The Communion of Saints

"Christus est me."

2008-04-29T12:18:00.004-06:00

One of the joys, some might say curses, of historical research is that I am constantly discovering figures whose thought is deep and often revolutionary - particularly for their time - but for whatever reason, have been largely overlooked in the grand narratives of our history books. Irenaeus of Lyons, the second century figure who will command the majority of my attention in my dissertation, was one such figure. Most of the major history books rarely mention anyone earlier than Augustine (4th century). (Of course, this was prior to the Da Vinci Code dabocal, where Irenaeus actually comes to play. Even here, however, his thought is much misunderstood and characterized. But I digress.)

A recent figure that has captured me is the 16th century figure Johann von Staupitz. Generally, he is known to scholarship, if he is known at all, as Martin Luther's teacher and confessor. Thus, he is generally referred to as the "frontrunner of the Reformation", a title which completely overlooks the fact that he remained a member of the Roman Catholic Church to his dying day (though he also refused to condemn Luther). Rather, he worked for reform from within the walls of the Church and his theology is, therefore, much more nuanced and subtle than some of the more polemical works from the hands of the Reformers.

One of the primary ways in which his thought was subversive to the Catholic establishment was in his understanding of the union that is effected between Christ and the Christian. Generally speaking, the Catholic Scholasticism dominant in his day viewed the relationship primarily as a marriage between Christ and the Church. This marriage was, consequently, mediated (or appropriated) by the believers through the grace of the sacraments.

Staupitz picks up this marriage analogy (likely originating with Paul) and subtly changes it, emphasizing the union between Christ and each individual Christian. For Staupitz, the union revealed in Paul's marriage analogy was much more intimate and personal than had come to be interpreted by Scholasticism. It was not mediated by the Church or by the sacraments, the grace of God simply came to the human creature because God elected him or her to marry and therefore, pledged himself to him or her.

The vows which Staupitz believes effect this union express this intimate union in a most profound manner. Christ says to the believer:

"Ego accipio te meam,
accipio te mihi,
accipio in me."

("I accept the Christian to me,
I accept the Christian with me,
I accept the Christian into me.")

Staupitz interprets these progressing vows as Christ and the Christian becoming one in flesh, heart and spirit, such that the Christian can now say "I am Christ." As a result of this intimate union, all of the merits of Christ become ours. We now have a right and a title to heaven because we are Christ, not because we have merited it on our own account. Moreover, the sin that was ours is transferred to Christ, who also says in his vow: "I am the Christian." It is these sins that are put to death on the cross.

Finally, Staupitz envisions this marriage as happening at the point of justification. This is again quite different from Scholastic theology, and even from some of the more mystical theologians of the high medieval age, who believed the union with Christ was the result of much spiritual growth and something that one arrived at at the end of his or her journey. Staupitz sees it as a beginning. Christians are joined to Christ when they are justified and this union adheres throughout their life. What confidence should this inspire in us, if we truly believe that "I am Christ."

Most readers will see in this theology a radically Protestant understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Christian. Historically speaking, it was a Catholic understanding. Johann von Staupitz, for this reason, I think could be a starting point for ecumenical discussions. He is a witness to the fact that there is in the Catholic tradition a place for the concerns that the Reformers were raising. Unfortunately, at this point, he is too little known to history to work effectively in this role. We need more historians!

The Wounds

2008-04-20T20:35:00.004-06:00

"Our rock, then, is in heaven; in it is strength, and on it security. Is it not said that the rock is a refuge for the conies? And where, in truth, is there a firm and safe refuge for us who are weak, except in the Wounds of our Savior? There I dwell with safety so much the greater, as He is so powerful to save. The world rages around me, the devil lays snares for me; but I do not fall, for I am founded upon a firm Rock. Perhaps I have committed some great sin, my conscience is troubled, but I do not despair, because I remember the Wounds of my Lord; for He was wounded for our iniquities. What sin is there so deadly that it may not be remitted through the Death of Christ?

-St. Bernard of Clairvaux

Who Can Be Saved?

2008-04-17T09:53:00.004-06:00

One of the most difficult theological questions Christians face today is the fate of the unevangelized. The reason this question is so difficult is that it strikes at the heart of two pillars of Christian truth. The first is that God is a God of love who wills all of his creatures to be saved. This truth, despite some Calvinists protests which I can already hear ringing in the background, is sufficiently attested to in scripture. There is the famous statement of God's love: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." To interpret this verse as applying to only a certain number of people, say a predestined elect, one has to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics in his or her interpretation of "world." A somewhat less memorized, but equally important verse comes from one of the epistles: "This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:3b-4). In addition to these verses, I think it safe to say that the entire tenure of scripture reveals a God of love who does not want any of his creation to be out of communion with him. This is the God of the cross.

The second truth, however, is the belief that only through Christ can sinners be reconciled to God. The biblical evidence on this point is equally strong. In one of his earliest sermons, St. Peter declares: "This Jesus is 'the stone that was rejected by you, the builders; it has become the cornerstone.' There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:11-12). To take the verses we have already cited, God indeed loves the world but the stipulation for everlasting life is belief in Jesus. And the verse which follows 1 Tim 2:4 states: "For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus . . ."

When applying these truths to the fate of the unevangelized - that is those billions of people through history (and existing today) who never had the opportunity to hear the good news of Christ - we are left in a conundrum. For it seems that we cannot adequately maintain both of these truths. If we maintain that since God loves the world and wills the salvation of all, then he will surely provide a way for the salvation of those who have not heard the gospel. Yet the moment we affirm something like this, we put the truth that salvation comes only through Jesus in jeopardy. What is worse, we marginalize the work of the cross. For if God was able to save some humans apart from Jesus, then why did Jesus have to die? This is a theological question without an easy answer.

One of the best recent articles I have read on the subject comes from the hand of the Catholic Cardinal Avery Dulles, "Who Can be Saved?". He lucidly defines the difficulty and what is at stake in our answer. Additionally, he traces the history of thought on the subject which is enlightening in itself. He concludes with an answer that I think very satisfying. If you want to read this article, click here.

A Narcissistic Update

2008-04-15T16:56:00.003-06:00

I do not know if there is anyone still reading who would appreciate an update on my studies (who has not been in contact with me otherwise), but in the rare chance, I thought I would pause to be a bit narcissistic. But then again who am I kidding? Sometimes it seems that blogging is nothing but one big project in narcissism, especially when your readers are not given to commenting much.

In any case, I am in my fourth semester of classes, which means that I am officially done with course work this May (May 8th to be exact). On that blessed day, I will have completed my course work. This means nothing except that now I have the opportunity to sit for exams. Some places call them boards. The people at Marquette, who I've discovered have a penchant for acronyms, refer to them as the DQEs, or the Doctoral Qualifying Exams. I am planning on sitting for those sometime in the late fall. If I pass them, then and only then, will I have earned the right to be called a PhD candidate. So if some of you have been thinking of me as a PhD student, the joke is on you. Actually, the supreme joke, I think, is on me. For all this means is that the last two years of my life have been in a sort of limbo state. I'm not a PhD student, what the heck am I? Fortunately, this nihilistic problem will be resolved if I pass my exams.

The procedure is as follows: three days, six hours a day, four written essays (averaging 7-10 pages a piece) and an oral exam. I'm not sure what happens at an oral exam but I must admit that it does not sound very pleasant. I have consulted my DQE board, which consists of five distinguished professors, and they have each given me (or required me to give them) a bibliography covering a certain area. For example, one of my history questions will focus on the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century. Thus my bibliography will consistent of primary sources from the major players of that century, as well as past and current secondary sources each having varying theses on what happened. When the test comes, I will be asked a comprehensive question about that time period. The bibliography is the map that guides the question, in other words, my professor cannot ask me something that is not covered by the bibliography. Conversely, I am responsible for everything on the bibliography - and these are long mothers.

So for the next five or six months (following May 8th), I will be reading through my various bibliographies and forming outlines to answer projected questions in my various areas. In the fall I will begin meeting with the professors of my board to discuss what I have read to hopefully focus in on questions. With some professors, I may have a fairly good idea of what I will be answering going into the test. With others, I may know nothing but generalities. Here is what I know so far.

Major area: History

1. Trinitarian thought of the apologists, particularly Justin Martyr (second century)

2. Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century

3. Theory of knowledge in Thomas Aquinas

Minor area: Bible

1. Romans

Minor area: Theology

1. Karl Barth on revelation

This is likely more than any of my readers wanted to know, but I put out there for anyone who does. If you have knowledge of any books or articles that might be useful, please send me a note. Otherwise, I ask for your prayers now as I begin what is sure to be a very long preparation process.

In other narcissistic news, as a celebration of the end of course work, Julie and I will be heading to Italy for two weeks! We will be going with her parents and her great uncle Virgilio Sala who will serve as a tour guide. We absolutely cannot wait.

Abundant Life

2008-04-13T14:33:00.003-06:00

This morning our pastor made an interesting connection between the lectionary readings. The epistle reading came from 1 Peter 2:19-25, a portion of which reads:

"For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly.
If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps."

The Gospel reading came from John 10:1-10, a portion of which reads:

"I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly."

So often, Christians want to read the promise that Jesus gives in John 10 as referring to this earthly life. We want this to be a promise that if we follow Jesus than he will abundantly bless this life. Some versions of Christianity have even built their theology around this promise. The Prosperity Gospel, as it was called, preached that God blesses his followers monetarily in this life. The converse implication is that if a person is suffering than he or she must be in sin. There are versions of this perverse gospel being preached today. Sometimes it is subtle, but if you listen for the rhetoric, it is there.

The wise formers of the lectionary must have known the potential danger of misinterpretations of which life Jesus was referring to for they paired it with an epistle reading that makes it impossible to understand Jesus promise of abundant life as referring to monetary blessings. For Peter is crystal clear that followers of Christ are not promised blessings in this life - at least in the way that "blessings" are understood these days. Rather, Peter writes that Christians have been called to suffer unjustly. Bear in mind, he does not say that we may suffer unjustly, he says that this is what we have been called to.

Why would God call us to suffer unjustly, our modern minds may ask. The answer is simple. This is the example that our savior set for us. Jesus suffered unjustly because he was faithful to God in an unfaithful world. The original audience of 1 Peter likewise lived in an unfaithful world and Peter knew that to follow in Jesus' footsteps would likewise result in unjust suffering. Christians today continue to live in an unfaithful world, and if we are faithful to the example of our savior, the result will be the same. There have been more Christian martyrs this year already than in the entire first century.

Abundant life comes in the pure joy of living a Christlike life and the reward that results from such a life. May God give us all the courage and strength to live the life to which we have been called.

Doxology

2008-04-08T21:57:00.007-06:00

Though nothing beats, in my opinion, the theology in the old hymns of the church, I find that many of the newer, "contemporary" (oh how I despise that word) songs are also often filled with profound thoughts. Here are a few of my favorites, quotes from some of the younger saints in this communion of ours. Feel free to edify us with some of your favorites.

-----------------

"All the heavens cannot hold you Lord,
how much less to dwell in me?
I can only make my one desire:
Holy unto Thee."

-Third Day

-------------------

"Give me one pure and holy passion,
Give me one magnificent obsession.
Give me one glorious ambition for my life:
To know and to follow after you.

"To know and to follow hard after you,
To grow as your disciple in your truth.
This world is empty, pale, and poor
Compared to knowing you my Lord.
Lead me on, and I will run after you.
Lead me on, and I will run after you."

-Passion Worship Band

-----------------------

"Be my vision and I'll be your delight."

-Point of Grace

Politics and Religion to Middle Schoolers

2008-03-31T18:21:00.004-06:00

In Sunday School yesterday, at the suggestion of the confirmation teacher, we combined the confirmation and senior high classes to discuss a rather pertinent topic - "Politics and Religion." I announced it in the first service and received numerous chuckles from the congregation. On the way out after service, I had numerous people pat me on the back giving me forlorn looks and an occasional, "good luck!" I felt like I was marching to the gallows. It seems that this is just a topic that we inherently fear, whether we think that they shouldn't be mixed, should be mixed, can't be mixed, can't help but being mixed, or some combination of the above. But everyone has an opinion, and as I soon found out, even kids.

We kept it as basic as we could, keeping the discussion to things like the purpose of the separation between church and state, etc. What amazed me, however, is the assumption that seemed to permeate the room that politics is one thing and religion a completely different and never the twain shall meet. Thus, when we asked whether a person's religious beliefs should influence their policies, the general response we got was no. Perhaps I am ignorant but I do not see how someone who is a follower of Christ can somehow put those beliefs on a shelf when he or she goes to do his or her job. If we are a follower of Christ, should not his values affect everything we do?

The kids also did not think that Christ was a political figure or that the church was a political body. I think this seems to be a common thought as well. Without seeing Christ as a political figure, it is hard to make sense of why the Romans crucified him. Perhaps Christ was saying a bit more than keep your religion at home. And when the church lays a claim on our lives that is absolute, how we are to live, where we are to spend our money, etc. it is difficult to see how this cannot be a political body.

I don't think we ask the nature of the relationship between them enough. Thoughts?

Protestant Ecumenists

2008-03-27T20:04:00.002-06:00

"It was because they recognized what they had received through the Catholic Church that the first generation of Reformers wished for the renewal, not the disruption of the historic ecclesiastical structures. It was against their will that the visible continuity and unity were broken, and they thought of the separate polities which they established, not as new churches, but as temporary emergency measures. Convergence into a reformed and united church was their goal, and this once again is the objective of those Protestant ecumenists who are their heirs."

