The Hand That Offendeth

Cell Phones In Church

2012-01-09T10:21:00.003-05:00

A parishioner sent this to me. Love the concept, not sure how we'd be able to implement it though!

John Stott: The most influential evangelical you've never heard of

2011-08-06T12:01:00.002-04:00

Last Wednesday (July 27th) John Stott passed away at the age of 90 in Surrey, England. But who is John Stott and what's the big deal anyway. John Stott was ordained in 1945 as a minister in the Church of England, and has had an enormous influence on Christianity all over the world. He's written over 50 books, ranging in style from popular/devotional to academic commentaries, history and theology. He was appointed Chaplain to the Throne by Queen Elizabeth and founded numerous organizations, many of which focus on global ministry, particularly in the Global South. He spent a good portion of his ordained ministry as the Vicar of All Soul's, Langham Place in London, and was appointed Vicar-Emeritus after his retirement. Here's an article from the New York Times written about his life and death.

But what makes Stott so interesting and his death so notable, is that he represented a type of evangelical very unlike what most of the 21st century West has (sometimes rightly) grown to despise about evangelicals in general: he was incredibly gracious and humble. He was passionate about evangelism and Gospel proclamation, biblical faithfulness, and a global understanding of the church. He met with heads of state, global leaders, and people of influence for seven decades, and did so with poise, humbleness, and tenacity.

Sadly, when most people hear "evangelical" they think of 'angry, thoughless, close-minded, fundamentalist'... etc., and unfortunately they don't think of all the things that Stott embodied: thoughtful, exceptionally intelligent, faithful, gracious, and humble, while still maintaining an integrity with his convictions.

The category of global evangelical leader is often readily filled with names like Billy Graham, but, to quote the NYT, "For all his fame on several continents, Mr. Stott’s travels and appearances were remarkably devoid of pomp, befitting his simple message of reason and faith and his unassuming demeanor. Those in his ministries knew him simply as Uncle John. In his later years, he lived in a two-room apartment over the garage of a London rectory, and for many years he kept a small cottage on the Welsh coast, where he did much of his prodigious writing in longhand and, until 2001, without electricity."

I never met Rev. Stott, but I wish I had. I grew up hearing his name and have read many of his books (see below for a list of some of his more well known writings). But I know that he lead, preached, inspired, guided, and formed many thousands of Christians and Christian leaders over the better part of the twentieth century. Most Episcopalians have never even heard of him. So for one of the most remarkable and influential Christian leaders of our time, I bow my head at news of his death, and close with a quote from the President of John Stott Ministries who succinctly and simply sums up Stott's life: "He imparted to many a love for the global church and imparted a passion for biblical fidelity and a love for the Savior."

O God, who by thy Holy Spirit dost give to some the word of
wisdom, to others the word of knowledge, and to others the
word of faith: We praise thy Name for the gifts of grace
manifested in thy servant John, and we pray that thy Church
may never be destitute of such gifts; through Jesus Christ our
Lord, who with thee and the Holy Spirit liveth and reigneth,
one God, for ever and ever. Amen. (Book of Common Prayer, p. 197)

Some noteworthy books by John Stott:

The Cross of Christ

The Message of Romans (Bible Speaks Today Commentary Series)

Basic Christianity

The Preacher's Portrait

The Contemporary Christian

Romans: God's Good News for the World

Bad Friday?

2011-04-22T09:53:00.001-04:00

Good Friday. What an odd title for such a day as this. For on this day the Prince of Glory was abused and suffered a travesty of justice, a farce of a trial, and was hauled outside Jerusalem like a common criminal. There on a desolate hill appropriately named The Skull he was put to the most shameful and painful death the ancient world had at its disposal. And yet we call this day “Good”. How can that be – should this not be “Bad Friday”?

In many respects it is bad, for on this day we see humanity at its worst. God finally arrived on earth as a fully Incarnate man, and the path of his life lead not to victorious glory but a painful, humiliating death. How ironic that the Good of Jesus brought out the Worst in People. Yes, when we look at the cross we see ourselves at our worst – the offense of the Cross of Jesus is that it exposes human sin. Things really are this bad. Judas asked, “Is it I?” who would betray Jesus, and on Good Friday we ask ourselves, “Is it I?” who put him on the cross?

But the mystery and power of God’s redemption is that, “By his blood he reconciled us, and by his wounds we are healed” (BCP p. 370, para. Isaiah 53:5). On this bad and terrible day, unbeknownst to all those gathered on Golgotha, God was actually doing something Good. Something he had promised from ages past that would undo all the sorrowful, hurtful, wrong things of this world. God would forgive sins, wash away sorrow and guilt, and begin a New Creation. The offense of the cross is that it exposes human sin – the glory of the cross is that it also washes away human sin. God did all of this out of his great love for us at our worst (not our best!). All it cost was the life of the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world

Kingdom Power

2011-03-07T10:43:00.001-05:00

1 Corinthians 4:14-20
This is the final sermon in our series on 1 Corinthians. The guiding principle we've used here is that there is always a gap between the ideal things and the actual things, and if we try to fill that gap on our own, we will shred ourselves and those around us. The only thing that can truly fill that gap is the grace of God. In this passage Paul indicates that God's grace, God's kingdom, is not simply a matter of words but of power.

I don't think Paul is merely saying here that "Talk is cheap", as if he were saying that propositional truth is useless and advocates for action only. I think this for two reasons. First, the 'words' he is talking about are those of his detractors, and he is essentially calling them out. If they are right and he is wrong, then they need to back it up with the true power of God and not play 'armchair apostle.' Secondly, we know that the Word of God is indeed powerful - God created the world by speaking it into existence; Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

The power he is talking about is the visible power of God, manifesting in history. Take for example the Old Testametn prophet Elijah's showdown with the prophets of the pagan god Baal. The showdown was simple: the true god will be the one who sets the altar on fire. Baal guys are up first and they call out and do their mojo and nothing happens. Elijah then step up to the plate, orders some servants to put water on the altar so everyone knows there is no funny business going on, calls on the Name of the Lord...and shazaam! Fire! Lots of fire. The winner: Elijah. The kingdom of God demonstrates itself with power. This is what Paul is talking about.

The Gospel tells us that God works in history, in time with his power so that we might trust in him. Where most people fall flat is this way: they think that in order to experience God's power they have to first make themselves powerful. Jesus' power actually come to those who are weak and in need of him. God says that "My strength and power is perfected in your weakness." How often do we think that "I've got to clean myself up for God to love me." The Gospel tells us that the opposite is true - that the power of God is most present and at work in those who are in most need of him through weakness.

Anxiety

2011-02-20T14:47:00.004-05:00

1 Corinthians 4:1-13

We're almost finished with our series on 1 Corinthians, as Epiphany winds down. This week's sermon is Part 6. The governing big idea has been that there is always a gap between the ideal and the actual. We all know what we're supposed to do, say, think, and feel, but we never actually do, say, think, and feel them. The consequence of this gap is that if we try to fill it with our own efforts is that we will shred ourselves, and likely those around us. In this passage of chapter 3, Paul is calling out those who have criticized or doubted his authority as an apostle. He says to them that he's not worried about their judgment of him, because God alone will judge him. God will bring to light that which is hidden, and thus we ask, "By what standard will we be judged?"

The answer to this is found in today's reading in Matthew 6:24-34, where Jesus points out that you and I will not be judged by all the things we aquire, NOR by how much we strive for and/or are anxious about such things. Jesus asks, which of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life. All anxiety does is indicate your allegiance to worldly provision of your needs, not to God's provision of your needs. God gives the birds of the air food and clothes the flowers of the fields in beauty - how much more so, Jesus states, will God provide for us who are worth much more than birds and flowers. Now, most of us don't wake up in the morning and struggle with questions of basic subsistence, what will I eat or what will I wear, but there are absolutely people in our community who do.

But while we might not be in a day and age that is dominated by severe matters of basic subsistence, we do know all too well what it is to be anxious. We worry about the pending results of a medical exam/test, we worry about the big presentation at work, we worry about the stability of a relationship. The reason we are anxious is ultimately because we are relying on worldly answers to present themselves, because if we truly trusted in God we wouldn't be anxious. Essentially Jesus is showing us that anxiety is sin.

But is the answer then to say, "Have you tried just not being anxious?" No! Because that certainly doesn't work! Furthermore, I don't want to make light of the serious things that keep you up at night. What we do need in the face of our anxieties is not to deny its there, but assurance. If you knew the results of your pending test results, would you be anxious. No, you wouldn't. However, God' doesn't promise full disclosure of the outcome of all our anxious issues. God doesn't promise to take away the things that cause us to be anxious, but he does say, "Do you trust me?" The answer to anxiety is faith, and Jesus will give us assurance in the face of our anxiety.

The Collect for today asks that God would save us from "faithless fears and worldly anxieties" and we ask God to help us to "cast our cares on you who cares for us." There is really no simple formulaic answer to our anxieties - perhaps it would be nice if there were. All I can do is point you to Jesus Christ, tell you to trust in him and cast your cares on him, for he cares for you.

Mature Christians

2011-02-13T15:58:00.001-05:00

1 Corinthians 3:1-9

Our ongoing series on 1 Corinthians continues with Part 5 . This sermon ties in closely with the Gospel reading for today, Matthew 5:21-37. Paul is talking about maturity: the Corinthians think they are very mature in their faith, but the reality is they are not. How are they immature, and what does true Christian maturity look like?

Paul uses the analogy of food to describe maturing. Babies drink milk, adults eat solid food. In the life of faith, there are the simple basics, the "milk" of doctrine, and there is a more sound grasp and growth in being a Christian, "solid food". Paul says that he'd love to treat them as mature, but he has to talk to them as infants.

We should note, that part of being mature Christians means that we very regularly and readily go back to the basics of our faith, of Christ and him crucified (which we talked about last week). But this is different from never getting beyond the basics, where we never go any deeper to wrestling with the deeper questions of faith and the claims of Christians.

So what does it mean to mature in Christ and our faith? We'll answer this by looking at the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5. Jesus says repeatedly the phrase, "You have heard it said..." and then adds, "...but I say to you...". So, for example, he says, "You have heard it said...do not committ murder." Here he's quoting from the 10 Commandments. Most people breath a sigh of relief, thinking, well I'm OK because I've never killed anyone. "But I say to you...whoever is angry with their brother is liable to judgement." Is Jesus making the commandment to not kill easier or harder? Jesus does the same with adultery, and applies the commandment not merely to our behavior, but to the state of our hearts.

In the Collect for today, we prayed that God would enable us to follow his commandments in will and in deed. It's good that you haven't actually killed someone, it's good that you haven't cheated on your wife, but in your sinful heart and mind you have. We need God to change and heal our hearts and wills to bridge the gap between the ideal and the actual. The law can not change our hearts, only the grace of Jesus Christ can.

So what does Paul mean by 'maturity'? If the Sermon on the Mount does anything it shows us the chasm in our lives between the ideal and the actual, and that a truly mature Christian is more aware, and not less, of this gap. As time goes on and our relationship goes deeper, we become more aware of our need for Jesus, not less.

The longer you are married to someone, are you more or less aware of their faults? More! Since it's St. Valentine's day, we note that when you first meet someone and fall in love, it's very hard to notice or imagine their faults. But as time goes on that changes. What a mature, healthy relationship requires is grace and forgiveness as a couple deals with those faults that are always being exposed. It is the same with us and the Lord. God will show to us our shortcomings, but will also point us again and again to the One who fills that gap. Grace causes the facade to come down.

Christ And Him Crucified...

