<\/a>G\u00f6ttinger <\/a><\/b><\/p>\n Predigten im Internet<\/p>\n hg. von Ulrich Nembach und Johannes Neukirch<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Whit Sunday 2002 I’d like to begin today with a word that plays a big role in connection If a butcher’s shop doesn’t come straight to mind when thinking of „meat“ This is a tradition which is actually older than Christianity. According There can be no doubt about it: St Paul, the apostle, knew this fear, Some people may maintain that the Christian tradition and St Paul’s hostility Nevertheless, I’d like today to use the word flesh in its more literal We live at a time in which the body is truly elevated to a cult. Perhaps What’s wrong with this fitness obsession? How is it possible that one’s And this not only true for the flesh and\/or the body as such. This is For St Paul, what is related to the flesh alienates us: wanting to possess, In contrast, the apostle stresses the law of the Spirit that gives life. In his letter to the Romans, St Paul speaks of the Spirit as life. This The Spirit is not hostile to the body; He is, literally and metaphorically, One could continue this enumeration almost endlessly. The meaning of St Paul doesn’t only speak of the Spirit of life in general. He speaks Being spiritual is therefore not to be estranged to life. On the contrary, I grew up with a theology in which one strictly distinguished the Spirit I think that such a „unnatural“ theology has survived today. In all its splendor now the sun shines In summer evening’s short sweet coolness (N.F.S. Grundtvig. Tradition and Renewal, ed. by Christian Thodberg and <\/p>\n Rektor Professor Eberhard Harbsmeier Translated by Barbara Theriault <\/p>\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n \n
\nRomans 8,1-2 (10-11), Eberhard Harbsmeier (Danmark)
\nTranslated by Barbara Theriault <\/span><\/b><\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n Dear parishioners,<\/p>\n
\nwith the Pentecost. Because it might perhaps be seen as an embarrassing
\none, this word is sometimes ignored when selecting texts for Whit Sunday.
\nDuring this time of the year, there’s usually much talk about the Spirit
\nwho gives life. But, the eighth chapter of St Paul’s letter to the Romans
\nalso deals with the opposite of the Spirit and the spiritual, that is
\nthe „flesh.“ In order to understand what St Paul means by the
\nlaw of the Spirit that sets free, it might be useful to first reflect
\non the „flesh“, a term that might appear old-fashioned but is
\nof tremendous importance to St Paul. What does St Paul mean by „flesh“?<\/p>\n
\nand „flesh,“ most people today probably associate these words
\nwith sexuality or, at least, human bodies. There is indeed a long tradition
\nin the Christian church according to which the „flesh“ is despised
\nand perceived in terms of human bodies and sexuality.<\/p>\n
\nto this tradition, one must free oneself from the flesh-from its bodily
\nand, more specifically, sexual dimension-for the relation to the flesh,
\nthe body, alienates us. A popular song tells us „The thoughts are
\nfree“ [Die Gedanken sind frei]. Freedom is freedom from the body.<\/p>\n
\nthe fear of his own body and sexuality. He knew the experience through
\nwhich one’s body, the flesh, becomes unfamiliar, as it were something
\nunappetizing surrounding him. In this sense, human bodies become something
\nunfamiliar, not something that is part of us but something that one must
\ncontrol-as if it were a threat.<\/p>\n
\nto the body is something which belongs to the past. In the meantime, theologians
\nand the church have discovered the body. As a consequence, it appears
\nalmost choking to differentiate, as St Paul does, between the flesh and
\nthe spirit. When one still maintains the contrast, one means something
\ncompletely different. The flesh is then not associated with its bodily
\ndimension but with such things as egoism, self-interest, and the like.
\nFor many people, the flesh becomes something spiritual. We often don’t
\nwant to be seen as people who are either hostile to the body or sexuality.<\/p>\n
\nsense, in its bodily dimension. St Paul warns us not to become the slaves
\nof our body and sexuality. Human beings are more than their bodies; they
\nare also Spirit for we do not need-because we are afraid of being accused
\nof hostility towards our body–to deny that human beings are more than
\ntheir bodies.<\/p>\n
\nSt Paul’s word according to which people who „live by the standard
\nof the flesh“ are thereby the slaves of their body is once again
\nvery modern. „To live by the standard of the flesh“ is not the
\ndirect and positive joy of the body, but to become the slave of one’s
\nbody. The use of the body, the play, the joy related to the body is actually
\nsomething quite positive that then becomes a cult to the body, a torture.
