Craig Adams: Remaining "traditional" on sexuality...or not? (3 of 3)

A good while back Reverend Craig Adams, United Methodist pastor and blogger, ran a couple of thoughtful and gracious posts on the sexuality debates that continue in The United Methodist Church and other Christian churches today. 

Last summer (2012), the General Conference of The United Methodist Church once again voted (by a substantial margin) to maintain our current stance on homosexual practice (intercourse) as "incompatible with Christian teaching" (drawing on such New Testament passages as Mark 10:1-9; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; Romans 1:18-3;1 Timothy 1:9-11; Jude 5-11).
In recent decades some have spoken as if a liberalizing of Christian teaching on sexuality is somehow inevitable, yet I believe the majority of the world's Christians (even Methodists) will remain fairly traditional on sexual ethics, though this will surely mean deep soul-searching, personal struggle, and real opposition from a culture which seems determined to move in a different direction, and to silence anyone who thinks otherwise.

Why will the church retain traditional teaching even as cultural opposition increases and when we ourselves would prefer not to have this continuous fight within the church? 

For reasons that Craig lays out in his post: Why Christian opposition to homosexuality never dies. 

The simple answer is that a straight-forward reading of the Scriptural texts - which we Methodists claim to be our supreme authority in faith and in practice (what we will believe and how we will live) - leads us to regard same-sex practice as forbidden for Christians and contrary to God's plan for human sexuality.  This view is undeniably reinforced when we use the tradition of the whole ecumenical church across the centuries as a guide in our reading of Scripture - which we Methodists explicitly claim to do - and not only contemporary voices.  It also coheres with the experience of the saints through the ages.  Though some scholars have presented contorted interpretations of Scripture arguing that again and again and again the text really means essentially the opposite of what it says; yet if such a hermeneutic were applied consistently it would undermine our confidence in every single Biblical teaching upon which we set our hope (as well as all those that make us uncomfortable), and leave the church with no "word from the Lord" left to proclaim. 

But we traditionalists must have enough humility to admit we may be wrong.  Because his mind is not in fact closed to further insight Rev. Adams followed up that post with another:
What it would take to convince me I am wrong on issues of sexuality.

For those interested in this issue, I commend both of these posts for your pondering.  Many in our churches have struggled and yearned for some middle ground on this issue, which Craig discusses some in his second article.  I would be very interested to see some truly Biblical common ground emerge on this issue, yet that would appear unlikely the way the two sides are currently framed.

I believe that the great marjority of Christians will remain traditional on these issues, but we will all of us need the continuous grace of the Spirit if we are to be gracious to one another - and welcoming to all people - in the midst of a debate that will likely be with us for the rest of our lives.

Finally some may be wondering how any church can be welcoming to those who feel same-sex attractions if we also hold same-sex practice to be contrary to God's will?  It seems to me it has to be the same way we welcome alcoholics or gossips or anyone else who have deeply ingrained desires or habits that are disobedient to God: we do it with compassion and grace, always remembering that here is a person whose story matters to God, who is passionately loved by the Lord, for whom Christ died, and always seeking the power of the Spirit to be gracious and to speak the truth in love.

With this post I'm (hopefully) done discussing sexuality for a while - I hope these last three posts have given you at least one good thought or question to ponder as the debate continues to rage around us.

Fr. Barron on Sexuality Debate in the Culture (2 of 3)

Prominent Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher Fr. Barron discusses our culture's increasing inability to even have a rational moral argument (let alone follow one to a good conclusion).  Fr. Barron points out how some secular politicians (and supreme court justices) may make arguments or statements with moral freight while pretending that they are actually "morally neutral" (at best this is simply a failure to think things through, at worst it is a deception intended to hide a power-play). 

We see this inability to work through moral arguments among our leaders and lawmakers as well as in the popular culture and media. It seems that people on either side of a contentious moral issue simply shout at one another and call one another names, rather than working rationally and systematically through all of the variables and principles at stake in an argument.  After lots of shouting and name calling we consult polls to see who "won" the argument - not in discovering what was good and true and beautiful and right for society, but simply in discovering who had the more effectual and clever name-calling.  (Just look at some of the comments in this USA Today Editorial last month that argues - though not very well in my view - that this sexuality thing is more complex than people think and we should defer forcing a new definition of marriage on the nation; are the comments in response making rational arguments or simply name-calling?)

There is much I'd like to say about the legal arguments about the meaning and definition of marriage (on which our Supreme Court may or may not issue some ruling this summer), but it would require a huge blog post to really unpack all the interconnected issue and furthermore (some may be shocked to hear me say this) I'm not entirely sure what I think on certain points.  A recent article at the Telegraph about the British attempts to redefine marriage reveals how the legal issues are more complicated than expected. Here are a few points we need to think seriously about (but will we?):

In "defining" marriage no longer as a union of one man and one woman but simply as a union of still only 2 (for some reason no one can explain) adults, the state (that is, the government) will be taking to itself the authority to "define" marriage and therefore to "define" family itself.  Does the state actually have that competency?  Do we trust the state with that kind of power?
 
Marriage, clearly, can exist without "the state" and does exist in very primitive societies that do not have any "government" at all.  Thus marriage does not depend upon "state definitions" for its reality because it is universally and naturally recognized by human societies; but can the same ever be said for "same-sex marriage"?  Such a redefinition of marriage would seem to depend upon the state for its very existence - the state would enforce a certain kind of recognition upon society (or try to, some would clearly never accept this).  So is it even possible for such state action to lead to "marriage equality" or even "freedom"?  I got to thinking through these things after reading this thoughtful article at Mere Comments - especially the middle section where the relationship between marriage and the state is discussed.  So I am wondering can the state "define" marriage at all?

The (very moderate) Church of England's recent report on marriage has said "No" to that question - since marriage is a gift from God working through nature, not a gift or creation of the state.

Yet this leads to an important point that the Mere Comments article sadly neglects: there are (I think) two primary reasons that advocates of "Same Sex Marriage" are pushing so hard:

1) the GLBTQ advocates want these lifestyles to be seen as socially legitimate and they see (state-sanctioned) marriage as a way to impose that legitimization upon a still widely unwilling society and
2) they want practical and financial benefits (hospital visitation rights, property and inheritance claims, tax benefits, etc.) that are extended by our legal traditions to the partners within a marriage.
 
In so far as "marriage redefinition" is an attempt to force a new meaning of marriage upon society, I oppose this first goal; yet on this second desire, I think they have a real point.  Perhaps some of these issues could be addressed through living wills and civil unions or other creative legal means (besides "redefining" marriage); but I don't see why same-sex couples should not receive these benefits, and it certainly is within the power of the state to regulate at least some of these benefits because they have indeed been created by the state (indeed rules about inheritance, medical decisions, taxes and so on vary from country to country already).

The final legal point that is of concern to me is the matter of how these decisions are made and who makes them.  Our nation may simply be too diverse for a one-size-fits-all approach, and to attempt one guarantees a never-ending culture war, especially if such a decision is made for the whole nation by a mere 5 individuals, who are unelected Supreme Court Justices (5 is the majority needed for a ruling).  The actual views of communities on all these issues vary greatly in different regions of the US.  So I hold that any laws made about this controversial social issue (and indeed others like it) should be made at the state or even the local level.  It may be that Vermont and Mississippi will end up with different laws regarding marriage or civil unions; but that seems far better to me than forcing the view of either state upon the other. 

The official position of The United Methodist Church is that "we support laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."   I support that position, so long as some basic legal and financial benefits are made available to same-sex couples.  Let us never hear any stories of gay men dying alone because their partners, not being "family only," were not permitted into the hospital room or any such thing.  I don't know that this has ever actually happened, but if it did it would be a despicable affront to the human spirit, and to Christian compassion. 
-------------------------------
Next up, the third and final post in this series relating to same-sex relationships: Craig Adams on why he thinks the church will remain traditional on sexuality, and also what it would take to change his mind on the issue.

