New Prefect in the Congregation....

With a move that I find somewhat interesting, and would never have guessed, Benedict XVI named Archbishop William J. Levada to be the new Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I am somewhat surprised that an American is given this position. I don't know what it means, but it is interesting. You can read more here.

Grace and Peace,
Brian

Star Wars -- Epsiode III Versus the Council of Nicea

This webpage is really too funny.

The thought that Star Wars Episode III is a rewriting of Nicea is rather amusing.

Grace and Peace,
Brian

Thieves in the Night

1 Thessalonians 5

Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When they say, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober; for those who sleep sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night. But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him. Therefore encourage one another and build up each other, as indeed you are doing. But we appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labor among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you; esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. And we urge you, beloved, to admonish the idlers, encourage the faint hearted, help the weak, be patient with all of them. See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all. Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil. May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do this. Beloved, pray for us. Greet all the brothers and sisters with a holy kiss. I solemnly command you by the Lord that this letter be read to all of them. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

Never more has this passage been on my mind. Yesterday evening, some parishioners and I discovered that our church building had been broken into yet again. This is the third time since last August. Each time they have stolen the coins (really not all that much) in our Coins for Christ bottle (a 5-gallon water cooler jug). Are these attempts a reminder for us about the day of the Lord? And how do we respond to them? The talk in the congregation is about security systems, which might be appropriate. After all, we spend almost $200 every time a brick goes through a window and $5-10 is taken. What is the balance between stewardship of our building, and our mission to live out the Gospel?

A lot of arguments can be made about justice, and security, and stewardship, but my fear is that we use those to neglect our mission to the poor and those in need. The folks that the police suspect are in great need and probably mentally unstable. What is our responsibility toward them? How do we love them? This question is perhaps one of the great challenges of Christianity. Love does not always look the same. But we are called to live out our faith, I believe, through works of mercy.

How do we as Christians bear wrongs patiently? Putting up security systems or barriers to entry? Are we more secure then? When they say, “There is peace and security.” Then sudden destruction will come upon them. It is generally thought that Paul was writing here about a slogan of sorts propagated by the Roman Empire. We are not saved through our security. Our trust should not be placed in that peace and security. In fact, a friend of mine has made the claim that as Christians we are free to live in holy insecurity. We must not wall ourselves off as Christians ignoring our call to proclaim the Gospel. Our lives as Christians are ones that look forward to the coming of Christ, and as such, we are free to live with the world crashing in on us. Our security is ultimately assured.

How free are we to live lives where we seek not to repay evil for evil? How do we care for the ones who are in need? We should live, I think, as the chapter in Thessalonians, closes, full of the grace of Jesus, who did not return insult with insult, or violence with violence. It is probable that some sort of security measures pop up here at the congregation, but it is my hope that we move forward with another response as well.

Grace and Peace,

Brian

Links for Perusal

Pentecost is coming. A wonderful little piece on Pentecost is to be found at Byzantines.net. Anytime the Cappadocian Fathers are quoted, I am interested. :)

Also, some interesting articles on capitalism at The Other Journal. The first is by Dan Bell, professor at the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary (LTSS). He talks about the problem with the problem with capitalism. His piece is interesting, but I think he could go further with the eschatological implications. If capitalism deforms our desire, so that we are led away from our true end in God, then capitalism (at least as it is currently practiced at any rate) is a system that diverts our vision to the end of time. We work not for this life, but for the eschaton, and the Reign of God which comes then.

The second is by D. Stephen Long, who professor at Garrett Evangelical Theological Seminary. His main point is that Adam Smith is the father of another kind of "church." Some acquaintance with the economic personalities, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes, is helpful. This article is part memoir, part critique. Interesting for sure, but could have some more teeth.

