Comments on: Bonhoeffer and the Free Church http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/07/bonhoeffer-and-the-free-church/ A First Things Blog Tue, 06 Nov 2012 13:35:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: GhaleonQ http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/07/bonhoeffer-and-the-free-church/#comment-12202 GhaleonQ Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:01:40 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7603#comment-12202 Uh, but wasn't he at fault for being a part of the state syncretic church in the 1st place? The "real" Lutherans had already left for the United States and Australia and the independent Lutheran church that exists today isn't Bonhoeffers. The man was a political hero, but I'm never understood the case for him as a religious hero. He failed in every respect and failed to realize the implicit perils of church-state collaboration until it was too late. Uh, but wasn’t he at fault for being a part of the state syncretic church in the 1st place? The “real” Lutherans had already left for the United States and Australia and the independent Lutheran church that exists today isn’t Bonhoeffers. The man was a political hero, but I’m never understood the case for him as a religious hero. He failed in every respect and failed to realize the implicit perils of church-state collaboration until it was too late.

]]> By: Blue Collar Todd http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/07/bonhoeffer-and-the-free-church/#comment-12118 Blue Collar Todd Tue, 20 Jul 2010 03:54:19 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7603#comment-12118 Have you seen people taking notice of the change in how the Obama Administration is speaking about <b><a href="http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2010/07/obamas-words-about-freedom-of-worship.html" rel="nofollow">religious freedom</a></b> in America? Instead of saying the "freedom of religion" it is now, or interchangeable with, the "freedom of worship". This would seem to relegate religion to the private sphere only, unless deemed acceptable by those making this distinction, namely the Left. Have you seen people taking notice of the change in how the Obama Administration is speaking about religious freedom in America? Instead of saying the “freedom of religion” it is now, or interchangeable with, the “freedom of worship”. This would seem to relegate religion to the private sphere only, unless deemed acceptable by those making this distinction, namely the Left.

]]> By: Hunter Baker http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/07/bonhoeffer-and-the-free-church/#comment-12102 Hunter Baker Mon, 19 Jul 2010 16:46:55 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7603#comment-12102 I don't think the tax exemption should be a device for regulating political speech on behalf of churches. I question the constitutionality of it being used in that fashion. The tax exemption, in my view, is an acknowledgement by the state of the church's rightful independence. I don’t think the tax exemption should be a device for regulating political speech on behalf of churches. I question the constitutionality of it being used in that fashion.

The tax exemption, in my view, is an acknowledgement by the state of the church’s rightful independence.

]]> By: Hunter Baker http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/07/bonhoeffer-and-the-free-church/#comment-12096 Hunter Baker Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:20:35 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7603#comment-12096 I'm not a theologian, Anthony, but I tend to see infant baptism as being related to the old comprehensive church in which everyone born in the community is also a member of the church. It is especially prevalent in the churches which were also state churches. I don't think I would personally adopt Barth's hostility to it, but I do see a relationship there. As for myself, I was sprinkled as a little guy and then had little interest in Christ until I got to college and became a Christian. At that time, I struggled with whether I should be baptized again. In the end, I did opt for an immersion in my late 20's. Just seemed most natural to me to be baptized once I made a decision to follow Christ. I’m not a theologian, Anthony, but I tend to see infant baptism as being related to the old comprehensive church in which everyone born in the community is also a member of the church. It is especially prevalent in the churches which were also state churches. I don’t think I would personally adopt Barth’s hostility to it, but I do see a relationship there.

As for myself, I was sprinkled as a little guy and then had little interest in Christ until I got to college and became a Christian. At that time, I struggled with whether I should be baptized again. In the end, I did opt for an immersion in my late 20′s. Just seemed most natural to me to be baptized once I made a decision to follow Christ.

]]> By: Anthony Sacramone http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/07/bonhoeffer-and-the-free-church/#comment-12094 Anthony Sacramone Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:59:26 +0000 http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/?p=7603#comment-12094 Agree completely, Hunter. What is usually an addendum to this argument, and I'd be interested in reading your thoughts on the matter, is whether infant baptism mitigates the voluntary nature of church membership. Some have argued that, even in the absence of state coercion, infant baptism promotes a "traditional" attachment to a church body, a familial one, rather than a purely voluntary one, in which I, as an individual, make a decision to join, fully cognizant of the consequences and responsibilities of such membership, not merely the social benefits, as used to accrue from membership in state churches in centuries past. I don't happen to think so, as confirmation is the time at which individuals can stand for or against membership, at least in theory (frankly, though, how many kids, and confirmands are usually kids, have the courage or even the opportunity to say "I don't believe" or "I refuse to commit myself," if family pressure is applied?). I believe one of Karl Barth's critiques of infant baptism was that it was a bulwark of any state church, that it was "a deceptive prop." (He had theological objections as well, which is another issue...) Agree completely, Hunter. What is usually an addendum to this argument, and I’d be interested in reading your thoughts on the matter, is whether infant baptism mitigates the voluntary nature of church membership. Some have argued that, even in the absence of state coercion, infant baptism promotes a “traditional” attachment to a church body, a familial one, rather than a purely voluntary one, in which I, as an individual, make a decision to join, fully cognizant of the consequences and responsibilities of such membership, not merely the social benefits, as used to accrue from membership in state churches in centuries past. I don’t happen to think so, as confirmation is the time at which individuals can stand for or against membership, at least in theory (frankly, though, how many kids, and confirmands are usually kids, have the courage or even the opportunity to say “I don’t believe” or “I refuse to commit myself,” if family pressure is applied?). I believe one of Karl Barth’s critiques of infant baptism was that it was a bulwark of any state church, that it was “a deceptive prop.” (He had theological objections as well, which is another issue…)

]]>