Opening Prayer: Gracious Father, you are the Lord of love and romance and all of our relationships. Give us grace to submit to you as we consider your Word now. Give us your Spirit that we might hear you rightly, obey you, love your ways, and trust you for all the details. And bless us as we do so. Through Christ our Lord, Amen!
Introduction
This morning we consider principles for courtship. This is one of the areas that we are called upon to love other people: parents, children, spouses, siblings, friends, and of course those other people who might one day become your spouse.
The Principles
Marriage is the goal of courtship (Gen. 2:18-25). And the goal of marriage is a family (Gen. 1:28, Mal. 2:15). Believers may not be unequally yoked with unbelievers (2 Cor. 6:14). Fathers and mothers are to be honored in this process (Ex. 20:12, Eph. 6:1). Fathers in particular are required to assume responsibility for their daughters (Num. 30:3-16, Dt. 22:16). Father’s must not exasperate their children in this, and the best way to avoid provocation is by “feeding” them with lots of instruction and discussion before you get there (Eph. 6:4). Women need to be honored as sisters, and men as brothers (1 Tim. 5:1-2). The way you honor parents, siblings, and friends now is all training for how you will live with your family later. Wise decisions are more often made in the company of wise counselors (Pr. 11:14, 15:22). Do not be like the gentiles who worry about everything, but cast your cares upon your Father who cares for you (Mt. 6:8, 1 Pet. 5:7).
Principles and Methods
Every so often we need to be reminded that God wants us to grow up into unity and like mindedness, but that is not the same thing as cult-like uniformity. These are the Scriptural principles that are non-negotiable. We may not pick and choose from these principles. On the other hand, it is absolutely essential that we apply these principles with wisdom otherwise we’ve only multiplied fools not wisdom.
Thinking Through the Principles
Prepare for marriage by working hard now in ways that will actually be helpful when God gives you a spouse. Practice hard work, financial responsibility, serving others, and being faithful in all the little things (Mt. 25:21).
Don’t assume that because they’re (you’re) courting that means they’re (you’re) getting married. Obviously, wise parents and young people won’t get into relationships without some reasonable hope of success, but all parties need to take care that they don’t assume more than is true or make things more difficult than they already are.
Assume you don’t know and communicate more than you need to. Cultivate open, honest communication early, and go the extra mile to talk to one another. And practice this before you get there. It’s not too early to begin establishing this culture and these expectations with your children.
Get counsel: get wisdom. Related to the previous point, this means the only thing it’s safe to assume is that you need help. Seek out counsel and listen to those God has surrounded you with. In particular, trust God, and suspect your feelings. The Disney gospel is false; learn to hate it (Rom. 6:1).
Living in covenant community means that we must constantly guard against the twin errors of privacy invasion and ignorant isolation. In other words, mind your own business and watch out for one another. And much of this has to do with having humility and being gracious.
Conclusions
Beware of acting out of fear. Do not believe the lie that says if you don’t say yes now, you will never have an opportunity again. Remember that love is patient, and remember that God is good.
Because you trust God, trust the counselors he has surrounded you with: parents, teachers, pastors, elders, spouses, siblings, and friends. And remember that the wounds of a friend are faithful (Pr. 27:6).
Remember that the gospel applies to this area of life too, and it doesn’t stop applying after marriage either. The gospel applies in that Jesus is lord of love and romance. The gospel applies because forgiveness and grace have been provided for this area of life like all others. And the gospel applies because we are called to be a disciple here as well as everywhere else.
In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!
Closing Prayer: Father you have been so kind to us in this community. You have been merciful when we have failed in these things, and you continue to promise grace and mercy where we are still picking up the pieces. Thank you for the understanding you have already given many fathers and mothers and children in these areas, but we ask for more wisdom. Pour out your spirit upon our churches, our families, and schools, and give us faith to trust you, to cling to you, and to cast all of our cares upon you. Through Christ our Lord who has taught us to pray singing…
Monday, September 08, 2008
Seventeenth Sunday in Trinity: Theology of Other People 7: Various Texts
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
My Favorite Quote So Far on Sola Scriptura
Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem writes in his Catechetical Lectures: "For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute creedence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." (IV:17)
Notice that Cyril does not appeal to his authority as a bishop but rather insists that all Christians must search the Divine Scriptures for themselves. They cannot take his word for it unless they have demonstration from the Holy Scriptures. Salvation and those things necessary for it do not depend upon "ingenious reasoning." The Scriptures are clear and sufficient to serve as the ultimate, infallible authority for matters of faith and piety.
Cyprian, Firmilian, and the Bishop of Rome on Sola Scriptura
Cyprian (c. 200-258) carried on a controversy with Stephen, the bishop of Rome, over how lapsed (but penitent) Christians were to be viewed and received by the Church. Their arguments deal with the basis for their stance, and Cyprian describes the stance of Stephen as the following: "Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down." But Cyprian asks, "Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written down must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: 'The book of this law shall not dpart out of they mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.'" (Epistle 73:2)
During this same controversy, Firmilian, the Bishop of Caeserea wrote to Cyprian and explained his view that "they who are in Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles." Here we see that it certainly was not the universal understanding that the bishop of Rome had some sort of special dispensation from Christ or Peter. Firmilian actually goes on to explain that Stephen the bishop of Rome is guilty of heresy and dividing the unity of the Church.
Again, my primary point being that clearly the early church fathers believed that the written Scriptures ("book of the law") was the authoritative source of the teachings of Christ and the apostles.
Hippolytus on Sola Scriptura
Hippolytus (c. 170-236): "There is, brethren, on God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source."
Let's Talk More about the Invocation of the Dead in Christ
This is an invitation to more dialogue on this subject. Last time I brought this up, there were concerns that I was overstating my case.
As far as I can tell the "biblical case" for talking to the dead in Christ is based upon the teaching of Hebrews which clearly tells us that we are surrounded by the great cloud of witnesses. And a verse in Revelation presents the saints in heaven offering bowls of incense before the lamb on the throne, and those bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8). My question is, "Am I missing anything?" Those Scriptures do not tell us to talk to the saints in heaven, and they do not tell us that they can hear us. Nor do they imply this. And part of our interpretation of these passages needs to include the rest of the apostolic traditions in Scripture.
Paul in particular has numerous occasions where he might make mention of such a reality. He is constantly writing to churches while he is in prison, awaiting trial, and having to deal with the reality of persecution, death of saints, and the doctrine of the resurrection. Why does Paul never make mention of this? And in fact, why does he seem to present things in a way that actually pushes against any notion of prayer to the saints?
Examples:
In Philippians Paul is struggling with whether or not it would be better to live or die. He of course says plainly that to die is gain since that would mean he would be with Christ (1:21-23). But he says that for him to remain in the flesh is better for the Philippians. Staying alive a little while longer, staying in the flesh, means Paul gets to "remain and continue" with them for their progress and joy of faith. But by the logic of prayers to the saints, Paul has it backwards. It would be better for Paul to die and go to heaven so that his prayers might be more effective for the Philippians. The arguments defending invocation of the saints insist that those who have died and gone to be with the Lord are more sanctified and in closer union to the Trinity and therefore their intercessions are that much more potent. But Paul says just the opposite. He says that staying in the flesh is more needful and more useful for the Philippians. Dying does not mean that he will go on to heaven and carry on a more effective ministry on their behalf. Neither does dying mean that Paul will "remain and continue" with them, only via the Holy Spirit. Paul assumes that his death will be a departure from the Philippians and that his ministry to them and for them will change significantly. Do not misunderstand me, Paul is carrying on worship and prayer before the lamb even now, but Paul knows nothing of the doctrine of the invocation of the dead.
Another example is 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul wants the Thessalonians not to be "ignorant" concerning those who have fallen asleep, and he wants to give comfort to those who are alive (1 Th. 4:13-18). First, here's a perfect opportunity for Paul to explain how those who have died in Christ actually can hear us when we talk to them. Here's a perfect opportunity to dispel our ignorance regarding those who have fallen asleep in death. But the comfort that Paul brings is the comfort of the resurrection, the comfort of the promise of Christ's appearing. The doctrine of the invocation of the saints is not the comfort Paul offers. Talking to the dead, far from being an affirmation of the doctrine of the resurrection, actually seems to be at odds with it. We are not gnostics, and therefore the victory of the resurrection of Jesus has only begun to burst out into this world. But the fullness of that victory will occur when I get my body back from the grave. When the worms and maggots are deprived of their gluttonous feasting, then we shall be reunited to speak to one another again. Prior to the resurrection, death is swallowed up in victory because Jesus is risen and he is busy driving death and evil out of this world, but talking to dead people is some form of hyper-preterism. Why do we need the resurrection if death is already done away with? The sting of death is gone; sin does not plague believers and therefore we can die and rest in peace in Christ. But death is still a reality; death does separate us from direct contact with those we love. Lastly, on this Thessalonians passage, Paul uses the description of the dead as being "asleep." I fully grant that this is metaphorical language, and I am not a proponent of the doctrine of "soul sleep." At the same time, the metaphor means something. And if Paul is trying to dispel our ignorance regarding those who have died in Christ, he is in no way suggesting that we ought to pray to them, ask them to pray for us, or in any way try to communicate with them. We don't talk to people when they're taking a nap or in the middle of the night when they're sleeping. The metaphor doesn't invite us to think that we ought to be talking with them. Rather, it invites us to think that we must wait for them to "wake up" at the resurrection.
