These reflections are generated from my sermon this weekend. My conclusion about church mission and ministry is founded in the life-changing insights I garnered thirty years ago from the little book by Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of Encounter with God. Now if you pay attention to detail you will notice I read it before 1980 or, and my guess is I have left out much and maybe reshaped quite a bit. If what follows interests you check it out at
http://books.google.com/books?id=mJd8YFnXZkgC&pg=PA13&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
[A meaningless side note. I met Schillebeeckx in Leuven when he came to speak at our school. One of my highlights in seminary was being the person who brought him his lunch, he was not feeling well. The most memorable part of his visit was hearing his voice. He sounded like Bella Legosi. I was not the only one to notice it. I cannot recall any content, but I do remember endless hours of entertaining ourselves imitating Count Dracula's take on theology.]
The term sacrament is popular in the Catholic world. It is ignored, frequently rejected and sometimes even detracted in the Protestant world. In the Middle Ages, after many years of alternative practices and different numbering (for a readable overview see Joseph Martos' Doors to the Sacred) the Church eventually settled on Seven (probably driven as much by the magic number seven as anything). The number seven is clearly problematic because if Baptism and Confirmation are two separate sacraments, then Holy Orders (bishop, priest, deacon) should be three!
The reformers made quick work of the Roman sacramental system and accepted only two as given by the Lord (baptism and eucharist). This is because Jesus said "Do this..." (I pointed out in my sermon that Jesus also told us to heal, teach, preach, exorcise and the sacrament of healing is certainly from Jesus and done at His command.) I am not going to enter into a thorough historical discussion on the issue at this point (who knows what may come) but I do think discussion of sacraments, like many other topics, is driven by "team spirit" (or what St. Paul calls "I am for Cephas, I am for Apollos, I am for Paul.") And we know that shuts done thinking quicker than anything.
Leaving the word sacrament aside, what is the reality or phenomenon we ar speaking about? Signification. An outward, material thing or act in and through which a spiritual reality is conveyed. A sacrament is a sign which does and means what it signifies. A kiss is a sacrament. Or a hug. A wedding ring. Or a marriage. At core, our bodies are sacarament. Our bodies convey meaning. In the days ahead I will try to lay out my thinking more, but to start with ponder this: what can I SEE and what can I not SEE in the things/actions which matter deeply to me?
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
On Hope and Evil
"Lack of Hope called world's greatest evil" said the headline at ZENIT. http://www.zenit.org/article-35601?l=english Which made me pause and say, what a wonderful question. What is the greatest evil? Some of this comes from an exercise my daughter recently asked me to complete. There was a series of words which I was asked to number 1 to 7, worst to least bad. It included prostitute, sadist, killer, alcoholic, thief, etc. The point of the exercise was to justify your position. As my daughter pointed out, a killer could be a soldier. As I pointed out a sadist may have the desire to hurt others, but choose not too, much like an alcoholic. The purpose of such a process is to sharpen our thinking skills and help us to consider issues from many angles. It is also revelatory of our own values and our hearts.
As I ponder the evils more prevalent in our midst (i.e. the white, middle-upper middle class world of the Mid-South) many of them are terribly mundane. And that word reminds me of an essay I read in the seminary, circa 1979, written many years before that by Thomas Merton. It was an essay on Nazis and the war criminal trials. I cannot remember the name of the essay or which of his dozens of books contained it. I tried to google a series of words but came up empty. What I do recall, is his assessment of one of the Nazi architects of so much evil and suffering. Merton recalls being disappointed by how ordinary and bureaucratic the man was. He pondered that such malevolence should be wrapped in a sneering, grotesque face, exuding a wretched ugliness. Instead, he looked like an accountant.
Merton's point, spoken from a place of spiritual journey few of us can fathom, is that we are a fallen race. The Christian doctrine of sin means that all are touched by (and embrace willingly) evil. It is hard to deal with such a concept. We like to think of evil being "those guys" (and we all identify different groups). We like to believe we are the "good guys" even if slightly flawed....
My thoughts, as much as I love a top ten list, is that the use of the term "worst" or "greatest" is hyperbole. It is probably not possible to actually figure out the obvious greatest evil. Yet, there are degrees and kinds and some evils are worse than others. The loss of hope certainly deserves conisderation. We live in a post-belief society. Even Christians are weighed down by the assumptions and beliefs of secularity and materialism. I see it at work every day, decaying the faith commitments of church goer and drifters alike. It produces a sense of "what's in it for me" and the mindless pursuit of distractions and pleasure. And it provides a venue for more sinister forces to work. Confronted with a lack of meaning, we are left to our own devices, to spin meaning out of the daily events which we plod through each day. So my team's success (or for me lately, inexplicable failure) determines my happiness (or sends me to bed each night swearing I will not watch another White Sox game ever!). Doing good and getting acknowledgment is a temporary reprieve, but then the poisonous whisper hisses in our mind, "does it matter?"
To follow Christ is to be a cross-carrying Liberator. We are freed from despair and empowered to give hope. Maybe we church folks have failed in the mission. Maybe we need to see the societal wide "pursuit of stuff" as a fruit of our poorly conceived and more poorly executed evangelism. Or maybe we need to recognize that the world is a battle field and our souls are the booty. We need to know that the great evils (loss of hope, love and faith among the worst) are actually the weapons of spiritual forces. We need to "awake from sleep, our salvation is near at hand." We need to be praying more, reading more, thinking more, serving more, focused more. I am glad there are bishops meeting to discuss the loss of hope. I am glader still that there is a God Who plans to rescue us. And I am glad if this essay provides some fodder for conversion and renewal in someone's life, even if it is only mine!