2011-02-06T11:56:00.004-05:00

1Corinthians 2:1-12

This sermon from Feb. 6th is Part 4 in our series on 1 Corinthians. We've been using the concept of the gap between the ideal and the actual as we walk through this remarkable letter. The key verse we'll be looking at is verse 2, where Paul states, "I desired to know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified." Paul reminds the Corinthian church that when he first arrived and began teaching them, not many of them were wealthy, or wise, or powerful according to the standards of the world. And he did not visit with a slick, polished, "wise" message intended to wow them, but rather he came with a message, i.e. the Gospel, had a power that actually did something to them and for them. And they had forgotten that.

Paul is chipping away at their misperceptions to expose the root problem, so that he would then show them the truth. If someone can't or won't acknowledge that they have a problem (be it an addiction, or an abusive relationship, or whatever), then there's really not much you can do for them. So Paul reminds them of their weakness when he first came to them, and their need to get back to basics. Let's unpack this powerful verse.

"I desired to know nothing among you..." There's something that is extremely simple about the Christian Gospel. This simplicity is very attractive, and part of what draws us back to church week in and week out. Very few people visit with me an complain that their lives are too simple. Quite the opposite: our lives are so often way to complex and busy, and what we long for is periods of rest, refreshment, and simplicity. Paul is bringing these Christians back to the very plain and simple truth of the Gospel.

"...except Jesus Christ..." And this Gospel is not a philosophy, not a method of living, nor an system of emotional highs and lows, but it is all about a Person. Simple. What you and I need week in and week out is not to reconnect with an emotion, not an idea, but with a real, live, Person. Jesus is alive today, do you know him? Or more appropriately, does he know you? If the verse ended here, then we would have a very simple message, rooted and grounded in a Person. But it doesn't end there. The difinitive part of knowing Jesus Christ is 'him crucified.'

"...and him crucified." Why make this such a central point to Jesus. He was such a nice guy, can't we just remember his teachings, why the cross? If all we have to the Gospel is the Person of Christ and the need to be like him, then we must ask, "Just how much like him are we?" There's that gap between the ideal and actual again!

Today is Super Bowl Sunday, I'm a big Steelers fan, and here's something a good friend of mine wrote in his blog abou the Steelers. He said he's looking forward to the game, but is reluctant to watch it at the church with his congregation becasue he doesn't want them to see what he's really like when he's in front of a Steeler's game.

We all wrestle with the idea that if peopel really know what I'm like then they wouldn't love me. And so we long to cover up what we're really like. If the Gosepl were simply, "Be like Jesus" then all we would do is be forced to further cover up what we're really like. But because the Gospel is "Jesus Christ and him crucified", it is intended for you to be laid bare to be healed. Jesus didn't come to be an example to follow, he came to be a propitiation for my sins! And by doing so I am enabled to be real with my sins, not cover them up.

That's we like to be around good friends. Because we feel like we can 'be ourselves' around them. We like to be with people who know and love us because they know our shortcomings and such grace causes us to be free, not to be bound and covered. How many of us can open up and be real with the people we are sitting with in church? How readily can you let the facade drop and be vulnerable, and confess and be healed.

Truth & Wisdom

2011-02-01T09:53:00.000-05:00

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 Last week we looked at the church and the Gospel with the concept of Foolishness & Power. In this sermon from Jan. 30th, Part 3 of our series on 1 Corinthians we build on the immortal verse: "for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but for us who are being saved it is the power of God"(1Cor 1:18) . In this sermon we'll take a look at truth and the gap/disparity between what is true and what we think is wise. Or, to be more specific, wrestling with the question, "How do you know that the things you take to be true in life, are actually true?" (FYI, the fancy-schmancy word for wrestling with this question is 'episitimology'). We make decisions and declare words or actions to be wise base on what we know to be true. In the biblical world, the Israelites determined things to be true by miracles and power - the Greeks used wisdom, i.e. philosophical wisdom, as the plumb line for truth. In Paul's letter he challenges the Corinthians on what they know and take to be true. The question sticks for us today: what plumb lines do we use to determine truth. Success is very often our plumb line today. If something is successful then the things that drive its success must be true. What are some other plumb lines for truth in our culture today? Here's some food for thought. If an astronomer tells you about some new planet in a far off galaxy that has just been discovered, you believe them, don't you. But when you go to a park and see a bench with a sign on it that says "Wet Paint", what do you do? You walk over and have to touch it, just to make sure! We don't believe the sign that simply says Wet Paint, but we do believe the astronomer who tells us something that most people have absolutely no way of evaluating/testing whether it is legit or not. Is this not a bit topsy turvey? It is, because it challenges what we know to be true. Here's another illustration of the odd and interesting ways we determine truth. Mike Brown, an astronomer, discovered in the '90s what was thought to be the 10th planet in the solar system, outside the orbit of Pluto. For years astronomers have wrestled with the definition of what is actually a planet, and at a huge international astronomers convention in Prague, the topic was to be on the table to settle the definition once for all. If the finalized definition was such that Pluto was axed from the list, then by default Brown's new planet would also be axed. Naturally, folks thought Brown would be in favor of a traditional definiting which would keep Pluto, and consequently his planet, in the list. But he supprised the international community when he published a book called "How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming" in which he argues against Pluto's planethood on the basis that scientifically it is not a planet! What is really telling about this whole story (don't worry, there's a reason homing in here!) is that at the astronomer summit they passed a resolution that in fact affirmed there are only 8 planets, but then passed a sub-resolution stating that this was based on the classical definition of planets - then they put the whole thing to a vote! There's a gap here between truth (Pluto is not a planet) and the sentiment of intelligent, able scientists who like Pluto and don't want to axe it from the list. If international scientists can do that, then we certainly can do the same in our own lives. The point is this - that knowing something to be true is ultimately dependent on faith. How do you know someone loves you? Surely there are signs and actions, like buying gifts, romantic dinners, taking care of household duties, but people can also fake it. How do you really know that they love you? Ultimately, you have to simply trust that they do. If you doubt the love of your spouse, taking them to a lab to be tested is a very bad idea - it will backfire on you! So this is sound wisdom: that knowing things are true isnot ultimately based on scientific inquirey, 'touching the wet paint', but on faith. Paul points out to the Corinthian church, that when most of them came to know Jesus Christ, very few of them fit the world's "wisdom" in terms of their success, status in life, their intelligence, etc. Did they fit the world's categories of truth? No. But this is good, because if a relationship with God depended on the wisdom of the world we'd all be sunk. It is to the meek that the world will be given (Matthew 5:5). Worldly wisdom says that humble people don't get anything, they become doormats, but God says that those who don't fit the world's plumb lines are the one's that he comforts. That is why the message of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, those who strive to fit the world's models of wisdom, but for those who are being saved, who trust in Jesus, the Cross is the power of God.

Interesting: "The Last Word"

2011-01-26T11:06:00.003-05:00

This video was posted on Vimeo by a friend of a friend, who wrote, produced, directed, and even appears in this dramatic video short. I think it was a project for a film class, and I really liked it. Gritty, insightful, a tad slow-moving, but superbly scored, it really draws you in, and I love the closing statement.

Take a look and then I'll give you my two cents worth below.

The Last Word

So what is this short film about? Essentially about the power of love, particularly when love, as opposed to hate, has the last word. The clip from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at the end was given in his "A Time to Break the Silence" speech about the Vietnam War. The partuclar line of love being the 'last word' is a quote he makes of Arnold Toynbee. Here's the broader text of that speech:

We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word."

(Click here for the full text of this speech of Dr. King's, with the audio recording of it)

In this short film, the first 'word', that is the first set of scenes, is violence, fear, lonliness, and pain. The second set of scenes shows what happens when love has the last word. Violence is abrogated, lonliness is offset, fear and pain find reconciliation and restitution.

In the realm of Christian theology, there are Two Words, Law and Gospel. There is the first Word from God, that of Law, and the Second Word from God, that of Love (or Grace). The First Word of Law reveals what God declares to be right and wrong (it is wrong for a person to assault another, for example). It also reveals human behavior to be radically short of keeping that law. Specifially, the First Word exposes the violence, lonliness, fear, and pain in our world and lives for what they really are.

The Second Word, the Word of Love/Grace, speaks to the crushing weight of our plight and does not tell us what to 'do', but indicates to us what God has already 'done'. Grace shows us that God has taken upon himself the violence, fear, evil, and shame of our world. He has donel this of his own initiative, for his purposes, and as indicative of his wondrous nature, not , as L'Oreal claims, "Because I'm worth it!"

So this film, while clearly not explicitly Christian, it is underpinned by very strong Christian ideas, whether intentionally or unintentionally so. Discuss amongst ya-selves.

Foolishness & Power

2011-01-25T10:41:00.000-05:00

1Corinthians 1:10-18 This is the second installment of the sermon series on 1 Corinthians from January 23rd. The overarching idea for this series on the first four chapters of this magnificent letter is that there is always a disparity in real life between the ideal and the actual.

On one had are the things we know we should be thinking, saying, feeling, and doing, and on the other are the things we actually do, say, think, and feel. The message of the Gospel is that the thing which fills this disparity gap is power and grace of Jesus Christ- if we try to fill it ourselves we will tear ourselves and those around us apart.

Often the way we fill the gap between the ideal and actual is with good intentions. How often have you heard the saying, "It's the thought that counts"? Now, there is nothing wrong with good intentions, but they will only get you so far, and assuring yourself with the maxim, "It's the thought that counts" really works with the odd Christmas present. In ongoing, regular life such a mentality becomes toxic.

For example, in Jurassic Park III (yes they made a third one), there is an incident when Dr. Grant's assistant Billy steals some veloca raptor eggs and consequently they are hunted by the angry dinosaurs who want their eggs back. When Grant (played by Sam Neill) discovers the theft as the cause of this hounding, he confronts Billy, who justifies his actions by claiming he thought Dr. Grant would like the specimens and that he had good intentions when he did it. To which Dr. Grant replies with the immortal words, "Some of the worst things imagninable have been done with good intentions."

And so it is for us. Good intentions will not and can not fill the gap between what is ideal and actual.

Now, with this in mind, we're going to take a look at the Corinthian church: the church with "Issues." In particular, the first Issue that Paul addresses is divisions in the church. -pause...put on shocked face-

Yes, there was once a church that didn't get along with itself. What was causing the rifts was essentially a form of self righteousness. One group thought they were pretty special because so-and-so baptized them, verses the other group who were proud to name such-and-such as their 'favorite apostle.'

People will always find ways to commend themselves over and against each other, and try to do so with God. This is what Paul calls foolishness. It makes sense to the ones doing it, but their 'wisdom' is in fact foolish, because there is really nothing that we can do to commend ourselves to God.

What Paul does care about, is their trust in the cross of Jesus Christ. Is is Jesus alone who has the power to commend us to God the Father, and we are in him by virtue of our trust in the power of his shed blood to cleanse us of all self-righteousness (i.e. sin). Thus Paul says, "I desired to know nothing among you but Christ and him crucified.

On the cross God did something very foolish. Foolish in the eyes of silly little humans like us. He died for the unworthy. When God came to the earth he didn't show up to open a self-help shop, he didn't come to raise an army of bedraggled volunteers to 'eat the rich' (Aerosmith), he died. That's not what we want our cosmic blessing pinata to do. We want God to fix stuff for us. We want God to be cosmic IT support. We want him to have Sith lightning and dazzle us. This is human 'wisdom'. But Jesus died. That's not what we expect. But Paul sets us straight and says our view is foolish, but God is his wisdom, demonstrates his love for the ungodly.

God poured out his grace not to help and validate the righteous, but for those who were dead in sin. As the hymn so beautifully puts it, "Here is love vast as the ocean, loving kindness as a flood; when the Prince of Life our ransom, shed for us his precious blood. Grace and love like mighty rivers, poured incessiant from above; and heaven's grace and perfect justice, kissed a guilty world in love."

