I am not suggesting that Rahab's house (per Joshua 2.1) was a caravanserai. What is fascinating is that a caravanserai (or something similar to it) would probably have been the place the spies would have been expected to lodge. The Jericho authorities would also likely have looked for them in such a place. But they were obviously watching Rahab's house as well, which we know from her tale to the authorities of the spies' escape.
This is a video which gives a picture of a modern-day caravanserai. This one was built in the 13th century, AD, which means it is centuries older than the situation we encounter in Joshua 2. But like many of the wonderful things on youtube, this one can give us a picture that helps our understanding.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Rahab helps the spies
The story of the sainted Rahab is one of those very interesting stories from the OT, and one that tends to get glossed over way too much. Probably because we are uncomfortable with Rahab's occupation.
Which is a prostitute. Since we are Americans, and since we all carry the burden of our Puritan heritage around on our backs, we are inclined to explain her work as something else. Innkeeper is the one I hear most often. Another is that she was a sort of a madam, which is our female version of a pimp, and sounds -- for some reason -- more palatable to our ears.
But the Bible will have none of it: James 2.25 confirms what Joshua 2.1 infers: she was a prostitute. And in Joshua 2, the 2 Israelite spies lodge at her house.
Which begs the question: what were they doing there? One very logical answer -- that they were using the establishment for what it was designed for -- is one we don't usually touch. It wouldn't be that unusual, given that they were likely young men, but the more likely answer is that young men going into a prostitute's house wouldn't raise an eyebrow. It's a perfect cover for spies, and that's what they were there for. Jericho was not that large a city; Kathleen Kenyon has estimated a population of 3,000, which isn't that large, and 2 spies -- who might not have spoken the language -- would have been obvious to the inhabitants of the city. Staying there would be a logical choice.
(Lodging for travelers was tough in biblical times. Many places described as "inns" would have been rough housing, with thievery and physical danger as part of the landscape. We tend to think badly of the apocryphal innkeeper from Luke 2, and he's usually imagined as a hard-hearted person who would turn away a full-term pregnant woman. He's also become a stock figure in children's Christmas pageants. The reality is that his giving the Virgin and her husband a place in the animal cave might have been the kindest alternative, given that the inn -- more like a variety of a Caravanserai -- would likely have been dirty, loud, and dangerous for the mother and her newborn Son. The link above is a fascinating overview of the caravanserai in the middle east in current times).
More on Rahab later.
Which is a prostitute. Since we are Americans, and since we all carry the burden of our Puritan heritage around on our backs, we are inclined to explain her work as something else. Innkeeper is the one I hear most often. Another is that she was a sort of a madam, which is our female version of a pimp, and sounds -- for some reason -- more palatable to our ears.
But the Bible will have none of it: James 2.25 confirms what Joshua 2.1 infers: she was a prostitute. And in Joshua 2, the 2 Israelite spies lodge at her house.
Which begs the question: what were they doing there? One very logical answer -- that they were using the establishment for what it was designed for -- is one we don't usually touch. It wouldn't be that unusual, given that they were likely young men, but the more likely answer is that young men going into a prostitute's house wouldn't raise an eyebrow. It's a perfect cover for spies, and that's what they were there for. Jericho was not that large a city; Kathleen Kenyon has estimated a population of 3,000, which isn't that large, and 2 spies -- who might not have spoken the language -- would have been obvious to the inhabitants of the city. Staying there would be a logical choice.
(Lodging for travelers was tough in biblical times. Many places described as "inns" would have been rough housing, with thievery and physical danger as part of the landscape. We tend to think badly of the apocryphal innkeeper from Luke 2, and he's usually imagined as a hard-hearted person who would turn away a full-term pregnant woman. He's also become a stock figure in children's Christmas pageants. The reality is that his giving the Virgin and her husband a place in the animal cave might have been the kindest alternative, given that the inn -- more like a variety of a Caravanserai -- would likely have been dirty, loud, and dangerous for the mother and her newborn Son. The link above is a fascinating overview of the caravanserai in the middle east in current times).
More on Rahab later.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Theses dealing with the state of the dead in purgatory
16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
Luther's thesis on the penalty of purgatory: thesis 15
15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Review: 'Language Death' by David Crystal, posted on Amazon.com
'Language Death' does a hard job well. The author seeks to show both the need for language preservation, and at the same time provides an overview of the process by which language preservation can be done.
The book started slowly for me: the first section is an argument in favor of language preservation, and a discussion of language death, and I found the arguments in favor of preservation to be a bit long and over-drawn. But then, I didn't need to be persuaded; I think language diversity is a good thing, and those not yet so convinced may need more work. But the book is overall well-done, well-written, and concise, and entertaining and thought-provoking as well.
An earlier reviewer (who's also a buddy of mine) suggested that the book gives insufficient credit to Bible translators in the job of language preservation. I'd suggest that Crystal may have a slight bias against Bible translators, especially when he refers to the work done by Bible translators as being biased. I might prefer describing it as narrowly-drawn, rather than biased.
But having said all this, the book handles a tough task in a easy to read manner, and gives a good introduction.
The book started slowly for me: the first section is an argument in favor of language preservation, and a discussion of language death, and I found the arguments in favor of preservation to be a bit long and over-drawn. But then, I didn't need to be persuaded; I think language diversity is a good thing, and those not yet so convinced may need more work. But the book is overall well-done, well-written, and concise, and entertaining and thought-provoking as well.
An earlier reviewer (who's also a buddy of mine) suggested that the book gives insufficient credit to Bible translators in the job of language preservation. I'd suggest that Crystal may have a slight bias against Bible translators, especially when he refers to the work done by Bible translators as being biased. I might prefer describing it as narrowly-drawn, rather than biased.
But having said all this, the book handles a tough task in a easy to read manner, and gives a good introduction.
"The smaller the love, the greater is the fear": theses 13 and 14
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.
"Tests of true contrition": thesis 12
12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.
how small changes add up
Marion Wright Edelman is not speaking about the church here. But there's wisdom in this statement.
Remember this when you worry about your congregation. I don't suggest that you worry about your larger church body; you have enough on your plate in concerns for your congregation, though prayers for church bodies are certainly in order. But keep this in mind:
"We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot foresee."
Remember this when you worry about your congregation. I don't suggest that you worry about your larger church body; you have enough on your plate in concerns for your congregation, though prayers for church bodies are certainly in order. But keep this in mind:
"We must not, in trying to think about how we can make a big difference, ignore the small daily differences we can make which, over time, add up to big differences that we often cannot foresee."
Saturday, November 03, 2007
The shroud of Turin
I am fascinated by those little artifacts of history that don't quite fit into our paradigms, little events and items that stretch our way of thinking and make us question our assumptions.
The "shroud of Turin" is one of those artifacts. The shroud has an amazing history, and there are numerous studies done about it. Whether one believes this was the burial cloth of Christ or not, the artifact of the shroud is worth pondering. Here's one of those factoids that make us think about the shroud and its relation to the gospel accounts. You can read here an article about Mozarabic rite, a liturgy used in 6th century Spain, which hints at what might be evidence for the shroud.
The "shroud of Turin" is one of those artifacts. The shroud has an amazing history, and there are numerous studies done about it. Whether one believes this was the burial cloth of Christ or not, the artifact of the shroud is worth pondering. Here's one of those factoids that make us think about the shroud and its relation to the gospel accounts. You can read here an article about Mozarabic rite, a liturgy used in 6th century Spain, which hints at what might be evidence for the shroud.
When Luther still believed in purgatory
As I mentioned yesterday, Luther was not the raging protestant some make him to be. In these 2 theses, he affirms a belief in purgatory -- which he later came to disavow.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Kieschnick: "I'm not a theologian"
This is another of Kieschnick's cliches, and it's a bit more subtle and a bit more difficult to deal with than even the "grandfather's synod" cliche. Like the other, it's a conversation stopper. It's a form of bragging by feigning humility. What we have is a synodical bureaucrats bragging [!] that he has little prowess in theology.
It sounds vaguely humble. It's anything but that. The simple response to this should be to request Kieschnick to immediately resign his position, because if he's not a theologian, he's not qualified -- by his own admission -- to do his job.
But we hear this cliche, and feel vaguely guilty. Guilty because by saying it, Kieschnick sounds humble. It's designed to stop the other individual from doing the theology that has to be done, because most of us feel guilty lording superior knowledge over someone who's admitted they don't know the field. So Kieschnick by this cliche is removing theology as a grounds of discussion about what's going on in the LCMS.
Again, cliches must be confronted. Hearing someone say this -- someone who should, like Kieschnick, know and do theology -- we should ask them questions such as, "That's a serious admission. What exactly do you mean by that?" and "Is it appropriate for someone who is not a theologian to head a church body?" and "If you're not a theologian, why are you in the position you're in?"
Defining terms, knowing how to logically discuss matters, and how to carefully think through the implications of an issue are important. Debate in the LCMS has become sloppy and trivialized. Confronting the cliche-spouters is a first step in cleaning up our confused discourse.
It sounds vaguely humble. It's anything but that. The simple response to this should be to request Kieschnick to immediately resign his position, because if he's not a theologian, he's not qualified -- by his own admission -- to do his job.
But we hear this cliche, and feel vaguely guilty. Guilty because by saying it, Kieschnick sounds humble. It's designed to stop the other individual from doing the theology that has to be done, because most of us feel guilty lording superior knowledge over someone who's admitted they don't know the field. So Kieschnick by this cliche is removing theology as a grounds of discussion about what's going on in the LCMS.
Again, cliches must be confronted. Hearing someone say this -- someone who should, like Kieschnick, know and do theology -- we should ask them questions such as, "That's a serious admission. What exactly do you mean by that?" and "Is it appropriate for someone who is not a theologian to head a church body?" and "If you're not a theologian, why are you in the position you're in?"
Defining terms, knowing how to logically discuss matters, and how to carefully think through the implications of an issue are important. Debate in the LCMS has become sloppy and trivialized. Confronting the cliche-spouters is a first step in cleaning up our confused discourse.
"This isn't your grandfather's synod"
Since cliches are used to stop conversation, they usually have a number of underlying assumptions going on behind them. Which ones are going on with this cliche?
1. The people addressed are those who are not new to the LCMS. It has no meaning to me: one of my grandfathers was a nominal Methodist, and the other a Southern Baptist. I didn't become a Lutheran until I was 23. No one else in my family is Lutheran. But the upper leadership of the LCMS is ingrown, and this is a good example of this very real problem. Those hearing this cliche are expected to have had family going back several generations who knew the LCMS as it was.
2. The second underlying assumption is that newcomers (I refuse to use the word "converts" when referring to those -- like myself -- who came into Lutheranism by adult instruction when we were already baptized Christians) are not welcome to the particular debate. This cliche marginalizes those without the extensive family connections that rule much of the top leadership of American (not just LCMS) Lutheran church bodies.
1. The people addressed are those who are not new to the LCMS. It has no meaning to me: one of my grandfathers was a nominal Methodist, and the other a Southern Baptist. I didn't become a Lutheran until I was 23. No one else in my family is Lutheran. But the upper leadership of the LCMS is ingrown, and this is a good example of this very real problem. Those hearing this cliche are expected to have had family going back several generations who knew the LCMS as it was.
2. The second underlying assumption is that newcomers (I refuse to use the word "converts" when referring to those -- like myself -- who came into Lutheranism by adult instruction when we were already baptized Christians) are not welcome to the particular debate. This cliche marginalizes those without the extensive family connections that rule much of the top leadership of American (not just LCMS) Lutheran church bodies.
Cliches and synodical politics
I don't encourage church politics.
Like getting into a wrestling match with a pig, the end result is usually that both participants end up getting filthy, an outcome that the pig enjoys.
Far better than to fret about who's elected to this post, who's appointed to that, getting the "right" delegates to whatever convention, is to do your job.
I mean it. Do what God or the church or both have called you to do, pray without ceasing, and let God deal with church politics.
What I do is encourage folks to think about what is being said. Consider how the discourse is going.
Because when we don't think clearly, we're captive to bad ideas, and mis-formed thinking.
A good (bad, actually) example comes from Gerald Kieschnick. Kieschnick is widely quoted as saying, "It's not your grandfather's synod."
A lot of time, energy, and effort have been expended on trying to figure out exactly what this means. But I'm going to suggest that it has no meaning at all. And that's precisely why Kieschnick says it so often.
My day job is a nurse. And among the injuries and illnesses and damages to our bodies that we medical people deal with, one thing we see are scars.
A scar is a place where the body's tissue has stopped growing. In other words, when your body is injured and a scar ensues, that spot will never "get better." It will look like it does for as long as you live.
I think a cliche is something like that. A cliche is a phrase used when we've stopped thinking. We repeat a cliche without thinking, and those listening hear it without thinking.
Cliches are harmless enough most of the time. When they become harmful is when they're used to stop a conversation. And that's what I suspect the "grandfather's synod" comment is used for.
We hear it, and we don't know what to say. We hear it, and -- as it's designed to do -- it stops the conversation about events in the Missouri synod.
Like most cliches, it has no meaning. It's vaguely seen as a warning that Missouri must get up to snuff, must stop acting as though it's 1953. But what's dangerous about this silly cliche is that it provides no grounds for debate, for discussion, for trying to determine what the LCMS should -- or shouldn't -- be doing.
As I said, most cliches are harmless enough. When something's "dead as a doornail," we've heard it many times before, but it's just a phrase people say. But when cliches are used as means of stopping the conversation -- as Gerald Kieschnick is wittingly or unwittingly doing -- the cliche should be challenged.
When someone says it, or something like it, ask them: "What does that mean?," "What are you trying to say by that?, "What was 'our grandfather's synod,' and how does that relate to our current difficulties?" and "If it isn't our grandfather's synod, how does that change the way we do church in 2007?"
Like getting into a wrestling match with a pig, the end result is usually that both participants end up getting filthy, an outcome that the pig enjoys.
Far better than to fret about who's elected to this post, who's appointed to that, getting the "right" delegates to whatever convention, is to do your job.
I mean it. Do what God or the church or both have called you to do, pray without ceasing, and let God deal with church politics.
What I do is encourage folks to think about what is being said. Consider how the discourse is going.
Because when we don't think clearly, we're captive to bad ideas, and mis-formed thinking.
A good (bad, actually) example comes from Gerald Kieschnick. Kieschnick is widely quoted as saying, "It's not your grandfather's synod."
A lot of time, energy, and effort have been expended on trying to figure out exactly what this means. But I'm going to suggest that it has no meaning at all. And that's precisely why Kieschnick says it so often.
My day job is a nurse. And among the injuries and illnesses and damages to our bodies that we medical people deal with, one thing we see are scars.
A scar is a place where the body's tissue has stopped growing. In other words, when your body is injured and a scar ensues, that spot will never "get better." It will look like it does for as long as you live.
I think a cliche is something like that. A cliche is a phrase used when we've stopped thinking. We repeat a cliche without thinking, and those listening hear it without thinking.
Cliches are harmless enough most of the time. When they become harmful is when they're used to stop a conversation. And that's what I suspect the "grandfather's synod" comment is used for.
We hear it, and we don't know what to say. We hear it, and -- as it's designed to do -- it stops the conversation about events in the Missouri synod.
Like most cliches, it has no meaning. It's vaguely seen as a warning that Missouri must get up to snuff, must stop acting as though it's 1953. But what's dangerous about this silly cliche is that it provides no grounds for debate, for discussion, for trying to determine what the LCMS should -- or shouldn't -- be doing.
As I said, most cliches are harmless enough. When something's "dead as a doornail," we've heard it many times before, but it's just a phrase people say. But when cliches are used as means of stopping the conversation -- as Gerald Kieschnick is wittingly or unwittingly doing -- the cliche should be challenged.
When someone says it, or something like it, ask them: "What does that mean?," "What are you trying to say by that?, "What was 'our grandfather's synod,' and how does that relate to our current difficulties?" and "If it isn't our grandfather's synod, how does that change the way we do church in 2007?"
Works of penitence: theses 8 & 9
Some of our Baptist (and other) brethren would make Luther a kind of zealous protestant. But don't be so hard on them: lots of Lutherans do the same thing. Luther's theology developed; he learned and grew, and there were things that he at one point found acceptable that he came to realize were not acceptable. Theses 8 and 9 are firmly fixed within the world of late medieval catholicism. Note -- in thesis 9 -- how Luther views how the Holy Spirit works in the pope.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Thesis 7: into subjection to the priest
"God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest."
