Many topics on this website are dedicated to such considerations. It is about themes of the Bible, about the way of being together in churches and communities and about how we are allowed to think and believe. It is by far not only about certain “dogmatic” positions, but rather about a healthy examination of oneself, of the Bible and of the communities in which we stand.

I have seen and experienced rigid and rigid faith structures in many places. This includes churches as well as free churches. But not only there. Rigid and rigid belief structures are found in many places. They are almost inevitable when people are on the road together for a long time. When communities persist over generations, consolidation and institutionalization take place quite logically. Traditions and customs emerge. We talk about culture or subculture. Some of these developments are good, but some are too limiting and never meant to last “forever.” Thus, it should be important for each generation to reflect on itself and its community and to find healthy ways in this process.

As the saying goes, “Who dares, wins!” However, not everyone dares. But those who dare, who set out for new horizons, are the ones who win. Not infrequently, they also gain valuable insights for many others. Those who repent have the power to help shape the world.

The need to think new

Those who set out to think in new ways often do not meet with approval. In some circles, one’s own thinking is downright suppressed. Sheer fear of change can also be rampant. I have experienced this myself and I hear it again and again from others. Those who reflect can therefore expect a strong headwind as soon as honest and open questions are asked. There is, in fact, a genuine culture of learning in very few churches and congregations. Those who want to expand their own horizons are therefore often alone at first.

A rigid or inflexible belief structure not only does not want change, but there is often a strong black and white thinking there. One “knows” what is good and what is evil, what is conducive to faith and what is not, how one should behave and what is certainly no longer tolerable. Also, it may be that “faith” must correspond to a certain career. However, those who want to think new things are primarily looking for differentiation. Black and white are no longer enough. One has discovered for oneself that there are also shades of gray and perhaps even a whole color palette.

Worth seeing in this context is the film “Pleasantville”, in which two siblings end up in a black-and-white film that gradually becomes colored.

Pleasantville appeared in theaters in 1999. Two siblings regularly watch the 1950s television show “Pleasantville.” There everything was black and white and the world was “pleasant”, “pleasant” – but completely without life. When the two teenagers end up in the film, the change in the small town is unstoppable, and color takes hold. Wikipedia.

Those who seek differentiation, those who want to learn, want a confrontation. It is not by definition a rejection of old structures, but an examination of them. It is not a rejection of the Bible or faith, but an examination of it. One wants to enter into a process in which life and also faith may be discovered anew. This was completely lost in the rigid structures. I think that every church or congregation can be grateful for just such people. They enliven the community. If, however, no confrontation takes place, if it is perhaps even suppressed, then aliveness will seek its own way. That person will turn around and get out.

Martin Buber, the well-known Jewish religious philosopher, wrote the booklet “I and Thou” around 1920, in which he describes the basis for a relationship-oriented philosophy of life. In this booklet he describes quite succinctly the tension that leads to conversion.

The man who repents

Martin Buber writes:

“The dogma does not know the man who overcomes the all-struggle by turning back; who tears the web of the utilitarian instincts by turning back; who frees himself from the spell of class by turning back; – who stirs up, rejuvenates, transforms the secure historical formations by turning back. The dogma of the course of events leaves you only the choice before its board game: observe the rules or drop out; but the reverser overturns the pieces. The dogma, after all, wants to allow you to execute the conditionality with the life and to “remain free” in the soul; but this freedom the inverter considers the most ignominious bondage.”

Martin Buber, I and Thou

Dogma does not know man

When I read the booklet “I and Thou” by Martin Buber, I was in the process of reorientation. There were a few years when I had consciously said goodbye to churches and congregations. Not because I lost faith, but on the contrary, because faith was almost lost to me in the faith communities.