The Distance between Ideal and Actual

2011-01-16T15:59:00.000-05:00

1 Corinthians 1:1-9 This sermon from January 16th marks the start of a new series on the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, which we'll be studying through to the end of February. The governing idea for this series is this: there is always a distance between the ideal things and what actually is. There are always the ideal expectations that we have for all kinds of things, there are always ideal demands on behavior and on systems and governments. Think about campaign time in politics. We vote leaders in primarily based on the ideal platform that they present, and then spend the next few years frustrated at them because what actually happens is not what was promised. Think about relationships, especially marriage. When I counsel couples who are preparing to get married, the number one issue that we have to address is expectations. All married couples enter into the covenant of wedlock with very different and sometimes extremely high expectations about what their marriage will be like and what their spouse will be like. Sometimes the distance between the ideal adn the actual is huge, sometimes it is small. But is is always there. What about Christians. Why is it that some of the rudest, most difficult people you will meet are Christians? Ideally, Christians are to be loving, joyful, faithful, generous, kind, gentle, and excellent. In actuallity, Christians are rarely anywhere close to this (here's an interesting trailer for a documentary called, "Lord, Save Us From Your Followers.") If ever there was a Church that had a huge distance between the ideal and the actual, it was Corinth. According to St. Paul, they did stuff that even the pagans didn't do! Corinth sat on a major overland trade route that connected the Aegean and Adriatic seas. It was weathy, ecclectic, big, and debauched. It had, to use a therapeutic term, "issues". Like, issues with a capital "I". Like George Costanza type issues. And yet, when Paul writes to them he begins his letter by calling them, "the saints in Corinth...who are sanctified in Christ." What's going on with that?! How can such aweful people be addressed in such a way. Was Paul delusional adn pollyanna-ish, or was he ignoring or downplaying their issues? Certainly not, because he lets them have it for 15 chapters. The Gospel of Jesus Christ speaks to this distance between the ideal, that is our justified/righteous status through faith in Christ, and the actual, that is our struggle against sin and the very subjective state of our day to day holiness. Luther referred to this reality in the phrase: simul iustus et peccator - 'at the same time righteous and sinner.' So what fills the gap between the ideal and the actual? What fills the void between what we ought to do and what we don't do. Certainly, if we try to fill that gap on our own we will destroy ourselves. There are people who are driven to perfection: they see the ideal and they want it. And they will step on or push aside anyone to get it. Sometimes this pursuit of perfection is all about money. Sometimes power. Sometimes sex. And the list goes on. And the first thing that will be damaged if you try to pursue the ideal on your own is your family, because they will always fall short of your ideal. And so you will get frustrated and angry and squash them. No, it's not ourselves that fills the gap. It is only the grace of God which fills that gap between the ideal and the actual. Paul says that he gives "thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus." God's love of the unworthy, the people who are trapped in actual, comes through his gracious gifts and his power to sustain them through their lives and be presented to God in the end as blameless.

Advent 3 Sermon - Humble Worship

2010-12-19T10:44:00.000-05:00

In the fantastic film Indian Jones and the Last Crusade, Indy has to find the Holy Grail. In order to do so he must pass three traps of extreme cunning and danger. The secret to passing the first trap is the sacred verse given him by his father, "Only the penitent man shall pass". Indy makes it through by realize that a penitent man is humble before God and kneel's (thus avoiding the spinning slicing blades of death).

In this sermon from the Third Sunday of Advent we look at preparing ourselves for worship through being humble. The Rite 1 liturgy is steeped in language and prayers which leads and causes the worshipper to be place in a position of humbleness before God.

Indeed, one can not go through this service and say the things we say and do the things we do, and in all honesty not have a stance of humility and need before God. This stands in opposition to our natural propensity which is that of God owing us our due, or that we are inherently worthy of God's kindness and attention.

Instead, the heartbeat of Anglican prayer is summed up in the Prayer of Humble Access: "We do not presume to come to this Thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in Thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under Thy Table; but Thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy..."

You see, God, in all his glory and power and wonder, humbled and emptied himself and came to the earth as a human baby. Not a baby in a palace in fine linen, but a baby in a food trough. What then, does humility look like for us?

C.S. Lewis points out that true humility is not an athletic person pretending to be clumsy, nor an intelligent person pretending to be dumb (because such pretending is falsehood, and thus can not be truly humble). Instead, he argues that true humility is the one who comes before God and does not look left or right. True humility stands before God 'as is', not as-we-are-relative-to-someone-else.

The humble person is the one who recognizes their unworthy nature and their utter need of God's mercy and kindness. The humble person does not presume anything, but simply trusts in the promise of Jesus, that he came to seek and to save the lost. That he came not for the righteous nor the healthy, but for the sinner and the sick.

Like a football lineman who prepares for every snap of the football by getting in a three-point-stance, true worshippers prepare to come before their Lord through a heart filled with humbleness.

A Picture Says A Thousand Words

2010-12-14T16:20:00.004-05:00

I usually get a lot of emails containing 'inspiriational' messages, stories, and headlines. Some are funny, some are milquetoast, most are not worth the time it takes to read them. During this Season of Advent and Christmas I tend to get even more inspiring emails. That's why I was extremely relieved when my buddy sent me the following picture with the caption: "You really know you've screwed up when...". This has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas, but I love Batman and ironic boneheadedness, and this picture captures both with spectacular simplicity. Sorry Jack, your Joker was just soooo 1989. Heath, RIP.

Sort of the equivalent of asking Sean Connory to sign a picture of Roger Moore. In the fan's defense, the actors in question wore makeup for the film - very confusing! The picture illustrates the sort of fuzzy, muddled thinking which is so pervasive. It might go something like this: "I like Jack Nicholson, and I know he played the Joker. Here is a picture of the Joker. Therefore the actor in the picture must be Jack Nicholson." The sequence of logic is sound, the premises on which it is based are severely flawed.
This is all assuming, of course, that the fan in question is an idiot. He very well may have done this on purpose, in which case I would tip my hat for bravery in incurring the wrath (or at the very least, scorn) of Mr. Jack "Remember-that-I-was-in-The Shining" Nicholson.

Advent 2 Sermon - Matters of the Heart

2010-12-12T14:57:00.000-05:00

Continuing in our Advent Season, this sermon of the Second Sunda y of Advent takes a look at the central concept of the heart - in life, in worship, in love and obedience to God.

When the Scriptures talk about the heart, and when our prayer book uses "heart" or "heartily" (we heartily thank thee...) what are they referring to? Not merely the cardiac muscle in our chests that pumps blood, but rather the heart is the core of who we are. If I say, I love you with all of my heart, I mean that I love you with all that I am and have, to the very core of my being. This is the heart of a person, and out of the heart flows the drive of our desires, the impetus for our thoughts, and the motive of our actions. "Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks" - Jesus (Matthew 12:34-35).

The Bible consistently teaches that a person's heart is naturally not good, but instead is corrupted and inherently selfish. While humans are created in God's image, they are Fallen and sinful, and need redeeming. Without God's intervention people's hearts are:

such that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually (Genesis 6:5)

deceitful above all things and desperately sick (Jeremiah 17:9)

corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good, not even one (Psalm 14:1-3)

the source of evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, and slander (Matthew 15:18-20)

(See also: Genesis 8:21; 1 Kings 8:46; Proverbs 20:9; Romans 1:21, 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10)

What you and I need is a new heart. What Christians have, for millenia, called regeneration, and what Jesus called, being born anew (or born from above, or born again). From a new heart flows love, obedience, generosity, forgiveness, and peace. This transformed life is characterized by what St. Paul called the fruit of the Spirit.

But here's the catch: in this life the transformation of heart and mind and soul and body is not complete. We are reckoned (logizomai: imputed) righteous through faith in Jesus, and while our hearts are regenerate, there is still the sinful nature present. Thus for the faithful Christian, being born again is not the end of the battle against the selfish corruption of the heart, but rather the beginning!

This is where our liturgy speaks. It understands the corrupt heart and the power of God to forgive and justify. Those who wrote our prayers understood that the Christian life is first and foremost one of repentance, because it is in repenting that we are kept honest about our own shortcomings, weaknesses, and sin, and also kept focused on the completed work of Jesus Christ for our salvation. Remember, Jesus came to seek and save that which is lost, he came for the sinner not the righteous, for the sick, not the healthy.

The language of our Rite 1 liturgy is full of "heart" language. No less than 13 times do we express the term "heart" or "heartily": Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open...cleanse the thoughts of our hearts...we are heartily sorry for these our misdoings...lift up your hearts...we heartily thank thee...keep your hearts and minds in the knowledge and love of God...

Ours is worship not merely of the mind (cerebral) or of the eye (asthetic) but of the heart. If you come to church in worship and God does not do something to your heart, then what are we doing here!? Know this:

What the heart desires, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.

Our worship this Advent, and truly year round, is intended by the Holy Spirit to work on our hearts.

The Feast of St. Nicholas

2010-12-06T15:18:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was December 6th, as date so many of us are familiar with, or at least are whether we realize it or not. For me it marks the anniversary of my ordination (pause for applause...), but it is also St. Nicholas' Day. That's right, we celebrate and remember jolly old Saint Nick on December 6th. Ironically, most people end up celebrating Saint Nick on December 25th (to be read with biting cynicism). It's unfortunate that this remarkable man is so overlooked as he ought to be regarded, and unfortunate that our culture has gladly made Christmas more about him than about Jesus Christ - a fact of which I'm sure would cause the real St. Nicholas to roll in his grave. But what do we know about this man? How did he go from St. Nicholas to Santa Claus? Nicholas was born to wealthy Christian parents in Asia Minor in the third century (c. 270 AD), and became the Bishop of Myra. Myra was a harbor city on the Mediterannean coast. He is mostly regarded in the Greek Orthodox Church as the patron saint of sailors and fisherman, and is credited with being in attendence at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. One story surrounding his sainthood involves the miraculous increase of a shipment of wheat which he convinced imperial sailors to offload at Myra. He died on December 6th, 343 AD, and so his feast day is celebrated on the anniversary of his death. Many stories and legends surround this interesting man, perhaps the most important one for us in the US has to do with his gift-giving to children. While there are a variety of versions, there are two that particularly lend influence to the Western tradition of Father Christmas. One story invovles an evil butcher who murders three children during a severe famine, but Nicholas sees through the butcher's treachery and miraculously resurrects the murdered children from the barrel containing their remains. The second story involves a poor man's three daughters, who cannot afford to marry and face a life of prostitution. Nicholas, wishing not to expose the family's predicament, goes to their home at night and leaves three bags of gold coins for the daughters to get married. In a variation on this story, he drops the coins down the chimney. If this is starting to sound familiar, it should. These saintly legends form the backdrop for our modern, American Santa Claus. It is interesting to note that in 1087, Myra was under seige from invading Muslim armies, and Italian sailors transferred (or stole, depending on whose side of the story you take!) Nicholas' remains to protect them and interred them in a church in Bari in southern Italy. Nicholas' notoriety spread from there along with his patronage of giving gifts to children. The Dutch called him Sinterklaas, from which we derive the name Santa Claus (Santa=Saint; Claus is a truncation of Nicholas). I find the transformation over the years of Nicholas into Santa Claus to be both fascinating and saddening. I truly loathe the gluttonous debacle that Christmas has become in our country. Although, I suppose department stores wouldn't have sales at midnight on THANKSGIVING (!) if they thought no one would show up. But they do. In droves. Pathologically feeding our insatiable desire to buy, and justifying it by claiming 'good will' and 'the Christmas spirit'. The real Nicholas gave because of his love for the greatest gift of all, the Son of God given to humanity. Some say his inspiration for giving came from the wise men who brought gifts to the infant Jesus (Matthew 2:1-12). So here's the rub: do we give at Chrsitmas because we simply love to buy things, or do we give because we love the Son of God who was given to us? St. Nicholas vs. Santa Claus...there kahn bee only wan (in best Christopher Lambert voice).

VS.

