Responsa quaestiones

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

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

The teaching of Vatican II is as follows:

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

2. The Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For All the Saints

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

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

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

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

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

-William W. How

And So This Is Mixmas

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

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

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

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

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

Methodists Beware!

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

-Hans Urs von Balthasar

Amen and Amen!

Inspiration (2)

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

Agree or disagree? And with what specifically?

A Chastened Critique of Joel Osteen

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

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

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

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

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

An Open and Likely Unwanted Letter

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

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

In all sincerity,

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

We are One Another

An appropriate quote, I think, for this blog:

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

-Jean-Marie Roger Tillard

Inspiration (1)

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

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

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

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

The Communion of Saints - One Year Later

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

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

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

First Post: A Communion of Bloggers

Post which generated the most comments: Authentic Community

Most meaningless post: A Bit of Levity

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

Imago Trinitatis

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

The Experiment

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

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

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

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

We need your prayers in this experiment.

God's Definition of 'Reward'

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

An unorganized discourse on classes and Labor Day

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

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

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

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

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

Slave of Christ

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

-Origen

First Day of School

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

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

I love being a student.

Musings from a Beach

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sacrament of Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Walking to Work and the Faithfulness of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Power of True Stories

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. The Seven Storey Mountain, Autobiography of Thomas Merton

1. The Confessions, Autobiography of St. Augustine

---

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