Obedience of a Christian Man

First published in 1528, this treatise is one of the lesser known accomplishments of William Tyndale (1494-1536).

Tyndale's aim is to simply lay out the structure of a Christian society and free the common layman to be obedient in his place. His style is very polemic. A rightoues indignation pervades most of the book, as Tyndale cites, bewails, and rebukes the abuses and scandals of the established Papal church. Tyndale pleads that the Scriptures be made available to all men. He traces both Scripture and history showing the necessity of simple knowledge of the gospel and basic morality which have been fantastically ignored, disguised, and hidden from the view of common Christian.

The causes of abuse are plentiful. Tyndale mocks the absurdities that pile up demanded by the four fold interpretation of the medieval period. "Of what text thou provest hell, will another prove purgatory, another limbo, and another shall prove of the same text that an ape hath a tail." He pleads that the Scriptures be read and preached in the common tongue. Tyndale then labors to show all of the basic obediences that are owed: wives and husbands, servants and masters, children and parents, subjects and rulers. Spending more time on the civil rulers, he insists that the Pope is not a temporal ruler over the kings and princes of the land. Rather, that he too must submit to the civil authorities even as Christ did.

At the heart of obedience, Tyndale recognizes love as the chief motive. Recognizing that out of the salvation won in Christ flow all of the virtues of Christian living. And this is justification. He says, "Faith that loveth God's commands justifieth a man." Tyndale is chest deep in the trenchs of a battle that is somewhat peculiar to his day. From his vantage he sees somethings better and somethings worse. The Pope is the anti-Christ, the job of bishops is only to preach, Judas was the first pope, a pastor cannot proclaim forgiveness, and cloisters are from hell. He, like everyone, was a man of his time.

But Tyndale is still catholic, recognizing the efficacy and potency of the two sacraments. He explains that the others, in one way or another, can be subsumed under the two. Penance, confirmation, confession, and even some of the other rites that had grown up can all be found in the realities of baptism. Baptism works in much the same way "[a]s a child receive the full soul at the first day, yet groweth daily in the operations and works thereof." And the effects of baptism continue until the believer is "full baptized at the last minute of death." He says in another place, "For though that the washing of baptism be past, yet the power thereof, that is to say, the word of God which baptism preacheth, lasteth ever and saveth forever."

Tyndale is fervent and irenic, but he is also humorous. I posted his reference to bishops' testicles earlier this week, and there is more where that came from. Tyndale calls the monks and friars the "belly brotherhood". Saying, "cloister love is belly love, cloister prayer is belly prayer..." He goes on to say that if you want anything from them you have to "offer unto their bellies and then they pray bitterly for thee." While dismantling the doctrine of absolution, he comments on Purgatory: "[The Pope] taketh authority also to bind and loose in Purgatory. That permit I unto him for it is a creation of his own making. He also bindeth the angels. For we read of popes that have commanded the angels to set divers out of Purgatory. Howbeit I am not yet certified whether they obeyed or no."

Perhaps the biggest piece missing is the duty to Mother Church. But this omission is hardly surprising given the climate Tyndale finds himself in. The Church has betrayed him and her people. Friars, monks, priests, and bishops are basking in their filthy riches and vile fornications while the commoners tremble to lift a finger fearing for their very souls. This betrayal broke that trust and gentle balance that must exist for true authority and true submission to take place in the Church. For all that I disdain of the splinters in the modern Church, for all the pettiness and divisiveness of Christians on all sides, the reality of the gross debauchery of the Papal regime during this era is foul and smells like hell. For as Tyndale says, "Christ said to Peter, the last chapter of John, feed my sheep, not sheer thy flock."

For this Tyndale lived and died. For after completing the first ever translation of the Holy Scriptures into English, he was condemned as a heretic, devested of his preisthood, and finally publically strangled and burned on October 6, 1536.

Read More...

Summary only...

Exercita Latina Una

Quid est hoc? Hoc est capitulum primum ut tempto in lingua latina scribere. Hodie, in schola incipio docere quomodo usare infinituvus. Unus modus ut objectivus est. Per exempla: Si magister dicit: "Marcus est disciplus stultus." Et unus discipulus (qui 'Quintus' appellatur) mala aures habet. Is interrogat ad alium discipulum, "Quid dicit magister?" Aliusque dicit, "Magister Marcum discipulum stultum esse dicit." Intelligatisne? Ecce: Si quidam dicit quem alium dicere, illa verba in caso accusativus ponentur. Verbumque in infinitivo ponitur. Scio hoc facile esse sed in scripto hoc scriptum, melior intelligo.