Grace and Peace,
Brian

Lutherans, Roman Catholics, and Pope Benedict XVI

The election of Cardinal Ratzinger to the chair of Peter was one that made me a little nervous. After all, Ratzinger was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. And as such, the media would have us believe that he is a rotweiler. He is against all sorts of things that good Americans should be for… women priests… gay and lesbian marriage… warm and fuzzy bunnies. Ok, maybe he does like warm an fuzzy bunnies, but if he is German, then those warm bunnies probably came out of an oven. Not surprisingly, at his election, I was cautious. This man had after all written the document Dominus Iesus, in 2000, which seemed to be a step away from the recently signed and agreed upon Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ). That document was a major breakthrough in ecumenical relations between the Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Justification is, for Lutherans after all, that idea by which the Church stands or falls. How is it that we are made right with God? The Augsburg Confession says in its fourth article, aptly titled “Justification,”

Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

What is at stake here? Naturally that we are in no way justified by our own works. We cannot earn or storm our way into heaven by the merit of anything that we have done. And of course, the confutation of the fourth article says as much. What happens though, is that the Roman Catholic stance talks about works that are done through God’s grace make one worthy, which is difficult for many Lutherans to swallow. What I think is happening here, is that the two parties have been talking past one another. Lutherans want to talk about justification, but Romans have been talking mainly about the life lived after justification, or in other words, sanctification. That idea is a problem since Lutherans don’t agree as to whether any sanctification happens at all in this life, or if in our justification, we are merely declared righteous, and only made so at the end when Christ returns. But this conversation is one for another time.

Back to Benedict… With conversations that I have had, things that I have read, and the like, I am beginning to feel somewhat optimistic and hopeful in Benedict. Much of this optimism started with an email that was forwarded to me by one of my classmates at seminary. The email had been written by our systematic theology professor, David Yeago, who had said that Ratzinger was one of the four or five greatest living theologians, and had single handedly saved the JDDJ from being out and out rejected. Then, when reading another blog, Confessing Evangelical (which I really like and heartily recommend), the confessing evangelical quoted a newspaper article by Christopher Howse, who said something similar to Yeago, but with much more detail. Howse wrote,

According to the Lutheran theologian, Joachim Track, Ratzinger made three concessions that saved the agreement from collapse (including a declaration thatjustification and final judgment were God's gracious acts).

If this incident showed Cardinal Ratzinger as an altogether more open and conciliatory figure than the fierce enforcer depicted by his opponents, his actions as pope will be watched almost as keenly by Christians outside his jurisdiction as by the flock of this German Shepherd.

In an article by John Allen, reporter for the National Catholic Recorder, Ratzinger is even mentioned as pondering the status of the Augsburg Confession. Allen writes,

"Ratzinger has been involved in dialogue with Lutherans from way back,” said Br. Jeffrey Gros, ecumenical affairs specialist for the U.S. bishops. “In the 1980s he was even interested in declaring the Augsburg Confession [the first Lutheran declaration of faith] a Catholic document. To think that he wanted to torpedo this [agreement] is a total misread.”

This in itself is interesting, since the Lutheran World Federation requires only that a body recognize the Augsburg Confession in order to be Lutheran. If Ratzinger were to do declare the CA a “Catholic document”, what would this do to Lutheran bodies across the world? Again, something fascinating, for future pondering.

So what were the three concessions that Ratzinger made? (quoting from Allen’s article, with some comments of mine)

1. He agreed that the goal of the ecumenical process is unity in diversity, not structural reintegration. “This was important to many Lutherans in Germany, who worried that the final aim of all this was coming back to Rome,” Track said.
2. Ratzinger fully acknowledged the authority of the Lutheran World Federation to reach agreement with the Vatican. This concession might seem like a nitpick, but it has much to do with a view of the location from which authority stems, which will be a further issue in ecumenical dialogue.
3. Ratzinger agreed that while Christians are obliged to do good works, justification and final judgment remain God’s gracious acts. Amen and amen… Too often Lutherans have held that we need not do any good works, since we are justified by God’s grace alone. A healthy dose of language that impels us to work for the furthering of the Kingdom is greatly needed. We are freed FROM sin, death and the devil, as well as being freed FOR something… As I reminded my Confirmation students last week, the Kingdom is coming no matter what. We pray “Thy kingdom come” so that it might actually come in and among us.

Being a German, Benedict XVI would surely be looking for some reconciliation in his homeland. On a recent visit to the Vatican the current presiding bishop of the ELCA, Mark Hanson, encouraged John Paul II to allow Eucharistic sharing between Rome and Lutherans by 2017, five hundred years after Luther posted the 95 theses. Maybe, the time is right.

