1
12
11
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9fcb672c2206f72e669f708fc360b7b5.pdf
f02dd605cad1091807c6efa842f0b960
PDF Text
Text
You Can Never Go Home
From the series: Good News Then and Now
Scripture: Jeremiah 23:23-32; Hebrews 4:12-13; John 1:1-5; 10-14
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
October 10, 1999
Transcription of the spoken word
One of the great greetings that is addressed by angelic visitors or messengers to
human beings in critical situations in the biblical story from time to time is, “Fear
not.” I would like this morning to say to you as a congregation on a pilgrimage of
faith, in an explosive and wonderful and fascinating world, “Fear not. Be not
afraid.”
It’s a wonderful endeavor to traverse 2000 years of Christian history and to find
that through those centuries there have been periods of vitality and life, and there
have been periods of dryness and desert existence. There have been times when it
would seem that the flame of faith would flicker and die. And then there have
been surprising moments when the word of God sounded, some voice was found,
some happening caused once again a new freedom and joy and confidence to
mark the people of God. A study of the history of the Church builds one’s
confidence, not in the infallibility of the Church or the infallibility of the Bible or
the total accuracy and absolute truthfulness of the Christian dogmatic structure,
but rather, that God goes with the Church; the Spirit of God now and again
breathes new life into the Church. There are periods of dryness, but there are
periods of renewal, and finally our confidence is in God and therefore, my word
to you is, “Fear not,” as we continue our pilgrimage of understanding that faith
that has been our heritage and that is our hope.
I said last week that the Reformation of the 16th century, that critical event out of
which the Protestant movement emerged, was actually a family fight. It was an
intramural exercise. To be sure, the upshot of it was the rending of the body of
Christ, unfortunately. To be sure, there was a fresh experience of the grace of
God, the Gospel was freed, the scriptures came to new life, but it was still a family
affair. There wasn’t any significant tampering with the core Christian dogmatic
understanding, the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed confessed by Catholic
and Protestant alike. As a matter of fact, the Reformation emerging in the
Protestant movement caused to happen what Luther had hoped would happen in
the first place and that was a counter-Reformation in the Catholic Church, after
which there wasn’t really any reason for the two to remain apart, but fortunately,
©
Grand
Valley
State
University
�You Can Never Go Home
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
after 450 or so years, we did begin to talk to each other again and we’re on better
relations now.
But that intramural, inter-family conflict of the 16th century was hardly a crisis at
all compared with the crisis of modernity, the modern period when we began to
use our critical faculties, our reason, to ask questions about the reality of which
we are a part. It had two dimensions, as I have been stressing these last weeks.
There is the rise of the natural sciences through the exercise of the scientific
method, inductive reasoning, observation, investigation, experimentation,
actually looking at what is there, testing, experimenting, drawing conclusions,
hypotheses, building models. The tremendous success of the natural sciences is
the verification of the usefulness and legitimacy of that method of investigation.
But the 17th century scientific revolution that continued apace was marked in the
18th century by the Enlightenment, that Age of Reason with which this nation was
born, the Age of Reason which saw the autonomy of the human person coming
from under the authoritarian claim of Church or Bible, the monarchies, the
political arrangements, the throwing off of all authoritarian structures and the
human being standing in his or her own light, guided by the light of human
reason. That critical rationality continued to ferment until the whole of European
culture and this nation, as well, the West, was marked by historical thinking,
historical consciousness. Thought was now given to the origin of institutions and
to dogmatic structures - how were they put together? The Bible - how did we get
this canon? Who wrote what to whom, for what reason, what motivation, when,
etc. Critical thinking issued in a sense of history, the historical method being just
the common sense method in which we all operate in every other aspect of our
lives, and that method came to expression in a thinker such as Ernst Troeltsch at
the beginning of the 20th century.
The end of the 19th century brought about the obvious conclusion that all of
history is relative, that all of history is development, that history is process, that
all of us who are a part of the historical process have no vantage point from which
to climb in order to view it all and see it as God sees it, but rather, we’re all caught
up in it. Ernst Troeltsch did not deny an absolute, but he did deny the possibility
of any historical person or institution having a grasp of the absolute, for what we
learned was that we all have but a relative glimpse of that absolute, and that our
context, our time and our place in history shape the lens through which we view
reality. Therefore, in the last decades of the 19th century, there arose the History
of Religions School, the first scientific endeavor in the West to come to
understand the nature of religion and to, with exposure to the other great world
traditions, see that Christianity was not alone, but rather there were other great
traditions that had deep spiritual authenticity and, therefore, it was impossible
anymore to speak of the exclusivity of the Christian faith or the absoluteness of
the Christian faith over against all other faiths. These were the problems, the
issues with which Troeltsch wrestled.
© Grand Valley State University
�You Can Never Go Home
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
The nineteenth century had been a century of intense theological conversation,
debate, discussion, controversy, and European culture had blossomed into the
magnificent thing that it was, literally, culturally, its music, its art, its theological
investigations, its great universities. And then, of course, as the 20th century
dawned, the first decade of this century brought the First World War. It was as
though European culture had come under judgment, that it was tired, and there
was a brilliant student who had the finest of European education, a young Swiss
ordained pastor called to a little village in Switzerland; his name was Karl Barth,
whom we know in retrospect.
If you want to take the great leaps of theological minds you jump from St. Paul to
St. Augustine to John Calvin to Karl Barth, the most influential, powerful
theologian of the 20th century. He came to this little village church as a young
ordinand, stood in the pulpit and, as he describes it himself, he had nothing to
preach. With all of the brilliance of his education and of his mind and of his
culture, of his heritage, he stood before the people with an open Bible and then
had no message. He probably was reflective of that generation, that century that
is described by A. N. Wilson in a recent book, God’s Funeral - the lost faith, the
tiredness of the 19th century in its struggle to believe in the face of modernity.
And then Karl Barth began to study, to wrestle, to pray. He had a friend in
another village; they began to converse and communicate together, they
struggled together with trying to have an understanding of this Christian faith,
trying to find a voice into which to bring it to fresh expression.
After ten years of that, he published in 1919 the Epistle to the Romans, which was
like a bombshell on the European scene. Barth affirmed the godness of God.
Barth affirmed the reality of revelation, that God speaks, that God speaks, that
there is a word of God in the midst of the human situation. With great daring,
with great power, with great joy and freedom, Barth turned the theological world
upside down. He flew square in the face of modernity. Whereas Schleiermacher
attempted to root religion in the human being and find a new authority, whereas
Troeltsch recognized the historicity of Christian faith and its relativity, Barth just
plain proclaimed the word of God in the midst of history, full of judgment,
condemning all that was human, and then taking it all back with the gracious
embrace of God. It was a message of the word of God. Barth is the one who
formulated that rather neat understanding of the threefold word of God - the
word in flesh, the word incarnate, John 1:14, “The word became flesh and dwelt
among us.” And he said the word written, the Hebrew Scriptures were a word of
anticipation, and the New Testament documents were a word of recollection, but
it all centered in the word made flesh. There was revelation. There was the
incarnation of God in the humanity of Jesus Christ, the word written,
anticipating, recollecting, and then the word written becoming the occasion for
this moment, the word preached.
Barth made a very presumptuous, arrogant claim that the preached word is as
much the word of God as the word written, as the word in flesh, that the word in
© Grand Valley State University
�You Can Never Go Home
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
flesh pointed to by the word written continues to be pointed to by the word
preached. Revelation continues to happen now and again, here and there, who
knows when. When the breath of the Spirit blows, the word of the preacher
becomes for this one or that one the very word of God.
That was Barth. It must have been a lot like Jeremiah who understood the word
of God as a hammer that breaks the rock and as a fire that consumes the chaff, an
understanding of the word such as the writer to the Hebrews who said the word
of God is sharper than a two-edged sword dividing the bone and marrow,
discerning the very thoughts and intents of the human heart.
The word of God. Who knows when it will sound? Who knows where it will
strike? The fact is that God speaks and with daring and boldness and joy and
freedom and power. Barth announced the infinite, eternal Creator of all has
invaded our space and speaks, still judging and gracing.
When I went to Europe in 1967 at the University of Leiden in The Netherlands,
Karl Barth was within a year of his death. I wish I had hopped a train to go down
and at least try to touch the hem of his garment. But my professor Berkhof was a
good friend and colleague of Barth, so I got about as close as I could without
having been there. And in 1968 (I still have the newspaper clipping with his
picture and eulogy from the Leiden Daily), Karl Barth died. I went to a memorial
service at Leiden where a professor of the theological faculty said, whatever
future theology transpires, the theologian will never be able to go over Barth or
under Barth or around Barth, but will have to go through Barth. In other words,
before you can speak a word theologically, you had better understand the
wrestling and the struggling of this giant who was used of God in such a powerful
way.
By the time I got to Europe, the students of Karl Barth were filling the chairs of
theology in the prestigious universities of the continent, and the students of Barth
were beginning to turn back to the questions that Barth had simply obliterated.
The students of Barth who were now the professors of the universities were
beginning to ask again the questions with which Ernst Troeltsch had wrestled
because those questions were not invented, they were not a temporary incidental
kind of thing, they were the questions that had arisen out of the modern, critical
mentality, the critical rationality that was marking everything else in the whole
world - those questions for a generation could be silenced by the wonderful,
powerful, humorous, humane, brilliant voice of Barth. But his students had to
revisit Troeltsch and Schleiermacher and go back again and face the questions of
modernity, because if you don’t have the power, the daring, and the brilliance of a
Barth simply to overpower, then you have to engage in dialogue and conversation
and before long you have to deal again with the questions that are really the
questions. So, when I got there, one of the first books I had to read was entitled
The New Hermeneutic. I went to Berkhof after reading it for my appointment
and he said, “How did it go,” and I said, “I have never read anything so difficult in
© Grand Valley State University
�You Can Never Go Home
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
all my life.” The students of Barth and Rudolf Bultmann, a New Testament
scholar, the students were now forming a movement that was called The New
Quest of the Historical Jesus, and that new quest continues to this day. We’ve had
John Dominic Crossan here, we’ve had Marcus Borg here, because the questions
of modernity are the questions that all of us have to face, because our world, this
fascinating world of which we are a part, is so other than the world in which our
faith structures came to expression. They need a new voice; they need a
translation.
I went back to Europe, as you may remember, in 1994 when my old professor in
his 80th year was celebrated at the University. He was in a nursing home at the
time and I got a chance to spend an hour and a half with him at what I knew
would be my last personal encounter. He was telling me about his younger days
when Karl Barth was the coming rage in Europe. He told me about his professor
who heard that Berkhof was coming under the influence of Barth and he took
Berkhof aside and warned him about Barth, and Henk Berkhof laughed a bit and
said, “I didn’t like that very much.”
I said to him, “Henk, as I see you here now, I see you looking more to Barth than
I remember.”
He said, “Ja, maybe so.”
I said, “You know, I feel so close to you and yet, I feel like we’re in a really tight
circle together, but you’re looking one way and I’m looking the other.”
He said, “Say that again.”
I said, “Well, I see you looking back and I have to be honest, I’m looking this
way.”
He said, “That’s good. That’s right. You must always go beyond your teacher.”
That’s a blessed teacher to have who encourages that.
Hans Küng, in his Theology for the Third Millennium, concludes with a
discussion of Karl Barth. He wrote his doctoral dissertation on Barth. Barth wrote
the introduction to his dissertation. Küng admired Barth very greatly and he
wrote, “But, if he could do it over again, Karl Barth would begin all over again.
This time he would do it on a historically, critically shaped foundation, different
from that which he did in the early part of the century, because, you see, history
moves and times are different and the context is different.” But, he had enough
confidence in a Karl Barth to believe that if he could do it over again, he wouldn’t
do it the same way because he wouldn’t be doing it in the same context, against
the same fronts. He would have another word to say.
© Grand Valley State University
�You Can Never Go Home
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
Someone gave me a copy this week of Forbes Magazine’s big issue No. 4. The
theme of this one is “Convergence.” There is a multitude of literary, scientific,
religious, all kinds of leading lights who write a page or six, but the theme of it all
is Convergence, how everything is coming together and that the Internet on
which we are only in the opening stages will continue to transform our reality
into a global neighborhood such as even those who began to talk about
globalization couldn’t have conceived.
Edward O. Wilson, from Harvard, the biologist Nobel Prize winner, great scholar,
writes one or two pages in which he suggests that everything finally will fold into
biology and he says, as far as he’s concerned, even philosophy and religion will be
explained eventually in terms of neuro-connections in the brain, brain science,
and so forth.
I read that stuff and I think, thank God I can read it without being afraid. I hear
the angels’ words, “Fear not,” because if my religious experience is the
consequence of some chemical reactions in my brain, then I would guess that it is
consequence of some creative process of billions of years that has brought us to
this point of conscious and self-transcendence, consciousness of the other, and
then the question of the Other, and the Mystery of our existence. I refuse to live
in any kind of denial of any kind of knowledge that is available anywhere and in
any discipline. If I have to have my religion while closing my eyes or stopping my
ears, that’s when I’ll give it up. But I don’t believe I have to give it up because one
time, in the doldrums and the decadence of early twentieth-century European
culture, there was one raised up whose voice rocked the earth with the
declaration that God speaks, and that the word of God is a hammer that breaks
the rock and the fire that consumes the chaff, that is sharper than a two-edged
sword to discern the thoughts and intents of the human heart. Revelation isn’t
over. The future - who can predict the fascinating development, the unfolding of
this drama of which we are a part? Aren’t you glad you’re alive - to see it, to
witness it, to participate in it? We can do it all with freedom and with joy, with
confidence, always hearing the word of our Lord, “Be not afraid. Be not afraid.”
Once, of course, your eyes are opened, you can never go home.
Küng concludes his book, Theology for the Third Millennium, by saying we can’t
go back to Augustine or Aquinas or Calvin or Schleiermacher or Barth. It’s always
forward.
References:
Karl Barth. Epistle to the Romans. Oxford University Press, 1968.
Hans Küng. Theology for the Third Millennium: An Ecumenical View. Anchor,
reprint edition, 19900.
© Grand Valley State University
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7201c2f83f5a74cbe1c5a3f139a015c3.mp3
daef7b059640c7eb558e5b56e1ef4772
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Pentecost XXI
Series
Good News Then and Now
Scripture Text
Jeremiah 23:23-32, Hebrews 4:12-13, John 1:1-5, 10-14
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
References
Karl Barth. Epistle to the Romans, 1968 Hans K
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19991010
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-10-10
Title
A name given to the resource
You Can Never Go Home
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Sound
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on October 10, 1999 entitled "You Can Never Go Home", as part of the series "Good News Then and Now", on the occasion of Pentecost XXI, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Jeremiah 23:23-32, Hebrews 4:12-13, John 1:1-5, 10-14.
Church
Critical Thinking
Modernity
Revelation
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/1ad295160c13adbdf800f133ae15de0f.pdf
83d69ba76376ccf621e50dd3bd9fa7f0
PDF Text
Text
Sola Scriptura: The Living Word
From the series: New Wine for Century 21
Text: Mark 2:22; John 1:14
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
October 6, 1996
Transcription of the spoken sermon
September was a time for team participation in the preaching, speaking about
New Beginnings, the dimensions of life that are before us. October issues in the
month of Reformation, and Reformation, as we have celebrated it here for 25
years, has not been a celebration of our over-againstness, over against the Roman
Catholic tradition out of which the Protestant tradition arose in the 16th century,
but it has been a celebration of that which I think has been central to the
Reformation at its best, and that is that the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ.
It is not the Reformed Church; it is the Church of Jesus Christ, re-formed
according to the word of God and always being re-formed.
I have enjoyed preaching in the fall; I've often addressed doctrinal or theological
themes out of our tradition because I think it's a time between the seasons, and
that is who are, that is whence we have come, and therefore, to rethink the faith that's been a fall menu around here. This is an especially good time to do that,
this year, 1996, October, 1996. For, even though we have been operating as an
independent congregation with our life and our ministry before us, nonetheless,
the news that we have, finally, closure from the other side and that all of that can
be put behind us, even in the sense of the dangling details, makes this a special
October, and a wonderful season for us to think about the Church in terms of its
dynamism and its always being in a state of reformation and renewal.
We were born out of a period of radical revolution. One of the interesting,
fascinating things about human experience is that there is, again and again, an
outburst of renewal, of new energy, of new life, of creativity, new vision, and
everyone is excited and tastes a new wine. Then, the children's children's
children, who lose that fresh blush of newness, begin to build an idol out of that
which was once so dynamic and alive, and they miss the joy of that explosion of
the Spirit and begin to bow to forms and structures that are simply the aftermath,
the consequence, of that burning new life that came to expression. So, in this
moment in our life together, we have a rare, rare opportunity to re-imagine the
Church.
© Grand Valley State University
�Sola Scriptura: The Living Word
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
You know, this is a fantastic time in which to be alive. Everything is changing;
everything is spinning wildly out of its course. The breakthroughs in science and
the technological developments, the electronic age, the fact that the whole globe
becomes a neighborhood - all of the interconnections and networking around the
globe - nothing, nothing is stable, nothing is the same. Everything is up in the air!
What an exciting time to be alive, isn't it?
You might say, "Well, I could handle it a little bit slower paced, thank you very
much."
But we don't have that choice. As a matter of fact, we are a part of a time in
history when everything is being re-negotiated and when there is nothing that is
solid and secure. That can be anxiety-producing. But, if we could only get our
mind and our heart set, and if we could only understand our human situation as
it really is, a very limited and finite and partial view of things, but secure in the
eternal God, the eternal God Who is a substratum and Who overshadows it all,
we could then enter in with zest to this exciting time in which our whole world is
opening up new possibilities, closing old doors and breaking through to new
vistas. We at Christ Community have what is a very rare opportunity to reimagine the Church.
This noon your governance groups are going to begin the first stage in planning
the future, and what we are really focusing on today is October 27, an afternoon
planned after our Stewardship Party in which your governance groups (and I
hope there will be a hundred or more of the rest of you. Any of you that are
interested, any of you that want to be a part of it, will come with us) will meet for
a period of about four hours and think the Church, think Christ Community,
think in a way we've never thought before. Re-imagine the Church! Think about
Century 21. Think about our times, our community, our situation, and how we
can re-imagine this church so that it will be in 2001 what we want it to be as we
contemplate our future.
October is Reformation month and I have often used it as a time to revisit some
of the great central themes of the faith. So, I'm going to begin today with a new
wine that needs to be poured into fresh wineskins, looking at some of the old,
central themes that have made us what we are. A little Latin for our palate this
morning: "Sola Scriptura," sola - only, or alone; scriptura - scripture. Sola
Scriptura: the scripture alone as our authority for faith and for life, for what we
believe and how we live. That will be followed in subsequent weeks with Sola
Gratia, grace alone, Sola Fidei, faith alone, and Sola Deo Gloria, to God alone be
glory.
Those were great themes that arose in the 16th century. They were those great
insights that came out of the tragic break of the Christian Church, forming, then,
out of the Roman Catholic tradition, the Protestant tradition of which we are a
part. But those Reformation themes, tragic though the split and the rending of
the body of Christ was, those great themes brought forth fresh insights that were
© Grand Valley State University
�Sola Scriptura: The Living Word
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
very, very critical, and we want to look at them together for a few weeks just to
see how they look from this perspective and what they say to us and how they will
continue to inform and shape our lives, as we move into a future in which we are
re-imagining together what it means to be the Church of Jesus Christ.
Sola Scriptura. Scripture alone. That is, that it is the holy scripture that gives us
the content of our faith and that shows us the way of life. This book has been
central in the life of the Reformation tradition. Historically, the pulpit was in the
center and the open word in the Bible was an architectural statement about the
centrality in the word of God, and we have been a part of that tradition that has
taken seriously this written word.
Now, let me begin by saying that the greatest living American historian of
Christian doctrine, Jaroslav Pelikan, in his volume on the Reformation, in the
preface to that volume, says "Sola Scriptura. It never was true." Never was true in
the sense that in the 16th century the Reformation Party went to the word of God
without any preconditions or any preconceptions or any biases or any prejudices
as though they could go with a blank sheet, fresh to the Bible, find out something
totally new and then live by that alone. Pelikan, a good historian, an honest
scholar, says, "Come on, Reformation people, Lutheran and Reformed, let's admit
it. There never has been a time when it was simply the Bible."
The Reformation of the 16th century was highly contextual; it was coming out of
that medieval structure and all of the dominance of that religious institution.
There were actions and reactions, charges and counter charges, people with
passion, people with jealousies, people with vested interest. There have never
been any saints that have been absolutely pure and clear. There have only always
been people who have been played upon by pressures from the left and from the
right, who have been limited in their judgment and limited in their commitment,
who have tried to find their way.
So, Sola Scriptura, in the sense of the Protestant tradition being totally shaped by
this book and this book alone? No. Never has been true.
But, that doesn't mean that that claim or that ideal is not terribly important. And
how did it arise? Well, you know a little Reformation history. You know about the
good Roman Catholic monk, Martin Luther. Luther never intended to break the
Church, never intended to leave the Church. He was a scholar, a good German
monk, a very devout and pious man. He nailed his 95 Theses on the church door
in Wittenberg in order to engage in a discussion. There were points he wanted to
debate. He thought that dialogue in the Church was important and necessary.
What eventuated was far beyond anything he had ever conceived. But, in the
process, he did get into the debate. There was a Dr. Eck, extremely acute,
representing the Roman Catholic institution. In their debate, Eck, with all of his
debating skills, put Luther into a corner where Luther had to admit that he
believed that the Church in its council, had erred. And to say that the Church in
its council had erred was to say that the Church could err, and therefore, that the
© Grand Valley State University
�Sola Scriptura: The Living Word
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
Church was not infallible, not infallible in its institutional expression, not
infallible in its Papal head. And you can do a lot of things and get away with it,
but you'd better not challenge the infallibility of a formidable institution like the
Church of Rome.
And so, in daring to stand up against the massive power of that institution,
Luther eventually was excommunicated and we have a Protestant tradition now
and an ongoing Roman Catholic tradition. But, Luther, in his experience, not as
though he sat down and figured this out in his study, but just in the concrete
experience, recognized that the Church in its human form, its historical form, had
to be called to account.
How do you call the Church to account? How do you call its leadership to
account? How do you challenge its theological formulation or its ethical practice
or its political organization? How do you call the Church to account? You have to
have something over above; you have to have a normative principle. And I think
it was out of that that we have that Reformation insight, sola scriptura. It was a
radical insight. It was not, as it has become in our day, in conservative circles,
that the Bible becomes the instrument of conservatism.
The Bible became the hammer that broke open the conservatism of the Church.
The Bible, in Luther's view and as the reformers came to understand it generally,
was that instrument that held the Church accountable. It was that instrument
that held the tradition accountable. Now, no Pope or Cardinal or Bishop could
say, "But, the Church thus and so ..." because there was now a counter principle,
and according to the Reformation insight, this counter principle was superior to,
over against the ecclesiastical organization. This counter principle was superior
to all creedal formulations and all traditional organization. The whole Christian
tradition was held up to the light of examination that flowed from this book.
Now, again, it wasn't the book as book, but it was the book as the container of the
story. It was the book as the agent, the instrument through which the ongoing
Word of God came to expression.
What Luther was going through in the 16th century is no different from what
Jesus went through in the first century. In the first Gospel reading from Mark,
Jesus is criticized because his disciples don't carry on an ordinary fast. In that
whole section he is criticized because they don't keep the Sabbath; he's criticized
because he heals on the Sabbath and they pick grain on the Sabbath and so on.
One would think, just between us, don't let it get out of this room, but, one would
think if one read the Gospel, and if one tried to follow Jesus, one would think that
one could never accuse another of being radical or of challenging tried and true
ways, because isn't that the whole tension of the Gospel? Was not Jesus bringing
to bear on his religious institution, on the conventional wisdom and the
organizational structure, a critique from the Word of God?
© Grand Valley State University
�Sola Scriptura: The Living Word
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
You see, the Word of God is never in a book. The book is the conveyor of the
Word of God. But, the Word of God is the Word of God; it's living! It is powerful;
it is creative; it is the breath of the Spirit here and now; it is always, always
dynamic. It is always addressing us, encountering us, judging us, healing us,
comforting us. Jesus was representing the tradition, which certainly was all
wound up with what the prophets had spoken and Moses had written. That was
the story. Not that its written form was so sacred, but the written form was that
which conveyed the story. But the story was the story of the living God. The Word
of God is something more than the book.
"In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was
God. All things that were made were made by him, and without him was not
anything made that was made." This Word of God or this idea of God or this
intention of God, this purpose of God was in the beginning, creating, effecting,
and all things were made by the Word. This was the light that was coming into
the world, the light that enlightens everyone coming into the world. This light. He
came to his own, and his own didn't receive him, didn't understand, but to those
that did hear and receive, to them gave he power to become the children of God,
to be born anew, not by a human action, by a human will. But this was an action
of God, you see, the living God. And in the fullness of time, at just the right time,
this Word, this eternal Word, this eternal intention, this eternal purpose, this
movement of God took on flesh and dwelt among us. The Word became flesh. The
Word of God can never be captured, can never be put in a book as though
somehow or other, if you've got a text, that's it. This book is the consequence of
that encounter with God. The living God through the Spirit, speaks.
And then, according to the good pleasure of God, there were those prophets and
apostles who wrote it down, who gave witness to that encounter. And so, the
Church says, that's our story, and we read it. We read it and, lo and behold, here
and there, now and again it strikes fire in our hearts and in our imagination.
The Church has a storybook. It doesn't worship the book. We don't say a lot about
the Bible. You'll find a lot said about the Bible where people are rather insecure
about whether or not it's really living and powerful. You only worry about the
source of authority when you've got to thump somebody over the head or you're
not really convinced about what you're doing. Insecurity is measured by the
degree to which people pound this book. We don't say a lot about the book, but
we try to turn the story loose every week, because we know that this is the means
that God uses to address us. That is, to address us in our church structure, to
critique us, to shatter our forms, to address us in our doctrinal formulations, to
help us clear the ground so that sometimes in the light of new experience and
new developments, we can have a new formulation, a deeper understanding.
There is no creedal formulation that is sacred. There is no ecclesiastical structure
that is sacred. We may not absolutize and make ultimate anything that human
heart or mind or hand has constructed. That's the Protestant principle. God alone
is sovereign. God alone is ultimate. And this book is a storybook that the living
© Grand Valley State University
�Sola Scriptura: The Living Word
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
God uses, through the Spirit, through the foolishness of preaching like this, now
and again, here and there, to shape us up, shake us up, make us new, create us
again, call us to dance and to sing and to find some grand new future that we
haven't yet dreamed of.
You see, the book is radical. It will keep us from finding a resting place. It will
keep us from being comfortable. It will keep us on the move. It will open for us
and interpret for us the ever-changing landscape of a world that is spinning
wildly out of orbit. It will continue to be that reference point that will help us to
remember our past and to find our way into the future. And when we say sola
scriptura, what we're really saying is that it holds a place in our life that no creed
can hold, it holds a place in our life that no ecclesiastical structure can hold, it
holds the normative place in our life so that, wherever we go in the future,
however we shape ourselves, whatever we confess, however we live, it will be in
dialogue with this storybook and with no other reference point.
Now, this thing isn't read in a vacuum. We read it in the total complex of our
lives. But, finally, prayerfully, humbly, openly, we place ourselves before this
book and, sometimes, it's Bingo!
The Jewish scholar, Martin Buber, suggests a way that I wish could be true for all
of us as we approach the Bible. "Read the Bible as though it were something
entirely unfamiliar." (That's our problem, you know. We already know before we
go there what the answer is. And we generally go there in order to buttress the
answer, rather than to be unmasked and undressed by a strange word). But,
Buber says,
"Read the Bible as though it were something entirely unfamiliar, as though
it had not been set before you, ready made. Face the book with a new
attitude as something new... let whatever may happen occur between
yourself and it. You do not know which of its sayings or images will
overwhelm you and mold you...."
