Silent Night, Peaceful Night

Though I do not remember in which war the following occurrence took place, the story is often told of the two opposing armies dug into trenches at opposite sides of a great field of battle anticipating the next day's struggle. It was Christmas Eve. Suddenly a lone voice from one of the sides softly sang "Silent Night." Before long, both sides joined together in the hymn. Though the languages were different, the sentiment was the same and both sides were united in recounting through song the story of the birth of the Savior who came to earth that humanity might be united and that there would be peace. Sadly, the battle came and those men who had joined voices proceeded to kill one another. It is perhaps the most tragically ironic story I have ever heard.

As the angels announced to the shepherds in the Gospel of Luke, Christ the savior was born to bring peace on earth and goodwill to humanity. Our salvation is not simply that Christ comes into our hearts and saves us from our sins. Integral to the salvation that Christ wrought is the coming together of humankind. And the fruit of that unity is peace. As we celebrate this Christmas may we remember that peace has not yet been realized. May we realize that we each have a part to play in its coming. And may our solemn prayer be that the Prince of Peace would yet bring peace.

"Silent night, Holy night.
All is calm, all is bright.
'Round yon Virgin Mother and Child.
Holy Infant so tender and mild.
Sleep in Heavenly peace,
Sleep in Heavenly peace.

"Silent night, Holy night.
Shepherds quake at the sight.
Glories stream from Heaven afar.
Heavenly hosts sing Hallelujah.
Christ, the Savior is born,
Christ, the Savior is born.

"Silent night, Holy night.
Son of God, love’s pure light.
Radiant beams from thy Holy face
With the dawn of redeeming grace
Jesus, Lord, at thy birth,
Jesus, Lord, at thy birth."

-Joseph Mohr

Isaiah 40 and a Message of Hope

This Advent hymn was written in Johann G. Olearius in 1671 and translated into English by Catherine Winkworth in 1863. The words are based on Isaiah 40, which is the classic chapter of expectant waiting in the prophet and in the entire Old Testament. These opening verses of Isaiah were picked up by three of the four Gospel writers as the opening to their Gospels. It speaks of a people longing for salvation and peace. It speaks of a people longing for comfort. The Gospel writers appropriated the verses because they knew that the peace had come in Christ.

"Comfort, comfort ye my people,
speak ye peace, thus saith our God;
comfort those who sit in darkness,
mourning 'neath their sorrow's load;
speak ye to Jerusalem
of the peace that waits for them;
tell her that her sins I cover,
and her warfare now is over.

"For the herald's voice is crying
in the desert far and near,
bidding all men to repentance,
since the kingdom now is here.
O that warning cry obey!
Now prepare for God a way!
Let the valleys rise to meet him,
and the hills bow down to greet him.

"Make ye straight what long was crooked,
make the rougher places plain:
let your hearts be true and humble,
as befits his holy reign,
For the glory of the Lord
now o'er the earth is shed abroad,
and all flesh shall see the token
that his word is never broken."

Advent's Deep Meaning

The hymn "Lo, He comes with clouds descending", though originally written by John Cenick in 1752, was appropriated and altered by Charles Wesley in 1758 for the Methodists as an Advent hymn. Over the years, it became an Advent standard, not just of the Methodists, but of many other Protestant traditions as well. This hymn is regularly sung, in many churches, on the first Sunday of Advent. Reading the words, however, one might wonder what it has to do with Advent. After all, there is not much here about Bethlehem or babies in mangers and the like. Rather, it focuses more on the second coming of Christ.

As it so often does, then, the liturgy reminds the Church of a truth oft forgotten today. Advent was not established by the Church as merely a time to look back on the incarnation. Rather, in preparing our hearts to celebrate Christmas and the coming of the Christ child, the season of Advent reminds us that we are once again waiting expectantly for our Lord. Jesus has promised us that He will come back and the work that He started on earth so many years ago will be brought to fruition in the complete realization of His Kingdom, of which the Church is a foretaste. We again await our coming King, and no season reminds us of this truth better than Advent. For we, like our Fathers of Israel so long ago, long for our Messiah. The only difference is that we know His name and we know that He has already conquered death.

"Lo! He comes with clouds descending,
Once for favored sinners slain;
Thousand thousand saints attending,
Swell the triumph of His train:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
God appears on earth to reign.

"Every eye shall now behold Him
Robed in dreadful majesty;
Those who set at naught and sold Him,
Pierced and nailed Him to the tree,
Deeply wailing, deeply wailing, deeply wailing,
Shall the true Messiah see.

"Every island, sea, and mountain,
Heav’n and earth, shall flee away;
All who hate Him must, confounded,
Hear the trump proclaim the day:
Come to judgment! Come to judgment! Come to judgment!
Come to judgment! Come away!

"Now redemption, long expected,
See in solemn pomp appear;
All His saints, by man rejected,
Now shall meet Him in the air:
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
See the day of God appear!

Answer Thine own bride and Spirit,
Hasten, Lord, the general doom!
The new Heav’n and earth t’inherit,
Take Thy pining exiles home:
All creation, all creation, all creation,
Travails! groans! and bids Thee come!

The dear tokens of His passion
Still His dazzling body bears;
Cause of endless exultation
To His ransomed worshippers;
With what rapture, with what rapture, with what rapture
Gaze we on those glorious scars!

Yea, Amen! let all adore Thee,
High on Thine eternal throne;
Savior, take the power and glory,
Claim the kingdom for Thine own;
O come quickly! O come quickly! O come quickly!
Everlasting God, come down!"

Come Thou Long Expected Jesus

Here is another classic Advent hymn from the pen of Charles Wesley. Written in 1745, this hymn highlights what is often lost these days, that Jesus was the fulfillment first of Israel's hopes for a redeemer. And as the hope of Israel, Jesus was truly the hope of the world.

"Come, thou long expected Jesus,
born to set thy people free;
from our fears and sins release us,
let us find our rest in thee.
Israel's strength and consolation,
hope of all the earth thou art;
dear desire of every nation,
joy of every longing heart.

"Born thy people to deliver,
born a child and yet a King,
born to reign in us forever,
now thy gracious kingdom bring.
By thine own eternal spirit
rule in all our hearts alone;
by thine all sufficient merit,
raise us to thy glorious throne."

Veni, Veni Emmanuel

This great Advent hymn comes from the translating talents of John Mason Neale, based on the text of the O Antiphons of the Catholic Breviary for the week preceding Christmas. The phrase "Veni, veni Emmanuel" could be as old as the twelfth century. The name comes from Isaiah's prophecy. As the prophet records, it means "God with us!"

"Oh come, oh come, Emmanuel.
And ransom captive Israel.
That mourns in lowly exile here,
Until the Son of God appears.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to thee o Israel.

"Oh, come, our Wisdom from on high,
Who ordered all things mightily;
To us the path of knowledge show,
and teach us in her ways to go.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to you, O Israel!

"Oh, come, oh, come, our Lord of might,
Who to your tribes on Sinai's height
In ancient times gave holy law,
In cloud and majesty and awe.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to you, O Israel!

"Oh, come O Rod of Jesse's stem,
From ev'ry foe deliver them
That trust your mighty pow'r to save;
Bring them in vict'ry through the grave.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to you, O Israel!

"Oh, come, O Key of David, come,
And open wide our heav'nly home;
Make safe the way that leads on high,
And close the path to misery.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to you, O Israel!

"Oh, come, our Dayspring from on high,
And cheer us by your drawing nigh,
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death's dark shadows put to flight.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to you, O Israel!

"Oh, come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind;
Oh, bid our sad divisions cease,
And be yourself our King of Peace.
Rejoice! Rejoice! Emmanuel
Shall come to you, O Israel!

A Wesleyan Take on Advent

I am a Wesleyan, and one of the things that I love most about my tradition is the importance that we have always placed on hymnody. John Wesley never wrote a systematic theology, as many of the other great Protestant leaders (Luther, Calvin) did. But he and his brother Charles wrote a number of hymns for the people called Methodists to use in worship. Wesleyan theology comes through beautifully in the words of those magnificent hymns:

"And can it be that I should gain, an interest in the Savior's blood. Died he for me who caused his pain, for me? who him to death pursued?"

"Made like him, like him we rise. Ours the cross, the grave, the skies."

To express one's theology in hymns, as the Wesleys did, symbolically expresses the truth that all true theology is never divorced from worship. And that the church is the context for theology.

With this in mind, I have decided, as part of the preparation of my own heart to "prepare him room" for the coming of the Savior this Advent, to reflect anew on the wonderful words of the beautiful, but now oft forgotten, Christmas carols. I would like to share them with my readers. So as you check in here throughout these next few weeks, do not just read the words and move on. Use these wonderful words as a means of preparing your own hearts.

Because this is a Wesleyan take on Advent, I thought it would be appropriate to start with one of Wesley's best:

Hark! The Herald Angels Sing

"Hark! The herald angels sing
'Glory to the newborn king!'
Peace on earth and mercy mild.
God and sinners reconciled.