\nThis is not something healthy; it is a cult to the body, something which
\ndoesn’t make us alive, but sick. This is self-torture. For example, this
\ncan lead us to a real fear of old age. What is actually something good
\nand healthy degenerates into a fitness obsession, into the law of sin
\nand death as St Paul would put it.<\/p>\n
\nbody becomes an alienating idol? What’s wrong is not the fact that one
\nenjoys being fit. In fact, it is exactly the opposite: one wants to control
\none’s body instead of enjoying one’s health. Sport and the joy of practicing
\nit degenerate into an obsession.<\/p>\n
\nalso also true for life in general. If one wants to control, to possess
\nlife, instead of living it, one becomes life’s slave. In her moving book
\nabout her East Prussian homeland, the now deceased Marion countess D\u00f6nhoff
\ncoined the phrase according to which one must be able to love something,
\nwithout wanting to possess it. This thought contains a lot of truth. It
\napplies to the homeland: no one „possesses“ a country as though
\nno one other one had the right to live there. The homeland is part of
\nus, but we do not „possess“ it. This is also true for our body:
\nwe do not „possess“ it, we „are“ our body. And this
\nis also true for life in general: who wants to possess it, shall lose
\nit.<\/p>\n
\nto control something instead of living. This applies to the relationship
\nwe have to our body when the desire to feel well becomes a fitness obsession.
\nAnd this applies to our life in general as well. The law of the flesh,
\nof sin and death is to control life instead of living it.<\/p>\n
\nAs in the case of the flesh, we must also understand the Spirit literally.
\nIn this sense, it means so much as breath and life. A body without spirit,
\ni.e. without breath, is a dead body. A life without spirit is no real
\nlife. It is no coincidence that we celebrate the Pentecost, the celebration
\nof the Spirit, in the spring, the season when nature awakens. For some,
\nthis literal understanding of the Spirit as life and vitality might appear
\ntoo earthly, that is not pious or religious enough. But I believe it’s
\nnevertheless a good thing to examine and take seriously this literal understanding
\nfor there is no life without breath. Without Spirit we would be dead.
\nThe Spirit gives life because He is the life.<\/p>\n
\nis what the letter to the Romans is all about: what’s life, what’s death?
\nWhat makes us alive? What kills? What is the law of sin and death and
\nwhat is the law of life?<\/p>\n
\nlife. For this reason, we confer different meanings to the word:
\nSpirit is culture – in contrast to nature.
\nSpirit is future – in contrast to the past.
\nSpirit is movement – in contrast to standstill.
\nSpirit is openness – in contrast to the self-sufficiency.
\nSpirit is atmosphere – in contrast to the emptiness.
\nSpirit is passion – in contrast to indifference.
\nSpirit is peace – in contrast to violence.<\/p>\n
\nthe word Spirit is as broad as life itself.<\/p>\n
\nof the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God, the Spirit who comes from
\nour belief in the Father and the Son. I think it’d be a misunderstanding
\nto play the Spirit of God against all what we understand and associate
\nwith the word Spirit. The Spirit of God is no another Spirit but the Spirit
\nthat makes us alive and Christ is life.<\/p>\n
\nbeing spiritual means: to live life instead of wanting to possess and
\ncontrol it. Not the „religious,“ but the bodily dimension of
\nhuman beings is alienating. Not the Spirit, but the flesh is adverse to
\nnature.<\/p>\n
\nof God, the Holy Spirit, and all that is otherwise called spirit-from
\nthe spirit to use of metaphors drawn from nature or the spring was a taboo,
\nit was decried as false romanticism decried.<\/p>\n
\nIn fact, it is unbelief. We do not believe anymore in the presence of
\nGod in every living thing. Such a way of thinking has survived-though
\nnot the celebration of Pentecost with its association of nature and Spirit.
\nFor this reason, I would like to conclude with a romantic Pentecost song,
\nthe most popular one in Denmark, by the Danish romantic N.F.S. Grundtvig
\nbecause it tells us about the Spirit through metaphors related to the
\nworld of nature and not in some dry theological terminology. Even though
\nthe English translation does not entirely render the spirit of the original
\nDanish song, it nevertheless gives a feeling of the strength of Grundtvig’s
\nlanguage:<\/p>\n
\nAbove the mercy-seat the life light,
\nNow is our Whitsun lily come.
\nNow there is summer pure and soft,
\nNow more than angel songs foretell
\nA golden harvest in His name<\/p>\n
\nThe nightingale sings in the forest,
\nAnd all the Lord chose once to make,
\nMay slumber sweet and softly wake,
\nMay sweetly dream of paradise
\nAnd waken to our Savior’s praise.<\/p>\n
\nAnders Pontoppidan Thyssen, Copenhagen 1983, p. 188)<\/p>\n
\nTeologisk P\u00e6dagogisk Center L\u00f8gumkloster
\nPr\u00e6steh\u00f8jskolen – Folkekirkens P\u00e6dagogiske Institut
\nKirkeall\u00e9 2, DK-6240 L\u00f8gumkloster
\nTelefon: 74 74 32 13 – Direkte: 73 74 58 81
\nTelefax: 74 74 50 13
\nE-mail: ebh@km.dk<\/a><\/b><\/p>\n
\nE-Mail: barbara.theriault@UMontreal.CA<\/a><\/b><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n