Ok. Please hear me carefully. I'm throwing these passages out for discussion. I invite honest interaction here. I know I may sound polemic at points, but my point is not to offend anyone or suggest that people who don't agree with me are fools. My point is simply to restate what I've said before. We cannot invoke the saints in faith because God has not invited us to do so in His Word. At best, we are ignorant of how we commune with the departed saints. The biblical writers have countless opportunities to clarify, and they do not ever suggest that we can keep talking to them and they hear us after they have died. They are with Christ, they are worshipping the lamb on the throne, death is swallowed up in victory and we do not mourn like unbelievers, and yes their lives and legacies surround us as a great cloud of witnesses. And yes, in the Holy Spirit we are united together, and all of our lives are hid with God in Christ. Yes, and Amen. But to extrapolate beyond that, that we can and ought to talk to departed saints is to speculate beyond the Word of God.
And if God has not spoken, then we cannot act in faith.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Ezekiel, Peter, and the Arts
Part of Ezekiel's prophetic mission is a theatrical calling. Ezekiel is commissioned by God to create a rendering of Jerusalem on a clay tablet and then lay siege to the clay tablet. This siege includes a siege wall, a mound, camps, and battering rams (4:2). In addition, Ezekiel must "set his face against" the city, and he is to use an iron plate as a symbol of this. Of course his siege is enacted over the course of a year and a half, laying on his side in front of this model of Jerusalem (4:5-6).
During this siege, Ezekiel is given specific instructions regarding his diet. He may only drink water by certain measures (4:11), and a certain amount of bread. And this bread must be prepared over a fire fueled by human feces. After all that God has required, Ezekiel finally objects to these particular instructions insisting that this last dramatic enactment of the folly of Israel goes too far. It would actually require him to defile himself. "Ah, Lord Yahweh, Indeed I have never defiled myself from my youth till now; I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has abominable flesh ever come into my mouth" (4:14). And God relents and allows Ezekiel to cook over a fire fueled by cow dung instead.
Ezekiel's objection to God runs parallel to Peter's objection to the invitation to kill and eat on the balcony in Joppa (Acts 10:9-16). Similarly, Peter objects on the grounds that he has never defiled himself before. His specific objection is that he has never eaten anything common or unclean (Acts 10:14). Both stories have to do with the Gentiles. Peter is being prepared to preach the gospel and baptize the gentile Cornelius; Ezekiel is picturing how God will drive his people out of Israel into the lands of the Gentiles and eat defiled bread with them (4:13). Arguably the story of Acts is the record of the Spirit driving Christians out of Jerusalem into Gentile territories in order that the gospel might go out to the ends of the earth. But of course there are important contrasts: one situation is clearly a curse while the other is the beginning of blessing.
A couple other thoughts and a question: This scenario raises questions about morality and the arts. Ezekiel seems to object to God's instructions here based on the assumption that actually performing the theatrical act will itself constitute defilement even though it serves a higher prophetic purpose. But wound into this situation is the factor that God is the one commanding Ezekiel to do it.
So is Ezekiel right?
Sola Scriptura
Josh says in the comments that he was taught to ask the questions "Says who?" and "On what authority?" And it is those questions that has led him to question the reliability of some protestant doctrinal stances (Josh, correct me if I'm misrepresenting you).
Of course this goes to the heart of one of the central points of difference between Protestants and Orthodox and Roman Catholics. Protestants say that Scripture is the only ultimate, infallible authority, Orthodox point to Tradition/the Church as the ultimate authority, and Roman Catholics have the Pope. Orthodox and Roman Catholics object to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura on the grounds that this introduces anarchy into the Church. Instead of one Pope, we now have millions. And granted, there are plenty of anabaptists still carrying on like they are in fact descended from St. Peter, and some of them call themselves "presbyterian" or "reformed."
But the Magisterial Reformers have always been at war with such unbridled autonomy. At the same time, they also insisted that the Church could submit to the Scriptures as ultimate without resulting in relativistic splintering. They said that the Scriptures could be (and are) ultimate, and what they authoritatively say is not a secret so deep we need bishops to decipher the code nor is it so mysterious that disagreement between interpreters means it is insufficient. Of course all branches of Christendom hold the Scriptures in high regard, please don't misunderstand me. The question that we keep bumping into is whose interpretation is correct? And how do you know?
But one of the fundamental problems with asking the question this way is that it already assumes that Scripture isn't clear. Is the Word of God unclear? Or do reckless men twist the Scriptures to their own destruction? Yes, I know that there are some things that are hard to understand, but it is our problem, not God's, right?
And the comeback I anticipate is: Well, why do we have denominations and sects breeding like maggots in a trash can? How come every time you blink there's a new group of people and churches forming a new association and excommunicating the rest of Christendom? But my point is that in so far as these are acts of schism, bitterness, envy, and arrogance, they are acts of sin. And anyone who's been around the block in Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism knows that those sins are not absent there either. Unity on paper is not closer to real unity of purpose, unity of mind, communion of the saints, etc. And often this counterfeit unity passes for the real deal. We have apostolic succession, they solemnly insist, and meanwhile various branches of the church transfer their allegiance to a different archbishop, a different metropolitan, and they can call it "autocephalous" or "transferring jurisdictions" and claim they cannot be accused of being protestant schismatics. Come on, people. Just because Protestants tend to do their laundry out in public for everyone to see doesn't mean our Roman and Eastern brothers aren't busy bickering and dividing over their issues.
And the point: the sin of schism does not prove that Scripture is any less clear or any less sufficient for our needs. It does not prove that we need a class of gypsy priests to interpret the Scriptures like so many tea leaves for the ignorant masses. In fact, if anything, it proves our need for God's Word, and our insufficiency as sinful humans.
Sixteenth Sunday in Trinity: Theology of Other People 6: Lk. 7:18-50
Introduction
Today we consider the call to love the other people in our homes and families by considering a few more portions of our liturgy. The logic of the gospel is that we have been made alive together with these other saints, and we continue to live out an ecclesiology in our homes whether we realize it or not. Today, we think particularly about how God grows up and teaches us as his children in a context of mercy.
Lord Have Mercy
Since the early church, Christians have begun worship with the prayer, “Lord have mercy.” This is one of the common ways we see people addressing Jesus in the gospels (Mt. 15:22, 17:15, 20:30, Mk. 10:47, Lk. 17:13), and it comes with rich covenantal overtones in the Old Testament (e.g. Ps. 136, cf. Dt. 7:9, 12, 1 Kgs. 8:23, Neh. 1:5, Ps. 89:28). And the birth of Christ is the fulfillment of that covenant and mercy (Lk. 1:50, 54, 58, 72, 78). The Kyrie is a plea for God’s covenant promises in all of life for the whole world in Jesus. And as soon as we begin talking about covenant, we’re talking about generations, and that means children. We come as suppliants, inferiors, servants before a master, subjects before a king, as children before the Father. And this raises the question, how does our Father respond?
Jubilee is a Person (Lk. 7:18-29)
This mercy is not merely forgiveness, but comes in the form of sitting at the feet of Christ, listening to his teaching and instruction and finally being invited to eat with him. This pattern is played out vividly in the gospel. John has sent messengers to inquire if Jesus is the “Coming One,” and Jesus responds by describing his ministry (7:18-23). This description is in part a reference to Is. 61:1 which was the passage that Jesus began his ministry with in Luke (Lk. 4:16-21). Jesus has said that his ministry is to proclaim the “acceptable year of the Lord.” This word for “liberty” is only use a few other places, one of which is Lev. 25:10, describing the year of Jubilee, the year of forgiveness of debts, the return of land and inheritance (cf. Is. 61:2, 49:8). Jesus reflects on the ministry of John, and even tax collectors justify God (7:24-29).
Wisdom is a Forgiven Sinner (Lk. 7:30-50)
Because the Spirit of the Lord is upon Jesus, we should expect him to be filled with wisdom (e.g. Ex. 31:2-3, 28:3, Is. 11:2, Acts 6:3). And therefore, Jesus responding to the rejection of the Pharisees and lawyers (7:30), says that this generation is like foolish children who are amazed when the world doesn’t conform to their whims (7:31-32). Neither Jesus nor John the Baptist conformed to their preconceived notions (7:33-34), but Jesus says that wisdom is a woman whose children justify her (cf. 7:29). This flows right into the story of Jesus eating in a Pharisee’s house (7:36), and the implication is that the woman is an example of this wisdom. Notice that Jesus has just described his ministry as characterized by eating with sinners, and the very next episode is Jesus eating with a Pharisee and woman shows up who is a “sinner” (7:37, 39). The woman’s actions are lavish, overdone (even grotesque perhaps to us), but they are acts of hospitality and love (Lk. 7:44-47). While there is perhaps room for nuance, the parable suggests that these great acts of love are a response to a great act of forgiveness (7:41-42, 47). The word for “forgave” means to release, to free, to bestow liberty (e.g. Acts 3:14, 25:11, 16, Phm. 1:22), and of course it also frequently refers to how God has dealt with us in Christ (Rom. 8:32, Eph. 4:32). And as this story teaches us, forgiveness forgets debts. If this story is a picture of the liturgy, following the pattern of our worship, then Christ’s teaching and instruction comes in the context of mercy and forgiveness at a meal. The love of the sinful woman is evoked by the embodiment of Jubilee in the person of Jesus. Jesus is the return of the inheritance, Jesus is our return home, Jesus is our invitation to begin again.