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Dressing up as Bible characters for Halloween
As I noted earlier, some folks think the only way to celebrate Halloween is to dress up as a Bible character. So if you're one of these folks, and you didn't quite get around to making your costume until now, it's not too late. Here are 3 characters to choose from.
1. Ehud, famously known as the left-handed judge, was likely more famous among God's people for assassinating the Moabite king Eglon. Judges 3 tells the story, and specifically (3.15) says that Ehud brought a present to king Eglon. And quite a present it was! A cubit long dagger, but Ehud had an interesting way of presenting his gift, and Eglon probably didn't appreciate the gift too much, seeing that Ehud rammed it through Eglon's mid-section. How to dress as Ehud: yard-long (cubit, actually, but close) dagger, hidden on your right side. Use only your left hand, for effect.
2. Jael (from Judges 4), another famous assassin (you can see how my mind operates), killed a general by luring him into her tent to take a nap, and probably faked being a prostitute, as well. Once he went to sleep (Jael helped the sleep along by giving him some milk, most likely a kind of yogurt), she helpfully decapitated him with a tent peg. Costume: tent peg in one hand, milk jug in the other, too much lipstick and too much rouge.
1. Rahab: James 2.25 is quite clear. Jesus' ancestor was a prostitute. (Get the whole story in Joshua 2). Despite the efforts of some to rehabilitate the pre-conversion Rahab, there's no way to pretend she was an innkeeper, or whatever. If the Bible's not ashamed to call her a whore, neither should we. And if I need to explain how a woman should dress up as a prostitute, well, it's just a bit beyond the scope of this blog. : )
1. Ehud, famously known as the left-handed judge, was likely more famous among God's people for assassinating the Moabite king Eglon. Judges 3 tells the story, and specifically (3.15) says that Ehud brought a present to king Eglon. And quite a present it was! A cubit long dagger, but Ehud had an interesting way of presenting his gift, and Eglon probably didn't appreciate the gift too much, seeing that Ehud rammed it through Eglon's mid-section. How to dress as Ehud: yard-long (cubit, actually, but close) dagger, hidden on your right side. Use only your left hand, for effect.
2. Jael (from Judges 4), another famous assassin (you can see how my mind operates), killed a general by luring him into her tent to take a nap, and probably faked being a prostitute, as well. Once he went to sleep (Jael helped the sleep along by giving him some milk, most likely a kind of yogurt), she helpfully decapitated him with a tent peg. Costume: tent peg in one hand, milk jug in the other, too much lipstick and too much rouge.
1. Rahab: James 2.25 is quite clear. Jesus' ancestor was a prostitute. (Get the whole story in Joshua 2). Despite the efforts of some to rehabilitate the pre-conversion Rahab, there's no way to pretend she was an innkeeper, or whatever. If the Bible's not ashamed to call her a whore, neither should we. And if I need to explain how a woman should dress up as a prostitute, well, it's just a bit beyond the scope of this blog. : )
Thesis 6: "The pope cannot remit any guilt ... "
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
Why not post the 95 theses in batches of 10?
A friendly reader asks, "Why not post the 95 theses in batches of 10?"
Which is a good question. The gentle reader wonders if I won't drive myself insane. Those with whom I am familiar will suspect that the drive is not a long one.
But enough of that: there's a method to my madness.
As I mentioned when posting the first thesis, almost no one -- including Lutherans -- reads the theses. It's one of those things that we -- especially on Reformation day -- talk about as a concept, but we just don't take the time to read and ponder one of the most important documents in western civilization.
(If I were to guess at documents Luther wrote -- and he wrote a ton -- that would be considered pivotal in world history, I'd guess the theses, his Small Catechism, and Bondage of the Will. It helps that Luther opined that the last 2 were the only things he'd written that were worth reading).
Have you ever had this experience? Been in church, reciting the Creed, and you realize at the end that the entire confession of the catholic faith has emerged from your lips while you were thinking about a football game you were going to later that day? Or prayed the Our Father, and it took the "Amen" to make you realize that it was over? Or made a general confession without realizing what you've said?
I can't count the number of times I've done all 3. So here, I'm making myself read each thesis all by itself. When I think it needs it, I'll comment. But I'm giving myself -- and you -- the chance to read them, a bit each day. May God grant us to ponder them in the coming weeks!
Which is a good question. The gentle reader wonders if I won't drive myself insane. Those with whom I am familiar will suspect that the drive is not a long one.
But enough of that: there's a method to my madness.
As I mentioned when posting the first thesis, almost no one -- including Lutherans -- reads the theses. It's one of those things that we -- especially on Reformation day -- talk about as a concept, but we just don't take the time to read and ponder one of the most important documents in western civilization.
(If I were to guess at documents Luther wrote -- and he wrote a ton -- that would be considered pivotal in world history, I'd guess the theses, his Small Catechism, and Bondage of the Will. It helps that Luther opined that the last 2 were the only things he'd written that were worth reading).
Have you ever had this experience? Been in church, reciting the Creed, and you realize at the end that the entire confession of the catholic faith has emerged from your lips while you were thinking about a football game you were going to later that day? Or prayed the Our Father, and it took the "Amen" to make you realize that it was over? Or made a general confession without realizing what you've said?
I can't count the number of times I've done all 3. So here, I'm making myself read each thesis all by itself. When I think it needs it, I'll comment. But I'm giving myself -- and you -- the chance to read them, a bit each day. May God grant us to ponder them in the coming weeks!
2 Cheers for Halloween
Halloween gets a bum rap in certain circles.
You know the complaint: "Halloween is Satanic." Or that Halloween glorifies the demonic. Or that children should not be dressing up as demonic characters. Or finally, that children should not go door to door, begging.
Wrong.
Do you know why people dress up in Halloween costumes? Oh, I'm not suggesting that you should ask the kids coming to your door tonight. They do it because it's fun. And because people have often enjoyed dressing up in costumes.
But the reason why people began going about in disguise is because they were making fun of Satan. Making light of the demonic. Telling Satan and his minions, "Hey guys, the jigs up. You lost." And they did it because this is All Hallows, the day before All Saints, when we celebrate all the saints who have gone before us, all the saints -- known and unknown -- who provide inspiration and guidance and a good example to us who still plod through here on earth.
Can Halloween be used for bad purposes? Of course. So can wine, Christmas, Easter, chocolate, whatever. That these things are sometimes used wrongly doesn't mean we should get rid of them.
It likewise makes no difference that pagans, Satanists or other pathetic persons like Halloween. Who cares? As with anything else, these sad creatures are doing as Satan himself as always done, and because Satan do nothing without making use of God's creation, these people likewise mis-use Halloween. Just as they forget the birth of Christ at Christmas and just as they concentrate on bunnies for Easter.
So if folks want to have Noah's ark parties, or want to dress up as Bible characters, or want to have a church service tonight, that's perfectly fine. But they just can't make it a law. Because there's nothing wrong with dressing up and going door to door and getting candy tonight. Halloween's good. And I hope that you -- and those you love -- enjoy it. America's almost innate puritanism is always troubled when people have a good time. You're not going to make the puritans happy. If you did, they'd think that, too, was wrong. So just enjoy Halloween, eat too much candy, and remember that Satan lost. That's why we celebrate. God gives us all things richly to enjoy (I Timothy 6.17). So enjoy them.
You know the complaint: "Halloween is Satanic." Or that Halloween glorifies the demonic. Or that children should not be dressing up as demonic characters. Or finally, that children should not go door to door, begging.
Wrong.
Do you know why people dress up in Halloween costumes? Oh, I'm not suggesting that you should ask the kids coming to your door tonight. They do it because it's fun. And because people have often enjoyed dressing up in costumes.
But the reason why people began going about in disguise is because they were making fun of Satan. Making light of the demonic. Telling Satan and his minions, "Hey guys, the jigs up. You lost." And they did it because this is All Hallows, the day before All Saints, when we celebrate all the saints who have gone before us, all the saints -- known and unknown -- who provide inspiration and guidance and a good example to us who still plod through here on earth.
Can Halloween be used for bad purposes? Of course. So can wine, Christmas, Easter, chocolate, whatever. That these things are sometimes used wrongly doesn't mean we should get rid of them.
It likewise makes no difference that pagans, Satanists or other pathetic persons like Halloween. Who cares? As with anything else, these sad creatures are doing as Satan himself as always done, and because Satan do nothing without making use of God's creation, these people likewise mis-use Halloween. Just as they forget the birth of Christ at Christmas and just as they concentrate on bunnies for Easter.
So if folks want to have Noah's ark parties, or want to dress up as Bible characters, or want to have a church service tonight, that's perfectly fine. But they just can't make it a law. Because there's nothing wrong with dressing up and going door to door and getting candy tonight. Halloween's good. And I hope that you -- and those you love -- enjoy it. America's almost innate puritanism is always troubled when people have a good time. You're not going to make the puritans happy. If you did, they'd think that, too, was wrong. So just enjoy Halloween, eat too much candy, and remember that Satan lost. That's why we celebrate. God gives us all things richly to enjoy (I Timothy 6.17). So enjoy them.
The remission of penalties for sins: thesis 5
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
I think it's difficult for us to put our minds back into the way folks thought in 1517. (Actually, it's hard to do that for almost any time beyond a few years back). What Luther is bringing up for discussion here is the question of the Pope's remission of penalties for sins, in time and eternity.
Notice that he's not making a charge against the Pope: he says "the pope does not intend to remit." Luther is arguing against claims made in the Pope's name for the remission of sins by the hawkers of indulgences.
I think it's difficult for us to put our minds back into the way folks thought in 1517. (Actually, it's hard to do that for almost any time beyond a few years back). What Luther is bringing up for discussion here is the question of the Pope's remission of penalties for sins, in time and eternity.
Notice that he's not making a charge against the Pope: he says "the pope does not intend to remit." Luther is arguing against claims made in the Pope's name for the remission of sins by the hawkers of indulgences.
Reformation day
Hey, everybody -- it's Reformation day, and while everyone else is putting on costumes (not that there's anything wrong with that -- All Hallows is a holiday, too) take a moment and ponder what began 490 years ago today.
Never mind that the story of the posting of the theses on the door may have been apocryphal (there's no documentary evidence of it); what counts is that an insignificant monk in the (then) backwaters of Europe brought forth statements for disputation, and the disputation that began there has not stopped. Nor should it. We need to keep thinking about the church, about our faith, and about what all this means. Because in the end, it's the most important thing in our lives, because that faith and hope and love will continue for all eternity.
Never mind that the story of the posting of the theses on the door may have been apocryphal (there's no documentary evidence of it); what counts is that an insignificant monk in the (then) backwaters of Europe brought forth statements for disputation, and the disputation that began there has not stopped. Nor should it. We need to keep thinking about the church, about our faith, and about what all this means. Because in the end, it's the most important thing in our lives, because that faith and hope and love will continue for all eternity.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
True inward repentance: thesis 4
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Outward manifestations of repentance: thesis 3
3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers mortifications of the flesh.
Repentance and penance: thesis 2
2. The word cannot be properly understood as referring to the sacrament of penance, i.e. confession and satisfaction, as administered by the clergy.
"The whole life of believers should be repentance"
Luther's 95 theses -- arguably one of the most important documents in western civilization -- are often cited, but seldom read. People talk about them, but almost no one -- Lutherans included -- read them. So, in commemoration of Reformation day, I'm going to begin posting them. Here's number 1:
"Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite [that is, "Repent!"], willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance."
"Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite [that is, "Repent!"], willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance."
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The "emergency" office in the LCMS
I'm intrigued by how often the Missouri Synod tends to operate (in ecclesiology) as though it were in an "emergency" mode.
Emergency situations are by definition unusual, unexpected situations, temporary and short-lived in nature. Any discussion of ecclesiology in LCMS circles will inevitably bring up St. Augustine's story of the 2 Christians in a boat, one of whom baptized the other, at which point the baptized one absolved the other, and this is told to illustrate that in an emergency situation, the church may call, ordain, etc. without benefit of bishops and other useful ecclesiological strictures.
All of which is true, and all of which is irrelevant in our lives today. We are not in an emergency. No one -- no one -- in the LCMS lives under emergency situations now, at least not in a churchly sense. So why does the LCMS talk about such emergency situations so frequently?
I wonder if the emergency mode that the LCMS has cultivated for most of her 150 some years is owing to the beginning of the synod, when Lutheran emigrees were here, wondering if -- bereft of church structures in Germany -- they were the church or if they indeed had the church among them.
And one of the great contributions of the LCMS is the realization that the church was indeed among them, that they indeed had God's word, had baptism, had the Supper, and had the word of forgiveness in their midst. But can we acknowledge that contribution and get past it?
The catholic church has historically operated with bishops, defined as ministers of the gospel who often ministered to a number of congregations, shepherding and superintending the gospel ministries in those congregations. Bring up the idea of bishops in the LCMS, and most often we will be tiresomely reminded that the church doesn't "have to have" bishops.
Of course not. But it's irrelevant. The question is whether such bishops would help ensure the free course of the gospel in our midst. And if they would. why are we -- as a church body -- so terrified of such?
Is there abuse of power among some who are named bishops? Of course. Can the church live without bishops? Of course. The church can also live without hymnals, church buildings, and a lot of other things, but when such "unnecessary" things help give out the word of God in our midst, we use them.
Some in the LCMS like to pretend that various synodical officials -- specifically, synodical and district presidents -- are bishops. They are not. They are not by the very definition of the synod (except in the English district), and they are not in reality. We have chosen to call these men "presidents" and in the American context, calling someone "president" makes them into political officials. This is inevitable. Calling someone a president and expecting them to act pastorally is simply not going to happen.
(Likewise the Missouri conceit that all parish pastors are bishops is another situation that's true, but irrelevant. Calling them bishop is confusing, and goes against the consensus of the church. It would not -- in one sense -- be wrong to call each pastor "pope" but I don't see any arguments in LCMS blogs for that nomenclature).
A couple of isolated Christians in the gulag in Siberia are in an emergency situation. Isolated Christians shipwrecked onto an island without means of communication are likewise in an emergency. But American Lutherans in 2007 are not in an emergency. Recognizing that, and recognizing what in our history has made us cling to an emergency status would be helpful. And working to restore a pastoral hierarchy -- and calling such men "bishop" -- would be even more helpful.
Emergency situations are by definition unusual, unexpected situations, temporary and short-lived in nature. Any discussion of ecclesiology in LCMS circles will inevitably bring up St. Augustine's story of the 2 Christians in a boat, one of whom baptized the other, at which point the baptized one absolved the other, and this is told to illustrate that in an emergency situation, the church may call, ordain, etc. without benefit of bishops and other useful ecclesiological strictures.
All of which is true, and all of which is irrelevant in our lives today. We are not in an emergency. No one -- no one -- in the LCMS lives under emergency situations now, at least not in a churchly sense. So why does the LCMS talk about such emergency situations so frequently?
I wonder if the emergency mode that the LCMS has cultivated for most of her 150 some years is owing to the beginning of the synod, when Lutheran emigrees were here, wondering if -- bereft of church structures in Germany -- they were the church or if they indeed had the church among them.
And one of the great contributions of the LCMS is the realization that the church was indeed among them, that they indeed had God's word, had baptism, had the Supper, and had the word of forgiveness in their midst. But can we acknowledge that contribution and get past it?
The catholic church has historically operated with bishops, defined as ministers of the gospel who often ministered to a number of congregations, shepherding and superintending the gospel ministries in those congregations. Bring up the idea of bishops in the LCMS, and most often we will be tiresomely reminded that the church doesn't "have to have" bishops.
Of course not. But it's irrelevant. The question is whether such bishops would help ensure the free course of the gospel in our midst. And if they would. why are we -- as a church body -- so terrified of such?
Is there abuse of power among some who are named bishops? Of course. Can the church live without bishops? Of course. The church can also live without hymnals, church buildings, and a lot of other things, but when such "unnecessary" things help give out the word of God in our midst, we use them.
Some in the LCMS like to pretend that various synodical officials -- specifically, synodical and district presidents -- are bishops. They are not. They are not by the very definition of the synod (except in the English district), and they are not in reality. We have chosen to call these men "presidents" and in the American context, calling someone "president" makes them into political officials. This is inevitable. Calling someone a president and expecting them to act pastorally is simply not going to happen.