Grace and Peace,
Brian

Healing

The other day, I called a parishioner who was to begin chemotherapy in a few days. I wanted to schedule a visit with him for Communion and Anointing before the chemo began. He asked if I knew of any specific blessing or prayer for chemotherapy. He was looking for something that spoke specifically to the eradication of the cancerous cells, and the thriving of the healthy cells. I told him that I didn’t know of anything off the top of my head, but I would do some searching. As of yet, I have not found anything specific, but my thoughts did turn to a specific parable.

My parishioner’s talk of ridding the bad cells, and keeping the healthy ones, made me think of the parable of the Weeds in the Wheat (Matt. 13: 24-30). There seem to be so many parallels here. And, actually, at first glance, I was hesitant to reflect upon this passage. From the surface, I thought that this text could actually be used to discourage a treatment like chemotherapy. The master thought that in trying to gather the weeds, some healthy wheat would be gathered up and lost. So, the servants were to wait until harvest time, and then the weeds were to be gathered to be sent to the fire.

After some reflection though, I changed my mind. The parable is clearly eschatological. Jesus begins, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed…” and the emphasis on the time of the harvest when the weeds will be burned places our perspectives firmly on the horizon of time. God’s Reign is one where all the wickedness of the enemy who sowed these weeds will be ended.

Therefore, the problem is not, I think one with the parable. Instead the issue seems to be one with our modern notions of medicine. We have ripped medicine from its eschatological moorings in God’s action in the world. Jesus’ preaching was one the proclaimed the beginning of God’s Reign in the world, “Repent and be baptized. The Reign of God has come near.” Part of that proclamation then was also manifested in his miraculous deeds, and some of those deeds were healings.

Our healing is always something that comes from the power of God. Too often we perceive healing to come from doctors or modern pharmaceuticals. In many ways, we lose any perception of God being present in the healing at all. And healing is almost always exclusive to the removal of symptoms and restoration to a previous state. Healing, properly understood however, is something that should look forward to the ultimate restoration of all things. Here and now, healing should point us forward, not back. The healing visited upon us should have us not look forward to a previous state of our bodies, but should have us look forward to and anticipate the Reign of God.

So in my parishioner’s case, I went to him and read this parable. We talked about the parallels in this parable, the burning of the weeds and the chemotherapy’s burning of the cancerous cells. We talked about medicine and healing being a foretaste of the Reign of God, and that he would be taking an oral chemo drug. Then, I anointed him, and we shared in the Eucharist, as we looked forward to that time when we gather around the throne and share with all believers the great and promised feast.

Amen. Come Lord Jesus.

The Transfiguration of Our Lord

Transfiguration of Our Lord: Matthew 17:1-9

Outline

• 6 days later Jesus led Peter, James and John up a high mountain by themselves
• And he was transfigured (metamorfo,w) before them.
• His face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as the light (evge,neto leuka. w`j to. fw/j)
• Suddenly (kai. ivdou.) Moses and Elijah appeared talking with Jesus (sullale,w)
• Peter said, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I will make three dwellings (trei/j skhna,j — three tabernacles) here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
• While yet speaking, suddenly (ivdou) a bright cloud overshadowed them (nefe,lh fwteinh. evpeski,asen)
• From the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!”
• Disciples fell to ground in fear. [can be understood as act of reverence and worship as well as emotional fear]
• Jesus came and touched them, “Get up and do not be afraid.”
• When they lifted their eyes they saw no one but Jesus.
Coming down from the mountain, Jesus told them, “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead (e[wj ou- o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou evk nekrw/n evgerqh/|).” [note that dead is plural, ‘raised from the dead ones’]

Missing from pericope vv. 8-13: And the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" He replied, "Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

Use of the verb metamorfo,w denotes a change in Jesus’ form and not an interior change as in Greek thought. Here the disciples see a preview of the eschaton and a vision of Jesus’ glory.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Transfiguration is a fascinating story. It is one event that demands serious reflection and interpretation. I will argue greatly that each gospel evangelist takes a different tack on what the Transfiguration is about. I believe Luke sees it as an event that points to discipleship based on Jesus' death and resurrection. Matthew has more to do with seeing it as a preview of the end of time and what things will be like in the eschaton. I will be honest and say that I just haven't dealt with Mark's account on a serious basis.