N.T. Wright on Sexuality Debate in the Church (1 of 3)

Here is a wonderful little video from Bishop N.T. Wright on the debate about homosexuality - addressing how we debate and what some of the major components of that debate should be more than coming to any conclusions on the thorny issue itself.  We know that there are folks who call themselves Christians who are all over the place on this issue, from the bitter vitriol against people who feel same-sex attraction coming out of of the (so-called) Westboro Baptist Church to the unqualified embrace of the homosexual lifestyle as good and holy by liberal groups in some parts of North America (and Europe).  The great vast majority of all Christians and churches are somewhere in between, striving to love everyone involved (since God does) and remain true to what seems clearly revealed in Scripture.

That we are so divided on this logically demostrates that at least some of us (perhaps all of us) are failing to think - and to listen - clearly on this issue.  What Wright says at the beginning of the video, about learning to reason together, working from premises to conclusions and logically analyzing the whole process is very important, especially for United Methodists since, like Anglicans, we explicitly claim to use logical reasoning to help us interpret Scripture. Some have asserted we live in a post-modern and even post-rational age, and as a society (and church) we simply do not know how to reason well; it may be that my generation has received more intellectual formation from watching Jerry Springer than from reading Aristotle's rules of logical reasoning.  I believe our collective inability to practice sound reasoning is demonstrated more clearly in our national political discourse with each passing year, distorting this and other debates.

In the video, Wright clearly hits on some of the major points of contention among Christians that we all need to think through much more carefully:

How can we know what our real and God-given nature actually is if it is true that, as Christians believe, our wills and desires are corrupted by our falleness and sinfulness?
By what authority do some people presume to dismiss certain parts of the Bible?
By other parts of the Bible? Then how -by what authority or principle - can one choose between the two?  And what is the basis for such a principle?
Or, does one use certain interpretations of some parts to dismiss other parts? If so, what rules of interpretation are being employed - and are they legitimate?
Have we even examined our rules of interpretation or even considered what might constitute healthy verses unhealthy ways of interpretation?

Can we articulate thoughtful responses to these questions?

These are all questions lurking beneath the surface of the sexuality debate that are not brought out or worked through clearly when it comes time to have a 4-minute "debate" at Conference, and this lack of depth disturbs me, especially since some are talking of splitting the churches over this issue. 

The related issue is that we Western Churches have to find better ways to dialogue and debate than what is afforded to us by our governing conventions and conferences in which Roberts Rules are used to prevent the debate from "going too long." The assumption seems to be "everyone already knows what they are going to vote on this (and voting is the point, right?), so lets just get it over with." But what if "holy conferencing" were about more than voting on policy but actually exploring deep issues of theology and ethics?  What about new opportunities to listen (as an act of love) and maybe even to learn something new from "the other side" (whomever we conceive that to be)?
------------------------------------------------------
This is the first of three posts discussing issues in the debate about sexuality. Coming up Next Time: The Sexuality Debate in the Culture

Need the Creed?

Here is a nice article on why we need the Creed from Jessica LaGrone, a United Methodist Pastor.  The Hymnal of The United Methodist Church has several affirmations of faith for use in the Liturgy, with the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds being chief among them.  In my experience most churches do use the Apostles' Creed on most Sundays, which is a good thing. While this can be a time in the service when church-goers "zone out" and "go through the motions" Reverend LaGrone's article gives us a couple of really instructive stories that remind us why we need the clear and universally acknowledged statements of our faith that we find in the classic Creeds:

A young woman was sitting around one evening with a group of friends when the conversation turned to religion. While politics and religion are known to be dangerous subjects among even the closest friends, the way things have gone in the political sphere lately, religion may have been the safer topic! As her friends went around discussing their convictions, it was clear that most of these young adults weren’t really sure what they believed. They spoke in vague generalities, and some of them weren’t able to articulate what they believed at all.  Finally, she realized everyone was looking at her.

Somebody said: “Well, you’re quiet, what do you believe?” She opened her mouth without even knowing how she would answer. She started out: “I believe… I believe in God.” Then out of nowhere heard herself say:  “I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord.” Almost unable to stop herself she continued: “He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate..."
-------------------------------------

A friend of mine moved to New England several years ago and found a church that she felt was the right fit for her. She liked that it was a church that labeled itself “progressive,” valuing tolerance and openness to all beliefs instead of proclaiming one set of beliefs in particular. The church had few members and wasn’t growing, so they decided to put together a brochure to put the word out about who they were. The committee tasked with writing the brochure agreed that the cover should say who they were.

So they began by writing: “We are a church that believes that…”
And that’s where they stopped. They couldn’t agree on what to say next. They thought about putting the name Jesus on there, but they knew that might offend some people. They thought about saying something more generic about God, but they were concerned that might turn some people off.

“We are a church that believes that…”

Wait, someone said, we can’t really say that we all believe the same thing.
So they backed up: “We are a church that…"

Wait a minute, someone else said – should we even use the word church in there? Someone might have had a bad experience with church, and be put off by that word.

“We are a…”

They had to disband the committee. They couldn’t even agree on what to call themselves. My friend left that church. As progressive as she was, she knew there was no life in a church that cannot even express what it believes. 
----------------------------------------

Read it all here. 

Using the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed in worship not only helps us to articulate a universally acknowledged (that is "catholic" in the broad sense of the word) statement of Christian faith, it also connects our worship and our belief with the many generations of saints and believers who have come before us, because these creeds have been used since the early centuries of the Church. 

It just so happens that today, May 2, is the feast day of St. Athanasius, one of the principle framers of the Nicene Creed who insisted on the Biblical truth that Christ always exists as "God from God" and is not simply a created thing.

A Wesley Catechism on "Real Presence"

A much-debated topic among Christians has been in what sense (if any) is the Risen Christ - and the body and blood of Christ - present to us in and through the bread and wine of Holy Communion? 

While many have been (wrongly) taught that Catholics believe in Real Presence and Protestants do not, the truth is that different Protestants have a diversity of views on the matter and some are quite a bit closer than others to Roman Catholicism (and to the Early Church) in affirming that we truly receive Christ's body and blood; so Martin Luther, the "Father of the Protestant Reformation" once said (in rejection of the "Radical Reformers"):
"Before I would have mere wine with the fanatics, I would rather receive sheer blood with the pope."

What is the Wesleyan or Methodist view of Real Presence?

A few months back I published A Wesley Catechism on Grace, that explains (in Q & A form) what saving grace is and how grace is received using entirely quotes from John Wesley (and some related Scripture).

So now seminarians and candidates for ordination take note: Here is John Wesley's theology of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper (Holy Communion, Eucharist), and the mysterious but real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, in two short quotes:

What is a Sacrament?

"...a sacrament is 'an outward sign of inward grace, and a means whereby we recieve the same.'"

(Sermon XII, The Means of Grace, II.1)

What are the outward signs of Holy Communion and what is the inward grace we receive through those signs?

"...we learn that the design of this sacrament is, the continual remembrance of the death of Christ, by eating bread and drinking wine, which are the outward signs of the inward grace, the body and blood of Christ."

(Sermon CI, The Duty of Constant Communion, I.5)

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

In these quotes, Wesley simply and deliberately re-states the Anglican doctrine, which itself is a restatement of the classical understanding going back at least to St. Augustine (usually cited from "De Catechizandis Rudibus"). The outward physical signs of bread and wine convey to the believer (see below) an inward reality or spiritual grace, namely, the body and blood of Christ.  This Early Church understanding, also held by the Anglican tradition, is likewise affirmed in Wesleyan theology.  We Methodist Christians have a very thick and rich understanding of the sacraments in our Wesleyan theology, though it is often missed in popular teaching. 