Conclusions & Applications
As we consider the pattern of our worship as a blueprint for treatment of other people, and particularly those other people in our own home, it should be noted that the entire liturgy works as a good outline for disciplining our children in general.
Jesus eats with sinners; Jesus is a friend of sinners. And this means that we are called to imitate this in our homes cheerfully. The sinners that come to your table need to be invited in the spirit of Jubilee: Welcome home.
Bestowing forgiveness is an act of nobility and royalty. God wants us to live lavishly, with forgiveness to spare at every point (Mt. 18:22). We have endless supplies of grace, treasuries of mercy untold. We are rich because God is (Eph. 2:4). Fathers, you are called to this in particular.
We want our homes to be rich with mercy and grace. This is not to downplay the need for discipline, it is to insist that it be surrounded with mercy and forgiveness. He who is forgiven much will love much, and we are required to believe this and live it even when it doesn’t look like it’s “working.” Grace works.
We are called to live as embodiments of Jubilee, and Jesus says that there are particular rewards for those who bestow mercy upon the youngest and most insignificant disciples (Mt. 10:42). This is wisdom.
In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
August
15. The Principle of Protestantism by Schaf
16. Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective by Letham
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tertullian and Iranaeus on Sola Scriptura
Tertullian (c. 155-220): Arguing with Hermogenes' teaching that matter is eternal, "But whether all things were made out of any underlying matter, I have yet failed anywhere to find. Where such a statement is written, Hermogenes' shop must tell us. If it is nowhere written, then let it fear the woe which impends on all who add or take away from the written word." Tertullian "condemns as madness" the notion that there was some kind of secret unwritten tradition of the Apostles. This was the doctrine of the Gnostics who believed that there was "secret knowledge" known and revealed only to a select few.
Iranaeus (c. 130-200) in his Against Heresies argues that the Scriptures where the safeguarding of the traditions of the apostles. According to Iranaeus, there are no unwritten traditions of the Apostles. Scripture is the authoritative record of the doctrines, teachings, and practices of the Apostles (cf. Against Heresies, III.1,1.)
These fathers did indeed teach that the Scriptures were to be understood and read in accordance with the regula fidei (the rule of faith) which was itself the received summary of what the Scriptures teach. But the apostolic tradition and the regula fidei both had their source in the Scriptures themselves.
The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 22-26)
Clement on Sola Scriptura
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215): "But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves." (Stromata, Bk. VII, ch. 16)
By the way, Matheson notes in a footnote that Clement declares the legend of Mary's perpetual virginity as false, despite the claims of some that this was a universally accepted belief.
(The Shape of Sola Scriptura, 24)
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Frankenstein Against Nature
Frankenstein opens as a series of letters from Robert Walton to his sister, Margaret Saville. Walton has determined to find a sailing passage through the north pole, and the letters detail his travels to St. Petersburg, Russia, and then on to the coast before finding a boat and a crew. The story begins on a note of impossibility and doom. Even as the sailors set out in clear water, it's autumn, and Walton notes that winter is coming on; he doesn't know if he'll be able to find a clear passage through the north pole. This sets up the setting for the whole story: a mission of doom, striving against nature, trying to accomplish the impossible. The story begins in autumn; it begins just as everything is about to freeze, as everything is about to die.
Mary Shelley
Mary Shelley (1797 - 1851) lived what appears to been be a fairly horrific life. She easily stands as a sort of icon for the romantic, feminist, intellectual and bohemian lifestyle. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, famed early feminist, died giving birth to her, her father, William Godwin, was a philosopher (enough said), her step-mother openly hated her, her step-sister was suicidal and eventually succeeded in the deed, and at the age of 19, Shelley tried to escape her familial hell by eloping with the soon-to-be literary genius of the English speaking world, (and already married) Percy Bysshe Shelly. The two of them and a sister left for the continent for a year of travels and returned with Mary pregnant with their first child that would die in infancy. Of their four children, only one survived, and Percy Shelley drowned only a few years later in a boating accident at the age of 30.
Speaking of her book Frankenstein, she writes in her Author's Introduction: "And now, once again, I bid my hideous progeny go forth and prosper. I have an affection for it, for it was the offspring of happy days, when death and grief were but words which found no true echo in my heart. Its several pages speak of many a walk, many a drive, and many a a conversation, when I was not alone; and my companion was one who, in this world, I shall never see more. But this is for myself; my readers have nothing to do with these associations." (Frankenstein, Puffin Classics, 7-8)
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tradition
"In present day usage the term commonly denotes unwritten doctrines handed down orally in the Church. It is therefore often contrasted with Scriptures. However, a remarkable scholarly consensus shows that in the early church, Scripture and Tradition were in no way exclusive concepts because they coincided with each other completely.
...
The concept of "tradition" when used by these [apostolic] fathers, is simply used to designate the body of doctrine which was committed to the Church by the Lord and His Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication. The body of doctrine, however, was essentially identical regardless of how it was communicated. No evidence suggests that the apostolic fathers believed they had recourse to any type of secret oral traditions. At this point in the Church's history, Scripture and the Christian tradition were coinherent concepts..."
(The Shape of Sola Scriptura, by Mathison, 19, 21)
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Was He Speaking Ex Cathedra?
Gregory the Great (Pope?) writes: "Ego autem fidenter dico, quia quisquis se universalem Sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elatione sue Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se caeteris praeponit. Nec dispari superbia ad errorem ducitur, quia sicut perversus ille Deus videri vult super omnes homines; ita quisquis iste est, qui solus Sacerdos appelari appetit, super reliquos Sacerdotes se extollit."
Which roughly translates: "Therefore I fully affirm that whoever calls himself the universal Priest, or wants to be called that elevates himself to Antichrist, because he vaunts himself over all the others. Not only does this extreme arrogance lead to error, it's also perverse since this person wants to be seen as God over all people; thus whoever he is, who wants to be called the Priest alone, he exalts himself over all the other priests." (Cited in Principle of Protestantism, 169 -- Feel free to correct my translation if it needs it.)
One postscript to this quotation: This is an example of the medieval and patristic pedigree of Protestantism. It wasn't like Luther and Calvin came along and decided they really didn't like the Pope, flipped through their Bibles till they came to a bad name to call him, and them slapped "Antichrist" on the Papal See. They were in good catholic company calling the office of the "universal bishop of the Church" Antichrist. It was at least part of the teaching of the fathers.
Doug Jones on Sola Scriptura
From Doug Jones' Forward to Sola Scriptura by Keith Mathison:
"C.S. Lewis once quipped that the more medieval he became in his outlook, the farther from Roman Catholicism he seemed to grow. The history of the doctrine of sola Scriptura tends to produce the same effect in many of us. Once one gets beyond the superficial, individualistic, confused accounts of this doctrine presented in contemporary Evangelicalism, this teaching becomes very natural, organic, medieval, and apostolic.
In contrast, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox accounts fall out of rather perfectionistic and rationalistic commitments that are alien to the earthiness of biblical reality. Submitting to an infallible magisterium requires relatively little faith; everything is, in principle, neat and clean, like a doctor's office or a robot husband. A perfect husband would make for a very easy marriage; faith wouldn't be hard at all... Submission takes on much more fascinating dimensions when marriage involves sinners...
In this light, the various widely publicized departures of many Evangelicals to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have the distinct aroma of youthful haste and short-term zeal. The Sanhedrin was far better organized than the fishermen, and it had a grand liturgy, an authoritative line of oral tradition, and a succession of leaders. In a healthy church, those forms are good and holy. But to have turned to the Sanhedrin at that time would have been to embrace apostasy. Truth, beauty, and goodness were with the fishermen."
The Temporary Historical Necessity of Protestantism
Schaf insists that Protestantism earns its right to exist only for as long as we offer to the rest of the Church significant correction in areas that need it. A sect, if we are willing to admit the title, "loses its right to exist, in the same degree in which the body from which it is a secession has corrected the faults that led to it... If sects would be true to themselves, they must as soon as they have fulfilled their commission unite themselves again with the general life of the Church, that they may thus as organic members of the body acquire new vital energy; and the Church, on her side, should make special efforts to gather once more under her motherly protection and care, the children that have forsaken her and are now estranged from her bosom. To this duty the Reformed Church is specially called, as the largest part of these modern separatist movements have sprung from her communion." (134-135)
Episcopacy and the Leaven of the Pharisees
Schaf also takes the Anglo-Catholic Oxford movement to task: He suggests that many who are in this school are attracted to it by a "feeling of poetical romance" and not a few of them have aspirations to the hierarchy inherent in an episcopal system. And for all their insistence on history, Schaf says that this is the glaring hole in their system. The "utter misapprehension of the divine significance of the Reformation, with its consequent development, that is of the entire Protestant period of the Church." They have no conception of historical development, much less the great blessing of the Reformation to the broader Church. He calls their "external, mechanical conception of the Church and episcopacy" nothing more than the "old leaven of the Pharisees." He bases his assertions on the fact that there is no scriptural authority for such a rigid apostolic succession as is commonly held in those communions that insist upon it. There is not high priestly caste in the Christian Church, clergy are servant-leaders of the flock, but are in an important sense still members of the priesthood of all believers. Their's is a specific calling in the body of Christ which includes real authority, but it is not a hierarchical system of automatic authority. Finally he scoffs at those who would think that merely returning to an episcopal polity would fix all the problems of Protestantism: "Preposterous imagination! Can the Church be renovated, by putting on a new coat?" (122-126)
The Prostitution of Protestantism
Schaf decries the multiplication of denominations and sects in Christendom and insists that this is not inherent in the Protestant principle: "If such were the fact, the Reformation must stand in direct contradiction to the holy scriptures, and be adjudged by its own umpire to condemnation, as a sinful work of man... Teh sect-system, like Rationalism, is a prostitution and caricature of true Protestantism, and nothing else... Away with human denominations, down with religious sects! Let our watchword be: One spirit and one body! One Shepherd and one flock!... Rationalism and Sectarianism are the most dangerous enemies of the church at the present time. They are both but different sides of one and the same principle, a onesided, false subjectivity, sundered from the authority of the objective. Rationalism is theoretic Sectarianism; Sectarianism is practical Rationalism." (119, 121)
Monday, August 25, 2008
Get Rid of Your Own Popery First
Schaf identifies rationalism as a problem that has infected both Protestant and Roman Churches. Of course keeping in mind that Schaf was writing in the mid nineteenth century, this is still fairly prophetic as things have tended. But whatever the case, he suggests that whatever common enemies and problems we have ought to be solved first. Before taking aim at eachother there ought first to be a concerted effort to eradicate common philosophical problems. He says, "Luther and Calvin, if they should make their appearance now, would act very differently, in the altered state of things, from what they did three hundred year ago. Their main zeal would be directed no doubt against such purely negative pseudo-protestantism [Protestant Rationalism], as something altogether worse than popery itself..." And turning to the Protestant problem with rationalism he exhorts us: "Let us first with united strength expel the devil from our own temple, into which he has stolen under the passport of our excessive toleration, before we proceed to exorcise and cleanse the dome of St. Peter." (p. 104-5)
Really Alive
My children are alive. They burst with sounds and action. They cannot be stilled.