-George Lindbeck

Our Hope has a Name

2008-03-26T17:04:00.005-06:00

This past Easter Sunday, a United Church in Toronto sang the glorious Easter hymn "Jesus Christ is Risen Today," but it replaced the name "Jesus Christ" with the phrase "Glorious hope." Here is an excerpt from the article printed by Globe and Mail:

"Thus, it will be hope that is declared to be resurrected – an expression of renewal of optimism and the human spirit – but not Jesus, contrary to Christianity's central tenet about the return to life on Easter morning of the crucified divine son of God.

"Generally speaking, no divine anybody makes an appearance in West Hill's Sunday service liturgy.

"There is no authoritative Big-Godism, as Rev. Gretta Vosper, West Hill's minister for the past 10 years, puts it. No petitionary prayers (“Dear God, step into the world and do good things about global warming and the poor”). No miracles-performing magic Jesus given birth by a virgin and coming back to life. No references to salvation, Christianity's teaching of the final victory over death through belief in Jesus's death as an atonement for sin and the omnipotent love of God. For that matter, no omnipotent God, or god.

"Ms. Vosper has written a book, published this week – With or Without God: Why the Way We Live is More Important than What We Believe – in which she argues that the Christian church, in the form in which it exists today, has outlived its viability and either it sheds its no-longer credible myths, doctrines and dogmas, or it's toast."

There is a genuine consensus, the pastor of this church goes on to say, that the Bible is a human project that has no ontological truth, that it is absurd to think that salvation comes through the death and resurrection of a particular man. The church, she believes, needs to recognize this and throw off their old language that they might survive. If I understand her correctly, her justification for removing the name "Jesus Christ" from the hymn, ironically, is that the Christian church might not perish but might live.

My first observation is simply to acknowledge that Scripture says the exact opposite. Rather, it says rather clearly that our only life is in the life of this particular man Jesus of Nazareth who lived in a particular place at a particular time. And that this man is also God. If he did not rise on Easter morning, then there is no glorious hope. Paul writes: "Now if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith also in vain . . . and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." -1 Cor. 15:13-14, 17-19.

Of course these statements are meaningless to someone who thinks like Rev. Vosper because she believes the Bible is just human invention. My second observation, then, is a bit more practical. Why bother? Why are you the pastor of a church? Why not sleep in on Sunday morning? I just do not understand why this person - or anyone who believes the way she does - would waste their time with coming together. And I further do not understand the basis of her glorious hope. Where is our hope if Jesus has not been raised. I think that we have none and we might as well just eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.

But I do believe that He is risen. And I do believe that our Scriptures are the true story of God's covenantal interactions with his people. And I believe that they are the basis for our faith and hope that He will continue to be faithful to his promises. In short I too believe that glorious hope has risen today. But glorious hope has a name. Jesus Christ.

One last observation. I know not of this "general consensus" that Rev. Vosper speaks of. There are believers and there are non believers, as there always has been, but to say that there is a general consensus now that the Bible is of human invention is plain disingenuous. I find it funny to note that when leading theologians were asked to comment on her book, they all refused because they hadn't read it.

Maundy Madness

2008-03-20T13:56:00.002-06:00

As I write this, Marquette is in the second half of a close game with Kentucky in the first round of the NCAA tournament. Though I have not had much time to follow basketball in the last seven years since leaving Iowa State, I do have an affinity for this game as it pits my current school against my former school. (Asbury Seminary did not have a basketball team so as far as sports go, I adopted the University of Kentucky as my collegiate team during those years.) But alas I am not watching the game as I am reading furiously to try to get ahead for the final push of the semester, "the Paper Madness" as I like to call it.

What is more unfortunate is that I will likely not pause too long to remember the significance of this day. For it is not just the beginning of March Madness, as most Americans (and sadly most Christians) will only take note of today, but it is Maundy Thursday, the day in which our Lord celebrated the last supper with his disciples, the day in which he donned the towel of a servant to wash the feet of his disciples. The Pope, in his Maundy Thursday address from Rome, likened the event to the early Christological hymn preserved in Philippians 2:

"He had equal status with God but didn't think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn't claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death - and the worst kind of death at that: a crucifixion." -Philippians 2:6-8

If the Pope is right, and I think that he is (despite the fact that he was not speaking ex cathedra) then the footwashing episode is a microcosm of the entirety of Jesus' life. Even to the point that some of those whom he serves want to reject the cleansing. To paraphrase the early Patristic dictum with this understanding: "He became a servant, that we might be the one who is served."

This insight of the Pope's mirrors that of some of the early reflections on the Eucharistic mystery. Writers such as Cyprian of Carthage connected the actions Jesus took at the last supper in giving the bread and wine with the actions he took on Golgotha in giving his body and blood. It is all one mysterious act, through which we are reconciled to God. Our feet are now clean to walk where God walks. We could not clean them ourselves, as Peter's refusal was ultimately suggesting (despite the pious front), but we needed the Holy God to do it. This, when you think about it, truly deserves the appellation madness. And yet it is this madness - or foolishness as the Apostle Paul writes - that is our salvation.

Lenten Reminder

2008-03-09T17:11:00.002-06:00

"For men see Him just so far as they die to this world, and so far as they live to it they see Him not."

-St. Augustine

The Wisdom of Amy Winehouse

2008-03-05T22:19:00.005-06:00

The following sermon was written and preached by J.D. Walt, the dean of the chapel at Asbury Theological Seminary and a good friend of mine. J.D. married Julie and me and spoke some of the most meaningful words to us that we frequently recall. He has the perfect style of taking the classic old message and putting it into words and images that connect with today's generation. In my opinion, the church needs more of this kind of preaching. The sermon is a bit lengthy but well worth the read. May it help us all to keep a holy Lent.

Read it here.

"He died for your sins!"

2008-02-28T07:49:00.003-06:00

Though scholars continually try to do it, it is notoriously difficult to trace the Reformation to one event or even to a set of events. The most common is that day in 1517 when Martin Luther pinned his 95 theses to the door of a church blasting many common churchly practices, the sale of indulgences first among them. But I don't think anyone of important stature took notice for quite some time. In any event, what was it in Luther's life that urged him to do this? He relates one story that I think is quite edifying for us today.

As Luther tells it, he was guilt ridden with his sins and would consistently go before his confessor Father Johann von Staupitz crying: "My sins are killing me." He would describe the picture of Christ he had to continually pass on his walks, one which pictured Christ the judge with two swords coming out of his mouth and how it left him hopeless. Staupitz, at this point much more keenly aware of the grace of God than Luther himself, used to say: "Luther, why do you bother me with these puppet sins. If you raped or murdered, then I would have something to absolve you of."

When he saw that this was not working, he took Luther into the sanctuary before the big cross, effectively turning his eyes from the picture of the judging Christ to the picture of the crucified Christ. "What do you see?" he asked Luther. "Oh its horrible. Its my judgment." Staupitz, growing somewhat impatient asked, "Why did he die?" And Luther in his obedient manner gave the answer he had likely given all his life: "For the sins of the world." Here Staupitz turned him and looked into his eyes crying: "Luther, he died for your sins! If you lack assurance, then you mistrust this man. What more can he do to show you his love? It's not that God is angry with you. It's that you are angry with God."

Luther later said that this turned his whole thinking upside down. And though, as many of you know, I am less a fan of the Reformation than many of my Protestant brothers and sisters because of the great schism he created in the church to this day, I can certainly recognize that reform was needed, particularly a greater understanding of the magnificent, overwhelming grace of Christ.

Review: The City of Falling Angels

2008-02-24T15:41:00.004-06:00

For Christmas this year, my overly-generous brother-in-law gave me an IPod Nano. Among other amenities, this handy device has allowed me to indulge my craving for good literature without cutting into the dwindling freetime I have. Using the IPod, I have taken to listening to books on CD while I am driving to school, walking around campus or doing any number of mundane things throughout the day. So while I might fit in with the undergrads, given that I now have plastic appendages coming out of my ears as I walk, I retain my intense "nerdiness" by the fact that I am listening to books. C'est la vie. The following is a review of the a recent book I listened to, namely, The City of Falling Angels by John Berendt. As with previous reviews on this sight, I will refrain from too much analysis as I find that this can tend to persuade a reader to not pick the book up for him or herself, and my goal in these reviews is always to encourage reading.

Berendt is the best selling author of the critically acclaimed Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Though his latest book falls short of his first classic in every sense, he does manage to do for Venice, Italy what he did for Savannah, Georgia in the former work. The city comes alive in Berendt's artful hands and is a character in its own right. Through his artful descriptions, incredible detail and witty anecdotes, the reader finds himself placed in the middle of the city, tasting its foods, smelling its air, and walking its streets (or in this case, traversing its canals). And other than Savannah, Georgia, there is perhaps no other city, Berendt shows, quite as unique as Venice.

Berendt arrived in Venice in January 1996, just a few days after the fire of the city's historic (and last standing) opera house the Fenice. This event, then, serves as the unifying event through which he weaves his tale about the city of Venice as seen through the eyes of its marvelous, real life characters. As in his first novel, every character is real. We meet Venice's plant man, who has dressed as a large plant on the streets of Venice for twenty years selling his exotic shrubbery. We meet the Rat Man of Venice, the man who has given his life to developing the perfect potion for killing rats. We meet master glass blowers, famous poets, artists, and architects. We learn about the Italian family, the haunts of the likes of Henry James and Ezra Pound, and the fate of the American sponsored "Save Venice" program. We experience, through Berendt's eyes, Carnival, the centuries old Venetian tradition of taking to the streets in wild, masked celebration, the likes of which are not rivaled on New Orleans hallowed streets.

Through it all, we learn more and more about the mysterious night the Fenice burns as Berendt skillfully unravels a tale of arson and madness. The reader comes to see the Fenice as a metaphor for Venice herself, a once marvelous and towering city that in its latter years has become tired and old. The canals are dirtying, the history withering, and the architecture literally falling to the streets. Yet Berendt shows its beauty and the reader is left feeling as if he or she has been there.

Berendt, unfortunately, does not bring all of the characters he has introduced to the reader back together around the event of the Fenice burning. This is the fascinating triumph of Midnight, that all of the characters we came to know through the book were ultimately somehow involved in the murder mystery that unified that book. Such is not the case with The City of Falling Angels. Yet Berendt nowhere claims that he meant it to be so. He wanted to tell the story of Venice through the eyes of the people who lived there. And this he did with the same skill his fans have come to expect.

And now for something totally different, Part II

2008-02-17T12:19:00.002-06:00

In an effort to break up the monotony of these theological posts, I thought that I would give yet another installment from that brilliant, biting, beautiful poet Dorothy Parker.

"In youth, it was a way I had
To do my best to please,
And change, with every passing lad,
To suit his theories.

"But now I know the things I know,
And do the things I do;
And if you do not like me so,
To hell, my love, with you!"

Eyefuls of Planks

2008-02-13T22:22:00.001-06:00

Let me be really clear at the outset of this post. I am no fan of Sean Hannity. I do not agree with his politics and I do not agree with his tactics. However, in the following clip he and Alan Combs are interviewing Shirley Phelps Roper of infamous Westboro Baptist Church fame. And what is it they say about odd bedfellows?

What I find compelling about this clip is Hannity's final question and Roper's stunned response. There is no better example that I have seen of Jesus' saying that it's much easier to see the speck in another's eye than the plank in one's own.

Beautiful and Frightening

2008-02-07T18:08:00.000-06:00

Some of the best blog pieces I have read are at the same time beautiful in regards to style and frightening in regards to content. Such is the case with the following post from my good friend Omar Alrikabi over at First Born Son. He is currently doing college ministry at the Wesley Foundation in Fayetteville, Arkansas. I envy the kids who are privileged to sit under his teaching. Check out his post here. And say a prayer for peace on earth.

Sacramental Cinematography

2008-02-05T21:09:00.000-06:00

In 2004 on the Tuesday night preceding Ash Wednesday and the start of the Lenten season, Mel Gibson released his much anticipated "The Passion of the Christ" that was both hailed and criticized. There are some theological difficulties with the movie. I have heard it said, for instance, that the Christ shed so much blood in this movie that he died three times over. While the amount of blood shed was meaningful to an understanding that it was by His blood that we are saved, the notion that no human being could have lived through that blood loss and made it to the cross gave the impression that Christ was some sort of super human. We might like to think this at times, but let us remember that the truth of the incarnation is just this fact - that Christ became a man like you and like me. There was nothing supernatural about the beating he received, save the faith he had to keep him on that cross. Physically speaking, he died as any other man in his condition would have died under the same set of circumstances. We have to remember this because his true humanity is crucial to our salvation.

Having said that, I think that Gibson's sacramental theology is "spot on," as the English are fond of saying. If you remember, during the crucifixion scene, the picture cut back and forth between the events on Golgotha and the scene the night before in the upper room when Jesus was breaking bread with his disciples. As Jesus' hands were nailed to the cross, the scene cut to Jesus taking the bread. As the cross was raised up, the scene cut to Jesus raising the bread. As the blood dripped from his hands, the scene cut to show the wine. "This is my body," Jesus said, "given for you."