Read More...

Summary only...

From Napoleon to Bismarck

Periodically, I would like to post my history discussion notes here. Here's the first of (hopefully) many.

Waterloo
While Napoleon was exiled to the Island of Elba down in the Mediterranean, the world powers set out to reformulate France and bring some semblance of order to Europe. While the Bourbon family was once again in power via Louis XVIII (and he was at first welcomed) the émigrés who rushed in at the first signs of peace had many other ideas for the future of France. Napoleon gave the French a year and allowed the Quadruple Alliance (Russia, England, Austria, and Prussia) to busy themselves with the Congress of Vienna which was tasked with the object of putting Europe back together. Boundary disputes, as well as trying to figure out which countries should or should not exist and who ought to be their rightful rulers kept things moving fairly slowly.

Meanwhile, Napoleon escaped from his exile in Elba and landed in France on March 1, 1815. Many French joined Napoleon’s forces, and he marched north towards Belgium. The allied forces united once again, and under the command of the Duke of Wellington, Napoleon was soundly defeated at Waterloo. Here another peace treaty was signed with France, albeit where the first treaty had been a mere slap on the hand this new treaty actually punished the people of France for their uprising. This time, Napoleon was exiled to a British colony named St. Helena, a remote island in the South Atlantic. You can find it on a map near 15° south of the equator between Brazil, South America and Angola, Africa. This was finally enough for Napoleon to make an end of his political career.

Romanticism
Romanticism is a term that refers to a number of different ideas or movements from the French Revolution until around the middle of the nineteenth century. A ‘Romantic’ in this sense is not necessarily someone who is ‘in love’. But there is some connection. A ‘Romantic’ in this historical sense was someone who sought to live with his/her heart and mind. Many of this period believed that prior to this time, there had been too much emphasis on the intellect (just the mind). We considered this in our discussions about the Enlightenment (circa 1650ish-1750ish). Romantics wanted to be realistic and thoughtful, but they also wanted to be human, giving value to emotions and feelings. We have seen through studying the French Revolution that this is not always a good thing. The French were in many ways a very ‘Romantic’ people in this sense. They had passion for the eradication of the old medieval ways of life and the Christian foundations of their government.

The term ‘Romantic’ comes originally from the name Rome. The Roman language of Latin changed and grew up into several different languages: Spanish, Italian, and French. These languages were originally simply called ‘Roman’ but eventually became known as the ‘romance’ languages. Again this didn’t mean that you spoke these languages when you loved someone. It just referred to the fact that they had originated from Rome and the Roman Empire.

Romanticism expressed itself in many ways. Poetry and art experienced a renaissance particularly showing great interest in nature and history. Again, sometimes this was for the better, truly seeing Creation as the work of God, but other times it became a sort of Pantheistic worship (i.e. seeing God in everything and in no way independent of His creation). The study of history was good for some encouraging many to revert to the faith of their fathers and thus Christianity enjoyed somewhat of a rejuvenation. But for others, studying history was an opportunity to exalt the paganism of the ancients or to idolize particular portions of history, glossing over the failures and weaknesses of some men.

But Romanticism also valued the protection and care of the less fortunate. In England, John Howard started prison reforms in the 1780s seeking to make prisons livable. The Earl of Shaftesbury pushed legislation to protect women and children from being over worked. Church organizations were formed to protect orphans and widows. Clara Barton founded the Red Cross during this era. Missions exploded into many far reaching lands bringing with it not only the gospel but medical aid and education. The education of women and children came to have higher value. In America one Mr. Audubon sailed down the Mississippi looking for birds to paint or draw. His 435 depictions in 1838 were the beginning of the fabulous Audubon Guide series that is available today surveying many aspects of creation.

The Romantics loved a Hero. Sir Walter Scott is a fine example of a Romantic giving us historical tales full of color, action, love, and the Hero (e.g. Ivanhoe). The hero had no need of being perfect or flawless, the hero was merely a man or woman who could inspire imagination. Proof that this is the case is that Waterloo, the scene of Napoleon’s defeat, is a term always describing defeat. It is never used to describe victory even though it was the victory for the Quadruple Alliance. But the Romantics, though disposed not to have Napoleon as their leader, nevertheless loved him as their hero, a man full of vigor and life and wit.