Wouldn't that be wonderful? Wouldn't it be great to read this book with fresh
eyes so that something reached right out and grabbed you, made you cry or made
you laugh? Or broke through to you like you never believed possible? Wouldn't
that be wonderful?" But, hold yourself open. Do not believe anything a priori. Do
not disbelieve anything a priori. Read aloud the words written in the book in
front of you; hear the word you utter and let it reach you."
Sola Scriptura. This book is loved and is a part of our devotion and our worship.
We don't worship it, but we know that it tells the story and keeps the story alive
and keeps us always potentially targets for the living voice of the living God.
Sola Scriptura. There's no need to defend it, to try to buttress it beyond just
simply opening ourselves to it. I'm accused of not taking the Bible seriously, but
only by those who already know its contents before they ever open it afresh. Let's
© Grand Valley State University
�Sola Scriptura: The Living Word
Richard A. Rhem
Page 7
never be too sure we have it all wrapped up, because it is the living God with
Whom we have to do, and this is the place, this is the book, and by the grace of
God, God keeps meeting us as we open our lives to it. That's not going to change,
because there is enough, there is enough newness and dynamic power for any
future of which we can conceive, and that future will always be structured in
conversations with this book. Sola Scriptura.
© Grand Valley State University
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7a4ffd698879ce8247f726b6d0c395ba.mp3
506f95f8141ecc564b83cb9b5ce09d95
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Pentecost XIX
Series
New Wine for Century 21
Scripture Text
Mark 2: 18-22, John 1:1-14
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19961006
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1996-10-06
Title
A name given to the resource
Sola Scriptura: The Living Word
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Sound
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on October 6, 1996 entitled "Sola Scriptura: The Living Word", as part of the series "New Wine for Century 21", on the occasion of Pentecost XIX, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Mark 2: 18-22, John 1:1-14.
Re-imagining the Faith
Reformation
Revelation
Scripture
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/e26fb6cd3f26cdf468303ee9913f691d.pdf
6fad45b0921610a2ff29537fad06614f
PDF Text
Text
The Good News is Too Good Not to Tell
From the series: I Do Believe
Text: Isaiah 49:6, John 9:5, 25
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
Eastertide, April 21, 1996
Transcription of the spoken sermon
During the season of Lent, it became almost spooky to me each week that I would
take up the text and the theme that I had determined in early January, because it
seemed as though I might have picked it precisely that week for the situation
through which I was living. There was really no connection, humanly speaking,
between the text and the theme selected and the situation of my own life, and
your life, too. But that is not true during Eastertide, because it was while I was in
the middle of the cauldron that I was having to determine the text and the theme
for the Eastertide series. And so, this series is reflective of our situation. And the
thing that came to me was the fact that, with all of the sound bytes and press
coverage, Christ Community and myself personally have been characterized by
what we do not believe more often than by what we believe. And that really is
quite unfair, because we do believe some things. And so, I thought it would be
good for us to hear some of the great affirmations of our faith lifted up in this
Eastertide season, and I entitled the series, therefore, I Do Believe.
I do believe, certainly as a personal witness, but not simply myself isolated from
you. I use the first person pronoun because I want to speak about personal
conviction. And finally, all of us have a core of beliefs that we believe passionately
with all our heart.
And then, I do believe, the emphasis there indicating that belief is held with
passion. I believe. I do believe!
A personal, passionate conviction of faith - these things that are more than just a
body of beliefs to which one can point, to which one assents intellectually. No –
out of the core of one's being – these things, these things I passionately believe:
last week, that "The End is Life." And this week, that the News of the Grace of
God in Jesus Christ Is Too Good Not to Share.
You see, institutional religion, when it gets regularized, always runs into the
problem that there is a certain body of doctrine or belief that defines an
institution or a religion. You could write a book about what Christians believe and
© Grand Valley State University
�News Too Good Not to Share
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
you could go through the various creedal statements and so forth. You could write
a book about the essence of Judaism or whatever. There does come to be a sort of
corpus of belief, a body of belief that is identified with a certain movement or
religion. And when that religion gets established and regularized, then it becomes
identified with that body of beliefs and it takes people into itself, whether or not
there is that personal, passionate conviction.
Now, don't kid me. There are some things that belong to the Christian creed
about which you've never been passionate. But, there are other things that you
believe so strongly, you'd die for it. We all have that, don't we? It's on the basis,
probably, of our nurture or of our experience, but we all have a kind of selective,
personal creed to which we passionately confess. And, the problem with
institutional religion is that sometimes the defined body of belief no longer
connects with human experience. Or, to say it another way, someone has an
experience which is undeniable, but it can't be slotted into that body of belief.
And so, there comes to be a tension between what one has experienced and
knows to be true and what one is supposed to believe or confess because one
belongs to this group or to that group. And, this particular message, The News Is
Too Good Not To Share, comes from the fact that it is claimed (I'll just speak
personally) that what I believe cuts the heart out of the evangelical faith. Now,
you've read that. You've heard that. "If Dick Rhem is right, then the heart of the
evangelical faith is lost."
Well, let's walk around that for a moment. I do not think one making such a
statement has thought very deeply about that claim.
What does the claim mean? I take it to mean that, if I have an experience of God
– of grace, of peace, of healing, of joy and delight full of hope that has come to me
as I have looked to Jesus, and through Jesus have experienced the love of God –
as wonderful as that might be, as life-transforming as that might have been for
me, there is no reason to share it, to point to its source, to speak of the blessing
my life has received, unless such experience comes exclusively through Jesus
Christ and no other way; and further, unless those without the blessing of grace
through Jesus are eternally lost, there is no reason to proclaim the Gospel of
God's grace as it has been manifested in Jesus.
In other words, unless my way is the only way, my truth the only truth, there will
be no reason to witness to it, no motivation to tell others.
I doubt those condemning my views have really thought about what they are
maintaining. Is not such an attitude suspect; does it not at least hint that I want
my claim to grace to be a source of pride: Look at what I have, or, I have the only
truth? Not only subtle pride but triumphalism - one of the worst faults of the
Christian Church. It is so difficult not to become proud and domineering when
one possesses exclusive truth, or power or authority.
© Grand Valley State University
�News Too Good Not to Share
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
No. The experience of God's grace in Jesus is transforming quite apart from the
question of its exclusivity. I maintain The News is Too Good Not to Tell.
Have we not experienced something of the goodness and the grace of God that we
find ourselves spontaneously wanting to share the good news? If you get a
bargain, don't you tell everybody about it? If you pull some coup in your life,
don't you tell everybody about it? The only good thing I was always told I couldn't
share was when I caught a fish. When I was a little kid, I'd go with my Dad and
catch a fish. And I'd squeal. He'd say, "Be still. Before long, they'll all be pulling
up their anchors and coming over here." Another rule of my father - if you catch it
on a cricket, if somebody asks you, tell him it was a worm. Now, when you're
fishing, you've got to keep good news to yourself. But, that's about the only area
in life. Otherwise, if you've got a good experience, if you have a joy, a delight, if
something's turned you on, if it's set your tongue to singing and your feet to
dancing, don't you spontaneously tell everybody about it? Don't you want to
share it? Isn't the news too good not to share?
Now, I would claim, with personal and passionate conviction, that the grace of
God that we have experienced in Jesus Christ is such a wonderful experience and
the life and community in the Christian community –
where there is compassion and mercy and love,
where there is embrace,
where there is worship before the majesty and the mystery of God,
where there is this wonderful ethereal experience full of Alleluias and
Hallelujahs and all of the wonder of our life together,
where there is that personal solitude in moments of contemplation where I
know that I am at peace with God,
where I have experienced the grace of God to such an extent that I know
that there is nothing in all of creation that could ever separate me from the
love of God,
where I live with my family and my children and my grandchildren;
when I think about all that is mine and all of that which I have received
because of the nurture, because of the tradition, that is mine that has
shaped me,
when I think of all of that, then I think –
Good Grief! Isn't that news too good not to tell? Of course, I'm going to tell that
good news! How can I help but express it?
But, people are funny. This isn't a Protestant or a Catholic problem or a Jewish
problem. It's a human problem. It is somehow or other a desire to gain power and
to control, to define who is in and who is out, that has been a great disrupter of
religious experience down through the centuries. For example, the story of the
man born blind. What a marvelous story it is. Remember, now, that the one who
put this Gospel together was writing for a specific community just as concretely
© Grand Valley State University
�News Too Good Not to Share
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
as this sermon is prepared for you. This sermon is not for any other congregation.
This sermon is for you. This preacher has you on his heart. This preacher has you
in his head! This preacher can't say a word without you being the focus.
No different with this fourth Gospel. And now we're in the last decade of the first
century, as I mentioned last week. It's been sixty-some years since Jesus died and
rose again. The Jesus Jews, the Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, are
finding it more and more difficult to hold on in faith. They were expecting him to
return. Jesus thought it would soon be over. Paul thought it would soon be over.
They all thought it would soon be over, and it wasn't soon over. Nothing was
happening. Now, about 60 years later, these are Jews who believed Jesus was the
Messiah. But, something had happened about 20 years prior; the Temple had
been destroyed by Rome. The cultic center of Jerusalem was no more.
What would Judaism of the future look like? Would it be the Jews who believed
Jesus was the Messiah who would come to the ascendency? They were a strong
movement. Or, would it be the Rabbis, the teachers of the Law, the scribes, the
Pharisees? Well, as a matter of fact, it became that branch of Judaism that
consolidated power, that gave to the Judaism of the future its identity, that
determined what it was to be a Jew. That group. And what happens in a group
like that? Again, it's not a Jewish problem, although this was an intra-Jewish
squabble. It's not a Jewish problem; it's a human problem. If I get in control, it
feels good. And I like to consolidate my power, and so I like to draw the lines so
that I determine who is in and who is out.
And, as the Rabbinic Jewish movement emerged as the ascendant Jewish party, it
defined Judaism, and when you define, you define who is in and who is out.
Three times in this Gospel the words "put out of the synagogue" are used.
Specifically in the lesson I read a moment ago, when the Pharisees come to the
parents to verify that this, indeed, was their son and he was, yes, indeed, born
blind, they say, "What happened?"
The father was all ready to give the answer and his wife yanked at his sleeve and
said, "Don't say anything, already!"
She got him aside and said, "If you acknowledge that Jesus did this, then it's the
same as saying that Jesus is the Messiah and if you confess Jesus as the Messiah,
we're out of the synagogue, and where do we go for potlucks on Friday night? So,
be still, already."
So, he said, "He's of age. Ask him. I should know? I don't know. Ask him."
Of course, they knew, but they weren't stupid. What's going on there? It's obvious
what's going on there. They do not confess what they believe because the
consequence would be they'd lose the only spiritual home they'd ever known, the
synagogue, their observant Jewish status. So, the Pharisees have to go back to the
gentleman with whom they had spoken earlier. Earlier he was a little fuzzy about
© Grand Valley State University
�News Too Good Not to Share
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
things. He had said, "I don't know where he's from. His name is Jesus. He put
clay on my eyes and I see."
They said that's impossible.
"I don't know, he put clay on my eyes and I see."
Well, what do you think he is?
"Well, he's a prophet."
The Pharisees then go to the parents, but now the parents put them off, and now
they're back with him again, and they say, "Tell us now, under oath, give God
glory. Under oath, tell us what happened."
He said, "I already told you. You want to hear it again? You want to be his
disciple?"
Then they got nasty. The Greek word behind that revile is a nasty word. They
began to abuse them. Now, they're really angry. They're not looking at this
gentleman who now has sight, who had been blind, whose experience cannot fit
into their preconceived idea of what is true. They can't step back a moment and,
face-to-face with a blind man seeing, they cannot say in the light of that
experience, let's go back and read our tradition again. Rather, they get angry
because now it's a control problem, it's a power issue, it's who has authority. And
so, they revile him and they say, "You follow Jesus, but we follow Moses!"
He just looks at them and says, "I don't know. I only know one thing - I was blind
and now I see."
They cast him out. Because when you have a tradition or a set of beliefs, a
paradigm of understanding, and then you have concrete human experience, and
when you cannot put the two together any longer, and you are in authority and in
power supervising the established and received paradigm, the last thing in the
world that you will allow is the experience that says your paradigm doesn't work
anymore. So, they cast him out.
John's little community of Jews that believed Jesus was the Messiah - they were
starting to give up, they were starting to lose faith; Jesus didn't come, and
authoritative voices were saying they were wrong. They saw the possibility of
being alienated from their spiritual roots and tradition. They were starting to
waver. And so, this preacher in the community says "I want to write a story of
Jesus for you, because I want you to know that what's happening to you 60 years
down the line isn't any different than what happened to Jesus."
If you'll go to John 16, you will find Jesus saying they will put you out of the
synagogue. John writes the story of Jesus in light of that little community just as
© Grand Valley State University
�News Too Good Not to Share
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
much as I'm crafting this sermon in light of this community, and John is saying
to that community of people who believed that Jesus is the Messiah, "Jesus is the
Messiah. I've gathered these things together; I've written this story. I could have
gathered other things; I could have put in other details. I put these things
together, I painted this picture in order that you might believe that Jesus is the
Messiah and, believing, have life in his name! I'm telling you the story of Jesus
again because you're about to let it go! You're about to be hammered into
submission! Don't you do it! Don't you forget Jesus! This was the Word of God
made flesh; this was the embodiment of the love of God in human flesh! This one,
this one is the Way! This one is the Truth! This one is the Life! This One is the
way to God! Don't you let go of Jesus! Don't you let go of Jesus for anybody!
Don't you deny your experience! We were blind and now we see! Jesus is the
Light of the world! Now, don't you give up!"
That news was too good not to tell, and I want to say that my favorite meetings in
all the year are the three or four or five Elders' Meetings we have around here,
because I look into your faces, I've seen most of you come through, one time or
another, I've heard your stories, I've seen your tears, I've heard your voice crack.
I've seen you throw your head back and laugh. I've heard you tell about the grace
of God. I've heard you tell about the love of God that's touched you in this
community. I've heard your singing; I've seen your dancing. I have lived with you
long enough to know that there is some reality here, there is some joy here, there
is some goodness here, there is some truth here.
I know this - there's good news here and it's too good not to tell!
There was a time in my experience when I was blind,
but now I see.
There was a time in my experience when my religion was a burden,
but now it's a joy.
There was a time in my life when it weighed me down,
but it has set me free.
There is a grace of God, a wonder of the love of God, there is a
concreteness of a community of compassion –
My God, people, the news is simply too good not to tell!
Do we have a story?
DO WE HAVE A STORY!
© Grand Valley State University
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/fd5bfb3717cb1079d4d29f3ae96983bb.mp3
02dd049e56b50d743c3430438e8fc178
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Eastertide III
Series
I Do Believe
Scripture Text
Isaiah 49:6, John 9:5, 25
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19960421
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1996-04-21
Title
A name given to the resource
The News Is Too Good Not To Tell
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Sound
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on April 21, 1996 entitled "The News Is Too Good Not To Tell", as part of the series "I Do Believe", on the occasion of Eastertide III, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Isaiah 49:6, John 9:5, 25.
Community
Compassion
Followers of Jesus
Grace
Revelation
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/67450db648a60e2c64f7cdb5a81fa11e.pdf
6134a1e45b48a65c513371461ff0c784
PDF Text
Text
A Theological Conception of Reality as History
Some Aspects of the Thinking of Wolfhart Pannenberg
Article by
Richard A. Rhem
Minister of Preaching and Theological Inquiry
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
Published in
Reformed Review
A Theological Journal of Western Theological Seminary
101 East 13th Street, Holland, Michigan
Autumn, 1972
I. Pannenberg in the Context of Modern Theology
In his essay entitled “Evangelical Theology in the Nineteenth Century” Karl Barth
speaks with great respect of the daring with which the leading theologians of that
period, which was so replete with magnificent achievements in the arts and
sciences, wrestled with the challenges of the modern world. They displayed an
openness to the world which ought always to characterize theology and they
accounted themselves well, both as Christian men and as scholars. However,
Barth points out, their strength was also their weakness in that they allowed this
confrontation with contemporary culture to become their decisive and primary
concern. This, he maintains, was the key problem of nineteenth-century
Protestant theology.
This general assumption of openness to the world led necessarily to the specific
assumption that theology could defend its own cause only within the framework
of a total view of man, the universe, and God; which would command universal
recognition.1
One of the leading exponents of this point of view criticized by Barth was Ernst
Troeltsch, although his work extended well into the first quarter of the twentieth
century. Troeltsch was critical of the leading representatives of the liberal
tradition also, but for precisely the opposite reason. Though he, himself, had
much in common with the dominant Ritschlian school, he was nevertheless
critical of the Schleiermacher-Ritschl-Herrmann line of development because,
although they accepted fully the application and the results of the historicalcritical method in the investigation of Christian origins, they still maintained the
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
uniqueness of Jesus, rooting the redemption wrought by God through him in his
person. For all their openness to the modern world and their conviction that
theology must be restructured in the light of the modern world-view of the
natural sciences, the epistemology of Kant, and the newly prestigious science of
history, they nevertheless stubbornly maintained the necessity of the present
experience of redemption being indissolvably related to Jesus of Nazareth. To
Troeltsch this appeared to be a futile grasping after the last remains of dogmatic
thinking which located absolute and definitive revelation in a particular historical
phenomenon. He acknowledged that these theologians had broken with the old
dogmatics of Protestant orthodoxy, but in the light of the development of
historical thinking and the application of the historical method, he was convinced
that they were holding an impossible position. They were resisting the pressure of
consistent thinking by stopping short of admitting the relativity of each and every
historical appearance. For Troeltsch the decisive fact was not the historical
person of Jesus, but rather the idea which was concretized in him and from him
has issued forth into history. Once launched, the idea or principle is independent
of its initiator, its essence to be sought not in its initial embodiment but rather in
the pluriformity of its historical configurations at any given stage in its
development. In the Schleiermacher-Ritschl-Herrmann line of thought Troeltsch
saw a mixing of types of theological method and consequently a failure to
distinguish the person of Jesus from the principle he incarnated. He criticized the
failure sharply to distinguish person and principle, personality and idea, and
likewise the contention that the historical person and a personal relationship to
him were essential to saving faith in God. He saw this position rooted in the later
churchly Schleiermacher and being strongly advocated in his day by Ritschl and
Herrmann.2
In Troeltsch’s view the very historical-critical approach to Christian origins,
especially to Jesus himself, undercut any attempt to salvage from the uniformity
of history a final and absolute revelation of God. This was clearly demonstrated,
Troeltsch maintained, by the fact that the History of Religions school, of which he
claimed to be the dogmatician, had itself sprung from the Ritschlian school,
differing only in the greater consistency with which it pursued the consequences
of the very methods accepted by Ritschl, himself. Thus Troeltsch was convinced
that the theology of the future would have to purge away these last vestiges of the
old dogmatic approach and carry through more rigorously the requirements of
the historical-critical method which draws all historical phenomena, Jesus of
Nazareth not excepted, into the movement of historical process, allowing for no
absolute uniqueness in the midst of the relative.
Paradoxical as it may appear, Karl Barth quite agreed with Troeltsch—agreed,
that is, that to subject Jesus to historical-critical research behind the witness of
the New Testament is to bring him down to where he is one historical person
among others, one in whom there cannot possibly be found the final and
definitive revelation of God. Of course, agreement with Troeltsch, that having
followed the path they did, the great nineteenth-century theologians could not
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
consistently stop halfway, does not imply that Barth advocates with Troeltsch
that their successors should draw the logical conclusion, as Troeltsch counseled.
On the contrary, Barth examines the Schleiermacher-Ritschl-Herrmann Theology
and discovers their fatal error, not in their failure to follow consistently the
course on which they embarked, but rather in the course they chose to follow in
the first place. It was not their decision to grant recognition to the use of the
historical-critical method and then failure to draw the conclusions to which it led.
Rather it was their understanding of religion as an innate potential of the human
spirit and their failure to see that, defined in such terms, the Christian faith was
not being spoken of at all. If Christianity was a phenomenon of the religious
capacity of man, then it was one religion among others and could be understood
only as Troeltsch maintained, by a comparative historical study. In such an
instance there could be no talk of an absolute and definitive revelatory
significance or meaning in history. If one started where Troeltsch started, Barth
maintained, one would end where Troeltsch ended. But then, according to Barth,
we have to do not with the religion of revelation, but with the revelation of
religion3 and the application of the historical-critical method will discover in
Jesus no more than a man among other men and in Christianity no more than a
religion among other religions. The History of Religions school is only the logical
outcome of a theology that speaks of the believing man rather than of the
revealing God. Theology which takes itself seriously can speak only from the
revelation of God who has grasped it, paying homage to no world-view, be it
ancient or modern, no philosophical system or no anthropological analysis of the
religious capacity of man. Theology must speak from out of the revelation of God
in Jesus Christ.
Thus Barth completely repudiated the counsel of Troeltsch and pursued the
dogmatic method, reducing historical-critical research to a secondary, helpingrole in the explication of the biblical witness to Jesus Christ.
One of the young theologians in the 1920’s who joined with Barth in his revolt
from the theology of the nineteenth century was Rudolf Bultmann. He too
recognized the poverty of Liberalism and its failure to give centrality to the
decisive redemptive act of God in Jesus Christ. He criticized Liberalism for reducing Christianity to a system of timeless and eternal truths and the History of
Religions school for reducing Christ to a cultic symbol.4 However, what for Barth
was a secondary matter became for him the central concern, namely the
hermeneutical problem. Granting that Christian theology must start from the
Word of God, Bultmann could never emphasize too strongly that revelation must
be understandable to man. This man he found most adequately defined by the
analysis of existentialist philosophy as set forth by the early Heidegger. While he,
himself, was unexcelled in the application of the historical-critical method,
Bultmann denied that the results of such research were of any consequence for
faith, faith which was not belief in factual information about Jesus, his life, death,
and resurrection but rather obedience to the kerygmatic Word in the present
moment calling men to a new self-understanding. Bultmann the historian and
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
Bultman the theologian never met; for apart from the fact that Jesus appeared
faith has no relation to history.
Great differences separate Troeltsch, Barth, and Bultman from one another.
Troeltsch sees no alternative to pursuing the historical method in the analysis of
the phenomenon of religion. Barth rejects the idea that the Christian faith is first
of all a religion and he pursues the dogmatic method, judging all religion by the
norm and criterion of Jesus Christ. Bultmann interprets the Christian faith
within the possibilities afforded by an Existentialist analysis of man. Interestingly
enough, however, there is one point on which they all seem in agreement; that is
the understanding of the nature of history and the principles of historiography.
For Troeltsch, history and the methods by which it is investigated rule out in
advance any final and definitive revelation of God in history. The early Barth
agreed and moved revelation to the frontier of time and eternity. Later he
brought revelation back into history, defining history from the perspective of
Jesus Christ but at the same time he continued to recognize the validity of
historical science as defined by Troeltsch maintaining that it had no competency
to deal with God’s revelatory action in history. Bultmann as a practicing historian
followed the historical-critical method as defined by Troeltsch and, because he
saw history as the realm of the relative and transient, he removed revelation from
the sphere of history to the realm of human existence. All three agreed that
history and historical science are what the great historians of the nineteenth
century said they are and all three agreed that, that being the case, there was no
trace of God’s revelatory action discoverable in history by the historian.
In the last decade this whole conception of history and accompanying
historiography has been called into question by the German theologian Wolfhart
Pannenberg. German theology has often been characterized by drastic swings of
the pendulum and, as Pannenberg’s early writings appeared, it seemed that once
again the pendulum was swinging from the theology of the word which has
dominated the twentieth century in its various forms to a theology of history. As
Pannenberg has continued to address himself to the problems of revelation,
history, and theological method, however, it is evident that we have to do here
with more than simply a reaction to the one-sided emphasis of dialectical
theology, a reaction in its turn as one-sided on the other side of the issue. Much
rather, Pannenberg has sought to do justice to the valid insights of those who
have preceded him. Specifically, he acknowledges the valid insight of Troeltsch
that Christianity cannot be arbitrarily isolated from the rest of man’s religious
experience, but much rather can be understood only in relationship to the whole
of the history of religions. However, with Barth and Bultmann, over against
Troeltsch, he speaks of the priority of revelation in terms of which the respective
religious experience of man is to be judged, rather than seeing religious
experience as the expression of an innate potentiality within man.
With Troeltsch, over against Barth and Bultmann, Pannenberg sees the necessity
of relating the Christian faith to the whole of reality. But over against Troeltsch,
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
he does not interpret Christianity in subjection to the prevailing worldview of
modern man, but rather interprets the whole of reality theologically, submitting
his argumentation before the bar of human judgement, being convinced that a
Christian interpretation of the whole of reality is more rational than any other.
With Troeltsch and against Barth and Bultman, Pannenberg insists that the claim
of a revelation in history must be historically perceptible by means of historicalcritical research. The central revelatory event, the resurrection, serves as the
model for his understanding of the relation of historical reason and revelation.
But against Troeltsch, he affirms the historical verifiability of such revelatory
action.
In short, Pannenberg pursues the historical method as advocated by Troeltsch
but, rather than ending with the loss of a final and definite revelation of God in
history, he proclaims with Barth and Bultmann the finality of Jesus Christ in the
definitive self-revelation of God. How is this possible? The answer lies in the fact
that precisely where Troeltsch, Barth, and Bultmann were one, Pannenberg parts
from all three; that is at the point of the understanding of the nature of history
and the principles by which the past is known. Troeltsch gave definitive
statement to the understanding of nineteenth century historiography. Barth and
Bultmann recognized that in those terms the final revelation of God could not be
posited within history and, rather than subjecting the understanding of history to
a thorough critique, they removed revelation from the competency of the
historical-critical method (Barth) and from the arena of history itself (Bultmann).
By a critique of Troeltsch’s understanding of history and the principles of
historiography Pannenberg attempts to do justice to Troeltsch’s demand to
pursue the historical method while leaving room for a definitive revelation of God
in history which Barth and Bultmann in their respective manners recognized as
essential to the Christian tradition.
Thus, in a sense, by tracing the understanding of revelation, history, and
theological method in these four thinkers, we come full circle but, through Pannenberg’s critique of Troeltsch, the whole perspective is turned around and,
rather than understanding Jesus in terms of the modern worldview of reality,
reality is understood from the perspective of Jesus, the end of history, who has
appeared proleptically in the midst of history.
II. The Universality of Systemic Theology
The theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg is characterized by a tension which, in his
view, is given with the task of systematic theology itself.5 Systematic theology
always resides in a tension between the two poles of the subject matter with
which it has to do. On the one hand, there is the Christian tradition itself for
which it is responsible, specifically, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as
witnessed to in the Scriptures. On the other hand, Systematic theology must be
concerned with all truth in general as represented in its various facets by all nontheological disciplines. Systematic theology cannot, as is the case in other
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
disciplines, devote itself exclusively to the investigation of its special subject
matter, for inherent in its task is a universality which impels it to take up the
question of truth per se. This universality follows inevitably from the fact that
theology purports to speak of God. “One uses the word God meaningfully only
when one intends thereby the Power determining everything that is.”6 To speak
thus of God as the author of all reality brings with it the intellectual obligation to
relate all truth to the God of the Bible and then to understand it anew from him.
Pannenberg acknowledges that the theological task thus conceived may appear
presumptuous. Yet, to the extent that the theologian is conscious of what he is
doing when he speaks of God, he has no alternative. Pannenberg acknowledges
further that the task can never be consummated once for all. But if this
responsibility appears as an almost unbearable burden, it likewise constitutes the
peculiar dignity of theology, especially in an intellectual situation which is
characterized by fragmentation as a result of the present high degree of
specialization, for it falls to theology to seek truth in its unity.
Such a conception of the task of systematic theology is by no means generally
accepted. Particularly in the last hundred years theology has been conceived
rather as an independent science alongside of the other sciences with its own
special subject matter, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ witnessed to in the
Scriptures. Pannenberg counters, however, that the revelation of God is only
really conceived of as the revelation of God when it is understood in relation to all
truth and knowledge and when all truth is integrated into it. Only thus is it
possible to speak of the biblical revelation as the revelation of the God who is the
creator and perfecter of all things.