But for Matthew, who is writing for a community of Jewish Christians, one question that is surely to be addressed is "what is Jesus' relation to the Law and the Prophets?" Taking this event as a snapshot would be dangerous. I wonder how many pastors and preachers have taken the tack that Jesus replaces the Law and the Prophets. I think they have actually gone the wrong direction. By replacing the Law and Prophets, we actually cut ourselves off from the Hebrew Bible... and by doing so, we relegate the Jews to a former people of God, and if that is so, what might keep God from revoking our status as people of God now?

For Matthew, this question is important. What to do with the Law and Prophets (most likely these Jewish Christians were of the Pharisaic tradition who held both Law and Prophets as authoritative)? Matthew's account of the Transfiguration is an interpretation to some regard on this. I will actually turn to Origen's Commentary on Matthew, because he writes it very nicely... despite his somewhat checkered past in the Church, he is still one VERY clueful
theologian. Anyway, he writes:

But after these things it is written that, when they heard the voice from the cloud bearing testimony to the Son, the three Apostles, not being able to bear the glory of the voice and power resting upon it, "fell on their face,"²⁶⁴ and besought God; for they were sore afraid at the supernatural sight, and the things which were spoken from the sight. But consider if you can also say this with reference to the details in the passage, that the disciples, having understood that the Son of God had been holding conference with Moses, and that it was He who said, "A man shall not see My face and live,"²⁶⁵ and taking further the testimony of God about Him, as not being able to endure the radiance of the Word, humbled themselves under the mighty hand of God;²⁶⁶ but, after the touch of the Word, lifting up their eyes they saw Jesus only and no other.²⁶⁷ Moses, the law, and Elijah, the prophet, became one only with the Gospel of Jesus; and not, as they were formerly three, did they so abide, but the three became one,

With Jesus there is a unity in the Law, the Prophets and the Kingdom yet to come in the eschaton. The Word of the Lord spoken in the Law, the Prophets, and now through Jesus is one and the same. Jesus does not come to replace the Law and Prophets but transform it, and literally put flesh on it.

Grace and Peace,
Brian

What to do when...

Whoever the Confessing Evangelical is (some Lutheran in the UK, actually) , it is all his fault that I started a blog. Being able to post random thoughts and musings seemed interesting, but I didn't really think it was possible to do it and maintain integrity. Well, I was wrong.

I am posting a link to one of his postings.... which is itself a thought on another post from the Internet Monk. The CE continues the IM's thoughts on "Unbelieving Children." It was really fascinating. More food for thought as my life progresses.

Anyway... here it is.

http://confessingevangelical.blogspot.com/2005/01/unbelieving-children.html

Grace and Peace,
Brian

Beatitudes

Matthew 5:1-12

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountain; and after he sat down, his disciples came to him. ²Then he began to speak, and taught them, saying:

³‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

⁴‘Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

⁵‘Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

⁶‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

⁷‘Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

⁸‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

⁹‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

¹⁰‘Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

¹¹‘Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. ¹²Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

So it seems that the question to wrestle with here is… is God’s favor shown upon those who strive to live in this way? Is that how we might earn God’s reward? And just what would that reward be? What would we have to do to be ‘poor in spirit’ or ‘hunger and thirst for righteousness?’ Why would we strive to mourn? Do we mourn to earn God’s comfort?

I want to submit to a knee-jerk reaction of Lutheranism and state that of course we don’t earn God’s favor by doing these things. I want to hold out that our actions stem as a response from God’s bestowal of blessing. But just what does God bestowing his blessing upon us mean?

The Greek word used here for “Blessed” is makarios. And often it is translated as “happy.” And we are left to wrestle even more I think, because I don’t think that everything that makes us “happy” is a blessing from God. It’s just too often that people are happy with less than what God wants to give us. That is the heart of our brokenness, we want less than what God wants.

How can it be that we are happy when we mourn anyway? Isn’t that sort of the definition of mourning? Being sad (unhappy) due to a great loss? Who might have lost something in this text? Who might the mourners be here? While Jesus sees and addresses the gathered crowd, there is a sense that some of his words are directed most directly to his disciples, who have just recently left their family and answered the call of Jesus. But Jesus’ words do speak to anyone who suffers for the sake of Jesus. His words are a call to live in a Here/Not Yet tension.