Industrial Growth
Related to Romanticism was growth in industry and technology. The imagination and spirit of the ‘Romantics’ prevailed even in the sciences and technology, joining art to engineering. Furniture, carpet, doors, pillars, tombstones all became more common and expected. Biology was the science of the day, with Evolution catching the imaginations of many young naturalists. Electricity was also in the works. Napoleon said this in 1802: “I wish to award the sum of six thousand francs as encouragement to the person who will advance our knowledge of electricity. It is my aim to urge physicists to concentrate on that branch of physics, which in my opinion is the road to great discoveries.”

Other important advances were the use of levers and pulleys. Before around 1800 all work was done by hand or simple hand tools. But levers and pulleys made moving large objects or large quantities easier. The use of water and wind to manipulate objects and also began around this time. This large scale shift from using hand tools to various kinds of powered machinery had a great influence on life and culture during this period, particularly in England. For example, in the early 1700s, John Kay invented a ‘fly shuttle’ which allowed only one person to operate a loom rather than two. With this upsurge in yarn production, by the late 1700s, the ‘spinning jenny’ was invented that could weave multiple strands of yarn or threads together. Finally with the huge demand for cotton, it was difficult for farmers to keep up, but the ‘cotton gin’ was invented by the American Eli Whitney which made the removal of seeds from cotton much faster. The businessmen who ran the production of various kinds of cloth quickly realized that it was most efficient to have all of the production taking place in one place. These large buildings became known as ‘mills’ in England and ‘factories’ in America. The machinery on the farms tended to decrease the need for farm hands and the factories and mills (even with their new machines) tended to increase the need for workers. Thus many people moved from the country into cities looking for work and many ended up working in factories creating cloth, fabric, leathers, and other crafted items.

Nationalism and the Beginning of Germany
You should remember that there hasn’t always been a country named Germany. For a long time there were lots of different peoples that lived in that land that we now call Germany. The most prominent government that was ever there was the Holy Roman Empire, but that was still not what we would think of as a country. It had more to do with loyalties to an emperor. And even then, during and after the Protestant Reformation especially, the princes or barons of various counties and districts often had a kind of independence from the empire. It was not until Napoleon Bonaparte that the modern picture of Germany began to appear. Napoleon, after marching through Europe realized that the only way he would be able to rule it all was to organize it. Thus even though the Germanic peoples had never considered themselves one country, Napoleon saw that uniting them would make his job of governing them easier. He organized them into the Confederation of the Rhine.

Even after Napoleon, the Quadruple Alliance had continued to consider the Confederation in some ways as a single unit, and for various reasons the Germans themselves began to have inklings of the same idea. This growing sense of loyalty and identity with one’s country is what is known as Nationalism, and while it had been a growing reality in many other countries before now, it became a reality under the organization of Napoleon. It began merely as a loose confederation called the German Confederation recognized in 1815, after the removal of Napoleon. This confederation was made up of 39 states, the largest of which were Austria and Prussia down to a number of small kingdoms and a few free cities. This loose confederation was not much, but it was the beginning. In 1848, a series of revolutions echoed throughout Europe, sort of the last hurrahs of the French Revolution. These revolutions were small and scattered and were put down. The revolution that occurred in Germany was an attempt by a few to unite Germany into one common government. The attempt failed, but the movement was still on.

In 1862, the king of Prussia appointed a new chief minister, Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was a ‘Junker’(pronounced "yoonker"), meaning that he had grown up in the ranks of the professional Prussian military. Bismarck was a Protestant Christian, and he was not a revolutionary. He favored the old hierarchies, but he was also a prudent and wise man and sought to bring peace and stability to his own Prussian people. Beginning in 1867, Bismarck began making huge steps towards uniting Germany. In that year, he united all of the kingdoms north of Prussia under a new Northern German Confederation. And by 1871, apart from Austria, a number of other kingdoms had been added. This unification was far strong than the first confederation and made the king of Prussia its head. This confederation or German Empire (as it is sometimes referred to) was largely the land and peoples that we know today as Germany. In fact Germany remained the same until 1918 after World War I. Bismarck accomplished this great feat of unification by eliminating the political leaders in his way and establishing a government that pleased the people.