Since Harnack’s famous characterization of the apologist’s assimilation of the
Greek philosophical quest for the true structure of the divine into the Christian
tradition as the “hellenization” of the gospel, that endeavor has been generally
judged in a negative light. Pannenberg, however, rejects that negative judgement.
While he grants that the apologists were not, in fact, successful in carrying
through the assimilation in all respects, he disputes the idea that their efforts
resulted in a complete capitulation to the philosophical quest. But apart from the
degree to which the early church fathers were successful or unsuccessful in what
they undertook to do, the real issue, as far as Pannenberg is concerned, is the fact
that they undertook the task of offering the Christian gospel as the answer to the
Greek philosophical quest. This undertaking is generally recognized as having
been inevitable in that the Hellenistic world into which the gospel came was
dominated by the Greek philosophical conception of God. Thus, in spite of the
disastrous mingling of the Christian message with Greek metaphysics, there was
no alternative. But such a view, Pannenberg insists, misses the primary point,
which is that the Christian message itself necessitated the encounter with the
Greek philosophical quest. He contends:
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page 7
The discussion with the philosophical question of the true form of the
Divine was, indeed, occasioned by the encounter with the Hellenistic
Thought-world, but it was also inwardly rooted in the biblical witness of
God as the universal God, responsible not only for Israel, but for all
people.
In the claim of the God of Israel to be the God, alone having jurisdiction
over all men, it was, therefore, theologically rooted that the Christian faith
had to enter into the philosophical question of the true nature of God and
until today must give an answer to it.7
The ancient church fathers as well as the authors of the great scholastic summas
understood the universality of theology, the responsibility that rests upon him
who would speak of God.
That modern theology has not so conceived of its task can be traced to Albrecht
Ritschl’s attempt to carve out for theology its own sphere, the sphere of religious
experience, rejecting all metaphysical elements of the Christian tradition in the
face of the critique rendered by Positivism. Liberal Protestantism passed this
heritage along to Dialectical Theology which had reacted so strongly against it.
Pannenberg observes that Barth’s struggle against every vestige of natural
theology is really in many respects an extension and radicalization of Ritschl’s
idea of an independent theology with its own special theme.8
If we would discover where theology lost its universality, however, we must go
back much further. Evangelical theology has never had a universal character
since it inherited the Scripture-positivism which has been its hallmark from the
doctrine of Scripture formulated in the late Middle Ages in, for example, the
School of Occam. It has been axiomatic in the Protestant tradition that the
theological task consists in the exegesis of Scripture. Thus to find the root of the
loss of universality we must go back into Scholasticism, specifically to the
thirteenth century and Thomas’ careful demarcation of two spheres of
knowledge, natural and supernatural. Pannenberg recognizes the exigencies
under which this bifurcation took place. Aristotelian philosophy prevailed, being
generally acknowledged as the embodiment of all “natural” thought. If one would
hold to the truth of the Christian tradition, one could do so only by setting it
alongside the summation of “natural” truth as unfolded in Aristotelianism.
Aristotelian philosophy represented that truth which could be discovered by
man’s natural faculties; the Christian faith represented that truth which could
only be bestowed by revelation. Neither Aristotelian philosophy nor the Christian
tradition was intended for this kind of reciprocal supplementation, according to
Pannenberg, but he asserts:
It would seem much rather to have been the expression of a compromise
of theology with the intellectual power of Aristotelianism. In this compromise lie the historical roots of the last of the universality of theology.9
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page 8
For Thomas, who was responsible for the consummate expression of the naturalsupernatural division of the spheres of knowledge, the two spheres were carefully
coordinated into a systematic whole. In the course of time, however, the structure
fell apart rendering the sphere of natural knowledge independent of any
reference to the truth of revelation, the consequence of which was increasingly to
render “supernatural” knowledge superfluous for a knowledge of the world and to
make of theology a positivistic science of Scripture. Such a state of affairs hardly
accords with Paul’s struggle to “take every thought captive to obey Christ” (II Cor.
10:5) and, with the unparalleled explosion of knowledge in the modern period in
the wake of the development of the scientific method, the division of spheres of
knowledge formulated by Thomas has resulted in an almost unbridgeable gulf.
The task of understanding the whole of reality in its unity from the perspective of
its author, the God of creation, is formidable indeed, and yet unless it is
undertaken, the universality of theology will never be realized and theology, as an
independent science with its own special theme, the exegesis of Scripture, will
fade increasingly into the background of man’s pursuit of truth. Concentration of
its own special theme has about it a pious sound and it makes for a comfortable
co-existence of theology with the other sciences. It can only signify, however, the
utter failure of theology to carry out its peculiar intellectual responsibility which
is to take in claim all truth as witness to the one true God as the author of reality
and, in turn, to understand all truth anew from him.
Where does one begin? How can such an overwhelming task be undertaken? It is
Pannenberg’s conviction that the conception of theology as an independent
science alongside others with its own special subject matter must be rejected and
that its universal character must be recognized by its addressing itself to the
second pole of its dual concern, namely, to the questions which concern man in
his experience of reality in the present cultural situation. Only by seeking the
truth per se can theology do justice to its special subject matter, the revelation of
God in Jesus Christ as witnessed to in the Scriptures; for in that it purports to
speak of God, it purports to speak of the Power determining all reality. Implicit in
the responsibility of speaking of the Power determining all reality is the necessity
of thoroughly grasping how modern man experiences reality, for only by speaking
of the Power determining reality as it is presently experienced can theology speak
convincingly. It is, therefore, incumbent upon theology to speak of God in terms
of the present experience of reality. Thus the most general question which
theology must answer is how one can speak of God in the present cultural
situation. Only by determining this can theology once again undertake to exercise
its universal function.
III. Revelation As History
Pannenberg’s unique contribution to contemporary theological discussion has
had to do primarily not with the content of revelation so much as the mode of its
occurrence. Stated theologically the question has been, How does God manifest
himself to man? Stated anthropologically it is the question of how man perceives
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page 9
that self-revelation. The theological question has issued in the debate as to
whether God reveals himself directly or immediately through his word, that is,
through an act of speaking the content of which is God himself, whether he
himself speaks, or another speaks in his name; or whether God reveals himself
indirectly or mediately through his activity, his activity being conceived not in
terms of a series of special acts next to other events explainable as “natural” as
opposed to “supernatural” but rather his continuous dynamic relationship to the
whole of reality as its Creator, transcendent Ground, and Destiny. In
oversimplified terms, it is a question of whether God “speaks” to man directly,
thus making known his essence to man, or whether God’s essence can be known
only indirectly from what he does. Obviously, when stated thus “word” and “act”
are placed in a falsely antithetical relationship and a biblical theology will rather
understand them in a positive relationship with the priority given to word or act
depending on the point of view of the biblical writer. Nonetheless, setting the
question up in terms of the two poles, word and act, is helpful in identifying the
problem.
If we approach the problem from the anthropological side, that is, if we ask how
the revelation of God is perceived by man, then we are asking whether God in his
self-manifestation can be known by man through the exercise of his rational
faculties or whether God can be known only through the means of some suprarational faculty however that may be understood. Essentially this is a question of
whether God in his self-manifestation can be perceived by reason or whether he
can only be perceived by faith. It should be underlined here that this is not a
question of whether man by his own rational faculties can discover God or
whether God must make himself known to man. If the question we are asking is
misunderstood in this way—a not uncommon misunderstanding—the real issue
will be missed. The point rather is: Granted that God can be known by man only
through his self-disclosure, is that self-disclosure rationally perceptible or only
supra-rationally perceptible.
Again, it is not a question of whether the content of God's revelation is rational or
supra-rational. It is possible to hold, as does Karl Barth, that the self-revelation of
God is highly rational and yet deny that man through the exercise of his rational
faculties can discover that revelation apart from an illuminating act of the Holy
Spirit which can be described only as a miracle. For Barth, to be more accurate,
revelation is never “there” to be perceived, but rather it “occurs” in the
illuminating act of the Holy Spirit, although once it is given it is rationally
comprehensible.
From this it should be evident that of the two questions, or rather the two aspects
of the one question concerning the revelation of God, the most basic question is
not whether God reveals himself through word or event but whether man as a
rational creature is able through the exercise of his rational faculties to
comprehend the revelation of God. Whether that revelation takes the form of
spoken word or historical event is to be determined subsequently. The primary
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page10
division of opinion will occur on the anthropological or epistemological question
as to whether man as man can perceive the revelation of God. This point is
illustrated by the fact that, for example, Bultmann and Cullmann represent two
radically different positions in regard to the question of where God reveals
himself, in word or event. However, in spite of their differences on the mode of
revelation, they both agree in their own way that man comes into the possession
of knowledge of God through an illuminating act of the Holy Spirit and not
through the exercise of his reason over against the “proclaimed word”
(Bultmann) or the “acts of God” (Cullmann). On this question Kerygmatic
Theology and Heilsgeschichtliche Theology are in agreement.
With regard to the first question as to how God reveals himself, whether through
word or event or in combination of the two, we have an inter-theological debate.
With regard to the second question, as to how man perceives the revelation of
God, we are dealing with a matter that has wide-ranging implications for the
whole sphere of human knowledge, depending on how we answer the question. If
we answer it as do Barth, Bultmann, or Cullmann, to name only three
representative figures, holding that man as man, by the exercise of his rational
faculties can never achieve a knowledge of God apart from a supplementary
illuminating act of the Holy Spirit, then, to employ Kantian terms, we remove
theology as an independent science, into the realm of practical reason; or, in
Ritschl's terms, we make theological statements as value-judgments; or, in Existentialist terms, we make theological truth equivalent to the truth of expression of
the existing individual. If, on the contrary, we hold that although man by his own
creative reason could never discover the knowledge of God, yet, given the fact
that God has revealed himself and that man as man can achieve the knowledge of
God so revealed, then we place theology squarely in the center of human
knowledge wherein it will be obliged to demonstrate the revelation of God before
the court of human judgment in terms of the generally accepted canons of
rationality. For if the theologian is convinced that God is and that he has
disclosed himself, and, further, that that revelation is available to rational
reflection, he will not be content simply to affirm his conviction, nor will he be
able to appeal to some sort of esoteric experience wherein his knowledge was
ascertained, but he will find it incumbent upon himself to support the truth of his
knowledge of God through rational argumentation.
The case as stated here is intentionally stated in the sharpest possible contrasts in
order most clearly to isolate the central problem we wish to discuss in our
critique. It is our conviction that only in such a posing of the problem does the
real significance and urgent importance of Pannenberg’s theology become
evident. We have sketched in brief outline the crisis which developed in
evangelical theology with the loss of the authority of Scripture. We have seen that
that authority was undermined through the rise of historical thinking although,
paradoxically, historical thinking itself and consequent secularism are in part
fruits of the Christian tradition. Protestant theology over the last century and a
half can best be understood as an attempt to come to terms with historical
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page11
thinking, but to the present no satisfactory solution has been found. We
concentrated particularly on the attempt of Dialectical Theology as formulated
respectively by Barth and Bultmann to disengage the revelation of God from the
sphere of history thus removing theology from the lordship of historical thinking.
More and more, however, it has become clear that the creation of a special
sphere of theological truth inaccessible to the judgment of reason is selfdefeating, leaving theology in the position of affirming an existential truth
(Bultmann) or a revelational truth (Barth) neither of which can claim generally
binding power. Theological truth is reduced to private truth.
We have attempted in our exposition of Barth and Bultmann not only to
understand what they were saying, but why they were saying it. If we come to
conclusions differing from theirs this is not because we have seen the problem
more clearly than they saw it, but rather because we view it in a changed climate
of opinion, changed at least in part through the genius of their labors. We are
convinced that it is possible today in a climate of opinion radically different than
that which prevailed in the opening decades of our century, to affirm the
universality of theology. We are further convinced that in the systematic theology
of Pannenberg we have the most adequate and most comprehensive attempt yet
made to integrate the true insights of post-Enlightenment or modern thought
into a theological understanding of reality. In the theology of Pannenberg we
have the revolutionary truth of historical thinking, which is the hallmark of
modern thought, incorporated into a conception of the Christian tradition which
at the same time maintains the essence of the latter.
We have seen both in our introductory discussion of the rise of historical thinking
and in our exposition of Pannenberg’s theology that western thought shows
widespread agreement on the fact that the whole of reality must be conceived as
history, as dynamic process in contrast to the cosmological thinking of Greek
philosophy which conceived Being as static. It was the greatness of Ernst
Troeltsch that he recognized the fundamental revolution in human thinking
which historical thinking occasioned. He was convinced that historical thinking
was incommensurable with the Christian theological tradition because that
tradition was formulated in terms of Greek metaphysical conceptually which had
been undercut by post-Enlightenment thought. He was so certain that historical
thinking was irreversible that he felt compelled to re-formulate the Christian faith
in accommodation to it. In so doing he gave up the idea of a final, definitive
revelation of God in the course of history, specifically in the history of Jesus.
Troeltsch’s conception of the nature of history and his formulation of
historiographical principles was so much the consummate expression of the
prevaling intellectual climate that for a considerable period they were viewed as
axiomatic. This was the climate of opinion when the young theologians who were
to be grouped together as constituting the dialectical movement came on the
scene. They were not prepared to challenge Troeltsch’s conception of the nature
of history nor his formulation of the principle of the historical-critical method. Of
one thing, however, they were certain: in such a view of history and
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page12
historiography there was no room for the definitive revelation of God in Jesus
Christ. Therefore, being convinced that they must speak of God in his deity, his
sovereignty, and his freedom in his revelation, they removed that revelation from
the history whose nature Troeltsch described and from the access of the
historical-critical method whose principles Troeltsch formulated.
We noted above the self-defeating consequence of the removal of revelation from
history. Theology pursued as an independent science becomes a matter of private
truth. The widespread questioning, particularly of the position of Bultmann by
his own eminent students, is an indication of the dissatisfaction felt with his
handling of the problem of revelation and history, and, while Barth has indeed
moved the occurrence of revelation back into the sphere of history, his existence,
the subjectivity of truth, the openness and contingency of the historical process,
reality itself as historical process—into a theological conception of history which
finds in Jesus the definitive revelation of God, that we have contended that
Pannenberg’s theology is the most adequate formulation of the truth of historical
thinking and the Christian tradition yet attempted. His theological conception of
history is not simply a rejection of and reaction against the prevailing dialectical
theology as that theology had been over against the nineteenth century Protestant
Liberalism and the historicism of Troeltsch. While Pannenberg rejects the
authoritarianism and revelational positivism of dialectical theology, he
nevertheless is concerned to preserve the essence of what that theology was
saying, namely, that God in his sovereign freedom has disclosed himself in Jesus
Christ. He recognizes the justification of dialectical theology’s reaction against
Troeltsch’s historicism and he too is critical of Troeltsch. However he is equally
aware that Troeltsch had a grasp of something which theology simply cannot bypass, the recognition of the revolutionary nature of historical thinking whose
truth must be incorporated into the Christian tradition. In Pannenberg’s
theological conception of history there is a meeting of the best insights of
Troeltsch with the best insights of the theology of the Word, and the result is a
significant advance, a breakthrough in theological understanding.
IV. Dogmatic Theses Drawn From Pannenberg’s Thinking
Thesis I: Utilizing the best insights of twentieth century historical science,
Pannenberg has presented a valid critique of both Troeltsch’s understanding of
the nature of history and his formulation of the principles of historiography
thus creating the possibility of a theological conception of history and asserting
once again theology’s universal function.
It is characteristic of Pannenberg’s theology that he speaks of God in relation to
the whole of reality. In so doing he seeks to integrate the best insights of the
respective disciplines into a theonomous conception of reality. It is equally
characteristic of his procedure, however, that he claims no privileged perspective
as a Christian theologian when discussing, for instance, the anthropological
structure of human existence or the nature of history. When discussing historical-
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page13
critical thinking he does not begin with some theological requirement to be
forced on the historian, but rather listens to how the historians themselves
understand their subject. How do they understand the nature of history? How do
they conceive of the task of the historian? How do they justify the
historiographical principles with which they carry out their investigation? His
own critique of the science of history is then an immanent critique. Given an
understanding of history as advocated by Collingwood, for example, principles of
historiography as formulated under the impact of positivism must be modified.
This is but one illustration of his method throughout. Only after he has
determined what the leading thinkers in the various disciplines themselves have
to say about the nature of their subject and their methodological principles does
Pannenberg begin his theological reflection on that subject matter. He claims that
if he is seriously to speak of God, which as a theologian he must do, then he
cannot allow the historian’s truth to stand in isolation as simply the truth about
history. Rather, if God is God then the historian’s truth which he has discovered
by means of investigation and reflection must be relatable to the one unifying
ground of truth, namely, God. What he does argue in this dialogue with the
various disciplines of science is that, given their own self-understanding, the
reality with which they have to do is more adequately explained on the
presupposition of God than without him. To use history again as an example,
Pannenberg cites several leading historians of the past and present to the effect
that concrete historical research of a limited historical period always presupposes
a wider context which ultimately presupposes some sort of universal-historical
conception. But, he argues, such a conception of the total course of events is
unavailable, as the historians too are vividly aware. Any universal-historical
scheme which denies the contingency of events and the openness of the future
contradicts our understanding of history. This was the fatal weakness of Hegel’s
scheme, and since Hegel historians have eschewed every all-encompassing
system. However, Pannnberg points out, the contemporary historian is in a
dilemma: on the basis of his understanding of his work, universal history must be
thought, but on the basis of his understanding of the nature of history such a
conception cannot be thought. In other words, by means of this immanent
critique of historical science Pannenberg points to an inner contradiction. Then,
taking a cue from Collingwood, he asks what are the prerequisites for a model of
history if its unity as well as its contingency must both find place? He concludes
that such a conception is possible only if we conceive of a ground of history which
is both the source of the contingency of its events as well the basis of its unity.
Can such a ground be found within history itself? Pannenberg attempts to
discover such, but concludes that there is no possible ground within history
which can meet the requirements of the model. Therefore, he concludes, on the
basis of the requirements of historical research and the nature of history, both as
understood by the historian, a transcendent ground which bears the whole of
reality as history must be presupposed.
But, the objection may be raised, did not Hegel presuppose just such a ground,
the Absolute, and did not his system fall in ruins before the recognition of the
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page14
openness of the future? Quite true, Pannenberg responds, and the objection to
Hegel was completely justified. However, in rejecting Hegel’s grounding of the
historical process on a transcendent Power, subsequent philosophy of history lost
the only possibility of establishing the unity of history required for historical
science. Hegel was not wrong in establishing history on a transcendent ground,
but only in his conception of that Absolute coming to self-realization in his own
philosophy. What is required is a transcendent ground, which not only
establishes the unity of history but also is its future, its End. But how can such a
Power be conceived, for the End has not yet arrived? We are back at the same
point apparently. Now, however, Pannenberg offers a model which meets the
requirements: the proleptic appearance of the End of history in the midst of
history. If the End has already appeared, albeit provisionally, then the whole of
history can be anticipated. Yet if the End has appeared proleptically, then
obviously the process of history is still under way and the future is still open.
Where did Pannenberg come up with such a model? Not out of the blue, of
course. It is a model suggested by the eschatological character of the Christ-event.
The model itself proves nothing. It can only be verified by determining if it
explains the facts and, indeed, it must be subjected to a double test: is it an
adequate explanation of the Christ-event and is it an adequate explanation of
reality as history. In the case of the first test we are in the area of biblical
theology; in the case of the second we are still dealing with history as the
historian understands it. We limit ourselves here only to the latter case. The
question is: does the model of history as process moving toward a still
outstanding End within which, however, the End has already provisionally
occurred meet the requirements of the historian’s conception both of his work
and his subject matter? It would seem to meet these requirements. The next step
would be to pursue concrete historical investigation in the framework of this
model. Only then can it be determined if the model is, in fact, a true conception of
reality as history. Here there are two criteria: positively, the model will be verified
if it is able to effect the most adequate explanation of the data encountered in
historical research; negatively, the model will be confirmed if known data
remains unexplainable without the model.
This verification process will be carried out by the historian using the best
scientific techniques at his disposal. The phenomena presented to him are not
perceived with any sort of “eye of faith,” nor must he operate with some sort of
supernatural conception of God. In short, no special pleading is involved in his
phenomenological research.
Is this model the only possible model? Not necessarily. At least that cannot be
presupposed. Anyone is free to propose a model as long as it fits the requirements
of historical science’s own self-understanding. Should such a “competitive” model
be presupposed, then it in turn must be judged on the basis of the criteria cited
above. The conception of models can be various but they must all be subjected to
the criterion of truth, that is, they must be tested as to their adequacy in
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page15
explaining available data and the impossibility of explaining data without them.
In such a process of testing the model which corresponds to reality as presently
comprehended will emerge. Only through such a procedure is it still possible to
speak of truth. Further, should the model constructed in the light of the eschatological understanding of the Christ-event prove true, it would, at the same time,
be a verification of the Christian conception of reality.
The point we must make here is that Pannenberg has proposed a theological
conception of reality not because, being a theologian, he automatically begins at
this point. Whether he does or not is not the point. We may even grant that the
model he constructs is suggested by his own orientation in the Christian
tradition. This still does not detract from the general validity of his procedure.
His theological perspective imposed on the historian neither his historiographical
principles nor his conception of the nature of history. He allowed the historian
himself to dictate the terms. Given those terms, he argued that those terms
require some such model as he proposed. Still he makes no extrinsic demand on
the historian. He simply asks him to test the model, working as a historian.
Whether this model meets the criteria of truth or not is not in any sense
dependent on a position of faith or theological position. The results are submitted
to the bar of generally valid canons of rationality.
But, someone objects, does this not subject the truth of the Christian faith to the
judgment of human rationality? The answer is yes. There can be no sidestepping
that test. There is no sheltered cove within which the Christian tradition can
practice its faith. Either it is true and commends itself as such to human
rationality or it must give up its claim to truth and be content to exercise itself as
a private affair. This is not to say that man comprehends the depths of the
mystery of the Deity or the secrets of the whole of reality. It does mean to affirm,
however, that if God has revealed himself to man in the midst of history, then
that revelation must be comprehensible to man. If God only makes himself
known “vertically from above,” by miracle, through some supernatural
illumination of the Holy Spirit, by means of some esoteric gnosis, why bother
about a revelation in history. If revelation is punctilear, why the horizontal line or
point on the plane of history? If revelation occurs only here and now, then why
does it need a “dass” in history? As an anchor to guard it from myth? But why not
myth? Because the Christian faith claims to be historical, not mythical? But why
be concerned about the Christian faith unless it is true? And if it is true then
revelation has occurred in history, so why all the strenuous efforts to deny that it
is “there?”
Bultmann admitted that he must come to terms with modern thought and so
when he operates with a conception of history as defined by the positivist and
then goes on to carve out a place for the Christian faith in the realm of existence
we must admit that he is at least consistent. But what shall we say of Barth? He
faults Bultmann for allowing modern thought to dominate. Barth rejects the idea.
But what has he done? The very same thing! Barth’s whole amazing theological
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page16
endeavor can well be understood as an affirmation of the truth of the Christian
faith in the face of positivistic thinking in which there was no room for it. But the
paradox of the matter is that the very Achilles’ heel of his whole position is his
contradictory statements about the historicity of revelation and the inaccessibility
of that revelation to historical-critical research. The charge of revelational
positivism is not unjustified. Is it not that he who denied the sovereignty of
modern thought constructed his own theology as if positivistic historiography
were indeed sovereign? Not exactly. Barth’s theology shatters all positivistic
historiography as far as the whole of reality is concerned. But he left it intact as
far as the historical process is concerned. He allowed Troeltsch the final word as
far as historical science was concerned, thus conceiving the historical process as a
self-contained entity set over against God. Historical science is competent to deal
with the one-dimensional reality of history but theology speaks of the One who
encounters the man who lives in that one-dimensional reality, and consequently
historical science is not competent to deal with the intercourse of man and God.
Pannenberg’s superiority must be recognized in two directions. Over against
Troeltsch he says that the historical-critical method, to be sure, has an
anthropocentric element inherent within it, but to that anthropocentric
methodological element you have wedded an anthropocentric worldview, which
not only is not intrinsic to the method but even hinders its effectiveness. Your
anthropocentric worldview precludes any consideration of a transcendent reality
and consequently contradicts the very requirements of historical research itself.
Furthermore your conception of the principle of analogy which is a valuable tool
for gaining knowledge is posited on the postulate of the universal similarity of all
historical phenomena, thus again denying the insight of history itself that events
are contingent and that history is the place of the arrival of the new, the unique,
the unforeseen. The principle of analogy is not wrong but the application is.
Rather than using it to determine the similarities of the respective phenomena,
use it to delineate their differences, their uniqueness.
Furthermore your principle of development denies the contingency of events and
the genuine openness of the future. Your model of history as a self-contained,
unfolding entity beyond which hovers the absolute, known only relatively within
the course of development is an inadequate model in the light of historical
science itself.
At this point Pannenberg addresses Barth and argues that it is not Barth’s
conception of history as encounter that is wrong but only his submission to
positivistic historiography as being the legitimate conception of historical science.
By his divorce of historical science from revelational history, Barth has
introduced an unendurable contradiction into his theological enterprise. Such a
contradiction has been responsible for the feeling as expressed by James Barr:
“Though I still feel that it is Barth’s God whom I seek to worship, the intellectual
framework of Barth’s theology has in my consciousness to a very great extent
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page17
collapsed in ruins.”10 Barth, Pannenberg would affirm, has begun to speak as a
Christian before he has justified his speaking as a theologian, in fact, without
recognizing the legitimacy of such a procedure, or even denying its possibility.
Barth, in one sense, can be recognized as nothing if not bold. It is a question
however if he was bold enough. In a world, a cultural situation, that is largely
determined in its intellectual milieu by atheistic thinking, can the theologian
speak seriously of God unless he has at least created the “room” for such talk by
an immanent critique of atheistic thought itself? If the existence of God cannot be
demonstrated, at least the acids of atheistic thought can be neutralized and a
theological conception of reality can be demonstrated to be rationally as
justifiable as an atheistic conception. Indeed, in Pannenberg’s thought we would
even claim that the theological conception is shown to be more rational. However
that may be, to think the matter through to its limits so that one is placed before
the alternatives is no little gain. Human rationality reaches its limits but that is
true not only for theological thought, but for atheistic as well. A rational choice is
not necessarily a choice in which every piece of data is explained, every mystery
disclosed. It is rather a choice in the face of all possible evidence. It is a choice
made in the light of the widest possible understanding of reality. In this respect it
can be maintained that the commitment of oneself to the God revealed in Jesus
Christ is grounded upon a rational decision—a decision made in the light of all
possible evidence.
In this way theology stands in the middle of the sciences seeking to unify all truth
through its relation to the God who is source, ground, and goal of truth. The
universal function of theology is once again asserted and the world of fragmentary experience, specialized knowledge unrelated to the whole of reality, is
brought into relation to him who is the Truth.
The theologian claims no quarter. He demands no “eye of faith,” no special
inspiration. He proposes his model, a model constructed out of the requirements
of the respective sciences themselves. He then submits his model to impartial
testing by the phenomena dealt with in the individual sciences. He brings the
results before the bar of rational judgment. Should a competing and
contradictory model prove more adequate, he has no recourse. But should his
model pass the test, then he has demonstrated that a theological conception of
reality is in fact rationally defensible. Is the risk too great? No, not if, when he
speaks of God, he is speaking of the Creator of the whole of reality who will bring
all things to consummation. Then the model will be verified. And if it is not? Then
he must cease to be a theologian, for then there will be no theology.
Is not the task too arduous? Certainly it is arduous, but have not the most
profound thought and the most profound thinkers arisen out of the Christian
tradition over the course of the centuries? The magnitude of the challenge is no
deterrent. Much rather, if in the modern period the church has alienated the best
minds, it is not because she demanded too much but too little. A call to serious
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page18
intellectual pursuit of truth will not offend but the lack of it certainly will— and
has.