My son is four years old. He's four years old and forty-one pounds. His bedroom is an arsenal of swords, guns, and armor. He is a fighter.
The other day we had company coming for dinner. This company was coming in the form of a family blessed to have four boys, and the prospect of war games throughout the night was clearly on my son's mind. A little while before the guests arrived, my wife and I found him in the living room lining up the guns and swords and various pieces of armor. I could almost hear him saying to himself, 'And we might need this, and this, and this...' Of course his mother ordered him to return the weapons to his room; he could display them there to his heart's content.
It was not long after that when my son tore into the room where I was standing. He was armed to the teeth and brandishing a sword over his head and cried out in his fiercest voice, "I'll cut you in half, and leave you in one piece!" After I had laughed a good bit, I explained what he had just said, and he thought it was good fun too and has since made it part of his regular warrior litany.
But my son is not just a fighter. He's also a teacher. I was blessed to overhear a recent conversation he was having with his 2 year old sister that went something like this:
"Felicity, do you know about mosquitoes?"
"Uh-huh"
"You know that they suck your blood?"
"Okay."
"You have blood under all your skin."
"Okay."
"And there's bones that are hard under your skin.
"Oh."
"Skin goes all over your body."
"Body?"
"And you have bones too, under your skin."
And at this point, River began striking various bones on his chest and arms and head to demonstrate, and Felicity thought this was hilarious and began mimicking her masochistic brother. But I was pleased that blood-sucking mosquitoes turned into a fairly worthwhile conversation about human anatomy.
My daughter still defies most story telling. She sucks a pacifier like Maggie Simpson, and although she does speak, it is still in fairly simple, disjointed sentences. So much of her style is in the tone of her voice, the expressions on her face, and the legacy she has created in emotions and creativity.
Sometime last spring she amazed us with her sleeping trick:
My daughter is not the most plump of toddler girls. In fact, I would describe her as on the petite side of petite. And this is probably related in some degree to the fact that she is fairly particular about her eating habits. Which is to say that she is often not interested in eating. Undeterred, her mother and I, are nevertheless convinced that eating is one of those things that isn't as optional as she would prefer, and thus, we often find ourselves at dinner tables together negotiating with spoons and forks and whatever edible substances we can maneuver into her mouth. On one occasion while we were working our way through the dinner liturgy, my daughter suddenly leaned her head back in the high chair, closed her eyes, and went suddenly still. She was asleep. Of course this was a daring and completely unexpected theatrical stunt, and we all approved of its creativity. After some cheers and approbation, we told her to fall asleep again, and then told her to open her mouth. We found that she was still able to take bites while sleeping upright in her high chair.
Of course there are three of them now: Tovia Ann has been this side of the uterus for just over five months. For those of you keeping stats at home, she's just about ready to push over eleven pounds. She has elbow dimples and happy thigh rolls to prove her mother's milk goodness. Today however, we reached an even more significant threshold. I must say that this little lady has already outdone herself in the smile department. A few words, a hello, or a smile in her direction is all it takes for a big open-mouthed grin to break across her face. And when this woman smiles, her body gets into it. When she smiles, most of her body writhes with joy. Smiling is a full contact sport for Tovia. And of course she's also very capable of various joyful noises as well. She 'talks' and coos and babbles like the best of infants, and Jenny has even had moments where her happy cooing is something very close to a giggle. But all of that was put behind us today. Today we arrived in the real world: wide-open, full-bodied laughter. We should have known that it would be the kids. River and Felicity are so much more funny than we are. And so it was bath time and the kids were doing their thing in the tub, and the next thing you know, Tovia is giggling and chuckling at her older siblings. They were laughing at her and she was laughing at them, and Jenny and I were laughing at them all. Her laugh sounds like it was pre-recorded. It's such a small, tiny baby laugh, and of course on her body, that's not too surprising.
I continue to be amazed by these three people that live in my home. They've moved into our lives and taken up residence; it really is quite the trip. These three semi-permanent guests really are full of life, and our home is so much more lively with them. Our dinner table is a constant ruckus, our living room often looks like the remains of elementary school classroom with crayons and books and papers scattered about. The house just sounds alive; those precious few hours of silence at night with a possible pause in the afternoon are just the recharging hours. They're just getting ready to live again. They're just getting ready to come back from the dead, getting ready to teach us resurrection life again. And really, sometimes I wonder if they aren't all just being nice to us. Maybe they're all like my daughter, and they've just decided to act like their sleeping. They're just being nice to their tired old parents and humoring us for a bit. They close their eyes and lean back in their beds and pretend to sleep. But it's really just part of the show. They're really alive.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Fifteenth Sunday of Trinity Season: Toward a Theology of Other People 5: Pss. 122, 124, & Mt. 28:16-20
Opening Prayer: Gracious Father, we thank you that you have invited us here yet again. We thank you that you speak to us again, despite the fact that we are quick to forget what you have said, and despite the fact that we have often ignored what you have said. Empower your Word now, by your Spirit, and give us ears to hear, hearts to treasure your words, and the ability to obey. Through Christ our Lord.
Introduction
We continue our consideration this morning of a theology of other people. Today we consider those other people closest to us in space and time: our families. These neighbors live in the same house as you, and some of them sleep in the same bed as you. These people are no less gifts to you, they form a central part of your tradition, and they are the first place you are called upon to express catholicity.
The Home as Firstfruits of Church
While there is always the danger of overemphasizing the importance of family and devaluing the Church, the writers of Scripture continually point at the family as one of the central evidences of whether Christians are getting it. If you understand the gospel and what is going on here every Lord’s Day that flows out into your homes, and if you don’t understand what God is bestowing upon you here, that too will be evident in the culture of your family. The home is the firstfruits of the Church. So this week and next week, we will use portions of the liturgy as our sermon text.
In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19-20)
We are called to worship in the Triune Name week after week, and this is because it is your new name, the name applied to you when you were baptized; it also the name that was given to your spouse, your children, your roommates, and your borders. This initial call to worship is also based upon the apostolic authority given by Jesus when he sent his disciples into the world. As the baptized disciples of Jesus Christ, you and your households gather here in submission to the authority of Jesus Christ, and you affirm this and commit yourself to this reality when you declare your ‘Amen!’ to this call. This baptism marks your entrance into the holy people of God and requires you to view the other saints in your home as holy ones. Holiness is not a heavenly glow that circles your head; it means that you and your house are summonsed by the God of the universe to be his servants in worship and in the world. Those saints who you live with are part of God’s Church, and your words and actions towards one another reflect a certain view of the body of Christ. And Christ’s commission concludes with a promise that is both a blessing and warning: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
The Lord Be With You (Ruth 2:4, Ps. 122:1-2, 124:8)
The opening call to worship is followed by a series of greetings and declarations of our intent to worship God. We begin by blessing one another. ‘The Lord be with you’ is an ancient Hebrew greeting and blessing (Ruth 2:4, 1 Sam. 17:37, 1 Ch. 22:16, 2 Th. 3:16). We worship in the power of the Spirit of the Lord, and therefore it is necessary for us to have the Lord and his blessing for our worship to be meaningful and pleasing and acceptable in the sight of God our Father. The following declarations are taken from the Psalms of Ascent (122:1-2, 124:8). These psalms are those which were sung and chanted as the Israelites ascended to Jerusalem for the feasts and worship. Like them, we ascend to Mount Zion, the heavenly Jerusalem with the great cloud of witnesses and the angels. We are going to the Lord’s house, and we are doing it with joy. And we have every reason to believe that we will be received and blessed because Yahweh is our creator and redeemer. Once again, we appeal to the Name of God, the God of the Exodus, the God of Creation, the God who has mercy upon his chosen nation. All of this is not unique for Sunday morning. On Monday you are called to bless one another as fellow pilgrims. On Tuesday, you must remember where you are going next Lord’s Day. If you call out God’s blessing upon one another here, you may not go home with a mouth full of cursing.