For those who are called and answer the call of Jesus, following after him, we trust in the hope of God’s reign, that we will see it. As such, we might be forced to mourn here and now as choosing what God desires might put us at odds with what the world desires. We suffer loss. But as we continue to exist within the Church, we continue to point to Jesus and the Kingdom of heaven, God’s reign, as our present and future hope.

The idea of comfort here is not just the idea of consoling words spoken to ease grief, but consolation which strengthens us to persevere and continue being salt of the earth and light to the world.

Being merciful, pure in heart, hungering and thirsting for righteousness, making peace are not at all ways that we earn God’s favor, but they are the practices that shape and form us to be people of the Kingdom, subjects who are happy under God’s rule. We are already granted citizenship now in that Kingdom, and we learn through our discipleship what the Kingdom will look like when it arrives in its fullness.

Grace and Peace.
Brian

Advent 4 - Savior of the Nations

It’s been too long since I posted last. It is that time of the year after all. Despite the texts on being prepared and watching and waiting, I have been caught once again unprepared for Christmas. It is too hard to believe that Christmas is only a few days away. Oh well…

Last Sunday, we sang Savior of the Nations, Come (LBW 28). As I sang this hymn, I think it moved to the top of my list of “Favorite Advent Carols,” and even hymns not to be without when stranded on a desert island. In essence, while an Advent hymn, it contains the whole story, I think. The only thing is that the translation is a composite and at times lacks the power of Luther’s translation of Ambrose’s text. However, there are times when the translation does a wonderful job grabbing the mystery. Anyway, here it is. (From the Lutheran Book of Worship, hymn 28, Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, 1978)

Savior of the nations, come; Show the glory of the Son!
Ev’ry people stand in awe; Praise the perfect Son of God.

Not of human seed or worth, But from God’s own mystic breath,
Fruit in Mary’s womb begun, When God breathed the Word his Son.

Wondrous birth! Oh wondrous child Of the virgin undefiled!
Mighty God and man in one, Eager now his race to run!

God the Father is his source, Back to God he runs his course;
Down to death and hell descends, God’s high throne he reascends.

He leaves heaven to return; Trav’ling where dull hellfire burns;
Riding out, returning home As the Savior who has come.

God the Father’s precious Son Girds himself in flesh to run
For the trophies of our souls, Longer than this round earth rolls.

Shining stable in the night, Breathing vic’try with your light;
Darkness cannot hide your flame, Shining bright as Jesus’ name.

I think perhaps it is the last verse that gets to me. Shining stable in night… the preceding six verses are what that stable light means: that breath of God’s Word, the double ecstasy, the saving from death and hell. The light from that stable was Jesus. There in that stable is born the savior of the nations. Even now at Christmas, we look forward to the Passion. They are not unconnected.

Grace and Peace.

Beyond Choice?!?!??!!?

Yesterday, I was reading my most recent issue (Nov. 2004) of Science & Theology News, which was for the most part, somewhat blah. Then I ran across a review in the Bookends section. James C. Peterson reviewed the book by Alexander Sanger, Beyond Choice: Reproductive Freedom in the 21^st Century. The review begins:

‘We got over our shame with birth control. It is time we did so with abortion,’ closes Beyond Choice by Alexander Sanger. As the grandson of birth control activist Margaret Sanger and chairman of the International Planned Parenthood Council, Sanger advocates seeing abortion as another form of birth control. Since contraception is accepted without stigma in most circles, he thinks abortion should be as well. Both are reproductive options that Sanger believes are moral and even essential to human survival.

This appeal to human survival is Sanger’s central argument for the morality and necessity of abortion. He is convinced that the key for the protection of abortion rights is to shift public perception from abortion as anti-life to abortion as a tool for shaping humanity….

Imagine… abortion as a tool for shaping humanity. Further in the article Peterson writes, “Sanger argues that abortion offers the best cost-benefit ratio for society, the pregnant woman and possibly her partner.” So the shaping that occurs is one that is mostly a cost-benefit analysis of whether or not the pregnancy “hurts or helps the reproductive strategies that the man and woman are pursuing.” Of course what are the benefits? Are children simply one more item on a list of goods on the market for us to decide whether or not we consume them? What kind of shaping is happening when a pregnancy is given the thumbs-up or down on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis. Surely, this approach would shape humanity, but in the process of shaping, we can either improve the product or malform it.