Thesis II. Dogmatic theology must rethink the entire theological spectrum of
truth from the perspective of historical thinking.
Harnack’s criticism of the Hellenization of the gospel has a validity which can
hardly be denied. Rather than judging this “translation” negatively as he did, we
can understand today that the Greek metaphysical conceptuality was the most
effective means at hand for expressing the central truth of the Christ-event, “God
with us.” In the history of the transmission of traditions this was a necessary and
effective new stage. It entailed nonetheless grave difficulties because an event
actualized in a tradition that for centuries had been nurtured on the idea of the
dynamic relationship of God and man in the historical process which was moving
toward consummation had to be translated into meaningful terms for a culture
that had been fully indoctrinated with the metaphysical categories of Plato and
Aristotle and their successors. In such a setting, that which formed the
culminating point of God’s self-disclosure in Jesus—his resurrection from the
dead— there was formed an untranslatable conception which could only be
announced, proclaimed, but scarcely comprehended. In such an environment the
emphasis soon shifted to the coming of the Son of God, the idea of Incarnation.
Such a conception did allow the message of God’s presence with man in Jesus to
be expressed, but as the Christological controversy vividly demonstrates, it
brought in its wake insoluble problems which plague us to the present.11 The
church lived for centuries undisturbed by the irreconcilable contradictions of
Chalcedon because Christian theology has been conceptualized by means of
Greek metaphysical categories and thus the central idea of Incarnation
communicated the Christian message.
The crisis of theology today is not in the first instance a crisis of Christian belief
but a crisis of Christian theological formulation which could not help but collapse
when the Greek metaphysics in terms of which it was framed was undermined.
This occurred through the rise of modern thought becoming particularly
damaging to traditional theology through the rise of historical thinking which
undercut the unquestioned authority of Scripture. The reaction of Christian
theology to the crisis created by modern thought has often been defensive,
evidencing an underlying insecurity. At other times it has sought so desperately
to accommodate itself to modern thinking that it has given up its own central
affirmation of God’s presence in Jesus, thus robbing the world of its one source of
hope in the God of the future. These two extreme reactions can be found again
and again over the past two centuries. On the one hand there has been a jealous
guarding of traditional conceptuality: incarnation—true God—true man; three in
one—coequal and co-eternal; inspired, infallible Scripture, etc., under the
mistaken notion that God and his truth were cradled in the respective
stammering human attempts to express it. On the other hand, there was an
uncritical acceptance of modern thought, positivistically orientated, which from
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page19
the beginning practically shut out the possibility of a transcendent reality, let
alone a God present in the causal nexus that defined reality.
Where lies a solution? Is it not significant that western thinking, believing itself
now to be free from the archaic metaphysical bondage of theology, has discovered
reality as history? And furthermore it has been shown, for example, by Lowith
that the conception of reality as history moving toward an End “is rooted in the
Judaeo-Christian tradition. Is it not possible that we are in a position today to
rethink such basic conceptions as the Trinity, the natures of Christ, and the
Consummation and come to more fruitful results than has perhaps been the case
in the long tradition of Christian thinking ?
Thesis III. All Christological statements must be made from the perspective of
the resurrection.
Barth begins with the given of the Incarnation, Jesus, truly God and truly man.
The question, how do you know this?, is simply out of place. If we know it we
need not ask, and if we do not know it, it is futile to ask. The life of Jesus plays
itself out between the twin miracles of the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, both
wholly the work of God, neither accessible to human judgment, examination or
confirmation. From this everything follows. Prior to this there can be no
discussion.
Bultmann starts with the kerygma. In response to the proclamation you either
say “yes” or “no” but you may not ask “Why should I?” or “Is it true?” Either
question is already proof that revelation has not occurred.
Even the Post-Bultmannians who feel uneasy with this approach are looking
everywhere for a basis for the kerygma except in the one place that Bultmann and
almost all New Testament scholars agree it is located, namely, in the resurrection
of Jesus Christ. Ebeling and Fuchs are retreading the paths of Herrmann,
Bornkamm speaks of Jesus’ authority, Kasemann of his message, but none of
them seriously considers the one place in which every kerygmatic utterance is
rooted.
It is here that Pannenberg makes a most significant contribution. He has dared to
assert once again that you cannot ground New Testament Christology anywhere
but where the New Testament itself grounds it. In so doing he has made progress
possible in several areas where thought had reached an impasse. Perhaps the
most crucial area is that of the natures of Christ. The long and bitter
Christological struggles need not be recounted here. It is sufficient to say that
Chalcedonian Christology is not a solution but represents an impasse, a
compromise between conceptions which are logically irreconciliable. We
understand the problem and we comprehend the intention, but what person
would ever suggest that Chalcedon represents an intelligible and satisfying
conclusion?
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page20
We would suggest that perhaps the problem lies in the inability of Greek
conceptuality to express a phenomenon which was essentially historical. In the
intellectual milieu of the Greek world the appearance of the Servant of God, the
Messiah, was proclaimed in conceptuality which culminated in incarnational
Christology and with incarnational Christology the whole problem of the divine
and human presented itself but with no possibility of solution.
We would ask, in terms of the Old Testament, in terms of the Messianic
expectation, why must Jesus be God? In fact, is the Messiah as God really true to
the Old Testament tradition? Chalcedonian Christology has such a long and
impressive tradition that we often never question what biblical imperative there
is for the divinity of the Messiah. The answer, of course, is not to reject
Chalcedon, as does Bultmann because he is so determined by positivistic thinking
that he cannot conceive of Jesus as anything more than a man, let alone his
resurrection. If we must choose between Barth or Bultmann, we must choose
Barth, for between the signs of the Virgin Birth and Resurrection God is present
in history, but Barth can assert this only as an assertion and is utterly unable to
say more about how we can understand incarnation.
It is the incarnation as a starting point that is wrong. To start there is to be cut off
immediately from all rational reflection. Revelational positivism is inevitable.
Incarnation is a valid idea if it is recognized to be a step in the interpretive
tradition leading from Jesus, an interpretation of an historical phenomenon that
occurred in a Jewish apocalyptic setting rooted in the Old Testament tradition.
Pannenberg has argued powerfully that Jesus must be understood in his own
context and that in that context the resurrection “spoke.” One of his great
contributions is his calling in question of the fact, meaning bifurcation. The fact
in its historical context bears its own meaning. In the tradition expecting the
final intervention of God at the End raising the dead, the resurrection of one
who had been dead and buried meant the End had arrived.
He has also quite rightly seen that resurrection did not carry that meaning in
another context. Consequently translation was necessary. This brings us to the
one point where we feel Pannenberg has not completely followed through on his
own insights. He has recognized that an End-expectation and coming judgment
are necessary presuppositions for a meaningful belief in resurrection and that
consequently Paul stressed these matters to the Gentiles. He has further
discussed how in our day resurrection can be meaningful as a more adequate
conception of the immortality of the soul. The one thing he has been unable to do
is to show how resurrection was translated meaningfully in the first century. The
fact is that it was not. Is not Paul’s Athenian experience evidence of an
indissolvable offense that adhered to the Christian message as heard by the
Greek? Resurrection was the key and resurrection was untranslatable into the
conceptuality of Greek metaphysics.
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page21
Is not this the reason that the focus shifted from resurrection to incarnation in
terms of which God’s intervention into human history was powerfully expressed?
God’s intervention, yes, but then the Messiah must have been God. Is not this
why Jesus must be God? Thinking which utilizes Greek metaphysical
conceptuality can only conceive of God’s presence in history in terms of
incarnation. However, such was not the case with Hebrew thought. God would
bring future deliverance through his Servant—David’s Son! God did not have to
“enter” history for the Israelites. History was his domain—no self-contained,
independent entity set over against him. In his holiness he ever dwelt in the
midst of his people.
Why the modern crisis of theology? Is it not rather the crisis of metaphysics? And
why the crisis of metaphysics? Is it not occasioned by the rise of historical
thinking? What is the answer then? It must be obvious. We ought to recognize
incarnational Christology as no longer a meaningful interpretation of the
historical self-disclosure of God in his servant Jesus, the Messiah. Paradoxically
Greek metaphysical thinking in terms of which the Christian tradition has
formulated its faith has fallen into disrepute making it possible once again to
understand Jesus and his resurrection historically, as was the case for Peter and
Paul.
But this raises another question regarding Pannenberg. He has thought through
the matter of natural law and has sought to show that the resurrection is not
really a “break” in nature. Here we are uneasy. That in its context it had meaning
we grant. But was it not also a “break” in historical continuity even for a Paul? To
be sure, all historical phenomena are unique and history is the place of the new, it
is irruptive. But still the resurrection cannot be leveled down to being an event
next to others. Now if, as the apocalyptic tradition expected, with the resurrection
of Jesus the End of history was in fact arrived at, then the historical process
would have unfolded with no “break” in its continuity. Or if, as Bultmann holds,
there was no resurrection, then the historical process still continues with no
“break.” But if it happened, as Pannenberg claims it happened—and we think he
is right—namely, that what Paul thought was the beginning of a fast-approaching
End, was really—as we know 2000 years later— an isolated, proleptic occurrence
of a still future End, then there has occurred in the midst of the historical
continuum a radical, indissolvable “break,” an act of God which is unique, in a
sense “more unique” than the uniqueness of historical phenomena in general.
Pannenberg has acknowledged the problem of identifying the resurrection of one
man with the expectation of the resurrection of all men. That is just the point.
The expectation of the resurrection of all men was indeed the presupposition for
finding meaning in Jesus’ resurrection. But, the resurrection of Jesus
nevertheless shattered apocalyptic preconceptions also. It was to Jew and Greek
alike an unforeseen, unforseeable self-disclosure of the God who remains free
and sovereign even in his historical self-revelation.
© Grand Valley State University
�Theological Conception of Reality as History
Richard A. Rhem
Page22
Why has Barth been able to speak so powerfully the truth of the Christian faith to
his generation? Because he said what the gospel wants to say: “God with us.” Why
does such a powerful witness engender such sharp reaction? Is it not because
while saying what the gospel wants to say, he has utilized a metaphysical
conceptuality which no longer commands respect?
We come back to our question why Jesus must be God. If God anointed his
Servant, the Messiah, to proclaim his Kingdom and announce the new age and
then raised him from the dead as a confirmation of that message and of his
Servant, what does it add to the matter if Jesus were divine? If Jesus were God
then resurrection is not quite so amazing. But if Jesus is my brother because a
man like me and if God raised him from the dead, then something truly amazing
has occurred. The New Age has dawned in the midst of the Old. Then while still
struggling in the old aeon, I have a real basis for Hope. Then I live in anticipation.
That is, I live by faith.
If this is the case then I can understand the Apostle who wrote: On the human
level he was born of David’s stock, but on the level of the Spirit—The Holy
Spirit—he was declared Son of God by a mighty act in that he rose from the dead.
. . Jesus Christ our Lord. (Rom. l: 3b-4, NEB).
1Karl
Barth, The Humanity of God, Richmond, 1960, p. 19.
2Ernst
Troeltsch, Die Bedeutung der Gescbichtlichkeit fesu fur dem Glauben,
Tubingen,1911, p. 11.
3Karl
Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.2 Edinburgh, 1960, p. 284.
4Rudolph
Bultmann, Kerygma and Myth, London, 1953, pp. 13ff.
5“Die
Krise des Schriftprinzips,” Grundfragen Systematischer Theologie,
Gottingen, 1967, p. 11.
6Ibid.
7“Die
Aufnahme des philosophisches Gottesbegriffs,” Grundfragen .... pp. 308f.
8Ibid.,
9”Die
p. 297.
Krise des Schriftprinzips,” Grundfragen …, p. 20.
10James
Baar, Old and New in Interpretation, SCM, 1966, p. 12.
11Cf.
H. Berkhof, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, Richmond, 1964, for his daring
challenge to traditional Trinitarian conceptuality.
© Grand Valley State University
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA-4-19721001
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1972-10-01
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Title
A name given to the resource
A Theological Conception of Reality as History - Some Aspects of the Thinking of Wolfhart Pannenberg
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Reformed Review; a journal of the seminaries of the Reformed Church in America
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Description
An account of the resource
Article created, delivered, or published by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on October 1, 1972 entitled "A Theological Conception of Reality as History - Some Aspects of the Thinking of Wolfhart Pannenberg", it appeared in Reformed Review, pp. 178-188. Tags: History of Theology, Historical Thinking, Truth, Eschatology, Revelation.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Eschatology
Historical Thinking
History of Theology
Revelation
Truth
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/9fdb9833f36189fe96eb39dc8ec59522.pdf
94d3025b83b946b010d82d3b02d5ee05
PDF Text
Text
Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
January 30, 1989
Transcription of the spoken lecture
I am giving you the first of three introductory looks at the proposed fall seminar
with Ira Progoff. I wanted to begin now because I want to give you a bit of my
rather slight understanding of Progoff and also to let you know why I was
interested in Progoff in the beginning and why I believe that to bring the Journal
Workshop to this community is the kind of thing that I would like Christ
Community Church to do as a service to the broader community. I am going to
try to stick somewhat to my area and not get into an area which is not at all my
own, namely, the whole field of psychology and specifically depth psychology,
because I know very little about it. But I see in the work of Progoff, in the
knowledge I’ve had of it and of the persons with whom I’ve spoken, the kind of
resource that would be valuable for persons, for many kinds of persons, a broad
spectrum of persons, and therefore I have been rather excited about the
possibility of getting him here.
Getting him here is no small feat, and I guess he does only 4 or 5 Journal
Workshops a year across the country. But, wonder of wonders, the man himself
has agreed to come here this fall. I think to have the presence of someone like Ira
Progoff in itself is significant and very meaningful.
I have divided up what I want to say to you tonight into a few sections. The first
thing I want to say is just a word about who I am, because some of you are from
Christ Community, and some of you are from parts beyond. I want to say that I
understand myself and I understand Christ Community as a kind of purveyor of
this experience. Probably after tonight these kinds of things won't need to be said,
but I want to say them at the outset. I want you to know that I am, first of all, a
Christian person. My faith is in Jesus Christ, and I have found God through
Christ and the grace of God experienced in Jesus Christ. I'm just a simple
believer.
Beyond that, my vocation, my profession, is that of a theologian and a pastor. I
didn't know whether to put pastor first or theologian first, but I learned a little
about my self-understanding because I put theologian first. And that means that I
am a Christian who, in his vocational and professional life, is constantly trying to
understand Christian faith and tradition and Christian existence in the larger
context of the human experience. I'm always trying to do that. I am a pastor; I
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
have pastoral responsibilities for this community of faith, but I think this
community of faith, as we have postured ourselves, is concerned about the larger
community, the total community beyond our bounds. And so, that's who I am.
You have to know that I am a bridge person, or a boundary person. I always live
"on the edge." I live on the edge of the Church. I almost can't stand to live in the
Church. It's restricting; I get disappointed with it; I get frustrated with it. What
little hair I have left I could tear out at the behavior of the Church, which, I think,
in its institutional form has become rather rigid, has become very defensive, and
has lost the sense of movement with which, of course, it began in the aftermath of
Jesus Christ. It has become an institution with a lot of vested interest and a lot of
structure and harness and all that kind of “stuff” to preserve. I think most of its
posture is characterized by defensiveness and conserving and preserving, rather
than stretching and probing and pushing. So I always live with uneasy
relationship with the Church. I am a boundary person or a bridge person, and, as
I understand myself, I feel it my calling to try to understand the whole spectrum
of human knowledge in the light of the Gospel, and the larger Christian tradition,
but then to attempt to translate that Gospel in the light of that context. So, it's
always a two-way back and forth with me.
I believe that in the scriptures I have a history of Israel and the event of Jesus
Christ which is a given for me. But then the other pole is the present horizon, the
world in which we live. It seems to me that the task of the theologian is to
constantly be living between those two poles: trying to understand that which is
given in the revelation in Israel and in Jesus; and to understand as much as
possible the larger cultural context with its various human disciplines; and then
seeking from that understanding of the larger culture to have questions
addressed to the Gospel, which I believe bring new insights out of the Gospel; but
also bringing the Gospel to bear on our culture so that culture is not absolute but
is always under judgment of the Gospel. So, one must live in that kind of tension.
I think the systematic theologian has the largest task of any thinker, frankly. We
live in a world of great specialization. More and more people know more and
more about less and less. And we know that the academic world is characterized
by a lack of communication, a breakdown of communication and deep
specialization where there is no longer the ability to communicate across
disciplines. But the theologian is the one who claims to speak of God and, if God
is the source and the ground of truth, then to speak of God is to speak of that
whole spectrum, and therefore to be responsible to provide that umbrella that
can bring some kind of unity and coherence to the respective human disciplines.
Now, that's how I understand what I'm about and I love it and am fascinated by
it, and I think that it is important to me as a rooted and committed Christian to
be in that kind of dialogue and conversation with the broader spectrum of human
learning. And then, let me say a word about this particular community of faith.
One of the models by which we have shaped ourselves over the past couple of
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
decades – one which I enunciated back in 1971, which had come to me in my own
studies and kind of existential quest – was that this community should always
seek to combine intellectual integrity with evangelical passion. The uniting of
head and heart. Intellectual integrity, searching honestly for truth, wherever that
may lead, in the confidence that the source of truth is in God and that God's
revelation in Jesus Christ is an expression of that ultimate truth, and that
therefore any genuine quest for truth cannot be something that will lead away
from but, rather, to God, to the extent that it is an authentic quest. But also with
evangelical passion, for we are not finally on a head trip, but we are engaged in
seeking to bring good news to persons. And we are about human transformation
here. We are about the transformation of the human person, which is more than
communicating a system of doctrines or structure of belief. That is a means;
that's all part of the mix. But, what we really are concerned to do is to see a
human person transformed, moving toward wholeness.
The best model that I can give you for that which we have had some experience
with here, is the AA model, where various steps are set forth which are simply a
borrowing of the Gospel without the names attached, but which lead to the
transformation of persons. And I believe that what we see in the movement of AA
is really what should be happening and happens all too little in the Christian
Church. Through that genuine encounter, that community of support, that total
acceptance and openness, which allows genuine confession and self-exposure in a
healing environment, there does occur the transformation and the healing of the
person. And the healing of the person is to say about the individual what we hope
for the larger picture, and that is the humanization of society. Now, that may
sound very humanistic. But, I happen to think that God is about a very
humanistic thing. I think that God is about gracing persons in order to release
their full potential and to recreate them into the image of Jesus Christ who, I
believe, is the human person par excellence, and that the Kingdom of God is the
rule of God or the reign of God and, where the reign of God is recognized, there
will be a very human society. So, I could speak about the Kingdom of God, but
just to keep it kind of down to earth, let me say once again, the transformation of
the person and the humanization of society - that, I think, is what we must be
about.
And of course, our resources are dynamic; our power, our vision comes out of our
understanding of the God revealed in Jesus Christ, and we do believe, as Scott
Peck says in The Road Less Traveled, that this is a graced universe, and that
there is a grace operative in the world at large which is a healing and positive
movement of God toward this world and toward persons.
So, that's kind of in a nutshell the way we operate here. That's what this
community of faith, this particular congregation, is all about. To the extent that
people have come and the church has prospered, to that extent, anybody that has
come in has kind of bought that vision, and I suppose that I'm guilty of shaping it
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
in large measure, but that always happens when you get to stand up front once a
week, front and center.
So, we are a Christian congregation, and yet we see, I believe, a broader world out
there. We are not content to live a kind of parochial life of a Christian
congregation, within a Christian tradition, but would seek to understand
ourselves and to relate in a positive way to the broader cultural spectrum, and to
the world of spirit in whatever form that manifests itself.
I happen to believe that we are on the threshold of a new inter-dialogue among
the religions, and I think it is inevitable. The earth has shrunk to the size of a
grapefruit, and we really are members of a global community. It is no longer such
that we have a largely Protestant religion in America, and that you go East to find
Buddhism, and you go to the Middle East to find Islam or whatever. It's all over.
The crosscurrents of religious expression are everywhere, whether you go to Ann
Arbor or Chicago or New York, Los Angeles, you can find it all. Not only can you
find it all, but also you can find all kinds of offbeat brands more and more. The
religious resurgence in our day is one of the remarkable phenomena of this last
quarter of the 20th century. It seems to be incumbent upon us to be in dialogue
with that larger religious scene.
I brought along this little study of Martin Buber, the great Jewish thinker. Martin
Buber is very deeply knowledgeable of Christian faith, thinks very highly of Jesus,
does not understand Jesus as I understand him, but nonetheless really sees a
kind of movement of Messianism as he, as a Jew, understands it coming to
expression in Jesus. But he says, speaking to Christians,
It behooves both you and us to hold inviably fast to our own true faith, that
is, to our own deepest relationship to truth. It behooves both of us to show
a religious respect for the true faith of the other. That is not what is called
tolerance. Our task is not to tolerate each other's waywardness, but to
acknowledge the real relationship in which both stand to the truth.
Whenever we both, Christian and Jew, care more for God Himself than for
images of God, we are united in the feeling that our Father's house is
differently constructed than our human models take it to be.
Now that is a much broader understanding than has been true of Orthodox
Christianity, which would see other religions as expressions of error. It is the
understanding of my mentor, Hendrikus Berkhof, who says that, since the split of
the Jewish and the Christian religions, God has had two peoples, and Berkhof
bases that on his own biblical understanding of the irrevocable covenant that God
has entered into with the Jewish people. That question is debated among
Christian theologians and there is difference of opinion on it.
The point is I think we need to be deeply rooted. Let me say, personally (I don't
want to take you in on this), I need to be deeply rooted in my tradition. I need to
be deeply rooted, deeply committed, and I must bring to the discussion my
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
deepest and best understanding of Christian faith, and not try to just jot that
down and remove the sharp contours of that in order to make it fit, but only as I
do that as genuinely as I can can I engage in genuine dialogue with someone like
a Martin Buber who will be genuinely Jewish.
Harvey Cox is a theologian who has written a number of books, one of which is
Many Mansions. He's been involved in much of this dialogue among the religions
and it's his feeling that what we need in this inter-religious dialogue is not so
much seeking to find the lowest common denominator, as bringing into the
discussion the sharpest focus of each understanding, so that there can be genuine
meeting and encounter.
Well, let me say that that kind of dialogue I affirm. I'm not afraid of it. I don't
think that our faith is so fragile that we will be tainted. I don't think that. I used to
think that I had to protect my people. I used to think that one of my tasks as a
pastor was to protect my people from error. Now I find that my people are well
able to handle themselves in such areas, and that more often I don't generally
really have to protect them. More often, I have to push them. I don't know if it's
true in most congregations, but it's true in this congregation that I'm always
pushing. I'm always trying to push people into risking and into scary places,
because I believe that is faith-building. I don't think that you need to be
sheltered. And, as a matter of fact, I wonder how long in the world in which we
live anybody can be sheltered anymore. I think it could be less and less possible.
All right. That's a little bit about the posture with which we approach this thing.
Let me say a word about what I see in the horizon of our world. You maybe
didn't ask for all of this, but give me an inch and I'll take an hour. I think we're in
a very interesting period in the world's history. I think that the period in which
we find ourselves is toward the end of a period of tremendous revolution and
transformation in human understanding. And I think that we have moved out of
the settled past of maybe eighteen centuries of unquestioned tradition. And we
are at the end of a couple of centuries of thrashing about, experimentation, of
overthrowing old forms and shaking foundations, but we are not yet at a time in
which new contours are clearly set.
Just, for example, the social-political context. If you would read Hans Küng's
Does God Exist?, you would find him tracing the roots of modern atheism. He
would take you back to the Socialist Revolution in Russia, for example. But,
behind that, you would go to the philosophical writings of the German
philosopher, a Protestant pastor's son, Ludwig Feuerbach, who was the first to
speak of religion as a human product, that religion arises out of the human
person, and that God is the projection of our needs. We have these needs; we
create God; we project God onto the screen of reality; we bow down and worship.
The God we worship is the God we need. We created God. Religion is a human
business.
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
It was on the heels of Feuerbach that you have Karl Marx in the social-economic
realm. You have Sigmund Freud in the psychoanalytical field, and you have
finally Nietzsche with his nihilism, where he came to the conviction that nothing
is nothing and that there is ultimately nothingness, the abyss. I do think that
nihilism is really the logical conclusion of atheism. If God is not, then finally
nothing is. And you can turn everything upside down and there's no reason
for saying that good is evil or evil is good. You have no norms. It's over.
But, if you see that development, you will also see that those people were dealing
with very real issues in history and society which were manifesting themselves,
and the reaction of the Church was, again, one of fear and defensiveness and
refusal to engage in genuine dialogue with the realities of history that were right
there.
The Marxist theory was constructed on the background of a class society in
Europe and the church leadership was very insensitive and not at all in genuine
dialogue. If you take the actual political-social revolution, the Russian Revolution
particularly, you see that it took on this atheistic form because the Church and
the State were joined together; throne and altar were one. To throw over the
government, to throw over the political and economic system was also to throw
over the Church, because the two were joined where the Church ought never to be
joined. Then the whole social revolution that took place took an atheistic bent,
not because the economic theory demanded it, but because the social situation
meant that those two were wedded and when one went, the other went. And if
you come down to our present day and you see how that revolution has kind of
spent itself, it has not brought in Utopia. In fact, Gorbachev would tell us that the
whole thing is a failure and we can well pray that Gorbachev is successful in what
he is about because he has by economic necessity been forced to see that it is
either change and transform that old giant, or it's not viable.
I think that you put all those things together and it is not just business as usual,
but there are some very long-term movements and forces and tides within history
which have created a kind of openness and possibility today, which just haven't
been here in a long time. I think that this is a rather interesting time and it has
peril and it has opportunity. And it's not just some result of an immediate
situation, but I think the gathering of long-term things that have been going on
for a couple of hundred years. The Enlightenment on the European continent, the
Age of Reason which was the continuation of the Renaissance (the Reformation
period was kind of an interruption of that flow), but the whole coming to the
devotion of the human person, of the human mind, of reason, and of throwing off
of authorities of all sorts: Church, Bible, whatever. The authoritarian day is past.
We haven't learned that much in the Church yet. But Authoritarianism is over. In
the world at large I really believe Authoritarianism is over. So that is the socialpolitical context.
Take the scientific world. If you read Steven Hawking, this brilliant English
Quantum physicist, in A Brief History of Time and Space, you find that we live
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page 7
on what is the threshold of that discovery of what they call the Theory of
Everything, the theory for which Einstein was questing – that little formula that
would reveal the ultimate core of reality and develop it. In the Christian Science
Monitor of some time ago there was a series, Making the Quantum Leap: A FivePart Series, a fantastic series written in newspaper format, Christian Science
newspaper format, so it's still a little hefty. But even I can almost understand
some of it and it is amazing. I, in my next incarnation, hope to be either a
conductor of a symphony or a physicist. I've always been fascinated by the close
tie between physics and theology. Now, I regret to say that generally the
breakthroughs in physics have been registered in theology rather than the other
way. I'd like to get that reversed some day, but that probably won't ever happen.
But Newton was a Christian thinker, a physicist. And he did his best to maintain
his Christian faith alongside his understanding of the physical universe. But his
system, his understanding of the cosmos actually left no room for God. No, Sir
Isaac never gave up on God, and I'm sure that God never gave up on Sir Isaac.
But, as a matter of fact, the ordered universe of Newtonian physics had no room
for God; it had no room for prayer; it had no room for miracle or any of that.
Now, the amazing thing is that Newtonian physics has been blown sky high.
And Quantum Physics, the understanding of the structure of reality, whether in
its cosmological expanse or in the understanding of the tiniest little molecule and
atom, neuron and electron, speaks of eruption, of the eruption of the new, the
possibility of randomness. It's an open ball game. Einstein hated it. Einstein
hated it! He fought the Quantum Physicist Neils Bohr. Einstein said, "God doesn't
play dice with the universe." He didn't want any randomness. But, nonetheless,
that's where we are today, and it's impressive when you do see a person on the
moon or when a satellite brings a picture from around the world, or your
computer chip does everything you ever wanted done.
