Honor a veteran today

Today, 11/11/11, is Veterans Day, a time to be thankful for the military vocations.  Use this space in a comment to honor a veteran you know.

I’ll go first:  My father-in-law, one of those Marines who fought at Iwo Jima.

Happy (belated) Gustavus Adolphus Day!

November 6 was the commemoration day for one of my heroes, the Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus, the military genius and devout Lutheran who arguably was used by God to save Protestantism from extermination during the Thirty Years’ War.   Sometimes honored as the greatest Lutheran layman, King Gustav makes for an interesting and inspiring example of vocation.

The blog of the LCMS leadership, Mercy, Witness, Life Together, has a great post about him, including an informative sermon by Rev. Eric Andrae:  Feast of Gustavus Adolphus, King and Martyr, 1632.

 

King Gustavus Adolphus

 

HT:  Mary

Fleeing from a victory already achieved

“Who am I?”

By Dietrich Bonhoeffer (March 4, 1945)

Who am I? They often tell me
I would step from my cell’s confinement
calmly, cheerfully, firmly,
like a squire from his country-house.

Who am I? They often tell me
I would talk to my warders
freely and friendly and clearly,
as though it were mine to command.

Who am I? They also tell me
I would bear the days of misfortune
equably, smilingly, proudly,
like one accustomed to win.

Am I then really all that which other men tell of?
Or am I only what I know of myself?
restless and longing and sick, like a bird in a cage,
struggling for breath, as though hands were
compressing my throat,
yearning for colours, for flowers, for the voices of birds,
thirsting for words of kindness, for neighborliness,
trembling in expectation of great events,
powerlessly trembling for friends at an infinite distance,
weary and empty at praying, at thinking, at making,
faint, and ready to say farewell to it all?

Who am I? This or the other?
Am I one person today, and tomorrow another?
Am I both at once? A hypocrite before others,
and before myself a contemptibly woebegone weakling?
Or is something within me still like a beaten army,
fleeing in disorder from victory already achieved?

Who am I? They mock me, these lonely questions of mine.
Whoever I am, Thou knowest, O God, I am Thine.

–Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Who am I?” in Letters & Papers From Prison (New York: Touchstone, 1953/1997), 347-8.

via “Who am I?” by Dietrich Bonhoeffer | Tolle Lege.

HT:  Ryan Gilles

And the winner is. . .

Interesting discussions about “Manliness” in that contest we started last weekend.  As was noted in the thread, many of the virtues that were put forward could also apply to women.  Perhaps they apply to men, though,  in a distinctive way, but that way is what we are trying to get at.   There were lots of thoughtful comments.  I appreciated especially things said by sg, SKPeterson, Kirk.  I liked Helen’s point that “man” is not only the opposite of “woman,” it is also the opposite of “boy.”   Many males just never grow up, which is part of our problem today. That was the point too of that great Kipling poem.

Helen also got off a line that deserves to become a classic, in responding to FWS’s interesting comments about Adam & Eve and the curses we suffer, while trying to mitigate them.  Helen said, of Adam and Eve, respectively:  “He got the weeds.  She got him.”

But here are the runners up and the winner:

4.  Tyler (#49), with his close reading of a line from Homer’s Odyssey, quoting Telemakhos on his father Odysseus.  Both classical and apt.

3.  JunkerGeorge (#77), me being a sucker for all of those literary references, which culminated in what Pilate said of Christ:   “Ecce Homo.”  Behold the Man.   So that when we want to see what a man is, we need to behold Christ.

2. Abby (#59), with her moving and perceptive tribute to her late husband.

AND THE WINNER of  The Book of Man: Readings on the Path to Manhood (a book that would probably be good for all of us to read, so many are the confusions about the issue, so you can click on the link to buy it here) IS:

1. Joe (#35):

Seriously, I think manliness is nothing more than attempting to faithfully fulfilling your vocation as son, husband, father, etc. God has given to all men many vocations but certain of them can only be fulfilled by a man – attempting to fulfill these vocations is manliness.