"Joyful all ye nations rise.
Join the triumph of the skies.
With angelic host proclaim:
'Christ is born in Bethlehem!'

"Christ by highest heaven adored.
Christ the everlasting Lord.
Late in time behold him come,
Offspring of the virgin's womb.

"Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate deity.
Pleased as man with men to dwell.
Jesus our Immanuel.

"Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace.
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Risen with healings in His wings.

"Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth.
Born to give them second birth.

"Hark! The herald angels sing.
'Glory to the newborn king!'"

ADVENTUS

"Tears are falling, hearts are breaking.
How we need to hear from God.
You've been promised, we've been waiting.
Welcome Holy Child.

"Hope that you don't mind our manger.
How I wish we would have known.
But long awaited Holy Stranger,
Make yourself at home.

Bring your peace into our violence.
Bid our hungry souls be filled.
Word now breaking heaven's silence.
Welcome to our world.

"Fragile fingers sent to heal us.
Tender brow prepared for thorn.
Tiny heart, whose blood will save us
unto us is born.

"So wrap our injured flesh around you.
Breath our air and walk our sod.
Rob our sin and make us holy.
Perfect son of God.

Welcome to our world."

-Chris Rice

Theological Poetry

"God gives all He has to give -
His son to speak that one word, Live."

-Joseph Bottom

The Rich Symbolism of Baptism

One of the most contentious issues in the church today is baptism. "Should we sprinkle?" "Should we immerse?" "Do you have to be baptized to be saved?" "Should we baptize infants?" "Should we re-baptize?" And around and around we go. Unfortunately, our hangups on these issues cause us to miss the deep theological beauty that is signified in baptism.

In three Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) we have the account of Jesus submitting to the baptism by John. This is strong evidence that one of the earliest memories of Christ was his being baptized. Perhaps it was the first public act that anyone witnessed Jesus do. Baptism in Judaism was the way that Gentile converts (Godfearers) could enter the fold of Judaism. It symbolized a passing through water, much like the Hebrew slaves passed through the Red Sea in their Exodus from Egypt and passed through the Jordan in their march into the Promised Land. Significantly, Jesus is baptized in the Jordan, thus sanctifying the act as a Christian sacrament. Matthew records that Jesus' last command to his disciples was: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Mt 28:19). So, then, one of our earliest liturgical, Trinitarian creeds, comes in the context of baptism.

The early Christians developed the theology around this earliest of Christian rites. The writer of 1 Peter, for example, sees in baptism an antitype of the Ark: ". . . God's patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pt 3:20-21).

Paul, though capable of the Jewish connection of baptism to the crossing of the Red Sea (1 Cor 10:1-2), he rather prefers baptism as the symbol of our dying with Christ and so rising with him in new life: "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his" (Rom 6:3-5). Such imagery does likely not originate with Paul, but is taken from the rite of baptism itself that developed early in the history of the church: on Easter Sunday, all of the catechumens were taken to a river, stripped naked, and descended into the water (symbolizing death). When they came out of the water, they were given white robes (symbolizing new life). As Paul says later in the same letter: "But put on the Lord Jesus Christ . . ." (Rom 13:14).

As theology and Christian thought developed, the dominate connection to baptism became circumcision. That is the mark that God commanded Abraham and all male Jews after him to receive as a sign that they were in the covenant and, thus, a sign of their salvation. Corresponding to this, baptism became the mark that one was in the new covenantal people of God, the Church, and, thus, was also a sign of their salvation.

I think that there is truth in all of these metaphors, each displaying a different facet of the wonderful sacrament that has been given the Church in baptism. What I think interesting about the circumcision comparison, and I will conclude with this, is that Christians, as they always did and do, appropriated the metaphor through the lens of Christ. In other words, circumcision, as is obvious, only involved the male. Therefore, a female's part in the covenant came through her participation in the lineage as a mother or daughter. (Incidentally, this is why widows and orphans are such a problem in the Old Covenant.) Yet, as strong as the correlation between baptism and circumcision became in the Church, this distinction of sexes (to the detriment of women) was never held. Baptism, as such, is the same rite for both men and women. Both descend into the water, and so die, and both ascend out of the water into newness of life with Jesus Christ.

Responsa quaestiones

This past summer, much was made of Pope Benedict XVI's supposedly derogatory statements regarding Protestant churches, namely that they are not properly to be called "the Church," but rather "ecclesial communities." This upset a lot of Protestants, and subsequently caused a general lament for the current leadership of the pontificate. Pope Benedict became the subject of much derision, and I heard it claimed that he is "rolling back all of the positive progress made by Vatican II and John Paul II." Of course I, curiously, never was able to find the actual document where these comments were made. I must admit that I was suspicious of the whole affair because, first, I tend to give Roman Catholicism the benefit of the doubt in many areas where most of my Protestant brethren are ready to throw it to the lions; and, second, because I know Pope Benedict XVI to have been one of the leading theologians at Vatican II. It simply did not make sense to me that he would now "roll back" any progress.

Recently, I finally located the comments. It turns out that they were not made at random by the Pope to stir up divisions or to change the teaching of Vatican II. Rather, they came in the form of a document, Responsa quaestiones, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF) and endorsed by the Pope. You can read it here. This document was written as an official response to the lingering questions by the Catholic faithful resulting from Vatican II's teaching on the nature of the Church. As such, it did not change the teaching of Vatican II, but merely clarified it.

The teaching of Vatican II is as follows:

1. The Church is the visible communion of the people of God, signified in the Holy Eucharust, who are called by the Father and redeemed by the Son, who are pilgrims on this earth, having a foretaste of the kingdom of Heaven in the presence of the Spirit yet moving toward the full realization of the kingdom in eternity.

2. The Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

The second statement is where most perceive a change in Catholic teaching. Namely, Vatican II no longer equated the Church with the Roman Catholic Church, an equation that was being made as late as the middle of the twentieth century. It did not equate the two because it recognized, what it called "ecclesial elements" outside of the Catholic Church. Ecclesial elements are those things such as the Scriptures, the sacraments, etc. Therefore, though the fullness of the ecclesial elements exists only in the Catholic Church, they do not deny the presence of some or many of them elsewhere, and consequently, though these latter communities are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, they are not denied communion with God or salvation.

The recent document in question did not change any of this progress. Rather, it affirmed that, in the belief of the Catholic Church, Protestant churches are not called the Church, because they lack apostolic succession (our ministers do not go back to the apostles through the sacrament of ordination) and the teaching of the real presence in the Eucharist, a dogma held firm through history. As such, we have imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.

Yet, as Protestants, we must not see this as a slap in the face; rather, it is the Catholic Church faithfully professing what it believes. We are not denied salvation, we just do not have the fullness on earth - as such, we are wounded. "But even in spite of (these doctrinal differences) it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in baptism are incorporated into Christ; (separated brethren) therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as sisters and brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3).

But the Catholic Church also teaches that she herself is wounded because the full visible communion of God's people is not yet realized. Thus, our mission to the world is jeopardized. This belief is one of the reasons why the Catholics, since Vatican II, have been the most diligent workers in the ecumenical movement, that is the movement toward greater unity of all Christian denominations. This was "one of the principle concerns of the Second Vatican Council" (Unitatis Redintegratio 1).

Before we Protestants point out the speck in the eye of the Catholic Church, we would do well to pull the plank out of our own eye. I have heard much worse said about Catholics in Protestant and evangelical circles. Its time we put these petty characterizations aside and work for the greater unity of all of our denominations. For we all believe in the same Triune God, we all believe that God has revealed himself foremost in His Scriptures, and we all believe that apart from Christ, there is no life.

"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they may also be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." -Jesus

For All the Saints

Today is All Saints Sunday, an important day in the Christian calendar that, unfortunately, often goes unnoticed. It is the day that we celebrate the lives of all the saints who have passed on from this life and have joined the Church triumphant. No more are these saints fighting the fight on earth; rather, they have joined that great cloud of witnesses where they participate in the true worship of our heavenly Father of which our worship here is only a shadow. In many churches, candles are lit and the names are solemnly read aloud of all those who have died in the past year. I was able to call out the name 'John Barber,' my grandfather who passed away in late September.

I suspect that the reason that this day is not so much celebrated in our culture is because death is not a regular thing in our churches. Sure we experience it when our older members pass on, and that is certainly sad. But death is not shocking to us. It is a normal occurrence in our lives. It was not so in the early church. In those first few centuries, a person could be tried and put to death simply for having the name Christian. All someone needed to do was accuse a person as a Christian, and his or her death ticket was all but signed. In that situation, death was a regular occurrence. One can imagine regular reports of members of local churches being read in those early church services. One can imagine the shock that would have rung out in the congregation. When those early communities celebrated the names and lives of those who had passed in the last year, they were not just celebrating the grandmothers and grandfathers, they were celebrating the husbands and the wives and the children.