This scene brilliantly showed the beautiful truth that the Fathers wrote about, namely that the actions of Jesus in the upper room cannot be understood apart from his actions on Golgotha. In other words, Jesus is doing the same thing on Friday that he did on Thursday night. And this understanding further undergirds the understanding that Christ is somehow truly and mystically present in our celebration of the Eucharist. Not that he is crucified again, somehow transported to each of our churches, but rather that we are transported back 2000 years to that rock in the shape of a skull. That seeing the bread raised and the cup of wine, we are seeing our savior, "the Lamb standing as though slain," as John puts it. And that by partaking of the bread and wine, we are made one with him, one with his death, and one with his life.

Mystagogy

2008-02-03T08:27:00.000-06:00

In the fourth century, in the years following the Edict of Milan - the pronouncement by Emperor Constantine that Christianity was now an officially recognized religion and could therefore no longer be legally persecuted - a new genre of Christian literature began to emerge called Mystagogy. These were a series of lectures which were given to catechumens to explain to them the significance of sacramental acts like baptism, eucharist, chrism, etc. These lectures, in other words, introduced the neophytes into the mysteries of the Church, heretofore unknown to them.

In the process of catechesis, a candidate for baptism would learn all about the story of Scripture, he or she would learn the meaning of the different beliefs, the expectations of the Church - that one would engage in works of charity, etc. - perhaps the history and story of some of the saints, and other meaningful and important information. However, the catechumens would never learn about the sacraments for these were mysteries and were saved for baptized persons only.

Thus, the beginning of the Eucharistic liturgy, 'The Liturgy of the Faithful' as it was formerly called, was marked when the president of the congregation would shout: "The doors! The doors!" All the unbaptized would be escorted outside the Church to the porch and the doors would quickly be shut before the blessed host was brought out. No one in the outside world knew what went on inside those doors. As a result, nasty rumors began to circulate that the Christians were cannabals, eating on the flesh of babies. The first person to reveal what went on was the second century apologist Justin Martyr, who revealed some of the secrets so that the rumors would be shown to be false. But many Christians, I am told, were non plussed with his actions. These mysteries were sacred. Pearls that were not to be thrown to swine.

Still not until the Mystagogies do we get a glimpse into the deep, significant meaning that the early Christians placed on these mysterious acts. For in these sacramental acts, their salvation - and salvation history and the salvation of the world - was enacted. To be baptized is to cross the Red Sea into the promised land and to enter into the courts of the heavenly king. To put on the new white robe after baptism is to put on the garments of the new man, the wedding garments that would make one fit to attend the wedding feast of heaven. To feast on the Eucharist is to take the body of Christ into yourself, to become one with God.

Significantly, the catechumens were not instructed on the meaning of the sacramental acts until after they had gone through them. The ancients, unlike us, did not believe that one had to understand something cognitively before he or she could experience it. By the time they understood that baptism was the holy act of passing into the promised land, those catechumens were already sitting at the wedding feast and were becoming one with their God. For only such a one as this was worthy to know the mysteries.

Truism

2008-02-01T20:37:00.000-06:00

"I should not like my writing to spare other people the trouble of thinking. But, if possible, to stimulate someone to thoughts of his own."

-Ludwig Wittgenstein

Irenaen Wisdom II

2008-01-25T14:54:00.000-06:00

"It is better and more profitable that we should be uneducated and know little but draw near to the love of God, than that we should think ourselves deeply learned and experienced and so blaspheme against the Lord. That is why Paul proclaimed, 'Gnosis puffs up, but love builds up.'"

-St. Irenaeus of Lyons

The Quest Continues

2008-01-23T11:02:00.000-06:00

And so a new semester begins. For those of you keeping score, this is the fourth and (prayerfully) final semester of this arduous process. At the end of this semester, I will have completed 10 classes, 30 credits (added to the 30 credits I transferred in from my master's) of painstaking, difficult work. It is open to much debate on whether this completion was successful or not, but as I am often reminded, simply the completion itself should be cause for celebration. So do I receive my degree at the end of this semester? you may ask. A fair question, but unfortunately quite wide of the mark - which is, they say, the original definition of hamartia, the Greek word for sin (shame on you). Actually, after I complete this semester of classes, I then will have four or five months to prepare for a series of exams (some call them boards because they are in fact quite boring), which I will sit for at the end of October. Assuming that I pass this rather significant hurdle, again a lofty assumption, I will then, for the first time, have garnered the right to be called a PhD candidate. Right now, apparently, I am nothing but a peon, the derivation of which should be quite self explanatory. And let me assure you friends, the pee, as it were, is most definitely poised to fall this semester!

I am taking three classes this semester. The first is a history/philosophy class on the mysterious 6th century figure Dionysius the Areopagite. He wrote a corpus of writings dealing with the naming of God, the hierarchies of heaven, and the mystical union of God. He gave himself the name of Dionysius, after St. Paul's convert from his sermon on the Acropolis in Athens in Acts 17. It is a thorough going pseudonym, some might say fraud, as he references several apostolic events in his works, including a remembrance that he had of the world going dark when Jesus was crucified. He even addressed one of his letters to the Apostle John on Patmos. The pseudonym is why the letters received such universal acceptance and authority as it was accepted as truth by virtually everyone until the middle 19th century when it, along with much of what we used to hold dear, came into question. Though we know these works were not written by the real Dionysius - he now goes by Pseudo-Dionysius - he still is quite an important figure in the history of Christianity for the influence of his writings. As he is thought to have melded quite successfully the traditions of Christianity and Neoplatonism, he is of interest both for Christians and philosophers. The class is, thus, team taught by Father Alexander Golitzin - the resident Orthodox monk - and Dr. John Jones, philosopher extraordinaire. Should be quite engaging.

My second class is a class on hermeneutics, which is, simply put, the study of how one reads the Scriptures. It is taught by Dr. D. Stephen Long, a Methodist who recently joined the staff of Marquette. As my readers know, I too am a Methodist and for the first year of my studies felt like a man without a home in some respects as there was no one of my tradition with whom I interacted on a regular basis. It is good to be in Dr. Longs presence, under his tutelage as the old saying goes, and for such an important topic.

And my third class is a history class on Late Medieval Augustinianism. That is, I gather, how the Medievals, from Lombard to Aquinas to the dawn of the Reformation, used and interpreted Augustine. The great Father and Doctor of the Church had such a corpus and made several shifts in his thinking throughout his career that the problem of an Augustinian consensus was pressing in the middle ages. In short, everyone claimed him as an authority but no one agreed on what he was saying. This became particularly acute in the Reformation as both the Reformers and the Catholics were claiming to be the rightful inheritors of Augustine. This class is taught by Dr. Marcus Wriedt, a German scholar who teaches at Marquette periodically. I have heard amazing things about him so the excitement to take him mitigates against the fear of the fact that our primary text book is only in Latin.

So there we have it - the finish line of the class portion of this process is in sight (though in reality it is probably not even the halfway point). Still it is something, and I am grateful to God that I have made it this far, only with His help. I pray that for all my learning I do not miss him. One of the quotes I have sitting on my desk is from the great medieval scholar Hugh of Saint Victor: "Knowledge that is stained by a shameless life is not worthy of praise, and for this reason the person who seeks after knowledge must be very much on his guard not to neglect discipline."

Such is the path that I am on. Thank you for those of you who have journeyed on it with me. Through your prayers I continue.

"Where Have You Gone, O Apostles' Creed?"

2008-01-21T11:46:00.000-06:00

Paul Simon's classic line might not work lyrically in this instance, but the sentiment remains. There has been much about the United Methodist Church (as a whole) that has been disappointing to me lately, but I must say that I was still quite shocked yesterday morning when after handing out the Apostles' Creed to our senior high Sunday School class, all of them replied that they had never seen this. Now I know that this is not true because we say the Creed in our baptismal liturgy. However, I would not expect a high schooler to remember it had he or she only recited it a few times in their lives. Yet, I was shocked because these were all students who had been confirmed in the United Methodist Church. And I have to ask, if they are not teaching the Apostles' Creed, then what are they teaching?

My shock continued as they showed no interest in its history, its origin, its purpose, or anything else that a mildly educated Christian might express. Rather, they said that they saw no way that it could relate to them and the struggles of their everyday lives. This is a sad situation and a judgment - not necessarily on the kids themselves - but the education to which they have been exposed.

So in the next few weeks of our Sunday School class, Julie and I will be teaching on the Apostles' Creed. Each session will focus on one of the articles. (For example, next week's study will focus on "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.") For each class, we will examine where the doctrine was found in Scripture, what dangers are present were one not to believe the article (the traditional name for this is heresy), and finally, how this belief does indeed (or can indeed) affect their everyday lives. We will be using as a guide the wonderful book by Luke Timothy Johnson, The Creed: What Christians Believe and Why It Matters. If you've never read it and are looking for some excellent reading material that will be both educational and edifying to your spiritual experience, I highly recommend it.

We need prayers for this project as we are fighting an uphill battle against disinterest and apathy. We will update on this blog as the course progress.

Top Ten First Lines of Theological Works

2008-01-19T10:27:00.000-06:00

Even a cursory reader of this blog will have been able to seize upon two separate loves of mine, namely, theology and literature. Of the second I have elsewhere written of my particular fancy of a well crafted first line of a story. Therefore, I thought it might be appropriate and interesting - if to no one but myself - to offer for you, in my humble opinion, the ten greatest first lines (or in some cases several) of works of theology. As always, if anyone is still out there, please feel free to critique, criticize, or offer a few of your own.

----

10. "Sometime between 1960 and 1980, an old, inadequately conceived world ended, and a fresh, new world began. We do not mean to be overly dramatic. Although there are many who have not yet heard the news, it is nevertheless true: A tired old world has ended, an exciting new one is waiting recognition." -Stanley Hauerwas and William H. Willimon, Resident Aliens (I had to get some Wesleyans in here, since Wesley's own openings are usually rather bland.)

9. "It's teaching about Jesus Christ lies at the heart of every Christian theology." -Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus-God and Man (Those Germans, as we shall see, know how to write a first line!)

8. "Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness,' says the Lord. These are Christ's own words by which he exhorts us to imitate his life and his ways, if we truly desire to be enlightened and free of all blindness of heart. Let it then be our main concern to meditate on the life of Jesus Christ." -Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ

7. "Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting to-day for costly grace." -Dietrich Boenhoffer, The Cost of Discipleship

6. "The joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the people of our time, especially of those who are poor or afflicted, are the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ as well." -Gaudium et Spes, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Vatican II (I would be remiss to not have at least one conciliar document in this list.)

5. "The only possible excuse for this book is that it is an answer to a challenge." -G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

4. "Dogmatics is a theological discipline. But theology is a function of the church." -Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics (With this one sentence, Barth ushered in a new way of doing theology, one which retrieved its home, not as the academy, but as the Church.)

3. "So faith procures this for us, as the elders, the disciples of the apostles have handed down to us: firstly, it exhorts us to remember that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate, and died, and was raised, and in the Holy Spirit of God." -Irenaeus, On the Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching (Of course, the Fathers could not conceive of theology done outside of an ecclesial context, as this fine quotation shows. Plus, would one of my lists be complete without Uncle Irenaeus?)

2. "Beauty is the word that shall be our first." -Hans Urs von Balthasar, The Glory of the Lord, A Theological Aesthetics vol. 1 (I cheated on this one as von Balthasar, like any good German theologian, explains his first word with three hearty paragraphs)

1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." -John the Theologian

And who is my neighbor?

2008-01-17T21:54:00.002-06:00

"And, again, who does not see that no exception is made of any one as a person to whom the offices of mercy may be denied when our Lord extends the rule even to our enemies? 'Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you.'"

-Augustine, de Doctrina Christiana

How easy this is to forget in times of war. How quick we are to define the other as enemy when we first define ourselves, not as followers of Christ, but as Americans.

Authorial Intent?

2008-01-16T21:01:00.001-06:00

A crucial quote from that great Armenian C.S. Lewis that is, I think, helpful in many ongoing hermeneutical debates in the theological world today.

"An author doesn't necessarily understand the meaning of his own story better than anyone else." -C.S. Lewis, Till We Have Faces

Along similar lines is a quote by one of my favorite writers of fiction from his best work:

"A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations." -Umberto Eco, The Name of the Rose

Of course the Old Testament writers are the prime examples of these truths. I think that it would be safe to say that none of them had Jesus Christ in mind when they were writing their words of truth. Yet, as the Apostles and the Fathers and the Medieval exegetes and countless saints throughout the life of the Church realize, the Old Testament is about Christ. It does not matter that the original author may not have intended his work to speak of Christ, it does. Or to argue like the greatest of medieval exegetes Aquinas, the literal meaning of Scripture is indeed what the author intended. But the author was God.

If only modern biblical scholars would awaken to this point.

An Old Look at a New Beginning

2008-01-09T12:36:00.001-06:00

My apologies to all three of my readers for this extended holiday I have been on. What can I say? Things get in the way - like Christmas travels, football playoffs, the first season of LOST on DVD. What the heck is that island? No spoilers please. So as I relish the last few days of my vacation before the monster strikes again, I thought I'd provide for your reading enjoyment an old piece I wrote for the Iowa State Daily on New Beginnings. A bit cheesy I admit but appropriate for the start of 2008. You can read it here.