As I ponder the evils more prevalent in our midst (i.e. the white, middle-upper middle class world of the Mid-South) many of them are terribly mundane. And that word reminds me of an essay I read in the seminary, circa 1979, written many years before that by Thomas Merton. It was an essay on Nazis and the war criminal trials. I cannot remember the name of the essay or which of his dozens of books contained it. I tried to google a series of words but came up empty. What I do recall, is his assessment of one of the Nazi architects of so much evil and suffering. Merton recalls being disappointed by how ordinary and bureaucratic the man was. He pondered that such malevolence should be wrapped in a sneering, grotesque face, exuding a wretched ugliness. Instead, he looked like an accountant.
Merton's point, spoken from a place of spiritual journey few of us can fathom, is that we are a fallen race. The Christian doctrine of sin means that all are touched by (and embrace willingly) evil. It is hard to deal with such a concept. We like to think of evil being "those guys" (and we all identify different groups). We like to believe we are the "good guys" even if slightly flawed....
My thoughts, as much as I love a top ten list, is that the use of the term "worst" or "greatest" is hyperbole. It is probably not possible to actually figure out the obvious greatest evil. Yet, there are degrees and kinds and some evils are worse than others. The loss of hope certainly deserves conisderation. We live in a post-belief society. Even Christians are weighed down by the assumptions and beliefs of secularity and materialism. I see it at work every day, decaying the faith commitments of church goer and drifters alike. It produces a sense of "what's in it for me" and the mindless pursuit of distractions and pleasure. And it provides a venue for more sinister forces to work. Confronted with a lack of meaning, we are left to our own devices, to spin meaning out of the daily events which we plod through each day. So my team's success (or for me lately, inexplicable failure) determines my happiness (or sends me to bed each night swearing I will not watch another White Sox game ever!). Doing good and getting acknowledgment is a temporary reprieve, but then the poisonous whisper hisses in our mind, "does it matter?"
To follow Christ is to be a cross-carrying Liberator. We are freed from despair and empowered to give hope. Maybe we church folks have failed in the mission. Maybe we need to see the societal wide "pursuit of stuff" as a fruit of our poorly conceived and more poorly executed evangelism. Or maybe we need to recognize that the world is a battle field and our souls are the booty. We need to know that the great evils (loss of hope, love and faith among the worst) are actually the weapons of spiritual forces. We need to "awake from sleep, our salvation is near at hand." We need to be praying more, reading more, thinking more, serving more, focused more. I am glad there are bishops meeting to discuss the loss of hope. I am glader still that there is a God Who plans to rescue us. And I am glad if this essay provides some fodder for conversion and renewal in someone's life, even if it is only mine!
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Jesus Had a Wife?
TV and print media are a buzz with the latest "Jesus was married story." The last couple of decades it seems that most of the news stories about Jesus have had an edge. In many cases, the articles are actually based on respected scholarship and even try to offer balanced insight into the different theories about Jesus and His times. Most Christians have not engaged in deep studies, or they have approached their studies from a pretty established point of view. When you mess with someone's religious faith you are messing with their heart. In light of that, and coupled with the theological ineptitude of most news people, the stories frequently tend toward the scandalous and controversial. The stories are told in a way to do damage, not inform.
There are also all manner of folk who have a bone to pick with "the church" and who harbor ill will toward organized religion. I often hear complaints about organized religion. I am not a fan of it, but I tend to detest disorganized religion. I find that when "spirirtual, not religious" people start talking, I am often confused by what they are talking about. It can get pretty vague and frequently includes a large amount of self in it all.
The most recent claim is that a small parchment which contians the words "Jesus" and "my wife" together is proof that Jesus was married. In fact, it was Mary Magdeline, and the official church in order to put down women, stamped out the truth. And because we live in an age of movies, where all manner of conspiracies seem possible, even probable, many people assume it "may be" true.
I think a good case can be made that the Church has in fact worked hard to preserve the truth about Jesus, and the stories told in the 2nd or 3rd Centuries do not contain the real story. I do not think the reference to wife proves anything. After all marriage imagery for Christ and His church goes back to Paul, who lifted it from the Old Testament bridal metaphor for God and Israel. We cannot and should not jump to conclusions.
But the internet is littered with all manner of scholars hashing out the details.Rather than go there, I want to briefly reflect on whether it matters and why. First of all, the only reason we know that Peter was married is because his mother-in-law had a fever which Jesus healed. In fact, the wife is never mentioned. Paul alludes to other apostles taking wives, so we assume they had them, but the Four Gospels are silent on the subject. In light of that, the silence on Jesus' wife is not as significant as some might think. The Gospels just do not talk about that sort of thing. However, at the crucifixion, there are witnesses named. Would one not think His wife would have been there? Her absence from such scenes does seem to support the idea that He did not have a wife. There is also no mention of her at the resurrection appearances. Paul never says a thing about it and he lists lots of names. The long-tradition of the Church is Jesus was not married and the Bible does nothing to contradict that claim.