This reorientation was a very deliberate confrontation. It was first a purging, namely of religious baggage that I had picked up here and there. But then it was also a search and self-reflection on how and where my trust in God and my faith could be lived out. Likewise, it was a renewed confrontation with the Bible itself, because – I had understood – it was my understanding of the Bible that had become indigestible. It was not the Bible that was the problem, but my own internalized understanding. There were too many inconsistencies, not only doctrinally, but also in terms of faith culture. I had to set out on my own to unravel this tangle, to create for myself a new approach to Scripture and a healthier understanding of the faith.

Martin Buber writes “Dogma does not know the man who overcomes the all-struggle through conversion”. By “dogma” here is not meant an ecclesiastical dogma, but for Buber it is the expression of an assumption that may not be questioned. It is a general expression that is not only referred to faith. The dogmas, these are the fixed anchors for the respective community, which may not be shaken under any circumstances. These assumptions are valued more highly than the people themselves. Dogma does not know man. One believes more in the rules than in the person (cf. Mk 2:27).

I have now related this general statement of Martin Buber to my development. I selectively read this as a reflection of religious structures, even though Buber himself speaks of something larger. Nevertheless, the description can perfectly fit the experience of those who break out of constricting beliefs and find a new way.

The dogma does not know the human being, certainly not the questioning human being who reflects himself and the community. The dogma does not know the man “who overcomes the all-struggle through conversion”. Indeed, everyone experiences a conflict in the world. Therefore, it is indeed an “all-struggle” of all people. Some, however, overcome this struggle through repentance. They break out of a system that no longer offered enough space to live. The one who turns back overcomes the limitations.

This conversion is not the departure because of indifference. It is the conversion with the same living power, with which also “conversion” takes place. It is this movement, this rethinking, with which life is given content and direction again. Conversion is given to man as a possibility. Only when we stand by ourselves and our humanity can we repent. Only in this way can we also become believers, confidants. Taking advantage of the reversal, however, remains elusive to many. In rigid and inflexible communities, people perish. But good for the one who manages to break out.

The living person, however, can turn back, can tear the “web” of habits and escape the spell of the community. Martin Buber speaks here of “use drives” and “classes”. The spell of the community can be very strong. Anyone who has ever experienced this can imagine something about it. It is these assumptions that divide into good and bad, black and white. Those who do not behave in such and such a way almost fall away from the faith. Fear is stoked.

Even if it is not directly said so, there is an invisible burden on many people. It is tacitly agreed that this is bliss, that faith looks just like this, that church always has this form, and believers can only be true believers if they submit to this idea. Many don’t even realize how this is going on because you have no comparison at all – you’ve never been in another kind of community, never experienced another church from the inside.

Rejuvenation and transformation

There are the following poles in this comparison: on the one hand there is the superior “dogma”, on the other hand there is the “conversion”. Put somewhat more neutrally and viewed with distance, one could also say that old concepts are wrestling with new concepts. Those who leave for new shores look for a better concept, that is, one that is better adapted to life and faith. The repentant, despite all self-interest, also fulfills a task for the community. For it is this one, Buber writes, “who, through conversion, stirs up, rejuvenates, transforms the secure historical formations .”

Those who repent do not only themselves a favor, but also the community. However, this is not as easy as it sounds. A “dogma” has become entrenched over a long period of time. Rigid and rigid structures do not fall from the sky, but emerge as very human developments over a long period of time. It is these historical entities that need rejuvenation and transformation. However, those who are halfway content to stand in the structures often view the reversers with much suspicion, while the reversers themselves often find it difficult to break free from the old structures. Both would have to deal with each other. However, it would be a challenge for both. Could we show understanding to each other?

Black or white?

“The dogma of expiration leaves you with only one choice before its board game: observe the rules or be eliminated.”

The dogma, or more precisely, the traditional culture, the internalized values are rigid for a reason: they are meant to protect. They are to preserve. They are intended to provide security. And sometimes power structures are to be preserved. It can be various things or maybe everything plays into it. That’s why there are rules, and if you don’t play by the rules, you get thrown overboard. There is exclusion, heresy and the like.