Advent 1 Sermon - Light & Dark

2010-11-28T16:45:00.000-05:00

During Advent this year at St. George's I am doing a sermon series on the doctrine and ideas which undergird our Episcopal worship and liturgy. Many are drawn to the beauty of liturgical worship in our church, and we certainly have a remarkable heritage in the Prayer Book. However, being drawn to the beauty of liturgy is one thing, but not knowing what your are saying/praying and why is another. I grew up in the Episcopal Church, but it wasn't until my late twenties that I began to learn about the theology, the doctrines underneath the liturgy.

I will be posting very brief recaps of my sermons here over the next few days, as well as including links to the online audio for them. So here's the gist of the First Sunday of Advent:

Advent is a season where images and language of light and dark become more prevalent. This fits the actual changing of seasons, the days are getting shorter, the nights longer, and the world is getting colder.

Our prayer, our first Collect for Advent asks that we might 'cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.' This is a direct quote from Romans 13:12-14, the passage that had a profound impact on St. Augustine some 1600 years ago. Part of this Bible verse indicates that although the night is far gone, the day is at hand. As Christians we know that true light has come into the world as the Lord Jesus Christ, thus it is no longer night, or at least midnight. But we also know that we don't live in full sunshine, that is, we await the return of Jeus Christ when the world will be made new and perfect. He will be like the sun shining on us, warm and pure. that is our hope. But he is not yet here, and so we live as if in the predawn hours. The night indeed is far gone, we eagerly await the Sunrise.

This is the life of the Christian, and this is what characterizes Advent. We await the coming, i.e. the Advent of Christ in glory, primarily by remembering and celebrating his first advent in the flesh as a baby. Thus Advent is the the 'predawn light' season of the church year.

And how do we 'put on Christ' and walk in the light? By trusting in Jesus, having faith in him. As St. Paul wrote, the Gospel is the power of God for all who are saved, because in it the righteousness of God is revealed, from beginning to end by faith."

Back in the Saddle

2010-11-22T14:40:00.000-05:00

This post represents a return to the blogosphere after nearly a year's hiatus from posting to "The Hand". But what a year its been! 2010 began with discernment as to the next season of life and ministry, and will now come to a close with me being the new Rector of St. George's Episcopal Church in Dayton, OH. It is my hope that this blog, started years ago, will become a resource for both the congregation and the wider community, as well as a discussion starter, and a suppliment to my teachings on Sundays at the church. As you may have noticed, the title of my blog is inspired by Thomas Cranmer, one of my great personal heroes. It was with sublime delight when I accepted the call from St. George's that I discovered a stained glass window in the Church's narthex of none other than Cranmer himself. Not only that, but the image depicts his martyrdom, from which his remarkable statment was given, 'This hand hath offended' and from which my blog derived it's title. It only made sense to then share this beautiful window with the vast readership who subscribe to my blog ;-). Sola fide!

That Crazy Harmonica

2009-12-03T11:37:00.000-05:00

Well, once again it's been a while since I've posted (not than anyone's reading anyway!), and my wife and I just got back from a wonderful retreat in the Texas Hill country. In attendance at the retreat center was a musician who I'd never heard of, but then again he's in the country/folk circuit which explains things. However, the guy, Buddy Greene, is a phenomenal musician, a genuinely humble guy, and just plain old fashioned cool. He did a little set for one of the evenings and played the William Tell Overture on his harmonica - yes, I kid you not, he played the freakin' William Tell Overture on a harmonica. (The WTO is the Lone Ranger theme music, in case you were wondering). He then told us afterwards that he had played this piece live at Carnagie Hall with Bill Gaither (another legend in the Christian/Country/Folk music realm). Here's the video on Youtube, and he actually begins with Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring (Bach), then does Mozart's Sonata, and then goes right into the WTO. Enjoy!

Two Words of Genesis

2009-08-11T14:15:00.000-04:00

As promised, here are some thoughts I've had on the Words of Creation that God spoke in Genesis 1, "Let there be light...". For further discussion and some great insights into the issues this raises check out the responses to this same post on another blog I contribute to called Mockingbird.

I was intrigued to see the post “Are you there Jesus? It’s me, Woman” and returning to the realm of Genesis and Creation. The other day I was reading my copy of the teaser edition of “Two Words”, and I noticed that the first entry was, appropriately, from Genesis. And so, my little mind got to thinking about understanding the words of creation in Genesis in light of the Two Words of Law and Gospel. When God said, “Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3), was that a word of law or grace? Both? Neither?

Let me actually begin my treatment of Genesis 1 by starting with Jesus and the Gospel. It is no secret that most Americans would readily categorize “the Gospel” as an invitation: Jesus comes to you and invites you to follow him. After all, that’s what he did with the twelve disciples, “Come follow me and I will make you fishers of men” (Mark 1:17). And Jesus knocks on the doors of our hearts and invites us to choose to allow him to come into our hearts, etc., etc.

This is, in fact, not the Gospel. The Gospel certainly requires a response, but it is a response that is made not to an invitation but, first and foremost, a response to a proclamation. Jesus has died for the sinner in his or her place and has been raised again according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). That is not an invitation, it is a declaration of the completed work of God’s grace to seek and save that which was lost (Luke 19:10). Those who hear this Gospel declaration respond by receiving it through faith (Romans 10:17). But so very often the Second Word, that of Gospel grace, is erroneously treated as a word of invitation, rather than a word of proclamation. God’s grace is not merely an invitation but a reality that is declared to sinners. Likewise, God’s Law is not an invitation but a righteous demand of which we fall short. By treating both Words of Law and Gospel as mere invitations we diminish the power and significance of both.

Consequently, it is dangerously easy to treat God’s word of Creation as an invitation. I have heard it put this way: in order to create, the Divine Essence had to ‘make room’ for the things that were made. In other words, “Let there be light” is an invitation to the light to not be afraid and be the light. It was meant to be and God would ‘back off’ and allow light to be light. Thus, the words of creation are also erroneously categorized as invitation rather than command(1).

Therefore in neither case, of Creation’s Command nor of Gospel’s Grace, are we shown God’s invitation, but rather his proclamation. God’s Law is not an invitation to obey, it is a demand to obey. Similarly, God’s Gospel is not an invitation to obey, it is a declaration of what God has done for those who cannot and will not obey (we must also add that out of the faith which trusts this Gospel, obedience does spring forth; see Romans 6:17). Two final thoughts.

First, taking such an approach to Creation, wrt the Gospel, puts humanity in its place and God, rightly, into His. We are rendered very much passive to the God who both Commands and Forgives. I am amazed at how this also changes my understanding of what Genesis means when it indicates that humans were made in the image of God. Many people and churches over the millennia have taken that statement to remove humanity from its passive relationship to God, that in so creating people ‘in his image’ God made them active agents in the face of his Law and Gospel, rather than passive. But it is truly the passive sinner to whom faith is given who may trust and believe in the Active One.

And lastly, how are we to understand the Words of Creation? Are they Law or are they Gospel? In a very real sense there is the First Voice of the Law in Creation, God bringing things into existence under submission to his absolute moral authority. But on the other hand God makes no qualifications upon the created things other than to declare them ‘good’. However, the only giving of law really occurs on Day 7 (Genesis 2:1-3), when God rested from his work, thus establishing into the fabric of Creation the Law of Rest (Sabbath), which is a foretaste of the eternal rest that will come, remarkably, only as a result of the Fall and its remedy in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So we may also argue that in the Words of Creation (“Let there be…”) we also find Gospel – that God made something and someone in love, knowing that they would rebel, knowing that the irrevocable corollary to “Let there be…” is the crucified cry of “It is finished!”

1Walter Brueggemann is a good example of this position, that the Word of Creation is invitation, and vehemently opposes the idea that it is a command.

When Bored in Germany...

2009-08-06T16:09:00.000-04:00

OK, there's nothing deep, profound, or even remotely theological about this but it is about the coolest, most absolutely speechless-ifying thing I've seen. Ever. I don't think it's fake, but really I could care less if it is, it's that cool. Enjoy the giant waterslide.

See more funny videos and TBT at Todays Big Thing.

Summer Duldrums and Jesus

2009-08-05T09:03:00.000-04:00

Well, its summer time, and that means re-runs. With 695 channels there's still nothing on, but it's even worse in the summer time. However, pre-season football is just around the corner and I'm definitely looking forward to the new season of Castle (it's the Firefly fan in me - it's like watching Malcolm Reynolds solve murder crimes, what's not to love). But we're still months away from the much anticipated final season of Lost, and so in the spirit of longing I want to share with you this very creepy, kinda Lost-esque, picture of Jesus from one of my all time favorite websites. I've got some thoughts on Genesis (the book of the bible, not the musical group) brewing for a future post, but until then, enjoy the Lost Jesus.

Jesus In the Land Down Undah

2009-07-28T15:24:00.000-04:00

So someone sent me a link to this video on Youtube. It was a commercial that aired in Australia, I'm desperately glad to see deep in the 1980s, and it is advertising a wonderful product: Jesus. Yes. Jesus. On a commercial. It covers his life and who he was. I especially like the title, "Can't keep a good man down", Jesus from the land Down Undah!

Shooting the Moon, Transformers style

2009-07-02T10:23:00.000-04:00

I grew up with the Transformers. I loved the cartoons, I loved (and owned) many of the toys. "More than meets the eye!!" Sigh. So how jazzed was I when it was announced that a film was being made. Very. And to be honest, the first 45 minutes of Transformers was some of the best sci-fi film footage I've seen in a while. Great build up, great character introductions, solid pacing and, well, it just worked. And then it ground to a halt (with that ridiculously long and stupid scene at Shai LeBoufe's house), veered clean off the road, and became a sound, light, and camera-shots-which-are-shaken-to-bring-you-more-into-the-action-but-shaken-so-much-that-your-brain-feels-like-it-has-been-pureed-by-a-sledgehammer overload fest. I walked out of the theater, dazed, bewildered, and slightly disappointed. Now Michael Bay has just released Transformers 2:Revenge of the Fallen. Naturally, I hesitated somewhat when this one came out. When I asked my good buddy Chuck, who had just seen it, what he thought, he just laughed and emailed me a link to this online review. I submit that this is one of the best film reviews I have read in a long time. It pans the film so badly that I actually kinda want to go see it now, out of sheer morbid curiosity.

Youth Ministry Anyone....?

2009-06-27T13:27:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine sent this to me and it is a brilliantly cheesy look at everything that is wrong (and also right) about youth ministry. And I love the name.

The Man Who Gave Us Green Beer

2009-03-18T11:31:00.000-04:00

I was on my way home from work yesterday and realized it was St. Patrick's Day. It kinda snuck up on me, and if it were a rake I might be dead. Nevertheless, I read a rather interesting article on St. Paddy on MSN's Slate.com. The article makes the typical, and correct, assertion that very little is actually known about St. Patrick himself. Most of what we know about the "historical St. Patrick" does not inherently and by necessity lead to the consumption of green beer. Americans came up with that twelve-hundred years later.

The point that the article is actually making is that everyone seems to want and try to claim Patrick as 'their own'. "The scarcity of facts about St. Patrick's life has made him a dress-up doll: Anyone can create his own St. Patrick." Roman Catholics depict him as a bishop, ordained and commissioned by the Pope himself. Protestants reject this claim and see him as an innovative evangelist, from whom came a distinct form of what is called today Celtic Christianity. But what I found interesting is the observation in the Article that Mormons associate with him in that he traveled over the sea to evangelize barbarous people there - much like what is 'recorded' in the Book of Mormon and the supposed indigenous Lamanites and Nephites in pre-Columbian North America.

Even more recently Patrick is now claimed by gay activists, and interestingly, is the feature of a recent Fox TV special called "St. Patrick." This Fox Patrick leads the good people of Ireland in a revolt against the English bishop who says they owe taxes. "The fearless colonist [i.e. Patrick] leads a tax revolt against the villainous English. We Americans, like everyone else, think St. Patrick is one of us."