Our Wesleyan understanding of Holy Communion is also quite "catholic" in the broad sense of the word: it reflects the understanding of the Ancient Church that has been maintained across the universal church through the ages.  A review of some popular UMC curriculum suggests that many United Methodists are comfortable speaking about our receiving the "grace of the Passion" or even the "benefits of the body and blood" but fewer of us actually say what Wesley says: that the inward grace we receive through the outward signs is the Body and Blood of Christ (see also 1 Cor. 10:15-17), which also implies a union with his Risen Life as well as all the benefits of his passion.  It may be that we are more influenced by generic American Evangelicalism than by our Methodist theology and liturgy at this point.

The same definition of sacrament applies to baptism as well, though Wesley does not discuss it much: the outward sign is water, the inward grace is spiritual cleansing (Eph. 5:26), union with Christ's Risen Life (Rom. 6:1-5) and with his body, the Church or covenant people (1 Cor. 12:13).  With both sacraments the grace is given by God through the sacrament as a "means of grace" and received on our part by our faith in Christ (see Romans 5:2, Ephesians 2:8, etc.).  This is why the Anglican article on Communion (retained by Wesley as Article XVIII of our Methodist Articles of Religion) states that "the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith."  The implications of that sentence are worth meditating upon: it affirms that, for those who have faith, it is the body of Christ that is received and eaten.

For more see the previous post: Wesley Catechism on Grace, and also Charles Wesley Eucharistic Meditation.
May God help us all to gratefully grasp the marvelous gifts that he so lovingly gives.

The Funeral: A Sinner of your own redeeming

I've been musing on this post from The Catholicity and Covenant Blog, discussing the counter
-cultural significance of the language of sin in Margaret Thatcher's widely watched funeral.  The Anglican funeral litrugy speaks frankly of sin and judgment, which are not always emphasized at funerals.  I have been to funerals in which we spend all of our time discussing (exaggerating?) the virtues of the deceased as if we are trying to convince ourselves (or God?) that this one surely deserves eternal beatitude.

In the United Methodist Church's funeral liturgy, we beseech the Lord to acknowledge "a sinner of your own redeeming..."

Not too long ago I attended a funeral led by a pastor (who I believe would self-identify as "progressive") who substituted the word "child" for "sinner."  Thus,  "Lord acknowledge a child of your own redeeming," while also dropping the affirmation at the beginning of the liturgy (from Revelation) that Jesus Christ holds the keys to death and hell. No doubt his motivation was to be "pastoral," which for many seems to mean "never mention sin, judgment, or anything uncomfortable."

Yet it seems to me that it is actually the liturgy which takes the genuinely pastoral approach.  Despite what we are tempted to say at funerals, the survivors and loved ones all know that this person who is now dead was not perfect. No matter how carefully well-meaning clergy (and lectionary makers) have shielded the flock from ever thinking about Judgment or Hell, everyone has heard of it anyway...perhaps they read it in the Bible, or heard it in the Creeds.
It is quite natural that the loved ones are wondering, at least on some deep level, about the eternal future of the deceased. The prayer of the liturgy addresses this head on acknowledging both the sinfulness of the deceased AND the promise of redemption through Jesus Christ. In other words, it tells the truth, which includes the bad news of our sin but the far greater good news of Christ's salvation; this truth-telling in the funeral liturgy empowers us to confess the truth about our deceased loved one, and about ourselves as well.  Having acknowledged that this person does not, in fact, deserve eternal blessing, we can now learn to trust Christ's promise of redemption for their future and ours.  I don't know what could be more genuinely pastoral than that.

A couple of big services this week

It is not every week that you'll see not one but two church services broadcast in full on numerous cable news channels.

This strange week, so filled with dramatic and sad events, has also seen a couple of high-profile and (inter)nationally televised church services.  The first of these was the funeral for former British Prime Minister, "the Iron Lady," Margaret Thatcher at St. Paul's (Anglican) Cathedral in London.  Much discussed as been her evangelical Christian grand-daughter Amanda's reading from Ephesians 6.  I thought the Bishop's blessing on Margaret herself toward the end was pretty awesome:

Go forth upon thy journey from this world, O Christian soul,
Go in the name of God the Father Almighty who created thee,
In the name of Jesus Christ his Son who suffered for thee,
In the name of the Holy Spirit who strengtheneth thee,
Aided by angels and archangels and all the armies of the heavenly host,
may thy portion this day be peace, and thy dwelling place in the heavenly Jerusalem.  

Naturally a Charles Wesley hymn made an appearance, the preacher gave a "shout out" to the importance of the Methodist movement for the UK (Thatcher was herself Methodist).  You can watch it in full here:


The other prominent service this week (see the video below) was the interfaith prayer service after the Boston attack; the service was held at the (Roman Catholic) Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston.  The leaders of the service were mostly Christian pastors, Jewish Rabbis, and politicians - with one Muslim Imam as well.  So there was something of a mix of messages: Trust in God, trust in Christ, trust in America; but the dominant tone for most of the service was generally Hebrew and Christian.  Indeed, as the choir sang: "Since Christ is Lord of heaven and earth, how can I keep from singing...?"
 
The President of the United States was in attendance with, and spoke to, the crowds gathering to mourn those injured and killed and to pray for our nation.  Some reports told of people standing in a line 10 blocks long to attend this service in Boston's cathedral.  No doubt those people have all sorts of beliefs and questions and motivations in their attending, but I think that the fact that people in our country do turn to the churches whenever deep questions and anxieties assail us represents a hopeful opportunity for the Church.  There is always the danger that a service like this will be felt by some to be "just enough religion" to make them feel better in the midst of tragedy, but my hope and prayer is that this will serve to invite those mourners to come and see, to discover the faith and the life that marks disciples of Jesus, and the joy and hope that comes with commitment to him.

May God have mercy upon us all and give us grace to turn away from everything false, towards Him who is Life.

Evangelicals call for prayer and action on immigration

NPR ran a story earlier this week about the growing support among Evangelical Christians for immigration reform that allows currently illegal immigrants to remain in the country with a legal status, so long as they meet certain requirements.  The story is here: 



Evangelical church leaders are calling today, Wednesday, for prayer and action on immigration reform.  Today is a good day for Christians of all stripes to pray for reform and to tell others - including our elected officials - that we support compassionate immigration reform.

Should churches start more schools?

Here is a post from the Ministry Matters blog by United Methodist Christian blogger Shane Raynor exploring why he thinks churches should be starting more private schools.  While Methodists and Wesleyans have been quite prodigious in founding colleges and universities, we have not been so zealous in starting primary, elementary, or high schools, certainly not like our Anglican and Roman Catholic brethren.  I believe part of the reason for this lack of interest in grade-schools is an historic support for public education among United Methodists as (in principle) the best way to promote solid education among all students of all demographic and socio-economic groups (whether public education across this country actually delivers on that promise is another question entirely). 

I am a product of both an excellent Roman Catholic elementary school and some very fine small-town public schools as well.  I know that in many communities the public schools are not only excellent but also friendly towards the Christian faith.  However on the national level, we must consider the current cultural realities:

- given that children will spend far far more time being shaped by (largely godless) television programming than they will spend in church activities; 
-given that family devotions, once the staple of Christian formation, now seems like an endangered species;
- given that our public education will more and more reflect and promote values that are simply contrary to the teachings of the Bible and the Churches - many worry about this when it comes to marriage, sex, and family, but also there is the concern about prophetic and Gospel "truth-telling" in an "aggresively tolerant" (don't ever say anything that might upset anyone) milieu;
- given that children will spend far more time in the school environment than at church, whether or not that school environment is hostile to the faith;
- given that private schools offer an excellent connection point for churches with the young families that are so often lacking in our church life;
- given that Christians virtually invented the education system as we know it and, in keeping with that heritage, still provide education that generally out-performs public education (especially in large cities)
...given all of these current cultural realities, I completely agree that - at least in many places - more church-sponsored schools would be a boon for the church and the future of the community as well.