Conclusions & Applications
Your family and household make up the first stage of Christian ministry. In other words, ministering to your wife, husband, and children is church ministry. In baptism, those other people were joined to Christ, anointed as holy ones in the house of God, and are fellow citizens with you (Eph. 2:14-22). Genuine catholicity means being catholic toward the saints closest to you. How can you prepare to love the saints at the Nazarene Church if you do not love the saints in your own home?
Pure and undefiled religion is the care of orphans and widows in their distress (Js. 1:27). This does not end with the family, but it certainly begins there. Remember that the call to care for orphans and widows starts with your own (1 Tim. 5:8, 16). And this includes the warning against creating any in your own homes through neglect or mistreatment.
All of this is a call to be the Church. You are no less the Church when you are driving home in the car together, when you are sitting at the dinner table together, or when there is miscommunication, misunderstanding, and sin. Remember, we are the people of God who confess their sins week after week. As we learn this liturgy of blessing and forgiveness in God's house, we become this liturgy in our homes.
In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!
Closing Prayer: Gracious Father, you have been so kind to us. You have forgiven us and loved us in a far deep way than we even understand. You continue to show your grace to us week after week, and for this we are thankful and amazed. You are good. Therefore, we ask you to continue your kindness by giving us grace to love you and those you have put in our homes and lives. Through Jesus who taught us to pray, singing…
Friday, August 22, 2008
Faith and the Invocation of the Saints
Central to the Reformers' objections to certain practices in the Roman Church was the issue of faith. And here I'm not referring initially to the issue of sola fide, though that does come in later. The issue was worship, and the question had to do with worshipping in faith.
So let's take the question of the invocation of departed saints: Mary, Peter, John, etc. Whether this invocation is done through icons or not, the issue has to do with the question of faith.
It is not faith to believe that if you jump off the Empire State Building you will grow wings and soar into the air like an eagle. And it won't do to start quoting Bible verses like the devil, insisting that angels will bear you up if you should happen to not grow wings. Jesus answered that kind of twisting of Scripture in his own temptation. But the point is that faith always clings to the Word of God. It is not faith if God has not spoken. It is not faith to believe that you are still in your sins and God is out to damn you because the clear proclamation of the Scriptures is Jesus is risen, there is now no more condemnation, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Likewise, it is not faith to believe that the world is going to end any minute now as soon as the antichrist shows up and most of the world begins worshipping him and offering their children on neo-pagan altars. Faith sees the world in all its goodness, in all of its ugliness, in all of its glory, in all of its mess, and believes that Word of God which says Christ shall reign until all of his enemies have been made his footstool, the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea, and that God did not send his own son into the world to condemn the world but that through him the world might be saved.
The point is that faith clings to the Word of God. And furthermore, the apostle Paul says that it is the Word that actually creates faith. "How shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard?... So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:14-17)
The problem with prayers to the saints or invocation of the saints is not that they can't hear us, don't care about us, and are otherwise unavailable and uninterested in the affairs of the Church on earth. The problem is that God has not spoken to us about this. The Scriptures tell us many things, and they indicate a great deal about death, the intermediate state, the resurrection, and the communion of the saints. But for all that, if invoking the saints and calling upon them to offer prayers on our behalf was so important, so normal, so natural, why is it not at least referenced one time in passing? Why don't we have at least one example of some apostle calling on the Mother of our Lord to intercede on their behalf? Granting that the saints in heaven *might* be able to hear all of us in some miraculous way through the power of the Spirit is not the same thing as having the Word of God tell us clearly that this in fact is the case.
This means that by definition the saints cannot be called upon in faith. Brothers and sisters who call on the departed saints do so in an unbelieving way. Or to put it another way: they must do so trusting someone or something else besides the Word of God. But there is no faith apart from the Word of God, and whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). Do the math.
We do know that the saints are in heaven worshipping God. We do know that they pray for us, and that we join in with them in worship as we join that great cloud of heavenly witnesses.
But for all that, we have not been invited, encouraged, or lead in any direct way to talk to them. And the weight of Scripture actually pushes us in the other direction.
At the same time, I would be one in favor of recovering a more robust Protestant celebration of the saints. Remembering their lives, their gifts, their struggles, and all that they have added to the Body of Christ is something we need to recover. Songs, poetry, stories, and art are all ways that cultures remember. Furthermore, a more robust recognition of their presence in worship, giving thanks to God for them (by name), and asking God to give us their courage and faithfulness. Protestant amnesia is certainly a significant problem, and it cannot be surprising that our children continue to grow up and leave the faith, almost as if they have forgotten us. But they have learned the lessons well: we do not remember that great cloud of witnesses and so neither do they.
Schaf: Justification and Sanctification
Central to Schaf's work (The Principle of Protestantism) is the insistence that the Church as the body of Christ on the earth possesses the fullness of Christ now in no less or greater a degree than when Christ first ascended into heaven and poured out the Spirit of the Father on the Church. And at the same time, this reality is still being worked out in history. In other words, the task of the Church is to grow into and more fully develop what is already there, what has already been given in the gift of the Spirit. Of course the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ and therefore in him, the fullness of the Trinity is bestowed upon us. Yet, there is a continual working out of this reality. The Christ whom we have become one with in the Spirit must still be impressed upon us more and more. At the end, when the kingdom is delivered to the Father, and Christ is fully and obviously all in all, then this gap will be closed. The reality will have worked its way out into all of reality.
In Protestant terminology, this is the relationship between justification, sanctification, and glorification in individual soteriology. But this pattern that exists in individual Christian lives, is the same basic pattern of the Church. And this relates to all of the most significant issues of conversation between Rome and the Reformation. The place of the Scriptures and Tradition is a question of this story, the relationship between sanctification and justification. The Reformers have always insisted that at the moment of regeneration, the fullness of salvation is bestowed. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the action of God giving himself. Participation in the Triune Life is Eden restored, forgiveness of sins, a righteous standing before God, and the joy of eternal life. At the same time, this reality must be worked out in time. The holiness, justice, and grace of justification must be impressed upon the entire life of a believer, until no gap remains, until the reality becomes reality (glorification).
So similarly, the Church too has been given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost was the justification of the Church as a whole. Against her, the gates of Hades will not prevail come what may. Yet, the Spirit was poured out in order to build up the Church, to equip the saints for ministry, to fit the saints together until they have formed the one new man in Christ, until the gospel has filled the earth, until all the enemies of God have been made the footstool of Christ. This is the sanctification of the Church, the growing up of the Church, the continual reformation of the Church. This is the principle of protestantism, as Schaf sees it. It is the principle of working out the reality of salvation, the reality of the kingdom in every area of life.
The challenge is always to avoid the extremes of either stagnation, assuming that what has been given is the end of the story, or revolution, forsaking what has been given in the name of "growth." On the one hand, some think thirteen was a great age or maybe sixteen, and they are trying to stay there. Maybe we even liken it to a medical condition where someone's body stops growing. On the other hand, others really like the tumor that is growing out of the side of their head and don't want to operate. Both are highly problematic conditions. And Schaf wants to argue for a catholic continuity while insisting that the Church must grow up. But of course it must grow up into Christ, who is already present in the Church by the Spirit in reality. The reality must put on reality. Christ must put on Christ. The Body of Christ must become what she is.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
More Schaff on Tradition and the Jesuits
More Schaff:
"[Tradition is] the regenerated reason, the Christian consciousness of the Church; which stands not beside the scriptures as an independent fountain, but is simply the stream of their contents reaching to us through the life of the Church, embracing always only what is contained in the scriptures themselves." (91)
And to the claim by some that it is only by Tradition that we know the contents of the Scriptures, Schaf responds with a quotation from one Nitzch: "The Church has not made the scriptures genuine by acknowledging them, bu the scriptures have demonstrated themselves to her, and now make the Church genuine." (92)
And to the accusation that a demotion of Tradition to a level below that of scripture will invite all manner of subjectivity and chaos in interpretation (everyone reading their bibles and thinking, O horrors!), Schaff replies: "It is prodigous injustice to ascribe all clearness to man's word, and all darkness to the word of God." (93)
In a grand suggestive moment, Schaff suggests that the Roman Church is entrenched in various forms of rationalism. He asserts in one place that the "Jesuits first proclaimed the principle of the sovereignty of the people, which produced the French Revolution, and by their casuistry opened the way for the formal overthrow of all morality, with which all religious faith also must necessarily fall at the same time." (103)
(The Principle of Protestantism, by Philip Schaff or Schaf)
Monday, August 18, 2008
Fourteenth Sunday of Trinity Season: Theology of Other People 4: Ephesians 2
Opening Prayer: Gracious Father, we ask that you would remind us this morning of all that you have done for us, how far you have brought us, and how merciful you have been to us all along the way. And having reminded us of your grace, give us the courage and wisdom to understand where we are now, and where we are going. Through Christ our Lord, Amen!
Introduction
We’ve considered the fact that the people God has given to us are gifts, and that they form the tradition that God has bestowed upon us. We also considered the command to pursue like mindedness. And we insisted that unity of mind is not the beginning of apathy but the beginning of sacrificial transfiguration. Today we consider the place of Trinity Reformed Church in the broader body of Christ, and the fact that this transfiguration of the world includes the entire body of Christ together.