The problems here are many. Sanger tries to place the decision in the context of helping humanity survive. But at the center is still the couple, and maybe only the woman, deciding if this pregnancy meets her needs. This rationale is not meant to advance or help anyone but the couple decide if they should keep the child or not.

Rather than turn to abortion to shape humanity, how about turning to other practices like equal pay for women in the workplace? Affordable childcare? More than a token six or twelve week maternity leave? Like parenthood, it would seem that these are all practices that could, if done correctly, be self-sacrificing, rather than self-exalting. The well-being of the other is placed at the center of the decision, and not the well-being of the individual.

Throughout it all, Sanger seems to abandon the notion of the dignity inherent in all human beings. Reducing the decision to keep or terminate a pregnancy to the basis of a cost-benefit analysis, which is most likely motivated by emotive reasoning, fails to see the life of the child as human.

This rationale will certainly shape humanity… into an even more twisted and malformed version of what it has already become.

Grace and Peace.

Thanksgiving

I have recently come across the 1863 Thanksgiving proclamation given by Abraham Lincoln.

It is the duty of nations as well as of citizens to owe their dependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord....
We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own.
Intoxicated with unbroken success we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us. It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a day of Thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.

When held together with the Gospel lesson assigned to Thanksgiving Day, John 6:25-35, I am concerned that we strive after the food that perishes. Our feasts around tables, while enjoyable, miss something when held in contrast with the true feast that matters, the meal that is our Thanksgiving, the Eucharist. Jesus says, "I am the bread of life..." He is the food that does not perish. Even though we are only given a taste, it is the foretaste of the feast to come. The Eucharist enlivens us to go out in the world. The meal where we gorge ourselves, leads us to collapse on the couch, drifting off into a triptophan-induced coma.

Our Thanksgiving must always be one of both praise and repentance, remembering how what we have is only due to God's grace.

Peace.

Christ the King Sunday – Nov. 21, 2004

This Sunday traditionally marks the end of the liturgical year. This denotation is of course arbitrary, since the argument could be made that Easter is the proper beginning of the Christian year. Thus the Triduum somehow contains both the ending and beginning (especially if the Great Vigil is kept… and it should be!).

For the texts this week, I was slightly surprised that they were not of the blatantly apocalyptic variety to which I have grown accustomed. No sheep and goats from Matthew. No visions from Daniel or scenes from the heavenly court in Revelation. Instead this week, we get a text from Jeremiah, the hymn/creed from Colossians, and the crucifixion scene from Luke with the penitent thief (traditionally called St. Dismas). This passage is one of interest, since Jesus’ words to the thief “Truly I say to you today you will be with me in paradise,” have often been used to support the notion that as soon as one dies the soul goes off to be with God in heaven. However, the Greek is a little ambiguous. It all depends on how you punctuate the sentence. Is it “Truly I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise.” OR “Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.” But this, I think is a discussion for another time.

In the congregation which I serve, we made an interesting choice. We are doing our “annual” pledge drive. (It’s annual only in the sense that we are reviving a practice that was tried a few times every couple of years, but we are hoping to create a new practice that becomes self-sustaining.) The Colossians text fits right in with that. The basic gist of the text, and it is not at all subtle about it, is that all things are Christ’s. The Greek phrase “ta panta” (I will figure out a way in the future to use a Greek font in addition to transliterating) shows up 6 times in verses 15-20. That all things belong to Christ is the basis of Christian stewardship, but I was struck by some of the other “economic” language.

In the introduction to the creed/hymn, our epistle writer (I tend to think Paul did not write this epistle, but I do hold out a real possibility that he might have written it) writes, “In all strength, may you be made strong by all endurance and patience, while giving thanks with joy to the Father who made y’all fit for the portion of the share of the saints in light;”(vv. 11-12) (I am aware that setting out my own translation, which might be wrong, does entail some hubris, but I wanted to point out some things of interest… ) The “portion of the share” gets translated as “to share in the inheritance” by NRSV, which I think is correct. But this is an “economic” term. We share in the inheritance because, as it states further, we are “rescued from the authority of the dark and brought into the kingdom/rule of his beloved son…” The Greek word for “share” klhros (h= eta, so sounds like “ay”) has in other places a sense of distribution of a country conquered by the Jews, which certainly goes well with the second part of the introduction about being rescued and brought into the kingdom of the beloved Son.