Parting with life...

I once saw an interview with (now retired) Archbishop Rowan Williams in which he talked about reciting the Nunc Dimittis during the Compline (Night Prayer) Liturgy; that particular part of the service, and indeed the whole of the Compline service, he said, was a way for Christians to practice laying down and yielding their lives into God's hands as we lay down and close our eyes each night; it is practice for that final day of life when we do fully surrender ourselves into God's hands.  He hoped for himself that, after much practice, he would finally be able to do it with faith and trust at the last.  The Anglican tradition knows well that the rhythms of prayer we habitually practice will shape who we become; in keeping with our Anglican liturgical heritage, the Nunc Dimitis is also included in the Night Praise and Prayer Service in The United Methodist Book of Worship.

There are different sorts of "giving up of life" for the Christian and indeed the call of Christ Jesus to all of us, "Come, take up your cross, follow me" has rightly been described as "a call to die."  That "death" might of course take the form of literal death because the believer has clung so closely to Christ - many martyrs are murdered each year for no other reason than their being baptized, their being faithful, their being followers of Christ.  Indeed today, at the dawn of the 21st Century, Christianity is the most persecuted religious community in the world.

Yet for most of us in the American Church, that "death" may come in other forms as we yield and surrender our own will to the will of our heavenly Father, in the likeness of, and in conformity to, the Lord Christ who "was obedient even to the point of death."  That may mean surrendering our time, or money, or energy to serve others precisely when such surrender means we must forego some want of our own.  The 'death to self' may mean giving attention to someone and listening long hours to them as an act of self-giving love, even if we do not think they have much of interest to say.  It may indeed mean suffering the loss of reputation or good opinion among others because we affirm Biblical teachings even where they run against the grain of our culture.  It may mean turning away from a desire or even a whole lifestyle that we would greatly prefer when God is in fact calling us to walk in another, more difficult, way (this is why the debates over sexual sin and God's true plan for our sexual expression are, in my mind, striking near the core of what it means to live as a Christian; I do not see how any of us, or any church body, can walk far with the Lord if our own desires are guiding us instead of his revealed will and his call for us to come and die to ourselves and follow him).

Upon the solid truth of Resurrection, we trust that death with Christ ultimately leads to truest life.  Perhaps you have found that some of those who seem most fully alive - whose spirit's are full or joy and peace and even celebration - are precisely those who have given themselves most fully in surrender to the One for whom we all were made, and in whose name alone we can find true life, the One who says to all who will listen, "I am the way, the Truth, and the Life..." (John 14:6)

I've been meditating on this for some days not only because of the recent Holy Week observances, but also because of a fantasy novel I am reading called The Paradise War by Stephen Lawhead.  Lawhead (himself a Christian believer and one-time seminarian) writes fantasy and historical fiction, much of it dealing with Ancient Celtic culture.  Much of Lawhead's work is saturated with a Christian worldview but (thanks be to God) is not to be found in the "Christian fiction" section of the local bookstore, but rather in "regular" the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section.  Like Tolkien, Lewis, and even Bono, Lawhead is not so much interested in contributing to a "Christian (sub)culture" but simply to the larger culture, in a way that points (sometimes subtly, sometimes quite explicitly) to the Living Christ.  I believe it is a true blessing when "popular" fiction can indeed stir one's faith because a fellow believer has used his gifts and talents for the Lord, in a way that may be seen of others, without having to put a "Christian" label upon it (the precise point at which many outside the faith will stop paying attention).

Here is the conversation between Lewis (the narrator, an Oxford student who becomes a warrior after tumbling into an ancient Celtic world) and Scatha (a trainer of new warriors) about Lewis' fears that got me to thinking about some of this:

Scatha stopped walking and turned to me.  "Is life so piteous where you come from that you must cling to it so?"
Piteous?  Certainly she had it backwards.  But then, the language still threw me sometimes.  "I do not understand," I confessed.
"It is the poor man who clenches so tightly to the gold he is given - for fear of losing it.  The man of wealth spends his gold freely to accomplish his will in the world.  It is the same with life."
Suddenly ashamed of my conspicuous poverty, I lowered my eyes.  But Scatha placed a hand beneath my chin and raised my head.  "Cling too tightly to your life and you will lose it, my reluctant warrior.  You must become the master of your life, not its slave."


 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

-The Lord Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:25, ESV)

Are we still looking for a silver bullet?

If you want to attract more young people to your church, then ___________________ .

How are you inclined to finish that statement? 

In United Methodist circles we often hear that we should do more mission trips and projects to better the world.  We hear that we need to toss out all of our robes and candles and silence and liturgy and get ourselves a rockin' praise band and a smoke machine.   On the other hand, at different church conferences we also hear that we need to fire our praise band and get ourselves some awesome retro liturgy, candles, robes, incense and Latin chanting!  We hear that we need more young pastors, or more leadership-savy pastors, or more visionary entrepeneurial pastors...and then the young people (or whomever we have identified as our goal) will come flocking to our churches.

I cannot help but notice, and point out, that every one of these "solutions" is:
1) a one-step "fix" (or "silver bullet") that is
2) entirely focused on what WE do; on us...not God... 

What might the Holy Spirit be interested in doing?
Could pruning back a bloated "mainline" Christianity and leaving only a holy remnant actually be part of his plan?  Has God ever done anything like that before...?

What if God himself were our goal, not any particular project of making the world better or improving our membership with any particular demographic group -- but a deeper knowledge and love of God and of his Son Jesus Christ?

I'm reminded of the saying of John Wesley that "God never moves except in response to prayer..."  What if we really believed that and before investing millions in a new marketing campaign or a new "fix-the-world" project we first called upon every United Methodist Christian in the world to spend 3 or 4 days in conentrated prayer and fasting - seeking the renewal of the Spirit for our own souls, the church and our world...what might happen then? 

I firmly believe that, even more than starting a new program (with slick marketing) for stamping out hunger or poverty, even more than building big churches full of affluent young people with loads of children, even more than any of the goals we are likely to set (as truly good and important as they may be), the Holy Spirit is interested in building saints, in forming people who are becoming like Jesus Christ, who - deep in prayer - love God with all their being and love their neighbor as themselves.  The old Methodist phrase for that is "entire sanctification" (or "perfection in love"). 

Our strategies for "rescuing the church" often seem to revolve around getting people to love the church, or some program of the church, rather than guiding them to the love of God and then, because of their love of God, the love of their neighbors and themselves as well.  I've complained before that much of United Methodism's advertising seems to be advertising us - as such wonderful people - with no reference to the life-transforming Word - the Gospel of the Living Christ - whom we have received and whom we love.

I got onto this rant because of some comments I recently read from Rev. Jonathan Mitchican (rector of Church of the Holy Comforter), who blogs at conciliaranglican.com.  Fr. Jonathan was himself commenting on a new book, Broken: 7 “Christian” Rules That Every Christian Ought to Break as Often as Possible, by hip young Lutheran pastor Jonathan Fisk.  Below are some selections:


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


Fisk's suggestion for how to fix the church and keep our young people to boot is radically simple: Stop trying...

 In addition to emotionalism, Fisk excoriates moralism, rationalism, consumerism, and licentiousness, all of which have been considered by one group of Christians or another, at one time or another, as the Next Big Thing that would solve all our problems, squash all our doubts, and win the youth of America back to Jesus. Fisk exposes these for what they are: lies we tell ourselves about how we can fix ourselves so that we do not have to place all our trust in Christ.