Is it important that He did not marry? Maybe for some of us and our piety, but that may mean we need to rethink our piety. The single or married states are neither one superior. Jesus is Lord. His marital status does not factor in as the reason for that. Perhaps, because it really does not matter, many of us are willing to let it pass. Here is, I think, a reason to pause. What is the motivation of those who advocate such things? It seems that it is usually to undermine the authority of the church and the Christian faith. While Jesus certainly takes religious leaders and institutions to task, it is not to advocate some flimsy "spiritual not religious" approach to life. He was thoroughly Jewish and interpreted His own life in the faith language Judaism and its Scriptures. He challenged Jews to be more faithful and live the faith right. Many of those in the current discussions seek only to belittle faith and mock piety. Jesus has harsh condemnation for those who undermine the faith of His little ones. And that, in the end, is what much of this is about.
I do not think Jesus was married. If He was He would not be any more or less Lord. His identity would not be affected. What I do know is the story of Jesus does not include a wife and that is the key for me. And those who seek to offer an alternate view are often times in possession of a bigger and more nefarious agenda. So read these stories with that in mind. These are not always our friends trying to find the truth.
There are also all manner of folk who have a bone to pick with "the church" and who harbor ill will toward organized religion. I often hear complaints about organized religion. I am not a fan of it, but I tend to detest disorganized religion. I find that when "spirirtual, not religious" people start talking, I am often confused by what they are talking about. It can get pretty vague and frequently includes a large amount of self in it all.
The most recent claim is that a small parchment which contians the words "Jesus" and "my wife" together is proof that Jesus was married. In fact, it was Mary Magdeline, and the official church in order to put down women, stamped out the truth. And because we live in an age of movies, where all manner of conspiracies seem possible, even probable, many people assume it "may be" true.
I think a good case can be made that the Church has in fact worked hard to preserve the truth about Jesus, and the stories told in the 2nd or 3rd Centuries do not contain the real story. I do not think the reference to wife proves anything. After all marriage imagery for Christ and His church goes back to Paul, who lifted it from the Old Testament bridal metaphor for God and Israel. We cannot and should not jump to conclusions.
But the internet is littered with all manner of scholars hashing out the details.Rather than go there, I want to briefly reflect on whether it matters and why. First of all, the only reason we know that Peter was married is because his mother-in-law had a fever which Jesus healed. In fact, the wife is never mentioned. Paul alludes to other apostles taking wives, so we assume they had them, but the Four Gospels are silent on the subject. In light of that, the silence on Jesus' wife is not as significant as some might think. The Gospels just do not talk about that sort of thing. However, at the crucifixion, there are witnesses named. Would one not think His wife would have been there? Her absence from such scenes does seem to support the idea that He did not have a wife. There is also no mention of her at the resurrection appearances. Paul never says a thing about it and he lists lots of names. The long-tradition of the Church is Jesus was not married and the Bible does nothing to contradict that claim.
Is it important that He did not marry? Maybe for some of us and our piety, but that may mean we need to rethink our piety. The single or married states are neither one superior. Jesus is Lord. His marital status does not factor in as the reason for that. Perhaps, because it really does not matter, many of us are willing to let it pass. Here is, I think, a reason to pause. What is the motivation of those who advocate such things? It seems that it is usually to undermine the authority of the church and the Christian faith. While Jesus certainly takes religious leaders and institutions to task, it is not to advocate some flimsy "spiritual not religious" approach to life. He was thoroughly Jewish and interpreted His own life in the faith language Judaism and its Scriptures. He challenged Jews to be more faithful and live the faith right. Many of those in the current discussions seek only to belittle faith and mock piety. Jesus has harsh condemnation for those who undermine the faith of His little ones. And that, in the end, is what much of this is about.
I do not think Jesus was married. If He was He would not be any more or less Lord. His identity would not be affected. What I do know is the story of Jesus does not include a wife and that is the key for me. And those who seek to offer an alternate view are often times in possession of a bigger and more nefarious agenda. So read these stories with that in mind. These are not always our friends trying to find the truth.
Friday, September 21, 2012
What are you praying for?
In Bible Study Wednesday, we began chapter 1 of Luke. After a brief introduction, Luke launches into the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth. He parallels and connects the stories of John the Baptist and Jesus from the beginnning. There are no doubt theological motivations for this and perhaps even apologetic concerns [scholars theorize that the disciples of John the Baptist were considered a rival to Jesus' followers as regards the identity and role of the two men and note the same thing present in John's Gospel.]. However, there is a power in the story itself which resonates with so much of life.
Zechariah is advanced in years; not spelled out but, one assumes, well beyond forty. He is getting his chance to perform his priestly duties. It is his tour in the the Temple. The fact that the Gospel begins in the Temple (a place where the apostles gather in Acts) is no doubt significant. Luke has placed the start in the Holy Center of Judaism. [A possible indication to keep the Temple in mind throughout this Gospel to see how Luke uses it?]
Zechariah and his wife receive hight praise "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Blameless (Greek: amempto) is a pretty strong word. Only one other person is described with this word, St. Paul in Pil 3:6 in his own self-assessment: "concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." It is an interesting idea, that someone has never failed in keeping the law. I tend to think it is more hyperbole and a way of emphasizing fidelity, rather than perfection. Lots of directions one could go, but I fight that urge!
What I want to reflect on, however, was the angel Gabriel's announcement, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife, Elizabeth will bear a son, and you shall name him John." Most assume the prayer was for a baby. It makes sense, that is the announcement after all. But I got to wondering and have to say I am not sure that the obvious is as obvious as we think.
First of all, we live in a culture which begins and ends with the individual. It is not bad, but it is how we tend to think. The ancient near east is more focused on the group. What happens to 'us' is their primary concern. Now I am not saying we only care about "me" and they only cared about "us." However, there are subtle and not so subtle differences in our approach. So what would Zechariah be praying for, as a priest in the Temple, offering incense to the Most High God (a rare opportunity, usually once in a lifetime. the priest is chosen by lot). What if the prayer reference was to the prayers being offered with the incense?
