of course we are puzzled about why some things in the world happen as they do. And even when we are able to explain them, in a sense, our explanations are always in terms of, and always limited by, explanatory princi- ples which are largely of our own making. If we ask why the world is as it is, or why things in the world behave _ in the ways that they do, there is no answer. This fact, that our understanding of the world always comes to a ‘dead’ end in the sense that we cannot explain the ‘why’ of it, is one source of what Rudolph Otto, in his book "The Idea of the Holy" has called the "Mysterium tremendum." This feeling of awe, of majesty, of urgency which we feel when we face a universe the presence and nature of which we cannot explain or understand is one, and a very important, aspect of the religious consciousness. .. continued
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 44
-
Search Result
-
As I remarked earlier, it is not the fact that Jesus performed a miracle that is impressive in St. Matthew's account of the stilling of the winds and the sea. We do not really know what a miracle is, and we do not really know but what this act of Jesus may have a perfectly ordinary, albeit it...
Show moreAs I remarked earlier, it is not the fact that Jesus performed a miracle that is impressive in St. Matthew's account of the stilling of the winds and the sea. We do not really know what a miracle is, and we do not really know but what this act of Jesus may have a perfectly ordinary, albeit it somewhat unusual, scientific explanation. What is impressive, I believe, is that here is a man for whom nature does not hold the strangeness that it holds for us. I do not mean that He was a wizard or a magician. What I do mean is that He seems to possess an understanding of nature that is far beyond our own, so that events which are puzzling to us--the turning of water into wine, the calming of the winds and the waves, the raising of Lazarus from the dead--are not puzzling to Him. I believe that one of the great tragedies of history is the fact that, in the minds of many men, science and religion have become separated and must remain so. And I believe that one thing we can learn from these events in the life of Jesus is that there is no necessary estrangement between man and the world in which God has placed him. There is no need to fear our increasing understanding of the world and of the ways in which events happen within it. We need only fear that we, in our arrogance and selfishness, will misuse the knowledge which is given us, God grant that we, like Jesus, may learn to use our knowledge of the world for good rather than for ill. 44
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 45
-
Search Result
-
45 Chapel *« November 19, 1983 The request to speak in chapel always seems to be something of a challenge to someone who teaches philosophy, for I take it to be an invitation to say something positive about matters which we are accustomed to holding up to question in our classes. Once in a while...
Show more45 Chapel *« November 19, 1983 The request to speak in chapel always seems to be something of a challenge to someone who teaches philosophy, for I take it to be an invitation to say something positive about matters which we are accustomed to holding up to question in our classes. Once in a while a student will say to me, somewhat plaintively, "But, tell us what you really believe!" as though one really only plays a role in the classroom and behind the skeptical method there lurks a set of final beliefs just waiting for the occasion to be heard. Not so. Though this may seem a strange admission to some of my colleagues, philosophers have no special han- dle on the truth. In fact they are trained to raise questions where others may be content to let sleeping dogs lie. The philosopher's penchant for raising questions is an irritation to some people, for it sometimes seems that we consider the questions to be of more value than the answers, if any! Perhaps as another manifestation of their perverse natures, philosophers are also prone to look for meaning and significance in odd places. It is customary to begin a chapel talk with a quotation from Scripture, but instead, and perhaps in the philosopher's usual uncustomary manner, I will begin with these lines from William Ernest Henley: "We'll go no more a-roving by the light of the moon. November glooms are barren beside the dusk of June." "Invictus," VII and "No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease, No comfortable feel in any member -- No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees, No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds, November!" Thomas Hood, "No" November is, at best, a surly month. It isn't even named properly. The name 'November' comes from the Latin novem, which means ‘nine,’ and hence November should have been the ninth month, and here it is the eleventh. ~ Of course that oddity is simply due to the change to the Gregorian calendar, adopted in 1582, but it is perhaps enough to suggest that there is precious little to celebrate in such a fruitless, flowerless month. Perhaps the best that can be said for it is that it isn't quite as bad as, say, January, but, then, that month is at least named after a Roman god, Janus, the god of gates and beginnings, who had the capacity to look in two directions at once, per- haps back at the old year just ended and towards the new beginning and the anticipation of spring. Now that I have your attention, and, after all, that's all that the foregoing business was intended to accomplish, perhaps I can raise the question that is really on my mind. Isn't it odd that the celebration of Thanksgiving is set in the month of November, when there might seem to be less to be thankful for than at any other time of the year? After all, if one is to sing an anthem about "harvest home" that is probably better done in late August or | September, when the fruits of the season are more readily at hand. Is