Overview of the Text
Paul begins by reminding the Ephesians where they have come from, who they once were (Eph. 2:1-3). But the rich mercy and grace of God has made them alive together and raised them up together and seated them with Christ together (2:5-6). Based on what comes after this, the ‘together’ is referring to the Jews and Gentiles being saved together (cf. 2:11-18). God has equipped them all to walk in good works and this is his ‘workmanship’ in them (2:4-10). All of this kindness should remind them of the divisions and alienation they experienced from God and neighbor (2:11-13), since Christ has broken down the dividing wall, making peace, reconciling men to God through the cross. Proof of all this is the preaching of peace to those both far and near (2:14-17). And Paul repeats the idea of being “one” several times (2:14, 15, 16). This also includes mutual access to the Father through “one Spirit” (2:18), and that means that there is a common citizenship in the household of God (2:19). This household is being built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with the Messiah as the cornerstone, and as this structure is fitted together it grows into a “holy temple in the Lord” (2:21). And just so the Ephesians don’t miss it, he says they are also being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit (2:22).
Soteriology is Ecclesiology
What theologians call “soteriology”, the study of salvation, is central to Paul’s argument regarding what the church is and what she is called to (“ecclesiology”). This comes out more if we consider the tabernacle/temple imagery throughout the passage: we are his building project (2:9), brought near by the blood of Christ (2:13), fellow citizens with the “holy ones” of the house of God (2:19), a holy temple and dwelling place of God (2:21-22). With this context the theme of being made “one” echoes the building of the tabernacle which was to be made into “one” (26:6, 11, 36:13, 18). Likewise preaching peace to those who are far and near is a quotation from Isaiah 57 which falls on the heels of God’s resolution to have a house of prayer for all nations on his holy mountain (Is. 56:7, 57,:13). Making alive, raising up, and sitting in heavenly places together has everything to do with being built up into the house of God. “We” are his building project together; in other words, salvation is being the house of God together with all of God’s people. Or, we might say that there is only one person who is made alive, raised up, and seated in heavenly places, there is only “one new man” and “one body” which has access to the Father through the “one Spirit.” This should cause great humility, thankfulness, and hope in us as we consider the past, present, and future.
Trinity in Context
Our immediate story is shaped significantly by Christ Church. We need to continue to work at humility, gratitude, and hope in this relationship. We are a little sister congregation, and we need to guard against the sins of little sisters. A robust, enthusiastic thankfulness for what God has done and continues to do with our brothers and sisters there needs to be the key note in our words and thoughts and actions. If there are accusations, we want them to be of the sort that would reveal a deep respect and love for those saints and nothing short of that. We are being built into the temple of God together with them.
We are also part of the broader Church in Moscow. Paul says that the unity we share in the body of Christ is a citizenship in the household of God. This city of God in Moscow is bound together by one Spirit. We are being built up into the temple of God; therefore we ought to get used to getting along. Together we are responsible for the state of our city. We are all being built up into one new man.
We are also related to the broader catholic church throughout the world. We are bound by oaths to the CREC, and this serves as broader accountability, encouragement, and fellowship. But we are also part of the historic Reformation tradition which has its roots in the Medieval and Patristic Church and includes many different communions and churches. We seek to build upon the foundation of the “apostles and prophets” (2:20) until we are all built up into the house of God through the Spirit.
This recognition of who we are in the broader context needs to be done, not so that we become muddled or rootless. Meeting your neighbors shouldn’t make you forget where you live. This recognition needs to be made so that we can be thankful, and so we can begin to know how God might lead us to serve others. And it should not be forgotten that your husband, wife, children, and roommates are some of the closest neighbors you are called to serve. Do this in humility, gratitude, and hope.
In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Amen!
Closing Prayer: Almighty God, we ask that you would remind us of who we are and where we have come from not so that we might be haunted by sin but so that we might revel in your kindness to us. Therefore we thank you and we praise you for your mercy and for your wisdom. And we ask you to cause us to walk in thankfulness, through Jesus who taught us to pray...
Proverbs 22:26-23:3
The broader context of these verses is ten prohibitions like the original Decalogue (22:22-23:11).
This section has a beginning and ending inclusio that includes the promise that the Lord, their Redeemer, “will plead their cause” (22:23, 23:11). And this forms the overall theme of this Proverbial Decalogue – the ten commandments relating to the poor and finances in general.
The inclusio also forms the moral context for the commands: Yahweh pleads the cause of the poor and is able to touch anything – ie. the “soul.” But this also reminds us that the consequences of foolish actions and dealings are not random. They may be predictable sometimes, but they are still the acts of the “Redeemer.”
The first four “commandments” are prohibitions (22:22, 24, 26, 28), the fifth is a positive implied command (22:29), and the last five are prohibitions (23:1-3, 4, 6, 9, 10).
The second and third ‘commandments’ have to do with forming relationships with relation to money. Anger isn’t good for business and if you learn the angry man’s ways, you won’t be blessed either (22:24-25). The warning against becoming a ‘surety for debt’ is repeated throughout the Proverbs (Pr. 6:1, 11:15, 17:18, 20:16, 22:26, 27:13). In one place the warning is particularly related to “foreigners” (11:15), but 17:18 warns against becoming surety for a “friend.” This warning is not just about loaning someone money or starting a business with someone. It’s about the ignorant mindset that goes into business dealings with eyes closed. The situation would also arise as a result of being asked for money. And this son of Solomon is royalty. He’s a rich guy with a bed to sleep on, but the wise man warns against being the financial backstop for business gurus who come along looking for help. This is also protection for the poor who were not to be charged interest in loans (Lev. 25:37). This general warning may also be a warning against three-party deals.
The “ancient landmark” was originally related to the boundaries set in the land of Israel after the conquest (Dt. 19:14, 27:17). The “landmarks” were sacred because of how they fulfilled the covenant promises of God to Israel. But the economy was also tied to the land carefully. Every 50 years in the year of jubilee the land reverted to its original owner, and the ancient landmarks would have been permanent markers of which land belonged to whom (Lev. 25:8-17) and those provisions have everything to do with care for the poor of the land (25:23ff). This same command is repeated in the ‘tenth commandment’ in 23:10, more explicitly warning against oppressing orphans and widows.
The fifth commandment is the only positive command of the ten. The implied command is: work hard and you will stand with kings and famous men (22:29). This is a promise in a couple of ways: first, the obvious promise that God blesses hard work. But within in this context, “hard work” is tied to the proper care of the poor. The implication is that care for the poor, that kind of hard work, is the way to stand with kings. He who has an open hand is given more, he who serves is great, and he who is faithful over a little will be given much.
The theme of kings pushes us into the sixth commandment that warns against being deceived by appearances. The specific warning is with regard to the “delicacies” of the rich, their food, eating with a ruler (23:1-2). But the prohibition is particularly not to desire his riches (23:3). This is because things are not as they seem, appearances are deceptive. It’s likely that being invited to dinner at a ruler’s house is not merely for chit-chat. This would be a great honor, but it is most likely an interview, a test, a trial, etc. Remember other banquets that were for this very purpose: Naboth (1 Kgs 21) or Esther (5:4ff). Remember the fruit of the tree that was a test for Adam and Eve, and the Lord’s Supper is a banquet of this sort as well (1 Cor. 11:27-34). The “put a knife to your throat” is reminiscent of the Lord’s hyperbolic commands about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands to avoid sin. The point is to walk circumspectly. Live and walk with discernment.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Trinity Reformed Church Statement on Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Reformed Catholicity
The following will be up on the Trinity Reformed Church web site when our new site is up and running, but since there were a few folks interested in seeing it sooner, I post it here for your convenience.
One holy, catholic and apostolic Church
Trinity Reformed Church recognizes itself as part of the ancient Christian Church established by the apostles, rejoicing in the “faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jud. 1:3). We are thankful for the fellowship we share with all the faithful in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church throughout the ages. We affirm with the apostle that there is one body and one Spirit, just as there is one hope, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:5). Therefore with the holy fathers, we confess that one faith as it has been handed down in the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon, and Athanasian Creed. On this basis we cheerfully recognize the Trinitarian baptisms of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, receive them (and all others who confess this ancient faith) to our celebration of the Eucharist, and warmly welcome them into membership in our congregation. Because there is one body and one Spirit, we insist that the unity of the body of Christ is fundamentally something to be preserved through humility, gentleness, and love in the Holy Spirit and is not dependent upon institutional forms, church polity, or bureaucratic decisions (Eph. 4:2-3).
Likewise, in submission to the apostle’s instructions, we seek ecclesiastical maturity which rejoices in all of the ways the saints are being built up and equipped for ministry, striving for the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, until we reach mature manhood, the fullness of Christ (Eph. 4:14). Standing firmly in the Reformed and Protestant branch of the Church, we are committed to enriching and deepening our understanding, practices, and doctrines, fully expecting continued reformation and renewal in the entire body of Christ.