Conclusion
Nationalism is perhaps one of the greatest rivals to Christendom. While simple loyalties and honor are always due to one's nation and leaders they ought not to ever become the center. As more and more people looked to their respective states with hope for a brighter tomorrow, they were simultaneously turning from the Church (many times unintentionally), the Mother who bore them. Of course this didn't begin with simple rebellion, it began with the utter failure and ruin of the Church. The utter debauchery of her leaders, divisiveness and rifts within the body of Christ, and growing disallusionment the earthy loyalty of faith all served to remove every semblance of glory.

Read More...

Summary only...

Charles Williams

"Love you? I am you."

-cited by C.S. Lewis in The Four Loves

Read More...

Summary only...

Communion of the Saints Part 2

The communion of saints is diachronic. Not only do we commune with the saints in China and England and South America, but commune with them through time. The same Spirit that unites peoples of different places, unites peoples of different eras. This is manifestly true by virtue of time zones, but the writer of Hebrews goes further, “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect” (12:22-23). Our communion with the saints is with the saints who are presently alive and with those saints who have died in the faith. In fact this reality is the grounds for the exhortation at the beginning of the chapter to “lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us”. Why are we to run this race with patience? Because “we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses”. Who are those witnesses? They are all of the saints that have died in the faith, many of whom are mentioned by name or deed in Chapter 11.

For this reason, following the historic church, it is proper for the deeds and saints of the past to be remembered in stories, songs, and pictures. In these ways, particularly as they appear in the Church building, we are reminded constantly of that cloud of witnesses of which we are a part. Furthermore, remembering particular saints on particular days through songs, prayers, and other traditions is also a fitting reminder of the communion we have with all of the saints of God.

Read More...

Summary only...

Moses Was A Mountain Climber

Moses was a mountain climber. He climbed the Arabian height and made his way back down holding large pieces of engraved stone. He climbed a number of times, perhaps trying different routes. Out of breath, out of sight, he was there for days. For days alone on a crag splitting heaven open wide, its glories spilling out onto the lone climber. He returned on one occasion with a glory soaked face.

Everything is a mountain to my son, everything an ascent. He’s lying down reaching, rolling, drooling. Arms flail, fingers flayed, he tips a red, plastic object at the horizon of his vision. It’s gone. He turns, he groans. Where’s the next hold? He arches his back and twists. His arms and legs go taught. I pull him up by his arms and encourage him. He’s doing very well. Trust your legs, I say. His head wobbles. He’s getting tired. He reaches for my face. He smiles briefly, and his knees give way.

There’s a girl behind the counter. She sells equipment. In a clearing by the keyboard there’s a book on Mt. Rainier. Are you thinking of climbing, we ask her. She nods vigorously and says she’s longed to do the climb alone. My friend encourages her to have someone go along with her. He’s climbed Rainier. She insists that she prefers the solitude and enjoys the personal competition it inspires.

Jesus was a mountain climber and trained his disciples in the skill. The devil drove him to a great height and showed him the kingdoms of the world. Sometimes he climbed mountains to be alone, to rid himself of the multitudes who hounded him. Sometimes he climbed to teach: a couple times he fed the crowds. After having climbed and praying for most of a night, he was betrayed by a friend and arrested on the mountain top. Once he climbed to die.

I’ve never been outside. I’ve never climbed in the wild. All my climbs have been prepackaged inside a large building. I am my son on the floor. A climbing wall is designed to simulate, but its face is layered with many options, many routes. There are huge ‘bomber’ hold routes were the wall all but pulls you to the top. There are tiny squares of block bolted down with pointy edges made for finger tips of steel. Far up, my legs shake; my fingers scream. They refuse to work; they refuse to hold. I throw my arms like grappling hooks against the wall, praying that they’ll find some edge to hold. Gasping, shaking, my eyes peer over the top.

My son bounces. It’s a cross between energy and lack of strength. He has enough energy to climb anything, but he hasn’t smoothed out communication yet with his legs. They do his bidding maybe half the time. So he bounces. He bounces holding to the top of the chest. He stretches, pushing with his feet. His hand flings out lightly, groping for a hold. It finds a suitable edge. He makes it look easy. He bounces, tilting, looking up at me. Then his head veers down to his hold. His gums gnaw the edge of the chest, and he eyes me casually, assuring me that this is part of the plan. This is the route he has chosen.