there anything to be thankful for about November? For me the answer is clearly 'yes.' For one thing, the ~ month is ushered in by Halloween, which is not only an anticipation of the celebration of All Saints, but is also the birthday of my elder daughter; and also the birth date of Bruce Reichenbach's daughter, Rachel. Oddly enough, I know only of girls born on Halloween, and in these instances daughters of philosophers. Make of that - what you will. But in any case, the month is ushered in rather splendidly. I have no trouble at all in remember- _ ing my daughter's birthday! Halloween and All Saints' Day are followed by Guy Fawkes Day, November 5, a day observed in England in commemoration of the seizure of Guy Fawkes, in 1605, for an attempt to blow up the houses of Parliament. ~ November 5 is near enough to our own Election Day, November 2 this year, when many of us, looking at the lim- _. continued
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 46
-
Search Result
-
Chapel ¢ November 19, 1983, continued ited selection offered on the ballot may be inclined to say "a pox on both your houses!" Again there seemed to be precious little to celebrate on election day, with the choices so limited and the issues potentially so momentous. Perhaps the lesson to be...
Show moreChapel ¢ November 19, 1983, continued ited selection offered on the ballot may be inclined to say "a pox on both your houses!" Again there seemed to be precious little to celebrate on election day, with the choices so limited and the issues potentially so momentous. Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that it is precisely when there might seem to be the least for which to be thankful, we are called upon to offer our praise and thanksgiving. Being thankful, however, is not an easy thing to do. Plato once remarked that trying to satisfy our appetites is like trying to fill a leaky bucket. As fast as you pour the water in, it leaks out through the holes. The German philosopher Schopenhauer suggested that things are even worse than that. There is no way, he said, to satisfy our appetites, for the attempt to fulfill them only sees them grow larger. Our wants always seem to outstrip the means at our disposal. Are we, then, to be thank- ful that our needs are greater than our resources? Fortunately, it is not always so. Last week Dr. Hanwick, professor emeritus of physics, amazed us with some of the figures regarding the enormity of our universe. The thing he seemed to want us to remember, however, was not merely that the extent of the universe is beyond the power of the human mind to imagine, but that he had been led through contemplation of the universe to the conclusion that God was its creator. What impressed me enormously was the simplicity of his statement. He did not argue the case. He knows, perhaps as well as any- one does, that the size, complexity, and orderliness of the universe do not necessarily imply that it was created by God. As far as logic is concerned, it is quite possible that the universe simply happened, either through a 'Big Bang’ or some other cataclysmic upheaval. Dr. Hanwick said, quite simply, this is what I believe, not because I can prove it, but because I cannot believe otherwise. Neither do I have any good way of proving to you what I believe to be the case, that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." The faith to which Iam committed is not dependent upon having all of my questions answered. If it were, no one trained in the analytical methods of the philosopher, or, for that matter, anyone who is aware of the fact that the natural world displays cruelty, agony, hunger, and pain as well as mercy, love, and beauty, would believe either. For every argument there is a counter argument. The beauty and orderliness of the universe do not imply that it is God's creation any more than its ugliness and squalor imply that it is not. Rather, I believe that even though it is November and not June; even though our legitimate needs, plans, and expectations far outstrip the means at our disposal; even though for each one of us who will celebrate Thanksgiving next week with turkey and trimmings there is someone else whose hunger will make the world seem drear, cold, and uncaring; we are called upon to render our thanks and praise. I began this homily with Henley's disparagement of this time of the year: "November glooms are barren beside the dusk of June." Let me finish with a more hopeful note from Psalm 50: "The Mighty One, God the Lord, speaks and calls the earth from where the sun rises to where the sun goes down. (v. 1) . . . Offer the sacrifice of praise to God, and pay your vows to the Most High. (v.14) Call on Me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall | honor Me. (v.15) . .. He who offers a sacrifice of praise honors Me: to him who prepares his way I will show the salvation of God. (v.23)" The thanks and praise that I shall attempt to render this Thanksgiving season will not be primarily for a bounti- ful harvest, or even for a renewal of the professional football season, but for the privilege of giving thanks itself. The act of giving thanks to God for all of his gifts would seem outrageously impertinent, were it not for the fact that God himself has invited us to do so. I cannot imagine what difference it can make to God for me to give thanks and praise; but I know that the privilege of doing so is enormously important to me. I do not think that God will suffer if I fail to give thanks in this cold and blustery November, but failing to give thanks would leave my own life cheerless, dreary, and empty. .. .continued 46
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 47
-
Search Result
-
Chapel *¢ November 19, 1983, continued I would be seriously remiss if I did not mention one other reason why November is, for me, an appropriate time _ for giving thanks. Today is my wife Dorothy's birthday, and I am enormously grateful to her and to many other people, some of whom are here this...