[For a fuller treatment this is a handy site: http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple08.htm#with ] As is usually the case in Jewish prayers, they are not spontaneous but written. They also follow a pattern. Most commonly we see these features: Praise of God. Rembrance of God's gracious acts of salvation. Begging mercy and forgiveness. Imploring deliverance of the People Israel. [our self generated prayers probably have their own patterns and recurring themes as well, but most focus is on "me and mine"...]
My thinking is that these are the prayers which God has heard. God has heard this righteous priest pray for God to act in mercy and love for His people. And that is what the baby means. Salvation History has begun its definitive chapter. And the baby is a key player in that process.
I have known many people who want children but for a variety of reasons cannot have them. It is a particularly painful thing, especially when so many children are born unwanted or to people ill equipped to care for them. However, in the Bible, when babies are born through God's direct intervention, it is never as an answer to their personal wants/desires. It is always because the baby serves some function in the Big Story. There is a larger point to the birth, how God will use 'this one' in His plan to 'save the world.' And in the Bible, such births almost always have a unique character. Women who are too old, or sterile, or both are the vessels chosen by God. (Mary is a big exception to this, although she faced another serious obstacle!)
Our tendency is to see this as a great blessing for an older couple who always wanted a child. It may be that, but that is not the point of the story. Rather, what we see, is God has chosen that older couple to manifest His power among us. He is sending a Messenger to prepare the way, and these two, righteous, blameless, and, we later learn, long suffering (Elizabeth calls her previous condition "a reproach") are the chosen venue to make it happen. God has let something wonderful happen for them but it is for a greater purpose than their desire for a child.
Now this is little more than idle speculation if it is simply me reading the text from a different angle. Yet, following the dictate that "Scripture interprets Scripture" and keeping in mind the import of "wider context" I want to continue with the story, forty verses later (I have read ahead and am familiar with the narrative so I already know). When the baby is born and named John, Zehariah, who has been struck dumb for over 9 months, can suddenly speak. His words, a canticle used daily in the Roman office and included in our Episcopal Morning Prayers as well, are the interpretive key to understanding the birth of the child.
Zechariah does not bless the name of God for giving him a son, nor does he thank and praise God for answering a prayer for offspring. Instead, he declares
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, for He has visited His people and redeemed them.. As the prayer continues Zechariah declares that God has kept His promises, that He is saving His people and creating a possibility for Israel to worship, serve and obey God as it should. This is all in keeping with the typical liturgical prayers of the Jews. When his attention turns to his baby son, the words are prophetic and explanatory: You my child shall be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare His way, giving His people knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins...
There is more detail to the canticle, but the illustration is clear. John is the one sent to prepare the way. His birth is not for the old parents, it is part of God's covenant promise. And so, the answered prayer is a prayer not for a baby, but for salvation, deliverance, the new Kingdom of God. And that means that IF Zechariah' is a model of prayer for us, then we need to pray less for "what I want" and more for "what God promises His people." This is why Jesus tells us "pray like this" and then proceeds to tell implore God, "Glorify Your Name and make it Holy!Your kingdom Come! Your will be done!" We need to pray for the right things. And those who are righteous and pray for such things, regardless of their personal situations, will be heard. And the prayer God answers will benefit all of us.
Zechariah is advanced in years; not spelled out but, one assumes, well beyond forty. He is getting his chance to perform his priestly duties. It is his tour in the the Temple. The fact that the Gospel begins in the Temple (a place where the apostles gather in Acts) is no doubt significant. Luke has placed the start in the Holy Center of Judaism. [A possible indication to keep the Temple in mind throughout this Gospel to see how Luke uses it?]
Zechariah and his wife receive hight praise "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Blameless (Greek: amempto) is a pretty strong word. Only one other person is described with this word, St. Paul in Pil 3:6 in his own self-assessment: "concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." It is an interesting idea, that someone has never failed in keeping the law. I tend to think it is more hyperbole and a way of emphasizing fidelity, rather than perfection. Lots of directions one could go, but I fight that urge!
What I want to reflect on, however, was the angel Gabriel's announcement, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer is heard, and your wife, Elizabeth will bear a son, and you shall name him John." Most assume the prayer was for a baby. It makes sense, that is the announcement after all. But I got to wondering and have to say I am not sure that the obvious is as obvious as we think.
First of all, we live in a culture which begins and ends with the individual. It is not bad, but it is how we tend to think. The ancient near east is more focused on the group. What happens to 'us' is their primary concern. Now I am not saying we only care about "me" and they only cared about "us." However, there are subtle and not so subtle differences in our approach. So what would Zechariah be praying for, as a priest in the Temple, offering incense to the Most High God (a rare opportunity, usually once in a lifetime. the priest is chosen by lot). What if the prayer reference was to the prayers being offered with the incense?
[For a fuller treatment this is a handy site: http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple08.htm#with ] As is usually the case in Jewish prayers, they are not spontaneous but written. They also follow a pattern. Most commonly we see these features: Praise of God. Rembrance of God's gracious acts of salvation. Begging mercy and forgiveness. Imploring deliverance of the People Israel. [our self generated prayers probably have their own patterns and recurring themes as well, but most focus is on "me and mine"...]