But today is not a sad day, it is a triumphant day. As we read off the names of the saints who have passed on, we are reminded that death is no longer the final act of a person's life. It is merely a comma. Because Christ rose, these saints too will rise, and one day soon, the Church will all together again in the heavenly worship of our Triune God.

"For all the saints, who from their labors rest,
who thee by faith before the world confessed,
thy name, O Jesus, be forever blest.

"O blest communion, fellowship divine!
We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;
Yet all are one in thee, for all are thine."

-William W. How

And So This Is Mixmas

So I turn on the radio this morning and I am informed by local radio station 99.1 'The Mix' that the Christmas season is upon us. Or to be more correct, the 'Mixmas' season: all Christmas music, all the time. So for the next two months, I can be guaranteed a steady stream of Brenda Lee's 'Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree', Lennon's 'So This is Christmas', a various assortment of Neil Diamond Santa tunes, and the ubiquitous 'Same Old Lang Syne' by Dan Fogelberg. I'd like to drink a toast to his innocence. Two things bug me about this.

First of all, these radio stations have, for the most part, removed all Christmas songs having anything to do with Christ. Therefore, we are forced to here the same songs over and over again by different artists, and they are all about Frosty or Santa or snow. The profound irony here is that, if this is what Christmas has been reduced to, then what are we celebrating for two long months? How many different versions of 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town' one generation can produce? Or how many pitches Bruce Springsteen actually falls short in trying to reach the high notes in his embarrassingly awful version of the same?

Second, and even more concerning to me, is the redefining of the Christmas season itself. In capitalist America, where the veil of Christmas is still encouraged for the sheer revenue that it generates, the celebration begins immediately after Halloween. Stores are turned from orange and black to red and green. Pumpkins are replaced with holly. Candy corn is replaced with candy canes. And scary stuffed men are replaced with Santa Clauses. The pumpkin patches in the middle of malls are replaced by Santa's Workshop. And of course, Christmas music is everywhere. This continues through December 25th, when all of the buying is occurring, but then magically on the 26th it is all gone. The Santas removed, the colors changed, and the Christmas music gone. As American Christians, this seems quite normal and many of us capitulate, removing our lights and trees by New Years Eve. We eliminate all traces of the celebration from our houses almost as quickly as the stores. What we don't realize, however, is that the Christmas season has been redefined for us by the retailers.

According to the Christian calendar, the season begins with the Feast of Advent, the first Sunday of which is the first Sunday of December. What follows is several weeks where we prepare our hearts through meditation on the incarnation, acts of mercy, and fasts to receive our coming king Immanuel. The Feast of the Nativity, or Christ Mass, begins on December 25 and continues until January 6. We are meant to revel in the reality that our savior has come to earth and has been born. We are meant to celebrate and feast this reality for two weeks. But we don't. Instead we tear it all down as soon as it has begun, giving ourselves hardly any time to appreciate the wonder. And we go back to our daily lives, not realizing that the world has changed - God has entered it.

I do not blame the retailers or even the radio stations - they do not know any better. But we as Christians should. We should reclaim the significance of our feast. And we should start by celebrating it according to the time of holy tradition, not according to the time of 'Mixmas.'

Methodists Beware!

"There is nothing more grotesque than to think of a Christ who would want to establish committees."

-Hans Urs von Balthasar

Amen and Amen!

Inspiration (2)

"In matters of faith, no [one], not even the Pope or the bishops, possesses the truth . . . This divine truth possesses us . . . Truth takes possession of us. But we must go a step further. It does not take possession of us individually, for this truth is entrusted before all to the Church. Similarly, at the level of the Church as a whole, we cannot strictly say: 'The Church is in possession of the truth, of the true faith.' Yet the true faith is unfailingly entrusted to the Church, the Body of Christ and the Bride of the Lord. It is entrusted to her as a sacred heritage which never becomes her own property. In other words, the sum total of her teaching will never exhaust all its wealth." -Piet Fransen

Agree or disagree? And with what specifically?

A Chastened Critique of Joel Osteen

This evening, megachurch pastor and best selling author Joel Osteen was interviewed on 60 Minutes. I have elsewhere been rather critical of Osteen, in matters relating to both his theology and his motives. But after seeing his interview tonight, I feel that I am developing more of, what one might call, a chastened critique. Where before I questioned his motives, after seeing his interview this evening, I am convinced that he is quite sincere. He feels that he has a calling from God to give people hope, and judging from the personal testimonies of many, it seems that he is doing this. Moreover, I respect his decision to not ask for money on his television broadcasts and agree with him that such requests would likely hinder the message he is trying to send. And where before I might have questioned whether he was even a Christian, after seeing his interview this evening, I am convinced that he is, at least in what seems to be his narrow understanding of one. At one point, he was moved to tears at the prospect of God using him in such powerful ways. He also handled serious critiques with grace, which I think are marks of a Christian.

But while it is chastened, there still remains in my assessment of him a rather strong critique, and that is this: It seems to me that Osteen is profoundly confused on a number of issues pertinent to both the Christian life and to his position as the pastor of a church.

First, his understanding of the Gospel seems extremely shallow. As far as I can tell, he preaches a message that God wants to give you the best life possible on this earth, all you have to do is think positively, be faithful and he will bless you. This is simply not the Gospel in any sense of the word. The Gospel is a message of hope of deliverance of sin and communion with God. It speaks nothing of wealth in this life. In fact, its primary model of a faithful life is a homeless man whose life was violently cut short at 30 years of age. Neither is this the Gospel as experienced by a majority of Christians through history. The early martyrs knew nothing of Osteen's gospel, yet we believe that they are among the ones who most clearly understood Christ's project and
the only ones to live it out completely.

Second, Osteen is confused as to what his calling is. Is he a pastor? Is he a motivational speaker? Is he a writer of self help books? I would imagine that Osteen would say he is all of these things. But I think that the definition of a pastor is somewhat incongruent with the other two. For a pastor is not a motivational speaker. Motivational speakers are all about making people feel good. Pastors are called to preach the Gospel whether that brings hope or conviction. Sometimes people don't need to feel good. They need to feel bad so that they might be driven to God. And a pastor is not a self help author. For a self help author believes that a person only needs to implement a few reasonable habits or principles into their life and they can have the life they want. A pastor knows that there is no formula to this Christian life. Sometimes you can be praying consistently and have all the faith in the world, and your loved one still dies of cancer. A pastor knows that living the Gospel is not about implementing principles. It is rather about communion with the living God.

Therefore, it seems to me that Osteen is much more of a motivational speaker and self help author then he is a pastor. His new book has seven principles for "Becoming a better you" yet none of them mention God or Christ. How can a Christian pastor speak about personal development apart from Christ? Also, Osteen told the 60 Minutes interviewer that (paraphrase) "there are others much more qualified to understand and expound Scripture. I don't feel that's what I'm called to do." He was making the point that he wants to keep the message simple. But this is where he is wrong. It is precisely the job of a pastor to expound the Scripture. And the fact is that Scripture is hard in many places and it is the pastor's job to make that understandable, not just to keep it simple. If this is not what Osteen is called to do, then he is not a pastor. And given his understanding of the Gospel, I question whether the hope he is giving is the Christian hope in any meaningful sense of the word.

An Open and Likely Unwanted Letter

To my dear and faithful readers (if there are any of you left):

My sincerest apologies for my absence of late from these pages. Much has been happening (or "has gone down" as the kids are now saying) these past few weeks and I am only now beginning to feel as if I'm getting my feet back under me. Of course, that will only last for a few days and then the flood will take them away from me once again, and I'll be left to wonder where the heck my Arky Arky is. In times like these, it is unfortunate but true that blogging is one of the first things in my life to go, second only to personal hygiene. But as this push is nearing its end, I anticipate to return to these pages shortly.

In all sincerity,

J. Lashier (long "a" soft "s")

We are One Another

An appropriate quote, I think, for this blog:

"I bear in my life of faith today the drama of Israel, the fruit of the costly discussions of Nicaea and Chalcedon, what Francis of Assisi mined in the mysteries of evangelical poverty, what thousands of obscure believers have affirmed of the power of hope in their responses to persecutors. And our successors will, in their time, be enriched by what African and Latin American Christianities in their contexts are working out before our eyes. The communion of saints is not relegated to the register of merits or of prayer. It already involves the fundamental plan of faith."

-Jean-Marie Roger Tillard

Inspiration (1)

It seems to me that the church and her theologians spend an inordinate amount of time these days on the doctrine of inspiration. The idea that Scripture is inspired has, in fact, taken first place in the confessional statements of many churches (and seminaries for that matter), particularly those churches of the non-denominational/evangelical/megachurch variety. I find this odd, given that a doctrine of inspiration is not even present in the historic creeds; they, rather, all address the nature of the God who was revealed in Christ. To be sure, the Fathers believed that the Scriptures were inspired, they just did not feel the need to logically define how that mysterious process took place. In general, pre-moderns are much more comfortable with mystery than moderns are.