Show moreChapel *¢ November 19, 1983, continued I would be seriously remiss if I did not mention one other reason why November is, for me, an appropriate time _ for giving thanks. Today is my wife Dorothy's birthday, and I am enormously grateful to her and to many other people, some of whom are here this morning, who have made my life rich and meaningful. For all of these I give thanks, but mainly I am grateful for the faith which tells me that God is not only tolerant of, but actually invites, ’ + our fumbling efforts to express our gratitude. Among all of life's blessings, I count God's invitation to give thanks and praise one of the finest! "How can we ever repay God with enough thanksgiving for you in view of all the happiness we are enjoying because of you in the presence of our God?" (I Thess. 3:9) I know that I can never repay God for anything through mere words of thanks and praise, but I can remember that He has, nevertheless, invited me to try. And that is enough!
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 48
-
Search Result
-
Chapel ¢ Augsburg College, Minneapolis, Minnesota ¢ December 5, 1984 Romans I: 16-17 - “For Iam not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from...
Show moreChapel ¢ Augsburg College, Minneapolis, Minnesota ¢ December 5, 1984 Romans I: 16-17 - “For Iam not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes; to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, the just shall live by faith.” It seems to me that among Lutherans this passage from Romans is quoted more often than any other from the New Testament. Given the importance of this insight in the life and works of Martin Luther it is not surprising that this should be so. In Luther's case the reason is fairly clear. He was involved in a highly personal struggle with a contrary view -- the idea that one could work out one's own salvation, somehow, by performing certain acts of contrition and repentance. But this opposition no longer seems to be so real to us. Many of us, at least, having grown up in the Lutheran tradition, or something very much like it, are not prone to think that we are able to work out our own salvation, although, it should be granted, we often live as though we thought this were true. More often, I think, our emphasis on faith as the essence of the Christian life leads-us to excuse our own lack of Christian concern on the grounds that, after all, works, no matter how worthy, cannot save us anyhow. In one sense, the opposition seems simple and clear. Salvation is a matter of faith, not works. But one trouble with it is that the concept ‘faith’ is not simple, but rather complex, and sometimes more than a little muddled. It is because our understanding of faith is often muddled that I would like to discuss the matter rather informally this morning. No doubt I will say some things that have been said often before, perhaps from this very rostrum, and in defense I can only say that repetition, we are told, is often an effective technique in learning, and that it at least does us no harm to consider again one of the concepts central to the Christian life. To begin with, it seems to me that people often confuse faith with its correlative, belief. There is, of course, a most important element of belief in the Christian life, but belief and faith are not the same. A standard English dictionary makes this very mistake when it defines 'faith' as "believing without proof, trust." Perhaps this is the way in which most of us understand the term ‘faith’, but if you will allow me a brutal malapropism, this just will not do! Belief is perhaps best defined as agreement as to the truth of certain propositions; and there are at least three quite distinct notions of faith, none of which can be identified with mere assent to the truth of a set of propositions, historical, theological, or otherwise. 