What I found interesting in all this St. Patrick-ing, is the similar way that Jesus is treated. Whether it is the 'historical' Jesus, the Buddy Jesus, or Bad Religion's "American Jesus" (wow, does that take you back to the early 90s or what), there is a limitless supply of versions of Jesus dressed up to look like what people want or need him to be.

This tells me two things. Firstly, all people have desperate need of a hero, or a substitute, someone on whom they can lay claim. Now, this might not be the same hero their whole life, in fact, it might suffice to lay claim to a particular hero once a year on March 17th, or on December 25th for that matter. But the point is that all people need someone outside themselves from whom they can draw identity. Shrinks might tell you this is merely a form of transference of what's already there, but even if it is (and I don't think it is), the reality for people is that we need our celebrities. We have to know that someone above us relates to us and that we can claim for ourselves, even if we've never met them nor have any chance of ever meeting them (because they are, for instance, dead and have been dead for centuries).

This of course can get sick and twisted fast, ergo stalkers and crazy fans who have to get restraining orders and therapy. But why do so many people and so many groups of people scramble to claim Patrick as their saint. Why do so many people desperately want to do the same with Jesus, your own personal Jesus (Depeche Mode)?

The second this all the tells me is that the difference between Patrick and Jesus, apart from the whole question of divinity, is that the definitive portrait of Jesus is found in the Gospels of the New Testament. Many scholars claim that even this Jesus of the Gospels is a construct of the writers of the Gospel, but as Richard Bauckham argues brilliantly, if a little dryly, in his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, "such a historical Jesus is no less a construction than the Jesus of the Gospels"
In the Gospels we don't get a 'dress-up doll' on whom we can pin whatever hopes and dreams and desperate needs and thus create in our own image.

Instead, what we find in the Gospels is a savior. The hero who has come to earth and in whom it is good and right to lay claim. Our inherent and desperate need for a substitute is wrongly placed in all manner of celebrity and historical figures, like Patrick, but rightly placed in Jesus, because he is the only one, according to the Gospel, who can actually do something about our plight, and in fact has done something. This is the Jesus of the New Testament, for any other Jesus is inevitably our own personal Buddy Jesus, even if we are scholars trying to find out who he really was. Don't believe me, go and read them for yourself.

God bless you please Mrs. Beamish

2009-01-26T19:16:00.000-05:00

Lots of us grew up with Saturday Night Live. I remember in high school we watched it so religiouslyit was almost 'family TV time', along side MASH and The Cosby Show . How many of you remember "In Living Color" (Fire marshal Bill, anyone?). Going even further back how about "Laugh In"? Don't worry, I didn't watch it either. But going back even further, have you ever heard of "Beyond the Fringe"? It was a British radio SNL of sorts (Dudley Moore got his start as part of it). There is a magnificent sermon making fun of the depressingly typical Church of England (C of E) vicar, which some day I will post for your amusement. In the meantime, here is a little number in a similar vein of Beyond the Fringe called "Mrs. Beamish". If you've been in the C of E or it's American equivalent (guess what that is?), I think you may have met her. And if not I hope this might send a smile your way anyway.

Church of Starbucks

2008-12-04T13:00:00.000-05:00

Ok, so I'm not dead. I just haven't posted in a really long time. I've come across a blog called Beyond Relevance, a website devoted to helping churches figure out culture. Many churches try new things, often to discover that what they're doing was "in" ten years ago. For example, using a new font for bulletins and anouncements, like Papyrus - the most overused font on the face of the earth. Anyway, Beyond has put together a little video to make their point. What if Starbucks marketed itself like a church (i.e. a 'seeker friendly' evee-free church)

I'm not a big fan of church marketing to begin with, at least the concept in general. If by 'church marketing' you mean, we're going to try to make our letterheads match and have a website that doesn't look like it was made with Windows 3.0 and a crayon, fine. If you mean you are trying to figure out how the wider, essentially non-Christian-but-heard-enough-Christian-jargon-to-be-innoculated culture sees the church, fine. If you mean you are trying the latest fad to get attendance to go up, forget it, they'll see right through you like a clear, see-through thingy.

Cultural Christianity (funny but depressing)

2008-08-25T16:45:00.000-04:00

After my last posting on Obama vs. The Rain Prayers I thought it can't get any worse than this. Well, it has. I came across this website which collects a different image of Jesus created by Christians from all over. I don't know if the site is run by non-Christians or not, but clearly Christians have domesticated Jesus to an extent where the Son of God, Lord and Savior, the God-Man who is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, who is worthy of glory and honor and power and praise, the Lamb who was slain from the foundations of the world, is reduced in total to "Jesus is my friend." Awww. Isn't that sweet. Like, my favorite Jesus, like of all time, is like, the Buddy Jesus from that, like, Dogma movie.

Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present: Jesus of the Week (in stereo & Technicolor [tm] )

And I heartily recommend this particular Jesus, which comes from our brothers across the sea, The French. Be sure and click the link at the end of the commentary for more alien Jesus fun. (granted, this last one is not a Christian contribution)

It is a sad indication that Western Christianity has little if any ability to present the Lord Jesus Christ to its culture in any way that is faithful to who Jesus really is - that is, the Jesus of the New Testament. Most of the best cultural and pop cultural presentations of Christ actually come from non-Christians these days (for example, Spielberg's Amistad). I would loved to be proved wrong on this. Any takers?

Christians Being Stupid

2008-08-14T16:50:00.000-04:00

So here's a video I just saw about a guy who wants God to send rain on Obama's acceptance speech in Denver later this month. It's so smarmy I want to vomit. Nevertheless, a deeper question remains. If a Christian does not agree with some (or even all) of Mr. Obama's platform, is this the appropriate recourse as a Christian? How about praying for God to work in and through the election process, or that God would move a particular politician to change their views on an issue. Lord knows tons of progressive Christians have done so for the last eight years (the ones who aren't staging protest rallies, that is). Furthermore, if a prayer request for supernatural intervention is on the table, why not just shoot for the moon and call down the thunder. Why not do as Moses did when Korah rebelled and the earth swallowed them up (Numbers 16:28-35). Or James and John when the Samaritan village refused to let Jesus in and they asked him, "Lord, do you want us to call down fire from heaven and consume them." (Luke 9:51-56). Oh wait, Jesus rebuked them when they said that.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-31T13:22:00.001-04:00

The Dark Knight. Just the name itself is ridiculously cool, even if you've never read the Frank Miller graphic novel. It is fitting (and thankfully not ironically tragic) that the movie bearing the same name does not suck, but is in fact one of the best movie's I've seen in a long time.

I'm a pretty big movie fan, and when it comes to the comic-book hero genre of films my standards are pretty low and easily pleased. Perhaps that is why more often than not I am "pleasantly surprised" when at the comic book movies. But the Dark Knight, like it's predecessor Batman Begins, takes the genre to a whole new level. A few thoughts on this impressive film. By the by, the NYT's review is actually pretty good, although it is filled with art-house fancy-shmacy words that I really don't know the meaning of (which is saying something).

First, if you are my age, you will remember the hullabaloo surrounding Tim Burton's 1989 take on the franchise, which probably should have more appropriately been titled "Joker", since the film was really more about Jack Nicholson and his dermatologically bleached character. Batman was really an after-thought. But, while Heath Ledger's performance is undoubtedly riveting and repulsively engrossing, Batman/Bruce Wayne still weighs in heavily. And what really makes the film is how it wrestles with the questions surrounding human nature. Bruce Wayne's inner battle to actually no longer have to be the dark knight (i.e. the anti-hero) is fantastic. His hopes are in Harvey Dent, an ordinary citizen who will fight for justice. In a world with people like Harvey, maybe we won't need a Batman after all.

I can't help but think of Nietzsche at this point. In a world of 'good' people, who needs a savior. Who needs God, except to relegate him to 'a god' for our own petty self-gratifying needs. Thus the danger of Wayne's struggle. When good people stand up for justice he will no longer need to walk the precarious line as dark hero to save the city. After the Joker's little 'social experiment' with the ferry boats doesn't work, Batman claims that people aren't all evil and can tap into good (thus they didn't destroy the other boats). But the tables turn again because Harvey Dent goes nuts and Bruce has to take the fall as the dark hero and remain Batman. Ironically, Harvey was the one on whom all his hopes were placed. So much for that anthropology.

On the other hand, the Joker says of ordinary, 'good' people, "When the chips are on the table, normal people will eat each other." How true. The diagnosis of the monster within, which only has a very thin veneer of civility indeed, is given by the film's true monster. The only thing that breaks the cycle is sacrifice (a very Christian idea). And that is, amazingly, what we see in the film. The huge prisoner (played by "tiny" lester) tells the warden that he will take the blame for blowing up innocent civilians. You want to kill, but you've never seen someone die. I'll do it, he says. And when he gets the detonator, he throws it out the window, sits down, and bows his head with a few other inmates who gather, with bowed heads, around him. Now, while this character does not offer his own life in a sacrificial manner, in a real sense he does become the scapegoat, taking the iniquity of all the 'good' people (who are vehemently eager to blow up other people, incidentally) upon himself. Hands down favorite scene.

One last thought for you all to respond to. Check out this article published last week in The Wall Street Journal. It's created quite a stir in the blogosphere, and understandably so. Let me just say that the author's point is so valid it's hard to dispute, but his interpretation of fantasy as the means of the conservative branch of Hollywood is based on allegory (Batman = George Bush), which is actually the wrong way to interpret fantasy as a genre, including comic book based films. Discuss...

The Fruit of Grace

2008-07-31T12:39:00.000-04:00

Here's a video of a newscast from Tennessee. An elderly Christian woman gets carjacked, but she shares her faith with the perp and he starts to cry. After talking with him in her car for a few minutes she gives him all her money anyway and he tearfully gives her a kiss on the cheek and leaves.

What an amazing picture of grace. We speak of the fruit of the spirit working in this way: that grace produces what the law requires. The response of a sinner to grace in this news clip is a tender expression of affection. Grace produces love - love does not elicit grace. That is to say, our love of God does not prompt him to be gracious to sinners. If it did, then it wouldn't be grace and Christ died for nothing (Gal 2:21).

Such one way love (grace) produces a reaction in its object: love! The carjacker, in that moment of grace, gave the old lady a kiss on the cheek. Spontaneously and probably quite to his own shock (although that would be conjecture, but I'm willing to bet on it). And in the end he got what he didn't deserve, the money he was trying to take by force in he first place.

It's Fun To Do Bad Things...

2008-07-24T12:22:00.000-04:00

Over the last few weeks I've been reading the Book of Romans in the Bible. It talks about human nature in a very stark and, quite frankly, offensive manner. It says that we are all dead in sin (Adam's sin) and rebellion. It says that all people, by their wickedness, suppress the truth. Only God's radical intervention of grace in Jesus Christ, who died for our wickedness, can change us.

Most Americans think we are "basically good." What we really need is encouragement and to be pointed in the right direction. Very often this sentiment is expressed by stating that what troubled people need is "education." And even if adults and society in general are bad, children certainly are not bad. They come into the world innocent; that is, untainted by Adam's sin. Well, here's a video on YouTube from a recent news broadcast in Palm Beach Gardens, FL, which blows this sentimental (and unrealistic) view out of the water. The fact that a kid would do something like this is not hard to imagine. His own view of his behavior, is plainly demonstrative of our fallen nature.

The Devil You Don't Know

2008-07-02T17:49:00.000-04:00

"A Romanian village re-elected Mayor Neculai Ivascu even though he died shortly before the election. Ivascu had been mayor for nearly 20 years. “I know he died, but I don’t want change,” said one voter."