Moses and Aaron died on mountain tops. They climbed their last ascents with sweat in their eyes. Aaron gave his priestly garments to his son on Mount Hor and there he died, in thin air, watching the world below. From the peak of Pisgah, Moses saw the promised land stretching out and meeting heaven. But where he’s buried no one knows, hid in a valley. When he wakes up there’ll be climbing to do.

The Church is a mountain called Zion. We were a rock made without hands. But we were flung into a statue and grew up. There was another mountain, but it fell into the sea. We are mountains climbing mountains. We are an entire range. We go piggyback on the ones who came before, and others will come after us. We are alone and together. We’re grasping at the peak; we’re rolling on the floor. We are hanging by a finger tip; our roots are beneath the sea. Everything’s a mountain to us. We’re bouncing, and we’re holding on. And heaven spills out onto our faces.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ivan Eve

I wrote this at Christmas and meant to post it sooner, but well... here it is.

It’s 6,758 miles from here to Jerusalem. It’s Christmas Eve, and I’m listening to Dido while my 6-month-old son cries in the monitor on the counter. The tree next to me is gawking; it sits in the corner spilling out into the rest of the room like an adolescent with outgrown clothes, lanky arms and legs, knobby knees and elbows thrust out. It was cut down in central Washington by the owners of this house. Many children live here. They decorated it with paper and shiny balls and colored lights.

That there are other people—billions of other people—astounds me. I am a toddler on the living room floor. I am the sun in my universe. You revolve around me. But the stories are going simultaneously, millions of stories and one story: millions of suns and one sun. My story is a boy in an intensive care unit miles from here. He’s coming home soon, maybe for Christmas. My son has fallen asleep. The dogs are on the floor laying sideways, legs out, snoring. It’s freezing outside. The cows, there are two of them, only want to be fed. And there is more, much more, and in addition, there are many more than mine. How can God be one of us, a boy in a cave, wrapped in rags years from here?

St. Ivan of Suchava was born in the thirteenth century near the Black Sea, in modern day Ukraine. Ivan was charged with conspiring against the Sultan Oman and the Islamic faith in general. He was summonsed to a trial, convicted, and sentenced to torture and execution. He was offered mercy if he was willing to renounce the Christian faith. Being unwilling, Ivan was dragged to his death by racing horses through the streets of Ackerman, a city located on the Delta of the Danube River on June 2, 1278. He was buried in a nearby churchyard, and in 1402 his body was removed and buried in a church in Suchava, the capitol of Bukovyna.

It’s Christmas morning. The sun still slumbers. The cows are looking for breakfast. Ivan is coming home. There’s a baby for Christmas. We open stockings and unwrap gifts; we stuff garbage bags full of our holiday litter. America celebrates a high Sabbath; no one works today, there’s nothing open except maybe a gas station. I read about brothers walking around the world, the first known circumambulation of the earth. One was shot and killed in Afghanistan. The other was wounded, but a third brother flew in and helped him finish the tour. This was in the late seventies because Ronald Reagan was governor of California and gave them commendations.

And regardless of what the song may say, the cattle are not lowing. I wonder what kind of cows low. Maybe cattle low but regular old Angus beef cows just eat and sleep. I haven’t heard a sound out of them for the last several days.

But here's to you Ivan, may the world be your sidewalk, may race horses be your friends, and may you continue to imitate the Christ, even as you have today.

Read More...

Summary only...

Communion of the Saints Part 1

What do we mean when we confess that we believe in ‘the communion of saints’?

We believe that the communion of saints means that the Church is truly catholic or universal. The communion of saints occurs through the action of the Spirit which is present with all who gather in the name of the Triune God. This reality is tied particularly to the Lord’s Day and the Lord’s Supper or Holy Eucharist. The term ‘Lord’s Day’ is only used once in the New Testament in Revelation 1:10. St. John was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day”. However, the word for ‘Lord’s’ is used one other time in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 11:20. There Paul says that the Corinthians do not come together to eat the ‘Lord’s’ Supper because of their bickering and infighting. Thus the meal of the Lord’s Supper is connected to the Lord's Day lexically by the word ‘Kuraikos’. (Incidentally, 'Kuraikos' is the Greek word from whence we get the old English word Kirk. Which, in turn, gave us the word Church.) The fact of the Lord's Supper which takes place on the Lord's Day is the means and proof that we are in communion even if we go to different churches. "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread."