(Likewise the Missouri conceit that all parish pastors are bishops is another situation that's true, but irrelevant. Calling them bishop is confusing, and goes against the consensus of the church. It would not -- in one sense -- be wrong to call each pastor "pope" but I don't see any arguments in LCMS blogs for that nomenclature).
A couple of isolated Christians in the gulag in Siberia are in an emergency situation. Isolated Christians shipwrecked onto an island without means of communication are likewise in an emergency. But American Lutherans in 2007 are not in an emergency. Recognizing that, and recognizing what in our history has made us cling to an emergency status would be helpful. And working to restore a pastoral hierarchy -- and calling such men "bishop" -- would be even more helpful.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Review: Edmund Schlink's 'Theology of the Lutheran Confessions'
My review from Amazon:
"A book on the Lutheran confessions (or any confessional corpus) can go wrong in one of 2 directions.
Such a book can be an unvarnished tribute, that sees no difficulties and no challenges in the confessions.
Or a book can be slam on the confessions, a slash and burn coverage.
Schlink walks a via media, managing to provide a critical (in the best sense of the word) overview of the confessions while at the same time standing under the confessions as a faithful student, learning, questioning, and helping the reader to do so at the same time.
This is a challenging, engaging read, and was helpful both personally and ecclesiastically. I highly recommend it.
I'd especially recommend the appendix, where Schlink works through some of the tough questions about the confessions and their engagement with the scriptures and the church fathers."
"A book on the Lutheran confessions (or any confessional corpus) can go wrong in one of 2 directions.
Such a book can be an unvarnished tribute, that sees no difficulties and no challenges in the confessions.
Or a book can be slam on the confessions, a slash and burn coverage.
Schlink walks a via media, managing to provide a critical (in the best sense of the word) overview of the confessions while at the same time standing under the confessions as a faithful student, learning, questioning, and helping the reader to do so at the same time.
This is a challenging, engaging read, and was helpful both personally and ecclesiastically. I highly recommend it.
I'd especially recommend the appendix, where Schlink works through some of the tough questions about the confessions and their engagement with the scriptures and the church fathers."
Friday, October 26, 2007
Jesus and Aramaic
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I've been pondering some of the linguistic issues surrounding modern day Hebrew. I found this article on Wikipedia, and thought it a good overview of Jesus' use of Aramaic, and usage in the greater New Testament:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Thanksgiving for rain
It's amazing how much you can miss a simple act such as rain.
Not just needing the water, as we all do, but how much you can miss the simple acts of watching rain through a window, listening to the sound of rain on the roof, and enjoying the freshness it brings to the air.
We're predicted to have an inch today, 1-2 inches tonight, and another inch tomorrow. It's not all that we need, but it's a start. And a cause for thankfulness.
Not just needing the water, as we all do, but how much you can miss the simple acts of watching rain through a window, listening to the sound of rain on the roof, and enjoying the freshness it brings to the air.
We're predicted to have an inch today, 1-2 inches tonight, and another inch tomorrow. It's not all that we need, but it's a start. And a cause for thankfulness.
Monday, October 22, 2007
prayers for rain
We -- in North Carolina, and most of the southeast -- could use rain. Lots of rain.
Likewise our countrymen in southern California are engulfed by fires, which would likewise be helped by seasonable rainstorms.
James 5.18, recounting the story of Elijah, reminds us that God gives rain. And God is the one to ask to bring healing, seasonable rains to our land.
Luther's explanation of the Lord's prayer also reminds us that one of the things we pray for in "Give us this day our daily bread" is good weather. In times of extreme drought such as this, we are reminded of God's providential care.
So, a prayer for rain. May we be reminded to pray and seek God's blessings in rain, and be reminded to thank Him for His care in the past, and to be thankful when the rains start again:
"O GOD, heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ hast promised to all those who seek thy kingdom, and the righteousness thereof, all things necessary to their bodily sustenance; Send us, we beseech thee, in this our necessity, such moderate rain and showers, that we may receive the fruits of the earth to our comfort, and to thy honor; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Likewise our countrymen in southern California are engulfed by fires, which would likewise be helped by seasonable rainstorms.
James 5.18, recounting the story of Elijah, reminds us that God gives rain. And God is the one to ask to bring healing, seasonable rains to our land.
Luther's explanation of the Lord's prayer also reminds us that one of the things we pray for in "Give us this day our daily bread" is good weather. In times of extreme drought such as this, we are reminded of God's providential care.
So, a prayer for rain. May we be reminded to pray and seek God's blessings in rain, and be reminded to thank Him for His care in the past, and to be thankful when the rains start again:
"O GOD, heavenly Father, who by thy Son Jesus Christ hast promised to all those who seek thy kingdom, and the righteousness thereof, all things necessary to their bodily sustenance; Send us, we beseech thee, in this our necessity, such moderate rain and showers, that we may receive the fruits of the earth to our comfort, and to thy honor; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Friday, October 19, 2007
I just think it's a bad idea to name a product 'The Titanic'
OK, so I'm on a roll. Another humorous take on naming. It's the first segment. (I know this initial picture is not the most edifying, but it really has nothing to do with what's on the video. I suspect whoever posted this thought it would get attention. No doubt it does).
How names are a problem
Those old enough will remember a diet product from the early 1980s that was unfortunately named "Ayds" and was pronounced "aids."
When the public health catastrophe with the same sounding name began to grab headlines in 1982 and 1983, the manufacturer of AYDS pulled the plug on the product. Sure, they could have kept the product going, tried to explain what it was, and tried to plug through the laughter that tended to erupt when someone heard the slogan "Lose weight with AYDS."
But they knew it was a lost cause. The name was gone, as far as being something people could use for a product.
I'm not suggesting that the name Lutheran is that far gone. No one laughs when they hear the word. But for us, the bigger problem is that they don't understand what it means. For a church body, that's a bad problem.
When the public health catastrophe with the same sounding name began to grab headlines in 1982 and 1983, the manufacturer of AYDS pulled the plug on the product. Sure, they could have kept the product going, tried to explain what it was, and tried to plug through the laughter that tended to erupt when someone heard the slogan "Lose weight with AYDS."
But they knew it was a lost cause. The name was gone, as far as being something people could use for a product.
I'm not suggesting that the name Lutheran is that far gone. No one laughs when they hear the word. But for us, the bigger problem is that they don't understand what it means. For a church body, that's a bad problem.
The problem with the name "Lutheran"
There's a strain in American religious life that wants to pretend that at some point there were no denominations. And whatever strengths these folks have, this assertion is nonsense.
The Christian faith goes back some 6,000 years, back to when God warned the serpent of a coming Savior who would crush the serpent down. And through some 4,000 years of Old Testament history, there were various "parties" within the faith. The New Testament times were no different: the Pharisees and Sadducees were nothing if not denominational groups. The council in Acts 15 dealt with what would be termed denominational differences, if the event had occurred in 1983. Even that church body (Rome) which is secretly admired by many non-Roman Catholics as being undivided is split on what are most certainly denominational lines: Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.
Which brings us to the name Lutheran. "Lutheran" identifies a certain religious party within the Christian faith. How we are identified is worth pondering.
For most Protestants (and most Roman Catholics), Lutherans are simply a Protestant denomination. Nothing more. Some Lutherans like to imagine that our Baptist brethren think we are "too catholic." Maybe a few make that fine distinction, but most don't.
Those who have more opinions about the Lutheran brand identify us in ways I don't completely understand. It's the Garrison Keillor, Lake Woebegone kind of humor. What that is in reality, of course, is identifying Lutherans with a certain variety of Germanic or Scandinavian culture which has become rooted in the American Midwest.
Does "Lutheran" in the end mean anything at all? There are liturgical Lutheran churches, and those that use "Pass it on" as an offertory. Those who subscribe to the Book of Concord, and those (the Lutheran Brethren, among them) who adhere to a vastly smaller confessional corpus. Those who commune with wine, and those who commune with grape juice. Those who believe the Bible, and those who don't.
In North Carolina, saying I'm Lutheran means some explaining. To Baptists (57% of the North Carolina population) I usually have to explain that I'm not ELCA, that my church body doesn't ordain women, and that we take the Bible seriously. Similar, but modified responses are given to Roman Catholics or whatever.
(Such explaining usually causes me to sin, because I end up bragging that I am better than others. See Luke 18.11-13)
Which brings me to the question that I ponder a lot: why do we use the name Lutheran? If the name has no meaning (and I obviously think it doesn't) why not use something more descriptive of the reality going on here? If I make this point, someone's always there to say that "Lutheran" means one who unconditionally subscribes to the Book of Concord, and I'm good with that, but we've got to understand that this distinction is lost on at least 75% (I'm being generous) of folks in Missouri Synod pews, and virtually 100% of everyone else. And if this distinction is lost on all but a tiny group, of what value is it?
The Christian faith goes back some 6,000 years, back to when God warned the serpent of a coming Savior who would crush the serpent down. And through some 4,000 years of Old Testament history, there were various "parties" within the faith. The New Testament times were no different: the Pharisees and Sadducees were nothing if not denominational groups. The council in Acts 15 dealt with what would be termed denominational differences, if the event had occurred in 1983. Even that church body (Rome) which is secretly admired by many non-Roman Catholics as being undivided is split on what are most certainly denominational lines: Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.
Which brings us to the name Lutheran. "Lutheran" identifies a certain religious party within the Christian faith. How we are identified is worth pondering.
For most Protestants (and most Roman Catholics), Lutherans are simply a Protestant denomination. Nothing more. Some Lutherans like to imagine that our Baptist brethren think we are "too catholic." Maybe a few make that fine distinction, but most don't.
Those who have more opinions about the Lutheran brand identify us in ways I don't completely understand. It's the Garrison Keillor, Lake Woebegone kind of humor. What that is in reality, of course, is identifying Lutherans with a certain variety of Germanic or Scandinavian culture which has become rooted in the American Midwest.
Does "Lutheran" in the end mean anything at all? There are liturgical Lutheran churches, and those that use "Pass it on" as an offertory. Those who subscribe to the Book of Concord, and those (the Lutheran Brethren, among them) who adhere to a vastly smaller confessional corpus. Those who commune with wine, and those who commune with grape juice. Those who believe the Bible, and those who don't.
In North Carolina, saying I'm Lutheran means some explaining. To Baptists (57% of the North Carolina population) I usually have to explain that I'm not ELCA, that my church body doesn't ordain women, and that we take the Bible seriously. Similar, but modified responses are given to Roman Catholics or whatever.
(Such explaining usually causes me to sin, because I end up bragging that I am better than others. See Luke 18.11-13)
Which brings me to the question that I ponder a lot: why do we use the name Lutheran? If the name has no meaning (and I obviously think it doesn't) why not use something more descriptive of the reality going on here? If I make this point, someone's always there to say that "Lutheran" means one who unconditionally subscribes to the Book of Concord, and I'm good with that, but we've got to understand that this distinction is lost on at least 75% (I'm being generous) of folks in Missouri Synod pews, and virtually 100% of everyone else. And if this distinction is lost on all but a tiny group, of what value is it?
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Learning theology from non-theologians
Of course, my title isn't entirely accurate. I want to learn theology from the word of God, and from orthodox fathers who have listened to that word without preconceived notions about what the word "should" be saying.
What I like is to do reading that I call "cross-pollenization." So I read lots of stuff by people who aren't orthodox, maybe aren't Christians, in areas I find interesting.
(I don't read much in the way of religious stuff by non-orthodox writers. It's too dangerous. I am serious).
What I look for are people who will cause me to see my blinders, people who will make me think, people who will cause me to look around in the orthodox theology I cherish.
Here's a blog from one such. I've spent a while this morning reading his posts, and he's fascinating and good. I recommend it:
http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/
What I like is to do reading that I call "cross-pollenization." So I read lots of stuff by people who aren't orthodox, maybe aren't Christians, in areas I find interesting.
(I don't read much in the way of religious stuff by non-orthodox writers. It's too dangerous. I am serious).
What I look for are people who will cause me to see my blinders, people who will make me think, people who will cause me to look around in the orthodox theology I cherish.
Here's a blog from one such. I've spent a while this morning reading his posts, and he's fascinating and good. I recommend it:
http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Kings and all in authority
This is a post to encourage prayers. Especially prayers for governing authorities.
We are commanded to pray for those in authority: "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." (I Timothy 2.1-3)
This applies whether we like the individuals (and it's plural -- for Americans it would include the president, members of congress, senators, judges, governors, mayors, among others) or not. Our preference for one individual is immaterial. God has placed them (per Romans 13) in power, and we should pray that they would do their jobs well, that God would guard them from evil, that He would guard them from bad advisers, and keep them from harm.
This also applies when we think the individual didn't get into the office legitimately. God has His purposes, and we are to pray for them while they are in that authority. If we want them out of office, we should work toward that end. But while they are there, it is a sin to not pray for them.
We are commanded to pray for those in authority: "I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour." (I Timothy 2.1-3)
This applies whether we like the individuals (and it's plural -- for Americans it would include the president, members of congress, senators, judges, governors, mayors, among others) or not. Our preference for one individual is immaterial. God has placed them (per Romans 13) in power, and we should pray that they would do their jobs well, that God would guard them from evil, that He would guard them from bad advisers, and keep them from harm.
This also applies when we think the individual didn't get into the office legitimately. God has His purposes, and we are to pray for them while they are in that authority. If we want them out of office, we should work toward that end. But while they are there, it is a sin to not pray for them.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
40 days without water
Ever gone a long time without water?
I haven't. Virtually free, abundant water is one of the blessings of modern civilization that most of us take for granted. If we could bring someone to 2007 from, say, 1300, I suspect that would be one of the things such a one would be most astonished by. But the Israelites knew about the need for water. There's an interesting water parallel to consider.
In Deuteronomy 9, Moses recounts to the people of Israel his (and God's) dealings with them. Twice, Moses mentions that he went 40 days without water (vss. 9 and 18).
Such an event is truly miraculous. Without divine intervention, no one can survive more than a few days without water. It's simply impossible: God has made us as bodies that consist mostly of water, and we will die quickly without it.
Food is another story. That Moses went 40 days without bread would be quite uncomfortable, but do-able. We have examples contemporary to our time of those who have fasted that long. They end up pretty skinny, and ravenous with hunger, but alive.
The parallel to Jesus' time in the wilderness is interesting. Matthew 4.2 recounts that Jesus fasted 40 days, and afterwards was hungry. The first temptation is a food temptation. And while most of us -- who have trouble going for more than a few hours without food -- think that hunger would be the most appealing temptation, if Jesus had been without water, liquid would be vastly more interesting, by comparison.
The 2 events are clearly parallels. What intrigues me is that there is no mention of Jesus going without water. Any argument that he did so is an argument from silence. Luke 4.2 specifically says "in those days he did eat nothing," but fails to mention water.
Given the silence here, I have to assume that Jesus drank water during His fast. But I wonder what's the significance of Moses going without it.
I haven't. Virtually free, abundant water is one of the blessings of modern civilization that most of us take for granted. If we could bring someone to 2007 from, say, 1300, I suspect that would be one of the things such a one would be most astonished by. But the Israelites knew about the need for water. There's an interesting water parallel to consider.
In Deuteronomy 9, Moses recounts to the people of Israel his (and God's) dealings with them. Twice, Moses mentions that he went 40 days without water (vss. 9 and 18).
Such an event is truly miraculous. Without divine intervention, no one can survive more than a few days without water. It's simply impossible: God has made us as bodies that consist mostly of water, and we will die quickly without it.
Food is another story. That Moses went 40 days without bread would be quite uncomfortable, but do-able. We have examples contemporary to our time of those who have fasted that long. They end up pretty skinny, and ravenous with hunger, but alive.
The parallel to Jesus' time in the wilderness is interesting. Matthew 4.2 recounts that Jesus fasted 40 days, and afterwards was hungry. The first temptation is a food temptation. And while most of us -- who have trouble going for more than a few hours without food -- think that hunger would be the most appealing temptation, if Jesus had been without water, liquid would be vastly more interesting, by comparison.
The 2 events are clearly parallels. What intrigues me is that there is no mention of Jesus going without water. Any argument that he did so is an argument from silence. Luke 4.2 specifically says "in those days he did eat nothing," but fails to mention water.
Given the silence here, I have to assume that Jesus drank water during His fast. But I wonder what's the significance of Moses going without it.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Negative Evangelism, or, How God's word works in spite of our sins
If you can't do anything else, maybe you can serve as a bad example. Here's a story of a bad example in evangelism.