Wow. how badly do we cling to the past. This little news snippet was in last week's issue of The Week, under their "Good Week/Bad Week For...the devil you know" section.

While certainly an extreme, this sentiment clearly demonstrates the bound nature of the human will. Despite a rational understanding of the candidate's status of 'dead', the voter's will was completely unable to follow reason. But instead the will turned in on itself out of fear, and elected a corpse to office. If humans are unable to get past their fallen, broken wills to elect a mayor, how much more completely unable are we to "vote" yes for God?!

Luther was right, the will is bound. We don't choose God, he loves and finds us curled in on ourselves, and by his grace brings forgiveness and light. Left to our own devices we will choose death again and again and again. Not life. Sorry Joshua. Makes you wonder who will be their next mayor.

How well do you know your country?

2008-07-02T10:38:00.001-04:00

MSN just posted the latest citizenship test, which non-citizens must pass in order to be naturalized. Think back to your middle school civics & government class and click here to take the test. (FYI, yours truly scored 100%, thanks Mr. Stiffler).

Regardless of how you do on this test, it makes you also wonder about the process of citizenship. Some receive it by birth, warranted by the location of their mother a the time of their birth. Some receive it by working for it, by moving to this land and applying to the government and after achieving prescribed requirements, then earn citizenship. Now, while the rights of both born and naturalized citizens are identical, the way they become citizens is different. One works for it, the other does nothing, it's given.

If I may springboard from this idea, moving beyond the political and societal implications of naturalization, to the biblical idea of citizenship. Our default setting regarding salvation and God, is actually in terms of naturalization. All religions of the world prescribe how one may become a "citizen" of that religion. They are naturalized by their actions, of which faith may or may not be included. By achieving prescribed requirements, something is then conferred.

However, the Christian Gospel of Jesus tells us that none are naturalized by earning their citizenship, but rather we enter into His heavenly kingdom only by being born from above (i.e. born anew or to even use the phrase born again - see John 3:1-18). Just as some US citizens are such by no merit of their own, but have it by birth unearned, so the grace of God grants to sinners citizenship in his kingdom by being born again, not by their achievements but by his preordained grace. Jesus said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you." I am a US citizen not by my freewill choice, but by nature of my birth. Likewise eternal life is given me by God's grace bringing new birth of which I contribute nothing.

Please note, my point here is not to argue that naturalized citizens in this country are somehow "second class." That is not my point at all. Rather, my point is simply analogous: that one citizen earns their citizenship, one does not. Likewise one view of Christianity is that we earn our citizenship in heaven - either by our works or by our "choice" of Jesus - the other says it is only by God's grace are any born anew as heavenly citizens

Kaczynski's Unlikely Bond

2008-06-12T15:19:00.000-04:00

I just read this short article in "The Week" check it out.

It, no pun intended, blew me away. It deals with David Kaczynski, the brother of Unibomber Ted Kaczynski. David turned Ted in to the Feds, but before doing so he called one of his victims, Gary. David was wrestling with guilt - would one of Ted's victim's blame him, or impute guilt-by-association. Whe he found in Gary was forgiveness and grace. What was produced was, over time, a very real and genuine friendship. This line from David is the kicker:
"Gary and I are ‘blood brothers’ in a literal sense. Our bond forged through violence is as powerful and as deep as any genetic bond."

Amazing to think that a violent act actually, through grace, produced a relationship that otherwise would not be there. Note that the violence is not trivialized here, but that something good comes out of it, specifically by means of forgiveness and grace. And the good that comes out is a relationship. How Gospel is this! That a violent and tragic act of the Cross would bring a new relationship through grace and forgiveness. I don't know much else about David K, other than that he opposes the death penalty. But I do know that he has experienced something that is certianly quite Gospel.

Imperfect Past

2008-05-28T20:05:00.001-04:00

It's been a heck of a few weeks. We just moved into a new townhouse, which, while only a mile or so from our old apartment and very nice, still requires going through the whole moving "thing". Boxes like Tribbles take over your dwelling and you experience a radical sense of disconnect and disquiet in your life. The move went well and we were getting back to a semblance of routine and Memorial weekend hit. Not only was there a funeral of a dearly loved member of church (who had died suddenly), but an election for a new bishop, as well as the requisite BBQ on Monday. Just a crazy handful of days.

All this is to point me to the fact that we are creatures who are forced to remember. We are rooted in the past. Who we are today - with all our "issues", fears, shortcomings, and even joys - are almost entirely the product of our past. It is the unavoidable reality of life that the present is always flying past us into the past (the present is always becoming the past), and we are irrevocably people of the past. Never mind what Garth says ("live in the now!" - Wayne's World), everything we deal with, or rather, how we deal with everything, is phenomenally dependent on what happened in our past.

Furthermore, very few people that I meet who are "dealing" with stuff in the present, have difficulties and challenges in dealing because they had such a wonderful high school graduation. Or really enjoyed their cotton candy at a beautiful day at the zoo in fourth grade. Just about everyone I know (including myself) who is struggling to deal with something in the now is struggling not because of a positive thing from their past but a negative.

We are creatures formed and sculpted by the past. But we are creatures who are undeniably formed particularly by the negative things in our past. Not 100% shaped by the negative, but without a doubt upper 90s%. Why do some women fear and even hate men? Not because of a positive thing from their past, but a negative. Why do some people have a really hard time opening up in a relationship? Not because of positive things in their past but negative - a bad breakup/rejection in high school, or perhaps experiencing a divorce in the family.

For God to be Gospel he has to be able to impact us not just today but also yesterday (and tomorrow too for that matter, but for now I'm not going to focus on the future aspects of the Gospel, but the past). Jesus said, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48). If I was meeting with someone who was struggling with something and they were bearing their soul and I were to respond, "I hear what your saying, that's really heavy. Let me ask you this: have you tried being perfect? Why don't you go home today and try being perfect for the next few days and see what that does for your situation." If you were that person you'd want to slap me, wouldn't you?!

The reason being is that the demand to be perfect, whether from counselors, friends, or even God, does not do anything to help you in a season of distress. If anything, all it does is crush your soul. And we all know this because our pasts are littered with the strewn carcasses of our failure to be perfect. Our pasts are searing indications of our imperfection. When Jesus says, "Be perfect," it is not a suggestion, nor hyperbole for literary effect or shock value, but the simple truth. The righteous demands of God in our lives are simply summed up in the demand: Be Perfect. In the end, however, this demand only crushes us, it does not inspire. We can fake ourselves into being inspired, but that only prolongs the inevitable.

What the crushing weight of "Be Perfect" does to us is forces us to cry for a savior. In the face of my history of imperfection I am forced to cry out "Save me!" Save me from my past, from my failures, from myself. Your past, when truly remembered, experienced, and exposed, will force you to either lie (to yourself and others) or to cry "Mercy!"

Incidentally, the only person who could take that demand and say, "yes" is the one who said it: Jesus. And it is Jesus, the Perfect one, who ends up loving the imperfect and also dying for their imperfections. And what happens when you trust this radical truth? When you remember your failures, you will not only see them for what they are, but you will also see him. The pain and frustration don't necessarily go away, but under the cool shadow of the cross, something else becomes present in our past - peace, and love. The sense of fear or loss or sorrow doesn't evaporate, but rather something covers it over like a balm, so that when you revisit those emotions and memories, the sting is not as sharp.

This is a taste of the peace which passes all understanding. When an utter Failure finds they are loved by the complete Success, that is called grace, and grace heals. Grace soothes, and by the power of Jesus' own Spirit, grace changes. That is why when Christians remember, they don't just remember their failures (like in a worship service during the confession), but they go way back to remember the Cross where the righteous died for the unrighteous, so that the negative, formative failures of the past might be mended by undaunted love..."love to the loveless shown that they might lovelier be".

Mike, we love you and we miss you but you are with Christ, which is better by far.

Discipleship....Yaaayyyy!!

2008-05-05T12:14:00.001-04:00

When did you last take a survey or a test or questionnaire where you had to fill out the personal identity section? You know the ones where you have to check the box on your gender, ethnicity, economic range, etc. Did you know that a few years ago in England the census had a write-in space for the category of religion, and enough people put "Jedi Knight" that the government legally had to recognize it as a religion! Interesting tales in the world of identity...

If you are a Christian, how often, if ever, do you think of your primary identity as "disciple". One of the last things Jesus ever said to his followers before he left the earth and ascended into heaven was, "make disciples of all nations". He wanted his disciples to make more disciples. The intentional life lived as a follower of Jesus, i.e. a disciple, i.e. a Christian, is aften called discipleship. When most Christians hear about "discipleship" there is typically one of two reactions: The Monty Python Reaction, or The Pat Benatar Reaction. The first reaction is embodied by Graham Chapman's King Arthur in , "Run awwwaaayyyy!". The second reaction is embodied by the hit 80s song, "Hit me with your best shot."

The first reaction is often the most common because most people, at the end of a long day don't want another list of "do's" they have to be subjected to. So when the crazy demon bunny jumps at their neck with a laundry list for being a good Christian, they 'Run Away."

Then there's the second reaction. It springs from the person who views discipleship as a list of accomplishments, so "hit me with your best shot," as in, I can take it. Like Happy Gilmore in the batting cage getting ready for next year's hockey season their Christian faith is lived out with rigorous devotions or even spiritual disciplines with the understanding that the more you do the better you become.

Both reactions derive from viewing discipleship through the Law. Discipleship is about doing a list of things (that list changes depending on who you talk to, BTW). Not that any of these things, like prayer, studying Scripture, meditation, or fasting are bad, but discipleship does not begin nor end with them.

Most answers to the question "What is a disciple of Jesus" focus on what to do. That is to say, the task of making disciples involves tips on better Bible study and prayer and ideas for outreach or worship. If you do these things then you are a disciple, if you get better at them that is called discipleship.

There is certainly plenty for disciples of Jesus to do, and really ought to do - this is what I call "doing disciples". But there is another, more important dimension called "being disciples." In the Christian life all doing, if it is to be good 'doing', must flow from a right being. A disciple of Jesus is first and foremost a receptacle of the Gospel of Jesus, that is, being justified (set right) by God's grace alone through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). All disciple 'doing' must come from this.

In Philippians 3:3-6 the Apostle Paul is describing his life under the Law. Granted, he is referring to his status and behavior as a devout Jew before his conversion on the Damascus road, but he is not lifting that life up as the way to be a better Christian. Quite the opposite, in fact. He notes his (former) confidence in his lineage of the right people and right tribe and his zeal for what mattered most: keeping the mandates of God (i.e. keeping the Law)

But then he discovers, or rather it was revealed to him, that what he thought mattered the most in fact mattered the least. His status, standing, and pursuit of the law, he realized, did not matter. Why? If you give me a list of things to do and I am able to do them, what happens in my mind is that the list becomes the source of my goodness. You gave me all these things to do, I have done them (or at least think I have done them), and on the basis of that list do I begin to think of myself as good and righteous.

But for Paul this was the worst place to be in, because in the end, when someone relies on the Law for righteousness, they will eventually see themselves as the source of their own righteousness. Furthermore, life continually presents you with failures not success. To think that one can consistently keep God's Law and be righteous in His sight according to the Law is a serious case of denial. What Paul realizes is his need for a new source of righteousness.

In Philippians 3:7-15 Paul talks of discipleship under grace. He counts everything as a loss compared to knowing Christ. That is to say, he rejects all other sources of righteousness apart from faith in Christ. He considers all other sources as dung (the original Greek is actually more explicit, but you get the picture). He wants to know the power of Jesus' resurrection and to share in Jesus' sufferings, becoming like Him in His death, not in His success. This new way of looking at his life blew all of Paul's old performances out of the water. And what did that produce in him? Joy!