As my students have learned (including those who worked on that book), whenever I ask them something that they don’t know the answer to (“What is this poem about?”  “What is the theme of this novel?”  “How can Christians influence the culture?”  “What’s the relation between faith and good works?” etc., etc.), a good guess that will be correct most of the time is “Vocation.”

But “seriously,” as Joe says, I think he nails it.  The two sentences are short, but unpack them and we’ll discover all kinds of things about manliness.  Indeed, this is basically the approach the book takes, with chapters about men at work, at the specialized calling of war, with women, with children, as citizen, with God.  Maybe my students had an influence on Mr. Bennett in the methodology of the book!  At any rate, please join me in congratulating Joe.

(If you want and if this didn’t make those of you who lost too angry, maybe we’ll have more contests like this!)

Should ministers have any legal protections?

A reader of this blog with quite a bit of expertise on employment law and who is also sensitive to the religious issues involved  has sent me what I think is the best analysis I have seen of the Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC case currently before the Supreme Court, having to do with a Lutheran school that fired a called teacher because of her disability, then claimed a “ministerial exemption” from having to follow the disability laws because the employee was a “minister.”   Here is part of what he said, which I post with his permission (honoring also his request for anonymity):

The argument of Hosanna-Tabor that their action was based on religious reasons seems to be cooked up post-facto, and so I imagine that Ms. Perich would be able to successfully prove them pretextual–which then puts the burden of proof back upon the school to show that they are not in fact pretextual. Since their case as represented in the court documents doesn’t seem strong in this area, I think they ought to lose the case, if it is argued on those lines.

This also raises the question: Can a church or religious institution justify any action on the basis of religious motive? It seems to me Hosanna-Tabor already stepped outside the recognized limits of LCMS ecclesiology by purporting to treat a woman teacher at a Christian school as a “minister,” when, quite properly according to their theology, the priestly office is limited to men in the LCMS. The application of this category to religious school teachers only, it seems, to circumvent labor laws, strikes me as both cynical and irreligious. Can any employment action can be dragged into the category of religious conviction when the stated institutional convictions of the supervising denomination are clearly at odds with it? This is the elephant in the room which the EEOC has been mighty delicate not to take a shot at.

I worry that the outcome of this case, whether Hosanna-Tabor wins or loses, will be to confuse 1st Amendment jurisprudence and set bad precedents in one direction or another.

Exactly.  However the course rules, harmful precedents are going to be set.   This raises another question:  Do ministers have any legal protections?  If the ruling goes in favor of the school, that would seem to mean that churches and other religious organizations could mistreat their pastors and probably other employees with impunity, claiming a “ministerial exception” that makes them exempt from honoring the legal rights that other citizens have.

I know the New Testament prohibitions about going to court to solve church disputes–it’s much better to be defrauded–but it’s possible for a church to obey the law in regards to its ministers without anyone going to court.  The Reformation battled the notion that the church needs only follow canon law and not the laws of the state, addressing the situation  that priests and nuns were subject only to canon law, even when they committed overt crimes.  The doctrine of vocation taught that the laws of the state also were instruments of God’s social order, and that the church didn’t have the right to impose a competing legal system of its own.

We have the rights of the church vs. the rights of the pastors.  (Since the plaintiff here is a teacher, perhaps many pastors haven’t been seeing  how the case would also apply to them.)  Or should pastors claim no legal rights other than those of the church?

Glen Campbell keeps on playing

Glen Campbell is not just another pop celebrity, though that’s what he’s best known for.  He happens to be a great, great guitar player.  I’ve heard him play.  Anyway, the news came out awhile ago that he has Alzheimer’s.  What I didn’t know is that he is still giving concerts!

Here is a link to a review of one of those concerts, which sounds quite amazing.  It also includes a priceless quotation:

“I have Alzheimer’s?” he asks Kim, 53, his wife of 29 years… “Well, doggone … what’s that?” Kim gently reminds him that it’s the reason he’s been having trouble remembering things, but Campbell prefers a different explanation…. “God just cleared a lot of things out… It was crowded up there. I’ve been trying to get rid of that crap for years.”

via Althouse: Glen Campbell, despite Alzheimer’s disease, gave a concert last Thursday..

HT:  Bruce Gee


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X