Ultimately we share in the inheritance of the saints in light only be being rescued from one authority, that of darkness, and being brought into the rule of Christ, who is our king. Again the word kingdom or rule comes from the Greek word “basileia.” Basileia is more of an active word, but it implies that there is a king over its subject. There are certainly echoes of Romans here, where we are either a slave to sin or a slave to God. Here we are either a subject of darkness or a subject of Christ, where we share in the inheritance of the saints in light.

The creed/hymn goes on further to talk about this king.

• He is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation. All things have been made through him and for him.
• He is before all things and all things have hung together/existed in him.
• He is the head of the body, the Church.
• He is the beginning/ruler (arxh), firstborn of the dead ones, so that he himself might be in all things.
• In him is pleased to dwell every fullness (pan to plhrwma; w=omega, sounds like a long o), and to reconcile all things to him, after making peace through the blood of his cross.

All things, seen and unseen, are created through Christ and for Christ. How do we talk about stewardship and our giving without coming to terms with this? Even folks who tithe, must wrestle with it, since Wesley has a line in one of his sermons that goes something like, “If you are giving ten percent to Christ, what are you doing with the other 90%?” One hundred percent is what belongs to Christ: all things, visible and invisible, things on earth and in heaven, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities. Again here is another echo from Romans. This time from the favorite funeral passage, “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, not depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 8:38-39)

What I find interesting is the phrase, “in him is pleased to dwell every fullness.” Not just fullness, but every fullness is pleased to dwell in him. There is a sense that his divinity is in superabundance, and that it cannot be diminished. Despite having died, he is the firstborn of the dead, his divinity is not reduced by that. He was a human, but that too did not reduce his divinity. After all, everything came into being in and through him.

Notice too the beginning and ending of the hymn. “He is the image of the invisible God” and “to reconcile all things to him, after making peace through the blood of his cross.” Christ is the image (eikwn) of the invisible God… Christ pours himself out for us, in the same way that God the Father poured out his love to begin creation in the first place.

So how does all of this relate to Christ being King anyway? Modern humans in the West have little understanding of what it means to live under a king. In America we live under a president. We would never believe that all things belong to the king. I think it’s apparent that most Americans see the need for some of their money to go to the state for various benefits, but they are always seeking to minimize that amount. Even when they want to increase taxes, they try to do so in a way that minimizes how much. Here Christ as our king claims everything. Everything is meant for him. We owe it all to him, being subjects in his kingdom of light. Of course, what does that mean? It means that all of our goods should serve him. So of course, not all of our money should be handed over to the Church. We all need to eat and be sustained bodily. We need to raise our children, put a roof over their heads, and clothes on their backs. That can all, I think, be seen as serving Christ. But what about the rest? I am literally surrounded right now by boxes of mine that are unused for any purpose mostly. These boxes are things that I have accumulated throughout years. How do these serve Christ?

It is in our king that every fullness is pleased to dwell. We should be free from the need to accumulate more and more, to hoard. Our abundance comes from the one in whom all abundance exists, that is where we should look for our sense of abundance. We share in that inheritance.

Grace and Peace.

November 11 -- Veterans' Day or St. Martin's Day?

The other day, Nov. 11, it hit me that we in the U.S. have completely forgotten the saints... or at least, replaced the Church's saints with the nation's saints. We have a German au pair living with us, and a few weeks ago, she asked if we celebrated St. Martins day. In Germany, young children make lanterns and parade around town singing songs of St. Martin, who served God, bearing witness to Jesus Christ. In America, we have parades with veterans and bands, extolling the virtues of those who have served their country. Now I am not anti-military. I do worry that at times, the exalting of military men and women could lead to idolatry. Of course, remembering saints can lead there too... but I think it is a bit more difficult, when rendered properly.