1) Faith as Tenacity. Sometimes people continue to have confidence in spite of the fact that there may be good evidence to indicate that their confidence is misplaced. Faith in this sense requires determination, trust, confidence in the face of facts that might otherwise result in despair. The classic example, no doubt, is the person of Job in the Old Testament. In spite of all the difficulties that had befallen him, and in spite of his anger, dismay, and confusion, Job could still say: "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." Then Job adds, as a kind of assurance of his own identity, "But I will maintain my own ways before Him." (Job, 13:15) In.a more contempo- rary vein, Basil Mitchell, of Oxford University, suggests that having faith in God is like persisting in saying of someone, "He is on our side," even though events may suggest something to the contrary. We know that there is evil in the world, and that our lives are surrounded by pain, suffering and death. And yet we persist in the belief that God is good, and that in some mysterious way all things, even those that seem most cruel to us, work together for good to those who love God. Surely this persistence is one of the mysteries of the Christian life. 2) We are indebted to William James for clearly identifying a second type of faith -- faith as the "Will to Believe." James did not mean that one could, by an act of will, force oneself to believe in the truth of certain propositions. Rather, faith in this sense involves not only passive non-resistance to the influence of Christian pre- cepts, but the active, willful participation of the whole of one's being. What we often forget is that Christianity is far less a way of understanding the world than it is a way of intending the world. The data of chemistry or physics are, generally, the same to everyone. While there is room in the sciences for genuine creative thought, meters and metre sticks read the same to all. of us. But there is a vast difference between relating to the world as a mere accident of cosmic history, in which case Bertrand Russell is right and the world will eventually become 48 .. .continued
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 49
-
Search Result
-
Chapel ¢ December 5, 1984, continued nothing but another cold planet rotating endlessly around a dead sun; and relating to it as somehow God's cre- ation for which we, as merely temporary residents, are responsible. If the Christian religion is to be meaningful for us, in a sense beyond mere lip...
Show moreChapel ¢ December 5, 1984, continued nothing but another cold planet rotating endlessly around a dead sun; and relating to it as somehow God's cre- ation for which we, as merely temporary residents, are responsible. If the Christian religion is to be meaningful for us, in a sense beyond mere lip service, it must be appropriated by an act of will. The Christian faith is not only belief, important as that often is, but a vital, seeking activity on the part of each of us to make the facts of Christ's life, death, and resurrection meaningful in our lives. It is an active, wholehearted participation in the effort to make the ideal of love an influence in human life, no matter how difficult this often may seem to be. 3) Faith as Realization: The Christian religion always looks forward to its realization or fulfillment some- time in the future, in full awareness of the fact that the story of the human race is not yet complete. "The whole universe groans in travail, awaiting the return of the Son of Man." Looking forward to the future always implies uncertainty and insecurity, an open mind, for we do not know, objectively, what may or may not happen in the future. But, again, as-an act of confidence, the Christian goes about his or her business in the assurance that whatever happens, nothing can ever separate us from the love of God. These are three discernable, although surely related, senses of the term ‘faith.’ But, even though each can be dis- tinguished from the others, I have tried to impress upon you the thought that each one involves not only belief, not merely passive agreement to the truth of certain propositions, but action. Faith is more than belief -- it is an act. This, then, is the final thought I would like to leave with you. No matter how important it is to understand the historical antecedents of the Christian faith, Christianity is not merely an historical curiosity. It is beyond time in the sense that the Christian lives in full confidence that God, who once saw fit to send His Son into the world for the sake of humankind, can be trusted not to fail us in our utmost need. How important this may be in our lives depends not on mere assent to the truth of the Christian gospel, but a willingness to appropriate and apply its message to our own lives.
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 50
-
Search Result
-
Chapel + Augsburg College * April 18, 1986 Today is the 18th of April, and, as you no doubt remember, a very auspicious day in American history: “Listen, my children, and you shall hear Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere On the 18th of April in ‘75 Hardly a man who is now alive Remembers that...