Fisk saves his most incisive comments for something he calls “IfWeCanJust churchology,” a demon whose temptations seem to me to have been particularly effective upon Episcopalians in recent years. When we look around our churches and see that they are no longer filled to the brim, we immediately begin to surmise that there is some kind of silver-bullet answer. If we can just change our music, rearrange our worship, champion more causes, get better and younger/older preachers, or a host of other things — if we can just do that one thing that we need to do, then the church will be all right again.

“Just as pornography feeds young men and women falsely perfected images of impossibly idealized sexuality until they cannot find contentment in any real relationship,” says Fisk, “so also trying to compel God’s blessings into the Church through ‘IfWeCanJust’ theology preaches a falsely perfected vision of an impossibly idealized ‘Church’ until no congregation can live up to its expectations” (p. 171). In our churches today we fall prey to this at all levels, including within our own hearts. Countless Episcopalians have been seduced to leave the church for the theoretical perfection of Rome or Orthodoxy or a new, more perfect Anglican church, but in the process of trying to find that one pure church that must exist out there somewhere, we often lose sight of the cross completely.

The genius and great hope in what Fisk is saying is that the answer to all of this madness is to turn back toward Jesus, to repent and be filled again with the knowledge of his grace and his truth. Some readers may scoff at this. It just seems so simple. Just focus on Jesus. Just preach the words that he gave us and give people the good news that he died for them. It cannot possibly be that easy. If it were, everybody would be doing it, right? But as St. Augustine is apt to remind us, we are creatures curved in on ourselves. Our first impulse as fallen creatures is never to place our trust in God. It is rather to say, along with the serpent, “Did God really say that?” Our churches languish and die because we do not trust God to be the one to build them.

The answer to our problems is a return to the full-throated, plain, simple teaching of the truth, but we do not believe this because we do not have faith that God means what he says. Jesus Christ “is reaching down by means of the Body of His Church with what appears on the surface to be the weakest and most unhelpful of things in the world: words. But these are not just any words; they are promises. These are not just any promises; they are oaths sworn by the mouth of the living God Himself, written in blood and sealed with an empty tomb” (p. 265).

The future of the Church is not to be found in our efforts to make it more relevant or attractive. And though tools like social networking and new media can and should be used to help share the gospel with new generations, those things are in no way a gospel unto themselves. Upon the rock of Peter’s faith in him Jesus said he would build his Church, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). It is high time that our churches stop playing with the latest and greatest ways to build the Church in our own image and start actually believing what Jesus said.

Hallelujah!

It is of course a common tradition across the English-speaking church (at least among Protestants) to sing Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" at Easter.  I've been driving around listening to the Holy Week sections of "Messiah" the last few days.  In the video below, gathered in their beautiful gothic sanctuary, the chapel and chancel choirs of the First United Methodist Church of Wichita Falls herald the Resurrection with this great chorus.

A Prayer for Resurrection Sunday:

Almighty God, through Jesus Christ you overcame death and opened to us the gate of everlasting life. Grant that we, who celebrate the day of our Lord's Resurrection, may, by the renewing of your Spirit arise from the death of sin to the life of righteousness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
-The United Methodist Hymnal, 320 (see also The Book of Common Prayer, 1979, p. 222)

Prayers for Holy Week meditation

Among the many liturgical treasures in the (under-utilized) United Methodist Book of Worship are the prayers for Holy Week (these prayers are sometimes called "collects" - because they "collect" together the needs of the faithful community into a single prayer).  The Collects for Monday-Thursday are found in one section together in the Book of Worship (346-349) and those for Friday and Saturday are on pages 362 and 367, respectively.  In keeping with that larger Anglican liturgical heritage that we Methodists have preserved and adapted in our official worship books, most of these are taken from or inspired by The Book of Common Prayer, which was so beloved by John and Charles Wesley.

There are also alternative prayers for Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Holy Saturday in the Hymnal.

Monday of Holy Week
God of strength and mercy, by the suffering and death of your Son, free us from slavery to sin and death and protect us in all our weakness; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

Tuesday of Holy Week
Holy and compassionate God, your dear Son went not up to joy before he suffered pain, and entered not into glory before he was crucified.  Mercifully grant that we, walking in the way of the cross may find it the way of life and peace; through Jesus Christ your Son, our Savior.  Amen.

Wednesday of Holy Week
Most merciful God, your blessed Son, our Savior, was betrayed, whipped, and his face spat upon.  Grant us grace to endure the sufferings of the present time, to overcome all that seeks to overwhelm us, confident of the glory that shall yet be revealed; through Jesus Christ our Redeemer.  Amen.

Holy Thursday
O God, by the example of your Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, you taught us the greatness of true humility, and call us to watch with him in his passion.  Give us grace to serve one another in all lowliness, and to enter into the fellowship of his suffering; in his name and for his sake.  Amen.

Good Friday
Almighty God, your Son Jesus Christ was lifted high upon the cross so that he might draw the whole world to himself.  Grant that we, who glory in this death for our salvation, may also glory in his call to take up our cross and follow him; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

Holy Saturday
Merciful and everliving God, Creator of heaven and earth, the crucified body of your Son was laid in the tomb and rested on this holy day.  Grant that we may await with him the dawning of the third day and rise in newness of life, through Jesus Christ our Redeemer.  Amen.

Archbishop (and Pope) installed!

You probably heard about the recent election of Pope Francis of the Roman Catholic Church, but that event so overshadowed a second big event, you may not have heard that only 2 days after Francis was installed as Bishop of Rome, Rev. Justin Welby (whose more overtly political election took quite a bit longer) was installed as the new Archbishop of Canterbury. 

It is generally understood that Roman Catholicism is the largest branch of Christianity with 1 Billion members, and Anglicanism the third largest branch (after Easter Orthodoxy) with 80 million Anglicans around the world today.  Methodism (with 60-70 million 'Wesleyan' Christians around the world) has close ties to Anglicanism going back to our origins (John and Charles Wesley, and many other early Methodist leaders including our first Bishop Thomas Coke, were all Anglican priests) and in some places (notably in the UK) the Methodists and Anglicans are actively working on "reunion" schemes.  The final hymn in Welby's installation service was even a Charles Wesley hymn. 

Archbishop Justin takes the helm as Anglicanism is in a real crisis.  Some of the other archbishops around the world have declared themselves to be in impaired or broken communion with other Anglicans (mostly in reponse to US and Canadian innovations in allowing practicing gay bishops and same-sex 'weddings').  In the US the Anglican Church in North America has been established as a more orthodox alternative to the Episcopal Church and has already been recognized as a legitimate part of Anglicanism by about half of the Anglican Communion (but not by Canterbury or the Church of England). 

Sadly, these two US churches are now involved in property disputes in the secular courts.  It is an interesting side note that the chapter in the Bible that forbids Christians from taking one another to court - 1 Cor. 6 - also warns against same-sex practice as incompatible with living under the Lordship of the God who created us male and female.     

My own sense of what needs to be done is no doubt at least as short-sighted, biased, and wrong-headed as everyone else's, but I will be praying that Archbishop Welby - known to be a moderately-conservative evangelical with lots of leadership and reconciliation experience - will bring the kind of decisive action that Anglicanism needs to recenter upon the Lord and his Word and move forward in a mission that is thoroughly built upon the Bible as wisely interpretted by the Great Tradition across the ages.

So, in case you missed it, I am happy to present videos featuring (selections from) these two momentous installations.  First that of the new Anglican Archbishop on March 21 (the feast of St. Benedict and of Thomas Cranmer).  That date is quite appropriate since St. Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury was a Benedictine monk, and Thomas Cranmer the great "Protestant Reformer" Archbishop of Canterbury who compiled the Book of Common Prayer during the Reformation Era...