In the end, then, all discipleship "doing" must be things which redirect you to the things in the preceding paragraph, and must flow from them. Worshipping, serving, studying the Bible, and inviting others with this Gospel message are the "do's" of discipleship, and they are good. But unless you understand and are redirected, daily, to God's grace in Jesus Christ you will implode.

Let me close with this one last thought. When a crisis hits, what you and I need to know is that we are loved, not evaluated. I recently watched a movie called "Relative Strangers" with Kathy Bates, Danny DeVito, and Neve Campbell. Great cast, absolutely awful movie. I actually couldn't finish it because the acting and the story were soooooo bad. Not profane or gross, but just really bad (see trailer). The main character plays a self-help psychologist who's message (and recently published book) is "Ready, Set, Let Go!". While on a radio broadcast he leads his listener audience through this simple mental exercise to "let go" and the scenes cut to people screaming in traffic and family members fighting. They are listening to the broadcast, go through his steps, and find calm. And then two seconds later get cut off by another car and start screaming all over again. It actually makes you laugh, but only because we all know how true it is and have been there ourselves. The point is this, that peace does not come from within, by following steps, but from without - from Christ. Thus discipleship is first and foremost no what you can do (with five easy steps!), but what Christ has done and being connected and reconnected with Him.

[In the next part of our discussion on discipleship, "Disciples of Grace", we'll take a look at this dynamic between the madness within and the remedy without, and just how radical grace really is]

Crazy Bible Verses

2008-05-05T11:44:00.000-04:00

A friend of mine sent me a link to this page on Cracked magazine's website. These are the Bible verses that would never be read in Church, even bible-based evangelical churches. My only regret about this article, which i belive is written by a non-Christian, is that i didn't write it!

http://www.cracked.com/article_15699_9-most-badass-bible-verses.html

Of Generals and Particulars

2007-12-18T16:17:00.000-05:00

There are quite a few aspects to Christianity that are ‘general.’ Christianity carries with it moral commands and exhortations, the most culturally familiar one being the Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” which was said by Jesus himself. Many people connect with Christianity in this general sense would agree that the moral imperatives are good and match up well with what other religions teach about being good people. Will Smith recently stated that Scientology and the Bible teach basically the same things, and he quoted the Golden Rule as his prime example. In additional general terms Christianity encompasses ideas about good versus evil, transformation of society, and what is often referred to as ethical monotheism, all of which many people identify with in a positive way.
However, Christianity also carries with it particularities which sharply define the generalities given above. This is the part of Christianity which many people do not like. If all that the Bible and 2000 years of Church history teaches is “be good to people”, then anyone that came along and also taught “be good to people” would be teaching the same thing, and Will Smith would then be right. But Christianity has some particulars which define it distinctly, and to identify or define the Christian faith only by its generalities is simply inaccurate and disingenuous (not to mention blatantly reductionist).
What are some of these particulars? Two immediately spring to mind. The first is the divinity of Jesus Christ, and the second is the concept of original sin. These two particulars are radically distinct in the world of religious and moral concepts. No other religion pronounces its founder as divine in such a manner as Jesus Christ is portrayed in the New Testament. While Mohammed is viewed as a prophet by Muslims, he is not viewed as divine. While Buddha is highly Enlightened and revered in such a fashion as to be god-like, he is not viewed like Jesus as “the image of the Invisible God,” “by whom all things were created” and in whom “all the fullness of God is pleased to dwell” (Colossians 1:15,19). Theologically speaking, this is called a high Christology (i.e. a high theology of Christ)
Now this particular feature of Christianity, that is, the divinity of Christ Jesus, on its own does not create much of a stir. What I mean is this: many people think it’s a great idea for God to come to earth as a human and teach us all the right things. And why not, we’re certainly worthy of such attention, after all we are created in his image. But this is where the second particular cuts to the quick. If humans do in fact have original sin, that is, a sinful nature that all people are inherently born with – something both Old and New Testaments clearly teach – then it follows that something must be done about original sin. Even if God came to earth as a human in Jesus Christ, if all he did was teach a great moral philosophy, that does not change our inherent situation. Ours is a situation of a tragic inability to produce goodness on any kind of lasting or consistent way – if we could the world would be perfect. Deep down we all know this inability is real, despite our best efforts to deny it. No other religion has such a view of human nature. Theologically speaking, this is called a low anthropology (i.e. a low theology of human nature).
This low anthropology, the idea of original sin, indicates that just telling a person to “be good” does not guarantee they will. Maybe for like a day, or ten minutes, but not every moment for their whole life. And as many of you may already know, for all the good we may do, there is inevitably some ‘bad’ in our life that seems to offset the good. Furthermore, the most ‘heavy’ moral command given by Jesus is, “Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48) – a pretty tall order for even the staunchest of the morally upright. So tall that most either ignore such a rigorous command or water it down by alluding to Jesus’ penchant for hyperbole. While Jesus did use hyperbole on occasion (and even sarcasm, wit, and many other means of communication), the Sermon on the Mount is hardly the setting for such hyperbole. No, Jesus meant what he said and we are left to deal with it.
How we deal with it is of great importance. As I stated above, Christianity carries much that is general, especially moral imperatives, which can be quite appealing. However, dealing with this question of “being perfect” requires us to look not at Christian generals, but to its particulars. If we are unable to live up to the moral commands of God as found in the Bible, because of a low anthropology, then we must have a savior. Not just any nice teacher will do either. In truth, only God himself can do something for us and to us. We are helpless. This is what the Bible teaches. This is the view of Jesus Christ himself, who said, “For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). This is the Christianity of St. Paul, who writes in Romans 5:8, “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” This is the Christianity of the Apostles, like St. John, who wrote, it is “not that we loved God, but that God loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation [i.e. the atoning sacrifice] for our sins (1 John 4:10).
These passages tell us of the atonement – the death of Jesus on the Cross where he took our sins upon himself, making atonement for them before God. This is the ultimate particular of Christianity. In the atonement the other two particulars of a low anthropology and a high Christology meet. Helpless people are rescued by their divine Lord, and he saves them not with platitudes or advice, but with his very blood. These three particulars are what make Christianity distinctly Christian. They do this because they make Jesus Christ utterly essential to Christianity. Much of what passes for “Christianity” today is essentially Christianity without Christ – knowing God apart from the Son.
What I mean is this: it seems to me that a great deal of effort is put into being “spiritual” these days, but this is an extremely general term to which generalities of all kinds of religions are applied. I practice a type of prayer style, I try to be a good person like Jesus or Buddha teaches, I am interested in studying religious ideas, and so on – therefore I am spiritual. What concerns me is that this is seen as sufficient for many Christians, so that what they get is a Christianity with no Jesus Christ, apart from some general ideas about him and his ‘teachings’. Jesus himself said that in order to know God you must know the Son (John 1:18; 14:7). There seems to me to be quite a strong and appealing movement to strive to know ‘God’ by bypassing the Son. Now, one may do this, but in all integrity they can’t call it Christianity. This is the offensive particularity of Christian revelation – if you want to know God, experience God, follow God, you must go through the Son of God, who is Jesus Christ.
What is in desperate need for Christians of all walks, and churches across the globe (but especially in North America and the West) is a reclamation of the particulars of the Faith, rather than a vague celebration of its generalities. Not in a shrill manner of vigorous ‘bible thumping’, but a firm stand on what is true about our Faith (1 Corinthians 15:58). The heart of reclaiming the particulars of Christianity are the three that I have mentioned above: the divinity of Jesus Christ, the lowly estate of humans, and the power of Christ’s death on the Cross (and subsequent bodily resurrection) as remedy for humans. Over the next few months we shall take a deeper look at these particulars, in terms of how they were explained by a lovely little statement developed in the sixteenth century that goes like this: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone, so that God alone gets the glory – or to put it in Latin: sola gratia, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria.

Big Bend

2007-11-11T19:07:00.000-05:00

My wife and I just returned from a four day camping/hiking trip to Big Bend National Park. It's one of the most remote NP's in the country, but it is absolutely breathtaking.
The concentration of diverse and mind-blowing geological features is truly remarkable. One of the moments that stands out for me (on a trip that was pretty much non-stop "oh wow, look over there!") was when we first looked across the valley from the Chisos Mountains to the ridge through which Santa Elena Canyon is cut by the Rio Grande [pictured above]. 1500 foot cliffs in a straight line rise up out of nowhere and run for miles north and south and in the middle is a huge gouge that looks, from a distance, like part of the cliffs have just caved in (That's the canyon). Think Argonath but without the statues. Anyway, one of my first reactions to such a vista was that it was so amazing that it looked fake. Have you ever looked at something in nature so cool that the only way you can process it is by categorizing it as "fake". Perhaps another way of putting it is surreal. Maybe you felt this way the first time you ever saw the Grand Canyon in person, at some point you almost have to ask yourself, "wow, is this really real?"

In his book "The Great Divorce", CS Lewis writes a fictional account of a man who journies from hell up to heaven in a bus. At one point he asks one of the heavenly dwellers if he can take a piece of fruit back with him. The answer he gets is no, but because "all of hell could not contain that apple, because the apple is real." In TGD, Lewis talks of heaven as that which is really and truly real, the ultimate reality, and hell is a grey place of fake-ness and unreality (although everyone there seems to think its real enough).
If I am unable to process the grandeur and majesty of earthly "glory", found, say in a beautiful canyon, because it is so real that I perceive it to be fake, how much more will I be unable to process the glory of God and heaven? Fake things are only shown to be what they are in the face of real things. If Lewis is right, and God is as real as it gets, then I am a fake, shown for what I am even in something as simple as a beautiful vista. And who would do anything for a fake? Maybe someone would do something nice for a good person, but not a fake. But God demonstrates his love for us in this, that while we were still fakers, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8)

You know, i really did enjoy and find beauty in the vista, certainly on some leve for its own sake. But in revealing to me the invisible qualities of God (Rom 1:18) and my own shortcomings, I am now ever more grateful for His mercy and grace.

The Potter's Hand

2007-09-17T16:19:00.000-04:00

It’s been two whole months since the Harry Potter saga came to a dramatic close, and since I ended my last post with a reference to a meaningful quote from the Potter series, I wanted to jot down a few thoughts, post-Hallows.

I just read that the Harry Potter movies have surpassed James Bond as the highest grossing movie franchise in history (when not adjusted for inflation). I continue to be amazed at the staggering numbers that Mr. Potter has wracked up. For example, Book 6 sold more copies in its first 24 hours than The DaVinci Code sold in a year (and you remember what a big deal that book was when it hit the stands).

All number crunching aside, what makes Harry Potter so profound for me is that Book 7 ratified the underlying theme for the whole series – that it is ultimately a reflection on death. Underneath the lovable characters and memorable moments and a most engaging writing style, is a very deep and thought-provoking mediation on life and death.

From the opening chapter of Book 1, “The Boy Who Lived”, the whole Potterverse is moved and shaken by one man’s pathological fear of death and his willingness to go to any means to avoid it (that would be Voldemort), and one boy’s life shattered by death and healed by love (that would be Harry).

At the heart of the life-death dynamic is the power of love. Not namby-pamby, fairy tale or even classic romantic love, but sacrificial love. This kind of love is what Harry learns about and acts upon, and of what Voldemort has no knowledge whatsoever. Sacrificial love is the agent which defeats death, and while this truth comes up throughout the series, Book 7 abolishes any doubt to Rowling’s intentions otherwise.

HP is hardly the first fiction to wrestle with the subject of death, or even to name sacrificial love as the counter to death, but what made the whole series ring true was the way death was addressed in Book 7. Prior to the release of Deathly Hallows, one literary critic I read (whose name and article reference I’ve tried to find but so far have been unable) notes that what essentially dies in the HP books is God. The world of Potter, he observers, is utterly devoid of faith, prayer, or even mention of church or God. While this is actually an accurate observation, the deeper issue implied is not so much that ‘God’ dies in HP, but rather that the Christian God dies. And, really, up to the close of Book 6, there would be little to refute this position.