Silent Night, Peaceful Night

2007-12-24T15:12:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-21T17:10:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-17T13:57:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-13T11:41:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-10T22:34:00.000-06:00

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

2007-12-06T15:30:00.001-06:00

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

2007-12-03T10:18:00.000-06:00

"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

2007-11-17T13:14:00.000-06:00

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

-Joseph Bottom

The Rich Symbolism of Baptism

2007-11-15T08:26:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-12T07:57:00.001-06:00

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

2007-11-04T12:39:00.000-06:00

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

2007-11-01T12:57:00.000-06:00

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!

2007-10-24T22:12:00.002-06:00

"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)

2007-10-18T07:41:00.000-06:00

"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

2007-10-14T21:42:00.001-06:00

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

2007-10-13T17:58:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-28T09:27:00.000-06:00

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)

2007-09-20T09:41:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-17T20:47:00.000-06:00

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

2007-09-13T08:05:00.000-06:00

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

The Experiment

2007-09-12T14:56:00.000-06:00

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'

2007-09-07T08:15:00.000-06:00

"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

2007-09-04T09:29:00.000-06:00

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

2007-08-30T16:51:00.001-06:00

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

-Origen

First Day of School

2007-08-27T11:40:00.001-06:00

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

2007-08-21T16:41:00.000-06:00

"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

2007-08-14T09:15:00.000-06:00

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

2007-08-07T12:24:00.000-06:00

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

2007-08-04T13:20:00.001-06:00

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)

2007-07-30T17:09:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-28T10:53:00.001-06:00

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?

2007-07-25T14:40:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-19T15:37:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-18T08:35:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-16T16:36:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-15T12:51:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-12T21:14:00.000-06:00

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

2007-07-11T20:28:00.001-06:00

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?

2007-07-10T17:43:00.001-06:00

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.

Aussordentlich!

2007-07-02T11:57:00.000-06:00

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!

Deutsch ist gut, aber ich wohl nicht bin

2007-06-27T11:25:00.000-06:00

It's that time again to pray for Jackson who is taking yet another test in yet another language that he will yet again forget in a depressingly short amount of time. If you are joining us late, the language is German and the test is tomorrow morning at 9:45. The text we are translating is an historical text about an early church father consisting of about 25-30 lines. We will have a dictionary and we are allotted an hour and a half to complete it. If I pass this test, I will have successfully completed the language requirements of my program, which was (to me) the most daunting aspect of the PhD program.

Heading into this month, I was extremely intimidated by German. The only thing that I had ever heard about it is that it is completely foreign to any language (including English) with which one might have some experience. French, as an example, is part of the family of romance languages and as such is very similar to Spanish and more similar to English. In other words, one could conceivably pass a French test without a good grasp of the grammar. German is not the same. I knew a guy in seminary who dropped out of German even after he had paid for it because it was so hard. (Lee Harper, you are still my hero and not just because your name is opposite of one of the greatest American writers to have lived.)

The first few weeks of the class were overwhelming as they always are. Just when you think that you understand something, another point or exception comes along that fouls the whole thing up. We were learning 30 vocabulary words a day so one day off and you were incredibly behind. And most of the words look not a thing like English words. Eventually, though, you get into a rhythm. You realize that not every vocabulary word has to be memorized to succeed. You start to apply your knowledge of other languages. For instance, my deep studies of the Greek language helped a lot in understanding some of the peculiar aspects of the German sentence, crazy word order in particular.

Thankfully my supportive wife has again walked with me through it, has absorbed my inordinate amount of complaints and times of self doubt (which is par for the course). She has been a constant source of encouragement and I want to publicly thank her. Julie I love you.

Please be praying. I will report tomorrow or the next day with, hopefully, good results.

Let's Leave THEM Behind

2007-06-25T17:20:00.000-06:00

Reader, pardon the following rant.

While perusing the aisles of our local Barnes and Noble, I paused at the embarrassingly massive display of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' not so critically acclaimed Left Behind series. The series is comprised of twelve volumes chronicling the lives of four people as they make their way through the dreaded seven years of post rapture tribulation somehow managing to survive (though everyone around them dies) and, furthermore, conversing in the most unrealistic dialogue to find its way to paper since the Dick and Jane series. The twelfth novel climaxes in the second coming of Christ who, I've been told, annihilates people through lasers emanating from his eyes (which is problematic on a number of different fronts).

To my shock and utter dismay, I discovered that the pair has released a thirteenth edition of the series. Apparently, it follows the same characters through their millennial reign with Christ on earth. One wonders if the paradise of the millennial kingdom will have any affect on the reality or intelligence of the dialogue. My guess is no. This promises to be the final chapter of the story, which, of course, we have all heard before. I think that it was originally supposed to be seven volumes (one for each year of the supposed tribulation ), but then it moved to twelve when it was such a hit. Apparently some of the middle volumes took 500 pages to narrate the action of two weeks time. And in addition to the thirteen volume series, there is also a Left Behind series for kids (get um young like the credit card companies) and a three volume "pre-quil" (presumptuous at best - the last thing I care about is how Rayford Steele became a pilot or how Cameron Williams - ironically played by Kirk Cameron in the equally distasteful movies - got his annoying nickname Buck.) I mean this isn't Starwars and Rayford Steele is a poor man's Lando at best.

There are so many areas that deserve reflection and criticism. In the first place, the series exhibits horrible theology. A few points to mention here: 1) The rapture (the premise on which the entire series is based) is a relatively recent theological idea, developed in the 1830s. None of the church Fathers or reputable theologians today believed in such an event. The Scriptural grounding for it is dubious and is often taken out of context. Additionally, it assumes a position toward suffering that contradicts the entirety of the New Testament. It assumes that God will spare his church of the final tribulation - God never promises we will be spared of any suffering! In fact, he promises that we will have suffering. Why should we assume that we will be spared of the great suffering? 2) The books are extremely critical of the Catholic Church as a whole. In fact, most (if not all) Catholics are left behind in the first volume. This includes the Pope and the Cardinals. The Pope than quickly becomes a corrupt leader of a one world faith that is basically Unitarian. This view of the Catholic Church is ignorant and presumptuous. It assumes that all Catholics have no understanding of Christ, salvation, and the like and that all evangelicals (or whatever tradition the books are endorsing) do. What an incredibly arrogant stance! Also, it shows a lack of understanding of the tenants of the Catholic Church, first and foremost of which would be the unique position of Christ as the way to the Father - if any denomination today is going to stand against a growing tide of inclusivism and diminishing of the role of Christ, I believe it would be the Catholic Church. 3) Any number of concerns could be further added, including a horrendous eschatology, which assumes a unique place for Israel (Galatians 3:28 aside) and the rebuilding of the temple in paradise. Apparently LaHaye and Jenkins never read the book of Hebrews. But these are issues for another blog, as they are too big to dispute and tackle here.

In addition to poor theology, I question LaHaye and Jenkin's motives in writing the series. Certainly it began well intentioned, but why the ridiculous proliferation of books? Why continue to write these novels and stretch them into such a long, expensive series? I hope that I am wrong, but it seems that much of the motivation was profit, which in my mind is untenable. But for some reason, Christians continue to make these best sellers! It saddens me that this is the kind of material that is so widely popular amongst Christians today, while names like Henri Nouwen, Thomas Merton, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the like are absent from most Christian bookstores.

Finally, I am disturbed by the low level of literature (if it can be called that) that is present in the books. As I said above, the dialogue is unrealistic. Moreover, the characters are paper thin, and the predicaments that they get into are often solved by unrealistic means. Why must we excuse this poor writing? As Christians, we should demand the best in everything, but so often we settle for something much less simply because it is, or purports to be, Christian.

To end my short rant in this vein (I thank the reader for his or her indulgence), I'd like to appropriate and alter a bit a line from the show King of the Hill: "Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins, you're not making Christianity better, you're making literature worse."

New Look

2007-06-24T17:04:00.000-06:00

As the reader will have noticed, The Communion of Saints has received a little overhaul in its presentation. I added a few elements that I would like to explain. In addition to past posts, I have added to the side column a list of the Fathers, Theologians, and Blogs that I enjoy reading. I do not do this to puff myself up; rather, in keeping with theme of the Blog as a conversing communion, I decided to share with you some of the people with whom I am in conversation. In the Blog section, each name is linked to his or her particular blog and I would encourage the reader to check each of them out. Some of them are former teachers of mine, one of them is a pastor, and some of them are friends of mine. All of them are worth a read. The Fathers and Theologians are linked to a short bio and publications list that will provide the reader with books that are also well worth reading.

Finally, I have posted my list of labels on the side. I have labeled every blog entry I have written according to category. The reader can click on any category that interests him or her and every entry I have written under that category will appear. This will also allow some of you who are not so interested in my theological musings, but care a good deal about the progress of my program, to check periodically and click on that category alone to see what I have shared. I hope you find the new layout engaging and easy to navigate.

The quality of my blogs will not be affected by the new layout. This could be a good thing or a bad thing.

An Answer Remembered

2007-06-17T14:05:00.000-06:00

As Christians, we are part of a long tradition of people who are intent on remembering their story, of remembering the points in our history where God has decisively and definitely acted on our behalf. This rich tradition, of course, began with the ancient Israelites who rehearsed their salvation story - the story where the Angel of Death "passed over" the Jewish firstborns killing the Egyptian firstborns, which ultimately led to their exodus from slavery - once a year at the Feast of the Passover. This was actually a law that the Lord God required of them, in order that they not forget the wonderful acts of their God.

Christians continue this tradition with the celebration of the Eucharist, which I would argue, is the central act of the church. Every time we celebrate the Eucharist, we remember the sacrifice of Christ - his broken body and his shed blood. We remember the story and we make it present once again for us. Christ also prescribed such an action when he proclaimed to his disciples: "Do this in remembrance of me."

One of the reasons that God has demanded such constant acts of remembrance is because we are forgetful people. We need to remember because it is so easy for us to forget - when we feel that God has not answered our prayers or that he has not been present to us for awhile, we quickly jump to the conclusion that he has never been there.

I think, therefore, that it is entirely helpful, and entirely biblical for that matter, to work at remembering the times in your life when God has clearly answered prayer. Such an act can increase your faith and inspire you to more prayer, though you may feel that no one is listening. In light of that, I would like to rehearse for you one of the times in my life when God most clearly and most lovingly answered my prayer.

March of 2006, Julie and I were in Kentucky, unsure of our next steps. I had been accepted to Marquette for doctoral work, but we had no provisions for tuition money. My last chance was the John Wesley Fellowship, but for various reasons, that looked very doubtful. I was scheduled to fly to Houston for an interview one Friday. At the same time, Julie was driving to Milwaukee to interview for a position. She left on Thursday morning and I had the evening to myself. With so much at stake, I decided that I had a lot of praying to do.

Around 9:00 in the evening, I headed to Asbury Seminary, about a mile from our house. I wanted to pray in a special place, which for me was Asbury's chapel, Estes Chapel. At 9:00 in the evening, I figured the place would be deserted and I would be alone with the Lord and my prayers. To my dismay however, as I approached Estes, I saw that all lights were blazing and there was some extremely loud, and rather poor, organ music emanating from the place. Disappointed and dejected, I considered turning around and heading home. Instead, I found a little prayer chapel just to the side of Estes, which I always knew was there, but in which I had never spent much time.

With the lights off, I kneeled at the small altar and began praying about all of the things that were heavy on my heart. I prayed for my wife and for her interview, for her calling in ministry and for our marriage. I prayed for my interview and my calling and for the challenges that a PhD program entailed. Finally I began to pray for the means to pay for the tuition. Knowing that the John Wesley Fellowship was unlikely, I simply began praying that the Lord's will be done. It became a refrain in my prayer: "Lord that you would provide the means to pay for this: your will be done." I remember simply repeating that phrase again and again. At one point in the prayer I looked up and caught my breath at the words engraved above the altar where I knelt:

"Thy will be done."

As most of you know, Julie got the job she interviewed for and I was fortunate enough to receive the John Wesley Fellowship, which has helped us so much this year. We often wonder how we could have done this without the Fellowship. However, I do not think that earning the Fellowship was God's answer to my prayer that night in March 2006. I believe that it was rather his words to me: "Thy will be done." Seeing those words were like God's arms around me, assuring me that he was with me in this walk. That he would not leave me. And though there have been times this year when I have forgotten - more times than I care to relate - I know that this truth remains. God is with me. God is with us.

We simply need to remember.

What should a Christian look like?

2007-06-12T21:06:00.001-06:00

Throughout the years, Christians have spent a good deal of time and energy concerned with what a Christian should look like. That would be perfectly appropriate if I were talking about the inside, how a Christian should act, think, serve others, and the like. Unfortunately, history has shown us that Christians often seem more concerned with what a Christian looks like physically. Thus it is that we get such horror stories as white European missionaries making all Native American children cut their hair, and the horrendous and preposterous belief that African Americans are the cursed descendants of Ham (Gen 9:22-27) simply because their skin is dark.

This also comes through in many modern portrayals of Jesus. Many drawings of Jesus from the twentieth century portray Jesus as a white European. A more recent picture of Christ is more reminiscent of Michael W. Smith than a Palestinian Jew (my friend Jen always called it the "Brad Pitt Jesus"). I also remember an uproar over a picture of Mary on the cover of Time Magazine a few years ago because she looked "too dark." My friends, these were Jews who lived in the desert! Their skin was likely very dark. Jesus walked around in the desert and slept on the ground. If he wasn't dark from the sun, he was probably dark from the dirt. My guess is that he might look like someone whom many would turn away from if they saw him walking down the street; the same people who would do a double take if such a person walked into their church. The only reason? He doesn't look like us.