My thinking is that these are the prayers which God has heard. God has heard this righteous priest pray for God to act in mercy and love for His people. And that is what the baby means. Salvation History has begun its definitive chapter. And the baby is a key player in that process.
I have known many people who want children but for a variety of reasons cannot have them. It is a particularly painful thing, especially when so many children are born unwanted or to people ill equipped to care for them. However, in the Bible, when babies are born through God's direct intervention, it is never as an answer to their personal wants/desires. It is always because the baby serves some function in the Big Story. There is a larger point to the birth, how God will use 'this one' in His plan to 'save the world.' And in the Bible, such births almost always have a unique character. Women who are too old, or sterile, or both are the vessels chosen by God. (Mary is a big exception to this, although she faced another serious obstacle!)
Our tendency is to see this as a great blessing for an older couple who always wanted a child. It may be that, but that is not the point of the story. Rather, what we see, is God has chosen that older couple to manifest His power among us. He is sending a Messenger to prepare the way, and these two, righteous, blameless, and, we later learn, long suffering (Elizabeth calls her previous condition "a reproach") are the chosen venue to make it happen. God has let something wonderful happen for them but it is for a greater purpose than their desire for a child.
Now this is little more than idle speculation if it is simply me reading the text from a different angle. Yet, following the dictate that "Scripture interprets Scripture" and keeping in mind the import of "wider context" I want to continue with the story, forty verses later (I have read ahead and am familiar with the narrative so I already know). When the baby is born and named John, Zehariah, who has been struck dumb for over 9 months, can suddenly speak. His words, a canticle used daily in the Roman office and included in our Episcopal Morning Prayers as well, are the interpretive key to understanding the birth of the child.
Zechariah does not bless the name of God for giving him a son, nor does he thank and praise God for answering a prayer for offspring. Instead, he declares
Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, for He has visited His people and redeemed them.. As the prayer continues Zechariah declares that God has kept His promises, that He is saving His people and creating a possibility for Israel to worship, serve and obey God as it should. This is all in keeping with the typical liturgical prayers of the Jews. When his attention turns to his baby son, the words are prophetic and explanatory: You my child shall be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go before the Lord to prepare His way, giving His people knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins...
There is more detail to the canticle, but the illustration is clear. John is the one sent to prepare the way. His birth is not for the old parents, it is part of God's covenant promise. And so, the answered prayer is a prayer not for a baby, but for salvation, deliverance, the new Kingdom of God. And that means that IF Zechariah' is a model of prayer for us, then we need to pray less for "what I want" and more for "what God promises His people." This is why Jesus tells us "pray like this" and then proceeds to tell implore God, "Glorify Your Name and make it Holy!Your kingdom Come! Your will be done!" We need to pray for the right things. And those who are righteous and pray for such things, regardless of their personal situations, will be heard. And the prayer God answers will benefit all of us.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Spider Surprise and God
There seems to be a regular supply of spiders in our house. I kill a couple a month. And our house is big enough and some rooms are occuppied infrequently enough that occassionally I stumble upon a web, usually along the floor board. With Baby Marx now into the self-propelled mode, we are more attentive to floor hygiene and last night after Bible study I was vacuming, sweeping and mopping. When I got to the breakfast room (one of those places we rarely use) I was surprised to see a fairly large spider and it's web on the wall behind the table. Then, on second look, I got a bigger surprise. Dancing up and down a string on the web was a very small spider, easily 1/10th the size of the first spider. And suddenly I saw that the bigger spider was kicking and shaking for all it was worth. I have never seen this before. A spider caught in a spider web...
The irony was too much for me to ignore. I sat in the chair and watched the proceedings. Up and down the tiny fellow glided, staying just out of reach of the large fellow's mouth. the big guy only occassionally gave resistance. When he did so it was violent and ineffective. I am sure spiders do not think, but if they did the big guy, who no doubt had done his fair share of capturing and killing, was probably amused by the paradoxical realization that this little pipsqueak was going to do him in.
After a couple of minutes, several of the legs were out of play. Tiny was coming in to add some webbing and then scurrying away. After five visits the big fellow had lost freedom of movement in half his limbs. The sheer difference in size, though most of it is those long legs, was amazing. It was a reminder that little fellows can do the job, too. In another time or place I might have been content to allow the entire operation unfold. It would have been interesting to see how Tiny consumed the big guy. But as Frost once daid, "I have miles to go before I sleep and miles to go before I sleep." A pieace of kleenex, a well aimed swipe and two spider carcasses later (a big spot and a tiny spot) I was back to sweeping and then mopping.
And that stuck with me as well. The two spiders, unaware of the wider surroundings, were engaged in their last meal. Tiny thought he was the victor and was careful not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He was very careful. But his care was useless because he lived in my kitchen on my wall and my baby is not going to crawl into his mess. And no matter how careful he was, he just could not forsee someone 1000 times bigger. But as I removed those spiders I found myself looking up. What hand was preparing my end? What choices were being made far away from my perview which will reduce me to a spot?
On September 11th I remember the emotions of watching the towers come down. My own personal reflections went in this direction. I wondered about office politics. I wondered about people who were worried about losing their jobs and people who were excited about new promotions. I wondered about people who were having affairs, or maybe struggling with the aftermath of having just ended one. I thought about all the worries and concerns, great and small, of each of those people. Perhaps some of them felt trapped and others were greedily anticipating devouring their own prey. Each and everyone had a list of "things going on" and all of them were no doubt, to their own satisfaction, being careful enough. And then a plane landed in their office and blew up and fire and chemicals and smoke replaced all the daily worries and concerns. Some went immediately to their deaths. Others took longer to reach their end. And every one of them is just like us.