Therefore the Spirit is not only how we worship or the means by which we worship, He is also the location where we worship. This is how millions of Christians worship together communing with one another, giving glory to God. Though miles and continents apart we, by the working of the Holy Spirit, gather together in one place as one body, partaking of one loaf and one cup, feeding upon Christ.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tyndale

The following quote comes from William Tyndale, English reformer, the first to put the entire Bible into English. Even if he's overstating his point, it kind of makes you glad to be on this side of the Reformation.

"The bishops therefore ought to bless us in preaching Christ and not to deceive us and bring the curse of God upon us with wagging their hands over us. To preach is their duty only and not to offer their feet to be kissed or testicles or stones to be groped." (P. 138)

The footnote mentions a popular story of the time of the legendary Pope Joan. She apparently tried to get by as a man. After that it was believed that all incumbent popes were tested for maleness. But of course Tyndale is not just referring to the Pope, he's talking about bishops in general.

Read More...

Summary only...

Tsunami

A tsunami is reported to have killed thousands in southeast Asia. MSNBC reports that the death toll is at around 22,000 and climbing. A 9.0 magnitude earthquake several miles below the ocean surface, caused (apparently) by the shifting one of the earth's plates, sent tidal waves speeding across the Indian Ocean in a number of different directions. At least nine countries have reported deaths, but Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and India report deaths in the thousands.

This seems like something out of history, out of an old book, the Bible perhaps, from a long time ago at any rate. Don't we have scientists that study these things and warn us when they're about to happen? Don't we have 'teams of experts'? Mass graves of children, bodies-bloated and floating through the streets, and muslim men trying to find dry ground to bury their loved ones all contend otherwise. If a calamity befalls a city is it not the Lord who has done it?

The earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. We seldom realize what a violent proposition that could be for some. How do the waters cover the sea? Sometimes tsunamis send tens of thousands to their grave, mass baptisms, mini floods destroying all the sacred cows.

Read More...

Summary only...

Deacon Ivan James

At around 8:15 this morning I became an uncle again. My nephew, Ivan, weighed in at around 8lbs 4oz. He, being male, was a bit sluggish upon exiting the womb and thus procured for himself a ride in an airplane at a mere 7 hours old. He's crafty like his dad, I say. At any rate, please rejoice with us at Ivan's birth, but do pray that Christmas would be on time. That is, pray that mom and baby would be vigorous enough to be released from the hospital soon.

Read More...

Summary only...

Blood of the Covenant

The Old Covenant proceded through generations by blood. Fathers bore sons, sons bore grandsons, and the blood of Abraham ran in their veins. There were the commands, yes. There was the law. There was circumcision. There were the sacrifices. But we know that ultimately it was faith in the promises of God to Abraham and to his seed, his offspring born, he was explicitly told, from his own loins. The blood of Abraham was in an important sense the blood of the Old Covenant. Covenant succession was through this blood. Having lineage and descent from the patriarchs was God's pledge and promise to fulfill his covenant to every Israelite.

But in Christ an important change took place. The blood of the Old Covenant was spilled. Christ, being a descendent of Abraham, had within himself the blood of the Old Covenant. But that blood has been shed for all men. The blood of the New Covenant is the cup of blessing in the Eucharist. Thus the lineage and descent of the New Covenant is no less by blood. We are all blood relatives in the lineage of Christ as we drink in faith. The procession of the New Covenant is no less bloody, but it has been exported. No longer bound to one human body, it has been spilled, and it is now the Church that is the body with the blood of the covenant coursing through its veins. Covenant succession is through this blood, the blood of the new covenant, shed for many. Therefore, all of you, drink of it.

Read More...

Summary only...

Luke's Genealogy of Christ

Luke begins his record in chapter 3 with Jesus and works backwards all the way to “Adam, the son of God”. Luke’s record gives us 77 names beginning with Jesus and ending with the ‘first father’ God himself. The number is of course significant indicating the fullness or completeness of Jesus twice over. Jesus is Son of God and Son of Man. The placement of the genealogy indicates this further. Luke records the lineage of Jesus right after Jesus’ baptism and right before his temptation in the wilderness. God declares of Jesus at his baptism, “You are my beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.” Then, to show how this is true also by physical descent, Luke traces his family back to God through Adam. Finally, it is also important to note that chapter 3 ends with ‘Adam, the son of God’ and chapter 4 begins with the temptation in the wilderness by the devil. Jesus is the new Adam being tempted by the devil.

