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.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Saturday, July 28, 2007
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.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
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.
Monday, July 16, 2007
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
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
Sunday, July 15, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
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
"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
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
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."
"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."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
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.
-----
> "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.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Aussordentlich!
Dear Faithful Readers and Prayers-
I am happy to report that I passed my German exam! This means that I have officially completed the language requirements of my program. This is a great accomplishment for me as language was the area of my program that most intimidated me. But it is safely behind me. Now I will be using the languages I have learned all along; but there is no more test to pass. Though I must report that, according to my German prof Dr. Jamison, who is an occasional reader, I apparently flubbed the word order of the previous post's title. Oh well, we did not learn composition.
With German behind me, I am done with classes until the end of August. Currently I am in Clear Lake, Iowa celebrating the fourth of July with my family. From here I will be heading to Knoxville to stand up in my friend Jack King's wedding. And then home to Milwaukee for a month and a half without class. My plan is to study and read in the day - I will be reading the works of Irenaeus to decide a dissertation topic and will be doing daily translation work in all of my languages so as not to lose them. Me genoito!!! And then at night I plan to do nothing but hang out with my wife. Can't wait!
I am happy to report that I passed my German exam! This means that I have officially completed the language requirements of my program. This is a great accomplishment for me as language was the area of my program that most intimidated me. But it is safely behind me. Now I will be using the languages I have learned all along; but there is no more test to pass. Though I must report that, according to my German prof Dr. Jamison, who is an occasional reader, I apparently flubbed the word order of the previous post's title. Oh well, we did not learn composition.
With German behind me, I am done with classes until the end of August. Currently I am in Clear Lake, Iowa celebrating the fourth of July with my family. From here I will be heading to Knoxville to stand up in my friend Jack King's wedding. And then home to Milwaukee for a month and a half without class. My plan is to study and read in the day - I will be reading the works of Irenaeus to decide a dissertation topic and will be doing daily translation work in all of my languages so as not to lose them. Me genoito!!! And then at night I plan to do nothing but hang out with my wife. Can't wait!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