Jesus warned against this very thing in a parable: "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)

A slightly more contemporary story also captures the point: A few years ago a popular Christian singer/songwriter came to Asbury College to give a concert. Asbury College and Asbury Seminary both have ethos statements requiring their students to promise that they will not "drink, smoke or chew or run with the girls that do." (This comes from the Holiness tradition out of which the schools stem.) Although it is not the intent of the statements, they are often misinterpreted to be claiming that Christians never smoke and never have a drink and never consort with "those types of people."

It is said that that same week, a strange man was frequently seen around the campus of the seminary. He stood out because he had long hair, dirty clothes and he was always barefoot. He especially stood out when he smoked his cigarettes. Few put it together, however, that this strange man was the Christian artist himself. His name was Rich Mullins, one of the most Christlike figures of the twentieth century.

The Good News is that Christ came into the world to save all people of all cultures of all classes. Therefore, there can be no official "way" that a Christian should physically look. Because any possible way a person can look on this earth is a possible way for a Christian to look. That is the beauty of God's creation and will be the beauty of his kingdom.

Irenaen Wisdom

2007-06-11T08:06:00.000-06:00

Irenaeus has, in my mind, the greatest understanding of the incarnation of all of the early Fathers. I am prepared to argue for that. For the time being, I just wanted to give you a snippet of the kind of thing that makes this man's theology imminently beautiful and at the same time practical:

"So He (Jesus) united man with God and wrought a communion of God and man, we being unable to have any participation in incorruptibility if it were not for His coming to us, for incorruptibility whilst being invisible, benefitted us nothing: so He became visible, that we might, in all ways, obtain a participation in incorruptibility." -Irenaeus

That, my friends (with all apologies to Dorothy Parker), is true poetry.

And now for something totally different . . .

2007-06-06T07:52:00.000-06:00

Here is a poem from one of my favorite poets. There is no hidden meaning or message - I just kind of like it.

A Very Short Song

"Once, when I was young and true ,
Someone left me sad---
Broke my brittle heart in two;
And that is very bad.

Love is for unlucky folk,
Love is but a curse.
Once there was a heart I broke;
And that, I think, is worse.

-Dorothy Parker

Mein Kampf

2007-06-03T15:31:00.000-06:00

Perhaps it is in bad taste to label a post with the infamous title of Hitler's manifesto. However, I find that the title aptly catches the nature of my month of June. The phrase means, simply, "My Struggle." My struggle for the month of June is the German language itself. That's right - it is not enough that we need to know Greek, Latin and French, but now they thrust upon me this most difficult of languages, a language that requires a gutteral spit every third word, a language that sounds best when spoken while pounding a table with a fist. There is nothing mystical about the language, as there was for me with Greek. There is nothing divine or classical about the language, as there was for me with Latin (or what I now refer to as our Lord's language). There is not even anything elegant or beautiful about the language, as there was for me with French. Its just a confusing, angry language where the verbs are, for some unknown reason, split up and most of them come at the end of the sentence! My apologies to German speakers. Ich bin traurig.

To top it all off, we are given only a month to learn enough to pass an efficiency exam. That means an hour and a half of class a day, four days a week, followed by a good five or six hours more of study a night. And even then one feels continuously behind. Mein Gott! Deutsch ist nicht gut! The situation is what my cousin Mark Farrell calls "the firehose experience." In other words, open your mouth wide because the water is coming at you full blast!

Some while back, a famous American writer catalogued his struggles with this peculiar language. Anyone who has tried to learn this language will be able to relate. The following is a great quote from "The Awful German Language" by Mark Twain:

"Surely there is not another language that is so slipshod and systemless, and so slippery and elusive to the grasp. One is washed about in it, hither and thither, in the most helpless way; and when at last he thinks he has captured a rule which offers firm ground to take a rest on amid the general rage and turmoil of the ten parts of speech, he turns over the page and reads, "Let the pupil make careful note of the following exceptions." He runs his eye down and finds that there are more exceptions to the rule than instances of it. So overboard he goes again, to hunt for another Ararat and find another quicksand. Such has been, and continues to be, my experience. Every time I think I have got one of these four confusing "cases" where I am master of it, a seemingly insignificant preposition intrudes itself into my sentence, clothed with an awful and unsuspected power, and crumbles the ground from under me."

Of course, he wrote the thing in German.

Top Ten Experiences

2007-05-31T12:02:00.000-06:00

Since we are in the "Top Ten" genre, I thought that I would add one more personal list for your enjoyment, chastisement, what have you. These are the Top Ten Experiences (events, activities, or places) I want to have before I die. (Of course these experiences do not include the obvious ones like graduating, having kids, etc. All of these I want to do, but I think these are assumed.) As always, I welcome any of my readers' "experiences goals" or if you have done something amazing that ought to be on this list, please let me know. I am nothing if not malleable.

----

1. Visit the Holy Land.

(Unfortunately this may never be a possibility in my lifetime due to safety precautions. This is unfortunate because I would love to walk those streets, to see the Garden of Gethsemanie, the supposed sights of all of the events of Christ's life. I'm sure that this experience would move me to tears.)

2. Visit Rome.

(Actually I hope to visit all of Italy. However, Rome tops my list for its history. I specifically want to visit St. Peter's Basilica and take the tour down to the original tomb of St. Peter. I would also hope to visit the Coliseum, where many early Christians lost their lives, and the Catacombs where they were buried and where the early Roman Church met.)

3. See a Sunday of the Masters in Augusta, Georgia.

(Actually, I'd settle for any day of the Masters. But my hope would be to do this when Phil Mickelson is still playing. I could give a rip about Tiger.)

4. Watch the annual two act play of To Kill a Mockingbird in the courthouse square of Monroeville, Alabama.

(Monroeville is the hometown of the book's author Harper Lee. She envisioned this square when she wrote the book and waxed eloquently of the sagging courthouse. Since my friend Matthew Eubanks is from the mecca, this might be a possibility sooner than later.)

5. Go to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York with my father and my son.

(I'm a sucker for sentimentality.)

6. Visit Paris

(Back on the traveling train - there is too much history, literary and otherwise, not to see it.

7. Attend a Papal Mass in Vatican City.

(This might go hand in hand with goal number one. Of course I would prefer to experience this while Pope Benedict XVI is still alive because I think he is amazing, but we will see. My friend Christine experienced mass in a small setting of about twenty people when Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict), and apparently he is a wonderful man.)

8. Have a short story or book published.

(The New Yorker has already turned me down. Perhaps I will aim lower next time.)

9. Visit Savannah, Georgia.

(The city that began my love affair with the South. There would be a lot of sweet tea drunk and perhaps a little bourbon.)

10. Watch a football game in Notre Dame stadium.

(Despite popular Catholic belief, this does not equate with #7 on this list, but it is still pretty darn good.)

Top Ten Favorite Books

2007-05-24T14:10:00.000-06:00

Per a recent request of one of my readers, I would like to now list the top ten favorite books that I have already read. I have found this an infinitely harder exercise than the previous one because it necessitates picking and choosing between works of literature and theology, which ought to stand on their own merit and not be judged by such an unworthy and fickle reader as myself. I have found that this list has changed over the years due to the change of my interests, rereads, ruminating on the material, etc. As such, I offer this list with the following caveat: it is not written in stone, and there are many other works that I have read quite deserving of the list. However, thinking about it at this particular point in my life, here are my top ten favorite works in no particular order (though the first two are fairly cemented):

1. In Cold Blood - Truman Capote

(Launched a new genre - writing a true event as a story. Beautifully written and spellbounding. Of all the books on this list, I found this one the most difficult to put down.)

2. To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee

(Paints a beautiful picture of the South - and may have begun my love affair with it. Somehow weaves together the two seemingly unrelated stories of carefree childhood summers and racial injustice. It also gives us, in my opinion, one of the great characters of American literature, Atticus Finch. If my wife would let me, I would name my dog Boo Radley.)

(A side caveat, both writers hale from Monroeville, Alabama, the same town from which my great friend Matthew Glen Eubanks hails. I have told people that he will be the third famous writer from that town. A fine biography on Harper Lee, which includes her significant contribution to In Cold Blood is Mockingbird by Charles J. Shields. Though not making my top ten, it is a great read for anyone interested in those two figures.)

3. The Great Gatsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald

(Paints a picture of 1920s America almost as effectively as Harper Lee does of the South. Though simple enough for a high schooler to appreciate, the layers in this book are thick. Worth a reread if you haven't read it since high school. We never abandon our first love.)

4. Against Heresies - St. Irenaeus

(Written at the end of the second century to combat the rising heresy of Gnosticism, it is rightfully hailed as the first work of systematic theology. Irenaeus shows how the resurrection is God's redemption of creation, instead of its overturning. This book is one of the reasons I fell in love with theology and the Fathers of the church.)

5. The Confessions - St. Augustine

(This is the first, and still the standard, spiritual autobiography. It shows us that even a giant of the church, as Augustine was, still struggles and still needs to find solace in the grace of God.)

6. The Name of the Rose - Umberto Eco

(A modern classic. Absolutely captivating piece of mystery and historical fiction. I recommend reading it with a group of friends in order to discuss it. This is how I read it and I think it made the read much more valuable.)

7. The Great Divorce - C.S. Lewis

(An allegory of heaven and hell; the symbolism is thick and rich. Paints a beautiful picture of God and his hope for humanity.)

8. The Jungle - Upton Sinclair

(Singlehandedly led to meat packing reforms of the early twentieth century. Weaves together historical fact and the struggles of a fictional immigrant family struggling to survive in early America beautifully.)

9. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil - John Berendt

(An unbelievably fascinating read. A must for anyone who is the lover of quaint characters and the South, particularly Savannah. The town itself is the main character. Solidified the mystique of the South for me.)

10. The Seven Storey Mountain - Thomas Merton

(The late Thomas Merton was a Trappist monk at a monastery about an hour and a half from where I lived in Kentucky. This is the story of his life to the point of his entering the monastery. While Augustine's might have been the first, Merton's in my opinion is the best sample of spiritual autobiography. You will fall in love with the man and, hopefully, his God.)

-----

As I recently wrote to an anonymous post, I would encourage my readers to post their favorite reads. Sharing our favorites with one another will encourage us to read and spark other ideas of what we have read that we have loved.

People of the Book

2007-05-16T17:48:00.001-06:00

Historically, both Jews and Christians have been known as "People of the Book." The reason for this is that both religions are based, not in a direct experience of God (which was the claim of Paganism and much of today's so-called "New Ages" religions), but in an experience that is mediated through a story preserved for them in a book. Much of the opposing groups' stories are exactly the same. The one God created the heavens and the earth, was rebelled against by sinful humanity, and now pursues a salvific relationship with them (a salvation which finds its paradigmatic episode in the Exodus of the Hebrews from the slavery of Egypt). Of course, the story diverges at just the crucial point (the "climax" in narrative terms). For the Jews are still waiting for their final restoration in a Messiah who has not yet come. The Christians believe that their restoration (and the restoration of creation) has already begun - it began with the coming of Jesus the Messiah (Christ is the Greek term meaning "Messiah").

Because much of their story, and therefore their Scriptures, are the same, it is not surprising that the debates between Jews and Christians in the first few centuries were exegetical in nature. That is, the debate hinged on the correct way to understand and interpret the revelatory story God gave them. (We must remember that, though all of the documents of the New Testament were written in the first century, it took much longer for the church to recognize that God had spoken authoritatively in them. When the early Christians - and the New Testament writers for that matter - speak of their Scriptures, they are speaking only of what we now call the Old Testament.)

You might be wondering or have thought before that the Old Testament does not say much, if anything, about Jesus. But for the early Christians, everything that they needed to know about the nature of Jesus had already been revealed. We can see this in the pages of the New Testament. Consider the parable of Lazarus and the rich man and Abraham's solemn warning to the rich man concerning the fate of his unbelieving brothers: "[The rich man] said, 'Then, father, I beg you to send him to my father's house--for I have five brothers--that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.' He said, 'No, father Abraham; but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to them, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'" -Luke 16:27-31

Or Consider Jesus' words to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: "'O, how foolish you are, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?' Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the Scriptures." -Luke 24:25-27

But to the Jews, it was anything but obvious that the Messiah should suffer; and herein lies the single greatest point of differentiation between the Jews and the Christians of the first centuries. The Jews were waiting for a triumphant, warrior Messiah who would come in and forcibly set up the kingdom of the Jews on earth. Conversely, the Christians proclaimed that a crucified man was the Messiah. Thus, the text that created the most controversy in those early debates was Isaiah 53: "He was despised and rejected by others; a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity . . . surely he has born our infirmities and carried our diseases . . . but he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed."

In this amazing passage, written hundreds of years before Christ, the Christians discerned the identity of their savior - not a warrior Messiah, not a triumphant king, but a suffering servant. They clearly saw the cross - the punishment that made us whole. The New Testament writers refer to it frequently (cf. 1 Pet 2:21-24). In a mid second century debate between the early church father Justin Martyr and the Jew Trypho, Justin quotes or refers to it in excess of twenty times including a full quotation of Isaiah 52:10-54:6. This was obviously the foundation of the Christians' claim that the cross was prophesied by the prophets.

Incredibly, the Jews also discerned the Messiah in this passage; however, they saw not a suffering Messiah, but the triumphant Messiah that they so longed for. They concentrated on other parts of the passage: "Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong." It is not until the fourth century that Rabbinic exegesis begins to concede that the Messiah figure might be a suffering one.