Also, the movement from Trinity at the baptism backwards through history back to Adam in the garden and finally picking up again with Christ being tempted in the desert is spectacular. Luke puts the Trinity (in Christ) in the garden that has become a desert to be tempted. God does battle with the devil on our behalf and on behalf of all those generations that were between.

Read More...

Summary only...

Falling

Falling with form through the air
curled—back out, toes pointed,
glimmering—I’m inside, peering out.
The world is coming so fast.
An elevator unleashed.
And I, I lean back from the glass.
Steam rising from my cup,
aroma in flight, riding in a rain drop.

Read More...

Summary only...

A Brother for Adam

Genesis 3 and 4 serve as an introduction to the book of Genesis as well as the rest of Scripture. Throughout the book of Genesis we read stories where the antithesis between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman plays itself out. This is the story of Cain and Abel. There is certainly much to be gleaned from this story, but one important principle is the antithesis that already shows up in Adam’s family. Sin brings enmity, and Cain kills Abel. But how will the seed continue? Will God’s promise become void? Abel seemed so faithful. But God is faithful and he gives Seth to Eve, giving her a younger son who will be blessed and will carry on the blessing of God instead of the older. Interestingly, this theme does not end here. The theme of struggle between older and younger brothers continues. Cain, Abel, and Seth; Shem, Ham, and Japheth; Ishmael and Isaac; Esau and Jacob; Joseph and his eleven brothers; Ephraim and Manasseh are all stories of the triumph and blessing of the younger brother. The antithesis is between offspring. There is enmity in the family line, but God continues to prove his promise sure by raising up younger brothers. There is story after story of the victory of the younger over the older and salvation from the younger brother. What does this mean?

If we think back on the fall, having outlined the rest of the book of Genesis as a complex collection of stories about the need for a faithful descendent and the struggle between younger and older brothers, we realize that there is something missing. God gave Seth to carry on the blessing when Cain murdered Abel. God raised up Jacob when it was clear that Esau would not be the bearer of God’s covenant blessing and promise. God gave Joseph to Jacob’s house when there was a famine, raising him to the highest place in the kingdom of Egypt. Having read all these stories (and the others) we ought to reach the end of the book of Genesis and realize that Adam needs a younger brother. These other younger brothers are small pictures, but there needs to be younger brother to Adam, a man who can stand in our place, like Adam, a man who could keep the covenant that Adam broke. But alas, Adam has no siblings. If we read the rest of the Genesis we see salvation coming from younger brothers and our immediate thought should be: If only Adam had a younger brother! And we would have to realize that this younger brother would have to be like Adam, having God for a father, because a physical father would carry Adam’s curse. But the man couldn’t be simply made from the ground again, because it too is cursed. Therefore, keeping his promise, God determined to bring forth Adam’s younger brother from the womb of a virgin. The Holy Spirit "overshadows" Mary, as He has once done in the beginnning, and brings forth a new man. Adam’s younger brother is the Lord Jesus Christ who was conceived like Adam without a natural father. In the mystery of God, the seed of the Woman is Adam’s little brother. Mary, in a glorious way, is the new ground from which the new Adam was formed. This is the glory of God and the wonder of Christmas that God not only created a new man, a brother for Adam, but that God himself became this man for us, God gave himself to be Adam’s younger brother, the seed of the woman who would bruise the head of the serpent.

Read More...

Summary only...

Genesis 3

Notice in Genesis 3 that the serpent is ‘Aroom’ which means crafty or prudent. After Adam and Eve eat of the tree they know they are ‘Aroomim’ which means naked. Surely this is a pun. The serpent said they would become like God, but they have actually become like the serpent.

Also, God is walking in the garden 'in the cool of the day' or (woodenly) ‘to the spirit in the day’. The word ‘spirit’ is often translated ‘cool’ or ‘breeze’ because it is ‘ruach’ meaning spirit or wind. However, in the context, the only other use of the word is in 1:2 where the ‘ruach’ of God hovers over the waters. It seems strange to have this referring to a time of day. Rather, like its first use, it is referring to a quality in God, or more specifically, the person of God that prepares to create. Now God is commencing a new creation, even as his creatures have fallen and sinned.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Incredibles

Perhaps the most incredible thing about the Incredibles is that fact that Disney allowed its name on the latest Pixar production. Not because the film was once again quite a bit better than anything Disney has produced in a while, although that is true. But the incredible thing is what the movie was all about.