Then Deathly Hallows arrived. Interestingly, I had read the aforementioned (and so far elusive) article just prior to July 21st, and so this ‘absence of God’ was very much on my mind as I began reading Book 7. That is also why I was struck early on when, after George Weasley is seriously injured (he loses an ear) Mrs. Weasley tells Harry that George is going to be alright, and Harry says, “Thank God” (pg 74), which might be the first time “God” is specifically mentioned in the whole series. That is fairly innocuous, but as the book goes on, when Harry and Hermione go to Godric’s Hollow and visit the graveyard, two quotes from Scripture are found on gravestones. One quote on Kendra Dumbledore’s grave is from Jesus himself, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:21). The other on James & Lily Potter’s grave is from 1 Corinthians 15:26, “And the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” 1 Corinthians 15 is one of the most profound passages on the bodily resurrection in all of Scripture.

Perhaps this may be construed as mining for nuggets of “Jesus under every rock,” perhaps I’m reading too much into this, but I don’t think I am. Granted, the verses of Scripture are never explicitly identified as such in the text, but Rowling is subtly telling us that the love which defeats death is in fact love in the Christian sense – that is “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay his life down for his friends” (John 15:13). After all, she very well could have used other verses, or none at all.

This type of love empties the self and pours out for the sake of the other, even to the point of death (Philippians 2:8). This concept of love (agape in the New Testament) is distinctly Christian. Not that Rowling’s characters are Christian, nor are the stories themselves “Christian”, but the themes and concepts of love and life and death and the way she resolves them are very much Christian. If this is so, was it intended, or is this all just a radical coincidence? I don’t think so.

While Harry is hardly a Christ-figure, nor is he intended to be, the sacrificial love he demonstrates is. Does this make HP a Christian series (much to the dismay of the angry fundamentalists who condemned it from very early on)? No. HP is “Christian” as much as Lord of the Rings is “Christian,” in that, while the stories and characters themselves are non-Christian, the themes and concepts that they deal with are (for example Gandalf’s resurrection as Gandalf the White, and Aragorn being the true returning King, whose hands are healing hands).

And so, the greatest books of this present day and age (despite what Harold Bloom and company may think, they are) end with a resoundingly subtle Gospel message. Not just that love defeats death, but it is love that drives one to take the place of anther in death which is at the heart of the HP stories. From the fateful substitution of Lily, Harry’s mother, to Harry’s own journey to the forest (Harry’s Gethsemane) to give his life that others may live, these stories convey a Christian understanding of sacrificial love. And note, it is not “I love these people so much that I will die,” but rather, “I love these people so much that I will die in their place so they might live.” There’s a big difference between the two. Changing gears to a more theological bent, the former basically attributes to the Cross a moral example atonement, whereas the latter ascribes the classic understanding of substitutionary atonement – that Jesus Christ died for our sins, that is, in our place for the just judgment against our evil hearts and deeds.

I look forward to re-re-reading the whole series again sometime in the near future, after I have finished my latest enterprise of taking on, once again, the Lord of the Rings.

Another 2 Worlds

2007-09-07T21:00:00.000-04:00

Since my last posting regarding "between 2 worlds", I came across an article in TIME magazine called "Second Life's Real World Problems" - see the article for yourself: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1651500,00.html
and i thought it would be a fitting sequence to write about Second Life, having just written about living between two worlds, even if the two subjects are completely different.
If you don't know Second Life, it is an online virutal world where people create computer characters (called avatars) who can open businesses, travel the "world", drink, party, have sex, and shop for shoes in this enormous, highly interactive virtual world. Admittedly, having never personally signed up for it, I've been following articles on Second Life for a while now, and finally have decided to reflect on it. What promted such reflection was this TIME article. A major development recently has been that real businesses in the real world are opening virtual businesses in Second Life and selling virtual products (like Nike shoes for your avatar) but for real money. Apparently its becoming quite a big deal and lots of real money is being exchagned, a veritable virtual economy.
When i first read about Second Life, my first inclination was not suprise, but rather, 'well, it was bound to happen sooner or later.' And of course shortly thereafter stories appeared about folks who spend more time on Second Life than they do at their jobs in real life, which they probably have consequently lost. Initially my concern was, and to some extent still is, the Matrix factor. In all seriousness, we are only one step away from plugging our brains in to interface with this technology, rather than use our hands. And every sci-fi movie ever made on the subject seems to think that jacking in is a bad idea. Nonetheless, my point is not to throw rocks at Second Life, but rather to see it and the many other products, novelties, and technologies out there like it, in terms of what is revealed about human nature in them.
People are hard wired for relationships. We seek them out no matter what. 'Any relationship is better than no relationship' is the mentality, conscious or subconsious, that often leads to co-dependent abusive situations. In "Cast Away", tom hank's character forms a relationship with a volleyball while trapped on his deserted island. When relationships in the real world become to difficult or painful or just not there, we still seek them out online. What struck me in the above article, is that people are now getting significantly malcontent online.
This is quoted from the article: "some devotees are so upset by increasing commercialization that a group called the Second Life Liberation Army last year gunned down virtual shoppers at American Apparel. So-called griefing, or on-site harassment, is on the rise. Says Gartner research chief Steve Prentice: "Second Life is moving into a phase of disillusionment." Wow, even VR can't escape it.Now we have avatar shooting rampages happening - the world, it seems, is an ugly place, and you can't hide from that fact, even in a virtual world.
So where does all this lead me? Being a bit of a Potter-phile, I re-read the whole series before Deathly Hallows was released, and there is a remarkable line by Dumbledore in Book1. He says to Harry, who has been spending a lot of time looking into a magical mirror (which has been showing him images of his long dead parents), that the mirror gives us neither knowledge nor truth, and that "It does not do to dwell on dreams, and forget to live in the real world." Perhaps an ironic truth to be told by a wizard in a world famous fantasy novel series, but the point is taken. There is no substitute for real relationships, however appealing and fun, and even deeply connective virtual ones may be. Even if this is all true, it is still only diagnostic. How do people deal with the ugliness of the world and the problems of relating to other people?

Between 2 Worlds

2007-08-28T12:12:00.000-04:00

I am a man who is apparently living in two worlds, like a tree that lives its life in a realm of solid soil and fluid air. A tree’s roots are in a solid realm, where nutrients and moisture are absorbed for life. At the same time a whole other part of the tree lives in a realm of fluids – sunlight and air full of carbon dioxide is taken in and converted to oxygen and sugar for sustaining life. One thing stuck in two realms, both equally necessary to exist.
As I begin my life as an ordained minister in the Anglican Church, I have become increasingly aware of the distinct difference of realms in which my life and ministry are exercised. I spend a lot of time dwelling on thoughts and writings of men long dead for many centuries. I spend at least one day a week in robes harkening back to the sixteenth century. My mind is subject to a Book thousands of years old, and I serve in a tradition of liturgy hundreds of years old. The roots of my ministry are in a soil ancient and deep.
And yet I engage people in a world of electronic flickering madness, a fluid place where communication is done in a manner and at a rate so completely alien to the people and traditions of the soil of my roots as to be absurd. A self-professed sci-fi nerd, movie lines and concepts frequently appear in my sermons. I email, play video games with high schoolers, preach to Gen Xers, watch movies, and talk on a cell phone. This essay is being written on a 12 inch laptop with 37 gigabytes of memory (did Cranmer even have sweep of a giga-anything?). For good or ill, the air of techno-culture is as much a part of me as the soil of Reformed Cranmerian Anglicanism and the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion.
So what’s the point? A tree is not a tree without its roots; it will be blown away and lack the nutrients it needs. And yet that very breeze is also life sustaining to the tree. I am rooted in the past and stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before me. Without the sound teaching of Stott, Forde, and Allison, Cranmer and Luther before them, and St. Paul before them, I would wither and be blown away by slightest breeze of culture. However, while I am rooted in the past, I in fact do not live in the past, I live today and must be able to minister in today. As Garth once said to Wayne, “Live in the now!” A minister of the Gospel needs to understand the culture in which they are living, and trust in the power of the Holy Spirit that exposure to that culture will not destroy them, because righteousness comes not from culture but Christ, and from that the freedom to engage culture without fear of being tainted – in fact one will often find the Holy Spirit at work in parts of culture before they even get there. Nevertheless, there is a danger here, and there are some who would see the present culture as sufficient for sustaining a ministry, and on the other hand there are those who see the past as solely definitive. One could say the former is a more liberal view and the latter a more conservative position.
So, does good ministry spring only from roots or only from the wind of culture? Or is it both? I have heard it said that a good preacher of the Gospel has a Bible in one hand and a newspaper in the other – preaching that old, old story of “Jesus Christ died for sinners” to a new and present audience. Gospel ministry requires that the preacher knows his audience – as Proverbs admonishes, “Know well the condition of your flocks” (27:23). Thus, the “newspaper” aspect of my ministry in a very tangible sense it is vital to communicating the Gospel. However, it is important to know that the Gospel comes to us from the past – the message of Jesus Christ comes to us today through the witness of apostles, prophets, and martyrs, preserved and declared in Scripture, and if you don’t or are unable to tap into this, then you will ultimately have nothing to preach. Nonetheless, what good is it to pass on the Words of Life to an audience that has absolutely no idea what you are talking about? Therefore, good ministry, like a healthy tree, springs from both the roots of the past and the wind of the present, but I must bow to the priority of the roots, particularly the root of Scripture (a posture which is, after all, very Anglican!).
Perhaps this all may sound obvious to some and edgy to others, but it seems that today’s Anglican, by necessity of their heritage, needs to be ever so keenly reminded of the stiff and ever present wind of culture, and the vitality of a strong root system to make such a wind an asset and not an enemy. And perhaps this is the gist of what I am trying to get at. The wind of change blows (Scorpions), and much of what stands as Anglicanism today has chopped off its roots – for example, relegating such things as the Articles and Homilies to mere ‘historical documents’– and so finds itself caught up in the breeze of culture. It remembers its roots, but in fact no longer has them, and relies solely on its fluid environment for sustenance, no longer having access to solid nutrients. Such a tree can in fact live for quite some time, but ultimately it will blow away and die. Furthermore, such a tree will end up where the wind of culture blows it – a healthy tree remains firmly rooted, even in the strongest of winds. While some may not see culture as a ‘bad’ thing, the fact of the matter is that a culture is only as pure as the sinners of which it is composed.
I close by pointing out that my Christianity, my faith in Jesus Christ, will not wither and die, for He is the author and finisher of my faith. I am a Christian, a disciple and believer in the Lord Jesus by necessity of grace. I am an Anglican by preference and conviction, and it is within this chosen sphere that my ministry manifests. It is upon this Anglican life which I show concern, and it is this Anglican life which leads me to look at my calling as a man who lives not just in one world, but between two worlds.

Keeping up...

2007-08-15T23:37:00.000-04:00

Well, It is done. I have officially entered the blogosphere, and am hopeful the fumes won't be too bad. Perhaps the title above needs a little introduction. These words were spoken by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, upon his execution at the stake in 1556, when he held his hand in the flames that lept up at him. Previously he had recanted his Reformed Protestant convictions and had even signed a confession before the tender ministrations of Roman inquisitors. Overcome by his lack of courage, he changed his mind, told the powers that be to get stuffed, and they promptly had him executed. As he began to burn, he held his right hand, that hand with which he had signed his recantations, into the flames so that it would be the first part of him to go, and as it burned he cried, "This hand hath offended." Powerful words for a man who died for powerful convictions of a Reformed faith and a reformed Church in England. Powerful words spoken during the tumultuous age of the birth of Anglicanism. It is my intention to use this site to examine aspects of theology, church history, and politics from a protestant Anglican view, as well as my observations, thoughts, etc. on the world and culture around us. That's all.