The dimension of faith is the belief that as we spin our webs and survive day to day, we all know there are other hands at work. All we have accomplished may be wiped out in a second. This week may see a nuclear holocaust in Israel or a terrorist bomb in our local Kroger. Someone changing a radio station, or checking a text, or just plain driving without sufficient care could plow into you or me and make short order of our daily to-do list. Whatever the 'beyond' has in store, it, too, is under the watchful gaze of another set of eyes. For all life's (seemingly) meaningless suffering and tragedy, ironic messes (spiders caught in spider webs?) and being in the wrong place at the wrong time (and getting swept and mopped away); yes, for all that we cannot understand and control there is still that quiet voice. It has spoken and will speak again. "Fear Not. I am here."
So this morning I made lunches and walked the dog. I said my prayers and wrote my blog. I now head off to teach a class on Clement of Rome and Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. And later I will do PT and some marriage counseling. And all of it will be done, carefully, and all of it may be just another day, probably will be another day. But perhaps this is when I become a spot on a kleenex. or you. And if so, that is okay, because the Father of Jesus is also watching. And whatever else happens, that is enough!
The irony was too much for me to ignore. I sat in the chair and watched the proceedings. Up and down the tiny fellow glided, staying just out of reach of the large fellow's mouth. the big guy only occassionally gave resistance. When he did so it was violent and ineffective. I am sure spiders do not think, but if they did the big guy, who no doubt had done his fair share of capturing and killing, was probably amused by the paradoxical realization that this little pipsqueak was going to do him in.
After a couple of minutes, several of the legs were out of play. Tiny was coming in to add some webbing and then scurrying away. After five visits the big fellow had lost freedom of movement in half his limbs. The sheer difference in size, though most of it is those long legs, was amazing. It was a reminder that little fellows can do the job, too. In another time or place I might have been content to allow the entire operation unfold. It would have been interesting to see how Tiny consumed the big guy. But as Frost once daid, "I have miles to go before I sleep and miles to go before I sleep." A pieace of kleenex, a well aimed swipe and two spider carcasses later (a big spot and a tiny spot) I was back to sweeping and then mopping.
And that stuck with me as well. The two spiders, unaware of the wider surroundings, were engaged in their last meal. Tiny thought he was the victor and was careful not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. He was very careful. But his care was useless because he lived in my kitchen on my wall and my baby is not going to crawl into his mess. And no matter how careful he was, he just could not forsee someone 1000 times bigger. But as I removed those spiders I found myself looking up. What hand was preparing my end? What choices were being made far away from my perview which will reduce me to a spot?
On September 11th I remember the emotions of watching the towers come down. My own personal reflections went in this direction. I wondered about office politics. I wondered about people who were worried about losing their jobs and people who were excited about new promotions. I wondered about people who were having affairs, or maybe struggling with the aftermath of having just ended one. I thought about all the worries and concerns, great and small, of each of those people. Perhaps some of them felt trapped and others were greedily anticipating devouring their own prey. Each and everyone had a list of "things going on" and all of them were no doubt, to their own satisfaction, being careful enough. And then a plane landed in their office and blew up and fire and chemicals and smoke replaced all the daily worries and concerns. Some went immediately to their deaths. Others took longer to reach their end. And every one of them is just like us.
The dimension of faith is the belief that as we spin our webs and survive day to day, we all know there are other hands at work. All we have accomplished may be wiped out in a second. This week may see a nuclear holocaust in Israel or a terrorist bomb in our local Kroger. Someone changing a radio station, or checking a text, or just plain driving without sufficient care could plow into you or me and make short order of our daily to-do list. Whatever the 'beyond' has in store, it, too, is under the watchful gaze of another set of eyes. For all life's (seemingly) meaningless suffering and tragedy, ironic messes (spiders caught in spider webs?) and being in the wrong place at the wrong time (and getting swept and mopped away); yes, for all that we cannot understand and control there is still that quiet voice. It has spoken and will speak again. "Fear Not. I am here."
So this morning I made lunches and walked the dog. I said my prayers and wrote my blog. I now head off to teach a class on Clement of Rome and Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22. And later I will do PT and some marriage counseling. And all of it will be done, carefully, and all of it may be just another day, probably will be another day. But perhaps this is when I become a spot on a kleenex. or you. And if so, that is okay, because the Father of Jesus is also watching. And whatever else happens, that is enough!
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Is Heresy a Bad Word?
Some discussion generated on the comments section made me wonder if the word "heresy" has a negative connotation which makes it sound like hate speech in some quarters. I know that a few years ago when we debated such things in our local diocses there were some people who took great offense at the implication that they were teaching heresy. Obviously, the word is a negative assessment on what someone believes. I think, however, that the underlying issue goes deeper. There seems to be, among a large segement of the population, a vaguely held belief that the designation of "truth" and "falsehood" are not actually relevant. Of course, as I have made clear, the same segment of the population are not disinclined to define other groups' declarations as "hate speech."
The Greek origins of the word refers to the act of choosing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy I do not know the exact history of the usage, but quite clearly at some point the connotation of choice became the denotation of choosing another way than the accepted, acceptable and orthodox way. Orthodoxy, of course, implies two questions. First of all, is there such a thing? Is there a "the right way to think and understand"? Secondly, what is "the" defined, right way to think?