I suspect that the doctrine of inspiration has been so elevated in recent times because it has come under so much fire from more liberal (in the original sense of the word) sects of the church and those outside the church who hold a priori (or without even arguing for it) that such a doctrine is impossible. Thus, the great dividing line - what makes one a Christian or not - is shifted from what one believes in Christ (the historic definition) to what one believes about the inspiration of the Scriptures.

In one sense, this shift may be appropriate because unless one believes that the Scriptures indeed come from God, then one will not believe in the truth of the things which are said in them, and thus the entire faith crumbles. But in another sense, this shift is entirely inappropriate for it entails the addition of a creedal component that was not agreed upon by the Fathers when the church was still one entity; and, therefore, a creedal component which all parts of the church cannot agree upon. (Again, the church has always believed in the inspiration of her Scriptures, but not in the manner that it is defined by certain sects.) Moreover, this shift gives the disastrous impression of elevating belief in the inspiration of Scripture as the most important aspect of our faith.

Friends, this is simply not the case, and if this is how you have been taught, then you have been taught a faith that, at least in this respect, is in no way consistent with Christianity as passed on from the apostles. The truth is that the most important aspect of our faith, the aspect which Jesus came to earth to witness to is who God is. And all the creeds agree that God is Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit - and, as such, a relational God who desires relation with his creation and will one day restore that creation to himself. All other creedal points - including the inspiration and authority of Scripture - flow out of this point. And as far as I know, you and I can agree on who God is without being completely in agreement on the nature of the word which tells us this. If the Fathers felt no need to define the great mystery of inspiration, I see no reason why we should.

The Communion of Saints - One Year Later

I am happy to announce to all of my readers that the Communion of Saints blogspot (hereafter CoS) has officially been in existence for a year today. I am carefully to add "blogspot" to the previous statement for I in no way want to imply that the Communion of Saints has been around for just a year. As I hope this blog has witnessed to, the Communion of Saints is a living communion that has existed since that original Pentecost nearly 2000 years ago. And according to Hebrews, our Fathers and Saints (that great cloud of witnesses) extends back into Israel's story, the communion of saints in potentia perhaps.

We have seen and, hopefully, experienced a bit of that communion here as I have tried to bring to the table pertinent topics for discussion and debate. I have also tried to represent significant voices from our past who we might not have been aware of, voices of the great Fathers like Irenaeus and Augustine. And we have heard from the living saints - you my readers, if there are any of you left. :) Of course, communion in cyber space is less than perfect for it is disembodied and the church, if anything is an embodied entity. Yet reading one another's thoughts and dialoging here can be a form of communion and can encourage us to seek out our local communities and foster embodied relationships there.

In honor of the passing of the year, I would like to offer you a few of my favorite posts from this past year. Enjoy! And as Babu Bhatt (of Seinfeld fame) said: "Tell your fliends!"

First Post: A Communion of Bloggers

Post which generated the most comments: Authentic Community

Most meaningless post: A Bit of Levity

Post with the biggest rant: Let's Leave THEM Behind

Imago Trinitatis

"The trace of the Trinity appears in creatures." -St. Augustine

The Experiment

In a previous blog, I related the classes that I will be taking this semester. The astute reader, and I know that you are all astute readers, will surely realize that the majority of my blogs this semester will have something to do with either Romans, Thomas Aquinas, or the church, as we tend to think about (and some of us) blog about the things that we are learning. There is one other area from which I will probably be crafting a lot, perhaps the majority, of my blogs. For this past Sunday a great experiment began.

Julie and I began teaching the senior high Sunday School class at our church, Trinity Pilgrim United Methodist Church. Some may call it an adventure (you never know what those kids are going to say), some may call it foolish (nothing short of three people approached me on Sunday to tell me that they had tried teaching the high schoolers and they had quit), but I prefer to call it an experiment. It is an experiment to see if the wonderful theological training I have received over the last five or six years actually "works" in church and, moreover, in the youth culture.

I am here reminded of a story that one of my seminary professors told me. Several years ago, there was an African tribe who had come to Christ through the ministry of a missionary from North America. After several years, there grew a desire that the tribe begin to lead themselves, and so they sent one of their promising young men to an American seminary in order to learn from the great minds about the bible so that he could then teach these truths to the tribe. After an absence of over four years, the tribe anxiously awaited the young man's return. When he did, they put him right into the pulpit to preach. But he was speechless. After standing there for a long time, the missionary pulled him aside and asked what the problem was. The young man said that he was not sure how to preach what he had learned to his tribe. How does "expiation" or "transubstantiation" translate? This man had to go through another course to relearn the Christian faith in his own language.

It strikes me that Julie and I are in a similar position here. We've spent the last few years learning a language and learning how to meaningfully discuss things in terms of that language. Specifically, I have spent the last few days in a quite interesting debate over the first few chapters of Romans. But this all means nothing in the context of senior highers. We, like the missionary, might be speechless in front of these kids. Unless we find a way to translate it into their language and their culture. And this is why I call it an experiment. I believe that our learning can be translated; it has to be, otherwise the academy has lost all touch with the church and has therefore become a useless entity. We have evidence that it has been translated through the years - this is why the Apostle Paul wrote in Greek (the language of the people) instead of Hebrew (the language of the faith). The question is, and the experiment will be, whether we can find the effective means to make that translation happen. If we can, then we have a chance of reaching these kids and impacting their lives with the truth of God's story. If we can't, then we might as well not waste their time - and I might as well start thinking of another profession.

We need your prayers in this experiment.

God's Definition of 'Reward'

"Now this is our highest reward, that we should fully enjoy him, and that all who enjoy him should enjoy one another in him." -St. Augustine

An unorganized discourse on classes and Labor Day

I have one week under my belt and it looks to be a good, and quite busy, semester. I am taking three classes this semester, as opposed to two classes (which I took each of my first two semesters) and which is the standard thoroughfare for doctoral students. My reason for increasing my class load is twofold: 1) I received a scholarship for 18 credits this year, and any credit unused would simply go to waste; as I might not be awarded the same scholarship next year, it behooves me to use all of the credits; hence, 9 credits, or 3 classes, each semester; and 2) my lovely wife has assured me that she will in fact kill me if I do not hurry up and finish. Taking three classes each semester will mean that I will finish my coursework this year - and everyone involved will be happy. So, though it will be busy and, perhaps, a little insane at times, I am committed to it. Let's just hope they don't commit me when I am done.

My classes this year are as follows: 1) Romans, a biblical studies course taught by a first year professor. I took the course primarily because of this professor. He studied under Richard Hays, a Wesleyan biblical scholar at Duke, of whom I greatly admire his exegetical practice. As I have lamented in previous posts, modern biblical scholars, in my humble opinion, tend to spend their time carving up the text until it resembles a large pile of meaningless scraps and in no shape to be edifying to the church. My hope (and experience thus far) is that this class will not be like that or that if it is, I would have the strength and intelligence to stand for a different approach;

2) Ecclesiology (which is just a fancy way of saying "study of the church"), a systematics course on, you guessed it, the study of what the church is, how it functions, etc. This course is taught by a Catholic nun whose primary focus, in her work, is what is called ecumenism. This means the work of finding what is similar in different denominations and working toward greater unity in the entire church. She is on several national "church dialogues" including one between the Catholics and Lutherans and another between the Catholics and Orthodox. She is also on the editorial board of an ecumenical periodical which I love called Pro Ecclesia ('for the church'). I am probably most excited for this class, as I hope that the main thrust of my own work, once I attain my PhD, will be the working toward greater unity in the church;

and 3) The Theology of Thomas Aquinas, a historical course studying the life and work of Thomas Aquinas, a medieval Catholic monk and theologian whose theological thought has had, arguably, the most influence of any Catholic thinker in the life of the church. I have been told that if you are a history major than you will have to deal with Thomas Aquinas at some point. It is taught by a middle ages scholar who has already shown in subtle ways that she is brilliant (she spoke to a student in both Swedish and Norwegian on the first day). This class will be more of what I am used to, as it is a historical course; however, I am fairly weak in knowledge on the middle ages so it is going to be a challenge. It should improve my Latin skills, however, as she expects us to read his work in Latin. We'll see.

On an unrelated note, does anyone else feel that Labor Day comes at the worst possible time? Last Sunday, I went through the entire grieving process of acknowledging that summer was over (Julie said to me: "See you at Christmas.") and that going back to class and getting back into the swing of things was in fact a good thing. This was very difficult, yet somehow I managed to do it, and by the end of the week and all of my classes, was starting to feel excited once again. And then all of the sudden, you are hit with this three day weekend, this mirage in the desert, summer's last, dying gasp. And you enjoy it! You love it! It makes you feel once again like you have no worries. But lo and behold Monday evening roles around and you are right back to where you started a week ago, trying to convince yourself that it is a good thing to be back. It is a little unfair - might have liked a three day weekend more at the beginning of October. But since when have students had any say?