The Old Testament reading for Pentecost 20 is the introduction to the story of Ruth in Ruth 1. The story introduces us to Jesus' ancestor in the faith, and is also an example of one of the non "physical Israel" saints in the OT. (Ruth was a Moabite. Other examples in the OT are Uriah the Hittite, the faithful general who was murdered by King David, as well as the saints in Ninevah, recounted in Jonah).
What I want to focus on is not Ruth, but Naomi, her mother-in-law. Naomi (whose name means "pleasant") is the bad example. We read of Naomi's very bad times: her husband's death, and the deaths of her 2 sons.
We can look at Naomi from 2 perspectives. First, she deserves genuine sympathy, suffering through what is a horrible situation. But her reaction is not good. I would do no better, but while we are encouraged to patience in such sufferings, Naomi shows none of that. Instead, she whines, complains, and reviles against God, saying that God has "afflicted" her (1.21). She further encourages her 2 daughters-in-law to abandon the true faith, and return to their ancestral idol worship (1.15). Naomi is at least partly "successful" in her negative evangelism: her daughter-in-law Orpah leaves Naomi, and the faith.
But someone has done something right here. Perhaps Naomi or her husband or her sons, but someone has taught her daughters-in-law (especially Ruth) about the true God. Even Naomi here -- in her bitterness -- blesses Orpah and Ruth, asking that the Lord would "deal kindly with you" (1.8).
We sin daily, and our efforts at sharing our faith fail, often miserably. But God's word does not fail. That's the message of Isaiah 55, that God's word does what it sets out to do, in spite of our failures to say the word rightly.
Should we be kind, winsome, patient, longsuffering? Absolutely. And will we fail to do that? Definitely. Like St. Naomi, we will speak the word badly at times. And like her, we live under the forgiveness that the Savior promises.
The second reading for Pentecost 20 is from 2 Timothy 2. That passage closes with this promise that Naomi in glory clings to, even as we do: God abides faithful. He cannot deny Himself. (2.13).
The Old Testament reading for Pentecost 20 is the introduction to the story of Ruth in Ruth 1. The story introduces us to Jesus' ancestor in the faith, and is also an example of one of the non "physical Israel" saints in the OT. (Ruth was a Moabite. Other examples in the OT are Uriah the Hittite, the faithful general who was murdered by King David, as well as the saints in Ninevah, recounted in Jonah).
What I want to focus on is not Ruth, but Naomi, her mother-in-law. Naomi (whose name means "pleasant") is the bad example. We read of Naomi's very bad times: her husband's death, and the deaths of her 2 sons.
We can look at Naomi from 2 perspectives. First, she deserves genuine sympathy, suffering through what is a horrible situation. But her reaction is not good. I would do no better, but while we are encouraged to patience in such sufferings, Naomi shows none of that. Instead, she whines, complains, and reviles against God, saying that God has "afflicted" her (1.21). She further encourages her 2 daughters-in-law to abandon the true faith, and return to their ancestral idol worship (1.15). Naomi is at least partly "successful" in her negative evangelism: her daughter-in-law Orpah leaves Naomi, and the faith.
But someone has done something right here. Perhaps Naomi or her husband or her sons, but someone has taught her daughters-in-law (especially Ruth) about the true God. Even Naomi here -- in her bitterness -- blesses Orpah and Ruth, asking that the Lord would "deal kindly with you" (1.8).
We sin daily, and our efforts at sharing our faith fail, often miserably. But God's word does not fail. That's the message of Isaiah 55, that God's word does what it sets out to do, in spite of our failures to say the word rightly.
Should we be kind, winsome, patient, longsuffering? Absolutely. And will we fail to do that? Definitely. Like St. Naomi, we will speak the word badly at times. And like her, we live under the forgiveness that the Savior promises.
The second reading for Pentecost 20 is from 2 Timothy 2. That passage closes with this promise that Naomi in glory clings to, even as we do: God abides faithful. He cannot deny Himself. (2.13).
Sunday, October 14, 2007
A minyan of lepers?
The gospel reading (Luke 17.11-19)for today (10/14/07, Pentecost 20) is interesting on several levels.
The one I've been pondering is the question of the minyan. The pericope recounts the story of 10 lepers who are cleansed by Jesus. 10 is interesting because this has 10 is traditionally the number needed for a synagogue's minyan, the number of men needed to have proper prayers. The number has not been fixed throughout history; some rabbis argued that only 6 were needed, some 7, etc.
I wonder if this was not in the back of Jesus' mind when he said (Matt. 18.19-20), "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." In other words, when even 2 or 3 are gathered together, Jesus' presence is among them and in their midst.
What I'm wondering is whether the group of lepers were a minyan for prayers. I would appreciate input on these questions:
1. Were lepers given any access to the synagogue services during the time of Christ?
2. If they were not given access to "regular" synagogue services, could they constitute a minyan for prayers?
3. Would a Samaritan have been able to participate in the regular Jewish synagogue services?
4. If so, could the Samaritan have been a part of the minyan for prayers in a Jewish synagogue?
The one I've been pondering is the question of the minyan. The pericope recounts the story of 10 lepers who are cleansed by Jesus. 10 is interesting because this has 10 is traditionally the number needed for a synagogue's minyan, the number of men needed to have proper prayers. The number has not been fixed throughout history; some rabbis argued that only 6 were needed, some 7, etc.
I wonder if this was not in the back of Jesus' mind when he said (Matt. 18.19-20), "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." In other words, when even 2 or 3 are gathered together, Jesus' presence is among them and in their midst.
What I'm wondering is whether the group of lepers were a minyan for prayers. I would appreciate input on these questions:
1. Were lepers given any access to the synagogue services during the time of Christ?
2. If they were not given access to "regular" synagogue services, could they constitute a minyan for prayers?
3. Would a Samaritan have been able to participate in the regular Jewish synagogue services?
4. If so, could the Samaritan have been a part of the minyan for prayers in a Jewish synagogue?
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Worthiness in receiving the Supper
from Edmund Schlink's Theology of the Lutheran Confessions (p. 177):
"If faith as trusting reception constitutes worthiness, then worthiness does not consist in the act of receiving but in the treasure received, not in faith as a human act but in faith as in him who is believed."
"At all events, nothing is required of man in the sacrament that God does not himself give to man in the sacrament. That is to say, here God only gives and he requires nothing. Since the Lord's Supper requires faith and gives faith, it is altogether a gift. We need add nothing to God's grace. We need merely accept and receive his gift. It is literally placed into our mouth."
"If faith as trusting reception constitutes worthiness, then worthiness does not consist in the act of receiving but in the treasure received, not in faith as a human act but in faith as in him who is believed."
"At all events, nothing is required of man in the sacrament that God does not himself give to man in the sacrament. That is to say, here God only gives and he requires nothing. Since the Lord's Supper requires faith and gives faith, it is altogether a gift. We need add nothing to God's grace. We need merely accept and receive his gift. It is literally placed into our mouth."
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Is modern day Hebrew, well, Hebrew?
I'm intrigued by a minor-level debate apparently going on in some linguistic circles about what is usually termed modern Hebrew, that being the language now used in the state of Israel.
We're usually told (I was, at Moody Bible Institute) that this language is just an updated version of biblical Hebrew.
Which -- if this story is correct -- makes the modern Hebrew unique. Unique in that it is probably the first time in history that a dead language was revived, and put into common use. And it is in common use: Israel as a state recognizes 2 official languages, Hebrew and Arabic.
(Some would argue that Hebrew was never dead, in that it was a liturgical language in synagogues around the world. Which is correct. However, it was dead in the sense that Latin is dead, that it was used in only one, circumscribed area. In other words, until the Hebrew revival, no one bought groceries, played soccer, or designed software using Hebrew).
But some linguists differ. One in particular, Ghil'ad Zuckermann, argues that the language should properly be called "Israeli," saying that it is not Hebrew, per se, but rather a mixture of Hebrew and Yiddish, with notable Slavic roots. He particularly notes that Israeli Hebrew uses a subject-verb-object sentence structure, reflecting a more European approach that biblical Hebrew.
http://www.zuckermann.org/mosaic.html
This article gives a better overview of this than I can.
We're usually told (I was, at Moody Bible Institute) that this language is just an updated version of biblical Hebrew.
Which -- if this story is correct -- makes the modern Hebrew unique. Unique in that it is probably the first time in history that a dead language was revived, and put into common use. And it is in common use: Israel as a state recognizes 2 official languages, Hebrew and Arabic.
(Some would argue that Hebrew was never dead, in that it was a liturgical language in synagogues around the world. Which is correct. However, it was dead in the sense that Latin is dead, that it was used in only one, circumscribed area. In other words, until the Hebrew revival, no one bought groceries, played soccer, or designed software using Hebrew).
But some linguists differ. One in particular, Ghil'ad Zuckermann, argues that the language should properly be called "Israeli," saying that it is not Hebrew, per se, but rather a mixture of Hebrew and Yiddish, with notable Slavic roots. He particularly notes that Israeli Hebrew uses a subject-verb-object sentence structure, reflecting a more European approach that biblical Hebrew.
http://www.zuckermann.org/mosaic.html
This article gives a better overview of this than I can.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
The Jerusalem multitudes and Christ
It's a common myth that somehow Jesus was not received by the crowds in Jerusalem and the surrounding area. Mark 12.37 tells us instead that "the common people heard him gladly," and often the gospels speak of "the Jews," those referred to are not the crowds, but the Temple leadership and officials.
On Palm Sunday (the Sunday of the Passion) when Jesus enters the city, the crowd gives what is -- in context -- a clearly Messianic confession: "And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, 'This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.'" (Matt. 21.10-11) Jesus is not only "a" prophet, but "the prophet" of Nazareth, which refers back to Matt. 2.23 (" He shall be called a Nazarene") which in turn refers back to Isaiah 11.1, which St. Jerome saw as the reference cited by St. Matthew.
On Palm Sunday (the Sunday of the Passion) when Jesus enters the city, the crowd gives what is -- in context -- a clearly Messianic confession: "And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this? And the multitude said, 'This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.'" (Matt. 21.10-11) Jesus is not only "a" prophet, but "the prophet" of Nazareth, which refers back to Matt. 2.23 (" He shall be called a Nazarene") which in turn refers back to Isaiah 11.1, which St. Jerome saw as the reference cited by St. Matthew.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Forgiveness as law and gospel
Forgiveness encompasses both law and gospel.
Law because we are commanded to forgive others as we are forgiven. Law because we are commanded to have a kind and forgiving heart, even when others don't reciprocate.
Gospel because we are freely forgiven for Christ's sake. Gospel because our sins, though many, are not counted against us when we are joined to Christ.
One of the beautiful things to watch is when a Christian has incorporated that forgiveness into their lives so that forgiveness starts to come almost naturally. In other words, while the Christian knows he is commanded to forgive others, his forgiveness is not just a matter of gritting his teeth and doing what God has commanded, but he forgives just because God has made forgiveness a part of that Christian's being.
In today's gospel read (from Luke 17), the English Standard Version translates the last phrase of 17.4 as "you must forgive him."
In 17.4, our Lord is telling us that if our brother sins against us, we are to forgive him.
The Greek word there, "must," is better translated "shall" in English. We don't use "shall" a lot these days, but it's one of those words that conveys a subtle meaning, such as if I said, "If I drop you off a mountain, you shall fall to the ground." Shall meaning, "it's going to happen, whether you want it or not."
In other words, I think our Lord is giving us a gospel sense of forgiveness. "If your brothers sins against you, you're naturally going to forgive him because you have been forgiven." "Must" (in the ESV) puts a law twist on it, so that this is something you have to do.
You are freely forgiven for Christ's sake. When we are given the grace to treasure that forgiveness, our brother's wrongs against us pale in comparison, and our forgiving him -- though it's certainly commanded by God -- becomes a light and easy burden to bear.
Law because we are commanded to forgive others as we are forgiven. Law because we are commanded to have a kind and forgiving heart, even when others don't reciprocate.
Gospel because we are freely forgiven for Christ's sake. Gospel because our sins, though many, are not counted against us when we are joined to Christ.
One of the beautiful things to watch is when a Christian has incorporated that forgiveness into their lives so that forgiveness starts to come almost naturally. In other words, while the Christian knows he is commanded to forgive others, his forgiveness is not just a matter of gritting his teeth and doing what God has commanded, but he forgives just because God has made forgiveness a part of that Christian's being.
In today's gospel read (from Luke 17), the English Standard Version translates the last phrase of 17.4 as "you must forgive him."
In 17.4, our Lord is telling us that if our brother sins against us, we are to forgive him.
The Greek word there, "must," is better translated "shall" in English. We don't use "shall" a lot these days, but it's one of those words that conveys a subtle meaning, such as if I said, "If I drop you off a mountain, you shall fall to the ground." Shall meaning, "it's going to happen, whether you want it or not."
In other words, I think our Lord is giving us a gospel sense of forgiveness. "If your brothers sins against you, you're naturally going to forgive him because you have been forgiven." "Must" (in the ESV) puts a law twist on it, so that this is something you have to do.
You are freely forgiven for Christ's sake. When we are given the grace to treasure that forgiveness, our brother's wrongs against us pale in comparison, and our forgiving him -- though it's certainly commanded by God -- becomes a light and easy burden to bear.
Lutheran Lecture Series, Newton, NC
Coming up on Oct. 20, starting at 11 a.m.: an incredible series of theology lectures.
This is the Lutheran lecture series, and it's being held at Mt. Oliver Lutheran Church, in Newton, NC. (That's the NC foothills. Their address is 2103 Mt. Olive Church Rd., Newton NC 28658. The church is about 5 minutes off of I-40, and is easily found on Google. If for some reason, you can't get directions, email me, and I'll get them for you. Their phone number is 828-464-2407).
Now, a "lecture" has gotten a bad rap in recent years. We hear lecture, and think boring, not fun, whatever. But a lecture is simply a reading, and this is a place where you can come apart, and hear some of the best minds in confessional Lutheran theology speak. This year's speakers include David Scaer, of CTS-FW,
Ronald Feuerhahn, of CTS-SL, and Gene Veith, of Patrick Henry College. This year's theme for the lectures is the office of the public ministry.
Now if it were just a matter of the lectures, this series would be worth the trip. But it's a great time to fellowship with like-minded folks from other congregations all around the southeast. Not to mention that a youth group from one of the local congregations provides a free lunch for all participants.
So if you can, set the 20th aside. The series begins at 11 a.m., and ends around 4:30, with closing prayers. I've been attending these for years, and I've never failed to leave refreshed and knowing lots of wonderful stuff about our Savior that I didn't know before. Come and join us there.
This is the Lutheran lecture series, and it's being held at Mt. Oliver Lutheran Church, in Newton, NC. (That's the NC foothills. Their address is 2103 Mt. Olive Church Rd., Newton NC 28658. The church is about 5 minutes off of I-40, and is easily found on Google. If for some reason, you can't get directions, email me, and I'll get them for you. Their phone number is 828-464-2407).
Now, a "lecture" has gotten a bad rap in recent years. We hear lecture, and think boring, not fun, whatever. But a lecture is simply a reading, and this is a place where you can come apart, and hear some of the best minds in confessional Lutheran theology speak. This year's speakers include David Scaer, of CTS-FW,
Ronald Feuerhahn, of CTS-SL, and Gene Veith, of Patrick Henry College. This year's theme for the lectures is the office of the public ministry.
Now if it were just a matter of the lectures, this series would be worth the trip. But it's a great time to fellowship with like-minded folks from other congregations all around the southeast. Not to mention that a youth group from one of the local congregations provides a free lunch for all participants.
So if you can, set the 20th aside. The series begins at 11 a.m., and ends around 4:30, with closing prayers. I've been attending these for years, and I've never failed to leave refreshed and knowing lots of wonderful stuff about our Savior that I didn't know before. Come and join us there.
Friday, October 05, 2007
The false accusations of the law
God's law always accuses us. Even when we are trying to obey God's commandments and keep His word, the law is always there reminding us that we are obeying imperfectly, that our motives are not pure, our desires not clean.
Numbers 32 is an example of when the law falsely accuses. The Reubenites and the Gaddites, being cattle ranchers, found good grazing land across the river Jordan, and asked that they be allowed to settle in that land.
Moses is the quintessential lawgiver (John 1.17). And Moses here accuses the brethren of being unwilling to go to war against their enemies, of being slackers, and of discouraging the people of Israel.