Show moreChapel + Augsburg College * April 18, 1986 Today is the 18th of April, and, as you no doubt remember, a very auspicious day in American history: “Listen, my children, and you shall hear Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere On the 18th of April in ‘75 Hardly a man who is now alive Remembers that famous day and year." It is also auspicious for another, entirely unrelated, reason -- it happens to be my father-in-law's 90th birthday, an anniversary that the rest of us can only hope to achieve. Those of us of a more advanced age than you are have at very least had the advantage of living a good share of our lives in a simpler age; but at the same time the dis- advantage of being constantly tempted to think that our present age is simpler than it really is. President Reagen is often accused of being a case in point, which is the basic reason for many of the criticisms you hear of his views and actions. We who live and work in academe are, or at very least ought to be, very much aware of the same circumstance, namely that our age is much less simple than we might like it to be. Surely we are all aware of the diverse cur- rents in our contemporary culture, and of the various voices that demand our attention. Listen: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” (John 1:1,3-4) A rather striking statement, is it not? John makes it sound as though God, and the Word, pervade everything that is, and everything that we do -- that without a satisfactory relationship to God, and the Word, our under- standing of the world, and its origin, and its future, indeed of life itself remains unfulfilled. I am reminded of a series of lectures that I heard some years ago by Dr. Arthur Compton, an American physicist of considerable note and reputation. To my surprise, the subject of his lectures was not atomic physics, which I expected, but philoso- phy of religion. He saw, as many people of considerable learning do, that his scientific understanding of the world was not enough -- that somehow he needed also to find his way to a satisfactory relationship to the world, to its people, and finally to God. Some people would no doubt say that he went about It in the wrong way -- that what he needed was not theology, or philosophy of religion, but to be "born again" -- but that was not his style. But there are also contrary voices: Listen "Zarathustra went down the mountain alone, no-one meeting him. When he entered the forest, however, there suddenly stood before him an old man, who had left his holy cot to seek roots... ‘And what doeth the saint in the forest?’ asked Zarathustra. The saint answered: “I make hymns and sing them: and in making hymns I laugh and weep and mum- ble: thus do I praise God. With singing, weeping, laughing, and mumbling do I praise the God who is my God. But what dost thou bring us as a gift?’ When Zarathustra had heard these words, he bowed to the saint and said: ‘What should I have to give thee! Let me hurry hence lest I take aught away from thee!’ -- and thus they parted from one another, the old man and Zarathustra, laughing like schoolboys. When Zarathustra was alone, however, he said to his heart: 'Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that God is dead!’ ” .. continued 50
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 51
-
Search Result
-
Chapel ¢ April 18, 1986, continued This brief passage is from the Prologue to Friedrich Nietzsche's work “Thus Spake Zarathustra” (1883). Nietzsche did not mean, of course, that God had died in any ordinary sense, but Nietzsche was one of that large group of people who believed that religion was...
Show moreChapel ¢ April 18, 1986, continued This brief passage is from the Prologue to Friedrich Nietzsche's work “Thus Spake Zarathustra” (1883). Nietzsche did not mean, of course, that God had died in any ordinary sense, but Nietzsche was one of that large group of people who believed that religion was an anachronism; that it no longer served any useful purpose, and that, to the contrary, Christianity in particular was getting in the way of human progress now that, since Darwin, the human race was considered to be a part of the natural order, where strength and power counted for a great deal more than did meekness and compassion. It takes no more than a casual glance at contemporary events to realize that, in a very profound sense, Nietzsche was right. Things get done in our world much more in response to power than they do on the basis of principle. Appeals to principle, protests of outrage, seem to have little effect against terrorism, or our nation's relations with Libya. Or, on a more local level, the strike against the Hormel company seems to have reached an impasse, with both sides having taken a stance on power and neither being willing to give way. It is very difficult indeed for a Christian to understand a world in which power counts for more than principle, and yet we need to understand that world better then we do, for the alternative is helplessness, impotence in the face of secular power. May I suggest to you today, then, that you take advantage of every opportunity you have here to broaden and deepen your understanding of our culture, its history, and our contemporary world. That these are vastly com- , plex goes without saying, but the Christian faith, properly understood, leads us into service to the world. We can serve the world and the "human needs of a changing society" only if we really understand what they are, Perhaps if we can learn to understand our world a bit better, we can discover some better ways to make an impact upon it. A good friend remarked to me one day that he was becoming impatient with what he was called upon to do for the sake of his educational preparation for the Christian ministry. "When all that is needed," he said, "is faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, what need do I have for Greek, history, literature, philosophy, and so on?" What _ he was saying was that somehow his understanding of the Christian faith was getting in the way of his educa- tion. If he already had "the one thing needful," why burden him with extra trappings of information, insight, and understanding? What he did not see at that moment is that faith and the church do not exist in a vacuum. He wanted to see his faith and the church as somehow "holy" and unsullied by any traffic with the secular world. But all of us live in a variety of worlds, of which the church and "secular" society are only two. If the church and its Lord demand of us faith, society's demand for competence is no less vigorous. The Christian cannot hope to live in isolation from ~ his or her culture, and if we do not understand our culture we will soon find that our faith is as irrelevant as some of its critics have held it to be. _ Finally, with some hesitancy, may I suggest that a Christian college has as its educational aim that most difficult | of all human accomplishments -- wisdom. Wisdom is a compilation of knowledge, understanding, faith, and compassion for which philosophers have long sought but seldom found. I find it instructive that St. Luke tells us that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52). I do not think that Luke intended to suggest that there is a necessary connection between wisdom and favor with people: but did intend to convey the idea that Jesus grew during these formative years not only in understanding but also in faith and compassion. So, with the Psalmist, let us "number our days that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom" (Psalm 90:12). If we ' can learn to better understand our world, our culture, and its history; and if we can learn to relate to the world and its people as creations of God, we will have come a long way on what Karl Jaspers calls the "Way to Wisdom."