Gratitude for the rich and fruitful heritage of the Reformed faith
At the same time, this tradition of “semper reformanda” (“always reforming”) has periodically been a subject of confusion and misrepresentation. The Reformed tradition at its best, far from willfully dividing and abandoning the one true Church, seeks to preserve that Church which the apostolic, patristic, and medieval fathers established and has continued in the lives of all the faithful throughout Christendom. Yet, some within the Reformed tradition itself today misinterpret ongoing reformation and preservation of this rich catholic heritage as an abandonment of historic Reformed principles. Some think they see a trajectory in our reformational progress which leads back to Roman Catholicism or leans toward Eastern Orthodoxy. Individuals who claim that we are moving this direction after having studied and worshipped and lived in our community have dramatically misread our aims and purposes. Furthermore, such interpretations fail to appreciate the deep catholicity found in the Reformed tradition and display ingratitude for the great sanctifying work our sovereign God has done in His Church by the faithful labors of protesting catholics over the centuries. While we affirm our fundamental unity with all the saints within the body of Christ, including those in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, as well as our great appreciation for the many gifts, insights, and contributions they bring to the broader Church, we equally affirm our great thankfulness for our own history and tradition. Our commitment to the Reformation and those central claims of the Protestant Reformers is unwavering and as robust as ever, and our thankfulness for this rich and fruitful heritage has only deepened as we have grown. In particular, we are grateful for and committed to those summaries of the faith found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Three Forms of Unity, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. At the same time, we do not understand this gratitude to be at odds with a genuine catholicity and love for the saints throughout the body of Christ. Rather, we are most thankful for the insights and concerns of the Reformed tradition because of how hopeful we are that God will be pleased to use us to bless and build up the broader Christian Church.
Catholicity and the ultimate, infallible authority of Holy Scripture
In keeping with this hope, we reject views which place the ultimate, infallible authority of the Scriptures in competition with other sources of authority since Christ is Lord over all, and His Word cannot be broken (Jn. 10:35). The sixty-six books of the Bible in their entirety are this perfect, God-breathed Word and comprise the only ultimate, infallible source of tradition for the Christian Church (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6, 14).
With the Reformers, we insist that liturgical idolatry is a most dangerous temptation and sin for many within Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. This includes the veneration of man-made images, statues, relics, Eucharistic elements, the invocation of the saints, as well as other practices and traditions which are not according to Scripture. Likewise, we warn all the faithful to flee those doctrines or practices which, whether in doctrine or in practice, undermine the fundamental and sovereign graciousness of God in salvation.
Finally, while we consider divisions in the body of Christ most grievous to the calling of the Church, and we confess that the Reformed tradition has contributed its own failures to this state of affairs, we do not believe that abstract considerations of church polity, apostolic succession, or institutional unity rise to the level of weightier matters of the law. Therefore, however helpful the study of those issues may be, they must not jeopardize genuine Christian fellowship, justify the denunciation of the least in the kingdom of God, or result in disparaging the validity of the ordinations or sacraments of other churches that worship our Triune God in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Individuals who join communions that effectively excommunicate their Protestant brothers and sisters contradict their search for catholicity, and ironically, the goal of unity comes at the expense of further divisions in the body of Christ. We desire to be of one mind with all the saints, not by coercion, but by the same patient love of our brothers and sisters shown by Christ in His patient love for His Bride, the Church.
Toward greater unity and purity of the body of Christ
As we hope and pray and continue to work toward the greater unity and purity of the entire body of Christ, we do so committed to the most central callings of the Church: humble submission to Scripture and the proclamation of the gospel, the centrality of faithful worship and celebration of the sacraments, and loving God and neighbor with all that we are, which includes caring for the poor as well as widows and orphans in their distress. And this, we confess, is the way to grow up together with all of Christendom “into Him, who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph. 4:15-16).
Adopted by the Elders of Trinity Reformed Church on Thursday, August 14th, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Faith, Tradition, and Pandora
Schaf says that there are several ways in which Protestant and Roman Catholic views on justification and authority overlap. He says, that the "word of God answers to faith, and tradition to love." In both instances, the Protestant insistence is that the first and ultimate instrument of justification is faith which alone receives and rests upon the gracious work of Christ, and likewise, the Scriptures, in the Protestant view are the only ultimate and infallible rule of doctrine and practice.
At the same time, the Reformed tradition has always insisted that works are necessary for salvation and naturally flow from authentic faith. Faith without works is deadbeat assent. Likewise, tradition is inescapable and far from being a threat to sound doctrine and practice, it is actually "absolutely indispensable." True and faithful Christian tradition "is not part of the divine word separately from that which is written, but the contents of scripture itself as apprehended and settled by the Church against heresies past and always new appearing; not an independent source of revelation, but the one fountain of the written word, only rolling itself forward in the stream of Church consciousness." Thus, just as good works do necessarily flow from faith and are essential for salvation, so too, faithful tradition flows from and is necessary for the life of the Church through the centuries.
The Protestant complaint with Roman Catholicism is what Martin Chemnitz called the Pandora Box phenomenon. It's one thing to honor tradition, referring to ways in which the Church has meditated on the Scriptures and then spoken authoritatively on various issues. But it's quite another to use 'tradition' as a multipurpose grab bag out of which all manner of evil may proceed justified by the whims of wicked men who happen to find their names on a genealogical chart that traces back to St. Peter.
(The Principle of Protestantism, 71-72, 87)
Deliverdict in Schaf
Schaf says that one of the objections Roman Catholics have (or had) with the doctrine of justification by faith alone is that it involves God's "declaring a man to be what he is not in fact." Schaf goes on to point out that this is not so absurd since there are several instances of this very thing in Scripture. God loved us even while we were still sinners not for something he saw already in them, but for that which he intended them. Likewise, Abraham was called the father of many nations before he actually was.
But Schaf goes further and says that the Reformed "always acknowledged the true element here in the catholic doctrine, without sanctioning its pelagianistic trait." Thus, Schaf insists that God is not merely making a lone, abstract judgment that is unrelated to reality. On the contrary, the declaration of righteousness rests upon the objective union with Christ that exists, the "actualization of this principle in his person, is itself conditioned by the declaratory act, creative at the same time, going before." In other words, simultaneous to the declaration of righteousness is the creative union of the believer with the risen Christ, thereby enacting and performing the reality of the declaration.
(The Principle of Protestantism, 67-69)
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Calvin and the Thunderbolt of Anathema
"In bearing with imperfections of life we ought to be far more considerate. For here the descent is very slippery and Satan ambushes us with no ordinary devices. For there have always been those who, imbued with a false conviction of their own perfect sanctity, as if they have already become a sort of airy spirit, spurned association with all men in whom they discerned any remnant of human nature."
"There are others who sin more out of ill-advised zeal for righteousness than out of that insane pride [like Cathari, Donatists, and Anabaptists]. When they do not see a quality of life corresponding to the doctrine of the gospel among those to whom it is announced, they immediately judge that no church exists in that place. This is a very legitimate complaint, and we give all too much occasion for it in this most miserable age. And our cursed sloth is not to be excused, for the Lord will not allow it to go unpunished, seeing that he has already begun to chastise it with heavy stripes. Woe to us, then, who act with such dissolute and criminal license that weak consciences are wounded because of us! ... For where the Lord requires kindness, they neglect it and give themselves over completely to immoderate severity. Indeed, because they think no church exists where there are not perfect purity and integrity of life, they depart out of hatred of wickedness from the lawful church, while they fancy themselves turning aside from the faction of the wicked." (ICR IV.1.13)
Calvin points to the example of the apostle Paul and the Corinthians who were corrupt in morals and in doctrine: "What does the holy apostle -- the instrument of the Heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the church stands or falls -- do about this? Does he seek to separate himself from such? Does he cast them out of Christ's Kingdom? Does he fell them with the ultimate thurderbolt of anathema? He not only does nothing of the sort; he even recognizes and proclaims them to be the church of Christ and the communion of the saints! Among the Corinthian quarrels, divisions, and jealousies flare, disputes and altercations burgeon together with greed; an evil deed is openly approved which even the pagans would detest; the name of Paul (whom they ought to have honored as a father) is insolently defamed; some mock the resurrection of the dead, to the destruction of the whole gospel as well; God's free gifts serve ambition, not love; and many things are done without decency or order. Yet the church abides among them because the ministry of Word and sacraments remains unrepudiated there. Who, then, would dare snatch the title "church" from these who cannot be charged with even a tenth part of such misdeeds? What, I ask, would those who rage with such churlishness against present-day churches have done with the Galatians, all but deserters of the gospel, among whom this same apostle still recognized churches?" (ICR IV.1.14)
Calvin the Schismatic
While Calvin insists that "ministry of the Word" and "celebrating the sacraments" in purity are the marks of the true Church, he maintains that so long as any church retains those two principles, we may "safely embrace" them as a church "even if it otherwise swarms with many faults."
He continues: "What is more, some fault may creep into the administration of either doctrine or sacraments, but this ought not to estrange us from communion with the church... I say that we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded. In the meantime, if we try to correct what displeases us, we do so out of duty. Paul's statement applies to this: 'If a better revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent'. From this it is clear that every member of the church is charged with the responsibility of public edification according to the measure of his grace, provided he perform it decently and in order. That is, we are neither to renounce the communion of the church nor, remaining in it, to disturb its peace and duly ordered discipline." (ICR IV.1.12)
Ezekiel Staying Alive
Ezekiel's commission is an utterly terrifying task. His job is to tell the wicked that they are going to die. And if Ezekiel fails to warn them, they will die in their sins, but their blood will be required at the hand of Ezekiel (3:18). However, if he does warn them and they die in their sins, Ezekiel will have delivered his own soul (3:19).
The reverse is also true: If a righteous man turns away from righteousness and pursues iniquity, and God lays a stumbling block before the man, Ezekiel is responsible for warning the man. If Ezekiel does not warn the man and the man dies in his sin, God will require the man's blood at the hand of Ezekiel (3:20). But if Ezekiel does warn the man and delivers him from his sin then Ezekiel has delivered his own soul (3:21).