Slave of Christ

"Being a slave of Christ is more distinguished than any freedom."

-Origen

First Day of School

Today is the beginning of a new school year for me. I have always loved these new beginnings - when I was a kid, it was so exciting to go back to school, to play at recess with your friends again, to meet your new teacher, to use your new school supplies and to wear your new outfits. In beginning what, hopefully, will be the final year of all my years in education, I find that these little joys are no longer present. I'm currently wearing some pants that I got as a gift two Christmases ago, a shirt I bought last year, and a pair of shoes that I've had since my third year in seminary. In fact, as I think of it, this might be the exact outfit I had on the first day of school last year. My school supplies are the same, simply remove the old notes from the binder and insert some new paper. Of course everything is done on computer now and I can't remember the last time I needed a glue stick or some crayons. I have new professors this year but, quite honestly, that prospect scares me more than anything. Its rather nice to already know what your professor expects. And unfortunately we have no recess here, though it is nice to study with some familiar faces.

And though the joys are not the same, I find that there are indeed still joys. I haven't seen many of my classmates since the spring - one of my friends has been in Australia all summer, another one in Boston. It will be good to see them. I'm excited about my classes. Though there is no anticipation of learning and memorizing more of the multiplication tables or spelling words with three syllables, there is an anticipation of new subject matters, and new horizons to integrate. And as with every beginning, the Lord has new mercies all over the place. We just need to be aware of them, and to appreciate the stage of life in which the Lord has it. Because we will never be here again.

I love being a student.

Musings from a Beach

"Yet, as everyone knows, meditation and water are wedded forever." -Herman Melville, Moby Dick

(Note to the reader: Since last Friday, my wife and I have been on vacation at Panama City Beach, Florida. When a person sits hour after hour looking out at such a powerful part of God's creation, namely the ocean, he has much time to ponder the deep and the shallow things of life. The following have been some of mine:)

1. There is, perhaps, no place where litter is more visible, and more disturbing, than on a beach.

2. In one of my morning walks, I happened upon a school of minnows swimming in the shallow waters of the ocean. They were constantly being moved by its powerful waves, drug into the shore and then pushed out again. But they kept swimming and together they kept moving. I thought it an apt picture of the church's existence in the world. Pity the poor minnow who finds himself swimming alone.

3. Given that reading is an aesthetic experience entailing not only the words on the page but the surroundings in which they are read, Moby Dick, if it is to be read at all, should be read on an ocean beach.

4. There is a military base nearby. Every so often, a fighter jet or a helicopter flies by piercing the clear, blue air with its stream and the peaceful sounds of the tides with its thrust. It reminds me that even this most serene and peaceful of environments cannot be likened to paradise. For the specter of war is never far off here. Why must this be?

5. George Costanza may have said it best: "The sea was angry that day my friends, like an old man trying to return soup in a deli."

6. Take heart freckled ones. I have found that if you stay outside long enough, all of your freckles eventually come together into one and thereby giving you the appearance of actually being tan.

7. The dolphins have been thick here. I have heard it said that dolphins are intelligent enough that if they ever came together, they could take us over. And this, I am told, is something we should fear. Why, I'm not sure. The seem playful enough. Anyway, I don't think they can do much worse than today's average world ruler.

8. Though it might not be the case that the world is my oyster, I can now most assuredly say that the ocean is my toilet.

9. There is little that can be added to the experience of a sunset over the ocean, save a good wife and a good cigar.

The Sacrament of Marriage

Three years ago today, I stood before the church with my fiance Julie Graff and repeated the sacred marriage vows. Largely due to the influence of J.D. Walt, my pastor from Asbury and the man who was leading us through the vows, I had already begun to think of marriage in terms of a sacrament. The sacraments are "perceptible signs (words and actions) accessible to our human nature. By the action of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit they make present efficaciously the grace that they signify" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1084). In other words, they are an outward sign of an inward grace, those acts or "means of grace" by which we experience the grace of God in a special, tangible manner. Generally speaking, Protestant traditions have limited the sacraments to two, namely Baptism and the Eucharist, as these are the two signifying acts, which were instituted by Christ. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches, following practices of the early church and a strong cohesive tradition, recognize several more, of which marriage is one.

My belief in the sacramentality of marriage was being formed by the manner in which I was reading Scripture. I was coming to see, more fully than I ever had before, that the covenant that God formed with humanity, first with Israel through Abraham (Gen. 12.1-3) - more fully explained in the Sinai Covenant (Exod. 20ff) - and with all humanity in Jesus Christ, was portrayed by the writers of Scripture as a marriage covenant. God pledges to his people his enduring faithfulness, not on the basis of any work or merit that his people provide him, but on the simple fact that he loves them and chooses to covenant with them. Thus, the Old Testament speaks in the most intimate of terms of God's love. When Israel goes astray, he is jealous for them. Their apostasy is most often characterized as adultery - Israel plays the whore to other gods. The most stunning depiction of this love is the book of Hosea, where Hosea relentlessly pursues his wife Gomer despite the fact that she is prostituting herself to other men. He finally is forced to buy her back, though she is already rightfully his. And despite her cruel unfaithfulness, Hosea never ceases from his pursuit of her.

The New Testament continues the metaphor referring to the People of God often as the Bride of Christ. Christ is pictured as the Bridegroom who is betrothed to his people in his life, death, and resurrection. The Apostle Paul never speaks of marriage without immediately moving to the relationship of Christ and the Church. The time between Christ's first advent and second advent has been interpreted by many theologians as a time of preparation for the bride. The Church is being sanctified to be fully joined with Christ in the Eschaton. Thus, the preferred image of heaven in the New Testament is a wedding feast.

In marriage, a man and a woman vow to love one another not on the basis of anything that the other can offer but on the basis of unconditional love. This is why the vows say, "for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health". The point is that it is not about what one can do for the other - it is rather the enduring, faithful love for the other that ratifies the covenant. As imperfect humans, we are truly incapable of this kind of love, and this is why marriage often fails, even with the best of intentions. Yet, husbands and wives that stay together, that truly enact the vows they proclaim to one another, witness to a love that is nothing short of divine, for it mirrors the love that our Heavenly Father, our Bridegroom, shows to us. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church so elegantly puts it: "The entire Christian life bears the mark of the spousal love of Christ and the Church. Already Baptism, the entry into the People of God, is a nuptial mystery; it is so to speak the nuptial bath which precedes the wedding feast, the Eucharist. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant" (1617).

Of course, this is all good in theory, and on the day of my wedding I could only think in theory because I had never been married. The fact that I have learned over three years is that marriage is hard! It is hard to love for worse, for poorer (ask my wife who has supported us for three years!), and in sickness. The romantic love characterized in the movies is not the prevalent experience of marriage partners - how can it be when one sees all the faults of the other in their rawest sense? The worst things that we do and think cannot be hidden from the other in a true marriage.

And yet I have found that this raw reality of marriage is actually a better sign of the love of God than anything portrayed for us in the movies. For movie love is based on a feeling, and feelings that are strong one day can be just as equally missing the next. Marriage love is based on a covenant, a covenant that does not falter when the other does nothing to deserve love. And in my marriage, I find myself loved and pursued by my wife in times when I am a miserable wretch, when there is absolutely nothing lovable about me. And I'm sure she would say the same. It is the covenant that endures and it is the covenant that makes the feelings of love meaningful.

And isn't that a perfect picture of the love of God? How can God continue to love us and pursue us when we are such miserable people, when we are such a miserable Church? He does because the covenant is based on his love and faithfulness, not on our own. I am immensely thankful, on this 14th of August, that I have a God who loves me so deeply. And I am immensely thankful that I have a wife, a partner in covenant, whose love for me witnesses to the Father's love in a manner that I never could have understood - and probably never fully will. I can only hope that she has the same experience of me.

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church-- for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery-- but I am talking about Christ and the church." -Ephesians 5:25-32

On Walking to Work and the Faithfulness of God

My wife Julie has a job for next year! Starting on September 10th, she will be a chaplain at St. Mary's Hospital. St. Mary's is a strong hospital with two locations in the Milwaukee area. She will be working at the one on Lake Avenue (pictured left), which is, incidentally, only five minutes from our apartment! She will be walking to work! This is quite a change from the 35-40 minute drive she now has everyday. Though she is only part time right now, it has been indicated to her that there is a strong possibility of it going full time soon.

This is just one more blessing in a string of blessings that we have experienced since coming to Milwaukee. Yes it is true that it is cold here (except when it is unbearably hot) and yes it is true that we got an inordinate amount of parking tickets in the first months and yes it is true that we have been living on an intern's salary for a year, but these are all incidental to the truth that we have consistently felt God's hand on us here. I do not think it is a matter of God rewarding us for our faithfulness. Rather, I believe that God called us to Himself and we have followed, which led us on paths to one another and then to Milwaukee and now for Julie to St. Mary's hospital.