But Moses was wrong. And this is one of the messages of Numbers 32. The law was accusing, but the accusations were false. The Reubenites and Gaddites explain their reasons, and offer to go to war.
When the law is plain, it's not wise to argue. If I hate someone, the law rightly accuses me with "Thou shalt not kill." But if there is no plain commandment, and I'm guilty, I might be dealing with a false accusation.
If I drink a beer, and feel guilty, that's a false accusation. If I think it's wrong to dance, it's a false accusation. There's a multitude of such guilt, and it's not wrong (as we see in Numbers 32) to argue back against the accusation, against the false guilt.
Numbers 32 is an example of when the law falsely accuses. The Reubenites and the Gaddites, being cattle ranchers, found good grazing land across the river Jordan, and asked that they be allowed to settle in that land.
Moses is the quintessential lawgiver (John 1.17). And Moses here accuses the brethren of being unwilling to go to war against their enemies, of being slackers, and of discouraging the people of Israel.
But Moses was wrong. And this is one of the messages of Numbers 32. The law was accusing, but the accusations were false. The Reubenites and Gaddites explain their reasons, and offer to go to war.
When the law is plain, it's not wise to argue. If I hate someone, the law rightly accuses me with "Thou shalt not kill." But if there is no plain commandment, and I'm guilty, I might be dealing with a false accusation.
If I drink a beer, and feel guilty, that's a false accusation. If I think it's wrong to dance, it's a false accusation. There's a multitude of such guilt, and it's not wrong (as we see in Numbers 32) to argue back against the accusation, against the false guilt.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Morning, Evening, and Commending
It's no accident that people have viewed sleep as a picture of death. At first glance, the sleeper looks dead, and the use of "sleeping" as a euphemism for death is common, so common that even the disciples were confused when Jesus spoke of Lazarus so in John 11.11-13.
Sleep does picture death, and each day is bracketed by sleep.
It's no surprise, then, that what we usually think of as a morning hymn would have within it a precursor of sleep (a usually evening activity) and death. What I've got in mind is "With the Lord Begin Your Task" (LSB 869, LW 483, and TLH 540). The first verse:
With the Lord begin your task;
Jesus will direct it.
For his aid and counsel ask;
Jesus will perfect it.
Every morn with Jesus rise,
And when day is ended,
In his name then close your eyes;
Be to him commended.
What's beautiful here is that even as we begin our day's activities, we look to the end, both of the day and of time, the closing of our eyes, both in sleep, and in death.
Such commending is a good way to end our day. I don't suggest heavy duty praying while trying to go to sleep, unless there's good reason for it: sleep is resting, and heavy duty praying is hard work. But "commending" -- leaving those we love into God's care -- is a good thing, and allows us to drift off into the rest that God provides (Psalm 127.2). Such commending doesn't need to be long petitions, just perhaps asking God's mercy on those whom we love and asking God to provide them rest and peace while they sleep. (Luther's evening prayer contains similar wording: "Into Your hands I commend myself, my body, and soul, and all things. Let Your Holy Angel be with me, that the wicked foe have no power over me.")
I also find it helpful to commend enemies at such a time. I don't mean national enemies, though any such would certainly be included. I mean personal enemies, whom God brings into your life to give you a chance to love them, even when they might hate you, and when you might have reasons for hating them. Instead, name them, asking that God would have pity on them, grant them peace, and forgive their sins, as we plea for God's forgiveness for our own sins.
Sleep does picture death, and each day is bracketed by sleep.
It's no surprise, then, that what we usually think of as a morning hymn would have within it a precursor of sleep (a usually evening activity) and death. What I've got in mind is "With the Lord Begin Your Task" (LSB 869, LW 483, and TLH 540). The first verse:
With the Lord begin your task;
Jesus will direct it.
For his aid and counsel ask;
Jesus will perfect it.
Every morn with Jesus rise,
And when day is ended,
In his name then close your eyes;
Be to him commended.
What's beautiful here is that even as we begin our day's activities, we look to the end, both of the day and of time, the closing of our eyes, both in sleep, and in death.
Such commending is a good way to end our day. I don't suggest heavy duty praying while trying to go to sleep, unless there's good reason for it: sleep is resting, and heavy duty praying is hard work. But "commending" -- leaving those we love into God's care -- is a good thing, and allows us to drift off into the rest that God provides (Psalm 127.2). Such commending doesn't need to be long petitions, just perhaps asking God's mercy on those whom we love and asking God to provide them rest and peace while they sleep. (Luther's evening prayer contains similar wording: "Into Your hands I commend myself, my body, and soul, and all things. Let Your Holy Angel be with me, that the wicked foe have no power over me.")
I also find it helpful to commend enemies at such a time. I don't mean national enemies, though any such would certainly be included. I mean personal enemies, whom God brings into your life to give you a chance to love them, even when they might hate you, and when you might have reasons for hating them. Instead, name them, asking that God would have pity on them, grant them peace, and forgive their sins, as we plea for God's forgiveness for our own sins.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
The doctrine of the Lord's supper and the doctrine of the church
It can be confusing reading about the Lord's supper.
Confusing because we are taught by scripture that we eat the body of Christ, while at the same time the church is the body of Christ. How can both be true?
I think the easiest way to sort these statements out is to realize that we become the body of Christ because we eat the body of Christ.
Which brings us back to the question I've been pondering yesterday and today about Luther's explanation of the Supper.
If I put a rock under a cloth, the rock is hidden.
But if somehow the rock is in the cloth, with the cloth and under the cloth, then the rock is no longer hidden: it is invisible.
Describing the church as "invisible" is very popular in some Lutheran circles. In fact, there are folks who become angry when this is denied. Well, I'm one of those deniers. I think that describing the church as invisible -- something taught in neither the Bible nor the confessions -- is wrong, plain and simple. I'll deal with that more later, but let me suggest that maybe this less than precise way of explaining the Lord's supper has led us to the doctrine of an invisible church.
The Body of Christ is hidden from our eyes in the Supper, but it is not invisible. It's real, glorified, and not some ghost (cf. Luke 24.37-39).
Confusing because we are taught by scripture that we eat the body of Christ, while at the same time the church is the body of Christ. How can both be true?
I think the easiest way to sort these statements out is to realize that we become the body of Christ because we eat the body of Christ.
Which brings us back to the question I've been pondering yesterday and today about Luther's explanation of the Supper.
If I put a rock under a cloth, the rock is hidden.
But if somehow the rock is in the cloth, with the cloth and under the cloth, then the rock is no longer hidden: it is invisible.
Describing the church as "invisible" is very popular in some Lutheran circles. In fact, there are folks who become angry when this is denied. Well, I'm one of those deniers. I think that describing the church as invisible -- something taught in neither the Bible nor the confessions -- is wrong, plain and simple. I'll deal with that more later, but let me suggest that maybe this less than precise way of explaining the Lord's supper has led us to the doctrine of an invisible church.
The Body of Christ is hidden from our eyes in the Supper, but it is not invisible. It's real, glorified, and not some ghost (cf. Luke 24.37-39).
More about the "in, with, and under" question
A thoughtful reader suggests that "in, with, and under" is a good way of describing Luther's biblical doctrine of the Supper, that it especially deals well with the erring Roman doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches (stemming from St. Thomas, and back further to Aristotle's theory of substance and accidents) that we eat only the Body and Blood: that the appearance of bread and wine become -- after the words of institution -- merely "accidents" of the reality there.
(To me, the most persuasive argument against Rome is I Cor. 10.16: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" In other words, St. Paul states plainly that the cup (meaning the wine) is a "communion" (Greek: koininia) of the blood of Christ, and the bread is likewise a communion of the body of Christ. So we have both wine and blood, both bread and body).
"In, with, and under" may be a good explanation of Luther's doctrine. I'm still not persuaded that our current usage is necessarily bad. But a couple of things come to mind.
The first is to ask why -- if a good explanation -- did Luther himself not describe it that way? Obviously, he used all three terms in the text of the Small Catechism; why not all 3 together here in the explanation of the Supper?
The other is to question if Luther's explanation was solely directed against Rome's errors. Hermann Sasse used the phrase "the lonely path" to describe the fine line that Luther had to walk between Rome's error on one hand and Protestant errors on the other. Zwingli (and less directly, Calvin) argued strongly against Luther's teaching on the Supper. In writing the Catechism, Luther no doubt had these errors in mind as well.
(To me, the most persuasive argument against Rome is I Cor. 10.16: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" In other words, St. Paul states plainly that the cup (meaning the wine) is a "communion" (Greek: koininia) of the blood of Christ, and the bread is likewise a communion of the body of Christ. So we have both wine and blood, both bread and body).
"In, with, and under" may be a good explanation of Luther's doctrine. I'm still not persuaded that our current usage is necessarily bad. But a couple of things come to mind.
The first is to ask why -- if a good explanation -- did Luther himself not describe it that way? Obviously, he used all three terms in the text of the Small Catechism; why not all 3 together here in the explanation of the Supper?
The other is to question if Luther's explanation was solely directed against Rome's errors. Hermann Sasse used the phrase "the lonely path" to describe the fine line that Luther had to walk between Rome's error on one hand and Protestant errors on the other. Zwingli (and less directly, Calvin) argued strongly against Luther's teaching on the Supper. In writing the Catechism, Luther no doubt had these errors in mind as well.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Here's an interesting problem for me.
Ask a non-Lutheran theologian what a Lutheran understanding of the Lord's supper is, and you will usually get the phrase that "in, with, and under" the elements, Christ's Body and Blood are offered, given, and received.
Actually, this is often the explanation given by Lutherans as well.
But it's not correct. Or it's at least misleading.
The Small Catechism is very plain: "It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself."
Under. Not "in," and not "with."
I suspect that we have morphed 2 parts of the catechism together, because in the explanation of baptism, we confess "It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water."
Am I being overly picky on this? I don't know. But when we confuse these explanations, I suspect at the very least that we are being sloppy theologically. And when we are sloppy theologically, it is very easy to slip into some serious error.
Especially since these are not obscure parts of doctrine, but at the very heart and soul of our faith: the means of grace by which God grants us forgiveness of sins.
Words are important: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 1.13) And when we talk "differently" about the Lord's supper, I wonder if we are thereby confessing something different about that supper.
Ask a non-Lutheran theologian what a Lutheran understanding of the Lord's supper is, and you will usually get the phrase that "in, with, and under" the elements, Christ's Body and Blood are offered, given, and received.
Actually, this is often the explanation given by Lutherans as well.
But it's not correct. Or it's at least misleading.
The Small Catechism is very plain: "It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself."
Under. Not "in," and not "with."
I suspect that we have morphed 2 parts of the catechism together, because in the explanation of baptism, we confess "It is not the water indeed that does them, but the word of God which is in and with the water, and faith, which trusts such word of God in the water."
Am I being overly picky on this? I don't know. But when we confuse these explanations, I suspect at the very least that we are being sloppy theologically. And when we are sloppy theologically, it is very easy to slip into some serious error.
Especially since these are not obscure parts of doctrine, but at the very heart and soul of our faith: the means of grace by which God grants us forgiveness of sins.
Words are important: "Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus" (II Timothy 1.13) And when we talk "differently" about the Lord's supper, I wonder if we are thereby confessing something different about that supper.
Why the rich man was in hell: some thoughts on Luke 16
The secret to understanding this pericope is to hear it in the context of all the scriptures.
There are always those who want to condemn the rich on the basis of this. Of course, the rich are sinners (like every other man) but Abraham was rich (Gen. 13.2), as was David (I Chron. 29.28) and Lydia (Acts 16.14) was a prosperous merchant. The problem is not that the rich man was rich; the problem was that he did not love God.
We know this because of his failure to love Lazarus. He did not heed the 5th commandment, understood from the catechism: "We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need."
Of course, that was not his only sin: he disobeyed the first commandment, making money his god.
Both of these (along with all others) are forgivable sins, sins covered by the mercies and merits of Christ. But the rich man's actions are described to show us that he did not love God, and did not rest on God's riches, but rather on his own.
Notice the contrast in vs. 22: Lazarus dies and is carried to Abraham's bosom. The rich man dies and is buried. This is a picture for us that while the Christian dies, death is a temporary stop. Our ultimate destination is there with the faithful, Abraham being the prominent man of faith.
Note vs. 24: the rich man finally begins to pray! But even his prayers are self-serving. He shows no remorse for his lack of love toward others, Lazarus being the named example. He likewise continues to treat the now exalted Lazarus as one of the hired help: "Abraham, send him!" Instead of begging God's mercy, he dictates to God what and how God shall do His business.
The dictating to God continues. His 5 brothers are -- like us -- to hear God's word, and not expect religious tricks and gimmickry. But the rich man is there to command God as to how and when He should preach His word. The rich man deems God's word insufficient and inadequate, and believes that if a gimmick came along -- a man risen from the dead -- they would believe. Abraham correctly notes that those who will not hear God's word won't believe, even when the gimmicks and tricks come along.
There are always those who want to condemn the rich on the basis of this. Of course, the rich are sinners (like every other man) but Abraham was rich (Gen. 13.2), as was David (I Chron. 29.28) and Lydia (Acts 16.14) was a prosperous merchant. The problem is not that the rich man was rich; the problem was that he did not love God.
We know this because of his failure to love Lazarus. He did not heed the 5th commandment, understood from the catechism: "We should fear and love God that we may not hurt nor harm our neighbor in his body, but help and befriend him in every bodily need."
Of course, that was not his only sin: he disobeyed the first commandment, making money his god.
Both of these (along with all others) are forgivable sins, sins covered by the mercies and merits of Christ. But the rich man's actions are described to show us that he did not love God, and did not rest on God's riches, but rather on his own.
Notice the contrast in vs. 22: Lazarus dies and is carried to Abraham's bosom. The rich man dies and is buried. This is a picture for us that while the Christian dies, death is a temporary stop. Our ultimate destination is there with the faithful, Abraham being the prominent man of faith.
Note vs. 24: the rich man finally begins to pray! But even his prayers are self-serving. He shows no remorse for his lack of love toward others, Lazarus being the named example. He likewise continues to treat the now exalted Lazarus as one of the hired help: "Abraham, send him!" Instead of begging God's mercy, he dictates to God what and how God shall do His business.
The dictating to God continues. His 5 brothers are -- like us -- to hear God's word, and not expect religious tricks and gimmickry. But the rich man is there to command God as to how and when He should preach His word. The rich man deems God's word insufficient and inadequate, and believes that if a gimmick came along -- a man risen from the dead -- they would believe. Abraham correctly notes that those who will not hear God's word won't believe, even when the gimmicks and tricks come along.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Another in the continuing clips about Luther
These clips are from the older (1950s, I think) film about Luther.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
A good introduction to Luther
I suspect that most reading this blog are familiar with Luther. But there are many who are not. (When my kids went to a Lutheran -- yes, LCMS, in case you were wondering -- summer camp, there were kids there -- from good Lutheran churches -- who thought that when "Martin Luther" was referred to, we were talking about "Martin Luther King." So here's a clip that may help such. I'll be posting more in the days to come.
The Serpent on the Pole
When the people of Israel sinned in Numbers 21 -- complaining against the Lord and against His servant Moses -- God sends fiery serpents into their midst, "and much people died." (21.6). And while God sent the fiery serpents, he also provided the remedy, and Moses was commanded to place a replica of the serpent on a pole, and hoist the pole, and those who saw the serpent replica lived.
Christ explicitly compares Himself to the serpent. It's important that we avoid making the crucifixion pretty. It's easy to do this, because we want to avoid the sheer horror of the scene. Our Lord was crucified at a place where Roman soldiers routinely killed people for crimes as little as theft. There were probably wild dogs there that fed off of the flesh of criminals who died and whose bodies happened to get left on the ground. It was hot. It was muggy. There would be insects. It was not nice.
But the point of Numbers 21 is that Christ says He is like the serpent. The serpent is the occasion for the sin of Adam, and the serpent is never an attractive figure. How is Christ like the serpent?
The clue to answering this question is found in II Cor. 5.20-21: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Christ was made sin for us. Christ was made a serpent for us. Christ was made the evil that we are, in order to free us.
Christ explicitly compares Himself to the serpent. It's important that we avoid making the crucifixion pretty. It's easy to do this, because we want to avoid the sheer horror of the scene. Our Lord was crucified at a place where Roman soldiers routinely killed people for crimes as little as theft. There were probably wild dogs there that fed off of the flesh of criminals who died and whose bodies happened to get left on the ground. It was hot. It was muggy. There would be insects. It was not nice.