There are several terrifying things in this job description. First, the obvious fact that Ezekiel's soul is on the line. His own future has everything to do with his faithfulness in warning both the wicked and the righteous. Failing to warn them of what is coming results in their blood being required of Ezekiel. Faithfulness in this task results in Ezekiel delivering his own soul. The payoff for a job well done is that Ezekiel gets to stay alive; failure results in blood guilt being required of Ezekiel, the son of Adam.
Second, notice who the other actor in the story is. God puts himself squarely in the middle of the narrative. It is God who is speaking and he says, "When I say to the wicked, thou shalt surely die..." (3:18) and "When a righteous man turns from his righteousness... and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die..." (3:20). Ezekiel's job is to warn both wicked and righteous alike of what God is up to with them. In both cases God is threatening death. God delivers the sentence against the wicked; God sets a stumbling block before the righteous erring. And it is Ezekiel's mission to warn both alike.
Third, it would seem that the difference between wicked and righteous has everything to do with the ability to heed the warning. The wicked will die, warning or no warning, but God requires them to have a fair chance at repentance. The righteous however could go either way. Without a warning they will die and no one will remember their righteousness (3:20). The implication seems to be that they will be remembered as wicked since no one will remember the righteous deeds they had done. But if the righteous man is warned about the stumbling block, he will surely live because he is warned.
Notice that the difference between the wicked and the righteous is not whether or not they do wicked things or fall into sin. The difference is whether they will heed warnings and repent or not. The wicked willfully turn their headphones up louder and close their eyes to all warning signs. The righteous man hears the warning and changes course. This would of course include repentance and restitution for the acts which got him off course to begin with.
Lastly, while this mission seems to be unique to Ezekiel in some regard, there is something reminiscent of this in Hebrews 13 where the writer exhorts Christians to obey and submit to those who rule over them since "they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief..." Christian leaders have a responsibility to watch over the souls of their flock since they will give an account for their dealings. A Christian leader who fails to warn a member who is playing with moral nukes in his basement will have blood on his hands.
But more generally, all Christians are required to love their neighbors, and this means warning the wicked and the righteous. Whether they listen to you or not, whether they die in their sins or not, the weight of Scripture is that neighbors have some level of responsibility for one another. If you see your enemy's car in the ditch, you may not close your eyes or look the other way. Neither may you smile serenely while he casually drives his soul off a cliff. If you'd tell your neighbor when his house was on fire and encourage him to get out, it's no less kind to suggest similar things regarding his soul.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Adam Eats the Book and Is Sent to a Relative with Alzheimer's
Ezekiel is addressed as the "son of man," the "son of Adam" throughout his prophecy. This comes of course after having seen upon the heavenly throne "the likeness as the appearance of a man [Adam] upon it" (1:26). While there's a good bit of allusion and symbolism in the vision of God that Ezekiel sees, the recurring reference to the "firmament" is striking since that isn't a very common word, and apart from a couple of psalm appearances, this is the only other place it shows up with some frequency outside of Genesis 1.
Likewise, Ezekiel is being sent as the son of Adam, and he is instructed to not be afraid of the briers and thorns or the scorpions, allusions to the curse of sin, all of which seem (here) to be symbols of the words and looks of Israel. Yahweh says that they are a rebellious house, and Ezekiel should expect that sort of reception (2:6).
Of course, God spreads out his Word in the form of a scroll of a book before Ezekiel. It is a Word full of lamentations, mourning, and woe (2:10). And God says to Ezekiel, the son of Adam, "eat this roll" (3:1). And God says, "cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee." Gotta love the KJV on this sort of passage. Of course Ezekiel obeys, and he says that as he ate the book it was like honey in his mouth (3:3).
This new Adam, like the old Adam, finds himself in the glory-presence of the Creator God, where the firmament is not a division between heaven and earth but the very point of union and communion between God and Man. And like the Adam of old, this new Adam is given instructions regarding food. Eat this book, he says.
Last, God points out that if Ezekiel were sent to a foreign land, to a people who spoke a different language than Ezekiel, they would stand a far great chance of understanding Ezekiel than the house of Israel (3:5-6). Their hard-heartedness is so far gone, their foreheads are so thick, and their faces so flinty that they cannot listen Ezekiel (3:7-9).
Sin does this sort of thing. Sin is not merely a bad idea; it makes people stupid. Sin makes people deaf and blind to truth, and when it comes and looks them in the eyes and talks to them, it sounds like a foreign tongue. And this becomes even more troubling when dealing with family and friends dear to us who have hardened their hearts; it's like trying to communicate with an old relative who has Alzheimer's. It's the same person you've always known but something is terribly wrong and they don't know who you are or what you're talking about.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Tasting Death
Our sermon text from this morning ends with the promise of Jesus that some standing there would not taste death till they had seen the Son of Man coming in his kingdom (Mt. 16:28). In one sense Jesus is probably talking about the judgment of Jerusalem in 70 AD, when he will reward everyone according to his deeds. But in another sense, Jesus is still teaching about the way the Kingdom works. He has just finished explaining his extreme discipleship program. He says if you want to follow him you must follow him with a cross on your back; the way to save your life is to lose it first. The kingdom of Jesus is all about tasting death. After 70 AD, Christians were still being persecuted, still being betrayed by family members, still being killed for their faith, still getting sick and dying. But Jesus says that this is the way of the kingdom: in order to follow him, you need to have a cross. You need to have splinters in your back. You need to have the taste of death in your mouth in order to live His resurrection life. If you want to have life, if you want to really live, you have to do it by eating and drinking death. This is because Resurrection is always on the other side of death. If you don’t know what death tastes like you haven’t been brought back to life. At this meal, Jesus says to give thanks, to rejoice, in the death of Jesus which is the death of all death, but this means that you need to see all your hardships, all your suffering, all your confusion, all your worries and fears, and all of your burdens in light of this reality. The writer of Hebrews says that “we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” Christ has taken up into himself all of the curse of sin, he has tasted death for everyone, and this means that he died for all your hardships, all your suffering, all your death. Not so that you might be magically delivered from all of it right away, but so that you like him might overcome it, that you might learn obedience through suffering, that you might commit yourself to your faithful Father who raises the dead. So come eat, drink and rejoice: you are tasting death, but you are tasting the death of Christ who has already gone before us and he assures us that this is the way to life. If you want to find your life, come here and taste death that you may truly live.
Students are Neighbors Too
Every year around this time we begin to have a new set of neighbors descend upon this community. Students come to Moscow and Pullman from all over the northwest and from all over the world. A number of students will come here to Trinity, and this adds dimensions and dynamics to the kind of congregation we are. And, there are any number of reasons people might have for not being excited about this. College students are loud and obnoxious, they think they know everything, they get into trouble, they can be socially cliquish or awkward, it’s harder to find seats on Sunday morning, or it’s just difficult to find the people you’re trying to see and talk to, and the list goes on. But the exhortation from Scripture is to be imitators of God as beloved children and walk in love as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:1-2). These students are people that God is bringing us to love. Each year, he gives us brothers and sisters to care for, to bless, to encourage, and to befriend. Do not see these young people as getting in the way of our community or fellowship; see them as the community and fellowship that God is calling you to embrace. And do not forget as you do so that there are many others outside who will not show up on Sunday. These are the students piled into the coffee shops, the students being loud at all hours of the night, the students who think main street is a drag strip, the students who steal your parking places and walk around town looking lost and confused. And you are no less called to minister grace to them. Jesus looked on the multitudes with compassion because they were like sheep having no shepherd and he said the harvest is plentiful, pray that the God of the harvest would send workers for the harvest. Therefore walk in love as Christ has loved you and given himself for you, and give yourself to loving these neighbors, caring for their needs, and befriending them and showing them kindness. Be grace to them.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Effective Resistance
In the first of a collection of letters, Lewis responds to an article on 'Conditions for a Just War.' His primary point is once again related to authority and who has the duty to assess information and make decisions regarding going to war and the like. This does not mean that "private persons must obey governments commanding them to do what they know is sin, but perhaps it does mean (I write it with some reluctance) that the ultimate decision as to what the situation at a given moment is in the highly complex field of international affairs is on which must be delegated."
Lewis goes on to argue that extreme pacifism effectively divides the Christian world and results in "no clear Christian witness." A far better strategy would be for Christians to insist upon what they do know and all agree upon. "A man is much more certain that he ought not to murder prisoners or bomb civilians than he ever can be about the justice of a war. It is perhaps here that 'conscientious objection' ought to begin. I feel certain that one Christian airman shot for refusing to bomb enemy civilians would be a more effective martyr (in the etymological sense of the word) than a hundred Christians in jail for refusing to join the army."
(Timeless at Heart, 126-127)
Pacifism and the Historical Jesus
Interestingly, Lewis likens the search for biblical grounds for pacifism to the modern search for the "historical Jesus." He says, "I think there are people who will not find this sort of thing difficult to believe, just as there are people ready to maintain that the true meaning of Plato, or Shakespeare, oddly concealed from their contemporaries and immediate successors, has preserved its virginity for the daring embraces of one or two modern professors... Any theory which bases itself on a supposed "historical Jesus," to be dug out of the gospels and then set up in opposition to Christian teaching, is suspect."
(Timeless at Heart, 64)
Posts