The world of religion, the resurgence of fundamentalism in various forms. I read
a statement by Charles Colson the other day. In his new book, Kingdoms in
Conflict, he says, "Not since the Crusades have religious passions and prejudices
posed such a worldwide threat." That's the world we live in today. I think he's
right. Not since the Crusades. If not through a religious zealot or confused idealist
whose finger is on the nuclear trigger, then certainly by destroying the tolerance
and trust essential for maintaining peace and concord among people.
Martin Marty, in a discussion of the aggressiveness and the orneriness of religion
in the world in its manifestation, raised the question, "Is it not possible to be both
civil and committed?" Is it not possible to be both civil and committed? Now, you
see, that is kind of a trick, to be both civil and committed. But too often
commitment has resulted in fanaticism and has wrought all kinds of havoc in the
history of the world. And too often civility has been the result of lack of any real
commitment or passion. To hold those two together is so important.
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page 8
Well, that's the world we live in and it is a wonderful fascinating world in which
to be alive. I think that it is a world that has openings for those of us who are
concerned about spiritual reality and human transformation like never before.
Now, let me get more specific with Progoff. Why? What has all this to do with Ira
Progoff? Well, I don't know a great deal about Ira Progoff. But I have heard him
on tape, I've read some of his works and I was first put on to him by a couple of
very respected friends in ministry some years ago, and I know that he has had
wide acceptance in the Catholic church, more so than in the Protestant Church.
But a couple of my friends in the Reformed Church have been part of some of his
activity and have spoken very highly of him.
Ira Progoff is of Jewish origin. He is perhaps best characterized as a JudeoChristian-Buddho spiritual sage. He has milked all of these traditions for
insights, which he has put together with his understanding of depth psychology.
Now, I really am not going to say very much about depth psychology because,
well, I'm going to say everything I know, but that's not very much. I know that
Progoff – having been a student of Carl Jung, Jung having been a student of
Freud but breaking away from Freud – is one who created in his understanding
room again for God, but not a God "out there," which incidentally isn't even in
vogue in the best theology today, but a God in the depths of the unconscious
where there is a kind of meeting of all kinds of consciousness down in some deep
reservoir in the depth of reality.
A depth psychologist believes that the consciousness of the person is the tip of the
iceberg. And I think that that has been rather well documented in terms of the
tremendous structure of the unconscious. And I think images do evolve out of an
unconscious depth. But I don't know much about that. Anyway, that is Progoff's
orientation. He is a spiritual person. He's a deeply spiritual person. He's a
mystical person, in the line of the mystics, I would say. If you want to label him in
terms of Protestant or Jewish theology, he's probably closest to Paul Tillich, a
Christian theologian now dead, and to Martin Buber, whose famous I and Thou
book has made such a great impact in our century.
How Progoff speaks of religion – as I utilize Progoff's understanding of religion –
it is a functional understanding of religion. He is dealing with the function that
religion performs in human life and human society. It is more a question of
functionality than it is a question of truth. Progoff would not want to referee
between the truth claims of Eastern religions or Judaism or Islam or Christianity.
But, he would see in them all a kind of commonality of function, and I believe
that it is perfectly legitimate to look at it that way. Now, that's not all I'm
concerned about, because finally I think that the truth question will obtrude
itself. It certainly will for me. And I am always struggling with the truth question
in Christian faith, in religious expression. But, nonetheless, there can be a very
positive and helpful understanding of the place of religion in the function it
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page 9
performs in the person and in society as a whole. And when Progoff speaks about
religion and the religions, he is speaking functionally.
He would see its function as enabling persons to position themselves in
relationship to the transpersonal reality in order that they may experience
guidance and structuring for their outer life. Religion ought to help me to
position myself over against reality that is beyond myself in order that in my
everyday life and living I may have guidance, orientation, to be at home with
myself and at home with the world. Now, if religion does that for a person, it has
done a great, great deal. Progoff would see the various religions as particular
forms and structures, all of which are performing that kind of common function:
to enable me to live as a human being, with other human beings, to enable me to
live as a person over against transpersonal reality.
Sometimes when he speaks, I think of the AA program where you have a Higher
Power. I have encountered, from time to time, a few Christian people who have
been uneasy with that, as though to speak of the Higher Power is to deny either
the uniqueness of Jesus Christ or the God we see in Jesus Christ. Now, it doesn't
bother me at all. I had an old gentleman in here one day coming off the AA
program and, so help me, a man in his 60s who had absolutely no conception of
God. I had a yellow pad like this and I had a pen, you know, and I'm generally
nervous and I was making signs and I was trying to kind of speak about God and
him down here and I put a big cross between as kind of a bridge and I made this
silly diagram and we talked together and he said, "Somebody said, well, the
Higher Power: just visualize a telephone pole." Well, I made this little thing and
we talked some more and when it was all over I was quite moved as he said to me,
rather moved himself, "May I take that with me?" And I thought to myself, what
hunger. You can call that God or you can put whatever face you want to on it and
I don't think Progoff will argue with you. He will say, "Is it helping you to live
well?"
Now, I do think it is valid for us to take whatever resources we have to help
people to live well. So, Progoff is kind of a mystic who believes that there is a huge
cosmic process that has been about, which is evolving. He reminds me somewhat
of the French Catholic thinker, Teilhard de Chardin, whose works, of course, the
Vatican banned, but then the best things that come from Catholics get banned for
a while. But, de Chardin is an original thinker who sees kind of the Omega point
off there and he sees this whole cosmic process evolving toward that point. And
Progoff believes that it is in the likes of us, in our individual spirits, that Spirit
comes to expression, and that Reality enters the world – it emerges, as it were,
out of the depths – through the individual spirit of a person. His concern is that
we enable persons to become, to be the bearers of Spirit and the expression of
Spirit, and that, as Spirit is able to flow through our spirit and come to some
kind of tangible form, Reality actually enlarges itself and the whole process
continues to go on.
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page10
He sees a crisis in the present time because he believes that traditional patterns,
beliefs, doctrines and rituals have lost their grip on people, or people have lost
their grip on traditional symbols and forms. Symbols and forms, be they doctrinal
formulation, sacramental acts, or whatever, can function to put us in touch with
the transpersonal as long as we believe in them. When we don’t believe in them,
they can't do it for us anymore. Now, when you stand in Western Michigan with
all of our churches and with a large Christian community and in a rather
conservative part of the world, it may sound a bit apocalyptic to speak about
secular culture and about people uprooted, cut off from their roots. But, we have
to keep reminding ourselves that this is not all there is, and when he speaks
perhaps with more of a world purview and he speaks out of the context of New
York City and Los Angeles, he probably feels that and senses that more than we
do. Nonetheless, we have to recognize that the world as a whole is not becoming
– now speaking as a Christian and an advocate of the Christian Gospel – the
world as a whole is not becoming more, but is becoming less Christian. We are
becoming a minority. And it is a fact that those traditional patterns and beliefs
and rituals have for large portions of the world population lost their power. But,
the need still remains for that which will put the individual and the larger society
in touch with the transperson, or with God, if you will. And so, the need in our
day is to find the way in which that can happen.
Now, being a depth psychologist, Progoff believes that we will find that truth by
going into the depth dimension, and that God (I'll say God), is perceived, the
knowledge of God is accessible, not through rational formulation, but through
intuitive perception, that it comes not by rational instruction which has been the
hallmark of Reformed tradition, but that it comes through apprehension,
through images, and symbols, that it erupts, that it is not mastered rationally
and discovered.
Now, you know, I have to say, just coming as I have through the season of
Epiphany, I have found myself wrestling with that question week after week.
When you really get some insight, when you really have a "high" experience,
when you really capture something, when there's been a breakthrough for you,
how do you express it? Isn't it, "Suddenly it dawned upon me?" Isn’t it often after
a churning and wrestling and in a moment of insight, and doesn't it often come to
us whole? As I was wrestling with this whole matter of how God reveals God's
self, I was so aware of the fact that it is one thing to say that the light's on; it's
another thing to say, "I see the light." So that we can talk all we want to in
theological and doctrinal terms about the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, about
the light shining and all that, but when Progoff speaks about going into the depth
dimension, I have to say that there is something to the fact that God's unveiling of
God's self will happen within us. It must finally be a subjective apprehension, no
matter how much we may clamor for the fact that it is objective and real. You
know, we often equate objectivity with the real. Oh yes, it's certainly real. But
until I believe it, until it grasps me and I say, "Wow," it has not really come full
cycle.
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page11
And so, Progoff’s point for a community such as ours – this is what he would
think:
In a crisis of a culture that has lost its moorings, whose symbols have
largely become empty symbols, he would say, first of all, the church should
give social support to the person, enabling that person to work on his or
her own inner life. If in our day our young people are being told, "Just say
no," Progoff says to the Church, "Just say yes." When there's someone,
some funny person in the congregation, a little odd, a little strange, doesn't
fit the stereotype, talks about the inner journey, why he says, "Just say
yes." Encourage them. Be a place that encourages people to get on with
that work on the inner life.
He says, secondly, let the Church be the social institution and the culture
where work on the inner life can take place. And I like the word he uses
here: "Let the church be a sanctuary where that can happen." You know,
we really ought to be about that, and we really ought to get on with it. I
think about that every Sunday when I see the large assemblage of people,
and then I realize how superficial is my little touch. When they leave for
the rest of the week, what's happening? Are we as a community creating a
sanctuary where people can do more than come in on Sunday morning and
at worst complete the Sunday obligation, at best get a little Sunday
morning high, and hopefully in it all, worship God?
Thirdly, he says, let the Church provide the means and the program
whereby this can be encouraged. And I guess that bringing a seminar like
this here would be a tangible, concrete means by which to expose and offer
to people ways in which to do that.
He remarks about the fact that youth, many of the younger generation, have
taken over Eastern religions lock, stock and barrel. You know, it's faddish, it's
trendy, and those waves happen. It does indicate, however, a real spiritual hunger
and a search and a quest. And he also says, "Look, our generation cannot really
successfully just go back lock, stock and barrel and pick this thing up. I mean, the
new and the different is fascinating, and we understand all that dynamic, but he
says it's not for them to go back and get ancient Buddhist meditation techniques,
but the challenge to us is to find the ways in which they can be put in touch with
God, with the transpersonal reality, in the garments of the 20th century. Find
the methodology. Find the modes, the means by which this can happen, which I
think is the same kind of thing which I said earlier tonight when I said I felt it was
incumbent upon me to translate the Gospel into today's idiom, because that
needs constant translation so that it always comes to expression in the
conceptuality and the language of the particular context in which it is being
proclaimed. Otherwise, it is simply the reiteration of formulas out of the past and
that's fundamentalism – just the literal reiteration of formulas out of the past is
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page12
fundamentalism. You don't think about that. You just give obeisance to formulas,
slogans, models, and then you're not really in touch.
So, in his book The Dynamics of Hope, Progoff deals at quite some length with
the experience of Tolstoy who went through a period of tremendous anguish in
his life after being very successful. He was on top of the world socially, culturally,
a great literary success, and he came to a time of a sense of the meaninglessness
of it all. And he tells in some detail Tolstoy's experience and he speaks in The
Dynamics of Hope, of the Utopian person, and that is the person who has this
kind of prophetic sense, who is willing to anguish and struggle, but always in
hope, and out of the anguish and the struggle eventuates the new realm of
experience and insight, which is the prelude to another struggle and anguish,
which eventuates in a new breakthrough, because he sees our human experience
as being an ongoing pilgrimage and process and, for creativity to be released,
there is a need for this constant movement between the struggle and anxiety and
always, however, with the hope undergirding it and breaking through to a new
plateau and a new discovery. Let me just read a couple of paragraphs.
"I began to understand,” Tolstoy reports, “that in the answers given by
faith was to be found the deepest source of human wisdom. That I had no
reasonable right to reject them on the ground of reason, and that these
principle answers alone solve the problems of life. I understood them, but
that did not make it any easier for me.” The fact, in other words, that his
reason was now giving assent to an act of faith of some sort, did not bring
such an act of faith any closer. It did not even make it any more possible.
All that this new intellectual realization achieved, in fact, was to intensify
the internal pressure and to build up an even greater tension around the
vacuum of meaning which he felt in himself. How could he find a faith that
he would not merely be in favor of believing? But one that he would
actually be able to feel as a reality? It would be good if he could accept
some structured body of doctrine that had been worked out in generations
past by an established church. That would not be a fact for him. He would
not feel the reality of such a faith. And so, no matter how much he might
try to convince himself rationally that he ought to place his faith there, the
persistent question about the validity of life would not be silenced.
But, he goes on and he struggles and then he tells about the dream that Tolstoy
had and the peace and the resolution that he came to. I'm not going to do more
with that, but this is a very fine introduction to Progoff’s understanding of the
journey of the individual, and it is his conviction that it is necessary for an
individual to feel his life story and to be able to have a sense of continuity
through the various stages and that in the creative unfoldment of a life there
will be those periods of dark and light.
I was thinking about his understanding of the human experience in contrast to,
for example, someone within the Reformed Church. I shouldn't even say that
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page13
because it's not Reformed, but there is this friend of mine who I know rather well
and who probably most of you would know, as well, Bob Schuller and the Hour of
Power. Bob Schuller with his possibility thinking, which was built on Norman
Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking, has done a tremendous amount
for many, many people. He has recognized the importance of self-esteem and he
has brought a positive and hopeful accent, and many people who didn't believe
that they had it in them have found that, after all, they had it in them. My
problem with Schuller is that I feel that sometimes he almost becomes shrill and I
want to say to him sometimes that success isn't always the consequence of
faithfulness or responsibility or effort, and so I always felt that there was
something lacking. There was a depth dimension in the Gospel, if you will, that I
felt never came to expression with Bob Schuller's formulations. I thought to
myself, interestingly, how much closer Progoff is to an understanding of human
personality and the experience of darkness and light, of guilt and forgiveness, of
bondage and freedom. And then, really, not just a once for all thing, although we
believe in a great once for all transformation, but as the ongoing unfoldment of
life, this constant swinging between the poles.
I can understand that in terms of my understanding – my biblical orientation.
Walter Brueggemann in an excellent study of the Psalms speaks about how you
can categorize the Psalms as Psalms of Orientation where creation is good, God's
in his heaven, all's right with the world, everything's ducky; Psalms of
Disorientation, where nothing is right and everything's unraveling; and then
there are Psalms of New Orientation. Brueggemann's point is that life is not
often lived in only orientation or disorientation. Life is generally lived moving
from orientation, disorientation and new orientation, and out of the study of the
Psalms you have that same kind of expression. Our life is a dynamic movement,
and we do move through periods of openness, joy and light; we do move through
valleys and through arid periods and dry periods; and it seems to me that is more
true to human experience as I understand it than in some of the pop psychology
and what I think is kind of a vulgarized psychology taken over by some of the
religious stuff that is on the market.
Finally, in his book The Symbolic and the Real, Progoff has, toward the end of the
book, that which really spoke to me and what turned me on in the first place to
his thinking and his whole approach to things. Let me just read you a couple of
paragraphs here. His point, again – I said this earlier and I'm going to say this
once again – his point is that to be in touch with reality or to be in touch with God
is not the consequence of coming to the end of a well-constructed syllogism. It is
the intuition that comes with the apprehension of symbol and image; it is a
moment of illumination; it's revelation. So he says:
As the symbol unfolds, reality enters the world and becomes present. A
new atmosphere is established, and this is much more than a new climate
of thought. It is reality increasing its presence among humankind by
means of symbolic events that are enacted upon the depth dimension of
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page14
the psyche. In another style of language, this type of event is often
described as a breakthrough of spirit, into human experience. It has,
indeed, all of the traditional attributes of spirit, for it possesses power and
meaning and the healing quality of inward peace. It expresses itself,
however, not in the fixed forms of dogma, but in the living fluidity of
symbolic acts. (p. 214)
And then he speaks about revelation in the Old Testament:
One context in which this new perspective is especially important is our
attitude toward the Bible. In the biblical tradition there has been the view
that when the Old Testament was finished and was certified in its standard
version, that was the end of God's appearance to man. After that, man was
not to expect a breakthrough of spirit in the world. At least not until the
coming of the Messiah. All that was required of people then was that they
keep the formulas and the stories so that they would keep alive the
remembrance of the great moments of contact with the Divine which had
taken place in history and were now restricted to the past. The traditional
understanding was that since the voice of God stopped speaking when the
Old Testament was closed, it would be best if people stopped listening for
the voice of God in the world and concentrated on fulfilling the
commandments.
When the experiences recorded in the New Testament transpired, this
view was reconsidered and was opened anew. Then it was felt that God
had indeed made a new entry into the world. Necessarily so, since He had
needed to make a new covenant between Himself and man. With the
ending of the experiences in the New Testament, however, the same
tendency to restrain the human spirit and enclose it in fixed molds
recurred. Again, it was believed that the spirit of God would no longer
enter the world in a prophetic breakthrough. It would not because it was
no longer felt to be necessary. The Truth had been given. After that it
would be sufficient if people would imitate Christ and concentrate on
entering the dimension of the sacred by repeating the festive formulas
accrued by ecclesiastical authorities. (pp. 222-223)
And then he says,
One of the very greatest and most basic difficulties of Western history is
expressed in this fact that we have drawn from our traditions of belief that
major openings of the Spirit are not possible any longer because they
stopped when the Bible was officially sealed. We need to become capable
of reopening the Bible as a living contact side by side with other styles of
experience and sources of the spirit in the modern psyche. The two
testaments which comprise the Bible are openings. They surely were not
intended to be closings in man’s relation to the infinite. (p. 224)
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page15
I think he's right. I think a great problem with the Church is the fact that, in order
to manage the revelation given, it was historically necessary to close the canon. It
was a historical necessity. But then, to refuse to understand that the Spirit of God
continues to speak was to allow the Church to become rigid and to allow a
conception of orthodoxy. And I must say to you, this is my confession, one that I
close with, that to me the idea of orthodoxy is an arrogant presumption. That's
probably why I'm a heretic.
Now, I think from my perspective, my understanding of things, there's richness
here and that it is a great resource. I will be participating with my own labels,
with the God reflected in the face of Jesus. I will understand this in terms of my
own theological understanding. But I see the possibility of a very fruitful
instrument here which again I think holds great promise for the healing of
persons and, through the healing of persons, the humanization of society, which I
think is what we're all about.
Now, I think I've talked sufficiently long so that you should be sufficiently tired,
so you probably wouldn't even want to raise a question. But, if you would, I would
be happy to take it.
Frank: I agree you're a heretic. I think you're making heretics out of all of us, but
I think I'm beginning to enjoy it. When you sent that first letter about Ira Progoff
I immediately rose up in my traditional background and sent you a letter back
saying you probably were off base, and that we couldn't tolerate this new kind of
thinking. But, I guess it just exemplifies the fact that most of us are completely
uneducated. For forty years I have been studying anatomy and physiology and
biochemistry and medicine, pharmacology, thinking that all of medical science
depended on how much I — I suddenly realize how much an uneducated
nincompoop I am and I sure appreciate your bringing these things into the open
so that we could all learn from them and get carried along with your enthusiasm.
RAR: Well, thank you, Frank. I want to say that the questions, the concerns you
raised were very legitimate concerns. Frank. I was really comforted to find
explicitly Progoff recognizing the dangers of that kind of trendy movement, of the
sensitivity movements and groups, and those things of the 60s or 70s where
people were undressed and then left defenseless, and he definitely set himself
over against that kind of thing. And the legitimacy of his Journal Workshop has
been tested. He's kind of a quiet person; he shuns the idea of guru. Doesn't even
want to be called a sage. He's a very humble pilgrim who is sort of feeling his way
along. But, your concerns were very, very well taken, and I was almost positive
immediately that that's not where he was, but I was happy to find it confirmed,
that he also distanced himself from that kind of thing. So, I appreciate the
concerns you raised.
I read today the Seminary Times of last fall, a book by James Ashbrook, whom I
do not know. He's a seminary professor. He was at Colgate Rochester; he's moved
since then. Making Sense of God. And it is a book entitled Brain and Belief where
© Grand Valley State University
�Introduction to Progoff
Richard A. Rhem
Page16
for a couple decades he has done serious research on the brain, as a theologian,
trying to find the relationship of the function of the brain to spiritual perception.
It is an absolutely fascinating article. And there is a rather serious critique of it, as
well, in which, you know, it's such a pioneering kind of thing that the guy says, "I
don't know how to critique it." But it's just fascinating. In fact, I'm going to give it
to you to take home with you and you can tell me about it when I get back from
vacation. But you know there are such interesting things happening today and
there is an openness today. I think across the board: to structure of reality, to
what we mean when we say God, and I do think that it is an exciting time in
which to be alive. It's a perilous time, too, because people are also falling for all
kinds of... someone accused me of being New Age. Now, I've never read anything
New Age. I don't know what New Age is. But, I know this - that anytime that
there is a genuine breakthrough and movement, there are going to be all kinds of
counterfeits and all kinds of peripheral things going on and there will be faddy,
trendy things. That's true. But, nonetheless, that shouldn't scare us.
Ira Progoff. The Dynamics of Hope: Perspectives of Process in Anxiety and
Creativity, Imagery and Dreams. Dialogue House Library, 1985.
Ira Progoff. The Symbolic and the Real: A New Psychological Approach To The
Fuller Experience of Personal Existence. Peter Smith Publisher, Inc., 1983.
© Grand Valley State University
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Event
Midweek Lecture
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
References
Ira Progoff, The Dynamics of Hope: Perspective of Process in Anxiety & Creativity, Imagery and Dreams, 1985, Ira Progoff, The Symbolic and the Real: A New Psychological Approach to the Fuller Experience of Personal Existence, 1983
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA-3-19890130
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1989-01-30
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Title
A name given to the resource
Introduction to Dr. Ira Progoff
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Description
An account of the resource
Talk created, delivered, or published by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on January 30, 1989 entitled "Introduction to Dr. Ira Progoff", on the occasion of Midweek Lecture, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Tags: Progoff, Transformation, Hope, Spiritual Journey, Symbol, Emergence, Insight, Spirit, Interfaith, Consciousness, Nature of Religion, Community of Faith, Global Community,Revelation, Nature of Religion, Psychology . Scripture references: Ira Progoff, The Dynamics of Hope: Perspective of Process in Anxiety & Creativity, Imagery and Dreams, 1985, Ira Progoff, The Symbolic and the Real: A New Psychological Approach to the Fuller Experience of Personal Existence, 1983.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Community of Faith
Consciousness
Emergence
Global Community
Hope
Insight
Interfaith
Nature of Religion
Progoff
Psychology
Revelation
Spirit
Spiritual Journey
Symbol
Transformation
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/28187beb65add7f4f496ac917450398a.pdf
df2feb784c43547071eaaddac8e65be3
PDF Text
Text
The Secret’s Out
Text: Isaiah 49:6; Ephesians 3:6
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
Epiphany I, January 9, 1994
Transcription of the spoken sermon
"I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the
ends of the earth.” Isaiah 49:6
..
“The Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body... through
the gospel." Ephesians 3:6
If someone says to you, "You Christian people really shouldn't celebrate the
festival of Christmas because it's a pagan festival rooted in ancient paganism,"
you could say, "That's right. We know it," and just blow them off. Well, don't do
that. Be gracious. Be matter-of-fact. On this Epiphany Sunday, or the Sunday
after Epiphany, we do celebrate what once was the pagan Festival of Light.
Originally, the birth of Jesus was celebrated on January 6. There is a long history
that I won't go into this morning, but eventually with Constantine, the emperor in
Rome, and the Roman calendar having the winter solstice at December 25 (that
point at which the sun is farthest from the equator when it stops going away, and
shortening the day when it is coming back and lengthening the day), the ancient
world celebrated the Festival of Light. In order to have the birth of Jesus
celebrated apart from the January 6 date, the ancient church began to celebrate
Christmas on December 25. And then, after the twelve days of Christmas, comes
a celebration of the visit of the magi on the 6th of January.
We have concocted this calendar. It bears no semblance to reality. We don't know
those dates, but in the ancient church and in the liturgical tradition of the church,
what we have done is celebrate what we believe, in a series of festivals. We believe
that "The word became flesh and dwelt among us." Mary had a baby and that
child was visited by shepherds and by those from the East, called wise men or
magi, and on this particular Sunday, the first Sunday after Epiphany, we
remember that the one who was born was the Light of the world. Epiphany. The
word means manifestation, and it is the celebration of revelation. It is the
celebration of the unveiling of God when the light of God shined into human
hearts. Epiphany is the season of revelation. From the visit of the magi, we have
the symbol of the star. And from the star we have the symbol of light.
© Grand Valley State University
�The Secret’s Out
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
We celebrate at this time the fact that the light has come and shined into our
minds and hearts. We become illumined so that we behold the mystery of God that mystery that otherwise would be cut off from us. In Christian theology or
Christian doctrine we talk at the season of Epiphany about revelation because we
do not believe that God is at our disposal. God is not at the end of some human
syllogism in logic or some scientific investigation. God reveals God's self, and
Epiphany from the Greek word meaning manifestation celebrates the fact that
God has not left us in confusion or darkness, but God has made God's self known
to us. That is what we celebrate. Epiphany is about revelation - the sudden
brightness of the landscape of the mind or of a society or culture, when suddenly
someone or people together say, "Oh, I see—Oh, we see."
Colette and her teachers in our Worship Center have used the idea with the
children in the phrase "Epiphany Eyes." Epiphany Eyes are eyes that see through
or see something that was always there but not seen. It is a delight to hear a child
talk about Epiphany Eyes. It is seeing—really seeing that which before was not
seen at all. It is that sudden revelation—light dawns on one. One says, "Oh, I see.
Suddenly, I understand." With Epiphany Eyes, however, we need to be careful
that we don't identify the revelation with the eye, for truth is not in the eye of the
beholder. The Epiphany Eye is the instrument that is gifted by God to illumine, to
give understanding and knowledge. To be illumined by God is to be transformed
by God. Salvation is all about coming to dwell in the light of God's presence and
to experience that presence as reality. So we enter again into that season when we
worship and adore the God who has made the divine reality present to us. Now
we see. The Light has come.
Israel at its best understood that it was called by God, gathered by God to be the
instrument of light to the nations. In the original call to Abraham and Sarah, it
was not a call to the exclusion of the rest; it was a particular call to a particular
people on behalf of the rest. "In you all nations of the earth will be blessed." By
and large, Israel forgot that. By and large, Israel did not live up to being a beacon
light to the nations. But in the Hebrew Scriptures there are those universalistic
notes. I read one of them a moment ago, Isaiah 49, one of the servant poems in
that section of Isaiah's prophecy. The servant is called by God to bring light to the
nations, so God says, "My salvation may be experienced to earth's farthermost
bounds." There was that insight at that point at least in Israel's history through
this prophet or writer that the light of God—the light that had dawned on Israel—
was not to be put under a bushel, but was to be brought as a beacon to the nations
so that all people might celebrate in the light of the God who had created all
things. Most of the time Israel missed the point.
Paul (or Saul as he was called then), for example, narrow minded religious
fanatic—a real classic bigot, was on his way to Damascus to stamp out the
followers of The Way, when the Light dawned upon him and cast him to the
ground. He said, "Ah, I see. What would you have me do?" He became, in his own
understanding of God's calling, an apostle to the Gentiles. Or to translate that
© Grand Valley State University
�The Secret’s Out
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
Greek word equally well (I prefer it) an apostle to the nations, for Gentiles were
simply all of those who weren't Jews. So, Paul understood himself as one called
an apostle, a sent one, to the nations. In this third chapter of Ephesians, which is
a fascinating passage really, Paul begins to say he is going to pray for the people
of Ephesus. But after the first dozen words, he interrupts himself to begin to talk
about this amazing thing. It takes him way down to verse fourteen to get back to
where he started in verse one. In the meantime there is a big parenthesis about
this light that has dawned. Paul, Jew, exclusivistic, an adversary of those who
were other, threatened by Jesus, ready to stamp out those followers, had an
Epiphany experience and become the apostle to the nations. In writing to a
congregation, which he founded, he is still all thrilled about this amazing, mindboggling revelation. He says, "The mystery was made known to me by revelation."