I imagine that most of us would find it unimaginable that the Jews cannot see the cross in this passage; it is so clearly there. But the reality is that one's interpretations of Scripture are always guided by his or her presuppositions. The Jews saw a triumphant, warrior Messiah in Isaiah 53 because that is what they already expected. Only those who had undergone the radical conversion to Christianity could look upon the Scriptures through a new lens, and see so clearly what was previously thought impossible.

The same remains true for us today - for our interpretations of Scripture are just as surely guided by our presuppositions. Many of these presuppositions are ungrounded and can be harmful; they can lead us to find things in Scripture that are truly not there. Thus, we in America can interpret our riches as the blessings of God, while the poor in South America can interpret them as signs that we have forsaken God. Suspending judgment on either claim for the moment, the lesson is that we need to read Scripture with the knowledge that we have presuppositions, and we need to pray that Christ will continue to open our eyes as he opened the eyes of those first Christians, that we too may see things we have never seen. And that we might be converted. And that we might still be known as people of the book.

A Bit of Levity

2007-05-13T16:14:00.001-06:00

Prior to entering seminary, I spent about eight months as a youth pastor at a First Evangelical Free Church in Boone, Iowa. Since many of my readers did not know me at that point in my life, I thought I would give you a little idea of the kind of youth pastor I was. This video pretty much sums it up, wouldn't you agree Kelli B.?

End of the Year Reflection

2007-05-11T08:13:00.000-06:00

I am happy to announce that I have turned in my last paper and finished my last test and the first year of my PhD program has officially come to an end. There are many ways that a man like me could reflect on this last year. If you've been reading since September, you have heard the majority of my reflections. I have learned a lot and I have grown a lot. I feel more confident in my vocation and in my giftings from the Lord to complete this process. (Translation: I'm no longer waiting for them to kick me out.) The things that I have learned will stay with me; some of them I will be ruminating on for the remainder of my life. But all those things, I am certain, will come out on these pages sooner or later.

I thought, therefore, that a more appropriate approach to this year's assessment would be to share with you some of my observations of being in a PhD program at Marquette University, particularly as they differ from my Masters program at Asbury Theological Seminary. Take the following with a grain of salt. I assure you that they are all true, but none of them reflect on the quality of the institution, individual, or education and experience I received or am currently receiving.

Top Five Differences Between Asbury and Marquette:

1. Asbury is an Evangelical Protestant Seminary; Marquette is a Catholic University.
2. Asbury is outside the official ranks of the Methodist Church because it is viewed as "too conservative"; Marquette is outside the official ranks of the Catholic Church because it is viewed as "too liberal".
3. Asbury professors wear collared shirts and occasionally business suits; Marquette professors wear the Collar and occasionally Monastic robes.
4. Asbury's end of the year party consists of a barbecue and Diet Coke; Marquette's consists of a smattering of Wisconsin beers and a selection of fine wines and liquor (provided by the department).
5. Asbury's Final Greek exam was a sight translation of John 15; Marquette's final Greek exam was a sight translation of a passage from Diogenes (I don't even know who that is).

Top Ten Marquette Experiences that would never happen at Asbury:

1. Taking an entrance exam after I had already been accepted.
2. Writing a 25 page paper and being told that not even this is enough space to make a substantial argument.
3. Finding no research in English for a paper I had to write.
4. Hearing the "F Bomb" in class from a professor.
(I did hear an Asbury professor say "Darn it all" once.)
5. Being assigned a new paper (in addition to the impending final) in the final two weeks of the semester.
6. Readung the "F Bomb" in an email from a professor.
7. Hearing the statement: "I can say that the resurrection was probably physical, but that's about all I can say."
8. Facing a professor's look of incredulity when I told him I couldn't read French.
9. Having a meeting with a professor while he had a smoke.
10. Being told I was a "schismatic."

These are the shockers of the year. But I hope you have been able to tell from my posts that the majority of students and teachers at Marquette are strong and faithful Christians, even if they have a beer or a smoke once in awhile.

Voulez-vous etudier avec moi, ce soir?

2007-05-08T08:25:00.000-06:00

I'm happy to announce that I passed the French language exam! (And I didn't even have to re-write it due to poor penmanship.) Thanks to all my faithful readers for your prayers. I don't think that prayer can make someone pass, however, I do believe prayer can help someone to do their best. And I believe that I did that day and these are the good results. For those of you keeping score, that's two languages down (French and Latin) and one to go (German). I will be taking German this summer (an intensive course) so I will be asking for continued prayer. These language requirements were the most intimidating thing to me coming into this program, and it is amazing to think that I am 2/3rds of the way there to completing the requirements.

The Crimson Stain

2007-05-06T21:09:00.000-06:00

Today we celebrated the Eucharist. I love how our church does communion. After reading through the Communion Liturgy, the ushers dismiss the pews one at a time to the front of the church where we each stand or kneel before the altar. The Pastor and another helper serve each person in succession reciting those beautiful words: "The body of Christ given for you; the blood of Christ shed for you." The helper, who always carries the chalice, holds a white cloth under the cup in order to catch any drops of wine coming off the morsel that the communing one has dipped into the cup. This is done either for practical purposes (so that no wine gets on the carpet of the church) or for theological purposes (so that the precious blood of Christ is not spilled on the ground). Personally, I hope it is for the latter. After the congregation has communed, the Pastor slowly and deliberately covers the remaining elements with the white cloth.

Today, as I sat in the pew, I noticed the white cloth covering the cup. It was stained with several drops of crimson wine. It occurred to me that the scene was a perfect reminder of the sacrifice that was made for my salvation and for the salvation of all those sitting around me. For it is the blood of Christ, shed on the cross, remembered and recalled anew this day that gives us life. That crimson stained cloth was beautiful - he became crimson that my sins could become white.

"Make them be for us the body and blood that we might be for the world the body of Christ redeemed by his blood." -United Methodist Communion Liturgy

"This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." -Luke 22:20

"The punishment that brought us peace fell upon him, for by his stripes we are healed." -Isaiah 53:5

Dead Week?

2007-04-30T07:40:00.000-06:00

I'm not quite sure how it happened, but I have indeed arrived at the end of this semester, and therefore, the end of my first year of PhD work. It is not quite yet time to send in the clowns or the undertaker as it were. I still have a week and then finals. At Iowa State, this week before finals was aptly named "Dead Week." And though the subjects have changed (and the workload has certainly increased), I think that "Dead Week" is an appropriate title for this week at Marquette as well.

If you are confused as to the meaning of Dead Week, don't feel alone - I too was confused at the onset of my freshman year at Iowa State. But I found out pretty quick. If you'd like to read my thoughts on this subject back when I was a mere 19 year old college freshman, you can check them out here. It's funny to realize that, though it is - incredibly - ten years later, I still have many of the same thoughts. (Enter horrible cliche here.)

Rendez Compte de l'essai Francais

2007-04-27T11:44:00.000-06:00

Translation: "Wasn't someone taking some exam?"

I am happy to report that I think that the French test went well, though I can't say a whole lot for the experience itself. We were all crammed in this little room and we're given these desks, which, I'm sorry, might as well have been built for a hobbit, in which to write out our translations. Also, we were required to write in pen, which is odd for a translation assignment, since you are constantly changing words and phrases etc. At the end of the testing period, I realized that my sheet looked about as clear as Lake Michigan. In fact, for a moment I wondered if I had actually written in English or simply copied the French from my test sheet as is. Remembering an awful experience in which I had to rewrite three essay questions due to poor handwriting (the Marquette entrance exam), I quickly grabbed another blue book and recopied carefully.

But all in all, I finished the translation, it made sense, and anyone should be able to read my writing - these are good things. So, for all who prayed and thought about me: merci beaucoup. (Translation: "you guys rock".)

One side note that you might find a bit entertaining as these are the kinds of things that just happen to me. We were given a slight hint about a week before the test of where the passage we needed to translate would come from, Dictionnaire de Spirituality. The prof who was picking the passage told another person that the passage would be from a major theme in the Old Testament. So, I chose the section on faith, "Foi" copied the article and translated a bit of it each night.

The morning before the test, I was translating the article and stopped short of the final section of the article in order to give myself a break. The name of the section, now blazoned in my memory, was: La situation de la foi. When I opened my test, my heart sank as I saw those same words at the top of the passage. Miraculously, I had chosen the very article that was on the test. Somewhat less than miraculously, I had translated every part of the article except the part that was on the test. Quelle chienne!

Je Dois Avoir la Priere

2007-04-25T14:12:00.000-06:00

Translation: "I need me some prayer!"

I am taking my French examination tomorrow at 3:00. Why do I need to know le francais (Translation: "that stinkin' language) you may ask. Great question, and one which is particularly forefront on my mind right now. The sinple answer is je ne sais pas. (Translation: "I don't have a dang clue.") Are you confident that you are going to pass, you may ask. The simple answer is: non. (Translation: "Are you drunk?")

All kidding aside, I have realized this year that a reading knowledge of other languages is essential for good scholarship. Not only are the ancient languages important (which for me means Greek and Latin) so as to be able to read the documents of the fathers in the original languages in which they were written, it is also important to know modern research languages (French and German) because much scholarly work is being produced in those languages and it takes a long time for them to be translated into English. Many critical works have never been translated at all! In my field in particular, Patristics, so much work is done by the French that if you are unable to read French, you will never be able to have a good command of scholarship. Additionally, the best modern translations of the ancient documents are not made in English (of course not) but in French - quel dommage! (Translation: well you figure it out). So though it is a pain, it is a necessary.

So all that to say, pray for me - s'l vous plait. Pray not that I would pass because I'm not hoping to be bailed out here. I have worked hard this semester. Just pray that I would be able to think clearly and remember. As always I thank you for these prayers. I feel that you as a community are a big reason that I am able to persevere through this.

Au revoir! (Translation: "HELP!)

Peace

2007-04-23T14:06:00.000-06:00

A poignant word from a second century saint in these war torn times:

"Christians, who, having learned the true worship of God from the law, and the word which went forth from Jerusalem by means of the apostles of Jesus, have fled for safety to the God of Jacob and the God of Israel; and we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons, - our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage - and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father himself through whom he was crucified."

-Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho

A Blazin' Good Birthday

2007-04-20T07:20:00.000-06:00

Today is April 20th. It is my birthday. It is also a counter cultural holiday celebrating the smoking of marijuana. No one knows exactly why. Some link it to a group of teenagers called "The Waldos" who, in 1971, met every day after school (at 4:20) to smoke pot (thank you Wikipedia). Others link it to the slopes at Aspen, where the last run of the day would be about 5 minutes to 4:00, meaning that everyone would get to the bottom at 4:20 and celebrate the day by blazing some doobies. Either way, 4/20 is generally recognized as their national holiday. Happy birthday me.

It should come as no shock to my readers that I have not had any personal experience (on my birthday or otherwise) with the smoking of marijuana. However, it occurs to me that my birthday has been linked to a blaze of sorts.

Nine years ago, my 20th birthday, I was a freshman at Iowa State University and I had volunteered my services as a Parade Aide in the annual VEISHEA parade (VEISHEA is the celebration of Iowa State University). For the average Parade Aide, this would entail walking beside a big float and nothing else. Unfortunately I am not the average person and it meant an entirely different experience for me. It was such a good story that I wrote about it in my weekly column in the Iowa State Daily. If you are interested, you can read it here.

Happy 4/20 bloggers! Stay off the hash.

Spring Tragedy

2007-04-17T08:00:00.000-06:00

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the victims of the senseless tragedy at Virginia Tech yesterday. These students were preparing for their future, in an institution of higher learning, and it was cruelly and viciously taken from them. When these kinds of things happen, we are left to wonder what minds the world was deprived of yesterday. Was there an Einstein in that classroom? Or a Martin Luther King? Was there a Mother Theresa? Were there Christians who were planning to work for the increase of God's kingdom?

I am particularly aware of tragedies such as this around this time of year because it is around my birthday (April 20th). In 1999, on my 21st birthday, I awoke to the awful news of Columbine, and for me that day is always associated with it. On April 19, 1993 the Waco tragedy occurred and on April 19th, 1995 the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. The irony of these life ending events is that they occurred in springtime, the season of new birth, the Easter season. It is a harsh reminder for us that while Jesus has resurrected, the final enemy of death has yet to be completely abolished.

In times like these, the question one often hears is: "Where is God in all this? Why does God let this kind of thing happen?" The answer, which we often do not want to hear, is that our sin is what causes this. The first humans turned from God's loving offer of a relationship and humanity has been in pain ever since. Incredibly, God continues to pursue us - he did in the incarnation and he continues to with the Spirit. The shooting yesterday is not, in my opinion, God's judgment on our sins so much as it is the natural consequences of life lived apart from God.

Pray for the families of the victims this day. Pray for the family of the shooter this day. And as always, pray for peace.

Just who is Irenaeus?

2007-04-14T17:38:00.000-06:00

Many of you know that I am studying historical theology at Marquette. Less of you know that the figure of history in which I am particularly interested, and on whom I will hopefully write my dissertation, is the late second century bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus. My hunch is that a fraction of you have never even heard of Irenaeus and more than likely wonder to yourselves why I would possibly want to devote my time to such an obscure figure.