I leave you with a few of my favorite lines from hymns that celebrate God's faithfulness.

"Great is thy faithfulness." -Thomas O. Chisholm

"Ponder anew what the Almighty can do." -Joachim Neander

"Here I raise mine Ebenezer, hither by Thy help I'm come." -Robert Robinson

The Power of True Stories

The importance of story in the forming of Christian disciples has been a theme of late on this blog. Narrative theology is the theological discipline that most clearly articulates and expounds on these truths. Its proponents treat the bible as one continuous narrative, with a beginning, middle, and ending, and believe that the theological statements, propositions, ethical teachings, etc. cannot be removed from the narrative in which they are situated. It is this overarching narrative that gives them their meaning. And it is the narrative itself, as told in and performed by the church, that has the power to form Christians in the image of Christ.

One of the constant criticisms that narrative theology and its practitioners face is the assumption by some that a story cannot be real. In other words, if we treat Scripture as a narrative or a story, than we are effectively removing the historical referent (e.g. that Jesus of Nazareth was truly born, truly lived and truly was crucified under Pontius Pilate) from Scripture. Such a move, it is argued, relegates Scripture to the level of any other story, such as Les Miserables, which, while being a story that positively affects people, never actually happened (Jean Val Jean is not an historic figure).

While there may be some narrative theologians that presume such ideas, the best ones retain the historical referent, while insisting that we respect Scripture's primary genre of narrative. There must, after all, be a reason that the Gospel writers (and the writer/writers of the Pentateuch) decided to relate the historical information in the form of a story. And that reason, I think, is because story has more power than a list of facts or sayings. And in the end, Scripture was not written (or later called such by the church) simply to relay facts; it was written to form people after the image of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

In any event, it is simply untrue that stories by definition have no historical referent. Think of how great figures throughout history have been remembered in print. They are not remembered through a list of facts about their lives, but through the relating of the story of their life by biography and autobiography. The stories of the saints, when related in this manner, also have the power to change people, to point them to Christ. Yet, it would be preposterous to assume that because these lives are written as stories they must be historically false.

To make my point, I offer you, in my opinion, the ten greatest spiritual biographies/autobiographies ever written. All are written as narratives, and yet all relate the historical truths of historical figures. I recommend anyone of these works to my readers. Each of them, for different reasons, will inspire, encourage you, and point you to God.

----

10. An Arrow Pointing to Heaven, Biography of Rich Mullins, written by James Bryan Smith

9. The Genesee Diary, Henri Nouwen, about his time in a Trappist Monastery

8. Life of Antony, Biography of Father Antony of the Desert Monks, written by St. Athanasius

7. Life of Macrina, Biography of St. Macrina, written by her younger brother St. Gregory of Nyssa

6. Shadow of the Almighy, Biography of Jim Elliot, written by Elisabeth Elliot

5. The Hiding Place, Autobiography of Corrie Ten Boom focusing on her time in a concentration camp. (This I have not yet read but I am assured by my wife that it belongs high on this list - #5 is not high enough for her, but not yet having read it, I didn't think I could justify any higher. Incidentally, it is my next read.)

4. The Life of Saint Francis, Biography of St. Francis of Assisi, written by St. Bonaventure

3. The Story of a Soul, Autobiography of St. Therese of Liseaux

2. The Seven Storey Mountain, Autobiography of Thomas Merton

1. The Confessions, Autobiography of St. Augustine

---

There are so many more deserving of mention. What spiritual biographies/autobiographies have you read that have influenced you?

Top Ten First Lines (or The Beauty of a First Line)

As an avid reader of fiction, I find that I put a lot of stock in the first line (or lines) of a work. I realize that, in the same way that one cannot (or should not) judge the contents of a book by its cover, the first line does not always make or break a story. However, it has been my experience that works with incredibly intriguing first lines have not normally disappointed me. What makes a great first line is difficult to define and, in any case, I would be woefully inadequate and rather presumptuous to offer such a definition. I will say that it does not necessarily have to be shocking. There simply needs to be some tacit experience in the first line that cries out to the reader: "Read on!" Thus, it may be that different people connect with different lines, and any list given would certainly be subjective.

With these qualifications (and with a further one that my reading experiences are likely too limited to even attempt such a list), I offer you, in my opinion, the ten greatest first lines in works of literature. (A note to the reader: I have excluded from the list Scriptural quotations because Scripture, while a narrative, is certainly not literature in the same sense as the following works of fiction. But be it known that there shall never be a better first line than: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.")

----

10. "It was a feature peculiar to the colonial wars of North America, that the toils and dangers of the wilderness were to be encountered before the adverse hosts could meet." -James Fenimore Cooper, The Last of the Mohicans

9. "When in April the sweet showers fall / And pierce the drought of March to the root, and all / The veins are bathed in liquor of such power / As brings about the engendering of a flower." -Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, trans. (from Middle English) Nevill Coghill

8. "If you really want to hear about it, the first thing you'll probably want to know is where I was born, and what my lousy childhood was like, and how my parents were occupied and all before they had me, and all that David Copperfield kind of crap, but I don't feel like going into it, if you want to know the truth." -J.D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye

7. "When I had journeyed half of our life's way, / I found myself within a shadowed forest, / for I had lost the path that does not stray." Dante, Inferno, trans. Allen Mandelbaum

6. "I am doomed to remember a boy with a wrecked voice - not because of his voice, or because he was the smallest person I ever knew, or even because he was the instrument of my mother's death, but because he is the reason I believe in God; I am a Christian because of Owen Meany." -John Irving, A Prayer for Owen Meany

5. "In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing." -Norman Maclean, A River Runs Through It

4. "Two households, both alike in dignity, / In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, / From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, / Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. /From forth the fatal loins of these two foes / A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life; / Whole misadventured piteous overthrows / Do with their death bury their parents' strife. / The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love, / And the continuance of their parents' rage, / Which, but their children's end, nought could remove, / Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage; / The which if you with patient ears attend, / What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend." -William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

3. "When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin." -Frank Kafka, The Metamorphosis

2. “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way–in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.” -Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

1. "It was a pleasure to burn." -Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451

----

Please feel free to balk, criticize, (perhaps) agree, and add your own favorites to the list.

The Story in Dogmatic Outline

As a narrative theologian, I am normally not a fan of propositional theology. However, in keeping with the theme of capturing the entire story of Scripture discussed of late on this blog, I found the following synopsis of that story quite fascinating. If you have a chance, let me know what you think.

Why have we lost the Story?

In the previous post, I lamented the fact that church has, generally speaking, in some way lost the understanding of the biblical narrative, the redemption story of God and the people he has called to himself in Israel and in the church. This loss has been deceptive because in many parts of the church, it would appear that bible reading is on the rise. Individual study of the Scriptures is now everywhere encouraged, including the Catholic Church which, for a time, kept the Scriptures away from lay people in an ancient language. Additionally, it would appear that Scripture memorization is on the rise. I've been to many churches where pastors encourage this discipline from the pulpit.

But the deception comes just in this. It is easy to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are biblically literate people because we have memorized a few verses or because we know a few bible stories. It is easy to deceive ourselves into thinking that we understand the story because we know who Balaam is. And so despite what can pass for biblical sermons and such, I hold to my original claim. But why have we lost this story? Particularly when the love of the bible is so high in many denominations. How did we get to where we are? This is a complex question with many possible answers. In this post, I would like to suggest only one possible factor with the knowledge that it alone cannot shoulder the blame.

Maxie Dunham, long time United Methodist pastor and former president of Asbury Theological Seminary, was fond of saying: "As the seminary goes, so goes the preacher, as the preacher goes, so goes the church." There is much wisdom in this statement and I think that he gets at a fundamental truth of the loss of the story. Much of the onus must be placed on the academy that trains these ministers. Allow me a bit of background to make this point.

In the modern era, there developed in biblical scholarship a series of methods for studying the text, which are collectively known as the "historical-critical method." The historical-critical method, in all of its varieties, seeks to find the meaning of the text by placing the text in its original sitz im leben ("life setting"). It seeks to discover the original author, the original audience, the original setting, any circumstances that occasioned the work, and the like. It was thought that the original context would provide the appropriate interpretive context. The historical-critical method developed in response to erroneous interpretations which read the text purely from one's own context, often employing it in manners that are unwarranted by the text itself.

This is all well and good and you might think that the historical-critical method was a positive development. After all, there are innumerable examples of how the text has been twisted to meet someone's personal agenda and the historical-critical method does provide some means of objectivity to act as a check against this sort of exegesis.

Having said this, there are, in my estimation, many negatives to the historical-critical method. The first, and perhaps the only one that needs to be mentioned here, is the shifting of the context of interpretation. For the historical-critical method, the context of interpretation moves behind the text. That is, the real interesting and crucial knowledge about an epistle such as Ephesians is not the content of the letter itself, but rather the situation in which it was written. Scholars who employ this method think that they will ascertain the meaning of the text if they can recreate the original context. But that means that the meaning is not located in anything Paul says in the text (if indeed Paul wrote Ephesians) but what was happening in his mind to cause him to write this. As a result, the text shifts to the background and these "behind-the-text" issues become the only important thing.