I saw a lot of fear, fear of change, fear of questions, fear of reflection. The dogma of the course of events that Buber speaks of is a single expression. Procedure and dogma belong together. It is a single concept that comes from the fact that the process must always remain as it has always been.

This black-and-white thinking leaves no choice for the reverser. He must set out. Whoever does not find a living space in the old structures, whoever is only constricted by dogmatic ideas, will (God grant it to us according to His grace) drop out of this game.

The exit

“The inverter overturns the characters.”

Knocking over the pieces means that one of them is now out of the game. The inverter leaves the playing field of dogma. Martin Buber says even more about it: “The dogma wants to allow you after all to execute the conditionality with the life and to “remain free” in the soul; but this freedom the repentant considers the most shameful bondage”. Because this is what the person who exits has recognized: He would be “free” to remain under the yoke of dogma. But that is not an option.

The dogma or tradition wants to allow us to run within the set rules. This is the lure, so to speak: We can accept containment as freedom. For many people, this is precisely what is very interesting, and it may be the main reason for some sects or radical interpretations of certain religions to gain so many people. Amazing things happen: Thinking is taken away and people are given a set of rules.

The dogma allows “to execute the conditionality with the life”. The dogma is all for you if you stay within the guidelines. This lack of freedom is sold as “freedom”. It is nothing more than a promise of salvation. This freedom, however, is considered by the convert to be the most shameful bondage, because it does not make one truly free. The reverser gets out.

Renewal is good

Conversion, and then? What’s next? To the church in Rome Paul writes:

“I now pronounce unto you, brethren (in view of God’s compassions), to provide your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy, and acceptable unto God (as your consequential worship), and not to set your minds on this eon, but to to be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may be able to discern what is the will of God – the good, pleasing and perfect.”
Rom 12:1-2

There is talk of a process and of having the courage to be transformed. This statement belongs to the gospel. Rethinking and renewal are “biblical,” if you want to put it that way. There is not only this Bible passage in a letter from the apostle Paul, but also many other examples. People turn back. That is what conversion means. However, rethinking is not only for “unbelievers”, but – as here in the Epistle to the Romans – especially also for believers. This is an important realization when you have grown up with the assumption that everything must always be as it has always been. The Bible is neither rigid nor inflexible. We have a living God (1 Tim 4:10) who also seeks us fully alive (Rom 12:1). Then we must be allowed to display a certain degree of liveliness.

Just as there was talk of positive changes at the beginning of this post, Paul’s statement here is to be understood in the same way. It is “in view of the compassions of God.” That’s a positive angle. Paul seeks to win people to Christ. This includes a change in thinking on the part of believers.

The one who turns back, that is the living one. The one who breaks out does not have to be the apostate, but is perhaps the one who wants to recognize the space of life and faith anew. It is the one who prefers a living relationship to rigid customs, who seeks better answers, who wants to think in a more differentiated way and to stand more consciously in the world.

Suggestions for conversation

• Do we have to be perfect? Why (not)?
• How does spiritual growth take place?
• How does personal growth take place?
• When you have personal questions, can you go to the Bible and find an answer yourself, or do you need input from outside? Why?
• Do you maintain personal contact with people outside your church or community?
• If Abraham were alive today, could he participate in your community as a full member? After all, he is the “father of all believers” (Rom 4:16). Or would he still have to meet conditions?
• Abraham believed God and this was counted to him for righteousness (Gen 15:6). Do I need to believe anything else in my community in order to “belong”? Is it about equalization? And if that is not so, how free are you to think for yourself?
• What does it take to create a culture of good and free exchange?
• How can you encourage fellow human beings to walk a path of faith themselves?
• Paul writes, “But if we are true, we should make all things grow in love, into Him who is the head, Christ” (Eph. 4:15). Reflect “true”, “in love”, “all”, “growing”, “into Him who is the Head, Christ”.