But the point of Numbers 21 is that Christ says He is like the serpent. The serpent is the occasion for the sin of Adam, and the serpent is never an attractive figure. How is Christ like the serpent?
The clue to answering this question is found in II Cor. 5.20-21: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Christ was made sin for us. Christ was made a serpent for us. Christ was made the evil that we are, in order to free us.
Friday, September 28, 2007
How to Pray When Busy
The last couple of days have been crazy. I'm self-employed, and there are times when work's calls become scary.
But everyone -- self-employed, employed, or whatever -- have busy days. The reality is that we are still commanded to "pray without ceasing." Even on busy days.
Praying is not just about requests. Prayer is also about praising God, receiving gifts from God, and acknowledging His goodness. If we have a fully-orbed prayer life, our prayers will contain all of these things. Some suggestions for busy times:
1. Make use of the Jesus prayer. Simple to learn, and deceptively easy, but there is depth in this prayer for a lifetime of praying. The words: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Some have phrased it as "have mercy on me, the sinner," but the difference there is probably not important, at least not now. Even simpler versions are something like "Lord, have mercy." Can this prayer become a routine? Sure it can. Just like telling your husband or wife that you love them. The secret to making use of the Jesus prayer is to ponder each word, each phrase, to remember our sins, and to remember our Savior's mercy. There will be times in your life when -- through grief, through fear, through sorrow, through whatever -- other prayers will be difficult. This prayer can carry you through. I encourage anyone to learn it, and grow into the wonders of this prayer.
2. Ponder some of the biblical prayers with similar phrasing. These are some examples: Matthew 9.27, 15.22, 17.15, 20.30, or Luke 18.39.
3. Know the creeds. Most people who are in a liturgical church know the apostles creed and the Nicene creed by heart, but if you don't, make a point of learning them, and pondering them. The point is not to repeat like a parrot, but to literally know "by heart," to know the creed that you may ponder and meditate on them. When driving, when doing paperwork, when walking: ponder the creeds, and the great deeds of your God.
4. Another project we might consider for the future: learning the Athanasian creed by heart. Most of us hear this once a year, on Trinity Sunday, but the creed is not that hard to learn, and knowing it by heart enables us to ponder the mysteries of the incarnation when we wish.
5. Have a copy of the catechism with you. (I mean the bare bones of the catechism, the pamphlet edition). Use it when you have a few minutes free. Even better, know the catechism by heart.
6. Carry a New Testament with you. Having a 10 minute wait gives you time to read a chapter or 2.
But everyone -- self-employed, employed, or whatever -- have busy days. The reality is that we are still commanded to "pray without ceasing." Even on busy days.
Praying is not just about requests. Prayer is also about praising God, receiving gifts from God, and acknowledging His goodness. If we have a fully-orbed prayer life, our prayers will contain all of these things. Some suggestions for busy times:
1. Make use of the Jesus prayer. Simple to learn, and deceptively easy, but there is depth in this prayer for a lifetime of praying. The words: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner." Some have phrased it as "have mercy on me, the sinner," but the difference there is probably not important, at least not now. Even simpler versions are something like "Lord, have mercy." Can this prayer become a routine? Sure it can. Just like telling your husband or wife that you love them. The secret to making use of the Jesus prayer is to ponder each word, each phrase, to remember our sins, and to remember our Savior's mercy. There will be times in your life when -- through grief, through fear, through sorrow, through whatever -- other prayers will be difficult. This prayer can carry you through. I encourage anyone to learn it, and grow into the wonders of this prayer.
2. Ponder some of the biblical prayers with similar phrasing. These are some examples: Matthew 9.27, 15.22, 17.15, 20.30, or Luke 18.39.
3. Know the creeds. Most people who are in a liturgical church know the apostles creed and the Nicene creed by heart, but if you don't, make a point of learning them, and pondering them. The point is not to repeat like a parrot, but to literally know "by heart," to know the creed that you may ponder and meditate on them. When driving, when doing paperwork, when walking: ponder the creeds, and the great deeds of your God.
4. Another project we might consider for the future: learning the Athanasian creed by heart. Most of us hear this once a year, on Trinity Sunday, but the creed is not that hard to learn, and knowing it by heart enables us to ponder the mysteries of the incarnation when we wish.
5. Have a copy of the catechism with you. (I mean the bare bones of the catechism, the pamphlet edition). Use it when you have a few minutes free. Even better, know the catechism by heart.
6. Carry a New Testament with you. Having a 10 minute wait gives you time to read a chapter or 2.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Free Books
Would you like a place where you can get free books?
Well, if you're a book nerd like me, the proper answer is, "Who wouldn't?"
: )
The secret for free books is ones that are in the public domain.
"Public domain" means books that no longer in copyright. (The rules are a bit arcane at times, but basically ones published before the 1930s or so, at least in the US).
Several sites are actively scanning such books in, which means they are available for your use. Read them online, print them out, whatever.
The best source I've found is this:
http://archive.org
The site is a source for all varieties of public domain information. I'm interested in books, so click "texts" along the top line of the page.
On the next page, type into the search line whatever you're interested in. Say: "Lutheran"
A list of every book they have available containing the term "Lutheran" will come up. Click one of those, and you'll see (on the left) the options available for reading it, such as a PDF file, TXT, or whatever.
A "flip book" is one I especially like. This displays the book as a book.
Some of the books in public domain are still in print. Some are not. Some are worthwhile. Some not. But there are many fine and useful books which has -- for whatever reason -- been allowed to languish. Some of them need rescuing. Go for it.
Well, if you're a book nerd like me, the proper answer is, "Who wouldn't?"
: )
The secret for free books is ones that are in the public domain.
"Public domain" means books that no longer in copyright. (The rules are a bit arcane at times, but basically ones published before the 1930s or so, at least in the US).
Several sites are actively scanning such books in, which means they are available for your use. Read them online, print them out, whatever.
The best source I've found is this:
http://archive.org
The site is a source for all varieties of public domain information. I'm interested in books, so click "texts" along the top line of the page.
On the next page, type into the search line whatever you're interested in. Say: "Lutheran"
A list of every book they have available containing the term "Lutheran" will come up. Click one of those, and you'll see (on the left) the options available for reading it, such as a PDF file, TXT, or whatever.
A "flip book" is one I especially like. This displays the book as a book.
Some of the books in public domain are still in print. Some are not. Some are worthwhile. Some not. But there are many fine and useful books which has -- for whatever reason -- been allowed to languish. Some of them need rescuing. Go for it.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
How to find out if a book is good
I used to spend a lot of time in bookstores. No more.
Not that I don't spend a lot of time and money with books. It's the big vice of my life. But I just find myself spending less and less time searching out bookstores.
Instead, I spend time and money buying books online. Usually at Amazon, because they're usually the easiest to work with and provide the best bargains.
But I can't look at the books. At least I can't thumb through them. How do I get past this problem?
First, I look for books with the "search inside" feature. Such books enable me to read at least part of the book, and that helps me know if it's for me or not. I often read the first couple of pages. If the book is going to grab me, it usually will by that point.
Not every book is so enabled. (My own book is one such ... ) But I know that I'm far less inclined to purchase a book (unless it comes highly recommended by someone I trust) if I can't read at least some of it.
Another thing I look for are negative reviews. Positive reviews are often strings of glowing praise, without much in the way of specifics, but negative reviews (unless it's just one of those "I hate this book" types) will often point out specific things that help me evaluate the book. A negative review is not going to necessarily keep me from buying a book. It WILL help me know enough to know if I should purchase it.
For almost anyone reading this, the real cost of a book is not the cover price. The real cost is the time spent reading it. Everyone has limited time to read, and it's important to find books that help with your particular interests and needs. Amazon has provided that help.
Not that I don't spend a lot of time and money with books. It's the big vice of my life. But I just find myself spending less and less time searching out bookstores.
Instead, I spend time and money buying books online. Usually at Amazon, because they're usually the easiest to work with and provide the best bargains.
But I can't look at the books. At least I can't thumb through them. How do I get past this problem?
First, I look for books with the "search inside" feature. Such books enable me to read at least part of the book, and that helps me know if it's for me or not. I often read the first couple of pages. If the book is going to grab me, it usually will by that point.
Not every book is so enabled. (My own book is one such ... ) But I know that I'm far less inclined to purchase a book (unless it comes highly recommended by someone I trust) if I can't read at least some of it.
Another thing I look for are negative reviews. Positive reviews are often strings of glowing praise, without much in the way of specifics, but negative reviews (unless it's just one of those "I hate this book" types) will often point out specific things that help me evaluate the book. A negative review is not going to necessarily keep me from buying a book. It WILL help me know enough to know if I should purchase it.
For almost anyone reading this, the real cost of a book is not the cover price. The real cost is the time spent reading it. Everyone has limited time to read, and it's important to find books that help with your particular interests and needs. Amazon has provided that help.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Students and teachers
From Edmund Schlink's Theology of the Lutheran Confessions:
"Before one can be a father he must have been a child and a youth. No one can become a teacher who has not first become a pupil. It is as a pupil instructed by the church's interpretation of Scripture that the theologian must himself interpret Scripture in the church and instruct the church. The pupil status is never at an end. Every teacher remains all his life a child of his mother, the church."
"Before one can be a father he must have been a child and a youth. No one can become a teacher who has not first become a pupil. It is as a pupil instructed by the church's interpretation of Scripture that the theologian must himself interpret Scripture in the church and instruct the church. The pupil status is never at an end. Every teacher remains all his life a child of his mother, the church."
Putting Books Aside
I'm a big fan of not finishing books.
Oh, I finish most of them I begin. But when a book just isn't working for me, I lay it aside.
It doesn't mean the book is bad. Or that the author is wrong. It just means that, well, it's not working.
This does something good for me: it allows me to read more than I would otherwise.
Those who feel an overwhelming need to finish every book they start will avoid ones that look hard, marginally uninteresting, whatever.
My philosophy allows me to begin even those I'm not sure about. Because I know I don't have the heavy burden of finishing the book.
This philosophy has to be coupled with at least a modicum of persistence: some books don't yield their treasures easily. If you give up at the slightest intellectual resistance, you'll never complete anything of value.
But allowing oneself the freedom to lay aside a work that's just not of value to you at the moment will help your learning, help your studies, and give you the freedom to roam further than you might otherwise.
Oh, I finish most of them I begin. But when a book just isn't working for me, I lay it aside.
It doesn't mean the book is bad. Or that the author is wrong. It just means that, well, it's not working.
This does something good for me: it allows me to read more than I would otherwise.
Those who feel an overwhelming need to finish every book they start will avoid ones that look hard, marginally uninteresting, whatever.
My philosophy allows me to begin even those I'm not sure about. Because I know I don't have the heavy burden of finishing the book.
This philosophy has to be coupled with at least a modicum of persistence: some books don't yield their treasures easily. If you give up at the slightest intellectual resistance, you'll never complete anything of value.
But allowing oneself the freedom to lay aside a work that's just not of value to you at the moment will help your learning, help your studies, and give you the freedom to roam further than you might otherwise.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Weedon's Blog
The blog from a friend and former pastor of ours. We don't always agree (that's what makes friendships interesting) but he has useful and good stuff, and writes from a pastoral perspective:
http://weedon.blogspot.com
http://weedon.blogspot.com
The Simpsons and Garrison Keillor and the faith
There are 2 types of people in the world. Those who like 'The Simpsons' and those who like Garrison Keillor's 'Prairie Home Companion.' The 2 types are very seldom found in one person.
My wife thinks it's a coastal thing: that Simpsons lovers tend to live on either the west or east coast, and that Prairie lovers tend to be midwestern. A friend of mine says that PHC is complete Minnesota humor, and that the further one is away from Minnesota, the more difficult it is to get the jokes.
My complaint today is with those conservatives who whine about The Simpsons. The usual kind of complaints are that The Simpsons represents an irreverent kind of humor, that Bart is a juvenile delinquent and thereby a bad role model or something like that.
When I push people who express these opinions, I usually find that they have never watched the program much, if at all. The whining probably began with George H. W. Bush's comment, "America needs to be a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like The Simpsons."
The reality is that The Simpons is a very accurate portrayal of American life. Especially on religious matters.
Americans are very religious. This is true for Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever. We as a country take our faith seriously. The kind of disinterested skeptic who is prominent in, say, French intellectual life is noticed in America only because of his oddity.
The Simpsons reflect that religious reality. Watch a couple of episodes of the program, and note the religious flavor of the program. People pray. Sometimes it's Bart, sometimes Homer, sometimes Marge or Lisa, or often it's the neighbor Ned Flanders. But people really pray.
People go to church. They attend church, they talk about church, and even the shows' Hindu character actually attends to his religious devotions.
Consider the Ned Flanders character. There are literally millions of Americans like Flanders: a mainstream evangelical Christian who takes his faith seriously, as does his family. And Flanders is portrayed as an appealing character: a kindly man who does good to Homer, even when Homer is less than kindly to him. This is no hypocrite, no fake: he really believes in what he says, and even though he's not shown as perfect, his life generally matches his convictions.
(Not to mention that the main family in the show is an intact nuclear family, with a husband who supports the family, a stay-at-home mom with 3 children).
I'm baffled by the continued grumbling about this program. It's not perfect, it can be uneven (hey -- the show's been airing 17 years now), but I tend to think that those with complaints about the program are really those with complaints about America. Because that's what the program is about.
My wife thinks it's a coastal thing: that Simpsons lovers tend to live on either the west or east coast, and that Prairie lovers tend to be midwestern. A friend of mine says that PHC is complete Minnesota humor, and that the further one is away from Minnesota, the more difficult it is to get the jokes.
My complaint today is with those conservatives who whine about The Simpsons. The usual kind of complaints are that The Simpsons represents an irreverent kind of humor, that Bart is a juvenile delinquent and thereby a bad role model or something like that.
When I push people who express these opinions, I usually find that they have never watched the program much, if at all. The whining probably began with George H. W. Bush's comment, "America needs to be a lot more like the Waltons and a lot less like The Simpsons."
The reality is that The Simpons is a very accurate portrayal of American life. Especially on religious matters.
Americans are very religious. This is true for Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever. We as a country take our faith seriously. The kind of disinterested skeptic who is prominent in, say, French intellectual life is noticed in America only because of his oddity.
The Simpsons reflect that religious reality. Watch a couple of episodes of the program, and note the religious flavor of the program. People pray. Sometimes it's Bart, sometimes Homer, sometimes Marge or Lisa, or often it's the neighbor Ned Flanders. But people really pray.
People go to church. They attend church, they talk about church, and even the shows' Hindu character actually attends to his religious devotions.
Consider the Ned Flanders character. There are literally millions of Americans like Flanders: a mainstream evangelical Christian who takes his faith seriously, as does his family. And Flanders is portrayed as an appealing character: a kindly man who does good to Homer, even when Homer is less than kindly to him. This is no hypocrite, no fake: he really believes in what he says, and even though he's not shown as perfect, his life generally matches his convictions.
(Not to mention that the main family in the show is an intact nuclear family, with a husband who supports the family, a stay-at-home mom with 3 children).
I'm baffled by the continued grumbling about this program. It's not perfect, it can be uneven (hey -- the show's been airing 17 years now), but I tend to think that those with complaints about the program are really those with complaints about America. Because that's what the program is about.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Spies and Traitors
Spies are not traitors. And traitors are not spies.
Spies are those who seek information from enemies, usually in a surreptitious manner. The Israelite spies did that: they sought information about the land God had promised to God's people.
Americans have come to be lazy about these terms. It has become traditional for news sources to call an American who has provided information to an enemy a "spy."
Such a person is not a spy: he is a traitor.
A traitor is one who sells out his own country to others.
Spying is a sometimes honorable and necessary task in a fallen world. Calling those who are traitors "spies" demeans the character of men like Caleb and Joshua. These men were spies, and were commended by God.
Spies are those who seek information from enemies, usually in a surreptitious manner. The Israelite spies did that: they sought information about the land God had promised to God's people.
Americans have come to be lazy about these terms. It has become traditional for news sources to call an American who has provided information to an enemy a "spy."
Such a person is not a spy: he is a traitor.
A traitor is one who sells out his own country to others.
Spying is a sometimes honorable and necessary task in a fallen world. Calling those who are traitors "spies" demeans the character of men like Caleb and Joshua. These men were spies, and were commended by God.