A little farther on he says,
"In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind
that has been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the spirit, that
the Gentiles have become fellow heirs—are the members of the same body,
share in the promise of Christ through the Gospel."
Then he goes on with another paragraph. "The boundless riches of Christ be
made known through me to make everyone see what is the plan and the mystery
hidden for ages in God who created all things." He doesn't talk about God as
redeemer, he talks about God as creator, because he is talking about the first
principle, if you will; he's talking about the ground of all reality. He says, "The
amazing thing that I have discovered is that the creator of the cosmos has shined
light on all humankind." He said, "For generations this mystery was hidden. We
didn't understand it. But now, through me, by revelation of the spirit through
apostles and prophets— now we have a calling to announce to everyone: 'The
Light has come, and that God is the God of all people." That simply amazed Paul.
He was going his own way with intention and deliberateness and he got turned
around in his tracks and came back 180°. The Church has understood that
people, and therefore, the Christian movement has been a missionary movement.
In the historic Christian missionary movement, this has translated as, "The Light
has come and now salvation is available to all people, and if you will repent and
believe and be baptized and become part of the Christian movement, then you
become a Child of the Light. The historic Christian mission in the wake of this
amazing revelation has understood its calling to be Light to the nations, as the
servant in Isaiah's prophecy understood himself to be a Light to the nations - to
bring Good News to the whole world. The Great Commission says, "Go into all
the world and preach this Good News," and we have done it, proclaiming this as a
possibility. We have done the Christian mission in a kind of "if/then" basis: If you
will believe, if you will be baptized, if you will repent, if you will become one of us,
if you will turn around, change your life, then you are a Child of the Light
© Grand Valley State University
�The Secret’s Out
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
I wonder though if there is not another way to understand that revelation to Paul,
that revelation that occurred through Jesus Christ, our Lord. I wonder if, rather
than offering salvation as a possibility, if we might not offer it as a reality, as an
accomplished fact. I wonder if the historic Christian mission had it right, in
understanding that the Light must be proclaimed and shared, bringing people
around into the Christian movement, or if the Christian movement might not
have been that privileged people upon whom the Light dawned who were called
to announce to all people that the Light indeed has come; that the Creator of the
heavens and the earth is the God of all humankind. I wonder if we might not have
gotten farther and made the world a more peaceful place, for we know that our
world is torn apart by partisan, sectarian, religious commitment. We know today,
a couple thousand years after Paul, that religion is perhaps the most dangerous
force afoot in our world. I wonder (Sometimes I think I have had an Epiphany),
rather than saying to all of those out there whose culture and religious
background and training and conditioning prepared them not all to receive that
Light as I have received it. I wonder if I would not do better simply to say to
them, "Relax, the Light has come and it shines on you as well." It seems to me
that that would be another way, legitimately, to understand the early writings of
the New Testament. Paul had to struggle against his own day, against that Jewish
opposition which saw itself as exclusively the people of God. When Paul wanted
to say those people can experience the grace of God without becoming Jews, they
said, "Oh no." Paul said, "Oh yes." Paul said,
"For us it is through Moses, but for them they don't have to come through
Moses. Don't lay on those people all of the structures and forms of our
Judaism. Let them come to God by grace alone."
Paul won the day at that time. I wonder if he were here in the year 1994, looking
at the world situation, seeing the great religions of the world - Islam, Judaism,
Christianity, the Eastern religions -I wonder if Paul might not have another
Epiphany experience. I wonder if he might not say, "Oh, I see, it is bigger than
ever I dreamed. God the creator of the heavens and the earth is the God of all
people, and while for me I see the light of God in the face of Jesus supremely, I
see that God honors the serious and sincere quests of all."
I think that's what the story of the Magi was about. These were Persians. In
tradition we call them "the three kings." They probably were astrologers, priestly
types. They studied the stars. They found the revelation of God in the heavenly
spheres. They saw a star one day. They had a yearning for God. They followed the
star. They were led to Jesus. They brought gifts. Traditionally again, we have
made them the first Christian converts, but as a matter of fact the story doesn't
say a word about that. It says they brought their gifts and went back to their old
country, no doubt rejoicing in the fact that the light of the star had led them to
this significant moment, celebrating the fact that those who truly seek God will
surely find God. Epiphany is about revelation, about suddenly saying, "Oh, I see."
© Grand Valley State University
�The Secret’s Out
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
I received a letter from the Middle East Reformed Fellowship. This is a group that
broadcasts the Gospel into the Middle East. It is a three-page letter that says that
the communist threat is gone. Thank God, for forty years we had that enemy over
against whom we could define ourselves. But this letter in rather frightening
terms describes the new enemy. It is Islam. Now that the Soviet Union is
unraveled, these people are free and they are distributing the Koran, they are
rebuilding their mosques, and there is a revival of Islam. On the board are some
of my colleagues in this appeal. This appeal says send us money so we can
broadcast the Gospel because Islam is the enemy. There is a quote from the Wall
Street Journal, which says the onslaught of the modern world has kept the
Islamic people confused, humiliated, poor and intensely angry. They hate us with
an energy and fury that is beyond reason. This appeal invites me to join the
offensive. If I will send $50 for one year they will send me a bi-monthly report
called "An Intelligence Report." Do you catch the military parlance? There's a
holy war, folks. Christians are being called to holy war against this revival of
Islam. The threat that they speak of is a people who have been humiliated, robbed
of their human dignity, made fools of by the rest of the world, a people who are
furious, full of anger, ready for violence. I understand that. I should think that
they would be.
So, what will I do? Preach the Gospel to them quickly, make them Christians so I
can take away their anger and make the world safe? Or, if it is true that they are
full of anger, if they are furious, if they are humiliated, if they have been robbed of
their dignity, if the Islamic world is ready to rise up, might I not better go and
embrace them, they who worship more devoutly than I do the God of Abraham?
Might I not simply share with them the Light, that together we are children of the
Light, and that the creator of all is the God of us all who would have us all be
together in one human community. I want to tell you, when I read this stuff and
this is the stuff with which I might once have identified, I'll be honest with you,
when I read it I want to say, "How could I have ever believed that?"
It's kind of an Epiphany experience. I see it so differently now. I see that in the
Christmas miracle, God the Word that became flesh dwelt among us - Light came
into the world. The message was that God loves the world, that God is for people,
that God wants people to be in human community, and wherever there is that
hunger and yearning for God there will be a star that will appear, or an angel that
will sing. I want to stand in solidarity with all of my brothers and sisters however
they see the Light, because I know the Light is a Light that shines far more
brightly than my particular view of it. I know that Light transcends my
understanding. I know that Light is the Light of God who is a God who would
have that Light be for all nations.
Epiphany is about the dawning of Light in the darkness of this world—not the
aligning of people in adversarial camps, but the calling of people to a common
worship of the one true God. Ah, friends, the Light has come, the news is so good
it should set our feet to dancing and our tongues to singing. The wonderful thing
© Grand Valley State University
�The Secret’s Out
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
about the Epiphany miracle is that not only was God manifest and the Word
made flesh, but the Light continues to shine in the darkness, in your darkness, in
that moment when there is deep yearning and longing within your soul. The
promise is the Light has dawned and the Light will shine, and grace will touch
your life, for God is with us.
You see, for long ages, Paul said that mystery wasn't known, but now the secret’s
out and it is a better secret than we've yet dared hope for. It is a dream of a God
who holds the whole world in his hand and lifts up the light in his countenance
on all those that lift their eyes in longing for the touch of grace. That's Good.
© Grand Valley State University
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/530f3d103df12d60112ae2f4ebeb5a81.mp3
b7dad45d542d91e7cde34e8f9a3352d8
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Epiphany I
Scripture Text
Isaiah 49:6, Ephesians 3:6
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19940109
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994-01-09
Title
A name given to the resource
The Secret's Out
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on January 9, 1994 entitled "The Secret's Out", on the occasion of Epiphany I, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Isaiah 49:6, Ephesians 3:6.
Epiphany
Grace
Inclusive
Light
Pluralism
Revelation
Transformation
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/69159221b3cd3cec67a7b8de45985d2e.pdf
539637c38aa5582542c1dc0c0e8ba5bf
PDF Text
Text
Who Says God Says?
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
July 25, 1993
Transcription of the spoken sermon
"…never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a
temple of the kingdom." Amos 7:13
"Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." Luke 4:21
Within the last couple of years we have had a guest at Christ Community; his
name is Niko Terlinda. He is a pastor in Amsterdam. He has an exciting ministry
there. He told of his experience of teaching the Bible at the public school.
Strangely enough, with the secularizing of that country that was so deeply imbued
in the Christian tradition, a minister like Terlinda would go to a public school and
tell Bible stories, not in order to evangelize the children, but simply to keep the
knowledge of the Biblical tradition alive. He tells about the day he told the story
of how God spoke to Amos, when a little nine-year-old raised his hand and said,
“Does God still say something?” As Terlinda noted to us, and as we so note this
morning, that really is a critical question. Does God still say something?
When I came out of seminary in 1960, within a year or two a friend of mine was
called to a sister congregation in the area and I was invited to preach the
ordination sermon. I took a text from one of the prophets. I am not sure just
which one. I can't remember the text, but I remember the sermon very, very well,
and I remember the point of the sermon. I said to this person about to assume a
ministry of the Word of God that, in the case of Jeremiah, the biblical prophet,
Jeremiah could say, “Thus saith the Lord.” But I said to my friend on the
threshold of being ordained into the ministry of the Word, “You can't say that.
What you must say is, ‘Thus hath the Lord said.’” Do you get the difference?
At that time, in the days of my youth, and days of my insecurity and
defensiveness, which I didn't really understand, I wanted every word that God
had ever spoken to be in this book. I wanted to have between the covers of this
book every revealed word, and it would be then from that mind that I would have
the Word, it would be given here, I could manage it, and I could proclaim it. I said
to my friend, “The biblical prophet said, ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ but you will be able
to say only, ‘Thus hath the Lord said.’” I was dead wrong. Somebody should have
come up and taken me by the ear and brought me home. Someone should have
© Grand Valley State University
�Who Says God Says?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
said to me, “Do you know what you have just done to this young minister? You
have absolutely shackled him. You have ruled out the possibility that God still
speaks. You have ruled out the possibility that there could still be today the
immediacy of God's address of God's people through the proclaimed word.”
Or in answer to the question of the little nine-year-old – "Does God still say
something?”– what I was saying in that message was, "No. God has spoken. God
speaks no more!" We have now to proclaim what once came to expression, but
there was always that indirectness, this truth at second hand. That was safe, and
it was manageable. But it was absolutely wrong. I don't know how long it took me
to figure that out. Thank God I realized at some point that God still speaks. While
this Word is a record of that encounter of God with God's people in the past, and
it becomes still the instrument through which God addresses God's people in the
present, it is the address of God's people in the present about which we are
concerned. We would hear the Word of God now, here and now, addressed to our
lives and our situation. But the moment one would make that claim someone is
going to say, "Who Says God Says?"
I suppose that could be your question. As I preach, you are responsible people,
thinking people, serious people. Sometimes I suppose the question must arise
over against what I am proclaiming: "Who Says God Says?" You know really the
idea of preaching, the conception of preaching in the Reformed tradition, is a
presumptuous idea. Calvin and Luther said that the proclaimed word becomes
the Word of God. In our tradition there is the Word of God written, the Word of
God in flesh, but also the preached Word. That is why the Word has been so
central. The proclaimed Word, the Word of God – that almost smacks of
arrogance to me. This Word, the Word of God – did you ever say, "Who Said God
Says?" Do you ever challenge that preached word? I suspect you do. I hope you
do. I think you ought to, because, as a matter of fact, I stand in the tradition of
Amos, and for that matter of Jesus.
Amos was a farmer, but he got a call one day and he went to the Northern
Kingdom of Israel and to the very royal court itself, and he proclaimed the word
of judgment against that Northern Kingdom and against Jeroboam the king to
the point at which the royal priest – (because every court also had its cadre of
priests because every wise political leader will do his or her best to co-opt the
Church, the messenger of God, so that there can be the union of throne and altar)
– Uzziah, the court priest, came out to this prickly prophet and said, “Go back
home. Earn your bread in Judah, but don't preach here any more.” Well, Amos
said, “Don't call me a professional prophet who earns his bread preaching. I'm
just a farmer. God took me, called me, and sent me to preach.”
But the dilemma. Amos, a man of passion and conviction. Without that no one
listens. Nothing happens. But Uzziah, he had his ordination too. He was a priest.
Maybe he was in it just for the prestige and the pay, or maybe he was a serious
priest of the God of Israel. I don't know, but I know he had a task to do too. As
© Grand Valley State University
�Who Says God Says?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
one who presided at the royal court, he encounters a prophet. This is not the only
instance of that conflict in Israel's history where the prophetic word was
expressed and the royal response countered it, and I suppose a case could be
made for Uzziah. Israel was at the height of its prosperity and who likes to have a
dour word, a negative word of judgment and critique spoken in the halls of power
where they are trying to keep everything moving positively. Jesus - if you had
been in Nazareth that day and Jesus whom you saw grow up went to the pulpit
and then came to the stool and sat down and said, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon
me. God has anointed me to… and to say this word has been fulfilled in your
presence.” What would you have thought? You see, it’s not so difficult to look
back on Israel's history in the 8th century BCE and to analyze the conflict between
Amos and Uzziah and say obviously Amos had a word from God (and as a matter
of fact, that word did eventuate).
It’s not so difficult for us who are the followers of Jesus to say the people in Jesus'
home synagogue in Nazareth were absolutely wrong. Not that they didn't
understand; the problem is they didn't like what they understood. So, if you don't
like the message, you kill the messenger. But, it wasn't so easy. They didn't really
have any basis on which to judge this one except he'd grown up in the corner
carpenter shop and they had heard some rumors about what he was doing in
Capernaum and neighboring areas. Some of the things he was doing were
unsettling. Then he has the audacity to sit in their midst in the synagogue and to
say, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me. I am anointed to preach.” Would you
have been ready to hear that word, which would have involved the tumbling of
the propositions of one's system of understanding? Or might you have gone to the
parlor and had brunch and said, “I don't know. ‘Who Says God Says?’”
Who Says God Says? That's not so easy, is it? That's not so easy for you because
you have to live with me. You know all the foibles and flaws of this preacher.
Then for twenty minutes on a given Sunday I sit on this stool and I say, “Thus
saith the Lord.” Well, you're not just subservient puppets that you should just sit
there and take it. Discern, test the spirits. But it's not so easy for me either. How
do I know? I know this. With the little bit I do know I begin to know how little I
know. Then I am supposed to say to you, God's people, “Thus saith the Lord.”
That's scary business. That's why I get a headache on Saturday. (Laughter) A
headache before and then one on Sunday afternoon after. Someone said to me
this week, “If I had your job I'd have a headache too.”
Who Says God Says? How in the world do we know? If there isn't passion and
conviction on the part of the messenger, the message will not be heeded. But if
there is a kind of absolutism and dogmatism, and authoritarianism in the
message, the message very naturally is going to be resisted, and rightly so. Who
Says God Says? It isn't simple. And I am not going to turn now to the typical
preacher’s trick of giving you six easy ways by which to know. My point is: It is
not that easy. It is not that simple.
© Grand Valley State University
�Who Says God Says?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
I did talk to a friend of mine yesterday who gave me some help in order that I
could say something that maybe you could go out of here thinking about. He was
recently in England and Scotland and Ireland, and on the trip back from Ireland
to England they came into the harbor of Holy Head in Wales. It reminded him of
a story of an old preacher who had come into Holy Head Harbor in the dead of
night and the darkness was so thick that you could cut it with a knife. This
preacher said to the captain, “How in the world do you know that you are going to
sail into the harbor?” The captain said to him, “Do you see those three lights on
the horizon?” He said, “Yes.” He said, “When those three lights line up as one you
will sail into the middle of Holy Head Harbor.”
If we apply this, we could say on one hand there is that light of the tradition. We
are a people who have been shaped. We have come from a womb that has shaped
us and has implanted deeply within us, woven into the fabric of our being, certain
perceptions, a certain frame of reference, a sense of being. We do not disparage
that rock from which we have been hewn. We have a tradition. We are the
recipients of a great heritage, and that tradition has been written of, spoken of as
scriptures, and we have two thousand years of church history. We are Christians.
We are part of the God of Israel. Going back to the creation, we are a people who
believe in that one who created all things and who was revealed in the face of
Jesus Christ. We come out of a community that has spoken, that has affirmed
some things. So we do have some guidelines. We don't start out from square one,
with a blank slate as it were. But that one light isn't enough because it can then
simply be an external rule to which one would assent mentally but without
inward conviction. That inward conviction must also be there. How does that
inward conviction develop? What do you really believe? What do you really
believe? What would make you stand on your feet and be counted? What would
fill you with rage causing you to move into action? What would break your heart
and cause compassion to flow? What do you really believe?
I speak of my concrete truth. It’s one thing for me to say I am a part of this grand
tradition. It’s another thing for me to say, “This I believe. This I will die for. This I
will live for.” How does that come? Out of our experience? I suppose. Out of the
ongoing communion of the Spirit? God is not done speaking. God says something
still. Jesus said, “The Spirit will lead you into all truth.” Calvin said, “The internal
testimony of the Holy Spirit must confirm what the word or the tradition says to
us.” Somehow or other those things come together until finally I can take my
stand. I can say, “I believe.” So that is a second light.
Then, of course, the tradition has not issued to us in our present experience in a
vacuum. We live in a cultural context in a specific historical setting. As we said
last week, it’s a fascinating time in which to be alive – the knowledge that is
exploding all around us, the fantastic knowledge of the physical universe, of the
human person, of the movement of history, all of this that becomes accessible to
us so that in our own experience tried and true physical theories like that of
Newton are blown sky high. And instead we have quantum physics. We live in a
© Grand Valley State University
�Who Says God Says?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
cultural context that is alive with all kinds of knowledge that give us new insight.
So I have to take that which shaped me and that tradition in which I was
nurtured, and my experience…my experience of grace…of God…of my human
experience. Then I have to understand myself in this present time, this ongoing
human drama…my time. So our specific time, context, the influence of our
culture is a third light. But it is still not simple.
The Church historically has majored in absolutes. Some of the greatest problems
in the Church are the preachers who want to make it clear and simple, and who
need to be right. But there’s a problem in the pew also. The people would like to
have it simple and clear and tight. It isn’t simple and clear. It is complex, full of
ambiguity, and we cannot know. We cannot know absolutely. To know absolutely
is to deny the nature of our historical existence. And I don’t think the Church over
the centuries has done a favor to people to try to give that kind of security that
will remove all uneasiness and ambiguity from the human situation. In the
ongoing movement of the human drama we need to be open and alive and alert
and humble, and trusting that the Spirit of God will lead us into all truth, and that
underneath are everlasting arms and that God will move and that God's purposes
will be in ways beyond our wildest dreams. But the secret of that is not knowing,
but trusting. To be able to live with questions, all the time trusting the eternal
God who is the foundation, the God who holds the world in God's hand knowing
that there are yet more wonders to behold and dreams to dream and insights to
gain than have ever entered into the human heart. “We walk,” said Paul, “not by
knowledge but by faith.” For he said, “It has not entered into the heart of man to
dream the things that God has prepared for those that love God.” When we walk
by faith, when we trust God, then we can be open to the continuing surprises of
grace and the “aha!”
The Church still today, maybe today more than ever, is making all kinds of
absolute statements. In order to increase summer attendance we decided to add a
Sunday supplement to the bulletin. You've now got a comic strip. I would have
mentioned it earlier, but I didn't want to lose your attention. (Laughter) The little
comic strip on the last page would be funny if it weren't true. People like me have
stood before people like you and have said, “It is abundantly clear that...” and it’s
not. And you don't need to have it so clear, and so neat, all tied up in a little
package. One thing you need: to trust God. Trust God. People like me have
pandered to people like you, succumbed to the seduction of trying to be the font
of all knowledge and wisdom. Giving you answers where there were really only
questions, when what we should have been saying to you was, “On the one hand,
on the other, but nevertheless.” The foundation is solid. God is God, and you can
trust that!
Well sometime I'll be preaching along and I expect one of you will stand up in the
pew and say, “Who Says God Says?” And I'll say, “Time out. You're right,”
because dear friends I believe with all my heart and I preach with all the passion
of my soul, and I know some things. The thing I know more than all is that I don't
© Grand Valley State University
�Who Says God Says?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
know very much when it comes to the real mysteries of life. But I know God will
take care of you…come what may.
© Grand Valley State University
�
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2077f9fdcde92369a03cf483dbfd88aa.mp3
024595722119c65af3db000409e4d3bc
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Pentecost VIII
Scripture Text
Amos 7:13, Luke 4:21
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19930725
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-07-25
Title
A name given to the resource
Who Says God Says?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on July 25, 1993 entitled "Who Says God Says?", on the occasion of Pentecost VIII, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Amos 7:13, Luke 4:21.
Prophecy
Revelation
Trust
Word of God
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/87cdb0ced4a3d16f007d53c3636f2be1.mp3
90957c6f29184b8a51818ef031c77f7b
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/2607c859a56f899d2d90cf4b3340027e.pdf
81ecea92cae914c9386c8b847ed03491
PDF Text
Text
Do You Really Think He Is Going To Come?
Acts 3:11-21; Revelation 22:8-12
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
Advent I, November 29, 1992
Transcription of the spoken sermon
Advent is a season in which we celebrate within the Church the one who came,
the one who comes, and the one who will come. Advent means coming, to
approach for a visitation. Israel was that nation of people who throughout their
history looked for one who would come, who would be anointed with the Spirit of
God. The Hebrew word Messiah means “the anointed one.” The Messiah was the
one that Israel hoped for, prayed for, and longed for in order that God’s will
might be done on earth as in heaven. The anointed one, the Messiah, the longedfor one was anticipated every time a priest was anointed with oil or a king was
enthroned and anointed again with oil, for the oil, the sign of the Spirit, was a
sign of God’s empowering through the Spirit. Every priest and every king was a
sign pointing to that one who one day would come supremely, full of the Spirit of
God, and would bring justice and peace and Shalom.
The Christian Church believes that the awaited one indeed did come, and that
one was Jesus of Nazareth. Sometimes we speak of Jesus Christ as though it is a
first and last name, but that is not correct. Christ is a title. Jesus of Nazareth was
believed in the Church to be the Christ, the anointed one, the Messiah, the one
long looked for by Israel, the one who would bring the will of God into effect on
earth. In the Christian Church, the expectation that this Jesus of Nazareth was
the one grew in various ways among his disciples and his followers. And then he
was crucified. Those who had hoped despaired, for they said, “We thought that
Jesus might be the one! But a crucified Messiah? No way!” But when Jesus was
raised from the dead and he appeared to them, they rejoiced. They also began to
see that the fulfillment of God’s plan and purpose came in a way quite other than
they had expected. It was a new and surprising way, but they believed that this
Jesus who was crucified, resurrected and in the presence of God was the reigning
Lord whom they expected imminently.
I read from the Book of Acts this morning because it reflects one of the very
earliest conceptions of these events that would mark the end. Peter, who had
presented Jesus as the one who was crucified and raised by God, says to those
who were listening, “Repent.” That is, change your mind. Turn around. Repent
and understand that this one whom you crucified was God’s servant, indeed the
© Grand Valley State University
�Do You Really Think He is Going to Come? Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
Messiah. He says, “Repent. Turn to God that your sins may be wiped out, so that
the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may
send the Messiah appointed, that is, Jesus.”
Now when you think about that for a moment, it is rather interesting. “Repent
that the seasons of refreshing may come. That he may send the Messiah.” Well,
didn’t they believe that Jesus was the Messiah who had already come? Yes. But it
would seem as though in this conception, at least in those early days when
everything was fuzzy, they were saying Jesus was the Messiah, but that he was in
the presence of God now, as though heaven is keeping him until you repent and
turn, and the seasons of refreshing come and there is the universal restoration.
Then God will send the Messiah appointed to you again, that is, Jesus.
Now that conception of things did not prevail in the New Testament Church, but
it was one of the earliest understandings—Jesus of Nazareth, Messiah, in heaven
for a while but soon to return. The expectation of the return was obviously very
vivid and the return was to be imminent. At the end of the Revelation to John,
the revelation of the ascended Lord, the Book of Revelation, Chapter 22, we have
these words of the ascended Lord who gives the vision to John. He says, “Behold I
am coming soon.”
How soon is soon? What do you think? What would be soon? He says at the tail
end of the first century, “I am coming soon.” What do we give him? Six months?
Or would you give him a year? Ah, somebody over here says, “I’ll give him two
years.” How soon is soon? What do you think? How about two thousand years?
That’s not soon. That’s not soon according to any kind of soon I’ve ever
understood. And yet for two thousand years there have been preachers taking this
text and saying, “Go outside and watch the sky because it may be today.”
If we had more time this morning I’d sing for you a chorus of “Jesus Is Coming
Again.” I am really tempted to do it, but I won’t. “Jesus Is Coming Again,” and
you can flip your dial anywhere you want to on the radio today and you’ll hear
preachers all over the country saying, “Repent, because Jesus is coming and it
may be today.” How long can you hold your breath? How far can you stretch this
thing out and still talk about Jesus coming soon? Do you think he is coming? Do
you think he is coming soon?
I don’t think you do. In all honesty, I don’t think you do. I think after two
thousand years, anybody that expects Jesus to appear on earth soon and establish
a kingdom is simply going along with a traditional conception of things that has
had a strong hold on the Christian Church. But I don’t think we really believe it.
That raises a question for me. Was perhaps what the New Testament Church
understood about Jesus true, but cast in a form that really could not carry the
freight for us into modern or postmodern times? This is the way I have come to
understand it, the way I have found most helpful in trying to translate all of the
© Grand Valley State University
�Do You Really Think He is Going to Come? Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
imagery of the second coming, the end events, and the rapture (or is it the
rupture), the great white throne, the final judgment, heaven and hell and all of
that–the end events. The way that I have come to translate that for myself is in
the same way that I have come to translate the opening chapters of Genesis.
Somehow or other, in the stories of the beginning we have been able to accept the
symbolic presentation of profound truth, moving away from the literal
understanding. But at the other end, we’ve never been able to shed the literal
translations of those images and understand them symbolically.
Think about the beginning. You don’t really think there was a garden called Eden,
do you? You don’t really think there was a Mr. Adam or a Mrs. Eve. Do you
believe there was a snake, a tree, an apple? Well, with Adam and Eve, of course,
there was a pair. And they do say of Eve that she was a peach, but not an apple
with a worm! Not a snake, a talking snake! Yet the story’s message was full of
truth. It was the Hebrew understanding of what was going on in their own time
and in their own existence. What they said essentially was, “Everything that is, is,
because God said, ‘Let there be.’” God said, “Let there be.” And “It is very good.”
Well, then they said, “If it was created very good, why it is so bad? How come
everything is so rotten?” And they said, “It’s not God’s fault. It is our fault,
because we, who were created to worship and adore and serve, usurped God’s
place in proud rebellion and self-assertion. We wanted to be God. And so it was
we who made hell on earth.”
That’s what those chapters tell us. And what they tell us is profoundly true of our
existential experience of the human situation where we are drawn to heaven and
mired in earth, caught in the tension of worshiping and rebelling, wanting to be
God and yet wanting to be God’s. In those symbolic representations of garden
and tree and snake and apple, all of the most profound truth of the cosmos of
God, of the human situation, comes to the fore.
It has been a long time since I’ve been able to negotiate all of that and come to a
deeper understanding of biblical truth. Yet it is only recently that I dealt with the
other end of it in Revelation in the same way. All of those images of the golden
city, the streets of gold, the tree for the healing of the nations–all of those images
picked up from the Old Testament really tell us that paradise was lost. But in the
End, paradise will be regained. The garden out of which we were driven becomes
the city into which we are invited. Essentially the Bible says that God, who in the
beginning had good plans for us, will consummate those plans ultimately in the
end. What the Biblical message is trying to say in those allusions to Jesus
crucified, risen, ascended, reigning, and returning may have meant to intimate a
pouring out of his Spirit, the Spirit of God for us, the community which is the
body of Christ.