The greatest example of the loss of the text is in Gospel studies. Historical-critics are in general agreement that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. But to understand the numerous similar passages found in Matthew and Luke that are absent from Mark, they have constructed a hypothetical "Q" document which is, supposedly, an early list of Jesus' sayings. They contend that Matthew and Luke also used "Q" to write their accounts. There is no manuscript evidence for this document. It is never quoted as such in the early Fathers or canonical lists of books. Yet, for most biblical scholars Q more important than any of the Gospels because it represents the earliest source, a list that is closest in time to the Christ event. NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST! The canonical Gospels, in the work of these scholars, very clearly take second place.

This phenomenon can also be witnessed in any scholarly commentary that one picks up today. On the average, 3/4s of a given commentary is devoted to the recreation of the original setting, whereas only 1/4 is given to actual exposition of the text. And these are the commentaries that our preachers are using.

And here is where I think the academy has led to the loss of the story. The majority of ministers currently in the pulpit cut their teeth on this historical-critical method. As a result, they have been trained to think of the text as secondary in importance. This leaves them with quite a problem on Sunday mornings. Are they to write a sermon about the real author of Ephesians? Chances are no because that does not preach very well. What is left then but some topical sermon? For they were not trained to understand the entire narrative and that its retelling is the only thing that will form Christian disciples.

There are, to be sure, positive things to be mined from the historical-critical method. But to buy into it hook, line, and sinker is to relegate the text to second place and to lose the overall understanding of the story of God from creation to redemption. It is to lose the idea that the one author, the Holy Spirit, is behind all of the individual authors and settings and gives the story its coherence. It is to lose the idea that this story still speaks to us today, that we as the church today are the intended audience of these letters. In short, the beginning of the recovery of the biblical story is the restoration of the text to its rightful place as the center of both exegetical study and homiletical exposition.

Internalizing the Story

Recently I was asked to speak to a youth group on the subject of creation vs. evolution. I was quite taken aback at such a topic in the context of youth ministry. When I asked the youth leader why she had chosen this topic, she told me that the kids desired to learn about it. Though I had my reservations, I accepted the invitation because I wanted to serve the church and also because I thought it might be a good opportunity to steer the kids (and perhaps the youth leader) away from this topic as something that is absolutely essential. It is my own opinion, and has been for quite some time, that the creation vs. evolution topic is neither helpful nor productive to discipleship.

Unfortunately, the night did not progress as I had hoped. After my short introduction, I was met with a bunch of blank stares that conveyed to me either one of two things. At best, they were glad I had finished and were wondering when the dodge ball game would start. At worst, they had not understood a word I had said and were wondering when the "Kill the Speaker" game would start. The youth leader tried to help by posing some tough questions, but these were the very questions that launched us into the issue and here I was, a theological student, being asked to meaningfully comment on scientific issues. It is not that I take the approach that faith and science are separate issues by any means. But I am smart enough to know my limits, and the fine points of microevolution progress beyond my limits.

What I wanted the kids to know is that the Word is absolutely clear that God created the heavens and the earth. That he created them ex nihilo ("out of nothing" - though the tradition better fills this in), that humans were created in imagine dei ("in the image of God") and that these are the only points regarding creation on which I think we must be absolutely resolute. After all, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any kind of a projection at how old the earth is. There is nothing in Scripture that gives an actual duration of time of creation, or when humans first appeared. And furthermore, there is no claim of Scripture that the Genesis account is to be taken as scientific fact.

But alas, I am not sure that any of my points or any of my stammerings through the difficult questions got through to the kids. There are two reasons for this: 1) my poor communication skills; and 2) they were not trained to hear what I was saying. While I am the first to admit that I have difficulties making myself understood (my wife would be the second to admit this), I must say that the latter reason was the primary point of contention that night.

The fact is that these kids had not been well trained in the story of Scripture. And when I say this, I do not mean that they didn't know some bible stories or that they hadn't memorized any verses in Genesis or elsewhere. Indeed they may have. What was lacking in these kids was a good overall grasp of the story of Scripture from beginning to end. They didn't understand why it is crucial to believe that God created the heavens and the earth. They didn't understand the story of redemption and what that says about us and what that says about God. And furthermore, they didn't understand what Scripture itself is.

Rather, their understanding of Scripture was something that was dropped from the sky to be read absolutely literally. Their understanding of why it was necessary to believe that God created the heavens and the earth was simply that the bible says so. They had no concept of the bigger picture. And folks, it does not take a seminary education to understand these things. All it takes are good teachers who diligently form their pupils in these stories. Teachers who themselves know God and the story of salvation. Teachers who jettison "bible trivia" and, yes, even "Scripture memorization" in order to instill the whole story, beginning, middle, and ending, into their students. Teachers who model for their students how to read and how to understand Scripture. Maybe we can better appreciate why catechism in the early church was a three year process.

These students had not been trained in this manner and as a result, they were ill prepared for the topic of creation vs. evolution (few of us are).

I want to leave us with a question. Why are we always rushing ahead to these ethical and philosophical questions such as creation vs. evolution or the rightness or wrongness of abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, pick your trendy topic? How can any of us expect to rightly decide on these issues if we have not first internalized God's story? If we have not first learned how to read and how to understand Scripture? The simple answer is that we cannot. And this is why we see such ill informed theological arguments on both sides of these issues in the public square. For the problem I saw in the youth group that night is not a problem confined to youth but is a problem that is pervasive throughout the church.

We need to first do the hard (but extremely interesting) work of internalizing the story of Scripture that we may truly (as truly as we can this side of heaven) understand the mind of God before we can hope to make intelligent arguments in these issues. Does this mean that we postpone all moral reasoning until this happens? Of course not, this would be impossible as we make moral judgments every day.

What it might mean is a changing in the manner in which we study the Word of God. It might mean that instead of doing bible studies on abortion or war or the death penalty, we rather do them on the story of creation, the story of Israel, the story of the prophets. It might mean that instead of a pastor doing a sermon series on how to Christianly budget your money he or she does a series on the story of the Acts of the Apostles or the story of Revelation. What I am talking about requires the uprooting of some fairly strongly ingrained habits in many of us - but it is necessary.

And as the story of God tells us, the Spirit will help plant new soil.

Review: A Brave New World

In my summer "vacation" of language review and theological reading, I have managed time to squeeze in some fiction. I started with Victor Hugo's classic Les Miserables, a book I had always wanted to read (some of you may remember a previous post). This was a wonderful read, well worth the time (even for the unabridged version, which I highly recommend), though be prepared to grow a sudden interest in 19th century French history. Or maybe that was just me.

I moved onto another classic, a bit shorter as I needed a little break from the pages and pages of Jean Valjean's moral reasoning. The following is a review of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. (Note to reader: reviews typically end in assessments of the books. I have purposely left this out for two reasons: 1. Brave New World is a time honored classic and anything that I can say has already been said and probably much more eloquently; 2. I find that assessments can often discouraged readers from following through and reading the book, and I mean with this review to encourage reading.)

Brave New World falls under the broad genre of science fiction, though not in the Star Wars/Trek, black metallic masks and Jar Jar Binks variety. It is rather a frightening depiction of the future, in step with Orwell's 1984, Bradbury's Farenheit 451, or even Burgess' A Clockwork Orange. Though written in 1932, Brave New World precedes all of them.

This future is a place where happiness and harmony is the highest good. In this future there are no wars, no famines, no diseases (in fact relatively little need for doctors), no food shortages, and none of the common discomforts we experience on a daily basis. There is instant gratification for every desire. One might think that this describes a Utopia and one would probably be right; yet the means by which this happiness and harmony is achieved is disturbing.

Genetic engineering is the arbitrator of this world happiness. Babies are no longer birthed naturally - in fact, the idea of a family has become pornographic in this society. "Mother" is the foulest curse word. Babies are born in test tubes in production factories. The powers that be divide the test tubes into five classes, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon, and develop them at different rates. The Deltas and the Epsilons are given alcohol to stunt there growth and intellectual abilities. As children they are taught through sleep teaching (a form of hypnosis) to accept the given class they are in and to hate those in classes lower than them. So it is that Alphas and Betas work the scientific jobs and the lower three classes work the menial factory jobs.

Another fascinating and terrifying truth in this projected future is the idea that "everyone belongs to everyone else," conditioned in the babies. Thus, there are no marriages, no families. In fact, everyone is encouraged to "have" everyone else. Sexual intercourse is on the level of having a leisurely game of tennis. There is no commitment, no feelings involved. In fact, at one point in the book, there is a "scandalous" affair in which a man wants to be with only one woman. Unfortunately this grim 1932 prediction seems truer than not in the minds of many people.