Praying with the Bible
Knowledge of the Bible is a loop that feeds back into prayer, and prayer then leads back to informing our Bible study.
Numbers 13-14 tells us of the Israelite spies going into the land to scope it out. When they return, all of the spies except Caleb and Joshua provide a pessimistic report to the people, telling them they should fear the inhabitants of the land. The people of Israel rebel, begin making plans to return to Egypt, and argue that God has brought them and their children into this new land that they might all die there. God in turn offers to Moses that He will disinherit the people, and create a new people from Moses.
Moses' prayer is interesting. The thrust of it is to argue that if the people of Israel die, God's name will be blasphemed among the heathen. He argues from the greatness of God's mercy, and argues explicitly from the forgiveness of their sins which the Israelites had already received.
This prayer is much like Abraham's prayer in Genesis 18. Both men essentially remind God of Who He is, and of His nature, and plead with Him to act as He is. Abraham further argues that it is against God's nature to destroy the righteous with the wicked.
Notice also the Trinitarian nature of Moses' argument in Numbers 14.14: "thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night." Notice also that once again the Israelites are reminded that God speaks to them "face to face," which ties in with the theme of glory, a recurring motif in the book of Numbers.
Numbers 13-14 tells us of the Israelite spies going into the land to scope it out. When they return, all of the spies except Caleb and Joshua provide a pessimistic report to the people, telling them they should fear the inhabitants of the land. The people of Israel rebel, begin making plans to return to Egypt, and argue that God has brought them and their children into this new land that they might all die there. God in turn offers to Moses that He will disinherit the people, and create a new people from Moses.
Moses' prayer is interesting. The thrust of it is to argue that if the people of Israel die, God's name will be blasphemed among the heathen. He argues from the greatness of God's mercy, and argues explicitly from the forgiveness of their sins which the Israelites had already received.
This prayer is much like Abraham's prayer in Genesis 18. Both men essentially remind God of Who He is, and of His nature, and plead with Him to act as He is. Abraham further argues that it is against God's nature to destroy the righteous with the wicked.
Notice also the Trinitarian nature of Moses' argument in Numbers 14.14: "thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night." Notice also that once again the Israelites are reminded that God speaks to them "face to face," which ties in with the theme of glory, a recurring motif in the book of Numbers.
The Power of the Word of God
The penitential Psalm 51, while a comfort to sinners (such as David, who wrote the Psalm after killing Uriah, and committing adultery with Bathsheba) is also a commentary on the power of the word of God.
David prays for both forgiveness, and for the ability to teach sinners.
The 2 go together. When we rejoice in God's forgiveness of our sins, that joy shows forth to others, who are also brought into that forgiveness.
It's important for us to remember that God's word accomplishes what it sets out to do. Vs. 13 speaks of that:
"Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee."
When God's ways are taught, sinners are converted. Not everyone: there are those who resist and turn away from God's word, but sinners are converted. We can count on that.
We can't see God's word accomplishing these things, and we can't know for sure when that preached word will do the job. But it will do it.
This is the comfort for those who preach. God's word will work. It is not your job to manipulate the hearers. Just preach the word. Let God do His job.
David prays for both forgiveness, and for the ability to teach sinners.
The 2 go together. When we rejoice in God's forgiveness of our sins, that joy shows forth to others, who are also brought into that forgiveness.
It's important for us to remember that God's word accomplishes what it sets out to do. Vs. 13 speaks of that:
"Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee."
When God's ways are taught, sinners are converted. Not everyone: there are those who resist and turn away from God's word, but sinners are converted. We can count on that.
We can't see God's word accomplishing these things, and we can't know for sure when that preached word will do the job. But it will do it.
This is the comfort for those who preach. God's word will work. It is not your job to manipulate the hearers. Just preach the word. Let God do His job.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Leprosy and Glory
Numbers 12 is interesting on a number of levels, but I'm dealing here with the relationship of Miriam's sudden leprosy and the shining of glory.
First, leprosy in the Bible is not modern leprosy, known technically as Hansen's disease. Googling leprosy for modern experience is not really helpful.
In chapter 12, Miriam and Aaron had challenged Moses' authority. Specifically, they challenged Moses as a unique speaker for God. God descends in a cloud, and verifies Moses' authority, and when the cloud ascends, Aaron sees that Miriam is leprous.
Note the contrasts: God speaks in "dark" speeches (vs. 8) while Miriam becomes "white" (vs. 10). Also note that the proximate cause of the rebellion is Moses' marriage to an "Ethiopian" woman, presumably a woman of darker skin. (Another note: "Ethiopian" in the scriptures is a term meaning anyone from sub-Saharan Africa. It doesn't mean the modern political entity of Ethiopia, although it doesn't exclude people from that region).
The face is where the glory shines. Miriam's face becomes inglorious, even worse than if her father had spit on her face. She is shut out of the camp for 7 days for uncleanness and the people wait on her to begin their journey again.
First, leprosy in the Bible is not modern leprosy, known technically as Hansen's disease. Googling leprosy for modern experience is not really helpful.
In chapter 12, Miriam and Aaron had challenged Moses' authority. Specifically, they challenged Moses as a unique speaker for God. God descends in a cloud, and verifies Moses' authority, and when the cloud ascends, Aaron sees that Miriam is leprous.
Note the contrasts: God speaks in "dark" speeches (vs. 8) while Miriam becomes "white" (vs. 10). Also note that the proximate cause of the rebellion is Moses' marriage to an "Ethiopian" woman, presumably a woman of darker skin. (Another note: "Ethiopian" in the scriptures is a term meaning anyone from sub-Saharan Africa. It doesn't mean the modern political entity of Ethiopia, although it doesn't exclude people from that region).
The face is where the glory shines. Miriam's face becomes inglorious, even worse than if her father had spit on her face. She is shut out of the camp for 7 days for uncleanness and the people wait on her to begin their journey again.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
An Interesting Coincidence of Deaths
When Americans think about "the '60s," we don't usually mean the period from 1960 to 1970. Instead, we usually mean the years from late 1963 to around 1970.
I would date that era actually from one set of deaths to another set of deaths.
The first set was on one specific afternoon: Nov. 22, 1963.
On that afternoon, President John Kennedy was killed, and American politics changed almost overnight from optimism to the pessimism that still seems to have a stranglehold on us.
On that same afternoon, Aldous Huxley -- one of the lights of pessimistic humanism -- died in England.
Likewise, C. S. Lewis, one of the last of a certain variety of Christian humanist died.
And something changed after that afternoon. It's important not to assume that because something happened after another event, that the first caused the second. (In other words, I got out of bed this morning. My getting out of bed didn't make the sun rise. This is a fairly common logical mistake).
So I'm not saying that these deaths engendered that wild ride known as the 60s. But they are a useful marker.
The deaths that ended the 60s happened likewise on an afternoon, in Kent, Ohio, with the deaths of the Kent State 4: Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glen Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, and William Knox Schroeder.
When those 4 died, there was an explosion of protests around the country, but the wind seemed to go out of the sails of the protests after 6 weeks, and likewise something changed.
I was reminded of the coincidences of the deaths of Nov. 22, 1963, when posting earlier a review of C. S. Lewis' book, The Abolition of Man. While Abolition is not one of Lewis' best-selling books, it's one of the more important ones in my opinion, and represents an earlier, perhaps more well-thought Christian humanism.
I would date that era actually from one set of deaths to another set of deaths.
The first set was on one specific afternoon: Nov. 22, 1963.
On that afternoon, President John Kennedy was killed, and American politics changed almost overnight from optimism to the pessimism that still seems to have a stranglehold on us.
On that same afternoon, Aldous Huxley -- one of the lights of pessimistic humanism -- died in England.
Likewise, C. S. Lewis, one of the last of a certain variety of Christian humanist died.
And something changed after that afternoon. It's important not to assume that because something happened after another event, that the first caused the second. (In other words, I got out of bed this morning. My getting out of bed didn't make the sun rise. This is a fairly common logical mistake).
So I'm not saying that these deaths engendered that wild ride known as the 60s. But they are a useful marker.
The deaths that ended the 60s happened likewise on an afternoon, in Kent, Ohio, with the deaths of the Kent State 4: Allison Krause, Jeffrey Glen Miller, Sandra Lee Scheuer, and William Knox Schroeder.
When those 4 died, there was an explosion of protests around the country, but the wind seemed to go out of the sails of the protests after 6 weeks, and likewise something changed.
I was reminded of the coincidences of the deaths of Nov. 22, 1963, when posting earlier a review of C. S. Lewis' book, The Abolition of Man. While Abolition is not one of Lewis' best-selling books, it's one of the more important ones in my opinion, and represents an earlier, perhaps more well-thought Christian humanism.
C. S. Lewis: The Abolition of Man
Another Amazon review, on C. S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man.
"While a short book (my copy has only 121 pages) this book is about teaching and learning and how we pas our culture from generation to generation. But the reality of the book is that education is used as a foil for talking about how and why we transmit culture from one generation to the next. Because ultimately, that's what education is about, and why it's so important: because in educating children, we are telling them and ourselves about what is important, and why. A fine book, deceptively easy to read, but taking a long time to digest and reason through."
"While a short book (my copy has only 121 pages) this book is about teaching and learning and how we pas our culture from generation to generation. But the reality of the book is that education is used as a foil for talking about how and why we transmit culture from one generation to the next. Because ultimately, that's what education is about, and why it's so important: because in educating children, we are telling them and ourselves about what is important, and why. A fine book, deceptively easy to read, but taking a long time to digest and reason through."
Martin Chemnitz: The Lord's Supper
A review of Chemnitz's The Lord's Supper.
"Like every one of Chemnitz's books I've read, this is a masterful work about a specialized area of Christian theology that's central to our faith: the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. And while Chemnitz works through the dogmatics of the topic, his approach is at the same time pastoral, showing obvious concern that all Christians (not just pastors or theologians) understand what they are receiving when partaking of the Supper.
This book ties in closely with another of Chemnitz's books, 'The Two Natures in Christ,' as the two topics are closely related.
Also helpful: the English translation in this book is well done, not wordy, but smooth-flowing and easy to read. Highly recommended."
"Like every one of Chemnitz's books I've read, this is a masterful work about a specialized area of Christian theology that's central to our faith: the doctrine of the Lord's Supper. And while Chemnitz works through the dogmatics of the topic, his approach is at the same time pastoral, showing obvious concern that all Christians (not just pastors or theologians) understand what they are receiving when partaking of the Supper.
This book ties in closely with another of Chemnitz's books, 'The Two Natures in Christ,' as the two topics are closely related.
Also helpful: the English translation in this book is well done, not wordy, but smooth-flowing and easy to read. Highly recommended."
Michael O'Brien: Father Elijah: An Apocalypse
Another review, this time of Michael O'Brien's Father Elijah: An Apocalypse.
"Unlike many folks, I'm not a big fiction fan.
When I want to relax, give me something arcane and philosophical. My writings, articles, and reviews are likewise usually practical or theoretical, but almost never fictional.
But occasionally, a story is recommended to me, and I succumb, and here's one where I fell in, head over heels, and it was worth the fall.
'Father Elijah' covers the vast sweep of the 20th century. It deals with philosphy, theology, history, ethics, the church, and does so by telling a wonderful story of a man who barely survived the progroms of World War II, fled to Israel, rose to prominence there, and gave up his prominence to enter monastic life, and by a series of events he did not plan, came once again into a quiet and awe-full prominence at the end of time.
The beauty of this book is palpable. I was moved by the story of a life lived under the cross.
Others said it better than me: leave behind the left behind. Those books pale in comparison to this deceptively simple and moving story."
"Unlike many folks, I'm not a big fiction fan.
When I want to relax, give me something arcane and philosophical. My writings, articles, and reviews are likewise usually practical or theoretical, but almost never fictional.
But occasionally, a story is recommended to me, and I succumb, and here's one where I fell in, head over heels, and it was worth the fall.
'Father Elijah' covers the vast sweep of the 20th century. It deals with philosphy, theology, history, ethics, the church, and does so by telling a wonderful story of a man who barely survived the progroms of World War II, fled to Israel, rose to prominence there, and gave up his prominence to enter monastic life, and by a series of events he did not plan, came once again into a quiet and awe-full prominence at the end of time.
The beauty of this book is palpable. I was moved by the story of a life lived under the cross.
Others said it better than me: leave behind the left behind. Those books pale in comparison to this deceptively simple and moving story."
Martin Chemnitz: The Two Natures in Christ
A short review (on Amazon.com) of Martin Chemnitz's The Two Natures in Christ.
"This book was recommended to me in 1989. I bought it in 1990, and have read it a number of times since then, with greater insights coming from it with each read.
If I had to grab a handful of books because a flood was coming, this is one I'd take. This is the finest Christology book I've ever read, and there is no competition. I would argue that in a real sense, it is one of the top 5 theology books I've ever read at all.
A couple of suggestions:
1. Get a good copy. I'm all for buying used books from Amazon, but this might be one where you'd want to get it new, just because you will -- I hope -- be reading it over and over. And you'll very likely never sell it, because this book is so good that you'll feel like hogging it to yourself.
2. Read it slowly. I'm not a fan of devotional books (they're often junk) but this book teaches you about theology, while nurturing your spiritual life. When I'm reading it, I read 2-4 pages a day. Of course, that means it might take a year to get through, but what's the problem with that? When you're finished, you'll feel like starting over.
3. Most errors in Christian theology stem from one of 2 areas. People get messed up on either the PERSON of Christ (who He is) or the WORK of Christ (what He does). This book will inoculate you against both errors.
4. This is NOT a book "just for pastors." Any thoughtful layperson can read and learn from this. A few terms are in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; most of those terms are translated.
Martin Chemnitz is a master. Get this book (and anything by him) and learn from it. You will be a better Christian for it, and your church will benefit, too."
"This book was recommended to me in 1989. I bought it in 1990, and have read it a number of times since then, with greater insights coming from it with each read.
If I had to grab a handful of books because a flood was coming, this is one I'd take. This is the finest Christology book I've ever read, and there is no competition. I would argue that in a real sense, it is one of the top 5 theology books I've ever read at all.
A couple of suggestions:
1. Get a good copy. I'm all for buying used books from Amazon, but this might be one where you'd want to get it new, just because you will -- I hope -- be reading it over and over. And you'll very likely never sell it, because this book is so good that you'll feel like hogging it to yourself.
2. Read it slowly. I'm not a fan of devotional books (they're often junk) but this book teaches you about theology, while nurturing your spiritual life. When I'm reading it, I read 2-4 pages a day. Of course, that means it might take a year to get through, but what's the problem with that? When you're finished, you'll feel like starting over.
3. Most errors in Christian theology stem from one of 2 areas. People get messed up on either the PERSON of Christ (who He is) or the WORK of Christ (what He does). This book will inoculate you against both errors.
4. This is NOT a book "just for pastors." Any thoughtful layperson can read and learn from this. A few terms are in Latin, Greek, or Hebrew; most of those terms are translated.
Martin Chemnitz is a master. Get this book (and anything by him) and learn from it. You will be a better Christian for it, and your church will benefit, too."
God with a face
Numbers 6.23-26 gives us the traditional Trinitarian blessing:
The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The first phrase reminds us of God's creation and preservation of us and all the world, one that we often associate with God the Father. (With always keeping in mind the Son's role -- see John 1 -- as well as that of the Holy Spirit's "brooding" on the waters in Genesis 1.2)
The third phrase speaks to the Holy Spirit's job of bringing us to the Son, and giving us peace through Christ.
But what seems especially cool is the second phrase. God makes His face shine on us. The theology of the incarnation reminds us that we have a God who is one of us. Even now. God took a body, which He will never leave or lose. So at the right hand of the Father now stands a man, a man with flesh and blood, like us, only without sin. A man with a face. A Savior whose face we will one day see.
(Not to mention that that divine and human is said to "shine": shining today and then, brighter than the sun. Shining with the true and incarnate glory of God).
The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.
Although it's important to remember that -- theologically speaking -- all of God's works toward us are works of the whole, undivided Trinity, we tend to think of the different persons as having special places in our creation and salvation.The first phrase reminds us of God's creation and preservation of us and all the world, one that we often associate with God the Father. (With always keeping in mind the Son's role -- see John 1 -- as well as that of the Holy Spirit's "brooding" on the waters in Genesis 1.2)
The third phrase speaks to the Holy Spirit's job of bringing us to the Son, and giving us peace through Christ.