St. Martin lived in the fourth century. He was born of a pagan family, and served in the Roman legion. After conversion, he found it more and more difficult to serve in the military as a Christian. I seem to remember that when he resigned his commission, the question was raised whether he was a coward. He offered to be present on the front lines of the battle unarmed to prove that he was not, but he did not feel that he could wield the sword anymore. Further parts of the legend, if I recall correctly, go on to say that he did in fact walk into the battle unarmed. His presence so unnerved the opposing forces, that they ran off.

While he was still a catachumen, Martin had seen a beggar, shivering in the cold. He leaped off his his horse, drew his sword and cut his cloak in two, half of which he gave to the beggar. That night, so the story goes, Martin dreamed of Jesus, wrapped in that same half of a cloak, saying, "Martin, still a catechumen, has covered me with his cloak." Eventually, Martin is given the bishopric of Tours where he defended Orthodoxy in light of the Arian controversies.

The Lutheran Book of Worship gives us the following prayer of thanks for Martin, Bishop of Tours:

Heavenly Father, shepherd of your people, we thank you for your servant Martin, who was faithful in the care and nurture of your flock; and we pray that, following his example and the teaching of his holy life, we may by your grace grow into the full stature of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Grace and Peace.

Sunday's texts, worship issues and preaching

This upcoming Sunday (24th post-Pentecost, Nov. 14) is the beginning of the end, at least for the church year. Our lectionary readings are all apocalyptic in nature. Even the 2 Thessalonians text is. There Paul speaks out against those who would not work because the end is coming. The Malachi and Lukan texts are much more explicitly apocalyptic. I am drawn to the Malachi text for my sermon, although I suppose that the gospel text will make an appearance or two there.

The carving out of the Malachi text is interesting. I wish the RCL committee had just included the whole fourth chapter of Malachi. It was only four more verses. Anyway, it would seem that the context of Malachi's prophecy helps us with this text. Malachi wrote after the second temple had been built, following the homecoming from exile. In a time that should have seen an outpouring of faith and sincere worship, Malachi sees Israel once again turning away from Adonai. In Understanding the Old Testament, Bernard Anderson writes,

[Malachi] accused them of dishonoring Yahweh by placing polluted food on the altar and by offering sacrificies -- blind, lame, sickly animals -- that would not have been accepted by their governor. The people were going through the motions of ritual but clearly they found the whole thing boring and wearisome... The priests were not guarding the true torah, men were divorcing their Jewish wives to marry foreign women, and social injustices abounded. (pp. 522-523)

In a time that should have been getting better and better, people were becoming more and more disillusioned. Their worship suffered. They wandered, and they began mistreating their neighbors. Everything should be going better for them. But God doesn't seem to be paying off the way that they expected him to.

Sometimes I wonder if this isn't the same situation that the church faces now. The twentieth century was to be the Christian Century. If only we went to church, lived good lives, and did what we were told, things would only continue to get better and better, especially since most in America expected to be able do that more freely since they had thrown off the shackles of the terrible state churches that held much too much authority and power in the old country. But that positive outlook didn't last long. The World Wars and the Great Depression, helped lead to a realization that not much had changed. What good is God if his promises weren't going to be kept? It is the echo of Malachi 2:17, "Where is the God of justice?" People didn't (and don't) feel that there is any tangible benefit to being a Christian. Non-Christians could be just as succesful as Christians.

There doesn't seem to be any tangible benefit to marriage for Christians. The divorce rate is just as high as the rest of society. Neo-pagans can be just as succesful as Christians in the business world.

So now what? Now comes the apocalyptic texts. Normally, I talk about apocalyptic texts in terms of bringing hope to a community living through a crisis. But these texts also work to strip us of our notion that we might make things better on our own, by following certain proscribed routines or programs. When apocalyptic texts arise, we see communities that can't go down any further.

Apocalyptic texts speak to us to help reorient not just our behaviors, but our whole mode of thinking. We are not promised success in marriage or business if we are Christian. What we should strive for is success in our witness. And we don't witness to gain new members in our congregations. We witness because we know that ultimately everything is in God's hands, even if our witness should lead to martyrdom.

We remember that God is the one who will heal all of our brokeness. In fact, Malachi talks about the sun of righteousness rising with healing in his wings. For us, the Church, we cannot help but see Jesus as our sun of righteousness. It is in the Church that we find that healing. We find it in the water of baptism. It is in the body and blood that we find healing and a glimpse of the age to come.

Peace