There is no God in Brave New World. For it was discovered by the philosophers that God was needed only in times of trouble and discomfort. But in this new society, there is no trouble or discomfort, so the concept of God is no longer needed. At one point, the World Director says: "God isn't compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness. Our civilization has chosen machinery and medicine and happiness" (234). While you may disagree with the sentiment, how many people view God in just that manner; how many times have we in practice believed this?

The book reaches conflict when one of the "savages" (living in areas not fully "civilized") is introduced into this culture and finds it repulsive. He has read Shakespeare and has rather seen that conflict and suffering and monogamous love are values of truth and beauty. It is explained to him that these things had to be sacrificed for the sake of happiness. He says in one place: "But I don't want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin." "In fact," said the Controller, "you're claiming the right to be unhappy." "All right then," said the Savage defiantly, "I'm claiming the right to be unhappy" (240).

Brave New World raises many scientific, bioethic, and theological issues. I will not get into them here because I hope that some of my readers will be intrigued enough at this point to read it. You can read it in a few days, but you will be thinking about it for weeks afterwards.

The Asbury Chronicles

In September of 2001, I embarked on an incredible journey, one which would change my understanding of God, of community, of the story of salvation, and of its implications in our lives. It was a journey that introduced me to some of the best friends that I have ever or will ever have, including my dear wife Julie. It was my time in seminary at Asbury in Wilmore, Kentucky.


Of course, every journey begins with a first leg. Thankfully, I took the first part of the journey with my lifelong friend Craig Luttrell. He has started a blog and one of the things he has been doing is relating the ridiculous stories of our first experiences together at Asbury. They are hilarious and worth a read. If you are interested, you can check out his blog here. I would suggest starting from the beginning, which is entitled The Asbury Chronicles Part I. And as my friend and pastor JD Walt is fond of saying, be sure to give him some comment love.



Craig, Julie Robertson, Me

Salvation through Water

Baptism is simultaneously an ending and a beginning.

At the same time, the sacrament of baptism marks the end of one's earthly life and the beginning of one's heavenly life. At the same time, baptism marks the end of one's citizenship in the kingdom of earth and the beginning of one's citizenship in the kingdom of heaven. At the same time, baptism marks the end of Satan's dominion and the beginning of God's dominion. At the same time, baptism marks the end of the old man and the beginning of the new man. At baptism, we witness a transformation in every sense of the word.

This morning at church we were privileged to witness and be a part of the sacrament of baptism. The baptized one was an infant so, of course, could not speak for himself. His biological family and his family of faith (those of us in the congregation) spoke for him. I realize that infant baptism is under assault in many different faith communities, but my own thought was: "How lucky is this infant, for he is experiencing the truth of the Christian life - that when we cannot do for ourselves, others step in for us." The pattern began with Christ, who bore the punishment that should have been ours, and we who have received His grace are commanded to, in the same way, be that grace for others. This clearly happens at infant baptism. And if we who witnessed the ceremony are true to our vow, we will raise him up until the time when he can remember his baptism, remember the transformation which occurred fully today and begin to live into that himself.

The congregation was given that opportunity at the baptismal covenant today. Like a marriage ceremony, a baptism ceremony gives the believer the opportunity to renew his or her commitment to the Lord and to the church. The baptismal liturgy requires it! In the midst of the ceremony, the congregation proclaims its faith anew with a recitation of the Apostles Creed, those ancient beautiful words: "Credo . . . credo . . . credo" ("I believe . . . I believe . . . I believe"). Toward the end of the service, the liturgy makes it explicit, as the pastor twice recites the words: "Remember your baptism and be thankful." I looked around and wondered how many young baptized persons were doing this remembering for the first time.

I was also struck this morning with the words of the pastor's prayer over the infant who was about to be baptized:

"Eternal Father:
When nothing existed but chaos,
you swept across the dark waters
and brought forth light.
In the days of Noah
you saved those on the ark through water.
After the flood you set in the clouds a rainbow.
When you saw your people as slaves in Egypt,
you led them to freedom through the sea.
Their children you brought through the Jordan
to the land which you promised.

"In the fullness of time you sent Jesus,
nurtured in the water of a womb.
He was baptized by John and anointed by your Spirit.
He called his disciples
to share in the baptism of his death and resurrection
and to make disciples of all nations.

"Pour out your Holy Spirit,
to bless this gift of water and he who receives it,
to wash away his sin
and clothe him in righteousness
throughout his life,
that, dying and being raised with Christ,
he may share in his final victory."

The story of Scripture is the story of salvation, of transformation, and it is remarkable how many times that transformation comes through water. In that manner, the sacrament of baptism is a proclamation of the Gospel, perhaps better than any words could affirm. But for those of us who are often too deaf to understand the signs, the words bring the message home.

Credo.

Right Interpretation

This beautiful quotation comes from Richard B. Hays, a professor of New Testament at Duke and one of the foremost Wesleyan Biblical scholars of our time:

"No reading of Scripture can be legitimate, then, if it fails to shape the readers into a community that embodies the love of God as shown forth in Christ. This criterion slashes away all frivolous or self-serving readings, all readings that aggrandize the interpreter, all merely clever readings. True interpretation of Scripture leads us into unqualified giving of our lives in service within the community whose vocation is to reenact the obedience of the Son of God who loved us and gave himself for us. Community in the likeness of Christ is cruciform; therefore right interpretation must be cruciform."

-Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, p. 191

Ut Unum Sint

A word to us from Pope John Paul the Great on the possibility of Christian unity:



"The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council's call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation. These brothers and sisters of ours, united in the selfless offering of their lives for the Kingdom of God, are the most powerful proof that every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel."

Ethics that Work?

The following letter to the editor recently appeared in the New York Times. It was written by a Catholic ethicist at a respected Catholic University.

-----

> "Rudolph W. Giuliani and other
> Catholic politicians who say they op-
> pose abortion but do not wish to im-
> pose that view on the entire polity
> have support in Catholic teaching.

> Sts. Augustine and Thomas
Aquinas both favored legalization of
prostitution even though they thought
> prostitution evil. Their thinking was
> that “greater evils” would result if
> prostitution were banned and this
> outlet for aberrant sexual energy
> were unavailable.

> In so doing, St. Thomas Aquinas
> said, the “wise legislator” is
imitating God who, though all powerful and
> supremely good, tolerates certain
> evils lest greater evils ensue.
> Similarly, today legislators who
> truly think abortion immoral could
> vote to keep it legal since greater
> evils, multiple deaths of women
(especially poor women) from botched
> abortions as seen before Roe v.
> Wade, would follow.

> Catholic bishops, even though they
> are pastors and administrators and
> not professional theologians, should
> know this and cease harassing
Catholic candidates, thus making
Catholic candidates less electable."

----

This type of ethical reasoning is what is called utilitarian or situational ethics. In other words, there is no moral norm dictated by Scripture or tradition or Catholic social teaching etc. Rather, each situation calls for its own consideration and there are certain situations where a perceived evil (in this case abortion) is permissible because it will avoid greater evils. Another form of this argument takes the shape of what is called Christian realism. We are called as Christians to live a certain way in this world but we all know that this way does not work in the world - therefore we need to act realistically and this means engaging in certain behaviors that might seem unchristian.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this type of reasoning. I think it is inconsistent with the teaching of Jesus. There is no qualification in the sermon on the mount - Jesus does not say "Turn the other cheek if you deem that it will work to your favor." Or "Give the man your cloak as well in certain situations." No, Jesus teaches a way of living in the world and he commands his disciples to follow it. He does not promise that this way will "work" in the world (whatever that means). In fact, he shows by his own life that the Christian way of living will likely not work. Jesus' way of life put him on a cross. I believe that the narrative of scripture prescribes a way of being in this world and we are to follow it regardless of the consequences, even if that means death.

Additionally, the writer of the above letter distorts the truth when he says that those arguing for abortion are backed by Catholic teaching. There is no other theme so consistently preached throughout the Papal Encyclicals of the 20th century than the respect and dignity of human life, than the belief that the image of God resides in human beings (at conception) and that this must be respected. This includes blanket condemnations on abortion, euthanasia, slavery, and any other institution that devalues life at any stage.

Finally, it irks me that evangelical Christians will jump on this abortion bandwagon and agree with all that I have said here in this instance. However, when it comes to war or the death penalty (both things that are inconsistent with a Christian way of life in my reading of Scripture) or a number of other issues, they slip into a utilitarian argument - "the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima ultimately saved lives" etc. How one can reconcile such an act of war with the demands of the Gospel, to use just one example, is beyond me. At least the writer of the above letter to the editor is consistent in his reasoning, as faulty as that may be.

Jesus preached the loving of ones' enemies, the turning of the other cheek, the walking of the extra mile. These concepts are not popular in today's society and they have been proven again and again not to "work," if by work one means the preservation of one's own life. But they are the words of our Lord. And our call is to take up our cross and follow him, even if we are someday placed on that cross.