There are endless 'orthodoxies" in every avenue of life. Baseball fans are used to hearing about "an unorthodox delivery" in reference to someone who throws a baseball in an unusual manner. Likewise, politicians who adopt a position outside of their Party's official stance can be called unorthodox. Any break with the accepted way of doing things is unorthodox. However, this is a milder sense of the word. It refers not so much to truth as it does doing what is accepted and standard. I think a pro-Life Democrat is unorthodox but I would also claim they were doing the truth. Herein lies the larger and more important sense.
The identity of Jesus is not simply "for me." One huge error popular in our church is the constant use of this prepostional phrase. "For us Jesus is the Messiah, or Savior, or Son of God." I hear people say. While it is techincally true, it is also false because it says too little. It focuses on the subject (me, us) and not the object (Jesus). It is a way to side-step making an absolute truth claim and replacing it with a factual statement about personal beliefs. This problem is deeply rooted in much of the current discussions. The emphasis on "personal" beliefs does not easily address the problem, in some ways it compounds it.
The reason why I think it is important to understand the source and status of Islam is because it is a framework for discussion. Is it the final and ultimate revelation? Is it a corrective of the errors which Christians made about God, Jesus, salvation, etc? Knowing that the geographic area in which Islam was born and grew was also rife with teaching about Jesus, but teaching which denied His divinty and was heretical, is an important fact. There are roots which can be investigated. And if it is an extension of ancient heresy it is treated the way all heresy should be treated. It is rejected, even if we understand the need to respect and treat kindly the one who holds such falsehood.
One element of current religios practice in our culture is the strongly held belief that "no one has the right to tell me what to believe." While true as a political and ethical right, it is false as a philosophical assumption about truth claims. The Church (led by the Holy Spirit) is who defines doctrine. The creed is no more, and no less, a human construction than the Scripture. In fact, without the Creed the Scriptures can be and have been interpreted in all manner of ways. Who is Jesus? The Bible is our source, but the definitve, true and orthodox interpretation of those Scriptures is not my role, or yours. It, too, has been given us. Revealed to us for our salvation. Those who reject this teaching on Jesus also reject Him. And we who follow Him can treat such folk with love, respect and kindness, but we can never equate their false, heretical beliefs with our own true and orthodox beliefs. And we should be thankful that we have been given the truth, no matter how undeserving we might be. In the end, all heresy is error and error leads to sin. I care about the heretical status of Islam because I care about the heretical/orthodox teaching of all people and instutions. I know such concerns can go overboard. It can become stifling and hostile when people are running around being "the orthodoxy police." It is not life-gifing to endlessly debate every nuance of every statement to decipher every possible truth claim. However, we can err in the other direction as well. Ignoring orthodoxy completely devolves into "each one doing what he thinks best." And that did not work in the time of Judges and it will not work in our own age.
The Greek origins of the word refers to the act of choosing. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heresy I do not know the exact history of the usage, but quite clearly at some point the connotation of choice became the denotation of choosing another way than the accepted, acceptable and orthodox way. Orthodoxy, of course, implies two questions. First of all, is there such a thing? Is there a "the right way to think and understand"? Secondly, what is "the" defined, right way to think?
There are endless 'orthodoxies" in every avenue of life. Baseball fans are used to hearing about "an unorthodox delivery" in reference to someone who throws a baseball in an unusual manner. Likewise, politicians who adopt a position outside of their Party's official stance can be called unorthodox. Any break with the accepted way of doing things is unorthodox. However, this is a milder sense of the word. It refers not so much to truth as it does doing what is accepted and standard. I think a pro-Life Democrat is unorthodox but I would also claim they were doing the truth. Herein lies the larger and more important sense.
The identity of Jesus is not simply "for me." One huge error popular in our church is the constant use of this prepostional phrase. "For us Jesus is the Messiah, or Savior, or Son of God." I hear people say. While it is techincally true, it is also false because it says too little. It focuses on the subject (me, us) and not the object (Jesus). It is a way to side-step making an absolute truth claim and replacing it with a factual statement about personal beliefs. This problem is deeply rooted in much of the current discussions. The emphasis on "personal" beliefs does not easily address the problem, in some ways it compounds it.
The reason why I think it is important to understand the source and status of Islam is because it is a framework for discussion. Is it the final and ultimate revelation? Is it a corrective of the errors which Christians made about God, Jesus, salvation, etc? Knowing that the geographic area in which Islam was born and grew was also rife with teaching about Jesus, but teaching which denied His divinty and was heretical, is an important fact. There are roots which can be investigated. And if it is an extension of ancient heresy it is treated the way all heresy should be treated. It is rejected, even if we understand the need to respect and treat kindly the one who holds such falsehood.