In light of this fact, today's post is a bit of a history lesson about this so-called obscure figure. Yet instead of telling you myself, I thought that I would pass on a message from a teacher and pastor much more qualified than myself, namely Pope Benedict XVI. Since the start of 2007, the Pope has been delivering weekly messages in the Vatican teaching each week on a different saint of the Church. The following message he gave on March 28th. Though it is a bit long, I think the pay off is great, and hopefully it will help you understand the importance of this little known Father and why I want to devote my studies to his work.

------------

"Dear Brothers and Sisters!In the catechesis on the great figures of the Church during the first centuries, today we reach the figure of an eminent personality, Irenaeus of Lyons. His biographical information comes from his own testimony, sent down to us by Eusebius in the fifth book of the "Storia Ecclesiastica."

Irenaeus was most probably born in Smyrna (today Izmir, in Turkey) between the years 135 and 140. There, while still a youth, he attended the school of Bishop Polycarp, for his part, a disciple of the apostle John. We do not know when he moved from Asia Minor to Gaul, but the move must have coincided with the first developments of the Christian community in Lyons: There, in 177, we find Irenaeus mentioned among the college of presbyters.That year he was sent to Rome, bearer of a letter from the community of Lyons to Pope Eleutherius. The Roman mission took Irenaeus away from the persecution by Marcus Aurelius, in which at least 48 martyrs died, among them the bishop of Lyons himself, the 90-year-old Pothinus, who died of mistreatment in jail. Thus, on his return, Irenaeus was elected bishop of the city. The new pastor dedicated himself entirely to his episcopal ministry, which ended around 202-203, perhaps by martyrdom.

Irenaeus is above all a man of faith and a pastor. Like the Good Shepherd, he has prudence, a richness of doctrine, and missionary zeal. As a writer, he aims for a twofold objective: to defend true doctrine from the attacks of the heretics, and to clearly expound the truth of the faith. His two works still in existence correspond exactly to the fulfillment of these two objectives: the five books "Against Heresies," and the "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" (which could be called the oldest "catechism of Christian doctrine"). Without a doubt, Irenaeus is the champion in the fight against heresies.

The Church of the second century was threatened by so-called gnosticism, a doctrine which claimed that the faith taught by the Church was nothing more than symbolism for the simpleminded, those unable to grasp more difficult things. Instead, the initiated, the intellectuals -- they called themselves gnostics -- could understand what was behind the symbolism, and thus would form an elite, intellectual Christianity.

Obviously, this intellectual Christianity became more and more fragmented with different currents of thought, often strange and extravagant, yet attractive to many. A common element within these various currents was dualism, that is, a denial of faith in the only God, Father of all, creator and savior of humanity and of the world. To explain the evil in the world, they asserted the existence of a negative principle, next to the good God. This negative principle had created matter, material things.

Firmly rooted in the biblical doctrine of Creation, Irenaeus refuted dualism and the gnostic pessimism that devalued corporal realities. He decisively affirmed the original holiness of matter, of the body, of the flesh, as well as of the spirit. But his work goes far beyond the refutation of heresies: In fact, one can say that he presents himself as the first great theologian of the Church, who established systematic theology. He himself speaks about the system of theology, that is, the internal coherence of the faith.

The question of the "rule of faith" and its transmission lies at the heart of his doctrine. For Irenaeus, the "rule of faith" coincides in practice with the Apostles' Creed, and gives us the key to interpret the Gospel, to interpret the creed in light of the Gospel. The apostolic symbol, a sort of synthesis of the Gospel, helps us understand what the Gospel means, how we must read the Gospel itself.

In fact, the Gospel preached by St. Irenaeus is the one he received from Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and the Gospel of Polycarp goes back to the apostle John, Polycarp having been John's disciple. Thus, the true teaching is not that invented by the intellectuals, rising above the simple faith of the Church. The true Gospel is preached by the bishops who have received it thanks to an uninterrupted chain from the apostles.

These men have taught nothing but the simple faith, which is also the true depth of the revelation of God. Thus, says Irenaeus, there is no secret doctrine behind the common creed of the Church. There is no superior Christianity for intellectuals. The faith publicly professed by the Church is the faith common to all. Only this faith is apostolic, coming from the apostles, that is, from Jesus and from God.

To adhere to this faith publicly taught by the apostles to their successors, Christians must observe what the bishops say. They must specifically consider the teaching of the Church of Rome, pre-eminent and ancient. This Church, because of its age, has the greatest apostolicity; in fact its origins come from the columns of the apostolic college, Peter and Paul. All the Churches must be in harmony with the Church of Rome, recognizing in it the measure of the true apostolic tradition and the only faith common to the Church.

With these arguments, very briefly summarized here, Irenaeus refutes the very foundation of the aims of the gnostics, of these intellectuals: First of all, they do not possess a truth that would be superior to the common faith, given that what they say is not of apostolic origin, but invented by them. Second, truth and salvation are not a privilege monopolized by a few, but something that everyone can reach through the preaching of the apostles' successors, and, above all, that of the Bishop of Rome.By taking issue with the "secret" character of the gnostic tradition and by contesting its multiple intrinsic contradictions, Irenaeus concerns himself with illustrating the genuine concept of Apostolic Tradition, that we could summarize in three points.

a) The Apostolic Tradition is "public," not private or secret. For Irenaeus, there is no doubt that the content of the faith transmitted by the Church is that received from the apostles and from Jesus, the Son of God. There is no teaching aside from this. Therefore, for one who wishes to know the true doctrine, it is enough to know "the Tradition that comes from the Apostles and the faith announced to men": tradition and faith that "have reached us through the succession of bishops" ("Adv. Haer." 3,3,3-4). Thus, the succession of bishops, personal principle, Apostolic Tradition, and doctrinal principle all coincide.

b) The Apostolic Tradition is "one." While gnosticism is divided into many sects, the Church's Tradition is one in its fundamental contents, which -- as we have seen -- Irenaeus calls "regula fidei" or "veritatis." And given that it is one, it creates unity among peoples, different cultures and different communities. It has a common content like that of truth, despite different languages and cultures.

There is a beautiful expression that Irenaeus uses in the book "Against Heresies": "The Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points (of doctrine) just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world." We can already see at this time -- we are in the year 200 -- the universality of the Church, its catholicity and the unifying force of truth, which unites these so-very-different realities, from Germany, to Spain, to Italy, to Egypt, to Libya, in the common truth revealed to us by Christ.

c) Finally, the Apostolic Tradition is, as he says in Greek, the language in which he wrote his book, "pneumatic," that is, spiritual, led by the Holy Spirit. In Greek, spirit is "pneuma." It is not a transmission entrusted to the abilities of more or less educated men, but the Spirit of God who guarantees faithfulness in the transmission of the faith.

This is the "life" of the Church, that which makes the Church always young, that is, fruitful with many charisms. Church and Spirit are inseparable for Irenaeus. This faith, we read in the third book of "Against Heresies," "which, having been received from the Church, we do preserve, and which always, by the Spirit of God, renewing its youth, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel, causes the vessel itself containing it to renew its youth also. ... For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church, and every kind of grace" (3,24,1).

As we can see, Irenaeus does not stop at defining the concept of Tradition. His tradition, uninterrupted Tradition, is not traditionalism, because this Tradition is always internally vivified by the Holy Spirit, which makes it alive again, allows it to be interpreted and understood in the vitality of the Church. According to his teaching, the Church's faith must be preached in such a way that it appears as it must appear, that is "public," "one," "pneumatic," "spiritual." From each of these characteristics, one can glean a fruitful discernment of the authentic transmission of the faith in the Church of today.

More generally, in the doctrine of Irenaeus, human dignity, body and soul, is firmly rooted in Divine Creation, in the image of Christ and in the permanent work of sanctification of the Spirit. This doctrine is like the "main road" to clarify to all people of good will, the object and the limits of dialogue on values, and to give an ever new impulse to the missionary activities of the Church, to the strength of truth which is the source of all the true values in the world."

A Profound Mystery

2007-04-12T17:09:00.000-06:00

I rarely remove my wedding ring these days, not as a sign of my enduring love for my wife (though it certainly is enduring) so much as the perilous fear that I will lose it (the ring that is). And for those of you who know me well, you know that fear is well merited. But I removed my ring today and read, for the first time in awhile, the words etched inside it:

"I have found the one my heart loves."

Though I have always known those words were on the inside of my ring, I was struck anew by their incredible meaning. Not simply because they portray the sweet heart of my wife (who for some reason chose those beautiful words to describe me) but even more so because of where they come from. These are not her words, at least originally. They come from the Song of Songs 3:4. They are, therefore, words embedded in a larger story, a story which, though on the surface is a love poem between a man and his wife, convey the deeper meaning of God's love for his church. The words on my ring come, in the Song of Songs, from the mouth of the woman (who represents the church) in describing her love for her husband (who represents Christ).

The fact that my wife used these words to describe the love of our marriage tells me that her love for me comes under the larger truth of her love for God. She is able to love me because she loves God. This love ought to define all Christian marriage, for we do not (or ought not) marry to fulfill ourselves, but rather to witness to the love of God. This is why the Apostle Paul cannot speak about marriage without referencing Christ. And this is why the Catholic Church holds marriage as a sacrament (incidentally, they are right). But the amazing truth is that this unselfish, charitable love ends up to be the most fulfilling love of all.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and his 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 5:31-32

Remembering Easter

2007-04-09T15:03:00.000-06:00

There is a Russian Orthodox monk who teaches at Marquette, of whom I have previously written on this blog, named Father Alexander. Through these first few months that I have known him, he has always worn the same thing, a rather tattered, plain black monastic robe. Today, I noticed that he had undergone a stunning transformation - he was dressed in a white robe, an ancient monastic tradition marking the change of reality brought by the resurrection.

Of course, Jesus resurrected from the grave several millenia ago; thus, we have technically been living in the new age, the age where death is abolished and the world in the process of recreation, for the entirety of all of our lives. What change should there be, then, from last week to now? In a word, much.

The church rehearses the Christian story each year through our reading of Scripture and our liturgical celebrations. We do this to remind us of the decisive truths that God has acted definitively in the world to save us from sin and death. We are a sinful people who, like Israel, too quickly forget. We are in desperate need, in other words, of remembering.

The Greek word for "remembrance" is anamnesis, and it is much more nuanced than our English word "remember." When we say we "remember", we think about something that is in the past and we think about that time back then, that is, back in the past. But anamnesis is not simply the remembering of something that is in the past. Rather, it is the re-calling of something in the past so as to make it present for us today. Anamnesis is literally the re-presenting of a past event in our present life. Thus, when the church remembers the resurrection of the Lord, we do not simply think about a past event, we bring that past event into our present reality. Christ the Lord is risen today!

The early church symbolized this through the ancient tradition of Easter morning baptisms. Normally, Easter was the only day in which a baptism would take place. And the catechumens would be led to the living water at dawn on Easter morning, the same time that the women came upon the empty tomb. As the catechumens were baptized in the water, they remembered the resurrection of their Lord and it was present to them. And coming out of the water, they dawned the white robe symbolizing their new, imperishable garments in Christ.

Christ died and rose 2000 years ago, yes. But in our rehearsal of the story yesterday, we have made the reality of the empty tomb real in our time. As a result, there is a change this week from last week. Our remembering of that story and that truth ought encourage us to walk in the new life. We all, like Father Alexander, should be walking in white robes.

Easter Sunday

2007-04-08T12:15:00.002-06:00

"Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here. He is risen!"
-The Gospel of Luke

"Christ the Lord is risen today.
Sons of men and angels say.
Raise your joys and triumphs high.
Sing ye heavens and earth reply. Alleluia!!!"

"Love's redeeming work is done.
Fought the fight, the battle won.
Lo! The sun's eclipse is o'er.
Lo! He sets in blood no more. Alleluia!!!

"Vain the stone, the watch, the seal.
Christ hath burst the gates of hell:
Death in vain forbid Him rise,
Christ hath opened paradise. Alleluia!!!

"Lives again our glorious King.
Where, o Death, is now thy sting?
Dying once, He all doth save.
Where thy victory, o grave? Alleluia!!!

"Soar we now where Christ hath led.
Following our exalted Head.
Made like Him, like Him we rise.
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies. Alleluia!!!"

-Charles Wesley

He is Risen indeed!

Holy Saturday

2007-04-07T12:37:00.000-06:00

Today is Holy Saturday; our Lord is in the tomb. The church calls this day the Blessed Sabbath. The title implicitly connects Holy Saturday to the seventh day of creation, the day on which God the Creator rested. Christ is in the grave, in a sense, resting from His work.

But this connection points to an even greater truth that Easter Sunday is the first day of New Creation. When Jesus raises from the dead, the beginning of the restoration of the world has begun. The Gospel of John portrays this through thick symbolism. When the women who come to the tomb on Sunday morning discover that Jesus is not there, they move quickly to a garden. And when the risen Jesus first appears, they mistake him for a gardener. The irony, of course, is that God has been about the business of planting gardens since the beginning.

But of all the days we commemorate in Holy Week, this is the least acknowledged. Often, we celebrate Good Friday and then move quickly to Easter. I think the reason for this is that our modern culture has little appreciation of the significance and meaning of suffering. We are a culture which places importance on comfort and success. A bit of this mindset has crept into the church. Thus, we want to move as quickly as possible to Easter morning, for this, after all, is the success! This is the day that death is conquered. But Holy Saturday reminds us that there was no conquering of death without first being conformed to death. For Christ to raise on Sunday morning, he first had to die. Holy Saturday confirms that Christ indeed conformed to our human nature and he conformed to it even to death.