Jesus did say, according to John’s Gospel, “I will not leave you comfortless. I will
come to you.” Pentecost was the coming of the risen one. The Spirit of God, or the
© Grand Valley State University
�Do You Really Think He is Going to Come? Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
Spirit of Jesus, is with us forming the community. The community is the body of
Christ, which is to live out the life according to the example of Jesus of Nazareth.
Jesus was the anointed one. Jesus was full of the Spirit. And Jesus lived a life
according to the intention of God. Those who follow Jesus are those who form
concretely the community of God’s people where God reigns, where there is
righteousness and justice and mercy and peace, where love abounds. Those end
references are simply the only way we can talk about these kinds of things, by
which we bear witness to our conviction that it’s not all going to come to naught,
but that ultimately God’s way will prevail. God’s purposes will be realized and we
will be gathered into the eternal brightness of God’s presence with all God’s
people.
All of the imagery and symbolism of the New Testament is simply a testimony to
the conviction of the early Church that God had acted decisively in Jesus and the
end was no more in question. It is something like a chess game, to which I get
subjected every once in a while by my grandson Derek on Sunday afternoon when
I am tired and brain dead. The mistake I made was to let my son Joseph, when he
was a little boy, teach me to play chess . . . a little bit. Now I’m humiliated week
after week by my grandson.
But two weeks ago I was doing quite well. I actually had more off the board than
he did, and I thought I might have a chance of licking him until that fateful move
when I unthinkingly did the wrong thing, and I knew it. I thought, the good news
is I am going to be able to take my nap! It was over. So I just put my king out
there where he could get me. He said, “Oh, no, Bumpa. No, no, no. There’s
another move you can make.”
So I made the move, and he had to make another move, and I could make
another move. But it was all over. All he was doing was dancing me all over the
board until finally he got me into the corner where there was no more wiggle
room. “Checkmate!”
In the early Church, in God’s chess match with all that was opposed to God, what
happened in Jesus was that decisive move. There is no possibility that God will
not be all in all. But there is still a little wiggle room. As people of God, we believe
in that already, of the presence of the kingdom, a kingdom not yet in its fullest
expression. In the meantime God is with us.
Do you want me to tell you three things that sum up everything that I could
possibly suggest you believe and bet your life on? They are these: God in the
beginning, God in the end, and God in the meantime. In the beginning all that is,
is because God said, “Let there be.” In the end, God will be all in all. And in the
meantime, Immanuel, God is with us in the flesh of Jesus who came to us and
continues in the ongoing community of God’s people in the bread and in the cup,
tokens of a presence with us now.
© Grand Valley State University
�Do You Really Think He is Going to Come? Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
Where is history going? I don’t really know. What will happen to planet earth? I
haven’t got a clue. I simply know that for myself and those I have loved and lost,
and for my children and my children’s children—in the beginning, God. In the
end, God. And in the meantime, God in tokens of bread and cup, and word, and
in the flesh of the community—in the other that one loves and in whose face one
sees God. That’s enough.
I will sing, “He is coming, He will come again,” and by that I mean poetically in
song, liturgically in worship, that I adore the God who has called us into being
and has come to us and will finally fulfill every promise when we are gathered
eternally in the brightness of God’s presence. Thank God.
Do you really think God is going to come? No, you don’t. But don’t you know that
God is with you and that you could never move beyond the grip of God’s grace?
Of course, you do. And that’s enough. That’s all you need. That’s true!
© Grand Valley State University
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Advent I
Scripture Text
Acts 3: 11-21, Revelation 22:8-12
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19921129
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1992-11-29
Title
A name given to the resource
Do You Really Think He Is Going To Come?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on November 29, 1992 entitled "Do You Really Think He Is Going To Come?", on the occasion of Advent I, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Acts 3: 11-21, Revelation 22:8-12.
Advent
Community of Faith
Grace
Revelation
Spirit of God
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/d85789e244e1d853d811bba7a338c644.mp3
088316d95909dd822e525487a1c985db
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/be79f3944321cbedd9552dc892819a98.pdf
1bea416d9e4f826ed30a177be1f8b9df
PDF Text
Text
God, For Whom Humankind is Groping
Text: Acts 17:22-23
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
Epiphany III, January 22, 1989
Transcription of the spoken sermon
Men of Athens, I see that in everything that concerns religion you are
uncommonly scrupulous. ... What you worship but do not know - this is what I
now proclaim. Acts 17:22-23
The season is Epiphany, the word is manifestation, the light has dawned. Jesus
said, “I am the Light of the world.” We've just celebrated that the word became
flesh and dwelt among us, and John says, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of
the only begotten Son of God, full of grace and truth.” Jesus in human flesh. We
look into the face of Jesus and we see into the heart of God, and the great truth of
the season of Epiphany is the fact that the Light has come. The Light has dawned
in our world of darkness; the Light is shining, and the darkness will never
overcome it.
Epiphany, a season of manifestation, and the good news is that, in the face of
Jesus Christ, we have an insight into the very heart of God. That wonderful truth
which we celebrate annually is celebrated in this season as a truth that is to be
shared with the nations, for the Gospel of Jesus Christ that begins with the
Incarnation of the Word concludes with the Resurrection and the Great
Commission which says to the Church, “Go into all the world, to all nations,
preaching the Gospel, telling the story of Jesus.” And Jesus said, “Lo, I am with
you always, even to the end of the age.”
So, the Christian faith has always been a missionary faith. It has always been a
people with a mission. It has always been the calling of the Church to share the
good news because the Church believed that in Jesus Christ, in that particular
and localized revelation of God, there was the manifestation of a worldwide
mission and a universal purpose. In that little, narrow line of Israel's history, and
in that event that is centered in Jesus, the Church always understood that what
God was about was not simply Israel, and not simply events of that localized
community gathered around Jesus, but what God was doing in Israel and in
Jesus was something that had the world in mind, that the purpose of God was to
bring Light to the nations. So, we have that particular story with its universal
© Grand Valley State University
�God, for Whom Humankind is Groping
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
impact and Epiphany is the season in which we celebrate the fact that Light has
come into the world, and we hear that call to be Light to the nations.
The whole New Testament is really the response of that early Christian
community to its conviction that, in Jesus, the one True God, the Creator of the
whole of Reality, had become clearly focused. Paul is converted, and Paul
becomes the great Apostle to the Gentiles. The major bulk of the New Testament
is simply the story of how Paul took this message of Jesus and the Resurrection
and began to go to the world. In his heart there was a yearning to reach earth's
farthest bounds. He wrote letters to the congregations that he founded,
constituting a large portion of the New Testament, which is the story of the
expansion of this Christian movement flowing out of the wake of the Resurrection
of Jesus Christ from the dead.
So, we stand in that great tradition that has found, in the face of Jesus, the heart
of God, the good news that is to be trumpeted to all people everywhere. Today we
find Paul in Athens. Now, if that isn't spectacular! Athens! I've been to Athens.
It's still impressive. The very ruins of Athens speak of another age and another
day. There are few places on earth that can compare with Athens. Maybe Rome,
eventually, and certainly we would say Jerusalem. But, when you say Jerusalem
and Rome and Athens, you've said about all there is to say about Western
civilization. I am parochial in that I don't know much about the great Eastern
civilizations, but I know that Athens was that place where in 500 B.C., in the
Golden Age of Athens, there were philosophic discussions which still today are as
relevant and meaningful as they were then. Someone has said that all of Western
philosophy is but a series of footnotes to the dialogues of Socrates and the
writings of Plato and Aristotle. It was an amazing phenomenon. And there's Paul
in Athens, at the Areopagus, at the very center where the Council met and ruled
the city. There's Paul, 500 years after the Golden Age of Pericles, Plato and
Socrates but, nonetheless, Athens was still the place where they loved to discuss,
to dialogue, to debate.
You don't get a very positive picture from Paul in his account in the 17th chapter
of Acts. With all of the magnificence of the temples and statues and the artwork,
I'm disappointed with Paul, frankly. He looked at it all and got disgusted. I just
wish he could have said, “Wow.” But, he was so fanatically concentrated on Jesus
that he came to that city and he saw it all and he saw it as a manifestation of a
human hunger for God, totally covered with darkness. And so, he went to the
marketplace and up and down the streets and in the synagogue where a few Jews
were gathered, and to everybody to whom he spoke, he spoke of Jesus. Finally
they said, well, why don't you come right up to the Areopagus itself and we'll hear
you out. Athens was always open, looking for a new idea. What a moment. What a
moment. What an audacious person this Paul was! He is at the very center of
civilization, of culture, of education, of enlightenment, and he's not intimidated!
He's not even impressed. He's got something to tell Athens that Athens never
dreamed of.
© Grand Valley State University
�God, for Whom Humankind is Groping
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
He begins to preach. Thank God he was sensitive in relating positively to his
audience. He commended them. He said, “I see that in things religious you are
uncommonly scrupulous. You folks are serious. Everywhere I see the
manifestations of a religious quest or hunger.” Good preacher that he was, he had
in his introduction something to hook them from which to move on into his
message. He said, “I saw a statue with an inscription to the unknown God.” The
Athenians were uncommonly scrupulous. Just in case there was a god they might
have missed, so that he wouldn't be miffed, they raised a statue to the unknown
god. Paul says (now, this is audacity), “This unknown god whom you worship, I
proclaim!” Wow! Now, there's confidence, there's courage, there's certitude. Do
you get the picture? This is Athens, folks. This is the Areopagus; this is the center
of enlightenment, and here is this Apostle of Jesus daring to stand there and to
say what you are searching for and don't know I proclaim.
He went on to say he was talking about the One true God Who created the
heavens and the earth, the One true God Who couldn't be visualized by
something created with human hands, by human imagination; the God to Whom
we can give nothing, but Who is the giver of all things; the God Who breathes life
into all life, the source of all reality. This God, Paul says, “In whom we live and
move and have our being,” quoting some stoic philosophical thought, “I
proclaim.” Quoting one of their own poets, “We are God's offspring,” he preaches
the God of Jesus. This God Who is the Fountainhead of all Reality, this God I
proclaim to you. This God, Who is responsible for all that is and all life, this God
has now at this critical moment in human history and in the whole cosmic drama,
revealed Himself in the face of Jesus, and this God will now call all peoples to
account. The time of ignorance, the times gone by, God in His forbearance, has
overlooked, but He calls all people now to repent, that is, to change their mind
and change their thinking, to open up to the truth. And He has demonstrated the
certainty of it by raising Jesus from the dead. Paul, starting with the statue to the
unknown god, moving to the Creator of the heavens and earth, ends up preaching
Jesus and the Resurrection.
There was quite a stir. There were those that mocked and laughed, but some
believed. There was a little Christian community that was founded in Athens.
Paul, convinced that the one true and Eternal God had now shown the light of the
revelation of Himself in the face of Jesus, dared to go right into the lion’s den and
proclaim Jesus and the Resurrection. That's really something. It is really a
dramatic moment. I stand in awe of Paul. I would feel my own knees knocking.
But, he did it, and what he did is still our calling to do, because it is our
conviction that the Creator God has given life and light to the world in Jesus
Christ, and this good news needs to be shared with people who are thrashing
about in all sorts of human bondage, darkness, superstition, fear, and guilt.
There is good news to tell; the Light has come. Jesus reflects the very heart of
God, and God is good and God is full of grace, and God has a purpose to redeem
the world. That's why the Church has always been a missionary enterprise,
© Grand Valley State University
�God, for Whom Humankind is Groping
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
because there is this marvelous message to proclaim. And God knows in our day,
too, this message needs to be proclaimed. Our day of enlightenment, our day of
advanced scientific understanding and amazing technological breakthrough is
still searching for this word.
The moon was out last night, and it shone in all of its brightness. The lake was
absolutely silver, awash with light, the waves dancing in the moonlight. I looked
out of my window and I saw that big silver thing hanging there and it looked like I
could almost touch it. I thought, you know, had I been a part of NASA, I would
have planted my rocket on my bluff and then shot straight for it. How did they
figure out that you can't just go right to the moon? It blows my mind. I'm out of
my realm. It seems like you could just keep steering your rocket right toward that
moon, but I guess it doesn't work that way. This amazing, wonderful, fantastic
world. This age of which we are a part has put a person on the moon. This world
still needs to know about the God revealed in Jesus.
I have made a great discovery that occasionally to the seminary, even to the
seminary, comes a brilliant mind. I had one manifest himself to me, one of my
students whose sermon I will now cite. Preaching on this text, he said,
You may be saying right now, “What does this have to do with Acts 17:1628?” Well, to be honest, it has everything to do with how we read and
understand, and then eventually proclaim, the message of the gospel. We
still operate in a Newtonian world, an ordered world. But our children will
grow up in a Quantum universe, where the underlying principle of reality
is that of randomness and uncertainty.
These principles are not wild, unproven theories. Breakthroughs in
Quantum Physics have led to the development of semi-conductors for your
computer, satellites for your cable system, and of course, the worldwide
nuclear arsenal. What Acts 17:16-28 has to do with this is that Paul's
speech places our view of God where it should be. We are not Stoics, or
Epicureans, but modern Quantum theorists. Our worldview must be
placed within the context of Acts 17. Paul speaks to us now as clearly as he
did to the Athenians of the first century. God must be present in our lives
as a firm reality amidst the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, the
observer-determined reality, and a world teetering on the edge of
destruction.
Our physics has opened up our minds to the awesomeness of creation. In
our theories we can either see a Cosmic Christ, or a cosmic emptiness. Paul
says to the Areopagus, 'God ... is not served by human hands.' God is the
bedrock of our existence. To Bertram Russell and countless other modern
intellectuals, the universe only reveals an UNKNOWN GOD. The secular
physicists search for God in their theories, hoping to find Him conforming
to their preconceived ideas. The Athenians, likewise, sought after God, but
in their endless philosophical debates. We, as modern Athenians, must see
© Grand Valley State University
�God, for Whom Humankind is Groping
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
God, not as some vague force, but as the fountainhead of all creation, the
necessary being, the one independent being in all of the cosmos. We must,
therefore, listen to Paul's words, not pretending to be first century
Athenians, but remembering that we are twentieth century Quantums....’”
And then he rewrites the text of the morning; he imagines a great seminar
somewhere in some Hilton Hotel with sauna and indoor pool and all, a gathering
of the world's greatest scientists and physicists, and he imagines old Paul coming
on center stage and these are Paul's words to such a twentieth century gathering:
“'Men of science, I perceive that in every way you are very important, very
scientific. For I observed the objects you worship. I saw a telescope, a
particle beam accelerator, a copy of your scriptures, The Scientific
American. I also found a monument to the future and its potential
achievements; it was made of the finest marble and I stood in awe of it.'
The little man coughed and continued, 'Gentlemen and ladies, I will tell
you the future. I will tell you what you seek for, what you hope to find. For,
in this scripture I read of a theory called TOE, or the Theory of Everything.
In it you state that God will be discovered as the source of this TOE. But I
will proclaim to you that this God is here, today, among you. This God
made the world and everything in it, and He needs none of you to explain
or to discover Him. He made the world and set the courses of history in
order that people like yourselves should yearn to seek after Him. You do
seek after Him, but I will end your search. For we are His offspring, and
we must realize that He is not like our theories or our art, but is Spirit. He
is everywhere, but He is also here. His name is Jesus Christ.'
At once there was a loud commotion, scientists were all grumbling at once
and shifting in their chairs. They were saying that God was dead, and that
Jesus was proved to be a hoax in the last AMA Journal, etc. Finally, the
chairperson called for order and forced the man off the stage. They jeered
and mocked the man, but some of the scientists followed him out.”
Well, I sat enthralled with that sermon because that young man, whose name is
F. Scott Petersen, was able to speak Jesus Christ in the context of contemporary
Western civilization with all of the effectiveness of Paul in the Areopagus. Now,
that's what preaching is and that's what the Christian mission is - to say to the
world in all of its wonder and all of its fantastic potential and all of the marvel of
this age of which we are a part, with all of the ingenuity in which we stand in awe,
to the human mind, the imagination - to say to it all, “God is the fountainhead of
Reality and can be known through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
That's only one side of the contemporary scene. The other side is even stranger to
me. The other side is the side of religion. Charles Colson, in his most recent book
Kingdoms in Conflict, writes in the first chapter an imaginary scenario. The
Christian Religious Right walked out of the Republican Convention in 1992
© Grand Valley State University
�God, for Whom Humankind is Groping
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
because their needs were not being serviced. But in the succeeding years, the gulf
was bridged, the wound was healed and a Christian Right candidate, a marvelous
professor from Baylor University, a good Southern Baptist, was the candidate for
the presidency and was elected. This gentleman no sooner took office than it was
discovered by the CIA that the Likud Party in Israel, the conservative party,
having been unable to find a coalition partner in order to form a government,
finally had found in a radical Right minority group a willingness to join. The
condition of this radical minority party was, however, that the temple of the
Rock, the Dome of the Rock, the Muslim mosque, the most sacred shrine be
bombed and taken over by Israeli troops, commandos specially trained. And this
little party was also training priests who could institute the rituals of the Old
Testament sacrifice because this little group believed that until the Temple
Mount was reclaimed and the temple was rebuilt and the sacrifices restored, the
Messiah wouldn't come!
Well, the scenario, as Colson puts it together, has this president hearing this and
thinking, “This is it! Russia will come from the north; the troops will meet in the
valley of Armageddon, and I will be the president at this cosmic point in human
history.” So, rather than acting like a president should act, and doing what a
president has to do in order to forestall that kind of internal maneuvering within
Israel itself, he waits and waffles until it actually happens. The commandos of this
little minority party blow up the Dome of the Rock and then, of course, the
chapter ends. Colson says, in the footnote, “I've made this up, but the statements
that I've quoted I quote from public figures out of the press.” And I wouldn't even
be so impressed by that opening shot of Colson had I not recently heard Martin
Marty, the person par excellence with his finger on the culture and religious
development and history of America, say recently, that World War III will erupt
and be ignited by the fanaticism of religion in our world today. Colson says not
since the Crusades have religious passions and prejudices posed such a
worldwide threat. If not through a religious zealot or confused idealist whose
finger is on the nuclear trigger, then certainly by destroying the tolerance and
trust essential for maintaining peace and concord among people.
Friends, this world is a world that can land a person on the moon, and has a
space vehicle going out to Mars. This world in which we live is a world so
fantastic that our forefathers would not have believed it. And it is a world that is
so screwed up spiritually, that it is falling for every kind of superstitious myth and
cult, and even satanic worship. This is a world where the great religions in a
worldwide resurgence are standing toe to toe and where there is a fanaticism that
has groups in all religions ready to go to war, whether Christian Fundamentalists,
or Islam Fundamentalists, or some other.
This world in which we live is a world that needs to know that the one God Whom
all people are searching for and groping after has indeed come to us in Jesus
Christ. Does it matter whether we tell the story? Does it matter whether or not we
© Grand Valley State University
�God, for Whom Humankind is Groping
Richard A. Rhem
Page 7
share the good news? Is there anything incumbent upon us who stand in the
great tradition of Light and Life? I would say there is. The world is at stake.
We believe that, in the face of Jesus, we've seen into the heart of God, and we
believe it's true. It doesn't mean that we believe that God has no concern for all of
the rest of humankind. It doesn't mean that we should be so narrow and closed
and dogmatic that we do not think that God has made God's self-known beyond
the limits of Jesus Christ. It doesn't mean that we cannot have our own insights
deepened and our viewpoint broadened as we enter into genuine dialogue and
encounter with those who are also seriously groping after God in their own way.
It doesn't mean that we will not be willing to enter into genuine dialogue, which
means a willingness to change and to adopt and to adapt and to deepen and to
broaden; all of that is true. But, it does mean that we have something very
important to bring to the party. We have Jesus in whom we believe God has most
fully revealed God's self. So, I wish somehow we could reclaim the fire and the
passion and the fervency, the urgency and the certainty, the assurance of Paul in
Athens.
It is a different world, but that same kind of rootedness in Jesus we have. In
confidence, not fear; with openness, not defensiveness, we can bring Jesus, the
Light of the World, to the discussion, perhaps ourselves coming to see, in the
dialogue, dimensions of Jesus we've never even seen before, therefore, being
transformed ourselves, we will but share with this wonderful, crazy world, our
conviction that God, the source of all, is the goal of all, and that in Jesus Christ
our Lord, God is about reconciling all things to God's self.
What a message!
What a task!
© Grand Valley State University
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Epiphany III
Scripture Text
Acts 17:22-23
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19890122
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1989-01-22
Title
A name given to the resource
God, For Whom Humankind is Groping
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on January 22, 1989 entitled "God, For Whom Humankind is Groping", on the occasion of Epiphany III, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Acts 17:22-23.
Apostle Paul
Epiphany
God of Grace
Interfaith
Nature of God
Religious Quest
Revelation
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/73bcbcff0c694e4a78d76b3685075f55.mp3
ea0ace3691c9cc1427f1a05b10d188ea
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/7a10edce973ae95b1a87853834f0bf3c.pdf
2ae4a2b011edb36d54983b4229ea6326
PDF Text
Text
How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns on You?
Text: Isaiah 49:6; Luke 2:32, 34-35
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
Epiphany, January 18, 1987
Transcription of the spoken sermon
…I will make you a light to the nations, to be my salvation to earth’s fartherest
bounds. Isaiah 49:6
…a light that will be a revelation to the heathen… Luke 2:32
…This child is destined to be a sign which men reject…many in Israel will stand
or fall because of him…the secret thoughts of many will be laid bare. Luke 2:3435
How do you respond when Truth dawns upon you? That is the question posed by
the title of the message. The question needs some explaining.
"When Truth dawns upon you," already says something about my understanding
of how we come to a knowledge of Truth – insight into the deepest levels of
Truth, the Truth about our identity and destiny, about the world and history,
about God as a "given." It is given in a moment of unveiling when Truth shows
itself. The deepest Truth is Truth of revelation.
This is not to disparage or denigrate patient experimentation, exploration and
research; it is only to affirm that the secret of deepest mysteries of life, of the
world and God are not at the conclusion of a mathematical computation nor a
logical syllogism; rather, in a flash of insight, the Truth shows itself.
Thus, I ask about Truth dawning.
I ask also about response to Truth; how do we respond to the Truth that shows
itself, manifests itself? Do we yield to it, allowing ourselves to be changed by it?
Do we resist it? Deny it? Close ourselves against it?
The question arises in this season of Epiphany. God is manifest in our world; we
have seen the light of revelation of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
© Grand Valley State University
�How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns on You?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
The Prophet understood that God would bring the light of truth to the world. He
understood that Israel had been the "place" of revelation and also that it was
Israel's role to be the Servant of the Lord to bring light to the nations. The
universalism present already in the call of Abraham would be effected – through
the Servant of the Lord – Israel and, specifically, one who would arise from
Israel.
Reflect for a moment.
Advent - Coming. The Lord's coming.
The Prophet sensed the Kingdom was dawning in the release of the Exiles.
Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people. You who bring Zion good news, up
with you to the mountaintop; …cry to the cities of Judah, your God is
here.
Last week we heard that beautiful word from Isaiah 42:
Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight.
…He will not break a bruised reed, or snuff out a smouldering wick…I
have formed you, and appointed you to be a light to all peoples, a beacon
for the nations…
The Old Testament Lesson repeats the Servant's calling —
I will make you a light to the nations, to be my salvation to earth’s
fartherest bound.
Israel lived in expectation of One who would come, who would bring salvation to
the nation and to the nations.
Christmas - the birth of the Promised One - a Saviour; good news of a great joy to
all people. The Light shines in the darkness for the Word becomes flesh, full of
grace and Truth.
Epiphany - unveiling, manifestation, revelation; Light has come into the world.
Jesus said, "I am the Light of the world."
Now, the question is how will we respond? The Gospels tell us that the presence
of the Light elicits a double reaction: some receive the light with joy and find
salvation; some resist the light and miss God's gracious gift.
Already in the Nativity stories we are forewarned that the response to this child
will be mixed.
Matthew recorded that as we saw last week; the wise men stopped at Herod's
Court to inquire where the child was born whose star they had seen. Herod's
© Grand Valley State University
�How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns on You?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
response was not joy that the Earth had received the gift of a child who would be
a King. Rather, he searched for the child to destroy it and, failing to find it,
slaughtered all male children two years old and under.
Hostility already at the beginning!
The Wise Men worshiped; Herod murdered.
Luke gives us a shadow of foreboding at the beginning, as well. Old Simeon, a
devout and trusting servant of God, was waiting for that dramatic movement
through which God would redeem His people and bring light to the world. As the
child was brought to the Temple, the Spirit nudged old Simeon. He took the child
in his arms and uttered those familiar and beautiful words.
Now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace … for mine eyes have seen
thy salvation … a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to thy
people Israel.
A beautiful response, indeed. Simeon had prayed and waited and one day,
holding the child, the truth dawned on him. He embraced the child and embraced
the Truth.
But Simeon had more to say; he went on to say,
Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a
sign that is spoken against … that the thoughts out of many hearts may
be revealed.
A sign spoken against, a sign of contradiction. This child would elicit a double
response: some would fall, some rise.
Epiphany is a season that reminds us that God is manifest in the world -that He
came to us in Jesus Christ, whose birth we celebrated so recently and whose
passion and death we will be all too soon remembering. Epiphany is a bridge
period in which we recognize the presence in our world of Truth and light and
move from the joyful celebration of its dawning to the awful remembrance when
we did our best to douse the light by killing the one in whom it dawned. It is that
sobering reality that we confront in this message. We are always placed before the
choice to walk in the light or to choose the darkness.
I have a book on my desk entitled, Jesus, Inspiring and Disturbing Presence. We
have been celebrating the inspiring side of the equation, the joy, the hope, the
love that came to us in Jesus. But, there is the other side – the call to decision, the
call to repentance, the call to die to self and follow Jesus in the life of service and
sacrifice.
© Grand Valley State University
�How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns on You?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
Jesus is not an interesting figure of the past; he is very much the present, living
Lord. In the Atlantic Monthly of December, 1986, there is a lengthy essay
entitled, "Who Do Men Say That I Am?" It is a superb summary of the
understanding of Jesus through the centuries. David Tracy, theologian at the
University of Chicago, is quoted as saying that more has been written about Jesus
in the last twenty years than in the previous two thousand.
"Jesus is very much a figure of discussion and controversy in our present
world and the followers of Jesus to the extent that they are true to what
came to expression in him will be at the center of controversy in the
world."
He is absolutely right. Our world is not through with Jesus. It is very easy for us
to slip into a mode of thinking that Jesus is a figure of the past. Christmas with all
of the beautiful pageantry, and all the sentimentality that arises in our hearts,
sometimes veils from our eyes the reality of the living Jesus, the living Lord in
our world today. And, as a matter of fact, Jesus Christ continues to be the
linchpin of history, and the very center of our world.
John said of him, “The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has never
overcome it.” But the darkness has never ceased trying to overcome it. Matthew
tipped us off in the very beginning, just like Luke. He told about the worship of
the Magi. And in that he saw the coming of the Gentiles to the light of Christ, but
in the course of that narrative, he recorded the stop in Herod’s Court, and
Herod’s fear and paranoia and Herod’s slaughter of the innocent children. In an
effort to wipe out this child whose birth was announced with a star.