And then the inaugural mass of Francis, the new Roman Catholic Pope (on March 19, the Feast of St. Joseph, guardian of Jesus and Mary).  As in Texas, they do everything "big" in Rome.

Church vandalized and set on fire

Vandals broke in, smashing a window, and set Bibles and worship books on fire in an attempt to burn down the church.  Thankfully the fire did not spread far.  Where did this assault on the Christian community happen, you ask?  India?  The Middle East?  North Africa?  Actually, this attempted church-destruction took place in Wales, in the United Kingdom.  Though Wales has been home to a Christian community since ancient Roman times, I worry that we will see more of this sort of thing in the future in Western nations.

New District alignment posted

For those in the Louisiana Conference of the United Methodist Church, the new district alignment is now posted online here.

What St. Patrick can teach us

Last year the United Methodist Church homepage featured this article on what we can learn from the ministry of Saint Patrick, the famed missionary bishop to the Irish.  Patrick's feast day is (as everyone knows thanks to beer advertising) March 17, which is this coming Sunday.  Contrary to popular belief, Patrick was not born in Ireland, but was born in Northwest England.  He was raised as a Christian in Roman Britain but was kidnapped as a youth and made a slave in Ireland.  After escaping from slavery, he was led by the Lord through a dream to seek ordination in the Church and return to the pagan Irish as a missionary to set free from spiritual slavery the very people who had once held him captive. 

Being a Saint of the British Isles, Patrick has had a special place in the memory of Anglicanism (out of which we Methodists spring) and therefore of English-speaking Christianity more generally.

The time of Patrick's ministry (late 4th - late 5th Centuries) puts him squarely in the period of the Early Church Fathers, though (in my experience) he is not often mentioned in Patristic studies or included in Patristic commentaries.  This is likely because, while Patrick left us some spiritual writings (his auto-biographical Confession, some letters, and the prayer called "The Breastplate (Lorica) of St. Patrick") he wrote no no Biblical commentaries or theological treatises, and his ministry work was on the margins of the ancient world, far from the intellectual centers where most of the theological debates were playing out that would shape Christian orthodoxy. 

His collected writings fill only about 40 pages of appendices in The Wisdom of St. Patrick.  As a side note, his Confession makes not mention of driving the snakes from Ireland, but I suspect that story actually arose as an allegory - the snakes representing pagan religions - that was then (mis)interpreted literally (as happens with other ancient and spiritual texts!).

As the article on the United Methodist website points out, Patrick found creative ways to communicate the Christian gospel to the Irish people. This year maybe we can do more than drink a green beer in honor of this great saint - maybe we can instead follow his example in finding a creative way of sharing our faith with others. 

Good Blog Post on Sabbath-keeping

I recently ran across a really good post on Sabbath-keeping at the Through the Wardrobe Blog - which happens to be authored by my brother (and fellow United Methodist clergyman) Nance Hixon.  Here is the beginning of the post, click the link below to read it all:

Last night I gave a talk on the practice of Sabbath. While I was getting ready for that I looked through a number of resources, but one that I spent more time with than I expected and enjoyed more than I expected was Norman Wirzba's book Living the Sabbath: Discovering the Rhythms of Rest and Delight.

To keep people thinking about the topic and to share some things I didn't get in during the program last night, I wanted to offer a few quotations here from the book (and the book's preface by one of my favorite authors, Wendell Berry).

Wendell Berry opens the preface by describing the "industrial era" with its ideal of "ceaseless pandemonium."
... The industrial economy, by definition, must never rest. Rest would deprive us of light, heat, food, water, and everything else we need or thing we need. The economic impulse of industrial life (to stretch a term) is limitless. Whatever we have, in whatever quantity, is not enough. There is not such thing as enough. Our bellies and our wallets must become oceanic, and still they will not be full. Six workdays in a week are not enough. We need a seventh. We need an eighth... We need a job for the day and one for the night. Thank God for the moon! We cannot stop to eat. Thank God for cars! We dine as we drive over another paved farm. Everybody is weary, and there is no rest.
To rest, we are persuaded, we must “get away.” But getting away involves us in haste, speed, and noise, the auxiliary pandemonium, of escape. There is, by the prevailing definition, escape, but there is no escape from escape. Or there is none unless we adopt the paradoxical and radical expedient of just stopping.

Sabbath, he says, is the answer. Berry puts it simply: "The requirement of Sabbath observance invites us to stop. It invites us to rest. It asks us to notice that while we rest the world continues without our help."

Click here to read it all.

Write a praise song in 5 minutes

If you have been to a large number of Praise and Worship servies (as I have) or (better yet) if you have been in a Praise Band for such a service, then you will probably appreciate this video.  I don't believe the makers of it mean to "bash" or discount the value of Praise and Worship music, in fact, I rather suspect they worship singing praise songs quite regularly, but they do humorously point out some of its potential short-comings and (ironic?) banality.  This can serve as a call to a deeper excellence for all of us.




I originally saw this post at the Theological Scribbles blog.

Why our youth leave church AND the pope

Two completely unrelated topics.  First I wanted to share this excellent post on the top 10 Reasons Youth Leave our churches.  The author is writing particularly from within American Evangelical Protestantism.  I think this is an important article and it is worth your reading all of it. 

Secondly, you no doubt heard the big news yesterday: Pope Benedict XVI will step down from the role of pontiff at the end of this month, becoming the first pope to do so since the 1400s.  What are your thoughts?  Did he do it to avoid deteriorating in office as his predecessor did?  Is there some huge scandal lurking behind all this?  Is he setting a healthy precedent that will mark a huge shift in what it means to be pope?  What will it mean to have a "pope emeritus" running around with a new pope sitting on the cathedra?  Will we still call him Benedict - or will it be Ratzinger again?  Will the out-going pope spend his days hanging out and debating with Rowan Williams who recently stepped down as Archbishop of Canterbury?

Life is always interesting.

Games with theology people

How would you act that one out?  It was originally shared with me from this site.

Lewis on the assumption of skepticism

I must admit that one of the difficulties I had in seminary was in the attitude contained within many of our (modern) texts (and professors) that I might call a 'bias toward skepticsm.'  Whatever we said about the stories of Scripture, we surely (for some reason) could not take them at face value.  They were guilty until proved innocent.  We did not believe that a person such as David or Pontius Pilate, or a place such as Cana ever existed until we could find evidence for them. 

Why were not the ancient Biblical texts themselves evidence?

This same bias toward skepticism was to be found in numerous other fields beyond Biblical studies.  We have no idea who wrote the Illiad...but it obviously was not Homer.  Troy surely did not exist...because only ancient documents said so...until we found it. 

It seems that the assumption of skepticism has, in the modern (and post-modern) academy, come to be equated with clear-eyed, rigorous, and 'critical' investigation.  I certainly do believe in rigorous and probing investigation, but beginning with these presumptions ("of course the traditional understanding could not be true precisely because it is the traditional understanding") seems to me to hinder and needlessly bias rather than to aid in that investigation.  I doubt this post will have too much impact on the Academy, but I was thinking (and laughing) about this problem recently when I read this C.S. Lewis quote (from "Religion without Dogma?" in reponse to Prof. Price's objections to miracles):

If I thus hand over miracles from science to history (but not, of course, to historians who beg the question by beginning with materialistic assumptions) Professor Price thinks I shall not fare much better.  Here I must speak with caution, for I do not profess to be a historian or a textual critic.  I would refer you to Sir Arnold Lunn's book The Third Day.  If Sir Arnold is right, then the Biblical criticism which began in the nineteenth century has already shot its bolt and most of its conclusions have been successfully disputed, though it will, like nineteenth century materialism, long continue to dominate popular thought.  What I can say with more certainty is that that kind of criticism - the kind that discovers that every old book was made by six anonymous authors well provided with scissors and paste and that every anecdote of the slightest interest is unhistorical, has already begun to die out in the studies I know best.  The period of arbitrary scepticism about the canon and text of Shakespeare is now over: and it is reasonable to expect that this method will soon be used only on Christian documents and survive only in...the theological colleges.   