One element of current religios practice in our culture is the strongly held belief that "no one has the right to tell me what to believe." While true as a political and ethical right, it is false as a philosophical assumption about truth claims. The Church (led by the Holy Spirit) is who defines doctrine. The creed is no more, and no less, a human construction than the Scripture. In fact, without the Creed the Scriptures can be and have been interpreted in all manner of ways. Who is Jesus? The Bible is our source, but the definitve, true and orthodox interpretation of those Scriptures is not my role, or yours. It, too, has been given us. Revealed to us for our salvation. Those who reject this teaching on Jesus also reject Him. And we who follow Him can treat such folk with love, respect and kindness, but we can never equate their false, heretical beliefs with our own true and orthodox beliefs. And we should be thankful that we have been given the truth, no matter how undeserving we might be. In the end, all heresy is error and error leads to sin. I care about the heretical status of Islam because I care about the heretical/orthodox teaching of all people and instutions. I know such concerns can go overboard. It can become stifling and hostile when people are running around being "the orthodoxy police." It is not life-gifing to endlessly debate every nuance of every statement to decipher every possible truth claim. However, we can err in the other direction as well. Ignoring orthodoxy completely devolves into "each one doing what he thinks best." And that did not work in the time of Judges and it will not work in our own age.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Islam A Christian Heresy
My most recent blog on Islam illicited a reminder that I sometimes mention things on my blog without "footnoting" and can leave people scratching their heads. Abraham is called the Father of the three religions because of his parenting Ishmael and Isaac. Some call them the "Abrahamic Faiths." I contend that Islam is a Christian heresy, though some see it as a Jewish heresy with a higher respect for Jesus. It is a simplification of the Christian faith in that it rejects the Trinity and The Incarnation of Christ. Hence, it is heretical by Christian standards (and truth by their own claim). There is nothing new here. As regards this claim I wanted to provide some jumping off points to easy access to websites. The first is the ancient theologian John of Damascus' work. He was a contemporary of the Muslim movement and in rather strong language shares his thoughts.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
This overview from a Roman Catholic website. He discusses Belloc's warning of Islam's coming resurgence in the West, several decades before it happened. In fact, I found two differen sites quoting the same thing and one of the commenters mentioned that both were writing about Belloc at the same time.
http://www.realclearreligion.com/islam_a_christian_heresy.html
This is from an Eastern Orthodox blogger and would follow on the first blog reference...
http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.com/2005/06/islam-christian-heresy.html
His interest in John of Damascus is consistent with the veneration of the writings of the Church Fathers in Orthodoxy. I read John some years ago and was stunned when I came across the texts. It makes perfect sense. Muhammed was a pagan with regular contact with both Jews and Christians. There were two sons of Abraham. The first is Ishmael, fathered by Abraham and Hagar (at the insistence of Abraham's sterile wife Sara). Abraham had asked God to make Ishmael his heir but God said that he had another in mind. In Gen 18:20 God says, "I have blessed him [Ishmael] and I wil make him fruitful and make him very, very numerous. He will father twelve chieftains and I will mkae him into a big nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac." In Richard Friedman's Commentary on the Torah page 62 he writes "People sometimes speak of Ishmael as if the Bible were picturing him as the ancestor of the Arabs, but the Bible pictures Ishmael only as the ancestor of the Ishmaelites."] In Muslim thought, according to several internet sources, Ishmael is a prophet and Abraham took him and his mother to Mecca early on. There are also numerous Islamic commentaries which say that he is the son whom Abraham almost sacrificed. (google Ismael and Islam and you will find various sources)
At this site you will see a more protracted argument for the thesis. I am unfamiliar with the blog and its writer but thought it another example of someone saying the same thing.
http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/islam-is-one-of-the-%E2%80%9Cheretic%E2%80%9D-christian-jewish-sects/
In inter-religious dialogue the key element is being clear what you believe and getting clear on what they believe. In the end, we make truth claims and that means we reject those claims with which we disagree. It is a good idea to believe strongly and be respectful in disagreement. Killing heretics, however appealing, is not helpful. It leads to more killing. However, demanding "respect" and "tolerance" needs to go both ways. And I guess we all know that God is the One Who will sort it out in the end....
http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/stjohn_islam.aspx
This overview from a Roman Catholic website. He discusses Belloc's warning of Islam's coming resurgence in the West, several decades before it happened. In fact, I found two differen sites quoting the same thing and one of the commenters mentioned that both were writing about Belloc at the same time.
http://www.realclearreligion.com/islam_a_christian_heresy.html
This is from an Eastern Orthodox blogger and would follow on the first blog reference...
http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.com/2005/06/islam-christian-heresy.html
His interest in John of Damascus is consistent with the veneration of the writings of the Church Fathers in Orthodoxy. I read John some years ago and was stunned when I came across the texts. It makes perfect sense. Muhammed was a pagan with regular contact with both Jews and Christians. There were two sons of Abraham. The first is Ishmael, fathered by Abraham and Hagar (at the insistence of Abraham's sterile wife Sara). Abraham had asked God to make Ishmael his heir but God said that he had another in mind. In Gen 18:20 God says, "I have blessed him [Ishmael] and I wil make him fruitful and make him very, very numerous. He will father twelve chieftains and I will mkae him into a big nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac." In Richard Friedman's Commentary on the Torah page 62 he writes "People sometimes speak of Ishmael as if the Bible were picturing him as the ancestor of the Arabs, but the Bible pictures Ishmael only as the ancestor of the Ishmaelites."] In Muslim thought, according to several internet sources, Ishmael is a prophet and Abraham took him and his mother to Mecca early on. There are also numerous Islamic commentaries which say that he is the son whom Abraham almost sacrificed. (google Ismael and Islam and you will find various sources)
At this site you will see a more protracted argument for the thesis. I am unfamiliar with the blog and its writer but thought it another example of someone saying the same thing.
http://adonis49.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/islam-is-one-of-the-%E2%80%9Cheretic%E2%80%9D-christian-jewish-sects/
In inter-religious dialogue the key element is being clear what you believe and getting clear on what they believe. In the end, we make truth claims and that means we reject those claims with which we disagree. It is a good idea to believe strongly and be respectful in disagreement. Killing heretics, however appealing, is not helpful. It leads to more killing. However, demanding "respect" and "tolerance" needs to go both ways. And I guess we all know that God is the One Who will sort it out in the end....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)