So, at the very beginning of the gospel, there were already foreshadowings of that
which is to come. We are warned by both Matthew and Luke in the very nativity
stories that this child will be a source of contradiction in the world: that there is
something in Jesus that will cut against the grain of this world, that there is
something in Jesus that will encounter us and confront us and judge us, that
there is something in Jesus that will call us to die in order to be made new and to
follow him as his disciple. It is not all sweetness and light! There is violence, there
is darkness, there is the hostility against the light already in the gospel narrative
of his birth. And so I ask you this morning, on this second Sunday of Epiphany,
the light that shines in our world: How do you respond when truth dawns upon
you? What difference does it make in your life that Jesus has come? What
difference does it make in your living, that you claim to be a disciple of Jesus
Christ? How are you different? What decisions do you make and what
transformation has occurred because you follow Jesus? That’s the question of
Epiphany. For it is one thing to celebrate the presence of the Light and it is
another thing to ask ourselves how seriously we walk in the Light.
Our world is not done with Jesus Christ. And, as those who claim him as Savior
and have pledged to follow him as Lord, let me ask you. How do you respond
when light dawns on you? Well, let me ask it this way. When is the last time you
© Grand Valley State University
�How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns on You?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
had a new thought? When is the last time you found yourself confronted with an
insight that challenged a long-held conviction? How long has it been since in the
presence of Jesus Christ or contemplating who he is and what his word says, that
you have changed an opinion, that you have altered an attitude, that you have
found your lifestyle modified by the fact that the light has dawned upon us? Our
world is not yet done with Jesus Christ. And it is one thing to believe in Him; it is
another to follow Him! It is one thing to have a kind of intellectual assent to the
fact that he lived and died and maybe rose again. It is another thing to have him
be the pattern of our living and to pattern our living in the light of who he was
and what he calls us to be.
Our world is not yet done with Jesus Christ. He is still the center and he is still
full of controversy and he is still full of contradiction. If we have not found our
lives contradicted by Jesus, we can be sure that we have not heard the gospel. We
have a way in this twentieth century, in this affluent America, in this Christian
church, we have a way of domesticating the gospel, of taking the sharpness off the
corners, and of trivializing the message. We forget the radicality of the things that
Jesus stood for. It is not easy to be a twentieth-century American and to follow
Jesus. Much easier, I believe, to have been a peasant in Palestine, much easier to
follow Jesus if one is disinvested, disenfranchised, if one is oppressed, if one has
no vested interest in anything, if one has no place to go but up. Then it is not hard
to forsake everything and follow Jesus. But how does one follow Jesus when one
is a member of western civilization, of American culture, of the most affluent
society the world has ever known? The most educated, the most sophisticated,
the most resourceful, technically and scientifically most advanced? What does
one do in a society like this when one is called to follow Jesus?
What does one do when one is confronted by Jesus and contradicted by Jesus,
when that contradiction and confrontation run against the grain of everything
that is American value, that is western value, that is Christian value. The moment
there is a nation, it becomes institutional. The moment there’s a church, it
becomes institutional. The moment there is any kind of structuring in society, we
get institutionalization and as soon as there is institutionalization we all have our
vested interests and in maintaining the status quo. It’s true of our government.
And we ought not be too hard on our leaders. They are people just like us. And
what are they trying to do? They’re trying to do the same thing that Herod was
trying to do. In the Pentagon and the Reagan Administration: messing around
with Iran and Iraq, meddling around in South America, fiddling around in South
Africa – what are we trying to do? We are trying to maintain the balance of
power; we are trying to preserve the edge of power; we are trying to preserve the
place of preeminence. And after all, isn’t that why we elect our officials: in order
to keep the American way of life, in order to keep the economy booming, in order
to keep the military strong enough so that we’ll be invulnerable to attack? What
do we expect of our leaders if not that? Do we not charge our President with the
necessity of enforcing the Constitution?
© Grand Valley State University
�How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns on You?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
And it’s not only in the state; it’s in the church as well. As soon as the church
becomes an institution, then we are more concerned about the perpetuation and
the preservation of the institution than we are the questions of truth or
obedience. And that comes right down to the local level and comes right down to
the local congregation and it comes right down to Christ Community Church. And
do we make our response in terms of what is a responsible obedience to following
Jesus or do we make our decision in terms of what is good and enhancing for the
institution?
And it comes, of course, right down into our personal lives. Not so much what we
believe, but the extent to which our belief alters the way we live. There is a
structure of belief which we all have and profess and then there is an operational
level of belief – that upon which we function. And we function most of the time in
terms of self-interest, in terms of vested interest. In terms of our own wellbeing
and our own welfare. And that’s human and that’s natural, but every once in a
while we need to step back and say, Jesus: sign of contradiction. Jesus: sign
spoken against. Jesus, what does it mean to follow you today in America in 1987,
in Grand Haven in Spring Lake, in comfortable western Michigan, where nature
smiles for seven miles. What does it mean, Jesus, what difference does it make
because I belong to you?
In all of my relationships, all of my business, all of my pleasure, light has dawned
upon the world. How do we respond to the fact that Light has dawned? The world
is not done with Jesus. More has been written in the last 20 years than in the
previous 2000. Jesus is still very much living Lord and he proclaimed a kingdom
and has a salvation to bring to earth’s fartherest bounds. The church is not to be
some little backwater ghetto. It is not simply to be a cozy little community of
people who are weak and who still need God in order to get by. The church is that
revolutionary group gathered around that revolutionary person whose radicality
in the midst of human society got him crucified. Tomorrow Martin Luther King’s
birthday was celebrated. I repent that while he was leading the civil rights
movement, I did not pray for him. I think I was rather irritated by him. When he
spoke out against the VietnamWar, when it was unpatriotic to do so, I’m sorry I
was not prophetic enough to understand and to lend my voice. And when I read
his sermons and speeches I know that they were inspired by Jesus, who was
always against the oppressor and always to set the oppressed free. Last year the
Catholic bishops came out with a paper on nuclear disarmament. You may agree
or you may disagree with their conclusions, if you follow Jesus, you can not
question that church leaders – all Christians – have an imperative to address
themselves to an issue which has brought the whole human race, for which God
intends salvation, into jeopardy. This year the bishops come out with a paper on
economic policy. You may think they’re wild; you may think they’re in left field;
you may question their conclusions, but you may not question that the church of
Jesus Christ and those who lead in Jesus’ name have a right and a responsibility
to address the economy in order to ensure that there is some measure of justice in
this world. Jesus was revolutionary – not in terms of the zealots who wanted
© Grand Valley State University
�How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns on You?
Richard A. Rhem
Page 7
simply to throw off the Roman yoke, and who would have come in with their own
regime which would have been just as oppressive – but Jesus was revolutionary
in that he stood against everything that seems to drive the human spirit. Jesus
was the one who said if you want to live then you must die. Jesus was the one
who said love your enemies, pray for your enemies, pray for those who
despitefully use you. Funny man, funny man! Strange person! He is like a knot
that will not be dissolved in the middle of the human family. And those who
follow him may not be simply a comfortable community who use God for their
own tranquility. Those who follow Jesus are called to be a community of people
who are as radical and as revolutionary, who can never adopt any political
platform, who can never be at ease with any creed or confession, who can never
give absolute loyalty to any state or to any church because they are a people who
will give ultimate allegiance to God alone, following Jesus. No matter what the
price.
Can you remember the last time in the presence of Jesus you ever changed your
mind? Has a prejudice ever melted away? Has an opinion ever been altered? Has
a conviction ever been changed because you held it up in the light of his face and
felt judged and repented and experienced the liberation, the freedom that is the
consequence of the Truth? I’m afraid for most of us our religion is a cultural
matter. For most of us God is one to be used and religion is for comfort. I have a
book on my desk that says, Jesus: Inspiring and Disturbing Presence. Oh,
inspiring to be sure, inspiring to be sure – and disturbing. Because to follow him,
to be faced with a decision and to ask what would Jesus do, is a very radical thing
to do. I don’t do it very well. I repent and pray that I may follow him.
Let us pray. Lord Jesus you said you came into the world not to condemn the
world but that the world through you might be saved. Then the gospel record
goes on to say that this is the condemnation: that light has come into the world
and men love darkness rather than light. God forgive us. And enable us by your
grace to rise up and follow the light where ever it may lead, following in the
master’s steps, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we pray. Amen.
© Grand Valley State University
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Epiphany II
Scripture Text
Isaiah 49:6, Luke 2:32, 34-35
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19870118
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-01-18
Title
A name given to the resource
How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns On You?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on January 18, 1987 entitled "How Do You Respond When Truth Dawns On You?", on the occasion of Epiphany II, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Isaiah 49:6, Luke 2:32, 34-35.
Epiphany
Followers of Jesus
Light
Radical Truth of Jesus
Revelation
Servant of the Lord
Universal Grace
-
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/eaffc0ebda3e36798ccf63eb121224ea.mp3
cfafb7a9ff11dc0c63fe34be26ef2ae8
https://digitalcollections.library.gvsu.edu/files/original/71e0200e982e076d0c2c422109477cc6.pdf
a1256cc3cd868296042b959a9ac521a8
PDF Text
Text
The God Who Is There For Us
From the sermon series: God, Our Ally
Text: Isaiah 57: 15; Hebrews 4: 13, 16
Richard A. Rhem
Christ Community Church
Spring Lake, Michigan
July 14, 1985
Transcription of the spoken sermon
God, Our Ally.
That is an affirmation of faith.
It is certainly one of the most significant and meaningful statements one could
make and to live with such a conviction is to be in possession of one of the most
necessary truths for human happiness and wellbeing.
God is for us.
Human existence is embraced by grace. So to live is to have a foundation for the
present and hope for the future.
Who is this God? How do we know Him?
These are deep questions whose answers are shrouded in mystery. God is not "at
hand." He is not simply available. To know Him is beyond human capacity; yet
He has made Himself known.
This series of messages is an attempt from a variety of biblical texts and a variety
of angles to say "God is our ally; He is for us." But to speak of God, let alone to
speak of Him in a whole series of messages seems almost presumptuous. How
dare one presume to speak of this One Who is hidden in mystery? Would one not
do well simply to be silent?
Yet that cannot be the answer, for God has revealed Himself; He has made
Himself known. Thus He wills to be known and He wills that we have knowledge
of Him. On the other hand, as I reflect on this task, I am quite certain most
sermons purport to know too much. I am certain as well that there is often a
craving in the human mind and heart to know more than can be known of God
and, rather than acknowledging the limits of our thinking in proper humility, we
tend to cut God down to a size in which we can handle Him.
© Grand Valley State University
�The God Who Is There For Us
Richard A. Rhem
Page 2
I make this confession early on in this series because I want to admit to the
impossibility of speaking about God even as I attempt to do so, simply to make
you aware that I am aware of how inadequate are these stammering attempts to
speak of Him. Thus we look to the Spirit to reveal to us truth too deep for us to
grasp through our own power of reason and intuition.
"The God Who Is There For Us." That is the focus. "There for us" in the sense of
being the solid foundation of life, the sustainer of our life, the strong support and
source of comfort for the human pilgrimage which is our life.
I. Let me begin with the simple assertion that we need God.
The consciousness of that fact must be why we are here. Of course, for some of us
this appointment is not a matter of decision. We have made that decision long
since - this is the Lord's Day and it is a day first of all for worship. And so it is not
as though we awoke with a conscious longing for that encounter and communion
that happens in this setting and therefore we have come. Yet, however we happen
to be here, it is reflective of some deep-seated sense that we need God, that we
long for His presence, that we find a fulfillment of life not within ourselves but
only in relationship to One Who is beyond the limits of our time and space and
human rationality.
Were I to make a list of the dozen most influential books that have shaped my
thinking, one would surely be Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death. It won the
Pulitzer Prize for general non-fiction in 1974 and it is one of those works that
gives an overview and summary in lucid fashion of a vast area of human thought
and endeavor. In this case the book focuses on the insights gained from the
movement of psychoanalysis from its beginnings in the work of Sigmund Freud
through the modification of those insights in the work of Otto Rank.
What gripped me in this summarization of the best insight of psychoanalysis into
the nature of the human being was the acknowledgment that what a human being
most desperately needs to be fully human is precisely what the Christian Gospel
offers.
Through the work of Freud, the work of an earlier philosopher and Christian
came to be appreciated for the depth of truth it contained. That thinker was
Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard summarized the human situation profoundly
and found the answer to the human dilemma in the leap of faith, casting oneself
into the arms of God. Kierkegaard held that
Once a person begins to look to his relationship to the Ultimate Power, to
infinitude, and to refashion his links from those around him to that
Ultimate Power, he opens up to himself the horizon of unlimited
possibility, of real freedom. This is Kierkegaard's message, the culmination
of his whole argument about the dead-ends of character ... One goes
through it all to arrive at faith, the faith that one's very creatureliness has
© Grand Valley State University
�The God Who Is There For Us
Richard A. Rhem
Page 3
some meaning to a Creator; that despite one's true insignificance,
weakness, death, one's existence has meaning in some ultimate sense
because it exists within an eternal and infinite scheme of things brought
about and maintained to some kind of design by some creative force.
Again and again throughout his writings Kierkegaard repeats the basic
formula of faith: one is a creature who can do nothing, but one exists over
against a living God for whom "everything is possible." (Becker, The
Denial of Death, p. 90)
From a life-long study of the human psyche in the discipline of psychoanalysis,
Otto Rank concluded Kierkegaard was right.
... Rank joins Kierkegaard in the belief that one should not stop and
circumscribe his life with beyonds that are near at hand, or a bit further
out, or created by oneself. One should reach for the "highest beyond of
religion. ... (p. 174)
Rank recognized that the scientific study of the human being could strip him
bare, expose his delusion and defense mechanism, but could not
allow the person to find out who he is and why he is here on earth, why he
has to die, and how he can make his life a triumph. (p. 193)
He declares,
Modern man needs a "Thou" to whom to turn for spiritual and moral
dependence, and as God was in eclipse, the therapist has had to replace
Him. ...
Becker indicates that these two disparate thinkers, one a Christian of the 19th
Century and one a psychoanalyst of the 20th,
... reached the same conclusion after the most exhaustive psychological
quest: that at the very furtherest reaches of scientific description,
psychology has to give way to "theology" - that is, to a world-view that
absorbs the individual's conflicts and guilt and offers him the possibility
for some kind of heroic apotheosis. Man cannot endure his own littleness
unless he can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level,
(p. 196)
Rank was not a Christian believer nor is Becker. Neither of them espoused the
answer of the Christian faith. Yet they saw that the lostness of the modern person
is precisely that she has been robbed of faith in transcendence.
The one thing modern man cannot do is what Kierkegaard prescribed: The
lonely leap into faith, the naive personal trust in some kind of
transcendental support for one's life. (p. 200)
© Grand Valley State University
�The God Who Is There For Us
Richard A. Rhem
Page 4
The characteristic of the modern mind is the banishment of mystery, of
naive belief, of simple-minded hope. (p. 200)
Perhaps I could summarize Becker's view and Rank's by saying that they believe
that the Judeo-Christian faith provides precisely the view of Reality which a
human being needs to be happy but they also believe it is an illusion.
What they call illusion we hold to be the truth. God is and God is Who we need.
The analysis of human nature and the scientific study of the human psyche
confirm that to be human is to be frustrated and restless as long as one is turned
in upon oneself or imprisoned within the structures and meanings of this world.
There is something intrinsic in the human spirit that longs to leap beyond itself,
to commit itself to a transcendent Reality - in a word - to God.
Israel's God provided a resting place for the soul. In Isaiah 57 God speaks of His
coming in judgment on His people but that judgment here, as is always true, was
in order to turn his people back to Him. The prophet knew there was no peace
except in Him. God expresses His gracious way thus:
I cured him and gave him relief, and I brought him comfort in full
measure, brought peace to those who mourned for him, ... peace for all
men. ... But the wicked are like the troubled sea, a sea that cannot rest,
whose troubled waters cast up mud and filth. There is no peace for the
wicked, says the Lord. (Isaiah 57:19-21, NEB)
Wickedness in the Old Testament is unbelief. It is life lived on a purely human,
secular plane. It is life without trust in God. Such a life says the Lord knows no
peace.
We do need God - to be fully human, to know peace.
II. The Good News is that the God we need is the God Who is there for us. We
have in the text from Isaiah a marvelous capsule summary of the biblical God.
God speaks. He tells Who He is.
For thus says the high and lofty One who inhabits eternity, whose name
is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, and also with him who is of a
contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to
revive the heart of the contrite.
There is a portrait of the God we need. We see in this statement both the
otherness of God and His nearness.
God is the Wholly-Other.
That is a designation made popular by Karl Barth. He had been schooled in the
classic Liberalism of the 19th Century. Christian faith had become pretty much a
© Grand Valley State University
�The God Who Is There For Us
Richard A. Rhem
Page 5
man-centered affair. The Gospel was reduced to the limits of human reason. It
was Barth who sounded the alarm and called the whole European continent back
to the Otherness of God - the Godness of God; the One Who contradicts us.
He is a God beyond us. He is not like us only a little more so. He is other than we
are. He is the Creator, we the creature. He is not of one being with us but the
source and ground of our being.
God is the exalted One - high and lofty. God is the Infinite One, the Absolute, the
Ultimate Power. God is the Eternal One - beyond the limits of our time and space.
It would be difficult to find a more exalted conception of God.
Yet in the same breath we are told that He dwells with him who is of humble and
contrite spirit. He dwells with the one who is crushed. And he draws near to
revive.
He is thus not only the Wholly-Other, but He is the God Who is near.
He is the God Who in gracious condescension has come near to us to revive and
redeem.
In the classic doctrine of God the theologians have spoken of God's
transcendence and God's immanence. In so speaking they have sought to let God
be God - to honor His Otherness, to recognize that He is beyond us. Yet, in
faithfulness to Scripture, they have spoken of His drawing near, of His being with
His people.
We must never lose that tension.
God is God and, as we have already seen from the analysis of the human psyche,
nothing less can satisfy the human heart or provide a resting place for the human
spirit. God is a mystery. He is not at our disposal. Could we fathom his depths He
would not be God and we would be restless still, striving on to find that Ultimate
One Who limits our existence and grounds our being.
Barth called the world back to the Otherness of God. The 19th Century had
domesticated God and formed Him in the human image. About the same time
another theologian, Rudolf Otto, wrote a book entitled The Idea of the Holy. In a
forward to the English translation, Otto wrote,
This book ... makes a serious attempt to analyze all the more exactly the
feeling which remains where the concept fails. ...
The English translator, John W. Harvey, in his Preface raised the question
addressed in the work.
© Grand Valley State University
�The God Who Is There For Us
Richard A. Rhem
Page 6
Is religious experience essentially just a state of mind, a feeling, whether of
oppression or of exaltation, a sense of 'sin' or an assurance of 'salvation;' or
is it not rather our apprehension of 'the divine,' meaning by that term at
least something independent of the mental and emotional state of the
moment of experience? (p. XIII)
Obviously Otto believed that in religious experience we apprehend the divine or
God. But he recognized that God is not at our disposal. That a God within the
limits of human reason is not God at all. Otto studied the history of religions and
found a common thread. There was an apprehension of the divine which could
only be described as a knowing beyond knowing.
... a unique kind of apprehension ... not to be reduced to ordinary
intellectual or rational "knowing" with its terminology of notions and
concepts, and yet - and this is the paradox of the matter - itself a genuine
"knowing," the growing awareness of an object, deity. ... The primary fact
is the confrontation of the human mind with a Something, whose
character is only gradually learned, but which is from the first felt as a
transcendent presence, ‘the beyond,’ even where it is also felt as ‘the
within’ man.
There you have the text from Isaiah. Otto's classic study names that transcendent
presence the Holy, but the word Holy carries with it such a strong, ethereal
connotation that he needed another word to describe that residue of experience.
He chose the word "numinous" from the Latin numen, the most general Latin
word for supernatural divine power.
'Numinous' feeling is, then, just this unique apprehension of a Something,
whose character may at first seem to have little connection with our
ordinary moral terms, but which later 'becomes charged' with the highest
and deepest moral significance. (p. XVI)
'Numinous' and 'Numen' will, then, be words which bear no moral impact,
but which stand for the specific non-rational religious apprehension and
its objects, at all levels, from the first dim stirrings where religion can
hardly yet be said to exist to the most exalted forms of spiritual experience,
(p. XVII)
It was Otto's contention that in Christianity
The numinous elements, such as the sense of awe and reverence before
infinite mystery and infinite majesty are yet combined and made one with
the rational elements, assuring us that God is an all-righteous, allprovident, and all-loving Person, with Whom a man may enter into the
most intimate relationship.
The paradox of Isaiah's text is maintained.
© Grand Valley State University
�The God Who Is There For Us
Richard A. Rhem
Page 7
It is a real knowledge of, and real personal communion with, a Being
whose nature is yet above knowledge, and transcends personality. (p.
XVII)
One could not hope for a better commentary on the text than the explanation of
the thesis of Rudolf Otto and his book did greatly impact theological
development. The text itself is simply a condensation of the experience of Isaiah
recorded in the sixth chapter of his prophecy where he entered the temple and
saw the Lord "high and lifted up." He heard the angels sing the Sanctus, "Holy,
Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts." The vision left him awestruck, smitten with his
own unworthiness. But through the ministry of the angel he was cleansed and
through the voice of God called and commissioned to service. In the midst of awe
and wonder he was addressed, cleansed and given a task. The high and lofty One
stooped to grace His servant.
III. The God Who is there for us is the God with a human face. If we leave Isaiah
we find in the New Testament the same gracious God Whose glory is now
revealed in the face of Jesus Christ.
The writer of Hebrews was concerned for Jewish Christians who had responded
to Jesus, received him as the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope.
They left the Temple and recognized the provisionalness of the Law and
ceremony of the Old Covenant and embraced the Gospel. But now they were
experiencing persecution and they were living under pressure. How normal for
them to wonder if they had made a mistake, if perhaps this was a judgment on
their offering of allegiance to Jesus. This letter addresses that question showing
that Jesus is indeed the fulfillment and the culmination of the whole Old
Covenant system.
He warns them against drifting away or falling off in slackness and disobedience,
as had that generation that was delivered from Egypt's bondage only to lose faith
in the wilderness. He points them to the word of God that is, in this case, the
message of God by which they have been addressed. It is, he claims,
... alive and active. It cuts more keenly than any two-edged sword,
piercing as far as the place where life and spirit, joints and marrow
divide. It sifts the purposes and thoughts of the heart. There is nothing in
creation that can hide from him; everything lies naked and exposed to the
eyes of the One with whom we have to reckon. (Hebrews 4:12-13)
That is a call to faithfulness couched in a word of warning. The One with Whom
we have to do is no marshmallow God, no passive deity or dumb idol. The words
resonate with a seriousness that the thought of God calls forth.
In a word, the writer is saying that one's whole life and existence is an open secret
before the eyes of the living God Who judges according to absolutes of truth,
righteousness and justice. There is no game of charades with Him. In the
© Grand Valley State University
�The God Who Is There For Us
Richard A. Rhem
Page 8
presence of one another we mask the deep intent and purposes of our hearts and
even before our own minds we hardly dare face the truth of our personal
ambiguity, faithlessness and meanness.
But He knows us - better than we know ourselves. What a frightening thought!
But no; it is not so. In the very next paragraph the God Who searches the heart is
described in magnificent fashion as the gracious God Who has drawn near to us
in Jesus and Who bids us come to Him through Jesus to find in his grace timely
help.
Once again as in Isaiah 57:15, we have a marvelous juxtaposition -the Judge Who
might be thought to instill fear and trembling is the God Whose seat is a throne of
grace. To be sure, He is God; to be sure, He is pure light; to be sure, to be in His
presence must inspire awe and wonder and certainly there is a proper reverence
described in Scripture as the fear of God which must be part of any experience of
His presence.
But "fear and trembling" are not the last word; the last word is grace. For the God
with Whom we have to do is the God with a human face. Did not Jesus say,
If you have seen me, you have seen the Father. (John 14:9)
Did not Paul write,
For the same God who said, "Out of darkness let light shine," has caused
his light to shine within us, to give the light of revelation - the revelation
of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (II Corinthians 4:6)
Quite consistent with the whole witness of the New Testament our writer points
us to Jesus who brings us to God.
Since therefore we have a great high priest ... Jesus the Son of God, let us
hold fast to the religion we profess. For ours is not a high priest unable to
sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who because of his likeness to
us, has been tested every way, only without sin. Let us therefore boldly
approach the throne of our gracious God where we may receive mercy
and in his grace find timely help. (Hebrews 4:14-16)
One could meditate on that gracious invitation for a long time and never fathom
the mystery of love and depth of mercy there set forth. The Eternal God, the
Infinite One, the Ultimate Power, the King of the Universe is full of mercy, ready
to give grace in every time of need. The way is open; access is available at any
moment. The invitation is come.
© Grand Valley State University
�The God Who Is There For Us
Richard A. Rhem
Page 9
The God we need is the God Who is there for us - the God with a human face - the
God we see in the face of Jesus - the God of grace without limit and mercy
without measure.
That is the message - God, our ally is full of Grace. His anger is for a moment, the
other side of His love in order to turn us and return us to Himself. His love is
everlasting and His Grace will finally conquer us with gentle wooing and steady
faithfulness.
But these are words, expressed in stammering fashion, attempting to express the
inexpressible. When all this has been said, it must be said further that words
cannot convict us. That is the Spirit's work. Yet we have this encouragement that,
if with all our heart we truly seek him, we shall surely find him. The longing of
our hearts is already the sign of His early work and those who thirst for God will
be satisfied.
God is our Ally.
He is there for us.
Come to Him through Jesus Christ, our Lord. Amen.
References:
Ernest Becker. The Denial of Death. First published in 1973.
Rudolf Otto. The Idea of the Holy. Translated by John W. Harvey. Oxford
University Press, 1958.
© Grand Valley State University
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Richard A. Rhem Collection
Description
An account of the resource
Text and sound recordings of the sermons, prayers, services, and articles of Richard Rhem, pastor emeritus of Christ Community Church in Spring Lake, Michigan, where he served for 37 years. Starting in the mid 1980's, Rhem began to question some of the traditional Christian dogma that he had been espousing from the pulpit. That questioning was a first step in a long and interesting spiritual journey, one that he openly shared with his congregation. His journey is important, in part because it is reflective of the questioning, the yearnings, and the gradual revision of beliefs that many persons in this part of the century have experienced and continue to experience. It is important also because of the affirming and inclusive way his questioning was done and his thinking evolved. His sermons and other written and spoken materials together document the steps in his journey as it took a turn in 1985, yet continued to revolve around the framework and liturgies of the Christian calendar.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Religion
Interfaith worship
Sermons
Sound Recordings
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Rhem, Richard A.
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
<a href="https://gvsu.lyrasistechnology.org/repositories/2/resources/514">Richard A. Rhem papers (KII-01)</a>
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kaufman Interfaith Institute
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Language
A language of the resource
English
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01
Coverage
The spatial or temporal topic of the resource, the spatial applicability of the resource, or the jurisdiction under which the resource is relevant
1981-2014
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
text/pdf
Sound
A resource primarily intended to be heard. Examples include a music playback file format, an audio compact disc, and recorded speech or sounds.
Event
Pentecost VII
Series
God Our Ally
Scripture Text
Isaiah 57:15, Hebrews 4: 13, 16
Location
The location of the interview
Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI
References
Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death, 1973
Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 1958
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
KII-01_RA-0-19850714
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1985-07-14
Title
A name given to the resource
The God Who is There for Us
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Richard A. Rhem
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Grand Valley State University. University Libraries. Special Collections & University Archives
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/?language=en">In Copyright</a>
Subject
The topic of the resource
Clergy--Michigan
Reformed Church in America
Christ Community Church (Spring Lake, Mich.)
Sermons
Relation
A related resource
Richard A. Rhem - An Archive of Sermons, Prayers, Talks and Stories: http://richardrhem.org/
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Sound
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
audio/mp3
application/pdf
Description
An account of the resource
A sermon given by Richard A. Rhem (Dick) on July 14, 1985 entitled "The God Who is There for Us", as part of the series "God Our Ally", on the occasion of Pentecost VII, at Christ Community Church, Spring Lake, MI. Scripture references: Isaiah 57:15, Hebrews 4: 13, 16.
Awe
God of Grace
Immanence
Meaning
Mystery
Nature of God
Revelation
Spiritual Quest
Transcendence