Though not a laugh out loud comedy, The Incredibles was a genuinely enjoyable movie that tried to tell an interesting story. And perhaps the most interesting bit was the attempt at saying something somewhat unique. "If everyone is special no one is special". Coming out of the jaws of the egalitarian shrine of Disney that's pretty impressive. The good guys are trying to preserve inequality and the bad guy is an ungrateful kid who tried to be more than he was. His goal is now to level everyone so that no one can be special. But the super heroes win. Inequality reigns.

The moral of the story: be the very best you can be where ever you have been placed. If you're normal be the best normal person you can be. If you're super be the best super you can be. And even more important: be thankful. Be thankful that you are where you are and that other people are different. And some of them are even better than you at some things. That's true, and that's decent stuff.

Read More...

Summary only...

Creation

It seems like the doctrine of Creation does a lot more than we give it credit for.

If God created everything and out of nothing, then we didn't. And if we didn't everything is grace. Everything comes to us a gift, undeserved favor in every nook and cranny. But this also means that salvation is necessarily a gift also. Not that we don't think that already. But we often put a lot of our effort into showing that we are unable to save ourselves (total depravity, irrisistable grace...) all that stuff. I'm of course in basic agreement with the point of it all. But it seems like Creation already affirms that nothing is ours to take credit for ultimately.

In the story of history we do things, we have things, we use things, and in so far as Creation is real, we really act, do, have, and use things. No problem. But in so far as God created it all, it's all from Him and for Him. We're not gnostics: faith has a body. But the body was created. So when it comes to salvation of course we're saved by grace and that not of ourselves: it was a gift. "Not of works so that no man can boast" seems like another way of saying... you didn't make yourself, silly.

Pelagianism and anyone else wanting to give some credit to man must be at their foundations creational heresies. A denial of sola gratia is an attempt at retelling the creation story. So also with every form of ingratitude. We'd have made it better, we grumble to ourselves.

This is why salvation is rightly described as re-creation.

Read More...

Summary only...

Drama in the Lab

I'm teaching high school Chemistry this year, something for which I am utterly unqualified. I took Chemistry in high school. That's one credential. I remember some of it. That's the other. But I'm thankful for the opportunity. I'm thankful for Chemistry and Chemists, and scientific endeavors in general.

It's the way God made the world to see life out of our head. He gave us certain eyes through which we see everything. And everything we see has a way of bleeding into everything else we see. And this applies to the rest of our bodies. There's a sense in which we are always leaving vestiges of ourselves everywhere we go, and at the same time, there's a sense in which we are dragging our past with us into the future. But I was talking about Chemistry.

That is to say, I'm an actor. Or more truly, I've occasionally had the opportunity to take part in some drama. But everyone acts. But that's not my point. It's the Chemists that I'm actually thinking about and the computer programmers and the all the other scientists out there. Yeah, you. You are acting. You pretend the world is perfect. You, geometricians and engineers, you act as though the world contains circles and straight lines. You pantomime the world with equalities and perfect symmetries. And that's fine. I love suspension bridges; we're grateful for our cars.

I just wanted to point out that every science has to isolate whatever it studies for just a moment. It's impossible to study something without imagining it by itself. But of course nothing ever occurs in absolute isolation. Science is dramatic art. It puts its object of study on a stage, places certain props around it, and tells a story through it. If the scientist tells a good story, his findings will benefit the real world. But the scientist must always remember that he's pretending in the lab. In real life, chemical equations and reactions are never balanced and circles do not exist.

Read More...

Summary only...

War: Catholic and Schismatic

War divides. It cuts nations and people apart; it tears and rips like a terrible machine devouring families and churches and faces. War stings. It burns fissures through communities and cultures. It rumbles below in the deeps and swallows brothers and fathers and mothers. War separates friends. It severs loyalties; it bursts old wine skins. It dislocates limbs. War divides.

War unites. Where men refused to look in one anothers' eyes; they unblinkly charge eachother to the death. War brings nations crashing against eachother like opposing tides: rushing, roaring together to mingle and mix. War brings brothers together; it puts them face to face, hand to hand. It makes them bleed for eachother. War is reunion. It reunites friends, families, and communities. Where life could not help, death provides the calm. The field is the table where all are one.

Read More...

Summary only...