But what seems especially cool is the second phrase. God makes His face shine on us. The theology of the incarnation reminds us that we have a God who is one of us. Even now. God took a body, which He will never leave or lose. So at the right hand of the Father now stands a man, a man with flesh and blood, like us, only without sin. A man with a face. A Savior whose face we will one day see.
(Not to mention that that divine and human is said to "shine": shining today and then, brighter than the sun. Shining with the true and incarnate glory of God).
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Scriptures in the Creeds
This is a tentative exploration of some issues I've been pondering about the Nicene and Apostles creeds. They are certainly subject to correction at a later date (by myself -- or anyone else!)
My concern is with a confession about the scriptures. There is no explicit confession in the Apostles creed, but there are 2 ("according to the Scriptures," and "spoke by the prophets") in the Nicene.
What I'm wondering is whether -- over the very long term, meaning decades and centuries -- an emphasis on the Apostles creed may lead to a denigration of the scriptures in the faith of those Christians who sit under such an emphasis.
The Nicene creed has a more "rooted" quality, meaning it is tethered in the scriptures. Specifically, the work of the Holy Spirit is rooted in the Scriptures, where God has bound Himself. In the Apostles creed, the third article reads, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints," etc.
Does this article make the Holy Spirit's work less tied to the Scriptures and more "floating" in the church? My concern is that the tendency (in America at least) to speak of an immediate revelation ("God said I should do that," without scriptural reference) may come from that.
On the other hand, if we are continually reminded that the Holy Spirits speaks "by the prophets" we may better remember that any inklings we have must be tested against the Word of God.
This is not to say that the Apostles creed is wrong. But this creed -- a private, western, baptismal creed -- was never approved by a council. We Lutherans have inherited it from over the centuries. Would we do better to emphasize one (the Nicene) with a greater consensus among the church?
My concern is with a confession about the scriptures. There is no explicit confession in the Apostles creed, but there are 2 ("according to the Scriptures," and "spoke by the prophets") in the Nicene.
What I'm wondering is whether -- over the very long term, meaning decades and centuries -- an emphasis on the Apostles creed may lead to a denigration of the scriptures in the faith of those Christians who sit under such an emphasis.
The Nicene creed has a more "rooted" quality, meaning it is tethered in the scriptures. Specifically, the work of the Holy Spirit is rooted in the Scriptures, where God has bound Himself. In the Apostles creed, the third article reads, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints," etc.
Does this article make the Holy Spirit's work less tied to the Scriptures and more "floating" in the church? My concern is that the tendency (in America at least) to speak of an immediate revelation ("God said I should do that," without scriptural reference) may come from that.
On the other hand, if we are continually reminded that the Holy Spirits speaks "by the prophets" we may better remember that any inklings we have must be tested against the Word of God.
This is not to say that the Apostles creed is wrong. But this creed -- a private, western, baptismal creed -- was never approved by a council. We Lutherans have inherited it from over the centuries. Would we do better to emphasize one (the Nicene) with a greater consensus among the church?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Glory and Shame
Continuing from the theme posted yesterday, about "glory."
We're taught in II Peter 1.4 that we become "partakers" of the divine nature. ("Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.")
Our brethren in the eastern churches sometimes speak about this process as "divinization." Rightly understood, that's nothing more than the fact that we will be returned to the divine glory we partook of in the garden, although it's sometimes misunderstood (probably on both sides) as teaching that we will somehow become gods, or become part of God. That's not what they are teaching.
But if we look back to the garden, Adam was deceived by the serpent into eating the fruit which God had commanded him not to eat of. After so eating, Adam and Eve fashion leaves as coverings for themselves, to cover their nakedness. Now the question: what changed? In other words, they were naked before; why the sudden need to cover?
I'm going to guess that Adam in his innocence (that is, prior to the fall) shone as a partaker of the divine glory, much as Christ shone on the mount of Transfiguration. Not that Adam was god there, but he had reflected glory in that state, and what stood out in that state was the shining glory -- not their nakedness. Suddenly, after the fall, their nakedness stood out as a defining characteristic.
This makes more sense after reading Phillipians 3.19: "Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things." Phil. 3 is often incorrectly read as a command against gluttony, which it isn't. Gluttony is a sin, but that's not what St. Paul is talking about here.
In context, St. Paul is speaking about the Judaizers, who tried to force individuals to observe the Jewish law in order to become Christians. "Those whose God is their belly" is referring to those who demand (against Acts 10) that Christians keep the dietary laws of Lev. 11.
Those "whose glory is their shame" are those demanding ritual circumcision as a cost of being a Christian. "Shame" here equals what we euphemistically call "private parts," in other words, the area of the body we normally don't display to the public. The contrast here is glory and shame, and glory (in NT Greek) usually has a connotation of "shining" as in Hebrew.
In other words, Adam had glory, and lost it. He noticed his "shame," and tried to cover the shame.
We're taught in II Peter 1.4 that we become "partakers" of the divine nature. ("Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.")
Our brethren in the eastern churches sometimes speak about this process as "divinization." Rightly understood, that's nothing more than the fact that we will be returned to the divine glory we partook of in the garden, although it's sometimes misunderstood (probably on both sides) as teaching that we will somehow become gods, or become part of God. That's not what they are teaching.
But if we look back to the garden, Adam was deceived by the serpent into eating the fruit which God had commanded him not to eat of. After so eating, Adam and Eve fashion leaves as coverings for themselves, to cover their nakedness. Now the question: what changed? In other words, they were naked before; why the sudden need to cover?
I'm going to guess that Adam in his innocence (that is, prior to the fall) shone as a partaker of the divine glory, much as Christ shone on the mount of Transfiguration. Not that Adam was god there, but he had reflected glory in that state, and what stood out in that state was the shining glory -- not their nakedness. Suddenly, after the fall, their nakedness stood out as a defining characteristic.
This makes more sense after reading Phillipians 3.19: "Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things." Phil. 3 is often incorrectly read as a command against gluttony, which it isn't. Gluttony is a sin, but that's not what St. Paul is talking about here.
In context, St. Paul is speaking about the Judaizers, who tried to force individuals to observe the Jewish law in order to become Christians. "Those whose God is their belly" is referring to those who demand (against Acts 10) that Christians keep the dietary laws of Lev. 11.
Those "whose glory is their shame" are those demanding ritual circumcision as a cost of being a Christian. "Shame" here equals what we euphemistically call "private parts," in other words, the area of the body we normally don't display to the public. The contrast here is glory and shame, and glory (in NT Greek) usually has a connotation of "shining" as in Hebrew.
In other words, Adam had glory, and lost it. He noticed his "shame," and tried to cover the shame.
Monday, September 17, 2007
"The Sons of Kohath": more on Numbers 4
When the text speaks of "the sons of Kohath" (vss. 2, 4, and 15), this is not meaning specifically Kohath's physical children only, although that meaning's not excluded. In Numbers 4, "the sons of Kohath" means those who are his descendants. The Levites were set aside to minister the religious aspects of Israelite life, and the Kohathites were set aside for this sub-specialty in the priestly service.
The phrase "sons of" doesn't always mean physical descendancy in OT usage. Amos 7.14 uses the phrase, but in that sense it means not physical lineage, but one who is a student of the prophets, or trained to be a prophet. In other words, Amos was a herdsman, and like Melchizedek or Christ, he is one not expected to be a prophet. The sons of Levi, the ones who would be expected to be prophets, are mediately called through their physical birth into the Levitical line, but Amos is given an immediate call, while he was herding the flock.
The phrase "sons of" doesn't always mean physical descendancy in OT usage. Amos 7.14 uses the phrase, but in that sense it means not physical lineage, but one who is a student of the prophets, or trained to be a prophet. In other words, Amos was a herdsman, and like Melchizedek or Christ, he is one not expected to be a prophet. The sons of Levi, the ones who would be expected to be prophets, are mediately called through their physical birth into the Levitical line, but Amos is given an immediate call, while he was herding the flock.
The Glory of God in Numbers 4
God's glory is a continuing theme in scripture. I think that we tend to mis-read the word "glory," and we think of it in terms of what we do, that is that we "glorify" God, meaning we worship Him.
The Hebrew word has a more physical meaning, indicating a glowing. (This would be consonant with the Transfiguration account, when -- Matt. 17.2 -- we are told that Jesus' face shone like the sun, and that His clothing was bright white).
In Numbers 4.15, Kohath and his sons were commanded to bear the instruments of the Tabernacle, but they were not to touch the holy things, "lest they die."
Most people hearing this in our culture hear this as a command that they not touch the holy things, lest they "be killed." But in a sense, the potential death warned against here is a passive one, in the same way that we might warn someone to be watchful on a highway because they might be killed.
God is not waiting to catch the sons of Kohath in order to kill them. Instead, a death in such a situation is a "natural" one, in which the one touching dies as a result of touching something partaking of God's glory. This was the fear in much of the Bible, of dying as a result of contact with God's naked glory, to paraphrase Luther. Note again the disciples in Matt. 17.6: "they were sore afraid." Likewise in Acts 9.3, a light from heaven shines on Saul, who is said to be "trembling" (vs. 6). Note again the physicalness of the description: Saul is not only afraid, he is shaking. Good Pharisee that he is, Saul knows the warning to the sons of Kohath, that people who touch God risk death. Did Saul in that instance know that in persecuting the church, he was touching God by hurting the body of Christ?
The Hebrew word has a more physical meaning, indicating a glowing. (This would be consonant with the Transfiguration account, when -- Matt. 17.2 -- we are told that Jesus' face shone like the sun, and that His clothing was bright white).
In Numbers 4.15, Kohath and his sons were commanded to bear the instruments of the Tabernacle, but they were not to touch the holy things, "lest they die."
Most people hearing this in our culture hear this as a command that they not touch the holy things, lest they "be killed." But in a sense, the potential death warned against here is a passive one, in the same way that we might warn someone to be watchful on a highway because they might be killed.
God is not waiting to catch the sons of Kohath in order to kill them. Instead, a death in such a situation is a "natural" one, in which the one touching dies as a result of touching something partaking of God's glory. This was the fear in much of the Bible, of dying as a result of contact with God's naked glory, to paraphrase Luther. Note again the disciples in Matt. 17.6: "they were sore afraid." Likewise in Acts 9.3, a light from heaven shines on Saul, who is said to be "trembling" (vs. 6). Note again the physicalness of the description: Saul is not only afraid, he is shaking. Good Pharisee that he is, Saul knows the warning to the sons of Kohath, that people who touch God risk death. Did Saul in that instance know that in persecuting the church, he was touching God by hurting the body of Christ?
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
When You Think You're Alone in Disliking "Contemporary Worship"
I'm a sucker for journals and diaries. Not that I'm good for keeping them myself (I tend to lose steam) but I enjoy reading those that others write.
At the moment, I'm in the midst of James Boswell's journal of 1762-1763. Boswell later became famous by writing what many folks consider the best biography in English, his Life of Johnson. But in 1762, he was a kid (age 22 or thereabouts) just in from Scotland, enjoying big city life in London.
On Sunday, May 15, 1763, he wanted to hear a well-known preacher preach. This was his first mistake: don't go to church because of the preacher. That's not all we're there for, not that it's unimportant, but it shouldn't be our first consideration. But -- like most of us, and like me -- Boswell broke the rule, and went to hear Dr. Blair preach in what was known as a dissenting service: a parish that disagreed with the Anglican service.
Boswell was feeling particularly in need of church that day: he went to 3 services. (He wasn't always so faithful: many diary entries recount his searching for prostitutes. As Ecclesiastes reminds, there is indeed nothing new under the sun).
But here is his story for the day:
"SUNDAY, 15 May. I was in an excellent calm and serious mood. I attended divine service in Ludgate Church with patience and satisfaction, and was much edified. I then dined at honest Cochrane's, after which he and I and two other gentlemen went to Dr. Fordyce's meeting in Monkwell Street and heard Dr. Blair preach. I thought this would have done me good. But I found the reverse. Blair's New Kirk delivery and the Dissenters roaring out the Psalms sitting on their backsides [in other words, sitting while praying!], together with the extempore prayers [prayers made up as the pastor went along, not prayed from the prayer book], and in short the whole vulgar idea of the Presbyterian worship, made me very gloomy. I therefore hastened from this place to St. Paul's, where I heard the conclusion of service, and had my mind set right again."
At the moment, I'm in the midst of James Boswell's journal of 1762-1763. Boswell later became famous by writing what many folks consider the best biography in English, his Life of Johnson. But in 1762, he was a kid (age 22 or thereabouts) just in from Scotland, enjoying big city life in London.
On Sunday, May 15, 1763, he wanted to hear a well-known preacher preach. This was his first mistake: don't go to church because of the preacher. That's not all we're there for, not that it's unimportant, but it shouldn't be our first consideration. But -- like most of us, and like me -- Boswell broke the rule, and went to hear Dr. Blair preach in what was known as a dissenting service: a parish that disagreed with the Anglican service.
Boswell was feeling particularly in need of church that day: he went to 3 services. (He wasn't always so faithful: many diary entries recount his searching for prostitutes. As Ecclesiastes reminds, there is indeed nothing new under the sun).
But here is his story for the day:
"SUNDAY, 15 May. I was in an excellent calm and serious mood. I attended divine service in Ludgate Church with patience and satisfaction, and was much edified. I then dined at honest Cochrane's, after which he and I and two other gentlemen went to Dr. Fordyce's meeting in Monkwell Street and heard Dr. Blair preach. I thought this would have done me good. But I found the reverse. Blair's New Kirk delivery and the Dissenters roaring out the Psalms sitting on their backsides [in other words, sitting while praying!], together with the extempore prayers [prayers made up as the pastor went along, not prayed from the prayer book], and in short the whole vulgar idea of the Presbyterian worship, made me very gloomy. I therefore hastened from this place to St. Paul's, where I heard the conclusion of service, and had my mind set right again."
Friday, February 09, 2007
House Churches
When I speak of "house church" here, I'm not meaning house church as it is used in contemporary parlance. "House church" often has a kind of denominational meaning, meaning groups that use the concept of home meetings as a doctrinal statement. Usually, it's a thinly -- sometimes not thinly -- disguised legalism that says it's somehow sinful to meet in church buildings.
What I mean by "house church" is very small, often start-up congregations meeting in homes because a house is the building that's available. Many congregations start up this way, and there's certainly nothing wrong with it: we have precedent in the New Testament: see I Cor. 16.19, Acts 20.20, Romans 16.5, Colossians 4.15, and Philemon 1.2.
Given the demise of orthodoxy, I wonder if churches meetings in homes is a wave of the future. It may not always be ideal: congregations this small can be rife with pettiness and divisions. But we must never forget that large congregations have issues, too. The secret for keeping the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4.3) is the twin poles of faithfulness and forgiveness, in whatever setting God has placed us.
Let me sketch out what I'm thinking about. A small congregation of perhaps 5 to 10, maybe more, maybe less. A pastor who is bi-vocational (in other words, he works another job to support himself and his family, on the assumption that such a small congregation is unable to pay him much, if at all). Either acapella music or accompanied by guitar, flute, or a keyboard there in the house.
I'm inviting comments on this. Would you feel comfortable (assuming such a congregation is orthodox, both in doctrine and liturgy) in such a setting? Would you go to such a congregation? And if you are a pastor, would you feel comfortable in a call to such a congregation?
What I mean by "house church" is very small, often start-up congregations meeting in homes because a house is the building that's available. Many congregations start up this way, and there's certainly nothing wrong with it: we have precedent in the New Testament: see I Cor. 16.19, Acts 20.20, Romans 16.5, Colossians 4.15, and Philemon 1.2.
Given the demise of orthodoxy, I wonder if churches meetings in homes is a wave of the future. It may not always be ideal: congregations this small can be rife with pettiness and divisions. But we must never forget that large congregations have issues, too. The secret for keeping the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Ephesians 4.3) is the twin poles of faithfulness and forgiveness, in whatever setting God has placed us.
Let me sketch out what I'm thinking about. A small congregation of perhaps 5 to 10, maybe more, maybe less. A pastor who is bi-vocational (in other words, he works another job to support himself and his family, on the assumption that such a small congregation is unable to pay him much, if at all). Either acapella music or accompanied by guitar, flute, or a keyboard there in the house.
I'm inviting comments on this. Would you feel comfortable (assuming such a congregation is orthodox, both in doctrine and liturgy) in such a setting? Would you go to such a congregation? And if you are a pastor, would you feel comfortable in a call to such a congregation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)