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 52
-
Search Result
-
Today is the nominal deadline for filing your Income Tax return for 1987. I suspect that you did not need to be reminded of that fact, but it does raise the question of why a Professor of Philosophy, of all people, should be asked to speak in Chapel today. Perhaps what you expected was to hear...
Show moreToday is the nominal deadline for filing your Income Tax return for 1987. I suspect that you did not need to be reminded of that fact, but it does raise the question of why a Professor of Philosophy, of all people, should be asked to speak in Chapel today. Perhaps what you expected was to hear from an economist, or an accountant, someone who could tell you, with some authority, that filing your income tax isn't really so bad after all. On the other hand, maybe what Dave had in mind was the hope that someone could help us to be philosophical about the whole business of taxes and deadlines, since anyone associated with a college has plenty of the latter to face. If St. Matthew were still living today, I wonder whether he would still say, as he does in Chapter 6, verse 21 of the Gospel that bears his name: "Where you treasure is, there will your heart be also." In connection with monetary matters, I do have one small incident to relate. One day, not so very long ago, when I was walking from the Faculty/Staff parking lot to my office, I noticed a dime embedded in the asphalt surface of the parking lot. I haven't yet told President Anderson, or Wayne Pederson, where it is, and I don't intend to, for as long as that dime remains where it is, the college will never be completely broke. At least as until the parking lot is broken up for some other purpose, that 10¢ asset will remain. It's interesting that treasure is sometimes found where you least expect it. Sometimes, however, treasure, especially of a different sort, has to be sought for. It may not come by chance. As an illustration I would like to relate to you a bit of my personal history, but first let me read a short passage from St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, one which has long been of particular interest and importance to Lutherans: Romans 1: 16-17: "For Iam not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ " Paul seems here to be quoting from the Book of Habakkuk, 2:4 - "Behold, he whose soul is not upright in him shall fail, but the righteous shall live by his faith." That Paul considered this to be an important principle also seems to be clear, for he repeats the thought in Galatians 3:11; in Philippians 3:9; and again quotes Habakkuk in the Letter to the Hebrews, 10:38. (I am here following the tradition which holds the Apostle Paul to be the author of all of these epistles, although I am aware that contemporary scholars have some doubts about that.) In one sense, I came to be Lutheran by chance, but have remained Lutheran by choice. My Father came from a Methodist background, and in the small mid-western city where I was born the Methodist and Presbyterian con- gregations had joined to form what they term the Federated Church. Through much of my early childhood, that church was served by a Presbyterian minister, who baptized me and my brothers, presumably in Presbyterian fashion; although he was a generous-minded soul, one who was not inclined to be sticky about denominational differences. My Mother's nominal religious background was Lutheran, so she told me, although the church in the little town near the farm where she lived as a young girl was served often by itinerant ministers, representing an undeter- mined number of denominations. I recall that she was terribly impressed by the fact that one minister, about once a month, would walk out to the country church to hold a Sunday service, a matter of some ten miles along the railroad track, and then, after dinner, would ride the train back into town. Whether he was Lutheran I don't recall, if I ever did know, but of his dedication there can be little doubt. In any case, here I was, with a Methodist father, an ecumenical mother, being baptized by the Presbyterian minis- ter of a Federated congregation. What did that make me? In a situation as confused as that, I am certainly glad that Paul did not say that only baptized Lutherans shall live! .. continued 52
Show less
-
-
Title
-
Kenneth Bailey Chapel Talks, Page 53
-
Search Result
-
53 Chapel ¢ April 15, 1988, continued During the depression years, in the late 1930's, the congregation to which our family belonged had considerable difficulty getting and keeping pastors. Indeed, there were sometimes periods of months when they had none at all. So, when some of my brothers and...