Let us remember today that the way to resurrection and redemption had to pass first through the grave.

Good Friday

2007-04-06T07:14:00.000-06:00

Today is Good Friday, the day when they crucified our Lord. The designation "good" is peculiar to the English language. In the Roman Missal it is designated Feria VI in Parasceve which means literally "Feast of the Preparation." In the Greek liturgy, it is called "the Holy and Great Friday." In the Romance languages, it is called "Holy Friday." And in German, it is called "Sorrowful Friday."

The collective whole of these names displays the ambivalence with which we approach this day. On the one hand, it is a horrible day, a day of mourning, for humanity committed its greatest atrocity by brutally killing God's only Son, a man who came in peace, a man whose heart was so full of love that he wept when he saw the state of the world, as personified in Jerusalem, a man who left the heights of heaven to commune with the dregs of earth. We were the object of his love, we were the reason for his tears, we were the dregs. And we killed him.

But on the other hand, this is a wonderful day, a holy and great day of rejoicing, for the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world is sacrificed, thus atoning once and for all for our sinful humanity. Jesus, who on Christmas is conformed to our humanity, today conforms to all of us, even to our sin and even to our death. And in being conformed to our death, he sanctifies even it, so that our deaths are no longer meaningless and no longer judgment, but rather passage into his presence - that is if we participate in his death through baptism.

Perhaps the English title of this day most appropriately captures its sentiment: "Good." It shows a quiet respect for this day, it shows us that even in the great celebration of sin abolished, there is mourning that it was our sin which placed him there.

I leave you with a few quotes that capture the significance of this day better than I could ever hope to:

"Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed." -Isaiah

"For no one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for a good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." -Paul

"When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss, and pour contempt on all my pride. See, from his head, his hands, his feet, sorrow and love flow mingled down. Did e'er such love and sorrow meet, or thorns compose so rich a crown?" -Isaac Watts

"The task of the heart is self-preservation, holding together what is its own. The pierced heart of Jesus has . . . truly overturned this definition. This heart is not concerned with self-preservation but with self-surrender. It saves the world by opening itself. The collapse of the opened Heart is the content of the Easter mystery. The Hearts saves, indeed, but it saves by giving itself away." -Pope Benedict XVI

"It is finished." -Jesus the Christ

Maundy Thursday

2007-04-05T07:09:00.001-06:00

Today is the Feast of Maundy Thursday, also called Holy Thursday, which commemorates the night in which Jesus instituted the Eucharist with his disciples. It was in the midst of their celebration of the salvific moment in Israel's history where the blood of the lamb above their doorways allowed the Angel of Death to pass over them, the final plague which ultimately led to their Exodus. In the midst of the celebration, Jesus stood up and performed that mysterious and holy action:

"This is my body, given for you."

"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you."

Blood is salvific in the course of Israel's history. It is shed each time God makes a covenant with his people. It is the means by which the lamb passed over. And in less than 24 hours after that last supper, Jesus' blood would be shed, establishing a new covenant with his people. A covenant which is written on their hearts. A covenant which abolishes sin and death once and for all. And the church has been eating his body and drinking his blood ever since; it is the oldest and most cherished sacrament of the church.

The account of the institution of the Eucharist occurs in three of the four Gospels. But the interesting thing is that the term by which we remember this night comes not from any of these Gospels, but from John: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." The Latin phrase for new command is "mandatum novum" the origin of Maundy.

In place of the Eucharist in John (which there is discussed in ch 6), Jesus dons a towel and washes the feet of his disciples. This is the embodiment of his new command, to love one another. Jesus loved us so much to the point that he died for us. The reality is that in everyday life, we will not get the chance to love our friends this much. But here Jesus shows the way to love one another - by serving one another. By caring more for others than ourselves.

On this Maundy Thursday, let us remember the Eucharist which commemorates the new covenant by which we are brought into communion with God, and let us remember the new command that Christ gave us, to love others as He loved us. May he give us the strength and the courage to do so.

The Root of All Heresy

2007-03-29T20:50:00.000-06:00

For those of us in the church, we have learned to regard the words "heresy" and "heretics" as bad words, of the four letter variety, from which to stay far away. Often these heretics can be demonized and the church has a wicked history of, not just breaking communion with them (which is warranted) but of killing them (which is not warranted). While heretics are rarely killed anymore, they are certainly still demonized, to the point that we assume that someone who is a heretic is an evil person.

History shows us, however, that this is simply not correct. In point of fact, most heretics were holy men and women, just as devout and just as zealous for the truth as those labeled orthodox. Heretics rarely disregard the Word or call into question its inspiration. Where then does heresy come from, if not from the disregard of God's Word? It comes from a misinterpretation of God's Word. Bad interpretation of Scripture is the root of all heresy. As St. Irenaeus in the late second century wrote in the preface to his monumental work against the Gnostic heresies: "They falsify the words of the Lord and make themselves bad interpreters of what was well said."

This is a warning to us to handle the Word with care, lest in our devoutness we are lead astray with some of the heretics of old. As we read, we need to look to our Fathers and Mothers in the faith for clues on how to interpret and to pray that the Spirit be with us as we read. There is power in the Word to change us, if we read it in accord with the boundaries given the church. For the same Spirit that gave the church the Word also gave her the means to interpret it well.

Thoughts on Joining a Church

2007-03-25T10:29:00.000-06:00

This morning Julie and I became members of Trinity Pilgrim United Methodist Church in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, a community about 15 minutes away from our apartment. It is a small, church with two adult Sunday School classes, a men's choir, a handbell choir, a youth group that is trying to get on its feet, and an elderly pianist/organist who has been a member since she was confirmed. It lacks many of the amenities of "modern" churches. The pastor never has a power point with his sermon, in fact the sanctuary lacks the ability for it. He simply stands in front of the congregation without a note in hand and speaks. There is not a professional sounding praise band leading worship, complete with interpretive dancers. This morning we sang Charles' Wesley's classic: "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" with a simple piano background. And there are not a thousand different programs, but they do have several key ongoing service projects which are making a difference in the community. But you may ask, what drew us to this church? For many of the things this church lacks are the very things that our culture (and particularly people of my generation) are convinced grow churches. We were drawn to this church for two specific reasons: 1) the congregation is a family, a true fellowshipping body; and 2) the pastor preaches from the Word of God.

We were immediately embraced by these people, and not in a desperate sort of way, with looks which said: "you young people are our last hope!" They remembered our names, they remembered things we had asked them to pray for, they remembered to shake my left hand. When Julie would miss church for work, they made room at their tables for me. It was in general a warm atmosphere of Christian love which, additionally, witnessed to a large segment of God's kingdom: people of several different races attend as well as people of different socio-economic statuses. Yet all are welcomed at the table of fellowship.

The pastor speaks from the Word. He understands the nature of God as a God of love with a heart for His people and a desire to commune with them. He understands that God cares for the poor and the underprivileged and that the people of God ought too to care. This aspect always is emphasized in his sermons, which are neither fluffy nor full of jokes. He uses his time deliberately and he uses it well. For he tells the story of the people of God in a way that connects to us today.

Furthermore, we saw areas in this church where we felt that our giftings could make a true contribution. I think that Julie and I will be getting involved with the senior high Sunday School class. We ask for your prayers in this endeavor. In short, we are really excited to be at Trinity Pilgrim UMC and believe that God has great things prepared for us there.

As good as professional musicians and power point sermons and thousands of programs are in a church, they are not, in my opinion, what ultimately grows the church. They might attract a lot of people, but attracting a lot of people is quite different than growing a church. To grow a church, people need to hear the Gospel from the pulpit and see it lived out by the people in the pews. We believe we have found a place where this is happening and we pray that we will be able to contribute to its life.

Christ and the American G.I.?

2007-03-22T07:51:00.000-06:00

I recently read an email forward with the following claim: "The only people who were willing to die for you were Jesus Christ and the American G.I." Despite the forward's obligatory promises of good fortune if I passed it on and the threats of great calamity if I failed to, I did not pass it on for I find the statement extremely problematic.

In the first place, I just don't think it is true. I would like to think that I have a few friends and family members who would be willing to die for me. I believe that I am willing to die for them should the occasion arise. I do not say this out of pride and sincerely hope it is not taken that way; I say it out of the change wrought in me by Christ. For his definition of love and friendship is nothing short of this: "This is my commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." -John 15:12-13; "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers." -1 John 3:16. If it is true that the only people willing to die for me other than Christ are American G.I.s, than only American G.I.s have fully understood the radical love Christ witnesses to. This is hard for me to believe for many reasons, not the least of which is the simple fact that not all American G.I.s are Christians.

The second, and more compelling, reason that I did not send the forward on is that I think the comparison between the work of Jesus and the work of an American soldier is a horrible one which severely misunderstands (at best) or undermines (at worst) the Gospel message. After all, the soldier rushes to war with a gun, killing all those who did not happen to be born in America. The soldier does all he can to stay alive and if it is between he and another guy (particularly the enemy), it is going to be the enemy who dies. These are the brutal facts of war and no one blames the soldier for this type of mentality - this is the job his country has asked him to do.

The work of Jesus was completely different. Jesus came peaceably, preaching a gospel of peace and restoration and freedom (from sin) for all people, not just those who happened to be born in a specific geographical location (and certainly not only for Americans). Jesus preached the turning of the other cheek, the walking of the extra mile, the loving of one's enemies. When he was called upon to fight, he refused and chastised his disciples for defending him with the sword. And he healed the ear of the very man who came to arrest him. He submitted to immense suffering and death, never once striking back. In short, he lived and modeled his gospel of peace and displayed for us the only true means toward restoration. The only comparison which is merited is the Christian martyr who willingly dies for being a follower of Christ (which continues to happen throughout the world), or perhaps the person who dies on behalf of a friend. Which if you remember, Christ expects of us all.

The Relevant Tradition

2007-03-10T22:26:00.000-06:00

From the earliest days of the church, two seemingly paradoxical characteristics have marked the Christian faith: 1) an abiding concern for tradition and finding one's identity and story in the community that has gone before; and 2) an abiding concern for spreading the gospel to peoples and cultures who have never heard it before. These characteristics, equally important, have often been the source of tension, for the question always arises: how does one make the faith relevant and understandable to new generations and cultures without sacrificing what is distinctive about that faith?

There have been times when the church has succeeded in the struggle. The New Testament writers are the prime example. Their beloved tradition, the tradition and story out of which Christianity grew, was the story of Israel. And as the pages of the NT reveal, this story was fully embraced and carried on by the first Christians. The church, in struggling to identify herself, looked back into her tradition. Thus, Peter, writing to his church of Gentile converts says this: "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession . . ." (1 Pet 2:9). These four images are lifted straight from Israel's Scriptures, former descriptions of Israel now applied to the church.

Yet the NT writers, in looking back to tradition, were not imprisoned by it. After all, the language of Israel's Scriptures was Hebrew, but no common person (least of all the Gentiles) knew how to read Hebrew. Thus, the NT is written in Greek, the language that everyone knew. These tradition filled documents, full of imagery garnered from Israel's story, is presented to the people in a new medium, one which they were able to understand and, as a result, the Gospel spread quickly in those first generations. When Greek fell out of use in the West in the second and third centuries, the Scriptures were translated once again into the common language (Latin).

Unfortunately, there have also been times when the church has failed at this struggle. For centuries in the middle ages, the church kept the Scriptures locked away from the people by refusing to allow it to be translated from Latin (though no common person read or spoke Latin by this time). Church leaders had begun to confuse its tradition (the story of the Scriptures) with the form of that story, the Latin language. And incredibly, it persecuted those first brave souls who dared to translate the Latin Bible into the common language.

In our generation, it is evident that the same struggle goes on. While language might not be the focal point, the question remains vital: how do we make the faith understandable without losing its content. While the church in the middle ages erred on the side of tradition (thus failing to make it understandable to the people), I fear that many in our generation have erred on the other side. There are many examples today of those who would remove everything distinctive about the Christian faith so as to make it more attractive. A few examples:

1) The Old Testament is often hidden away as the dirty little secret. Instead of going to the effort of understanding what actually was happening in those pages, many preachers just skip over it and preach solely from the New Testament, if even that. But the loss of the Old Testament is the loss of a significant part of our story. In fact, the early Christians would have found a Christian faith without the Old Testament unintelligible. If we knew our story better, I suspect we would feel the same way.

2) The names of God are being changed. Instead of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, many are opting for titles like "the Divine" or "Sophia." While the intent behind these name changes is not necessarily bad and often times good (namely the concern for the marginalization of women in a patriarchal faith), I am not sure that changing the names of God revealed in Scripture is the best way to go about this. After all, I believe that Jesus reveals God as primarily a Father and he is best understood in the terms of that Father-Son relationship. To lose this metaphor is to lose a significant part of a traditional understanding of God.

3) My brother tells me that there is a church in his town which is considering removing all crosses from their premises in order to make it a more welcoming environment. Here is a church who has forfeited too much of tradition to make the faith more attractive. But if the cross has to be removed to do this, my question is what story are they teaching, what story are they living. A faith without the cross is not Christian. (One wonders if there would have been more resistance to the removing of the American flag from that church.)

This struggle is a necessary one, for as Christians, we are a people who are defined by our story, by our past. And yet we are commissioned to take that story to the world, to the world that does not speak our language. How are we to do it?