I thought the bit about 6 anonymous authors of every old book well provided with scissors and paste was pretty funny (inciting flashbacks to my New Testament class in seminary).

Inauguration Week thoughts

It has been quite a week in our nation's life and history:

Monday we honored the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggle of the Black community for civil rights.  This year that remembrance was especially poiniant for many as this year marks the 150th Anniversary of the Emmancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln and the 50th Anniversary of Rev. King's great "I have a Dream" sermon delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.

Monday, on the other end of the National Mall, across from the Lincoln Memorial also saw the second public inauguration ceremony of President Barack Obama who, as everyone knows, is the first Black president of this country, and the first Black leader of any major Western Nation.  Though we still have a long way to go, President Obama is a testimony to how far along our country has come towards Rev. Dr. King's vision. 

Tuesday we marked the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision paving the way for tens of millions of unborn children to be terminated in this country.  While some of those abortions were performed in cases of medical necessity, when the life of the mother was in danger or in the case of extreme birth defects, the great majority were simply cases of birth control in which the child, already living in her mother's womb, was seen as a burden: unwanted and unvalued.  How desperately sad that is if one really thinks on it.  Many of us this week have prayed not simply for changes in the laws concerning abortion, but even more than that, for a culture that is life and child-affirming and sexually responsible; we pray for a change in the American heart.

Mother Teresa said it best I think, "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."  That applies not only to the individuals who decide to have abortions (or who pressure a woman to do so), but also to the community that turns a blind eye to the poverty, family breakdown, and desperation of so many young women that pushes them towards that decision.

I can't help but reflect, now later in the week, that there is a complex symbolic connection between President Obama's swearing-in and these other remembrances this week.  The President even used Rev. Dr. King's Bible for his inaugural oath, deliberately tying himself and his work to the legacy of the great Baptist Pastor, and certainly there is a connection there that is worth celebrating, even if some in the Black community warn us not to blur them together (see here).  Yet I cannot help but see a partial connection between the plight of the Black community and the abortion-friendly policies of some leaders, including President Barak Obama.

 

 

Speaking of the President's policies, many in our country, myself included, were a bit disappointed that President Obama's inaugural address, while calling for unity, seemed to announce his intention to pursue a sharply ideological policy and to govern from the left rather than the center.  Even NPR and the New York Times saw the speech as a sweeping call for a Liberal/progressive programme.  Yet we feel to me like "a house divided that cannot stand" and what we really need today is unity.

 

That need for unity is why one of the more enjoyable aspects of the inaugural festivities (for me) this year was watching well-known United Methodist pastor, Rev. Adam Hamilton, preach to our nation's highest leaders at the National Cathedral's Inaugural Prayer service yesterday.  Rev. Hamilton preached upon the leadership qualities of Moses emphasizing his compasion for the oppressed Hebrew slaves, his humility, his unifying vision for the people, and his reliance upon God.  

 

 

The sermon did not address that whole Golden Calf incident (and the many forms of idolatry that it could represent for us) and when Rev. Hamilton spent some time emphasizing the types of social justice issues that Democratic politicians like the President already tend to champion, I began to wonder if the sermon would simply be a liturgical "high five" offered to the victorious President.  Yet as he continued, Rev. Hamilton spoke of the need for a unifying vision to bring people together, and not a partisan one (like the one the President articulated only hours before at his inauguration), and Rev. Hamilton, using the example of Rev. King's prayer in a dark time, spoke of our need for the living God to give us our strength, direction, and hope.  It was then that I thought, 'There is someone speaking the truth to power,' and I was glad that Rev. Hamilton is United Methodist.  You can watch Rev. Adam Hamilton's sermon here (sadly, or humorously?, you will mostly be watching the back of the preacher's and the President's heads).      

 

As I reflect on the events of this week, I feel myself moved into prayer: for our church, for our President and other leaders, and for the heart of our nation as well.

A Wesley Catechism on Grace

 

Rev. John Wesley on Grace and "Means of Grace"

What is Grace?
"By 'the grace of God' is sometimes to be understood that free love, that unmerited mercy by which I a sinner, through the merits of Christ, am now reconciled to God. But in this place (2 Corinthians 1:12) it rather means that power of the Holy Ghost, which 'worketh in us both to will and to do His good pleasure.' (Phil. 2:13) As soon as ever the grace of God in the former sense, His pardoning love, is manifested to our souls, the grace of God in the latter sense, the power of his Spirit, takes place therein."

   -John Wesley, Sermon XI, "The Witness of our own spirit," 15

How does God ordinarily give Grace to us?
"By 'means of grace,' I understand outward signs, words, or actions, ordained of God, and appointed for this end, to be the ordinary channels whereby He might convey to men, preventing, justifying, or sanctifying grace.
I use this expression, 'means of grace,' because I know none better; and because it has been generally used in the Christian Church for many ages - in particular by our own (Anglican) Church, which directs us to bless God both 'for the means of grace, and hope of glory;'* and teaches us, that a sacrament is 'an outward sign of inward grace, and a means whereby we recieve the same.'**
The chief of these means are prayer, whether in secret or with the great congregation; searching the Scriptures (which implies reading, hearing, and meditating thereon); and recieving the Lord's Supper, eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of Him; and these we believe to be ordained of God, as the ordinary channels of conveying His grace to the souls of men."

   -John Wesley, Sermon XII, "The Means of Grace," II.1

What is the Grace that God gives us through Holy Communion?
A Second reason why every Christian should do this (receive Holy Communion) as often as he can, is, because the benefits of doing it are so great to all that do it in obedience to him; viz., the forgiveness of our past sins, the present strengthening of refreshment of our souls...
The grace of God given herin confirms to us the pardon of our sins, and enables us to leave them. As our bodies are strengthened by bread and wine, so are our souls by these tokens of the body and blood of Christ. This is the food of our souls: This gives strength to perform our duty, and leads us on to perfection. If therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if we desire the pardon of our sins, if we wish for strength to believe, to love and obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the Lord's Supper...
In order to understand the nature of the Lord's Supper, it would be useful to carefully read over those passages in the Gospel, and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which speak of the institution of it. Hence we learn that the design of this sacrament is, the continual remembrance of the death of Christ, by eating bread and drinking wine, which are the outward signs of the inward grace, the body and blood of Christ.

   -John Wesley, Sermon CI, The Duty of Constant Communion, I.2, 3 & 5

How do we embrace, apprehend, and receive the Grace that God thus gives?
Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. - Romans 5:2 (ESV)

For by grace you have been saved through faith. - Ephesians 2:8 (ESV)

"Grace, without any respect to human worthiness, confers the glorious gift.  Faith, with an empty hand, and without any pretence to personal desert, receives the heavenly blessing."
  
   - John Wesley, "Notes on the New Testament," Note on Ephesians 2:8
-----------------------------------------------
*Quoting from the "General Thanksgiving" prayer which is part of the Morning Prayer service in The Book of Common Prayer; it is also found in The United Methodist Book of Worship, 550

**Quoting from the Catechism in The Book of Common Prayer (1662)

O Holy Night!

King's College Chapel choir, Cambridge sings the classic carol.  Happy Christmas, everyone!

Feast of St. Thomas the Apostle

"My Lord!" says St. Thomas, seeing, touching, and measuring the Holiness so meekly shown to him in his own crude terms; and then, passing beyond that sacramental revelation to the unseen, untouched, unmeasured, uttering the word every awakened soul longs to utter - "My God!"  The very heart of the Christian revelation is disclosed in that scene.