Show more53 Chapel ¢ April 15, 1988, continued During the depression years, in the late 1930's, the congregation to which our family belonged had considerable difficulty getting and keeping pastors. Indeed, there were sometimes periods of months when they had none at all. So, when some of my brothers and I approached confirmation age, the question arose as to how some instruc- tion in the finer points of the Christian faith could be secured. Some good friends, Norwegian to the core, were Lutheran, and, no doubt through their efforts on our behalf, the local Lutheran minister invited us to attend con- firmation classes at the Norwegian Lutheran Church - a somewhat odd circumstance for a boy of English/ German parentage. So Lutheran I became, and Lutheran I have remained - not-without doubts, for I have retained the suspicion that other denominations have achieved insights which we have missed and probably sorely need. I suppose that I could say that my own background is fairly ecumenical, so I can better appreciate the fact that the Apostle Paul thought the same message appropriate for Romans, and for residents of Galatia and of Philippi, as well as for the Hebrews, in spite of differences in the cultural contexts of these groups in the ancient world. Paul makes it seem quite simple: "He (and, of course, today we would have to add 'she') who through faith is righteous shall live." And perhaps it is simple, in one way, although the dynamics of the faithful life are not obvious or so easily achieved. An analysis of the concept 'faith' is not a simple matter. I have no intention this morning of attempting an analysis of the concept ‘faith,’ but fortunately there have been those individuals whose lives suggest to us what faithfulness is all about. One classic example, no doubt, is the person of Job in the Old Testament. In spite of all of the difficulties that had befallen him, and in spite of his anger, dismay, and confusion, Job could still say. "Though He slay me, yet will I trust in Him." Then Job adds, as a kind of assurance of his own identity, "But I will maintain my own ways before Him." (Job, 13:15 - KJV). Basil Mitchell, of Oxford University, suggests that having faith in God is like persisting in saying of someone "He is on our side," even though events may suggest something to the contrary. We know there is evil in the world, and that our lives are surrounded by pain, suffering, and death, and yet we persist in the belief that God is good, and that, in some mysterious way all things, even those that seem most cruel to us, work together for good to those who love God. Surely this persistence is one of the mysteries of the Christian life. As you know, of course, different translations of the Pauline Epistles render the passage with which I began in somewhat different ways, but they tend to agree pretty much in quoting Paul as saying that faith is a way in which one is "put right" with God. He does not say that faith is a matter of having the right statements, asser- tions, propositions, or beliefs regarding the process of creation, for example. Hence it appears that those who have faith, that is who have been "put right" with God, may nevertheless disagree vehemently as to how certain theological matters are to be understood or talked about. One of the most helpful ways of putting this, I think, is to say that faith is a matter of accepting the gift of God which puts one right with God. It is an act of acceptance, of adopting an entirely new outlook on life, which does not solve our intellectual, theological, or philosophical problems, but which does set the mind at peace with respect to the assurance that one is "set right" with God. In this framework, then, it is quite possible to say that there are persons of faith, of many denominational affilia- tions, who differ not in the presence or absence of being "set right" with God, but in their beliefs as to how these complex matters are most properly described and talked about. For me, and I hope for you, it is a matter of con- siderable assurance to understand that people of faith can examine, criticize, doubt, despair, and differ profound- ly over theological matters without losing the faith. As Paul says, it is the gospel -God's gift -- in which we may have complete confidence, although we may not always agree on how this profound matter is to be understood. May I close, then, with those magnificent words of assurance from the 23rd Psalm: “Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the House of the Lord forever.”
Show less
Pages