- Evelyn Underhill (from The School of Charity)

Today (Dec. 21) is celebrated as the feast day of the Apostle Thomas according to the Anglican Prayerbooks and also according to For All the Saints: A Calendar of Commemorations for United Methodists.  Here follows a prayer from page 33 that book:

Lord Jesus, like Thomas we were not in the room with the apostles on the day of Resurrection.  LIke Thomas our faith cries out to you for sight.  Like Thomas, we long for more than rumors.  Help us to believe where we have not seen and to have life in your name.  Amen. 

 

Once in Royal David's City

This is one of my favorite Christmas (or even Advent) hymns.  It is #250 in The United Methodist Hymnal.  The video is the (Anglican) choir of King's College Chapel, Cambridge.



1. Once in royal David's city
stood a lowly cattle shed,
where a mother laid her baby
in a manger for his bed;
Mary, loving mother mild,
Jesus Christ, her little child.

2. He came down to earth from heaven
who is God and Lord of all,
and his shelter was a stable,
and his cradle was a stall.
With the poor, the scorned, the lowly
lived on earth our Savior holy.

3. Jesus is our childhood's pattern;
day by day, like us he grew;
he was little, weak, and helpless,
tears and smiles like us he knew;
and he feeleth for our sadness,
and he shareth in our gladness.

4. And our eyes at last shall see him,
through his own redeeming love;
for that child so dear and gentle
is our Lord in heaven above;
and he leads his children on
to the place where he is gone.

A new (ancient) economic model

As a Christian interested in both environmental and economic sustainability I have in the last few years been interested in the Distributist economic model, as an alternative both the capitalist and communist models that have been the dominant models embraced by nations over the last 100 years or so.  How does Distributism work?  Check out the following video for an informative explanation.

  

How can we move toward a Distribustist system in our own midst (especially in the commercialized holiday season)?  I suppose the mantra should be "shop local."  Shop at stores or restaurants whose owners you can know personally and who have a stake in your community.  If you want to take your commitment to this model up a notch, you can start a small business or co-op in your community. 

I have a couple of business ideas myself: one day, in addition to being a full-time pastor and full-time academic, I hope to start a coffee-shop/bookstore with an Old World feel (owing to the serious lack of such places in my state).

What is wrong with this picture?

I thought this cartoon from the USA Today a couple of weeks ago was funny yet sad because it shows us a truth about ourselves:

When asked to submit an essay on "What is wrong with the world," G.K. Chesterton famously submitted one line: "I am," referring to the tendency we have as sinful creatures to (try to) take the mantle of God upon ourselves.  As St. Augustine points out so frequently in his writings, one of the ways that sin has distorted individuals and human societies is seen in that we give undue love to lesser things while failing to love the greater things as we should (the Triune God himself being the ultimate and truest object of our love).  A great deal of our consumer culture seems designed to feed exactly this distortion. 

Grace and Human responsibility

Today (December 4th) is the Feast of St. John of Damascus on the Anglican calendar.  I recently read a quote of his I'd like to share. 

One should also bear in mind that God antecedently wills all to be saved and to attain to his kingdom.  For he did not form us to be chastised, but to share his goodness, because he is incomparably good.  Yet, because he is just, it is required that sin be punished.  So, the first form of the will of God is called antecedent will and blessing, which has God as its cause.  The second is called God's consequent will and permission, of which we are a participating cause...As to the things that depend upon us, whatever is good God wills antecendently and blesses.  Whatever is evil he neither wills antecedently nor consequently, but permits them to the free will... (from "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith," as quoted in the Ancient Christian Commentary on Mark from IVP).

What John of Damascus is saying, simply, is that God created mankind to share in blessings, that is his first (antecedent) will for us.  However, God created us a creatures with free will, able to make our own decisions and to participate in the unfolding of our own world.  Thus we can (and do) choose things that are contrary to God's will.  Many evil events, then, are allowed by God's "permissive" will, because he wills that we should be the sort of creatures that can choose, but are nevertheless contrary to his first will for us, which was blessing and not evil.  He is like the parent who wants his teenage child to get a job and learn to manage money but is disappointed when the teen uses that freedom irresponsibly and blows all his money on video games such that he can no longer pay for gas.

We often hear people say, "I don't believe a good God could send anyone to hell."  Part of the issue might indeed be what people mean by the word "hell" and the need for a more sophisticated understanding than simply "boiling in fire forever."  Jesus' use of the image of "outer darkness" in his parables about those who miss out on the Kingdom (especially in St. Matthew's Gospel) and also the Latin root of "damnation" (which can mean "to suffer loss") may begin to give us some food for thought on the question of what "hell" means.

The other issue is whether God "sends" anyone to hell.  We see here that from ancient times the teachers of the Church, such as St. John of Damascus, have insisted that it is not simply the case that "God sends people to hell for being bad" but rather "God (in his grace) permits us to participate in our own destiny even if it means we choose sin and destruction."  And God, in his justice, confirms our choices and their consequences.  For the Christian, life is serious business and the moral implications of our choices absolutely do matter.

The Wesleyan understanding is that God's prevenient grace enables all humans, despite the brokeness of our wills caused by sin, to freely accept or reject the gift of forgiveness and new life in Christ.  Yet God wills that all be saved and in keeping with his own will offers the grace of salvation to all people (see 1 Tim. 2:4, 2 Pet. 3:9; contra any sort of Predestinationism that teaches that God has selected specific individuals for eternal damnation).  For us, then, the emphasis is on God's goodness and offer of salvation to all, though we soberly affirm that this grace may be resisted and rejected, even to the eternal destruction of our own souls.

Christians (Wesleyans and Methodists included) have often struggled to take seriously both the over-abundance of God's grace as well as the serious reality of human responsibility.  Yet even when we fail to choose what is right, we trust that God's grace remains abundant toward us all the same to forgive and restore us if we turn back towards Christ Jesus by faith.

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.  Amen." 

Lectio Divina

LECTIO DIVINA

I revere your commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on your statutes.  Psalm 119:48

The early Methodists believed that one "means" of encountering God's saving and renewing grace was "searching the Scriptures" which John Wesley defined as "reading, hearing, and meditating thereon" (Sermon XII, "The Means of Grace").

If we want to hear the "still small voice" of God, as Elijah did (1 Kings 19:12), we must learn to be silent.  This listening is the goal of meditative Bible reading.

Lectio Divina (Latin for "divine reading") is an ancient way of prayerfully reading and meditating upon the Scripture.   Rooted in the Spiritual practices of the ancient Israelites and further developed in the Early Church, Lectio Divina has taken many forms over the centuries, but has come to be most often characterized by the following process:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Before beginning, still your heart and body; use a brief prayer of preparation such as the Jesus Prayer.

1. Lectio (Read) - read a passage of Scripture (not too long), slowly, reverently, listening for God's voice.

2. Meditatio (Reflect) - What word or phrase "catches your attention"? What "strikes a chord" with your spirit, your concerns, your memories? Focus upon that word or phrase, re-reading or reciting it, writing it on your heart. How does this word speak to your life?

3. Oratio (Respond in Prayer) - Speak your thoughts and feelings to God, still listening for his voice; offer to him in prayer your whole self, including any brokeness within that needs to receive the healing word he is speaking.

4. Contemplatio (Rest in God) - Silently rest in the awareness of the enveloping Presence, the embrace of the Living Holy and Triune God who has come to meet you through his Word. Enjoy the experience of being in the awesome Divine Presence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Though I love using the Latin names, I've often found it difficult to remember the 4 "steps" in the correct order.  Using the English terms "Read/Reflect/Respond/Rest" has made it somewhat easier for me, so maybe that will be of help to you as well.

For more info, including a process for group Lectio Divina, click here.
Note: The content of this post will remain linked on the right side-bar listed under "Liturgy & Spirituality Links"